View Single Post
06-08-2013, 10:45 AM
Registered User
Synergy27's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,312
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I love how you merely analyze the team with a goalie and not another top line player added (which a trade would bring us). I am not talking about only changing the goalie. Until you realize that, we cannot go forward here.

You keep saying the core needs to be revamped. That's stupid. Plain and simple. The core is solid, but it needs pieces around it. If Lundqvist can be moved for a top line forward and a top 4 D, you do it. Then you go after a goalie like Halak. The core is fine. But it needs more pieces surrounding it. We can't do that if Hank is making over 8m. We can probably barely do it if he is making 8m.
Hitting the nail on the head. The argument shouldn't be about who would replace Hank, it should be about whether or not team X is better off with:

1. The best goalie in the league, who is being paid in accordance with that, and the resulting lack of depth that is forced on the rest of the lineup.


2. Top 12ish goalie X, making $2-3 million, and more depth/high end everywhere else.

Richards ridiculous underperformance muddies the waters for me a bit, but I can't help but think that Option 2 is the way to go. Look at how all of the recent SC winners have been constructed. Having high end guys on ELCs is important as well, but I don't think the difference between Hank and said goalie X is big enough to warrant the 150% salary premium he commands. And don't get me wrong, I am in agreement that he's the best of his generation, I'm just saying that that might be working against his team in the context of the cap. ****** situation.

Synergy27 is offline   Reply With Quote