Finally! Turco would be a great signing. The guy can play. I don't understand why everyone is so down him. If they can get Turco and a solid D-man, this team will be set. I'd also like to see a nice winger to replace Asham.
Factoring in age, he is my first choice of anyone available, depending on money. If Reese can make Leighton a good goalie, what can he do with someone that was already a good NHL goalie?
Did you see Leighton's playoff stats in his one appearance? In other words it means nothing to me. Like many other goalies before him he had a decent rookie season when the league wasn't familiar with him and then promptly lost his job to another rookie and hasn't been anything but average at best since then.
Who said Reese "made" Leighton a good goalie? Mediocre goalies have hot streaks all of the time. See Scott Clemmensen last year. If Reese is this magical goalie guru that can turn chicken ***** into chicken salad then how come he didn't have the same success in Tampa? Leighton had a good run in the regular season for 26 starts (about 30% of the season) and 7 starts in the playoffs before he fell apart. That's hardly a large enough sample to say Reese is a great teacher that can make anyone better.
1b Turco (if $3.5 or less he is first choice)
You are SEVERELY overrating Ellis to the point that he's some type of god. The guy has only had 3 seasons of hockey, and all behind a real good Nashville defence. He was pretty bad 2 years ago, when his sv% hit 900. Again you can thank the likes of Weber and Suter, because it would have been a lot worse. He lost his job this year, and most importantly has never shouldered a large amount of games.
The only goalies who have logged over 60 games since the lockout are:
Just so you know my reasoning, although if it comes down to this for Nabokov, I'm not sure I want him.
(From an earlier post)
Assuming he wants to be in a situation to win the Cup, there's only two places to sign, here, and Washington. The reason Washington didn't re-sign Huet was because they wouldn't offer him anything more then a few years because they were so confident that Varlamov would be ready soon. That's how they ended up signing Theodore to a 2 year contract. Assuming they still think Varlamov is their future starter, but isn't quite ready, means they're not going to offer more then two years for two reasons. Varlamov only has one year left on his contract contract and will be looking for a raise, hurting the Caps cap situation more, and two, he won't be wanting to be sitting behind Nabokov for more then two years max.
The Caps are therefore restrained to most likely a 2 year offer. If you take a close look at their cap situation, you see how much they can offer (Off the top of my head, probably not more then 4.5, which is what they were paying Theodore).
Again, assuming Nabokov wants to be in a winning environment, a 3 year deal around 12.6 million (Cap hit of 4.2 million) should be able to beat Washington's best offer. Assuming the parameters above, the most front loaded offer Washington could present would be 6 million and then 3 million. A 3 year deal structured like this: 6.5, 3.5 and 2.5 would beat Washington's in all regards.
Although this only works if the assumptions are correct, and if Nabokov has no preference between Philadelphia or Washington (Washington's Russian factor may be a big element).
well the plan is pretty clear that they want to find a GOOD goalie capable of winning a cup (both nabokov and turco are -- i'm not sold on the rest, though I'd pick mason out of the rest) who can be here for the next 3-4 years until bobo/eriksson are ready. i think it's great. all i want is one of nabokov and turco and we'll hopefully be set for quite some time in net.
The only reason I could see for bringing in Nabokov would be as a mentor to the younger Russian players in the Flyers system. Bobrovsky I'm sure would benefit the most, but having Nabokov here might mean getting Popov and the Bodrov brother over. It might also mean attracting other Russian players who might not be drafted, but have some serious talent to come over too.
I'm not sure though signing a goaltender to a contract three years in length after they turn 35 is such a good idea though. Fact is, there are two very good and promising young goaltenders in the system and if they develop as expected, having that 35 year old for three years might block the progression of one of them. We're seeing in Boston what happens when an 35 year old goaltender signs a long term deal and a much younger goalie takes the position from him - too much money being tied into a seat on the bench. Two years, tops for Nabokov or Turco.