Goaltending discussion thread (edit: Markstrom called up)
View Single Post
02-10-2013, 03:26 AM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Broward, FL
I honestly do not know how to quote paragraph by paragraph on here so I won't even try.
I will try to give my answer to your main points, though.
1. We're clearly not the same type of person. You would prefer to cite Dan Weiss opinion instead of looking at actual stats which only validate Dan Weiss opinion, in the first place. I would prefer to take both into account, placing more of an emphasis on the statistics. You can say statistics are sometimes taken out of context - true. But, Dan Weiss is also not a scout, himself. Dan Weiss also thinks that DGM has stolen plenty of points for the Rampage this year. What Dan Weiss sees might not be the same thing you see if you get to see it, and what you see is not necessarily fact, anyway. There are flaws to both methods of evaluation, but less so with statistics. There's never been a goalie considered to be good who's put up consistently bad statistics. Goalies (and players, in general) are paid based on both what scouts have seen from them AND PAST STATISTICS. Why you ignore statistics, I don't know. Better put, you only seem to ignore them when they don't suit your argument. You've used statistics plenty in this thread when they're convenient for you. Rather hypocritical if you ask me, but whatever.
2. Goaltender is not the most important position in sports. It's, at the very least, debatable. There's nothing laughable about that statement.
3. You are overreacting. Your Jonathan Quick example is actually wonderful. Jonathan Quick (and btw, Jonathan Quick was most important in LA's cup run, but LA also had a good team in front of him/part of his struggles this year have to do with injuries to the D core he had in front of him last year)...Jonathan Quick was great last year. This year, in the small sample of play thus far, he has not been great. Based on your logic, does that mean that Jonathan Quick should no longer be the #1 in LA? After all, they have a prospect in Jonathan Bernier. Why don't they give him a chance? Quick is struggling so it must be time to panic?
4. Tim Thomas was great for the Bruins. But the Bruins are also great without Tim Thomas. Could it be that the Bruins are pretty ****ing good and any solid goalie could win a lot of games for that team? The team in front of the goaltender is just as important as the goaltender. Elite teams win Cups, not teams that just rely on goalies to bail them out, so let's not just single out the goaltender for a team's success.
5. You keep bringing up 5-game sample sizes. I'm not sure why you keep disagreeing with this, but your argument is based on a small sample size.
Furthermore, hockey is a business, as well. We just signed Scott Clemmensen (mind you, I didn't like the contract) for 2 years. This happened and we have to live with it.
Waiving Scott Clemmensen makes little sense and is unnecessary.
-Theo is likely gone after this year so we're going to need a backup after the year, anyway. Why would we pay Clemmensen next year to not be on our team while also having to pay for a backup who might not even be as good next year to be on our team? There's a reason why we're fans and not GM's. That's bad business.
-Loyalty. Scott Clemmensen is the same guy who won this team 14 games last year. You don't just waive him TWO STARTS after he just signed his new contract. That, too, is bad business. We want the Florida Panthers to be an attractive place for future free agents, as well. We should also acknowledge that TWO STARTS is a ridiculously small sample size and that history suggests that Clemmensen is an NHL-caliber goaltender. Becoming the Miami Marlins of the NHL is not what we want to be.
Last edited by Erick*: 02-10-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Erick*