Roberto Luongo being benched for the Heritage Classic

Zanon

Registered User
Apr 4, 2008
3,643
1,241
Vancouver
I know Tortorella's reason for doing so. He thought Eddie Lack gave them the best chance to win. But what about Gillis and Aquilini? Didn't they think to themselves, "You know, this might really piss Roberto off after all we've put him through lately. We should probably let our number one start this high-profile game." I'm very surprised they never intervened. Surely they could have, no? Apparently Luongo was even looking for a new house in Vancouver at the time this went down too, so he was ultimately committed on playing out his contract here after Schneider was traded. I also heard on TSN 1040 not too long ago that the following season he met with someone in the media for dinner when he was in town with the Panthers and felt regret about leaving.

Why was this allowed to happen and how come management and ownership didn't do anything about it. The best goaltender in Canucks history and future hall-of-famer Roberto Luongo would've probably never been traded if it wasn't for Tortorella.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xtr3m

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,599
9,429
Neither Aquaman nor Gillis has taken ownership of the Tort hire have they? Can’t be surprised how it shook down.

What would have changed without it outside of the recapture penalty? Was there much difference between he and Miller for those 3 years? His injuries started to mount 3 seasons ago when he dropped down in starts to half the games.
 

Mr. Canucklehead

Kitimat Canuck
Dec 14, 2002
39,961
29,757
Kitimat, BC
This is all on Torts.

Terrible precedent to intervene in lineup decisions. Torts basically gave them the finger and maneuvered them into firing him so he could continue to collect a pay cheque.

Yup.

Unless you intend to fire your coach on the spot, management/ownership should be staying away from personnel decisions.

That said, Torts should have been fired on the spot.
 

Zanon

Registered User
Apr 4, 2008
3,643
1,241
Vancouver
Neither Aquaman nor Gillis has taken ownership of the Tort hire have they? Can’t be surprised how it shook down.
Gillis is a guest on TSN 1040 with Sekeres and Price from time to time. I believe he has taken ownership for the hire. I remember listening to the podcast. But I would really love for him to address the topic of this thread! Maybe one day.

What would have changed without it outside of the recapture penalty? Was there much difference between he and Miller for those 3 years? His injuries started to mount 3 seasons ago when he dropped down in starts to half the games.
Oh, I don't there would have been much difference. I'm just a Luongo fan who would have preferred to see him retire a Canuck.
 
Last edited:

Intangibos

High-End Intangibos
Apr 5, 2010
7,806
3,370
Burnaby
I'm not sure why anyone gets shit for it. At the time it seemed like moving on from Luongo was the right move, in retrospect it looks even better now that we have Markstrom.

It sucks to see your favourite players go, and it's unfortunate the way Luongo was to some extent run out of town, but I would trade an aging Luongo on a declining team for a young #1G every time. It hurt to see Burrows, Bieksa and Hansen leave as well but it was time.
 

EpochLink

Canucks and Jets fan
Aug 1, 2006
59,494
15,328
Vancouver, BC
Torts even admitted he didn't know what he was getting into when he went to Vancouver.
Basically collected a check and half assed it all year, didn't take it seriously..

Now all of a sudden, he's doing well again in Columbus..
 

The Drop

Rain Drop, Drop Top
Jul 12, 2015
14,873
4,060
Vancouver
I can’t believe something as trivial as an “outdoor” game inside a closed stadium at BC Place has so much controversy over it still.

Torts ego and Luongo’s egos were on full display there.

I was at that game. It was terrible, boring and lacked any emotion or intensity.
 

PM

Glass not 1/2 full
Apr 8, 2014
9,869
1,664
That was the worst “classic” of all the classics. It wasn’t even outdoors to start. The musical act was beyond terrible. The jerseys were amazing though. Although I got mine before that so it doesn’t have the patch which I much more prefer so I hesitate to make the jerseys a plus. Patches suck.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
I'm not sure why anyone gets **** for it. At the time it seemed like moving on from Luongo was the right move, in retrospect it looks even better now that we have Markstrom.

It sucks to see your favourite players go, and it's unfortunate the way Luongo was to some extent run out of town, but I would trade an aging Luongo on a declining team for a young #1G every time. It hurt to see Burrows, Bieksa and Hansen leave as well but it was time.

I don't remember very many people being upset about the trade at the time, to be honest.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,043
14,073
The 'Heritage Classic' and sitting the franchise goaltender for Eddie Lack was one of high-points' of Torts 'reign of error' along with chasing after Bob Hartley in the tunnel hoping to throw the dukes.

For a guy like Luongo ,who cut his teeth in VanCity with the laid-back Alain Vigneault, playing under Torts must have seemed like a "kick in the teeth' instead. I doubt they'd ever have coexisted together. And at the end of the season, GM Mike Gillis was gone anyway.
 

EpochLink

Canucks and Jets fan
Aug 1, 2006
59,494
15,328
Vancouver, BC
I can’t believe something as trivial as an “outdoor” game inside a closed stadium at BC Place has so much controversy over it still.

Torts ego and Luongo’s egos were on full display there.

I was at that game. It was terrible, boring and lacked any emotion or intensity.

I remember when during a time out or about to head for a commercial break, the played a Mark Messier piece on the jumbotron and that got severely booed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Drop

Intangibos

High-End Intangibos
Apr 5, 2010
7,806
3,370
Burnaby
I don't remember very many people being upset about the trade at the time, to be honest.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't think a lot of the posters here were absolutely fuming, but a lot did think we got a shit deal and blamed coaching/management for "losing" a #1 HHOF goaltender when in reality it was the best thing for our team moving forward.

Then there are plenty of people who still point to the winter classic or just the way he was handled by the team in general as mismanagement as if in their minds the Canucks made his experience here so awful he demanded a trade (wanted out). This isn't true for all fans, certainly, and not even all of the people who still believe Gillis f***ed this team, but that is the vibe I get from a lot of the fan base that dislikes Gillis. You'll see it often with certain posters here talking about how we had two star goaltenders and ended up with none as if we wanted star players on a rebuilding team.

Personally, I'm thrilled if an aging star player "wants out" on a declining team, these are the players that always have NTCs and being able to move them is the best thing for the team rather than the ones who don't mind finishing their careers at the bottom of the standings. Nothing wrong with those guys as long as they give it their best on and off the ice, they don't want to move their family around that's fine, but a player that has that drive to win and will happily accept a trade to a competitive team is ideal.
 

Diversification

Registered User
Jun 21, 2019
2,954
3,657
The key to successfully managing a team is to be steps ahead of the narrative. It allows you to deal from a position of strength. This was the opposite of how the Luongo saga was handled from beginning to end.

It seems likely that all of it, from the poison pill contract to the long drawn out goalie controversy to Torts hiring to the ugly trade rumors can be laid at the feet to a certain individual with a penchant to cry libel at every turn. My hope is that the whole experience has chastened him somewhat, but I think it's just that: hope.
 

Intangibos

High-End Intangibos
Apr 5, 2010
7,806
3,370
Burnaby
The key to successfully managing a team is to be steps ahead of the narrative. It allows you to deal from a position of strength. This was the opposite of how the Luongo saga was handled from beginning to end.

It seems likely that all of it, from the poison pill contract to the long drawn out goalie controversy to Torts hiring to the ugly trade rumors can be laid at the feet to a certain individual with a penchant to cry libel at every turn. My hope is that the whole experience has chastened him somewhat, but I think it's just that: hope.

Yeah you need to be ahead of the narrative to deal from a position of strength. That's why the Canucks wouldn't be bullied into a trade when they had both goaltenders.

Then the league blindsided them with changes to the CBA that retroactively punishes contracts the league had previous approved. It was an insane bush-league move, it should never have been signed by ownership, and there is literally zero fault to the management for signing a contract that was poisoned by external entities to become that "poison pill".

That hurt trade value because we weren't in a position of strength anymore with that now toxic contract and I think management should be commended for what they managed to get for him. It speaks to their ability to adapt and make the best of a bad situation, this is the type of management you want. They have their plans moving forward, and then if shit hits the fan they come up with a plan to make the best of the situation they're in. If your bar is making zero mistakes you're going to have insane turnover. Instead you should find someone who makes few mistakes and cleans up after them.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
I can’t believe something as trivial as an “outdoor” game inside a closed stadium at BC Place has so much controversy over it still.

Torts ego and Luongo’s egos were on full display there.

I was at that game. It was terrible, boring and lacked any emotion or intensity.

Agreed, I was there too and it was a whole lot of nothing. The only interesting part was when (Daniel.. I think?) Sedin went down with what looked like a bad injury.
 

Diversification

Registered User
Jun 21, 2019
2,954
3,657
Yeah you need to be ahead of the narrative to deal from a position of strength. That's why the Canucks wouldn't be bullied into a trade when they had both goaltenders.

Then the league blindsided them with changes to the CBA that retroactively punishes contracts the league had previous approved. It was an insane bush-league move, it should never have been signed by ownership, and there is literally zero fault to the management for signing a contract that was poisoned by external entities to become that "poison pill".

That hurt trade value because we weren't in a position of strength anymore with that now toxic contract and I think management should be commended for what they managed to get for him. It speaks to their ability to adapt and make the best of a bad situation, this is the type of management you want. They have their plans moving forward, and then if **** hits the fan they come up with a plan to make the best of the situation they're in. If your bar is making zero mistakes you're going to have insane turnover. Instead you should find someone who makes few mistakes and cleans up after them.

Hindsight is 20/20, granted. But the whole situation was a comedy of errors.

Error #1: signing Luongo to a too-clever-by-half cap circumventing contract. Hated the contract from day 1 about as much as I hated the decision to make him captain. Agree that the changes to the CBA could not be foreseen at the time.

Error #2: Letting the goaltending rivalry fester over the course of the season. They could have dealt Schneider earlier and they should have. Got a good return in 9OA, but could have gotten it sooner and avoided the drama and media swarming the team night after night - again, keep ahead of the narrative.

Error #3: Taking so long to deal Lu. In the end they didn't receive much because he felt mistreated and insisted on the one destination.

That said, I was also against Gillis being fired. He was, on balance, a great GM (if you can set aside his draft record). His replacement... not so much.
 

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
I don't remember very many people being upset about the trade at the time, to be honest.
I thought it was f***ing stupid. After all the drama of Luongo versus Schneider, it was finally settled that Luongo was the guy, and we got Horvat moving forward. Then Luongo goes as well...wtf? Now of course things are different with Markstrom, but at the time now so much.
 

lawrence

Registered User
May 19, 2012
15,883
6,620
This is why ownership shouldn’t step into the gm role. Mike Gillis wanted nothing to do with torts but Francesco hired him. So blame ownership for this move.
 

Horse McHindu

They call me Horse.....
Jun 21, 2014
9,668
2,650
Beijing
Brain dead move by Torts.

However - it was the coaches’ decision to make. GM’s and Owners need to let coaches run the team and do their jobs. Any meddling of any kind from above is bush league.
 
Last edited:

sandwichbird2023

Registered User
Aug 4, 2004
3,835
1,898
Hindsight is 20/20, granted. But the whole situation was a comedy of errors.

Error #1: signing Luongo to a too-clever-by-half cap circumventing contract. Hated the contract from day 1 about as much as I hated the decision to make him captain. Agree that the changes to the CBA could not be foreseen at the time.

Error #2: Letting the goaltending rivalry fester over the course of the season. They could have dealt Schneider earlier and they should have. Got a good return in 9OA, but could have gotten it sooner and avoided the drama and media swarming the team night after night - again, keep ahead of the narrative.

Error #3: Taking so long to deal Lu. In the end they didn't receive much because he felt mistreated and insisted on the one destination.

That said, I was also against Gillis being fired. He was, on balance, a great GM (if you can set aside his draft record). His replacement... not so much.
"Error #1": do you also hate the signing of Hamhuis, Malholtra, and the addition of Higgins and Laperier at the deadline? Because without a "creative yet legal-at-the-time contract", Luongo would've carried a MUCH higher cap hit, handcuffing Gillis from acquiring those players.
"Error #2": nobody will give up anything of value for an unproven backup (Schneider). It was AFTER Schneider got back to back seasons of 30 games start that you can expect some value. Sure you can dump him earlier for a 2nd rounder, but why? Is that good for the team?
"Error #3": there was no good offers, best was the Leafs 2x 2nd rounders if I remember correctly. Should Gillis just accept whatever trash offer and just take the loss? If he did, we wouldn't have a legit #1 in Markstrom right now.
Hindsight is 20/20 but I still think, if the goal was to compete for the cup during the Sedins' peak, that Luongo contract was a necessity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jyrki21

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,599
9,429
Lu’s cap hit at the end, really ended up being $60.4 million over 9 years so around the same $6.75 million per get got when he arrived. So annual savings of $1.42 million.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,890
There is a segment of Canucks posters here who felt that Lack had outplayed Luongo and was the better goaltender. I suppose Torts agreed.
 

Intangibos

High-End Intangibos
Apr 5, 2010
7,806
3,370
Burnaby
There is a segment of Canucks posters here who felt that Lack had outplayed Luongo and was the better goaltender. I suppose Torts agreed.

Our whole team had dreadful years Luongo included, but Lack looked pretty good. For those two years Lack looked like he was shaping up to be a real solid goalie, but then he got moved out and he sucked real bad in Carolina.

I don't think Lack outplayed Luongo, but I wouldn't say Luongo outplayed Lack that year either. I think it was more of an instance that fans here were tired of the goalie saga and wanted to move the aging Luongo in favour of the younger goaltender.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->