Khabby

This is the third game in a row that Grahamme has started and no mention has been made of why Kabby has not started one of those games. Is khabby hurt or sick or in Torts doghouse. Does anyone have any information on what is going on?

I'm taking the tentative position this is an innocent matter of Torts playing Grahame because he's only lost 1 road game all season and because of that run he had last season for 3-4 unbeaten games to help right our ship and spur Khabi on into that unbeaten month of March.

-Pete Choquette

I hope you are right Pete, I guess we will just have to wait and see.

This is the third game in a row that Grahamme has started and no mention has been made of why Kabby has not started one of those games.

Make it 4. Per the Trib, Grahame starts tomorrow, as well.


Click here (http://bolts.tbo.com/lightning/MGA5HJABDPD.html)

-Sharon

But the justification is the same as I mentioned above.

Unless Clarke panics and does something incredibly stupid, now is not the time to trade Khabi. If Jay's gonna move him, it'll be in March when his value is highest.

But if Clarkie wants to throw Gagne, Pitkanen, and Esche our way for Khabi, Lukowich, and Fedotenko.... wellllllll. ;) ;) ;)

-Pete Choquette

But the justification is the same as I mentioned above.

Unless Clarke panics and does something incredibly stupid, now is not the time to trade Khabi. If Jay's gonna move him, it'll be in March when his value is highest.

But if Clarkie wants to throw Gagne, Pitkanen, and Esche our way for Khabi, Lukowich, and Fedotenko.... wellllllll. ;) ;) ;)

-Pete Choquette

Don't you think his trade value drops the more he doesn't play? This makes it look like Khabby is a goalie who has lost his starting job to John Grahame -- what strength does that give our bargaining position?

-Sharon

Don't you think his trade value drops the more he doesn't play? This makes it look like Khabby is a goalie who has lost his starting job to John Grahame -- what strength does that give our bargaining position?

Do you think that about Sean Burke in Phoenix with Boucher's recent starts? Did Toskala's string of starts early in the season with the Sharks decrease Nabokov's trade value?

Do you think that about Sean Burke in Phoenix with Boucher's recent starts? Did Toskala's string of starts early in the season with the Sharks decrease Nabokov's trade value?

X, I have to admit that I initially took this reply to be somewhat... sarcastic. Upon being told it wasn't, I read it again. Still sounds sarcastic to me :) , but I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong...

At any rate, as some background so you can perhaps understand better where my question was coming from... I haven't been around the game all that long and the time I have been around it I have pretty much devoted myself to being a fan of the Bolts and trying not to make too much of a fool of myself while trying to learn the game. My answer to your questions above is that I don't know. That's not a smart aleck reply -- it's the truth. I don't know. And that's why I asked the original question. :)

To me, if I'm a GM contemplating making a trade for a goalie who has lost his starting job, I'm looking at the fact that I'm trading for a #2 goalie. When my fellow GM demands, say, 2 of my best players, I'm asking why I should trade 2 of my best for a player who apparently isn't the best at his position on his current team. Realizing that this may well be an overly simplistic outlook, I'm wondering if a goalie's value doesn't drop by apparently losing his starting job, why it doesn't. And I'm wondering how it helps our GM negotiate from a position of strength when the product he's attempting to sell isn't of starting caliber on his own team. To me, if I'm wanting to trade Khabby, I'm wanting him out there performing like a superstar because the better he does, the more I get for him. But I may be naive on this one. :)

I have a couple of hockey wishes -- one is to see my team become one of the best, and the other is to learn as much about the game as I can. The first is beyond my control, the only way I know to accomplish the second is to ask questions of people I think can give me the answers. Hopefully, they'll realize my questions are honest and are an attempt to better my understanding of the sport.

-Sharon

Don't you think his trade value drops the more he doesn't play?

Considering the fact he held out for over a year and a half didn't really effect his value... nah.

Khabi is a known commodity in this league and teams would be after him if he were available no matter if we was riding the pine or not.

-Pete Choquette

Sharon, there are some intangible subtleties at play when it comes to goaltenders in the NHL. Think NFL quarterbacks in terms of the high degree of scrutiny and importance. Look at Kurt Warner/Marc Bulger ... although it must be said that unlike NFL quarterbacks, NHL goaltenders often play better with age (so again, we are talking about a subtle nuance that is unique in the sports world).

Basically, Khabibulin has the reputation of an elite, top-5 netminder. It took a king's ransom to get him - a young top-6 forward in Johnson (granted, he was top-6 on a bad team), a young top-4 dman in Mara (probably the centerpiece), a high draft pick and a high end prospect (at the time).

Looking at Khabibulin right now, you could ask yourself is he or his reputation any worse now than it was when that trade went down? The answer is clearly no AND in hockey a 31-year-old goalie is very much in his prime.

Another factor is that Habby's salary is very much below market. Some would even say his $6.5-million option is below market, but the unpredictable effects of the impending labor dispute oughta change that situation one way or another (no one can say at this point in time).

Perhaps this clears things up to some degree, but there is more. In the NHL, small- and medium-market teams like Tampa Bay are constantly looking to replace older, more expensive players with younger, cheaper players. A good organization with a savvy GM can do this at exactly the right time - when the older player still has maximum or near-maximum trade value AND when the younger player has narrowed the on-ice performance gap enough to project into the role he's earning. Sometimes that gap can cost a team a playoff spot if the trade goes down too early.

Because Grahame has actually developed well since coming to Tampa, this situation is a textbook example of the scenario I just described. However, Khabibulin is not only in his prime but relatively affordable. IOW, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Lightning COULD pick up the option and keep things status quo for another season. Then the only issue for the Lightning is how the new labor agreement affects the salaries of elite goalies. IOW, if the Bolts want to entertain ANY notions of keeping Khabibulin for the long haul (and that's a pretty smart notion), they can be assured his next contract would be more in line with the top goalie contracts in the league. It's just that no one knows or can accurately predict what ANY top contracts in the NHL will look like after this labor dispute is settled. It's kinda the whole point of the labor dispute to begin with.

So, what we Lightning fans are left to look at is this: if John Grahame keeps developing and narrowing the gap between he and Habby on the ice, should the Lightning trade Khabibulin in his prime for as much of a return as the market will bear (and as much as Feaster is capable of getting)? The better Grahame plays, the more viable he is as a No.1 goalie and the more likely it is that Feaster looks at Habby's option and future salary headaches and chooses to consider the trade returns he could get.

A lot of people say the goaltender market is weak, and it is, but there hasn't been a Khabibulin on it since, well, Khabibulin. If I were Jay Feaster, and I had the money to pick up the option (which he probably does), I would be expecting the same kind of king's ransom it took to acquire Khabibulin in the first place - a top-6 forward, a top-4 dman, a high pick and a high-end prospect for Khabibulin and a throw-in.

Hope this epic post helps.

And the only thing I'll add to that excellent epistle, Bolthed, is that a four game stretch of start does not mean he has supplanted Khabibulin as the starter, and GM's do view Graham's 4 starts to mean Khabibulin is no longer a #1. Four games over the course of a season barely registers on the radar.

Torts (and other coaches) use this technique to wake up a team. Shake things up and help re-focus it. He did it last season, and we rode a re-energized and re-focused Wall to the playoffs. No big deal.

The point of my previous post was that Boucher's recent starts (and success) in Phoenix doesn't diminish from Burke's skills and reputation in the goalie ranks. It mostly enhances Boucher's rep, or as Bolthed would say, it closes the gap a bit between Burke and Boucher and gives the Yotes some options. That's all. Burke's suitors still have to ante up the same asking price for him that was in place before Boucher's little run. Burke is still a #1 goalie and still demands whatever the market value for elite (or near-elite) #1's go for.

Now... obviously situations can go on and on, and things change. Case in point is the Boston situation. Potvin was the #1 at the beginning of the season. Then Raycroft gets a few more starts. Nobody notices too much. Then, after a month or two, you realize Potvin ain't the #1 no more. In a clear situation like that, then Potvin's value has certainly diminished. But, it wasn't that high to begin with. Situations like this usually don't happen with elite netminders like Khabibulin.

FWIW, my opinion of the goalie situation is simply Torts' technique of waking the team up. There's no goalie controversy. There's no impending trade. There's no ulterior motive. Just a team blessed with arguably one of the best tandems in the league, and taking advantage of it. Just like when Torts used Grahame in the last game with NJ in the playoffs. Just trying to find a win... All my opinion of course. I just don't see what the big deal is about Grahame's starts. It doesn't hurt Khabby to sit a few games one bit. He doesn't like it, I'm sure, but it's good for him. And no one can argue that Johnny doesn't deserve the work. Remember all the pissing and moaning about Grahame's performance in the scrimmages in training camp? Seems eons ago, and quite silly now, doesn't it? Just fan over-reaction. And I think this situation is similar.

Really nice posts people. I am inclined to agree with X that Torts is using this to get the team going. While i do not like duemig, a fan called into his show and said that Grahamme got the same work at the same time period last year and then we rode Khabby into the playoffs. The problem with a deal now is that we do not know if Grahamme can take the workload going into the playoffs and we know Khabby can. While the flyers are obviously hurting for a goalie, i do not think now is the time to make a deal, unless of course they offer Gagne, Pitkanen and williams for fedo and khabby, and esche for smirky. lol.

I partially agree with Sharon. GMs around the league see exactly what we see: A team that's putting a younger, cheaper netminder to the test so they can at least consider the possibility of unloading a $6.5M contract. The better Grahame performs in his audition, the more likely GMs are to think they have TB over a barrel when making offers for Khabibulin. With Feaster at the trigger, that makes me a bit uneasy.

No one is saying that perspective doesn't have SOME validity, Joe and Sharon. It's just that sitting or not, Khabibulin is still worth what he is worth. As Pete pointed out, that was PROVEN beyond a doubt when Nik was traded to Tampa.

So Feaster would have to be a fool to cave in to such a shallow dent on the perception of Habby's trade value. Now, maybe Feaster IS a fool and he's going to once again be in over his head if or when the time comes to trade Khabibulin. That may be. But that's a factor independent of the overall situation.

So Feaster would have to be a fool ...

Now we're seeing eye to eye on this one.

Feaster's track record with lesser trades has been quite good. His track record with the bigger deals is horrifying. This would obviously fall in the latter category.

Anything that helps other GMs gain leverage with Feaster (e.g. Khabibulin sitting in favor of Grahame) scares the ever-living crap out of me.

Anything that helps other GMs gain leverage with Feaster (e.g. Khabibulin sitting in favor of Grahame) scares the ever-living crap out of me.

Well, then chances are you are more scared by Habby's performance in his first game after 10 days on the bench. Yuck!

I said it on SSN and I'll say it here (though I'd rather it weren't true IMO): In Khabibulin's next start it is critical he play well. It's easy to blow off Grahame's fine string of wins as a repeat of last season's bacon-saving (the one that sent Khabibulin into a rage of wins over the last 6 weeks), but only IF Khabibulin responds by raising his game as well. If Habby is mediocre, we're gonna have a controversy like it or not.

Look at Phoenix. Boucher is marvelous, Burke comes back and gives up 4, including the GW goal with less than a minute left. Now, it's all perception ... no one knows that Burke was great in that game and kept the 'Yotes in it. They just see the result and call it a "developing situation." I don't want that in Tampa. The Lightning need Khabibulin to stand tall against Florida or Colorado in his next start.

I agree that little jay is over his head when he makes big trades, his record on the deals involving lower draft choices and other players is very good, but i am worried after tonights game against the AVs. 4 goals is not good and yes, i know it is the AVs, but this was the game Khabby needed to step up and take control of, I do not count the goal by Hedjuk, that was a goal scorers goal and there was not much Khabby could do about that goal. Let's se if Grahamme gets the start in the next game and how well he plays, Khabby may have opened the door with his performance tonight. One other comment on tonights game- the bolts did not play as aggressive as they could have in the third period and that helped the AVs carry the play into our zone.

1. Sakic wide open in the slot on an odd-man rush.
2. Tanguay wide open in the left circle.
3. Hejduk wide open in the right circle.
4. Hejduk on a penalty shot.

We're blaming Khabibulin for those? I'm not saying he played great, but let's get real. Two of his last three starts have come against 2 of the 3 most potent offenses in the NHL.

Game was on live in the UK and have to agree with Joe. Not sure he could do much with any of the goals. The first two periods were fantastic to watch and our quick aggressive hockey got us in front. We forechecked well and there were some super hits on the boards. 4-3 up and out we came in the third and just handed the initiative straight back to them by trying to sit back on the lead. ESPN made a lot of the fact that "safe is death" is one of Torterellas favourite themes. Well safety hockey certainly cost us the win in this one, but you have to think that the coach told them to play that way! Still great game and worth staying up till 3am for.

PS I have not been a fan of Fedetenko but he played great last night. Our second third and fourth lines won their respective battles but the first line was blown away by one of the best scoring lines in hockey (even better with Forsberg in it!). Good to see a full house at SPTF and if the hockey was like that every week they would be queueing all the way back to the I4!

Happy New Year btw.

We're blaming Khabibulin for those? I'm not saying he played great, but let's get real. Two of his last three starts have come against 2 of the 3 most potent offenses in the NHL.
I agree, it's not all his fault. Sounded from the paper like Coach is certainly blaming him for something. However, and I'll need to look at my tape later, I'd say normally he'd get at least Skoula's shot. Some of the defensive breakdowns that happened and have been happening are unacceptable, but Khabi has not looked good to me the few times he's gotten in, and you know it's hard for me to speak ill of the guy. He looks human lately, and I'm pretty crushed right now. (As a side note: the back bumper of my car is also crushed after the fender bender we got in last night after the game. Talk about adding insult to injury! :( No one hurt, thankfully, but 4 cars of Bolts fans got home very late last night.)

4-3 up and out we came in the third and just handed the initiative straight back to them by trying to sit back on the lead. I agree Rob, the team just didn't play the last 10 minutes or so as they had played the rest of the game. They tried to sit on a lead, and I think every single time they've tried that this season, they've lost the game or almost lost it. Glad you got to see the game though, it was an exciting one at least!! :)

Do you think that about Sean Burke in Phoenix with Boucher's recent starts? Did Toskala's string of starts early in the season with the Sharks decrease Nabokov's trade value?

The Toskala - Nabokov situation was different. Toskala's string of starts was due to Nabokov being injured. That should have no affect on trade value unless Nabokov had poorly on his return - which he didn't.

The Toskala - Nabokov situation was different. Toskala's string of starts was due to Nabokov being injured.

Hmmmmmm.... I do know Nabokov came out of the gate at the beginning of the season playing like crap. Playing very poorly by his standards. Was he playing through an injury from the outset of the season that would effect his play?

And I was pretty sure that Toskala started getting near half-time starts during the time of his poor play before he sat some time out with the injury... is this not an accurate memory?

Joe: I forgot to leave the "s" of the word goals- meaning Hedjuks two goals, although both were to the upper glove side I doubt anyone could have stopped him on those. However, in my opinion, both the Skoula goal and possibly the Tanguay goal should have been stopped. But i did not put the majority of the blame on khabby for the loss and pointed out that our boys did not play aggressive in the third period which I think really cost us the game. Yet, i do think Khabby deserves some blame and expected him to step up bigger than he did.

But i did not put the majority of the blame on khabby for the loss and pointed out that our boys did not play aggressive in the third period which I think really cost us the game. Yet, i do think Khabby deserves some blame and expected him to step up bigger than he did.

That's fair, aap.