View Single Post
03-07-2011, 02:39 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,824
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting View Post
Because goals change the way the game is played. When there are more goals, particularly early, both teams change their original game plan and most of the time the game opens up more. There are more, and better, scoring chances on both sides of the ice. Some of these excess chances are "quality" chances which no goalie will save at a high rate.

And when you compare the times we score 3+ with the Pens and Caps you have to understand that they have the offensive talent to succeed in that type of game, hence the higher winning percentage. We aren't a team built to win those types of games as often. We're built to succeed in games where both teams score 3 or less and scoring chances are limited.

This is the path you have to take if you want to convince anyone here that we don't need Lundqvist, or he's overrated or whatever you're goal was.

I think it's a legitimate question whether or not it makes sense to spend big cap space on a goalie in this NHL. The teams that are successful over 82 games, generally speaking, have a few star forwards, a good PP and can possess the puck. When the playoffs start we've seen that if you have a hot goalie you can do well, regardless of whether or not he's an all-star. And if you did have an all-star goalie, by the time you get there he might be worn down and only playing average anyway (like we saw with Lundqvist in 06). So does it make sense to spend $7 million on a goalie, or are you better off with another star forward (assuming we can do better than Drury with our $7 million).
Good point on the high-flying games where goals are scored early, didn't think of that. However, the problem on sites like this is those who want to defend Hank to the umpteenth degree always love to use his stats. They love to point out his GAA, SV%, SO's, etc. Want to point out how if they scored more he would win more. However, even when they do score more, they are not as good. Washington has not lost ONE single game this season in regulation when scoring 3 or more. If they play the up-tempo high offense game, you would think on some nights their goalie, who according to most is not as good as Hank, will not have it and give up 1 more. The Caps have scored less goals, have had more games of 2 or less, and never lost in regulation when scoring 3 or more. Maybe Varlamov and co. are better than many want to give him credit for.

Your second point, I am with you. After looking up all this stuff, and compiling the info, then looking at the salaries on cap geek, and thinking about the teams who have been in the finals and the conference finals my tune has changed a little. Whether Hank is top-3, top-5, top-10, is immaterial at the moment. Me? I say he is in the 7th-10th spot somewhere, but that has been argued enough. The problem is that there are so many good goalies out there now, that the difference between #7 or #5 and #20 really isn't all that much to warrant the salaries these top paid guys are getting. I think they'd be better off with a Jimmy Howard type (not necessarily him). Guy makes a little less than $1MM, I think he makes $2.5MM the next two years. Take the money you save and use it to upgrade the forwards and Dmen. In a cap league, it is all about allocating resources. The days of the Late-90's Avalanche is over. I think what you are going to start seeing is teams less willing to give goalies huge contracts and their salaries are going to go down. Obviously guys like Lundqvist, Kipprusoff, and Miller are getting their money for the rest of their contracts, but they better save it now, because even if he wins 2 Vezinas in the next couple of years, Lundqvist isn't getting another contract like what he has now.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote