View Single Post
04-26-2004, 10:43 PM
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,656
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Potter
SBOB what good is it to a group of young guys to come up to the NHL and just lose. I think that would be detrimental. Even if they did lose alot of games, Brooks was right about have a solid goalie to keep you in games because of the confidence it provides. I've played on teams with amazing tenders and terrible ones. Based on what I've seen and gone through, an amazing tender would do this team good, not just in the win/loss column, but with the development of these kids we got coming up. Losing is a cancer that money AND a ton of prospects wont fix. This team has to develope a winning atmosphere and even when we don't win we have to grind out the game and not make it easy. Look at the Sharks this year or the Wild last year. Before the season both teams looked terrible, barely any "talent" in there but they won with solid goaltending and team desire to win.
Couple of things:

1) This team is not a goalie away from being competitive.

2) They certainly are not a Dan Cloutier, Johan Hedberg, or Tommy Salo away from competing.

3) Winning is an attitude that starts at the top. If this team had a winner of coach who would employ a system there results would be different.

4) These kids are not at the point where losing will be detrimental to their development. Rather I prefer them get a distaste for it. Teams go through bad spells. Organizations get through them.

5) A system that works in which players play at both ends disguises a lot Nabakov and Roloson are not the best goalies in the league. Teams that play well as a team make their players better.

6) With the uncertainty of the CBA and a potential cap, it makes no sense to buy out Dunham or eat a large chunk of contract to trade him just so you can spend money on an equally bad or marginally better goalie.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline