Revised moves I'd make for next year.

Since going to the trade board, some of the values of certain players have been better measured:

Trades:
Biron, Pominville and 2004 2nd rounder for Roloson and Mitchell.
Salaries add $1.35M.

Satan, Tallinder and Boulton for Aucoin, 4th rounder - this trade is similar to the one proposed on the trade rumor board. It addresses both the Isles and Sabres weaknesses. Tallinder was added to make this deal work from the Isles perspective.
Salary impact: unknown, but Sabres probably drop $2.1M, assuming Aucoin gets about a $.75M raise.

Looking to deal the following players (draft choices / prospects fine):
Kotalik
Campbell
McKee (only after Zhitnik is re-signed)

Re-sign:
Zhitnik, most RFAs
Made easier by dropping ~$3M in trades

Vanek / Briere / Dumont
Roy / Drury / Grier
Pyatt / Hecht / Afinogenov
Bartovic / Mair / Peters
(lines will vary)

Zhitnik / Jillson
Kalinin / Aucoin
Mitchell / Brown

Alternatively, if the Sabres are unable to re-sign Zhitnik, McKee goes off the trading block, and the defense looks like this):

Kalinin / Aucoin
Mitchell / Jillson
McKee / Brown

Roloson
Noronen

Extras: Patrick, Fitzpatrick, Connolly

Prospects lost: Pominville
Players lost: Satan, Boulton, Biron, Tallinder
Players gained: Aucoin, Roloson, Mitchell
Draft choices lost: Sabres 2004 #2

Problems solved:
1. Goaltending in the short and long term. In the short term, we have Roloson, who has the best save percentage in the NHL over the past two years. Miller and Noronen aren't traded for bargain prices and can develop while Roloson plays. If Noronen gets 25 games over the next two seasons, we will have a better idea of what he can do.

2. Defense. Our defense is now the strongest part of our team. Zhitnik and Aucoin are legit #1s in my opinion. Kalinin gives us a very strong top 3. Mitchell and Jillson could make this an extremely strong defense. Brown adds toughness. One of Patrick or Fitzpatrick should probably be moved for a spare forward, and could should circumstances dictate it. Mitchell is more physical and cheaper than McKee, and less injury-prone. Mitchell gives the Sabres insurance in case Zhitnik can't be re-signed.

3. Scoring. Vanek replaces a portion of Satan's scoring. I think the continued development of Roy, Afinogenov, Pyatt, Bartovic or Connolly could also make that up. Forward depth could be a problem. Dealing one of Patrick or Fitzpatrick for a spare forward is one solution, or bringing up someone from Rochester is another possibility (in my preference right now: Taylor, Botterill, Gaustad, Thorburn)

Revised thoughts?

Roloson. . . we had him here once. I for one do not want to give up Pominville and 2004 2nd rounder (dont care about Marty) to have back.

I just don't see the logic in these moves. :dunno:

Why are we trading 5 players for 3, and why are reaquiring Roloson, who sucked when he was here prior?

1. Are you improving our defense? unclear but is Mitchell better than Tallinder? You say that Zhitnik and Aucion are both legitimate #1's, well considering Zhitnik isn't a legitimate #1, I'm assuming your over evaluation of Aucion is similar. Zhitnik is a #2, and so Aucion is a #3/4 on a good team.
2. Are you improving our offense? No, actually by losing Satan it should be worse, now that's scary. If were going to trade Satan could we at least get someone better than the massively overrated Aucion.
3. Are you improving our goaltending? unclear but I'm leaning more towards no because Roloson proved it for one year! One year, Jose Theodore was MVP for one year.

Pyatt / Hecht / Afinogenov

Boy, you're getting so desperate to have Pyatt pan out that you're teaming him with Hect at center?

I just don't see the logic in these moves. :dunno:

Why are we trading 5 players for 3, and why are reaquiring Roloson, who sucked when he was here prior?

1. Are you improving our defense? unclear but is Mitchell better than Tallinder? You say that Zhitnik and Aucion are both legitimate #1's, well considering Zhitnik isn't a legitimate #1, I'm assuming your over evaluation of Aucion is similar. Zhitnik is a #2, and so Aucion is a #3/4 on a good team.
2. Are you improving our offense? No, actually by losing Satan it should be worse, now that's scary. If were going to trade Satan could we at least get someone better than the massively overrated Aucion.
3. Are you improving our goaltending? unclear but I'm leaning more towards no because Roloson proved it for one year! One year, Jose Theodore was MVP for one year.

You are absolutely improving your goaltending. Roloson has been the best goaltender over the past two years, not just one year.

The offense probably stays the same, and our offense was top ten last year. How is that scary? You replace part of Satan's production with Vanek. The other part is replaced with youth scoring more and having Aucoin shooting bullets from the point on the PP.

Zhitnik is absolutely a #1 defenseman, and so is Aucoin. Do you really think there are 30 defensemen better than either of these guys? Stating Aucoin is a 3 or 4 is absolutely ridiculous when he went to the All Star game last year - something Satan did not do, BTW.

Willie Mitchell is much better than Tallinder. He instantly would become the Sabres most physical defenseman, and he gives us insurance in case Zhitnik does not re-sign. He is Minnesota's 2nd best defenseman and was a force in the Wild's playoff run a couple of years ago.

Why trade 5 players for 3? Because the Sabres are getting depth and not enough talent.

Why reacquire Roloson? Because he's among the best goalies in the league right now. Do you want to reacquire Hasek? If the logic behind not acquiring Roloson is because he sucked four years ago, we should definitely reacquire Hasek because he was excellent 4 years ago. The fact that Roloson sucked when he was here is irrelevant. Sarich didn't exactly light the world on fire when he was in Buffalo either, but he is playing outstanding right now. I would love to reacquire Sarich.

Boy, you're getting so desperate to have Pyatt pan out that you're teaming him with Hect at center?

Hecht seems to get his teammates playing better. Pyatt will pan out, but playing with Hecht might get him started. My line combos are going to change anyway (as they should).

Roloson. . . we had him here once. I for one do not want to give up Pominville and 2004 2nd rounder (dont care about Marty) to have back.

You are also getting Willie Mitchell in that deal - Minnesota's second best defenseman who would instantly become our most physical defenseman and gives us insurance in case Zhitnik doesn't re-sign.

Who cares that we once had Roloson? Are you saying you don't want Sarich back here? Were you similarly opposed when we brought back Audette or Andreychuk?

Roloson has the best save percentage in the NHL over the past two years. You instantly and dramatically improve your goaltending immediately, and you keep Noronen and Miller for cheap backups and for their impressive potential.

Question: Why are you so ready to deal Koltalik? I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just curious as to your assessment of that player beause you watch the Sabres so much more than I do.

Question: Why are you so ready to deal Koltalik? I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just curious as to your assessment of that player beause you watch the Sabres so much more than I do.

Because we are stacked at forwards....it's kind of ironic actually.Last year we would be happy for a 20 goal forward,but now we have a lot of guys who have scored 20,is a lock for 20,or has the potential too...


Lock for 20:
Dumont
Drury
Briere
Satan

Has scored 20:
Kotalik
Afinogenov
Hecht
Grier

Potential to score 20:
Pyatt
Roy
Connolly


Pretty much all of our forwards can be 20 goal guys.

Question: Why are you so ready to deal Koltalik? I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just curious as to your assessment of that player beause you watch the Sabres so much more than I do.

I think the other thing not mentioned by DB48, and that you probably have already heard, is that Ruff called Kotalik out towards the end of the season for not getting back into the lineup from an injury Lindy seemed to think Ales was milking. Whether Kotalik was nursing the injury too long (I have no reason to think he was) and whether Lindy was right to call him out is besides the point. What most people on this board have picked up on is that it is evidence that Kotalik seems to be in Ruff's doghouse. Add that into the mix of: 1) several young prospects looking to step into Kotalik's spot in the lineup as DB48 pointed out; 2) Ales' sophomore slump and overall streaky play last season; 3) and typical, boring-off-season trade proposals amongst fans and you end up with Ales front and center in terms of trade proposals.

I just don't see the logic in these moves. :dunno:

Why are we trading 5 players for 3, and why are reaquiring Roloson, who sucked when he was here prior?

1. Are you improving our defense? unclear but is Mitchell better than Tallinder? You say that Zhitnik and Aucion are both legitimate #1's, well considering Zhitnik isn't a legitimate #1, I'm assuming your over evaluation of Aucion is similar. Zhitnik is a #2, and so Aucion is a #3/4 on a good team.
2. Are you improving our offense? No, actually by losing Satan it should be worse, now that's scary. If were going to trade Satan could we at least get someone better than the massively overrated Aucion.
3. Are you improving our goaltending? unclear but I'm leaning more towards no because Roloson proved it for one year! One year, Jose Theodore was MVP for one year.

Aucoin is just as good if not better than Z, he's not a #3/4 guy. I tend to agree with LaLa about others stepping up to fill in for Satan. This is not the same team that had Barnes and Gratton up the middle, we now have Drury and Briere who can provide some offense. We were 10th in the league in goals for, without Satan it may drop or it may not, remember Satan is given every opportunity to pile up the points for us in Buffalo, those opportunites can be spread out to our younger players like Afinogenov whose numbers could increase dramatically with more chances to produce offensively.

As far as Rolo goes, I'm not interested nor convinced that our goaltending would be drastically improved with him in net. Sure he may have the best SV% in the league over the last 2 years, but Fernandez posted a .927 SV% behind that system. Rolo is not a guaranteed improvement IMO.

Question: Why are you so ready to deal Koltalik? I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just curious as to your assessment of that player beause you watch the Sabres so much more than I do.

Several reasons:
1. Numbers game - we already have a ton of forwards who score more, play better defense or are more physical than Kotalik (or will).
2. Some question of whether Kotalik is in the doghouse due to questions of whether he's willing to play hurt.

In addition to those points others raised, I'll raise a few more:
3. Kotalik is already 25. He produces less than the others that are his age. In other words, he's later in his development cycle.
4. Kotalik has only exceeded 20 goals once in his career. I have real doubts as to whether he'll be able to do it again.

The big reason to keep Kotalik IMO is he's cheap: $800K.

4. Kotalik has only exceeded 20 goals once in his career. I have real doubts as to whether he'll be able to do it again.

Why? Kotalik has one of the best shots in the game, he has that uncoachable quality of being able to get into places to get goals and he's streaky. I think he could easily put up 35 one season. Consistantly? No. But he's more than capable of doing it. In that regard I guess you can liken him a bit to Sergei Berezin but I think it's hasty to say he won't be able to score 20 again.

As far as Rolo goes, I'm not interested nor convinced that our goaltending would be drastically improved with him in net. Sure he may have the best SV% in the league over the last 2 years, but Fernandez posted a .927 SV% behind that system. Rolo is not a guaranteed improvement IMO.

Roloson in Minnesota:
Year Team Lea GP W L T Min SO SA GA GAA Sv%
2003-04 Minnesota NHL 48 19 18 11 2847 5 1323 89 1.88 .933
2002-03 Minnesota NHL 50 23 16 8 2945 4 1334 98 2.00 .927
2001-02 Minnesota NHL 45 14 20 7 2506 5 1132 112 2.68 .901

If Roloson's save percentage was simply a result of Minnesota's system, he wouldn't have sucked with a .901 save percentage in his first year there.

Note that Minnesota's system has been remarkably consistent over those three years. Roloson faced roughly the same amount of shots per 60 minutes:
2003-04 27.88
2002-03 27.18
2001-02 27.10

The results from the system didn't change, but Roloson's results did. How can you conclude anything except that it was an improvement in Roloson's play?

Fernandez didn't post a .927 save percentage with Minnesota. His best was .924. And unlike Roloson, Fernandez's production is erratic:
Year Team Lea GP W L T Min SO SA GA GAA Sv%
2003-04 Minnesota NHL 37 11 14 9 2166 2 1056 90 2.49 .915
2002-03 Minnesota NHL 35 19 13 2 1979 2 972 74 2.24 .924
2001-02 Minnesota NHL 44 12 24 5 2463 1 1157 125 3.04 .892

If Minnesota's system creates amazing save percentage statistics, we certainly don't see it with Fernandez.

Roloson is the real deal. Moreover, he's done it in consecutive seasons, proving it wasn't a fluke.

Why? Kotalik has one of the best shots in the game, he has that uncoachable quality of being able to get into places to get goals and he's streaky. I think he could easily put up 35 one season. Consistantly? No. But he's more than capable of doing it. In that regard I guess you can liken him a bit to Sergei Berezin but I think it's hasty to say he won't be able to score 20 again.

Why? Only because he's never done it, save one year. If he can't do it in the AHL or various lower Czech leagues, why would he do it in the NHL?

I do know what you're talking about, however. Kotalik does have a great shot, but I don't think he gets into that shooting lane like Brett Hull does (Kotalik reminds me of Hull, except Kotalik has size and can play more physically).

Why? Only because he's never done it, save one year. If he can't do it in the AHL or various lower Czech leagues, why would he do it in the NHL?

I do know what you're talking about, however. Kotalik does have a great shot, but I don't think he gets into that shooting lane like Brett Hull does (Kotalik reminds me of Hull, except Kotalik has size and can play more physically).

On the other hand he's done it in one of his two full NHL seasons. And he did score 19 in 52 games his final year with Ceske Budejovice which is certainly a higher goals per game than the 21 he scored in 68 games last season. Like I said, I wouldn't go so far as to say he'll probably never do it again.

Yes, he could do it. I wouldn't be betting on him scoring 35 or something.

And when he was scoring 19 in 52 with Ceske Budejovice, it was at a lower level where you would expect higher totals (Euro leagues do sometimes have wacky stats, though (case in point: Kriukov)).

You are absolutely improving your goaltending. Roloson has been the best goaltender over the past two years, not just one year.


Why reacquire Roloson? Because he's among the best goalies in the league right now. Do you want to reacquire Hasek? If the logic behind not acquiring Roloson is because he sucked four years ago, we should definitely reacquire Hasek because he was excellent 4 years ago. The fact that Roloson sucked when he was here is irrelevant. Sarich didn't exactly light the world on fire when he was in Buffalo either, but he is playing outstanding right now. I would love to reacquire Sarich.


Please look at the Defensive style of Minnesota and than compare with Buffalo defense, I gurantee that Roloson Stats will decrease in Buffalo!

You are absolutely improving your goaltending. Roloson has been the best goaltender over the past two years, not just one year.

The offense probably stays the same, and our offense was top ten last year. How is that scary? You replace part of Satan's production with Vanek.

Zhitnik is absolutely a #1 defenseman, and so is Aucoin. Do you really think there are 30 defensemen better than either of these guys?

Willie Mitchell is much better than Tallinder.

Why reacquire Roloson? Because he's among the best goalies in the league right now. Do you want to reacquire Hasek? If

I don't buy any of your logic.

Roloson hasn't been the best goalie in the past two years, not even in the top 5. You're saying he's better than Brodeur, Belfour, Thoedore, Khabibulin, Luongo, Turko, Nabokov? I don't think he's better than any of them. Maybe he's so good because of the ultra defensive system Minnesota plays. If he's go great why did he play in only 48 games this past year? Don't legitmate number 1's play in 55-65 games?

Vanek, a completely unproven player (though admitedly talented) is going to be counted on to replace some of Satan's scoring. Well that's being rather optamistic.
More power play goals, come on not until we change the coaching. I just don't think Aucion is the answer and if he is, what's the sick question?

Mitchell is not better than Tallinder and he doesn't have the upside Tallinder does.

No, I don't think the Sabres should require Hasek. How about picking one of the three we have and letting him have the job, with a veteran to back him up. I'm all in favor of giving Noronen 17 of the first 20 games next year and then see where you are. (oh that's right , there's not going to be a next year!)

Who cares that we once had Roloson? Are you saying you don't want Sarich back here? Were you similarly opposed when we brought back Audette or Andreychuk?

I don't understand this logic either. What does Roloson have to do with Cory Sarich? :dunno:

I take a kid back that was traded as a prospect and is now a legitimate NHLer over a guy who completely failed here as a veteran prior. It's likely he'd fail again because we have the same coach and the same system!!!!!

Please look at the Defensive style of Minnesota and than compare with Buffalo defense, I gurantee that Roloson Stats will decrease in Buffalo!

His save percentage won't.

Compare Roloson's career in Minnesota. He's risen from .901 to .933. That is obviously not the product of the system.

His save percentage won't.

Compare Roloson's career in Minnesota. He's risen from .901 to .933. That is obviously not the product of the system.

i like Roloson, and think he's finally become a solid NHL goaltender. but lets be honest here. his stats do reflect the system he plays in. and the increas from .901 to .933 reflects a young team growing under a defensive minded coaches style. that young inexperienced team bought into the system and made a run in last years playoffs. Roloson is a good goaltender, but not elite like his stats suggest.

I don't buy any of your logic.

Roloson hasn't been the best goalie in the past two years, not even in the top 5. You're saying he's better than Brodeur, Belfour, Thoedore, Khabibulin, Luongo, Turko, Nabokov? I don't think he's better than any of them. Maybe he's so good because of the ultra defensive system Minnesota plays. If he's go great why did he play in only 48 games this past year? Don't legitmate number 1's play in 55-65 games?


Roloson definitely was better than all those goalies the past two years:
Roloson .930
Luongo .925
Turco .922
Belfour .920
Brodeur .915
Theodore .914
Nabokov .914
Khabibulin .911 (Biron performance)

To repeat, Roloson is not a product of Minnesota's system. Roloson's first year save percentage with Minnesota was .901. If his stats were a byproduct of the system, why did he play badly three years ago? Before you say Minnesota wasn't as tight defensively, note that Roloson faced fewer shots per 60 minutes three years ago than he did in either of the past two years.

Roloson doesn't play in that many games, about 50 per year. Who cares? If we are going to find out about Noronen and Miller, they need to play games. And 30 games a year sounds right. Further, the one thing the NHL and the NHLPA seem to agree on is cutting back the schedule to 72 games.


Vanek, a completely unproven player (though admitedly talented) is going to be counted on to replace some of Satan's scoring. Well that's being rather optamistic.
More power play goals, come on not until we change the coaching. I just don't think Aucion is the answer and if he is, what's the sick question?


Satan scored 29 goals. If Vanek scores 15-20, that leaves 10-15 goals that need to be made up. The Sabres are a young team, and I would expect them to more than make that up just from the continued maturation of young players. Acquiring Aucoin certainly helps the PP, which also helps the offense. And our offense isn't that bad: we finished in the top ten in scoring last year. And we dump some salary in the process.


Mitchell is not better than Tallinder and he doesn't have the upside Tallinder does.


This is a ridiculous comment. You said above that Roloson is simply a product of Minnesota's wonderful defensive system. Yet here, Minnesota's second best defenseman, Willie Mitchell, isn't better than Tallinder, who is still a third pairing defenseman on Buffalo?

Minnesota was a better defensive team than Buffalo, and Minnesota's #2 defenseman was a big part of that.


No, I don't think the Sabres should require Hasek. How about picking one of the three we have and letting him have the job, with a veteran to back him up. I'm all in favor of giving Noronen 17 of the first 20 games next year and then see where you are. (oh that's right , there's not going to be a next year!)

Roloson gives the Sabres an instant upgrade in net. I raised the issue of Hasek because you were using the faulty reasoning of not wanting to deal for Roloson because he sucked when he was here.

[QUOTE=krt88]

Mitchell is not better than Tallinder and he doesn't have the upside Tallinder does.

QUOTE]

tallinder makes more mistakes in his own end than the enitre minnessotta d combined. i would take mitchell for tallinder staright up.

i like Roloson, and think he's finally become a solid NHL goaltender. but lets be honest here. his stats do reflect the system he plays in. and the increas from .901 to .933 reflects a young team growing under a defensive minded coaches style. that young inexperienced team bought into the system and made a run in last years playoffs. Roloson is a good goaltender, but not elite like his stats suggest.

Did .901 to .933 reflect a young team growing under a defensive minded coach's style?

The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence suggests that Minnesota's defense faltered over the past two years:
Shots per 60 minutes faced by Roloson
2003-4 27.88
2002-3 27.18
2001-2 27.10

Further evidence also contradicts that hypothesis, if we consider Fernandez' performance from two years ago to last year, as his save percentage fell to .915 from .924.

Roloson's performance is just that: HIS performance.

I don't understand this logic either. What does Roloson have to do with Cory Sarich? :dunno:

I take a kid back that was traded as a prospect and is now a legitimate NHLer over a guy who completely failed here as a veteran prior. It's likely he'd fail again because we have the same coach and the same system!!!!!

Roloson was only a veteran in terms of his age. In terms of his games played, Roloson only had 101 games under his belt, including a paltry 32 with Buffalo. Sarich had more of a track record with Buffalo than Roloson did (46 games). Both Roloson and Sarich were essentially unproven when they left Buffalo.

Exclamation marks don't make Ruff a bad coach.

To repeat, Roloson is not a product of Minnesota's system. Roloson's first year save percentage with Minnesota was .901. If his stats were a byproduct of the system, why did he play badly three years ago? Before you say Minnesota wasn't as tight defensively, note that Roloson faced fewer shots per 60 minutes three years ago than he did in either of the past two years.

.

its not about the amount of shots. its about the quality of shots. and id be willing to bet a pretty penny that a young defensive minded team got better every year in that system. i agree roloson is a good goaltender. he'd be an upgrade over biron. but to say he's better than all those goalies above is ludicrous. id take any one of them over roloson every day of the week.

Please look at the Defensive style of Minnesota and than compare with Buffalo defense, I gurantee that Roloson Stats will decrease in Buffalo!

Shots per 60 minutes faced by Roloson
2003-4 27.88
2002-3 27.18
2001-2 27.10
AVG 27.40

Shots per 60 minutes faced by Biron
2003-4 29.11
2002-3 27.79
2001-2 26.16
AVG 27.52

1. Roloson had a DRAMATIC increase in save percentage, despite Minnesota giving up slightly more shots per 60 minutes (which you seem to think matters).
2. The difference between the Sabres and Minnesota defense has not been all that dramatic (an extra shot every 8 games).

How would Roloson's stats (save percentage) fall in Buffalo? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Mitchell is not better than Tallinder and he doesn't have the upside Tallinder does.



tallinder makes more mistakes in his own end than the enitre minnessotta d combined. i would take mitchell for tallinder staright up.

That's a no brainer really.

Did .901 to .933 reflect a young team growing under a defensive minded coach's style?

The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence suggests that Minnesota's defense faltered over the past two years:
Shots per 60 minutes faced by Roloson
2003-4 27.88
2002-3 27.18
2001-2 27.10

Further evidence also contradicts that hypothesis, if we consider Fernandez' performance from two years ago to last year, as his save percentage fell to .915 from .924.

Roloson's performance is just that: HIS performance.

how many games ahve you seen Roloson play with Minn? im just asking cuz i can count all the games ive seen on one hand. so as fun as the argument is, im going to have to bow out now. i can argue the Biron and Noronen debate all day cuz ive seen the facts with my own eyes and not just with stats on paper. maybe roloson is the best goaltender in the league. but my opinion probably wont change during the course of this argument.

ps i would galdly take Roloson as our gaoltender to split time with Noronen, as he did in Minn. with Fernandez. Miller gets another year in Roch. and our goaltending is solid for the first time in 3 years.

Why would Minny do the trade if Roloson is so good? I don't think there's really anyway in hell you are going to get Mitchell away from the Wild. He's one of their best dmen.

But if you are looking for a young tougher dman how bout something like this..

Allen and Sopel for
Mckee and Dumont

Now that probably wouldn't work just straight up like that.. but throw ins could be prospects, draft picks, 3rd liners, on both ends to even things out and make both teams happy. Both for the core... Sopel could especially work if you don't resign Zhitnik

Why would Minny do the trade if Roloson is so good? I don't think there's really anyway in hell you are going to get Mitchell away from the Wild. He's one of their best dmen.

But if you are looking for a young tougher dman how bout something like this..

Allen and Sopel for
Mckee and Dumont

Now that probably wouldn't work just straight up like that.. but throw ins could be prospects, draft picks, 3rd liners, on both ends to even things out and make both teams happy. Both for the core... Sopel could especially work if you don't resign Zhitnik

as far as i know from reading this board, allen is next to untouchable in Vancouver. Sopel would be a nice addition, but Allen would be incredible. and i dont think there is anyway Van. parts with both of them.

as far as i know from reading this board, allen is next to untouchable in Vancouver. Sopel would be a nice addition, but Allen would be incredible. and i dont think there is anyway Van. parts with both of them.

Allen is great and has a lot of potential about him. But I'm not sure if he's ready for top 2 or 3 ice time on this team. Nobody shoudl be classified as untradeable.. If the Canucks were to bring in a guy like Mckee then Allen could be made available. (Allen has the potential to be better, but Mckee is some 4 years more developed than Allen at this point and will help the Canucks in the post season for the next few years more than Allen can.)

how many games ahve you seen Roloson play with Minn? im just asking cuz i can count all the games ive seen on one hand. so as fun as the argument is, im going to have to bow out now. i can argue the Biron and Noronen debate all day cuz ive seen the facts with my own eyes and not just with stats on paper. maybe roloson is the best goaltender in the league. but my opinion probably wont change during the course of this argument.

I've probably seen about 25 games or so. One of the few games I saw in person was Roloson stealing a point from the Flames in a 2-2 tie. I don't think Roloson is the best in the league, I think Luongo is. But the stats do speak for themselves. I'm sure we all saw a lot of DiPietro during the stretch run. You either saw a goaltender who was unbeatable, or a very average player. A lot of stats are overrated in hockey. I don't think save percentage is, however.

Why would Minny do the trade if Roloson is so good? I don't think there's really anyway in hell you are going to get Mitchell away from the Wild. He's one of their best dmen.

But if you are looking for a young tougher dman how bout something like this..

Allen and Sopel for
Mckee and Dumont

Now that probably wouldn't work just straight up like that.. but throw ins could be prospects, draft picks, 3rd liners, on both ends to even things out and make both teams happy. Both for the core... Sopel could especially work if you don't resign Zhitnik

The rationale for Minnesota dealing Roloson is because Roloson's career is on its downside, and Minnesota is waiting for players to develop. Once those players develop, Roloson will be too old to make a difference. He makes sense in Buffalo, because Buffalo has several young, unproven goaltenders. Even though Buffalo is similarly young, the time Roloson gives them to develop Noronen or Miller is valuable. Further, Buffalo was just outside of the playoffs. Roloson would make the difference between being in the playoffs or not.

The actual trade was accepted by a Wild fan on the trade rumors board. To be honest, I can't see Minnesota dealing Mitchell either. He's their second best defenseman, and showed during the playoff run that he can play very physical hockey and be a defensive stalwart.

I wouldn't mind Allen, but I would be hesitant to deal Dumont, especially for Sopel. Buffalo needs a top 2 RD, not a top 4 RD. McKee's expendable in the right deal, in part because of salary concerns.

The Sabres and the Wild may give up the same number of shots per game on average but I can tell you that that's where the similarity ends. Buffalo gives up a ton of odd-man rushes and d-zone turnovers for higher percentage scoring opportunities against than Minnesota by a wide margin. Quality chances defeats saves percentage as an indicator. I've seen Roloson play quite often and he gets many shots from the periphery. Not saying he's not a good stopper, just saying that the Wild's style of smothering D affords less good scoring opportunities than the Sabres.

The Sabres and the Wild may give up the same number of shots per game on average but I can tell you that that's where the similarity ends. Buffalo gives up a ton of odd-man rushes and d-zone turnovers for higher percentage scoring opportunities against than Minnesota by a wide margin. Quality chances defeats saves percentage as an indicator. I've seen Roloson play quite often and he gets many shots from the periphery. Not saying he's not a good stopper, just saying that the Wild's style of smothering D affords less good scoring opportunities than the Sabres.

this is what i was saying

Further, Buffalo was just outside of the playoffs. Roloson would make the difference between being in the playoffs or not.
.

this is true

You are absolutely improving your goaltending. Roloson has been the best goaltender over the past two years, not just one year.

I don't think Roloson is the best in the league, I think Luongo is.

Come on now, you can juggle the stats all you want, but very few people think Roloson is a top 5 goaltender in this league. Whether or not he is a "product of the system", anyone can plainly see his stats are greatly improved by it. The fact that his save percentage jumped enormously while on the same team doesn't mean he isn't a product of the system. One can improve within a system just the same as he can improve from team to team. It is just as common. The system can also improve.

Roloson may be the better goaltender to have, though that is certainly debatable taking in all factors, but not for the price. If he is the difference between making and not making the playoffs, we clearly need to rebuild this team.

LALALALA

I don't buy any of your logic.

end of story, you need not reply to this, I'm not buying!

We will agree to disagree on this point.

Lay off the stats Lala. Roloson is not one of the 5 best goalies in the league. I'm sure you could make the argument that he's not even the best goalie on their team. Fernandez' stats are pretty good too.

The Sabres and the Wild may give up the same number of shots per game on average but I can tell you that that's where the similarity ends. Buffalo gives up a ton of odd-man rushes and d-zone turnovers for higher percentage scoring opportunities against than Minnesota by a wide margin. Quality chances defeats saves percentage as an indicator. I've seen Roloson play quite often and he gets many shots from the periphery. Not saying he's not a good stopper, just saying that the Wild's style of smothering D affords less good scoring opportunities than the Sabres.

Not if you saw the Wild play this year.

If you have proof that the Sabres gave up many more odd man rushes and good scoring chances per shot on goal than the Wild did, be my guest. Otherwise, you are simply hypothesizing.

Come on now, you can juggle the stats all you want, but very few people think Roloson is a top 5 goaltender in this league. Whether or not he is a "product of the system", anyone can plainly see his stats are greatly improved by it. The fact that his save percentage jumped enormously while on the same team doesn't mean he isn't a product of the system. One can improve within a system just the same as he can improve from team to team. It is just as common. The system can also improve.

Roloson may be the better goaltender to have, though that is certainly debatable taking in all factors, but not for the price. If he is the difference between making and not making the playoffs, we clearly need to rebuild this team.

His stats are greatly improved by the Wild's system?
2001-02 Minnesota NHL 45 14 20 7 2506 5 1132 112 2.68 .901
2000-01 Worcester AHL 52 32 15 5 3127 6 1595 113 2.17 .929
1999-00 Buffalo NHL 14 1 7 3 677 0 277 32 2.84 .884
1998-99 Buffalo NHL 18 6 8 2 911 1 460 42 2.77 .909

Looks like his stats AREN'T improved by the system. Roloson was .899 in his 32 games in Buffalo, and .901 in his first year in Minnesota.

How about Fernandez?
2000-01 Minnesota NHL 42 19 17 4 2461 4 1147 92 2.24 .920
1999-00 Dallas NHL 24 11 8 3 1353 1 603 48 2.13 .920

No improvement either.

Minnesota's defense got slightly worse from 2001-2 to present. Roloson, started out badly in Minnesota. He improved tremendously. It isn't a system thing.

Come on LALA, you honestly think Roloson would have that big of an impact or be that much better than Biron?? This team is geared to be legitimate contenders in 2 seasons or so. Trading youth and high picks for 34 yr. old pseudo-starting goaltenders just isn't in the cards. This team needs time to evolve. Roloson seems like patchwork. He won't make them a contender. D is a much bigger priority than acquiring an additional netminder.

Lay off the stats Lala. Roloson is not one of the 5 best goalies in the league. I'm sure you could make the argument that he's not even the best goalie on their team. Fernandez' stats are pretty good too.

Roloson was one of 6 All Star goalies.

There is no doubt that Roloson is better than Fernandez. Roloson's save percentage is .930 over the past two years. Fernandez' is .919.

Before you note how Fernandez is a product of the system, check out his save percentage in his last year with D*ll*s - .920 - the exact same save percentage he had in his first year in Minnesota. How is it that only Roloson is a product of the system?

How is it that Roloson is the product of a great defensive system, but Brodeur's or Turco's (they play on better defensive teams) performance isn't?

I get it. Roloson wasn't drafted high, or even at all. Well, Belfour and Joseph weren't either. But then again, Belfour and Joseph were able to get starting jobs at an early age. Roloson wasn't.

Hasek was similarly underrated early in his career. Like Roloson, anybody could have acquired him. Like Roloson, people at first attributed Hasek's performance to the system. Do you remember how the Sabres changed their system after Fuhr got hurt? Do you remember how some people attributed his performance to how the Sabres changed their system? I also remember people attributing his stats to Hasek's willingness to freeze the puck (!). As late as 1998, people still mentioned that Hasek hadn't won a playoff series. And even today, some people think Roy is better than Hasek, simply because Roy played on a better team.

We are seeing a similar change with Roloson. He's suddenly an All-Star goalie. Roloson may play as well or even slightly worse, and suddenly people will change their mind about him.

Come on LALA, you honestly think Roloson would have that big of an impact or be that much better than Biron?? This team is geared to be legitimate contenders in 2 seasons or so. Trading youth and high picks for 34 yr. old pseudo-starting goaltenders just isn't in the cards. This team needs time to evolve. Roloson seems like patchwork. He won't make them a contender. D is a much bigger priority than acquiring an additional netminder.

Who's getting an additional goaltender? I dealt Biron in the proposal.

Roloson is a tremendous improvement over Biron. Simply taking the shots on goal on Biron with Roloson's save percentage increases the Sabres goals against by 31 goals. Buffalo scored 220 and gave up 221. If Buffalo scores 220 and gives up 190, that gives them similar stats to San Jose (219, 183) or Boston (209, 188). Both of those teams would have to be considered contenders. Plus, if you get into the playoffs, you ARE contending. And goaltending is arguably more important in the playoffs.

Pseudo-starter? He averages 11 less games per year than Belfour, but Toronto has Kidd as their backup and Minnesota has Fernandez.

In 2 seasons, Noronen and Miller will have additional development and can take over. In two seasons, Roloson will be 36. Belfour is 39. Hasek was 36 when he won his last Vezina. Roloson may still be at an elite level at 36.

In 2 seasons, Biron may very well be an UFA.

I agree D is a bigger priority, which is why I proposed we acquire Aucoin and Mitchell and re-sign Zhitnik.

Pseudo-starter? He averages 11 less games per year than Belfour, but Toronto has Kidd as their backup and Minnesota has Fernandez.
"Pseudo" in the sense that you are dismissing an entire career of back-up duty and inconsistency and proclaiming Roloson as the savior of the Sabres based on a couple of stats. That doesn't fly. And certainly doesn't mesh with Darcy's philosophy.


re-sign Zhitnik.
"Fuhgidabowdit." - LL Cool J

Who's getting an additional goaltender? I dealt Biron in the proposal.

Roloson is a tremendous improvement over Biron. Simply taking the shots on goal on Biron with Roloson's save percentage increases the Sabres goals against by 31 goals. Buffalo scored 220 and gave up 221. If Buffalo scores 220 and gives up 190, that gives them similar stats to San Jose (219, 183) or Boston (209, 188). Both of those teams would have to be considered contenders. Plus, if you get into the playoffs, you ARE contending. And goaltending is arguably more important in the playoffs.
.

more stats and math.

Buffalo's defense was terrible last season. if you think Roloson would have been an all star or had a .930 save percentage in Buffalo you're nuts. i do think that Roloson would have gotten this team into the playofffs last year. i think he is better than Biron and the difference between them would have made up an extra 6-8 pts and we would ahve made the playoffs. but you are overrating him big time.

Roman Cechmanek....you're same argument couldve been used in his case a few years ago when he led the league in stats the same way Roloson did. was he one of the best in the league?

I guess Scott Clemmensen is the best goalie in the league. He would be a significant improvement over Biron. Just look at the numbers. Come on, a 75% winning percentage, a 1.01 GAA, .952 SP%, and averaging a shutout every 2 games! This guys legit.

Satan and a 4th for Clemmensen. Don't worry, Vanek will make up the scoring.

I guess Scott Clemmensen is the best goalie in the league. He would be a significant improvement over Biron. Just look at the numbers. Come on, a 75% winning percentage, a 1.01 GAA, .952 SP%, and averaging a shutout every 2 games! This guys legit.

Satan and a 4th for Clemmensen. Don't worry, Vanek will make up the scoring.

The difference is that Clemmensen played 4 games last year, while Roloson played close to 50. Sample size matters.

Do you think Vanek can score 15 goals? That replaces half of Satan's production last year.

"Pseudo" in the sense that you are dismissing an entire career of back-up duty and inconsistency and proclaiming Roloson as the savior of the Sabres based on a couple of stats. That doesn't fly. And certainly doesn't mesh with Darcy's philosophy.

"Fuhgidabowdit." - LL Cool J

Who's dismissing it? It happened, and Roloson is no longer the same player he was several years ago.

I don't know you can say part of Regier doesn't seek out players like that. He had no problem acquiring Briere.

And those couple of stats - leading the NHL in save percentage the past two years - is important. We haven't had that since Hasek was here.

As far as Z goes, do you think he won't be re-signed, or that he shouldn't? If you think he shouldn't, is there are reason besides salary?

more stats and math.

Buffalo's defense was terrible last season. if you think Roloson would have been an all star or had a .930 save percentage in Buffalo you're nuts. i do think that Roloson would have gotten this team into the playofffs last year. i think he is better than Biron and the difference between them would have made up an extra 6-8 pts and we would ahve made the playoffs. but you are overrating him big time.

Roman Cechmanek....you're same argument couldve been used in his case a few years ago when he led the league in stats the same way Roloson did. was he one of the best in the league?

Cechmanek was one of the best goalies in the league. He was nominated for a Vezina. He was injured for a large part of last year. You can't predict whether he gets injured. So did Paul Kariya. Roloson could get injured next year. Anyone can.

Buffalo's terrible defense would certainly affect Roloson's GAA, but why would it affect his save percentage? Minnesota's defense has worsened the past two years, and Roloson's save percentage has increased. Noronen had a great save percentage in the first half of the season with Buffalo's crappy defense, and Biron had a great save percentage in the second half of the season with Buffalo's crappy defense.

Shots given up:
By Buffalo: 2,340
By Minnesota: 2,383

Further, I don't find that most of these shots are from the outside:
http://www.sportsline.com/nhl/gamecenter/live/NHL_20031229_MIN@CGY

I don't know you can say part of Regier doesn't seek out players like that. He had no problem acquiring Briere.
Briere is approaching his prime. But my point was more directed toward Regier giving up youth in which he has invested time and money. He's been very patient with these netminders, for better or worse, and I don't anticipate that changing. I bet he wishes he could deal one, but he won't until somebody steps up.


As far as Z goes, do you think he won't be re-signed, or that he shouldn't? If you think he shouldn't, is there are reason besides salary?
I'm convinced he won't be. I think a deal would have been done by now. I have little faith in management.

Briere is approaching his prime. But my point was more directed toward Regier giving up youth in which he has invested time and money. He's been very patient with these netminders, for better or worse, and I don't anticipate that changing. I bet he wishes he could deal one, but he won't until somebody steps up.



I'm convinced he won't be. I think a deal would have been done by now. I have little faith in management.
Z wants to see what he can get. his after a long term contact, not loadsa cash. There's a chance he'll go. like Messier last season. not a big chance.

Sample size counts. So do quality chances. Buffalo gives up a different class of shots compared to the Wild. Buffalo face more odd-man opportunities and d-zone turnovers. Roloson's saves percentage won't translate as directly as you have portrayed.

Cechmanek was one of the best goalies in the league. He was nominated for a Vezina.

:shakehead

Cechmanek was one of the best goalies in the league. He was nominated for a Vezina. He was injured for a large part of last year. You can't predict whether he gets injured. So did Paul Kariya. Roloson could get injured next year. Anyone can.

Cechmanek has been one of the biggest frauds in recent memory. LALA, tell me with a straight emoticon that you can trust him each and every night.

Cechmanek has been one of the biggest frauds in recent memory. LALA, tell me with a straight emoticon that you can trust him each and every night.

Regular season or playoffs?

Considering the original proposal, I think we'd be much better off retaining the assets necessary to acquire Roloson and just swing for Mitchell. I have no idea what Minnesota would ask for though. Maybe something like Ryan + pick for Mitchell? Or Mitchell + pick for Kotalik? Is a d-man even expendable?

Regular season or playoffs?

You'd trust him in the regular season?

You'd trust him in the regular season?

Not now but a couple seasons ago when he was in Philly for sure. Cechmanek was the best regular season goalie for a period of time with the Flyers. Now, his play has regressed but the injury din't help any.

In the playoffs I would not trust Chokeman---errr Cechmanek at all.

His stats are greatly improved by the Wild's system?
2001-02 Minnesota NHL 45 14 20 7 2506 5 1132 112 2.68 .901
2000-01 Worcester AHL 52 32 15 5 3127 6 1595 113 2.17 .929
1999-00 Buffalo NHL 14 1 7 3 677 0 277 32 2.84 .884
1998-99 Buffalo NHL 18 6 8 2 911 1 460 42 2.77 .909

Looks like his stats AREN'T improved by the system. Roloson was .899 in his 32 games in Buffalo, and .901 in his first year in Minnesota.

How about Fernandez?
2000-01 Minnesota NHL 42 19 17 4 2461 4 1147 92 2.24 .920
1999-00 Dallas NHL 24 11 8 3 1353 1 603 48 2.13 .920

No improvement either.

Minnesota's defense got slightly worse from 2001-2 to present. Roloson, started out badly in Minnesota. He improved tremendously. It isn't a system thing.


Again, you're just looking at the stats without applying much reason to them. Just because his stats didn't jump astronomically when he first joined the team does not mean that his current play isn't elevated by the defensive system in Minnesota.

Why compare two years in Buffalo to one (his worst) year in Minnesota? Wouldn't logic dictate that if you're using all of his games with one team for the comparison, you'd use all his games with the other team? In which case his numbers have improved greatly, just as they improved greatly from his last season in Buffalo to his first in Minnesota. This, of course, doesn't prove anything just like your analysis. Unlike your analysis, it is consistent in thought. But the point is that looking at the numbers is only going to get you so far. Spinning the numbers in your favor might make you seem right, but it is really a matter of opinion, or at least a truth that escapes the world of provability.

X-factors exist. Perhaps his year in the minors helped him get his focus. Perhaps Fernandez's numbers didn't increase because he lost his focus, regressed, didn't try hard, didn't fit in to the system, etc, etc. Perhaps Rollie's numbers didn't jump so high until his second season because the team, as a whole, played better that year. Or maybe he trained harder that offseason. Or maybe he had a religious epiphany. Or maybe he just got better. These things will never be known just as we will never know for sure if the system helps Roloson.

Just because he improved over time in the system more than he did when initially entering it (though he did improve dramatically from his last Buffalo season to his first Minnesota season) does not mean he isn't aided by it. The system could have gotten better. He could have gotten better. I never said he didn't improve as a player. Rollie 3 years ago in the system and Rollie now in the system compares to Rollie 3 years ago outside of the system and Rollie now outside of the system. I reckon inside the system at any point in his career would give him better numbers than outside the system.

My opinion is that the system helps his play. Taking into account the stats (which I do believe, when looked at properly, are in my favor), circumstances, the fact that the Wild are a heavily defensive team, and my gut feeling, I come up with this opinion.

He is a good goalie and would likely have done better than Biron did last year. That doesn't mean he would necessarily do better this year. Weighing these thoughts with salary, age, potential, and the price of your trade, I'm inclined to keep Biron.

Sample size counts. So do quality chances. Buffalo gives up a different class of shots compared to the Wild. Buffalo face more odd-man opportunities and d-zone turnovers. Roloson's saves percentage won't translate as directly as you have portrayed.

You care to prove this?

Did anyone notice in last night's game when they listed SOG and scoring chances, that scoring chances were simply proportionate to SOG? That was the case when Calgary was outshoting TB 27-17 (scoring chances 18-11) or when TB had almost evened up the shots.

Cechmanek has been one of the biggest frauds in recent memory. LALA, tell me with a straight emoticon that you can trust him each and every night.

The way he played in Philly? Absolutely. He was injured and played like crap last year.

Considering the original proposal, I think we'd be much better off retaining the assets necessary to acquire Roloson and just swing for Mitchell. I have no idea what Minnesota would ask for though. Maybe something like Ryan + pick for Mitchell? Or Mitchell + pick for Kotalik? Is a d-man even expendable?

Minnesota would laugh at you unless that pick is a high one. When did Mitchell become a lesser defenseman?

We'll see next year when Roloson is atop the save percentage leaders, and Biron isn't. Of course, a lot of people will continue to use the excuse that Minnesota's defense is the reason for his high save percentage, even though they won't use that same standard with Brodeur or Turco.

Again, you're just looking at the stats without applying much reason to them. Just because his stats didn't jump astronomically when he first joined the team does not mean that his current play isn't elevated by the defensive system in Minnesota.


Then what explains it? If his play is elevated by Minnesota's system, why would there be a lag in Roloson's performance? Realizing that just being with Minnesota didn't cause his save percentage to rise is precisely applying reason to Roloson's stats.


Why compare two years in Buffalo to one (his worst) year in Minnesota? Wouldn't logic dictate that if you're using all of his games with one team for the comparison, you'd use all his games with the other team? In which case his numbers have improved greatly, just as they improved greatly from his last season in Buffalo to his first in Minnesota. This, of course, doesn't prove anything just like your analysis. Unlike your analysis, it is consistent in thought. But the point is that looking at the numbers is only going to get you so far. Spinning the numbers in your favor might make you seem right, but it is really a matter of opinion, or at least a truth that escapes the world of provability.


The reason I used both years in Buffalo is because he had 14 GP in his last year. Even so, so what? His save percentage varied from .909 to .884 in Buffalo. Is a .901 save percentage indication that his improvement from .884 to .901 is due to Minnesota? Maybe his decline from .909 to .901 is? Or maybe you can look at a statistic that measures exactly what a goaltender is supposed to do - save shots, and realize that it explains 95% of what Roloson does.

The fact he has risen from .901 to .927 and .933 indicates nothing except that Roloson has dramatically increased his play.


X-factors exist. Perhaps his year in the minors helped him get his focus. Perhaps Fernandez's numbers didn't increase because he lost his focus, regressed, didn't try hard, didn't fit in to the system, etc, etc. Perhaps Rollie's numbers didn't jump so high until his second season because the team, as a whole, played better that year. Or maybe he trained harder that offseason. Or maybe he had a religious epiphany. Or maybe he just got better. These things will never be known just as we will never know for sure if the system helps Roloson.


If Roloson being in the minors helped him get his focus, that focus made him a better goaltender.

Minnesota's defense slightly declined in Roloson's second year, essentially staying the same. Minnesota's defensive stats have remained remarkably consistent. You can throw out that excuse.

If Roloson trained harder in the offseason, that training made him a better goaltender.

Yes, we do know for sure if the system helps Roloson. It doesn't. Those X-factors are simply reasons why Roloson would play better. I don't care why he played better, I just know that he has played better. Did Minnesota's defense improve? The evidence says no. Additional evidence of Fernandez' performance confirms this. Fernandez' performance stayed entirely consistent when he got to Minnesota from D*ll*s, and then it has gone up and down. If Minnesota is playing the same system, how is it that Fernandez fits every second year? He simply played worse. Occam's Razor applies here.


Just because he improved over time in the system more than he did when initially entering it (though he did improve dramatically from his last Buffalo season to his first Minnesota season) does not mean he isn't aided by it. The system could have gotten better. He could have gotten better. I never said he didn't improve as a player. Rollie 3 years ago in the system and Rollie now in the system compares to Rollie 3 years ago outside of the system and Rollie now outside of the system. I reckon inside the system at any point in his career would give him better numbers than outside the system.


Roloson's improvement in his first year was not an improvement over Roloson's peak performance over what he did in Buffalo.

The system did not get better. Minnesota has given up more shots to Roloson in every successive year. Again, if Roloson gets better (my argument), then he's just a better goaltender.

Your assumption of Roloson being better inside the system at any point in his career would give him better numbers than outside the system is simply false.
2001-2 Minnesota .901
1998-9 Buffalo .909


My opinion is that the system helps his play. Taking into account the stats (which I do believe, when looked at properly, are in my favor), circumstances, the fact that the Wild are a heavily defensive team, and my gut feeling, I come up with this opinion.


Then seek to prove the opinion. Show me which stats I should look at. You say the Wild are a heavily defensive team, then show me something that verifies that. Minnesota is not a great defensive team, at least not last year.

Did Buffalo have three consecutive games where they gave up 40 or more shots? No. Buffalo didn't have three games in the SEASON where they gave up 40 or more
shots. Buffalo gave up fewer shots than Minnesota this year.

Shots on goal don't matter? The teams giving up the fewest SOG on were NJ, D*ll*s, Ottawa, TB and Calgary. Are those bad defensive teams, or are they the best defensive teams in the NHL. Florida, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Washington, and Chicago gave up the most shots. Those are the worst defensive teams. Why is it that for every team except Minnesota that SOG is an excellent proxy for scoring chances?

Your gut is wrong.


He is a good goalie and would likely have done better than Biron did last year. That doesn't mean he would necessarily do better this year. Weighing these thoughts with salary, age, potential, and the price of your trade, I'm inclined to keep Biron.

Salary? Roloson makes $2.2M. So does Biron.

Potential? Neither Roloson nor Biron will see substantial improvement. Both goalies have played more than 150 games and both are 27 or older. You rarely see goaltenders improve dramatically after those benchmarks have been achieved.

Age? You are as old as your contract. As noted above, neither goaltender will improve. Roloson could start to decline, but there are many goaltenders who have performed at an elite level in their high 30s, like Belfour (39) or Hasek (36 was his last Vezina). Roloson is 34.

The price of the trade is CHEAP. You are swapping Biron for Roloson. You get a better goaltender over the next two years. After two years, Roloson is an UFA. Biron may very be one too, given a new CBA. Would you deal Biron today for two years of Hasek? Would you deal Kozlov and a 1st rounder for Roloson? Hasek's last two years in Buffalo weren't as good as Roloson's last two years (.921, .919 vs. .927, .933), and Hasek was older than Roloson (36 vs. 34) and made $6M more per year.

The way he played in Philly? Absolutely. He was injured and played like crap last year.


The same goalie who you had no idea whether he was going to be Hasek or Labarbera each night? The same goalie who has some of the worst positioning and fundamentals of any in the league? Well if that's how you feel I won't argue too much. I'm not basing my opinion on what he did last year. It's more based on watching him for three years in Philly than anything else (though he was pretty bad in LA when healthy too, I seem to giving up two goals in the last 5 minutes against Detroit in the season opener...). I want to upgrade our goaltending. Not put a fraud in net.

Then what explains it? If his play is elevated by Minnesota's system, why would there be a lag in Roloson's performance? Realizing that just being with Minnesota didn't cause his save percentage to rise is precisely applying reason to Roloson's stats.

Because his play is elevated by it. Goalies have good, bad, and average years. As I said later in the post you are in reply to, a player playing at X level on one team will produce different results than playing at the same level on another team. Minnesota is an example of this in my opinion.



The reason I used both years in Buffalo is because he had 14 GP in his last year. Even so, so what? His save percentage varied from .909 to .884 in Buffalo. Is a .901 save percentage indication that his improvement from .884 to .901 is due to Minnesota? Maybe his decline from .909 to .901 is? Or maybe you can look at a statistic that measures exactly what a goaltender is supposed to do - save shots, and realize that it explains 95% of what Roloson does.


You completely ignored the truth in what I said. "Maybe his decline from .909 to .901." How about his HUGE IMPROVEMENT from his .909 Buffalo career average to his Minnesota career average, which I'd guess is in the .920's?

Save percentages, like all stats, are relative to team. Save percentage less than GAA, for sure, but relative just the same. Shots don't mean a lot. We've all seen goalies stop 29 out of 30 shots without playing great. We've all seen goalies stop 22 out of 25 shots while playing great. Some teams give up lots of low-quality shots while some teams give up fewer, more dangerous shots. This causes save percentages to be affected by team as well as the goalie's individual performance.

Regardless of that entire statement, you want to compare save percentage? Great! Start by comparing his stats in Minnesota versus his stats throughout his career.


The fact he has risen from .901 to .927 and .933 indicates nothing except that Roloson has dramatically increased his play.


I merely provided examples of possibilities. I didn't endorse all of them. Yet, you are able to remain steadfast in your belief that you know exactly what is going on in the world of Rollie. "The fact" is? The main point in my reply was that it is a matter of opinion. Stats are facts. The analysis of stats, what they mean and the explanations of them, is theorizing.


If Roloson being in the minors helped him get his focus, that focus made him a better goaltender.


No kidding... that's why I mentioned it as a possibility to his improvement? Yet another thing you ignored in my post is that I said he DID improve. Note what I said in numerous ways that though his level has risen, playing at the same level on one team versus another team results in different stats.


Minnesota's defense slightly declined in Roloson's second year, essentially staying the same. Minnesota's defensive stats have remained remarkably consistent. You can throw out that excuse.


If it "slightly declined", which has me wondering why you didn't include stats as "proof" like you often do, why later mention how consistent it is. Slightly must be a major understatement.


If Roloson trained harder in the offseason, that training made him a better goaltender.


Gee wally!


Yes, we do know for sure if the system helps Roloson. It doesn't. Those X-factors are simply reasons why Roloson would play better. I don't care why he played better, I just know that he has played better. Did Minnesota's defense improve? The evidence says no. Additional evidence of Fernandez' performance confirms this. Fernandez' performance stayed entirely consistent when he got to Minnesota from D*ll*s, and then it has gone up and down. If Minnesota is playing the same system, how is it that Fernandez fits every second year? He simply played worse. Occam's Razor applies here.


You KNOW Roloson isn't helped by the system? You are being incredibly obtuse for an intelligent guy. You don't know anything other than the numbers. No one does. This is simple science. The numbers are fact, the interpretations are theory.

I didn't say the defense improved, I said it was possible. It doesn't matter if it did or didn't from my position. Reasons why he could be improved? Of course they are, that's why I posted them. Again, again, and again, he did improve. He improved individually. My thought is that he would put up different worse numbers on most other teams while remaining at the same level of play. Most hockey fans, I'd think, would be inclined to agree.


Roloson's improvement in his first year was not an improvement over Roloson's peak performance over what he did in Buffalo.


Another odd comparison. Comparing his entire first year to his peak in Buffalo? It was similar to what he did over his two seasons in Buffalo while being a substantial improvement over his last season. His career in Minnesota is a gigantic improvement over his Buffalo career, peak, and any particular season.


The system did not get better. Minnesota has given up more shots to Roloson in every successive year. Again, if Roloson gets better (my argument), then he's just a better goaltender.


Again I stress that shots don't mean everything.


Your assumption of Roloson being better inside the system at any point in his career would give him better numbers than outside the system is simply false.
2001-2 Minnesota .901
1998-9 Buffalo .909


How is it false? What did those numbers prove? I'm ashamed to admit how incredibly irritated you're making me. This is not proof. These numbers do not prove what he would do at the SAME LEVEL on two teams. It is impossible to prove it because he can't play on the SAME LEVEL on two teams, because you have no way of knowing what level he is playing at. It is like saying "Gretzky would put up 160 points in today's NHL". It is a theory. It can not be proved or disproved. You can take his stats from the 80s and normalize them to today's averages. This does not prove anything. Yikes!

And what's with comparing two different periods with an entire year in the minors between them as proof of anything? Are you saying you know for a fact he played at the same level his first year in Minnesota as he did in his two seasons in Buffalo? Because those two seasons included a particular season [read: the one before he came to Minnesota] in which he had a .884 save percentage. So he was, during his two years in Minnesota and therefore his second, at the same level of his first season in Minnesota? The one where he posted a .909 save percentage? You're on my Christmas card list. Thanks for making my point! I hope this isn't what you were intending to "prove" with those numbers. If you weren't then I simply can't imagine what you were going for in the context.



Then seek to prove the opinion. Show me which stats I should look at. You say the Wild are a heavily defensive team, then show me something that verifies that. Minnesota is not a great defensive team, at least not last year.


I guess every professional hockey analyist is conspiring to take my side when they say Minnesota is a defensive team.


Did Buffalo have three consecutive games where they gave up 40 or more shots? No. Buffalo didn't have three games in the SEASON where they gave up 40 or more
shots. Buffalo gave up fewer shots than Minnesota this year.


Again with the shots. Think of Miller's last two games in Buffalo. I don't care what the shot count was, it could have been 15 and it wouldn't have mattered. They were pratically handing quality scoring chances out. It doesn't matter if they give up 20 shots when 10 are very good chances. This wasn't the norm, but it is an example of the fact that the amount of quality scoring chances is equally -- if not substantially more -- important than the sheer number of shots.


Shots on goal don't matter? The teams giving up the fewest SOG on were NJ, D*ll*s, Ottawa, TB and Calgary. Are those bad defensive teams, or are they the best defensive teams in the NHL. Florida, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Washington, and Chicago gave up the most shots. Those are the worst defensive teams. Why is it that for every team except Minnesota that SOG is an excellent proxy for scoring chances?


I think I've went on in this regard enough.


Your gut is wrong.


Yep, it is wrong. As proven by it's save percentages.



Salary? Roloson makes $2.2M. So does Biron.


An assumption on my part. Happens sometimes.


Potential? Neither Roloson nor Biron will see substantial improvement. Both goalies have played more than 150 games and both are 27 or older. You rarely see goaltenders improve dramatically after those benchmarks have been achieved.


At least you didn't try to prove that neither have potential.


Age? You are as old as your contract. As noted above, neither goaltender will improve. Roloson could start to decline, but there are many goaltenders who have performed at an elite level in their high 30s, like Belfour (39) or Hasek (36 was his last Vezina). Roloson is 34.


You are as old as the amount of years you've lived. Neither goaltender will improve. Yeah, because of age. Aren't we both agreeing that Roloson improved dramatically in his early 30s? Man oh man, another blunder of wonder.


The price of the trade is CHEAP. You are swapping Biron for Roloson. You get a better goaltender over the next two years. After two years, Roloson is an UFA. Biron may very be one too, given a new CBA. Would you deal Biron today for two years of Hasek? Would you deal Kozlov and a 1st rounder for Roloson? Hasek's last two years in Buffalo weren't as good as Roloson's last two years (.921, .919 vs. .927, .933), and Hasek was older than Roloson (36 vs. 34) and made $6M more per year.

Of course it is your opinion that it is cheap. We obviously have different thoughts on how much each asset in the trade is worth. The objective value MAY be on but that doesn't matter one bit. In my opinion, what we give up is not worth what we upgrade, assuming it'd even be an upgrade.

Everything you say is "fact", "never", "can't", "impossible". I never saw someone have so much to say without having an opinion.

Sit back and relax, I didn't like your trade proposal. You can justify it all you like. You can't prove that it is a good trade. I can't prove it is not. Even if the exact trade was made, it still wouldn't be able to be proven "good" or "bad". These are opinions. You could say that our team won more games. You couldn't even prove that it was completely because of the trade. See how this works?

We aren't general managers. These proposals are supposed to be fun. You are sucking the fun out of it by jumping down everyone's throat when they don't agree. Nobody's opinion is right or wrong.

Fun, fun, fun 'till my daddy takes the keyboard away.

Sit back and relax, I didn't like your trade proposal. You can justify it all you like. You can't prove that it is a good trade. I can't prove it is not. Even if the exact trade was made, it still wouldn't be able to be proven "good" or "bad". These are opinions. You could say that our team won more games. You couldn't even prove that it was completely because of the trade. See how this works?

We aren't general managers. These proposals are supposed to be fun. You are sucking the fun out of it by jumping down everyone's throat when they don't agree. Nobody's opinion is right or wrong.

Fun, fun, fun 'till my daddy takes the keyboard away.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Take a chill pill and change the subject!

Okay I'm going to jump in here and talk about Minnesota.

Minnesota had a horrible season this year. Plain and simple. Roloson and Fernandez were the only reason why we were competing for some games we were playing in because our DEFENSE and OFFENSE sucked. They didn't really do the back checking well, they didn't do the forechecking well. Our defense was like a roller coaster. Had some good nights, had some bad nights. Also given the fact that Kuba, Schultz, Zyuzin, Mitchell, Brown, Bombardir, Marshall, Roche (hahaha what a joke a defenseman he was in the NHL...he'll turn into something but not for Minnesota), Henry, Michalek, and Burns took almost every other night off, Roloson had to stay in the game.

Most people think Roloson is the product of the system. He isn't. He keeps the Wild in the game and he is flat out awesome. Some of his numbers might come from the defense but they were pourous this year and horrendeous other times. Our offense was without Walz most of the time (shoulder injury) and we couldn't pass most of the time, so we would basically get caught with our pants down.

Roloson would be extremely hard to pry from the Wild as would Mitchell.

Zhitnik is absolutely a #1 defenseman, and so is Aucoin. Do you really think there are 30 defensemen better than either of these guys? Stating Aucoin is a 3 or 4 is absolutely ridiculous when he went to the All Star game last year - something Satan did not do, BTW.
.


yeesh, that seems flawed... a legit number one dman should be able to go onto any team in the league and become their number one.