View Single Post
11-06-2011, 05:17 PM
Registered User
MayDay's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Kisco, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,602
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
The Blackhawks spent 12.375mil in 08-09 on goalies , had 5mil in cap space (basically 17+mil not spent on other areas of the team) and went to the Western Conference Finals. The following year they spent 6.52mil on goalies and they won the Stanley Cup. Its fairly obvious what they were spending on goalies in no way impededed their ability to build a Cup winner.

The Red Wings spent 4.9mil on goalie and won the Stanley Cup. Again it didn't prevent them from building a Cup winner.

The Detroit model thats asserted by some is the idea that Detroit and others made the decision to spend 2mil on goalies and used the difference from what a big money goalie would cost elsewhere. The reality is NO TEAM has ever spent that little in net and won the Cup.

I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. Or why posters think I'm arguing you have to have a big money goalie.

I'm disputing the idea that there is a Detroit model out there that teams are using to win Cups. There isn't
I know. They did spend big money on their starting goalies. As the Sabres have.

I just found it interesting that two of those Cup-winning teams that you mentioned benched their highly-paid star goalie in favor of the hot back-up, en route to the Cup. I found it interesting that you would bring up those situations in comparison to ours, that's all.

MayDay is offline   Reply With Quote