HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Is it REALLY just the scoring??????

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-06-2011, 11:37 AM
  #101
nyr7andcounting
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Uhm, I think you are helping to prove my point, but thank you for the unintended support. If the biggest problem is lack of goal support, and how I can't expect Lundqvist to win so many games when they only score 1 or 2 goals, then I would think 3 or more goals should be money in the bank, right?

So, now I add this to my original argument. They are similar in total goals scored. Pens a little more, Caps a little less. They have pretty much the same amount of games of extremely high goal output (6 goals or more), so they all 3 have outliers (remember that from the statistics units) that pad their totals. All 3 have almost the same amount of games when they score 1 or 2 goals. Yet, the Pens and Caps are much better in the standings. Now you helped me to show they both have much higher winning percentages when they score 3+.

So, in summary, it is not Lundqvist's fault when they only score 2. Now, I'd like to hear the excuses for when they lose when scoring 3+. Come on, let's hear it everyone. If he is that good, then he should have a much higher winning percentage when getting goal support.
Because goals change the way the game is played. When there are more goals, particularly early, both teams change their original game plan and most of the time the game opens up more. There are more, and better, scoring chances on both sides of the ice. Some of these excess chances are "quality" chances which no goalie will save at a high rate.

And when you compare the times we score 3+ with the Pens and Caps you have to understand that they have the offensive talent to succeed in that type of game, hence the higher winning percentage. We aren't a team built to win those types of games as often. We're built to succeed in games where both teams score 3 or less and scoring chances are limited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I think those who talk about trading him do so more to free up cap space. They see teams win the Cup and get to the finals with goalies who most think are not among the top-15 even top-20 in the NHL. They see the Flyers who have Bobrovsky and Boucher taking up a total of less than $3MM in cap space at the top of the Eastern Conference, while our guys make almost $8MM combined. Has to at least make you consider that maybe the Rangers would be better off with a $2MM goalie, a $1MM back-up and spend the extra $4MM+ to upgrade the skaters.

If you look at capgeek, you see the top salaries by position. If you look at the goalies, you have Luongo is the highest paid, and they are first overall. After that, a bunch of guys at the top who are currently out of the play-offs or fighting for their play-off lives. Giguere, Kipprusoff, Vokoun, Lundqvist, Miller, Backstrom, Brodeur, Ward, LeClaire, DiPietro (haha, I know, but he is up there in salary), Bryzgalov, Hillier. Aside from Luongo, you do have Fleury and Thomas among the top paid.
This is the path you have to take if you want to convince anyone here that we don't need Lundqvist, or he's overrated or whatever you're goal was.

I think it's a legitimate question whether or not it makes sense to spend big cap space on a goalie in this NHL. The teams that are successful over 82 games, generally speaking, have a few star forwards, a good PP and can possess the puck. When the playoffs start we've seen that if you have a hot goalie you can do well, regardless of whether or not he's an all-star. And if you did have an all-star goalie, by the time you get there he might be worn down and only playing average anyway (like we saw with Lundqvist in 06). So does it make sense to spend $7 million on a goalie, or are you better off with another star forward (assuming we can do better than Drury with our $7 million).

nyr7andcounting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 12:17 PM
  #102
sousuffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
There's the first of Hank's highlight reel post to post half butterfly robberies.

By the way, also notice how everyone in GDT said "sniper!" when Callahan roofed it, but if Hank gave that up, they'd be calling for his head. I thought it was a bad goal...Boucher went down early and Callahan had like a foot. It was his job to bury that one.

sousuffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 12:25 PM
  #103
sousuffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
sousuffer, the number on saving a quality scoring chance is about 66-75%, depending on how dangerous of a chance it is.

Also, every time a statistician has tried to weigh in the save percentage compared to the number of quality scoring chances a goalie has to face, Lundqvist has consistently ended up among the top goalies.

As you said, it's not important how many shots you allow, it's where and how. We're blocking a ton of shots, great, but that's the perimeter shots that usually only pad a goalie's stats. And when we fail to block it, that perimeter shot can become lethal, from a deflection off our own player or simply screening our goalie.

Agreed completely. I read Brodeur's book, and apparently he has always been very insistent that his players do NOT try and block shots with their body, especially the longer ones (that our forwards are famous for). He claims that it's better use of their time to try and tie up deflectors in front of the net so they cannot tip those point shots. I happen to agree with him. As a goalie myself, if a point shot is taken, there is more danger if it is deflected (by either my own team or by the other team) than if there is some screening or if I can see it clearly and freeze it. You can anticipate where the puck is going when there is a screen, but you cannot do this with a deflection. When players in front of me try to block shots, they also serve as screens when they do not successfully block the shots, and if the puck bounces off the man to someone else, the goalie has to react immediately to get somewhere else (which is hard). I'll bet Lundqvist would rather have the players get the hell out of the way...those are easy saves and lead to fewer second chances (and fewer pinball situations).

sousuffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 02:16 PM
  #104
CamronGiles*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
whats with you guys and randomly just snapping to tool teams like 6-0 7-0 :S loool

CamronGiles* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 02:43 PM
  #105
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Simply the scoring? IN short ... Yes

I just came home from the Philly game which was truly an exhibition game. The Rangers played their usually consistent game and the Flyers didn't show up at all.
If the Rangers played all their games against teams that are on their down cycle they could go undefeated.

Goaltending? All Henry's Gaffes are magnified when the team fails to score more than a goal or two. In most games he's not the problem.

Defense? The EMM, Gilroy, DZ controversy is nonsense. I suspect that most playoff contenders will take the Ranger D as is now constructed. Overall the D is solid. The Rangers aren't losing close games due to their defensive lapses. The Weakness of D is simply their shot from the point. I suspect that McCabe will go a long to way help that problem. A normalized PP could add 1/2 goal per game to the offensive column.

What's really wrong? There is no first line scorer. Where is the 40 goal score who can be counted on to provide one of the goals in tight games? The guy/s who take 2-1 losses to 2-2 overtime games? Add 1/2 goal from a true first line and combine it with a half goal from the PP and the Rangers would go deep in the playoffs.

ltrangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 03:52 PM
  #106
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Didn't peruse the whole thread, so if this has been covered already, okay. The difference between the teams is not in the 5 or more goal games or 2 or less goal games. It's in the 3-4 goal games.

Penguins: 25 GP, 20-5-0-40 pts
Capitals: 22 GP, 19-0-3-42 pts
Rangers: 24GP, 15-6-3-33 pts

The difference in the standings lies in these 3-4 goal games. So you're on the right track. The difference is the conclusion. The Rangers have a rookie pair of D, a main D component going through a horrendous sophomore slump, a third pair D who wasn't even good at D until halfway through the year, another third pair D who is so inconsistent that the Rangers are his 6th team in 4 years... plus Staal and Girardi.

McDonagh and Sauer have been great, but to act like they haven't made their share of rookie mistakes is ridiculous. Lundqvist is fine. Their back 6 has been inconsistent enough to cost them enough in the standings that the playoff spot is in jeopardy. It's all part of the reason why this team's future is brighter than it's present, though.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 01:28 PM
  #107
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sousuffer View Post
There's the first of Hank's highlight reel post to post half butterfly robberies.

By the way, also notice how everyone in GDT said "sniper!" when Callahan roofed it, but if Hank gave that up, they'd be calling for his head. I thought it was a bad goal...Boucher went down early and Callahan had like a foot. It was his job to bury that one.
If you read the thread, I did write that I would have been all over Henrik for giving that one up. Thought Zuccarello's goal was also weak.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 01:39 PM
  #108
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr7andcounting View Post
Because goals change the way the game is played. When there are more goals, particularly early, both teams change their original game plan and most of the time the game opens up more. There are more, and better, scoring chances on both sides of the ice. Some of these excess chances are "quality" chances which no goalie will save at a high rate.

And when you compare the times we score 3+ with the Pens and Caps you have to understand that they have the offensive talent to succeed in that type of game, hence the higher winning percentage. We aren't a team built to win those types of games as often. We're built to succeed in games where both teams score 3 or less and scoring chances are limited.


This is the path you have to take if you want to convince anyone here that we don't need Lundqvist, or he's overrated or whatever you're goal was.

I think it's a legitimate question whether or not it makes sense to spend big cap space on a goalie in this NHL. The teams that are successful over 82 games, generally speaking, have a few star forwards, a good PP and can possess the puck. When the playoffs start we've seen that if you have a hot goalie you can do well, regardless of whether or not he's an all-star. And if you did have an all-star goalie, by the time you get there he might be worn down and only playing average anyway (like we saw with Lundqvist in 06). So does it make sense to spend $7 million on a goalie, or are you better off with another star forward (assuming we can do better than Drury with our $7 million).
Good point on the high-flying games where goals are scored early, didn't think of that. However, the problem on sites like this is those who want to defend Hank to the umpteenth degree always love to use his stats. They love to point out his GAA, SV%, SO's, etc. Want to point out how if they scored more he would win more. However, even when they do score more, they are not as good. Washington has not lost ONE single game this season in regulation when scoring 3 or more. If they play the up-tempo high offense game, you would think on some nights their goalie, who according to most is not as good as Hank, will not have it and give up 1 more. The Caps have scored less goals, have had more games of 2 or less, and never lost in regulation when scoring 3 or more. Maybe Varlamov and co. are better than many want to give him credit for.

Your second point, I am with you. After looking up all this stuff, and compiling the info, then looking at the salaries on cap geek, and thinking about the teams who have been in the finals and the conference finals my tune has changed a little. Whether Hank is top-3, top-5, top-10, is immaterial at the moment. Me? I say he is in the 7th-10th spot somewhere, but that has been argued enough. The problem is that there are so many good goalies out there now, that the difference between #7 or #5 and #20 really isn't all that much to warrant the salaries these top paid guys are getting. I think they'd be better off with a Jimmy Howard type (not necessarily him). Guy makes a little less than $1MM, I think he makes $2.5MM the next two years. Take the money you save and use it to upgrade the forwards and Dmen. In a cap league, it is all about allocating resources. The days of the Late-90's Avalanche is over. I think what you are going to start seeing is teams less willing to give goalies huge contracts and their salaries are going to go down. Obviously guys like Lundqvist, Kipprusoff, and Miller are getting their money for the rest of their contracts, but they better save it now, because even if he wins 2 Vezinas in the next couple of years, Lundqvist isn't getting another contract like what he has now.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 01:59 PM
  #109
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,519
vCash: 500
The Rangers just do not win games where they allow 3 goals or more. That's the fact. That's why they've been losing.

The Rangers have lost 29 games in regulation.
Of those 29, they have given up 3 goals or more in 24... 83%

The Rangers have won 25 games in regulation.
Of those 25, they have given up 3 or more goals in 4... 16%

The Rangers have won 35 games including OT/SO
Of those 35, they have given up 3 or more goals in 7... 20%

The Rangers record when giving up 3 or more goals (note 3 SO wins):
7-24-3 = 17 points of a possible 68... 25%.

Rangers record when giving up 2 goals or less (note 5 SO wins):
28-5-1 = 57 points of a possible 68... 84%.

More fun with numbers
The Rangers record since January 15 is 9-13-1 (with 4 SOW).

The Rangers won 3 games when they allowed 3 goals or more (2 SOW). They lost 11 (1 SOL). 3-10-1
In games where 2 or less goals were allowed, they were 6-3-0 (2 SOW).

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 03:12 PM
  #110
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,558
vCash: 500
Henrik letting in softies is an issue, without a doubt

but the team consistantly not scoring on good oppritunities is a flat out problem

no team on the planet has no issues, a team with issues can win a cup, but a team will never go anywhere with a full blown problem

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 05:52 PM
  #111
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Throwing it in. in a cap world I've always felt like Hank is overpaid by well over 1 m maybe 2 mil. I thought he shoulda gotten 5 mil for 5 or 6 years. But he';s so good I swallowed it and I love having a goalie this good

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 09:17 PM
  #112
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
Throwing it in. in a cap world I've always felt like Hank is overpaid by well over 1 m maybe 2 mil. I thought he shoulda gotten 5 mil for 5 or 6 years. But he';s so good I swallowed it and I love having a goalie this good
My Lundqvist bias aside, I think $5MM is just too much for any goalie. I think what we are going to start seeing is teams paying about 5% of their cap for their #1 goalie and very few teams paying more, up to about 8-10%. It will take a while as a bunch are obviously signed for more, but as those contracts start to expire it will happen.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:11 AM
  #113
SRTtoZ
Registered User
 
SRTtoZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,271
vCash: 500
Scoring easily! We just dont FINISH. If you watch the games you can clearly see our problem and it has NOTHING to do with goaltending. The rangers play along the boards more than any team I can think of...We hardly EVER pass back to the point and rip shots like we should IMO. Its either a hockey IQ thing or a coaching thing. Ill tell you what, our passing was the best ive seen it yesterday than any game all season.

SRTtoZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 06:50 AM
  #114
bumrusherer
Registered User
 
bumrusherer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
My Lundqvist bias aside, I think $5MM is just too much for any goalie. I think what we are going to start seeing is teams paying about 5% of their cap for their #1 goalie and very few teams paying more, up to about 8-10%. It will take a while as a bunch are obviously signed for more, but as those contracts start to expire it will happen.
If a Goalie is good enough, he will get paid the big money. Simple as that.
If a team feels like the Goalie they have can be easily replaced, then that Goalie wont get the big money.

We are not one of those teams that has an easily replaced Goalie ( which is a good thing ). Every year we know we will get elite goaltending..every single year. So when you have issues to dal with, that area of the game doesnt even come up in the off season meetings.

bumrusherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 07:26 AM
  #115
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumrusherer View Post
If a Goalie is good enough, he will get paid the big money. Simple as that.
If a team feels like the Goalie they have can be easily replaced, then that Goalie wont get the big money.

We are not one of those teams that has an easily replaced Goalie ( which is a good thing ). Every year we know we will get elite goaltending..every single year. So when you have issues to dal with, that area of the game doesnt even come up in the off season meetings.
You're missing the point. Here is the list of the top-25 paid goalies in the league.

http://www.capgeek.com/leaders.php?t...ion=G&limit=25

As you look, notice how many of the so-called elite goalies with the top salaries are on teams which are either out of play-off position or struggling to hold onto their spot. Look at teams like Philly, Washington, Montreal, Tampa, Detroit, San Jose, Chicago, Dallas. Look at how little they are spending on their goaltenders. This allows them to spend more on their on their forwards and Dman and it shows. Look at the last 3 Cup winners. Chicago, Pitt, Detroit. Did any of them have elite goaltenders? Fleury is paid like it, but I hardly call him elite.

Here is a list of each team with links to their salaries if you want to see for yourself.

http://www.capgeek.com/index.php

If Sather calls Washington (for arguments sake) and offers Lundqvist for Varlamov straight-up, Washington probably doesn't take it. Not because Lundqvist isn't better, but the difference in what they bring to the table doesn't warrant a difference of $6MM in cap space and when they have to free up $6MM in space by dumping $6MM worth of forwards/dmen, their team probably takes a step back overall.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 07:51 AM
  #116
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,476
vCash: 500
What you spend on goaltending has zero relevance if you want to be a cup contender or not. The only thing that matters, is how much quality you get out of your players, compared to how much you pay them.

It is obviously easier to get a good team, if you have many excellent players who are underpaid with rookie salaries, compared to their production. The key word is underpayment, or overproduction, regarding which way to look at it, it's the same anyway. Not goalie salaries. Sure, you can try to build your team with elite players and then have a scrub like Leighton in net. But don't expect him to win games for you either, or hold the fort in the Stanley Cup finals.

Who says a team with a core defense of Staal, Girardi, McD, Sauer and possibly Mcilrath and Valetenko can't be a cup runner, especially with Lundqvist behind them? I rather have an elite defense and an elite goalie, than an elite defense and a scrub. What do you prefer, to expect your elite goalie to bring it, or pray that your scrub will at least hold it together? If he doesn't, you're screwed.
Quote:
If Sather calls Washington (for arguments sake) and offers Lundqvist for Varlamov straight-up, Washington probably doesn't take it. Not because Lundqvist isn't better, but the difference in what they bring to the table doesn't warrant a difference of $6MM in cap space and when they have to free up $6MM in space by dumping $6MM worth of forwards/dmen, their team probably takes a step back overall.
Don't be so sure. If I was Washington, I would easily accept Lundqvist and then unload a guy like Alexander Semin. Soft as butter and not worth much in a playoff.

Varlamov for Lundqvist? You accept?


Last edited by Chimp: 03-08-2011 at 08:11 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:58 AM
  #117
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Chimp, look at the teams who have played in the finals since the lockout. The only goalie who participated who most would say was elite at the time was Giguere. Fleury is paid like an elite goalie, but the opinions on him vary greatly. Besides, I think not 100% sure, but I think his salary was reasonable and got paid after they won the Cup.

Not sure they would drop Semin. Like I said, the difference in what they add in Lundqvist will not be as good as what they lose offensively in Semin. Caps have the same problem with inconsistent scoring as the Rangers. They have 35 games of 2 goals or less vs the Rangers 33. Caps are 6-21-8 for 20 points in those games, the Rangers are 9-23-1 for 19 points. However, the Caps have not lost a game in regulation when scoring 3 or more goals. 31-0-3, while the Rangers are 26-6-3. Why would the Caps want to sacrifice scoring?


Last edited by patnyrnyg: 03-08-2011 at 12:40 PM.
patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:05 PM
  #118
asparkoflife
Registered User
 
asparkoflife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Patterson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Chimp, look at the teams who have played in the finals since the lockout. The only goalie who participated who most would say was elite at the time was Giguere. Fleury is paid like an elite goalie, but the opinions on him vary greatly. Besides, I think not 100% sure, but I think his salary was reasonable and got paid after they won the Cup.

Not sure they would drop Semin. Like I said, the difference in what they add in Lundqvist will not be as good as what they lose offensively in Semin.
Cam Ward?

also last year Chicago was paying Huet 5+Mil even though Niemi played in the finals.

asparkoflife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:13 PM
  #119
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Cam Ward was a rookie that year, making under $700K. Even now, he is only making $2.5MM

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/salaries/4446

They were paying Huet, $5MM, but they didn't win with him.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:43 PM
  #120
asparkoflife
Registered User
 
asparkoflife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Patterson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Cam Ward was a rookie that year, making under $700K. Even now, he is only making $2.5MM

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/salaries/4446

They were paying Huet, $5MM, but they didn't win with him.
Yeah but doesnt that still take up space in cap that they couldve been using elsewhere? which is part of your point?

Also...cam ward is NOT making 2.5MM. his cap hit is 6.3MM

http://www.capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=544

asparkoflife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:57 PM
  #121
Blue Line Monster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Chimp, look at the teams who have played in the finals since the lockout. The only goalie who participated who most would say was elite at the time was Giguere. Fleury is paid like an elite goalie, but the opinions on him vary greatly. Besides, I think not 100% sure, but I think his salary was reasonable and got paid after they won the Cup.

Not sure they would drop Semin. Like I said, the difference in what they add in Lundqvist will not be as good as what they lose offensively in Semin.

So we should trade our best player because he's a goaltender and the last few Cup winners won with average goaltenders? Am I understanding this correctly?

It's funny how every few years the perfect recipe for a Cup changes. Now you need to have a mediocre to average goaltender, gotcha.


If you're looking for better similarities between those teams, notice how they drafted and developed their own ELITE talent.

Downgrading from Lundqvist and saving 4 mil to use in free agency doesn't get us Crosby, Malkin, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, E. Staal, Toews, Kane, Lidstrom, Keith, etc etc.

It gets us guys with major flaws like Marian Gaborik. Oft-injured, so soft he doesn't show up in tight games, etc.

Blue Line Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:03 PM
  #122
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,519
vCash: 500
The only way you trade Lundqvist is if you feel that this team cannot win a Cup in the next 6 or 7 years. I'm sure the front office doesn't feel that way.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:10 PM
  #123
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prusted View Post
Yeah but doesnt that still take up space in cap that they couldve been using elsewhere? which is part of your point?

Also...cam ward is NOT making 2.5MM. his cap hit is 6.3MM

http://www.capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=544
oops, was looking at ward's old amount. Now, notice they are spending $6.3MM on their goalie and are struggling to make the play-offs.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:17 PM
  #124
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Line Monster View Post
So we should trade our best player because he's a goaltender and the last few Cup winners won with average goaltenders? Am I understanding this correctly?

It's funny how every few years the perfect recipe for a Cup changes. Now you need to have a mediocre to average goaltender, gotcha.


If you're looking for better similarities between those teams, notice how they drafted and developed their own ELITE talent.

Downgrading from Lundqvist and saving 4 mil to use in free agency doesn't get us Crosby, Malkin, Zetterberg, Datsyuk, E. Staal, Toews, Kane, Lidstrom, Keith, etc etc.

It gets us guys with major flaws like Marian Gaborik. Oft-injured, so soft he doesn't show up in tight games, etc.
Read the whole thread, not explaining it again. Yes, even if he is the best player, the drop-off for a cheaper goalie is not as great as what you gain with better forwards and dmen.

The recipe for a cup changed because of the salary cap. The days of having a stacked core of skaters and then trading for that elite goalie like Colorado did in 1996 are over. It is all about value. Even if Lundqvist is a top-5 goalie, the difference between him and the 20th best is not enough to warrant a difference of $3.55MM in salary (using the 5th highest goalie salary vs the 20th).

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:28 PM
  #125
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
oops, was looking at ward's old amount. Now, notice they are spending $6.3MM on their goalie and are struggling to make the play-offs.
And Luongo is paid a bucket of millions on the league leading team in points and are looking to be legit cup contenders. What happens if Vancouver win the Cup? Will you claim you can win with an expensive elite goalie all of a sudden? Or will you refute it as an anomaly? Or will you start to acknowledge there might be more to winning the cup than some standard flavour of the year recipe? More than nitpicking specific players and starting to look at the team as a whole? Its strengths and weaknesses? If you can play up to your strengths and hide your weaknesses, you're looking good.

The problem this team has had is it's lacking team carriers. You need at least three team carriers to win a cup, Rangers have had 1-2, mostly one, guess who. The playoff series against Washington was embarrassing, it was basically one player against 20. What position team carriers play is basically irrelevant. And everyone have to be able to carry their load. Everyone have to strive to perform better than their salary. Can't win if one of the team carriers is a goalie? Give me a break, it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, nju NHL or not.

And Detroit haven't won the cup in the two most recent years, despite having an average goalie? Should they get an even worse goalie? Perhaps he isn't average enough?

Your fascination over Lundqvist and combining him with this team when it's struggling is simply put astounding. If it isn't his play, it's his salary. Let's just flat out ignore he is the anchor that made this team respectable and competitive again. If there were more players on this team with the desire to win, compete and practice that Lundqvist has, we would've won a cup already.


Last edited by Chimp: 03-08-2011 at 01:42 PM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.