View Single Post
02-10-2013, 03:52 PM
Registered User
flapanthersfan's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Erick View Post
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.
first of all - obviously dan weiss is not a scout. but anyone with any basic sense of hockey knowledge can tell when a goalie is keeping their teams in games and when they're struggling. it's not rocket science. there are some complex aspects about hockey, but that's not one of them. trying to question the validity of his opinion based on that argument is idiotic.

second - statistics obviously have their use for evaluation of a players past production. but that doesn't guarantee future production. people here keep clamoring how clemmensen went 14-6 last year, thus hes a good goalie. i can cite you hundreds of terrible goalies who have had one or two good statistical seasons. brian elliot was one of them. he looks absolutely atrocious this the brian elliot we all used to know and love. robert esche was terrible and went 21-11. john grahame was terrible and also had a good season or two. there's countless others, those are just off the top of my head. i'm not going to do vast research to prove a point that's ridiculously obvious. yes good goalies will have great numbers. but that does not mean a bad goalie can't have good numbers, too.

and lastly, i have not used statistics to prove my point, there's nothing hypocritical about my argument. i never cited markstrom's save %, GAA or record. any other meaningful statistical argument has been presented. the only ones that have been used are brief and passing stats, such as markstrom playing 100+ games, thus being NHL ready.

don't put words into my mouth.

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?

that's an incredibly stupid argument, considering Bernier is their backup. if they want, they can start him if they so choose and ride the hot hand. this is all i'm asking for. not for a clean unseating of Theodore.

unfortunately for them, bernier looked absolutely awful the one game he played in vs Anaheim. so they don't have much of a hot hand to ride.

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.
are you seriously this dense?

i've said countless times that a good goalie obviously needs a good team in front of them. but a good team cannot win without a good goalie, either.

what's so hard to understand about that?

and the bruins are still great without tim thomas because they have Tuuka Rask, who IMO, is one of the most talented goalies in the NHL.

would they have the same record if they had a goalie playing the way Theodore and Clemmensen have been playing this year? NO

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.
my argument is not entirely based off a 5 game sample size. markstrom is a better goalie than clemmensen at his absolute best. the 5 game sample size is just fuel to the fire as to why it needs to happen now.

the team is struggling with its goaltending and dug itself a hole with the terrible start. they need all the help they can get, as quickly as they can get it.

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.
okay - so if you were GM we'd still have mike santorelli, matt bradley, steven reinprecht and whatever other scrubs we've bought out/demoted and payed a replacement player all while doing so...just because it's bad business?

buyouts happen all the time. paying clemmensen half of his marginal salary next year wont kill us. and would be well worth it if it helps us make the playoffs.

-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.

the business argument works both ways. if there is someone doing your job better than you are, you're going to lose your job. i don't care who you are or when you signed your happens. the Stars signed (not re-signed, signed as a UFA) Donald Audette to a 4-yr deal and traded him like 10 games into his tenure there because he didn't fit. it happens.

Clemmensen knew when he signed the contract who was in the minors. he knew it was a possibility he'd lose his job. he signed the deal anyway. it's a business, and this move wouldn't make the Panthers any less of an attractive destination to UFA's because Scott Clemmensen lost his job. he's a marginal player, and this stuff happens to marginal players all the time.

Last edited by flapanthersfan: 02-10-2013 at 04:06 PM.
flapanthersfan is offline   Reply With Quote