Whoever compared the reactions here to the reactions when we got LaBarbera is on to something. It seemed a lot of people were collectively crapping their pants when we got him because of how much LA fans reviled him, and now everyone's wishing we still had him. Honestly, Raycroft has been pencilled in as a No. 1/1A guy everywhere he's gone; Boston, Toronto and Colorado. This will be the first place he's gone where he is clearly the backup. Maybe the change of pace will be good for him, as will working with one of the best goaltenders in the league, and a good coaching staff. He's been on bottom feeding crappy teams, let him try a good one.
Just because he's not starting doesn't mean he's not a liability as a backup. You can't afford to throw away even a point or two and Raycroft's been one of the worst goalies in the league for a couple years now.
He's a downgrade on Curtis Sanford, and that's saying something.
He had a winning record until xmas on the Avs. 10-2.
A decent team wont miss the playoffs due to their 10 game backup goalie. If the Canucks finish outside the top 8 there's plenty more blame to go around than Raycroft.
so it's the end of the world....cause they signed a backup !!...Leafs were such a great team...and so were the Avs !......give your head a shake..
So you refer to my comments as "stupid", and then you post that sentence right after? :facepalm"
He just flat out sucked, if you watched any Leafs games back then, he'd deflate the team like Cloutier did by allowing a bad goal. Just cant play under pressure.
I don't know why people are surprised by this. Did anyone honestly think that the Canucks were going to have Schneider sitting on the bench for 75 games?
Just because he's not starting doesn't mean he's not a liability as a backup. You can't afford to throw away even a point or two and Raycroft's been one of the worst goalies in the league for a couple years now.
He's a downgrade on Curtis Sanford, and that's saying something.
well i guess they could have tossed Schneider in there since he played so well when he was up here.
For a couple years now? 06-07 he had a winning season on a bad Toronto team. You can't blame him for last season, Colorado was one of the worst teams in the league.
Wins and losses is about the worst way you can evaluate a goalie. It tells you next to nothing about how they played. Even in 06/07, Raycroft had the third worst SV% amongst starters in the league, behind only Curtis Joseph and Marc Denis. He was bad even back then.
Yeah, he played on a bad team in Colorado, but even his shot quality adjusted numbers are awful.
Wins and losses is about the worst way you can evaluate a goalie. It tells you next to nothing about how they played. Even in 06/07, Raycroft had the third worst SV% amongst starters in the league, behind only Curtis Joseph and Marc Denis. He was bad even back then.
If he can win on a bad team, he should be able to at least hold his own on a good team?
Wins and losses is about the worst way you can evaluate a goalie. It tells you next to nothing about how they played. Even in 06/07, Raycroft had the third worst SV% amongst starters in the league, behind only Curtis Joseph and Marc Denis. He was bad even back then.
Yeah, he played on a bad team in Colorado, but even his shot quality adjusted numbers are awful.
Difficulty of shot should also be taken in to account.
Doesn't make him one of the best that year, but I'm guessing wee bit better stat wise.
Not saying I like this move... just throwing it out there.
He had a winning record until xmas on the Avs. 10-2.
A decent team wont miss the playoffs due to their 10 game backup goalie. If the Canucks finish outside the top 8 there's plenty more blame to go around than Raycroft.
There probably is, but that doesn't mean the team should be putting themselves at a disadvantage if they don't have to. There are a ton of goalies still available, including some starting caliber goalies like Biron and Fernandez, who haven't found homes. At the end of the day, there's likely going to be players better than Raycroft who miss out on this big game of musical chairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squidz
well i guess they could have tossed Schneider in there since he played so well when he was up here.
There's a difference between investing ice time in a prospect in hopes that they will develop and wasting it on a marginal goalie who has no future with your team.
Ps. I think Raycroft can do a solid job as a backup - that is, being a good locker room guy, improve his skills playing behind Luongo and learning from him, and for once playing for a team not utterly sad defensively. I take it he came here for cheap, which is a huge plus - seems he'd take less money to come to a player-friendly organization with a lot of facilities, good staff, Ryan Walter and all that, and get his confidence up again.
If he can win on a bad team, he should be able to at least hold his own on a good team?
The point is, Raycroft is one of the main reasons that team wasn't better than they actually finished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuckMunchkin
Difficulty of shot should also be taken in to account.
Doesn't make him one of the best that year, but I'm guessing wee bit better stat wise.
Not saying I like this move... just throwing it out there.
Yeah, but the only goalies within a stones throw of him are now out of the league, like Ed Belfour and Antero Niittymaki (in all likelihood). Even if you factor in shot quality, there's no way he was better than bottom five, and the players around him are still bad or retired.
Raycroft is terrible. This better be a Moose signing or the cheapest backup option available so that Schneider can come up and play games when Luongo needs a rest.
As a spectator of Moose games, I am shocked that the Canucks made this signing...
I think they must have intended on Corey playing another year in the AHL and have Raycroft stay with the Canucks.
Corey diserves to play every day
