Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
You should tell that to Nashville, NYR, Montreal, Carolina, Buffalo, Minnessotta, Calgary and Philly.
They desperately need to shed some cap-space.
Not one of those teams has reached a final except for Philly. And that was before they got the goalie...
Detroit and Chicago both made it with very average goaltending. You can win with the high priced goalie. But it's definitely not a necessity. Let alone having two.
Not one of those teams has reached a final except for Philly. And that was before they got the goalie...
Detroit and Chicago both made it with very average goaltending. You can win with the high priced goalie. But it's definitely not a necessity. Let alone having two.
So should those other 8 teams be looking to downgrade their goalies for the sake of saving cap space?
Not one of those teams has reached a final except for Philly. And that was before they got the goalie...
Detroit and Chicago both made it with very average goaltending. You can win with the high priced goalie. But it's definitely not a necessity. Let alone having two.
Has Detroit ever actually won with average goaltending? I believe their goaltending has failed them a lot in the playoffs but in the years that they won they had pretty stellar goaltending.
The Chicago team was staked with entry level guys. That was just an awesome team which ultimately was unaffordable when their contracts came up. It's not like they didn't spend on goaltending that year (IIRC).
Has Detroit ever actually won with average goaltending? I believe their goaltending has failed them a lot in the playoffs but in the years that they won they had pretty stellar goaltending.
The Chicago team was staked with entry level guys. That was just an awesome team which ultimately was unaffordable when their contracts came up. It's not like they didn't spend on goaltending that year (IIRC).
VAN fans essentially ran Luongo out of town and then come on here and call him criminally underrated. He's not. It's his forever contract that kills his value. I honestly wouldn't take Quick on that ungodly 10 year contract.
Do the pretend math. 20 games x 25 shots against per = 500 shots. 1% of 500 is 5. $5.33M per to save five goals less all season.
Wouldn't your pretend math be a little more accurate if it were based on real numbers?
The Canucks face 31 shots a game, not 25...no team in the league kept shots against down at 25, not one (I'm pretty sure this shows how biased your "pretend math" is).
Odds are as a first year starter Schneider woulnd't start 62 games (especially since he's never started that many games in a season ever...even in the AHL). You'd likely see a more reasonable range like 50 games. As a result, the backup would likely play 32 games.
For save%, I think its reasonable to assume that a guy like Eddie Lack would be an average NHL backup, so a 0.905 save% (note this would put him between Andrei Pavelec and Corey Crawford...so 0.905 is probably pretty generous - Bobrovsky and Mason were 0.899 and 0.894).
So here's the pretend math: 32 games x 31 shots x (0.920-0.905) = 15 goals. 15 goals over 32 games is a goal every other game. That is huge considering how many games in the NHL are one goal games.
15 goals would have put MTL into a positive goal difference (and no team missed the playoffs with a positive goal difference).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MardocAgain
VAN fans essentially ran Luongo out of town and then come on here and call him criminally underrated. He's not. It's his forever contract that kills his value. I honestly wouldn't take Quick on that ungodly 10 year contract.
I think Quick is one of the best assets in the league on that contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honour Over Glory
Osgood?
Osgood had a 0.930 and 0.926 save% when Detroit made it to the finals in back to back years...that's amazing goaltending. Years where he put up his normal numbers, the team got bounced. Those two playoff performances had people talking about him as a potential, borderline, HHOF guy due to his clutchness (not that I think he is).
VAN fans essentially ran Luongo out of town and then come on here and call him criminally underrated.
That's right. All of Vancouver collectively ran Luongo out of town, and now all of Vancouver is calling him criminally underrated. I wish the entire city would get together and make sure that the opinion that everyone in the city shares is consistent.
Not sure why your getting defensive on me man I cheer for the Canucks and I still love Luongo.
To defend my point: a) on a phone at work man I laziest out a bit and guessed. B) I'd disagree Schneider is playing less than 60 games if healthy. Canucks are less of a lock for division title than usual this year. A slow start (Kesler out for a bit) they could need Cory to play as much as possible to even think about home ice.
15 goals instead of zero is a pretty big gap to fill with your numbers. But is that cap space better served with Luongo there at his cap hit even if it is 15 goals. Screw goal differential man, these guys success is based on the playoffs. And only one guy can play at once.
but whats the deal with everyone undervaluing luongo like crazy
people on HF boards seem to think hes garbage
when in fact hes one of the best in the league
Even if he is there are simply not a whole lot of teams that need a goalie and even fewer teams that are willing to take that contract and that plays into his value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schism
Don't want anything to do with Marleau, and trading Edler is foolish. We have no one like him on the team or in the system coming up.
Also, Luongo has to go out of conference. Gillis isn't stupid enough to trade him to a Western conference contender.
Marleau is one of the best left wingers in the game. Why anyone wouldn't want him is beyond me. As for Luongo, it's not a big deal if he's dealt in or out of conference. Goalies don't make that big of a difference to teams anymore.
Even if he is there are simply not a whole lot of teams that need a goalie and even fewer teams that are willing to take that contract and that plays into his value.
Marleau is one of the best left wingers in the game. Why anyone wouldn't want him is beyond me. As for Luongo, it's not a big deal if he's dealt in or out of conference. Goalies don't make that big of a difference to teams anymore.
I'd actually say the opposite...Did you notice anything similar about the final 4 teams this year?
Even if he is there are simply not a whole lot of teams that need a goalie and even fewer teams that are willing to take that contract and that plays into his value.
Marleau is one of the best left wingers in the game. Why anyone wouldn't want him is beyond me. As for Luongo, it's not a big deal if he's dealt in or out of conference. Goalies don't make that big of a difference to teams anymore.
Not sure I agree, his 64 points in 82 games last year suggests he may be on a decline. Vancouver wouldn't want him because we already have a first line LW in Daniel Sedin. 6.9m would be too much of a cap hit for a player on the second line IMO.
This trade just doesn't work out for either teams.
I'd actually say the opposite...Did you notice anything similar about the final 4 teams this year?
I would hope that you noticed that only Henrik Lundqvist was considered an elite goalie leading up to this season. Quick was a good but not top ten goalie before this past season. Brodeur was next to retirement and had team issues getting out of the first round. And Mike Smith was a cast-off. Goalies put in the right position can do wonders and it's not because there isn't necessarily anything special about that netminder as it is just finding the right fit and system to play in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back in 94
Not sure I agree, his 64 points in 82 games last year suggests he may be on a decline. Vancouver wouldn't want him because we already have a first line LW in Daniel Sedin. 6.9m would be too much of a cap hit for a player on the second line IMO.
This trade just doesn't work out for either teams.
You're not being very thorough if you buy what you're saying about Marleau. The whole league has been on a decline in terms of goal scoring. Marleau has been potting 30+ goals the past four seasons and is one of the better left wingers defensively as well. Compared to Daniel Sedin, he may not be more productive but he's not nearly as sheltered as he often has to play against the best competition nightly or carry a struggling 2nd line.
The trade itself is not really what I care to argue. The reasons against it are obvious for both sides but saying you don't want anything to do with a certain player is something a little bit different.
I would hope that you noticed that only Henrik Lundqvist was considered an elite goalie leading up to this season. Quick was a good but not top ten goalie before this past season. Brodeur was next to retirement and had team issues getting out of the first round. And Mike Smith was a cast-off. Goalies put in the right position can do wonders and it's not because there isn't necessarily anything special about that netminder as it is just finding the right fit and system to play in.
Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the league and is the primary reason the Rangers finished #2 in the league last year.
Both Quick and Smith had remarkable seasons. In fact, a lot of Kings AND Coyotes fans would agree the only reason their teams made the playoffs was from great goaltending. So when they continued their play in the post-season it wasn't exactly out of nowhere. Both of these teams were driven by solid goaltending.
Brodeur may be the only exception. He is on the decline but is still widely considered one of the most consistent goaltenders of all-time.
And just to add to that, the Canucks only won the Presdent's trophy last year because of remarkable goaltending. Luongo and Schneider bailed the team out often times last year. So my point is-What's your reason for believing goaltenders don't play as big of a part? To me, the difference between good and bad goaltending is the difference between a Stanley Cup winner and a team that misses the playoffs.
I would hope that you noticed that only Henrik Lundqvist was considered an elite goalie leading up to this season. Quick was a good but not top ten goalie before this past season. Brodeur was next to retirement and had team issues getting out of the first round. And Mike Smith was a cast-off. Goalies put in the right position can do wonders and it's not because there isn't necessarily anything special about that netminder as it is just finding the right fit and system to play in.
You're not being very thorough if you buy what you're saying about Marleau. The whole league has been on a decline in terms of goal scoring. Marleau has been potting 30+ goals the past four seasons and is one of the better left wingers defensively as well. Compared to Daniel Sedin, he may not be more productive but he's not nearly as sheltered as he often has to play against the best competition nightly or carry a struggling 2nd line.
The trade itself is not really what I care to argue. The reasons against it are obvious for both sides but saying you don't want anything to do with a certain player is something a little bit different.
Alright, fair enough I understand what you are getting at. I just think that next year I wouldn't be surprised if Marleaus point production dropped from his 64 points this year. And while he might be better defensively, he still wouldn't take Daniels spot on the first line. Which leaves us with a 6.9m 2nd line LW, and a 4.2m 3rd line LW (assuming Booth drops to the third line).
I would also like to say that I never said I didn't want anything to do with him. However trading for him from a Vancouver POV would make zero sense.
Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the league and is the primary reason the Rangers finished #2 in the league last year.
Both Quick and Smith had remarkable seasons. In fact, a lot of Kings AND Coyotes fans would agree the only reason their teams made the playoffs was from great goaltending. So when they continued their play in the post-season it wasn't exactly out of nowhere. Both of these teams were driven by solid goaltending.
Brodeur may be the only exception. He is on the decline but is still widely considered one of the most consistent goaltenders of all-time.
And just to add to that, the Canucks only won the Presdent's trophy last year because of remarkable goaltending. Luongo and Schneider bailed the team out often times last year. So my point is-What's your reason for believing goaltenders don't play as big of a part? To me, the difference between good and bad goaltending is the difference between a Stanley Cup winner and a team that misses the playoffs.
Yes, those goalies had remarkable seasons. However, you're missing the point. These guys, with the exception of Lundqvist, were not elite going into the season. They were good goalies, with the exception of Smith who sucked in 2010-11, that played great this season or at the right time. Goalies always look better when the players in front of them are doing their job and have the talent. Goaltending at the NHL level is more about finding the right fit. A goalie is nothing without a very good defense in front of him. As for the Canucks comment, that is very disingenuous. Teams don't win at that kind of clip based off of one thing. You have to have a solid defense, offense, and goaltending to be a top team in this league at the minimum. The Canucks have had solid depth up and down their lineup and one of the best offenses in the league the past few years.
Yes, those goalies had remarkable seasons. However, you're missing the point. These guys, with the exception of Lundqvist, were not elite going into the season. They were good goalies, with the exception of Smith who sucked in 2010-11, that played great this season or at the right time. Goalies always look better when the players in front of them are doing their job and have the talent. Goaltending at the NHL level is more about finding the right fit. A goalie is nothing without a very good defense in front of him. As for the Canucks comment, that is very disingenuous. Teams don't win at that kind of clip based off of one thing. You have to have a solid defense, offense, and goaltending to be a top team in this league at the minimum. The Canucks have had solid depth up and down their lineup and one of the best offenses in the league the past few years.
I agree with you here but I think most Canuck fans would agree that our goaltending, especially during the regular season was our strongest asset. The Luongo/Schneider tandem really did bail us out on numerous occasions.
Yes, those goalies had remarkable seasons. However, you're missing the point. These guys, with the exception of Lundqvist, were not elite going into the season. They were good goalies, with the exception of Smith who sucked in 2010-11, that played great this season or at the right time. Goalies always look better when the players in front of them are doing their job and have the talent. Goaltending at the NHL level is more about finding the right fit. A goalie is nothing without a very good defense in front of him. As for the Canucks comment, that is very disingenuous. Teams don't win at that kind of clip based off of one thing. You have to have a solid defense, offense, and goaltending to be a top team in this league at the minimum. The Canucks have had solid depth up and down their lineup and one of the best offenses in the league the past few years.
Just my personal take on it, but it seems that teams are a revolving door around their goal-tending. Mistakes are amplified by 10x and ultimately goaltending comes down to 1 man, not a unit. I agree that team success is reliant on having strength at all positions, that isn't what I was refuting. I simply believe if you have bad goaltending you will suck and if you have good goaltending you will be good. I'm not sure the same can be said about the other positions.
And last year the Canucks looked uninterested most games and goaltending scraped the team by a lot of games. Last year the Canucks would get an A+ in net, a B on offense and a B on defense. Their goaltending was the difference between 5th and 1st place. A good team regardless, but their goaltending stood them apart.
I agree with you here but I think most Canuck fans would agree that our goaltending, especially during the regular season was our strongest asset. The Luongo/Schneider tandem really did bail us out on numerous occasions.
I'm sure they had their fair share of moments but having an offense tied for 4th in the league also helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckLuck
Just my personal take on it, but it seems that teams are a revolving door around their goal-tending. Mistakes are amplified by 10x and ultimately goaltending comes down to 1 man, not a unit. I agree that team success is reliant on having strength at all positions, that isn't what I was refuting. I simply believe if you have bad goaltending you will suck and if you have good goaltending you will be good. I'm not sure the same can be said about the other positions.
And last year the Canucks looked uninterested most games and goaltending scraped the team by a lot of games. Last year the Canucks would get an A+ in net, a B on offense and a B on defense. Their goaltending was the difference between 5th and 1st place. A good team regardless, but their goaltending stood them apart.
Michael Leighton and Brian Boucher were goaltenders that made it to the Cup finals. Antti Niemi won the Cup. Roberto Luongo was a good goalie in Florida and that team still sucked.
I'm sure they had their fair share of moments but having an offense tied for 4th in the league also helps.
Michael Leighton and Brian Boucher were goaltenders that made it to the Cup finals. Antti Niemi won the Cup. Roberto Luongo was a good goalie in Florida and that team still sucked.
Wow, okay that's great of you to use a couple of lame examples. There are exceptions to the rule, I agree; But they don't make the rule.
For every bad goaltender that's won a cup, I can name 15 good ones. And for every great goaltender that hasn't made the playoffs, I can name 10 bad ones that also didn't. So i'm not sure what your point is.
