View Single Post
Old
07-03-2013, 12:40 PM
  #361
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm not sure I agree Eye. It's clear that many NHL clubs have thought less and less about goaltending on the whole. I don't think the team needs the best tandem, or even elite goaltending for that matter. They just need competent to good goaltending. Then, they can put the remaining money up front.

This situation was a teaching tool. No one values goaltending. At least, not to the level it should be valued across the league. For example, if we were to compare Schneider to another good young player like Sam Gagner, one would have to believe Gagner would get more on the open market, simply by being a skater. He's not even a 1C, as most believe Schneider is a 1G, but he would garner more. That's the reality of picking, developing and moving goaltending. Given the chance, many managers would opt to go with a cheaper solution than to pay for an elite starter.

So why do we value Luongo much anymore? Why not go with the DET/CHI model and devalue it altogether? Adding more skaters to make the team better up front... It just doesn't seem like the differences in goaltending are all that significant anymore. Not to the extent of giving value for elite goalies anyways.
Yeah, I strongly disagree. There's a vast difference between winning with average goaltending and winning with a seemingly average starter who performs extremely well. Over the regular season and the playoffs Crawford put up a .929 sv% over nearly 1500 shots; you can't reasonably say that he was merely "competent".

Cheaping out on goaltending to spend money up front doesn't get you Chicago; 9 times out of 10 it gets you Tampa or Philadelphia.

opendoor is offline