HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Notices

The Official 2010 Offseason Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2010, 11:05 PM
  #51
Cardiac_Canes
Registered User
 
Cardiac_Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,587
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Cardiac_Canes
Peters wouldn't return much, goalies never seem to and one as unproven as he who hasn't exactly put up impressive numbers won't be any different.

Cardiac_Canes is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 06:11 AM
  #52
totalkev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,512
vCash: 500
I'm just not sure what we gain by having Legace back. For one, we have a major logjam of prospects if we re-sign him. For another, we're already paying three guys (although Peters is an RFA) backup goalie money. And thirdly, we're advocating a full-on youth movement everywhere else, why not backup goalie? What would the actual difference in wins and losses be if we go Peters over Legace? One game? Maybe?

As an aside, I'm always entertained at how much time we spend talking about the backup goalie position. Seriously, can you even name all the backup goalies in the NHL? OK, so Peters didn't look ready this time. Maybe after a playoff run in Albany and an NHL training camp, he'll be fine. Or maybe, Pogge will be the star of camp. Who knows? Who cares? All I know is that if our backup goalie is playing a lot, it's because something is wrong with Cam, so we're screwed either way.

As for the rest of it, I'm 100% convinced that even though JR realizes that he *has* to work in some kids, we won't be looking at a "development" season. He's going to try to win, too. And I think he should. We have plenty of pieces to win, including an elite center and an elite goalie. And although we *need* to be younger, we've already shed a lot of older guys. And it's likely that at least one of Brindy/Samsonov isn't back. So I won't mind if we sign a couple of vets (one forward, one d-man) with an eye toward 2010-11.

Staal, Sutter, Jokinen, Cole, LaRose, Kostopoulos, Ruutu and Dwyer will be back up front, and let's add one more for whoever survives the Brindy/Sammy buyout war. That's nine. One veteran, two kids. Still pretty young.

On defense, Pitkanen, Gleason, McBain, Carson is a very young core. I wouldn't mind seeing Pothier and another veteran here, and we're still awfully young.

Note on Pothier: He doesn't have a history of concussions. He had *one*. Granted, it was a *big* one, but it was only one. And in the end, it turned out to be an eye problem that was causing his post-concussion symptoms. Once that eye issue was diagnosed, I don't think there's been a single mention of symptoms relating to that concussion. I think the guy is a relatively young 32 who's healthy for the first time in a while, so I'd sign him for two years and not think twice.

totalkev is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 06:13 AM
  #53
Sasha Cares
28 mph!!!!!!!
 
Sasha Cares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Island of Misfit Toy
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
Note on Pothier: He doesn't have a history of concussions. He had *one*. Granted, it was a *big* one, but it was only one. And in the end, it turned out to be an eye problem that was causing his post-concussion symptoms. Once that eye issue was diagnosed, I don't think there's been a single mention of symptoms relating to that concussion. I think the guy is a relatively young 32 who's healthy for the first time in a while, so I'd sign him for two years and not think twice.

3 concussions...

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...010412/-1/NEWS

Sasha Cares is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 06:48 AM
  #54
Incubation
Registered User
 
Incubation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Roma
Country: Italy
Posts: 135
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Incubation
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
On defense, Pitkanen, Gleason, McBain, Carson is a very young core. I wouldn't mind seeing Pothier and another veteran here, and we're still awfully young.
I think Picard will be with us next year. I'am curious to track Lawson in Charlotte next year and i am with you to give the backup role to Peters.

Incubation is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 07:31 AM
  #55
dmonk
doughberle
 
dmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Azerbaijan
Posts: 7,968
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dmonk
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
I'm just not sure what we gain by having Legace back. For one, we have a major logjam of prospects if we re-sign him. For another, we're already paying three guys (although Peters is an RFA) backup goalie money. And thirdly, we're advocating a full-on youth movement everywhere else, why not backup goalie? What would the actual difference in wins and losses be if we go Peters over Legace? One game? Maybe?

As an aside, I'm always entertained at how much time we spend talking about the backup goalie position. Seriously, can you even name all the backup goalies in the NHL? OK, so Peters didn't look ready this time. Maybe after a playoff run in Albany and an NHL training camp, he'll be fine. Or maybe, Pogge will be the star of camp. Who knows? Who cares? All I know is that if our backup goalie is playing a lot, it's because something is wrong with Cam, so we're screwed either way.

As for the rest of it, I'm 100% convinced that even though JR realizes that he *has* to work in some kids, we won't be looking at a "development" season. He's going to try to win, too. And I think he should. We have plenty of pieces to win, including an elite center and an elite goalie. And although we *need* to be younger, we've already shed a lot of older guys. And it's likely that at least one of Brindy/Samsonov isn't back. So I won't mind if we sign a couple of vets (one forward, one d-man) with an eye toward 2010-11.

Staal, Sutter, Jokinen, Cole, LaRose, Kostopoulos, Ruutu and Dwyer will be back up front, and let's add one more for whoever survives the Brindy/Sammy buyout war. That's nine. One veteran, two kids. Still pretty young.

On defense, Pitkanen, Gleason, McBain, Carson is a very young core. I wouldn't mind seeing Pothier and another veteran here, and we're still awfully young.
100% agree on pretty much you've said here... All the wishes and dreams aside, the post above describes one of the most realistic scenarios.

dmonk is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 07:37 AM
  #56
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caniac247 View Post
He did say that money isn't his main concern right now which leads me to believe he wants more than a year. I'd do 2, but not sure I would go over that.
.
I agree and said the same thing earlier. When a guy talks about his family the way Pothier did, I doubt he would sign a 1 year deal.

He's only 32..so I would have no problem with a 2 or even 3 year deal as long as the money/cap hit isn't too high (and there isn't a ntc).

I'd be fine with a defense of Pitkanen, Gleason, McBain, UFA, Pothier, Carson as the top 6 would be fine for the next couple of years (of course, it depends on who the UFA is). Pothier can play a 5-6 role, and with injuries that we know will come (or if McBain struggles), he can step into the top 4 as needed.

It's not like keeping him would prevent some youngsters from playing. IMO, guys like Rodney, Borer, and Harrison will always be AHL/NHL tweeners who will get time in the NHL when injuries occur. In a few years when Pothier's contract expires, maybe guys like Dumoulin will be ready.

Boom Boom Anton is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 07:51 AM
  #57
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
As for the rest of it, I'm 100% convinced that even though JR realizes that he *has* to work in some kids, we won't be looking at a "development" season. He's going to try to win, too. And I think he should. We have plenty of pieces to win, including an elite center and an elite goalie. And although we *need* to be younger, we've already shed a lot of older guys. And it's likely that at least one of Brindy/Samsonov isn't back. So I won't mind if we sign a couple of vets (one forward, one d-man) with an eye toward 2010-11.

Staal, Sutter, Jokinen, Cole, LaRose, Kostopoulos, Ruutu and Dwyer will be back up front, and let's add one more for whoever survives the Brindy/Sammy buyout war. That's nine. One veteran, two kids. Still pretty young.
If I was JR, I'd do everything under my power to somehow get Rod to retire/take buy-out (even though I think Rod is too proud to not finish his contract) and I'd keep both Samsonov and Cole.

I know we all bust on Cole and Samsonov, but unlike Rod, they are playing for their future next year. Both are in the final year of their contract and both are only 31 so they will be looking for another contract from someone. They have extra incentive to perform next season.

I also would not sign Whitney. I've like Ray, but I just have a feeling that in the next year or 2, he will hit a wall. Also, when he signs his next contract, it is likely his last. Given that he isn't playing for another future contract and he already has a cup, you have to wonder if he'd still do "whatever it takes" to win. I know these guys are professionals and are paid to do that, but I still wonder.

Boom Boom Anton is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 08:13 AM
  #58
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,688
vCash: 50
Well, today is the big day and the Draft Lottery is tonight. It's likely we stay 7th, or possible slip to #8. However, it's not impossible we climb to #3,4,5 or 6. Getting #3-4 would be tremendous as it would give us an opportunity to land one of the big defenceman in the draft in either Fowler or Gudbranson.

As much as I wanted as high of a pick possible (top 2), knowing this team kept their foot on the gas until game #82 is indeed a good feeling. Will the Hockey Gods be good to us?

Guerzy is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 08:23 AM
  #59
What the Faulk
The Real Swede Shady
 
What the Faulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 25,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
I'm just not sure what we gain by having Legace back. For one, we have a major logjam of prospects if we re-sign him. For another, we're already paying three guys (although Peters is an RFA) backup goalie money. And thirdly, we're advocating a full-on youth movement everywhere else, why not backup goalie? What would the actual difference in wins and losses be if we go Peters over Legace? One game? Maybe?

As an aside, I'm always entertained at how much time we spend talking about the backup goalie position. Seriously, can you even name all the backup goalies in the NHL? OK, so Peters didn't look ready this time. Maybe after a playoff run in Albany and an NHL training camp, he'll be fine. Or maybe, Pogge will be the star of camp. Who knows? Who cares? All I know is that if our backup goalie is playing a lot, it's because something is wrong with Cam, so we're screwed either way.

As for the rest of it, I'm 100% convinced that even though JR realizes that he *has* to work in some kids, we won't be looking at a "development" season. He's going to try to win, too. And I think he should. We have plenty of pieces to win, including an elite center and an elite goalie. And although we *need* to be younger, we've already shed a lot of older guys. And it's likely that at least one of Brindy/Samsonov isn't back. So I won't mind if we sign a couple of vets (one forward, one d-man) with an eye toward 2010-11.

Staal, Sutter, Jokinen, Cole, LaRose, Kostopoulos, Ruutu and Dwyer will be back up front, and let's add one more for whoever survives the Brindy/Sammy buyout war. That's nine. One veteran, two kids. Still pretty young.

On defense, Pitkanen, Gleason, McBain, Carson is a very young core. I wouldn't mind seeing Pothier and another veteran here, and we're still awfully young.

Note on Pothier: He doesn't have a history of concussions. He had *one*. Granted, it was a *big* one, but it was only one. And in the end, it turned out to be an eye problem that was causing his post-concussion symptoms. Once that eye issue was diagnosed, I don't think there's been a single mention of symptoms relating to that concussion. I think the guy is a relatively young 32 who's healthy for the first time in a while, so I'd sign him for two years and not think twice.
I disagree. I think the difference over the course of a full season between Legace and Peters is more than 1 game. Also, Legace brings a backup you can trust so you don't have to play Cam 21 games in a row. Sure Peters had a decent 3-5 game start, but his final 3-5 games weren't very good. It's a huge gamble to stick him into the backup slot. If he falters, then you go back to playing Ward in 70 games, which he doesn't need to be doing. I know Peters is 24 years old already so it's getting time for him to make a statement in a season where the difference between a few wins will likely mean the difference between going to the playoffs or not, I'd rather see Legace back there.

Also, the Canes can only pick #3 (if they win the lottery), #7 (if a team in front of them wins the lottery) or #8 (if a team behind them wins the lottery). It's not like the NBA where most of the spots are up for grabs. It's also a bit more likely that they pick 8th rather than 3rd.


Last edited by What the Faulk: 04-13-2010 at 08:30 AM.
What the Faulk is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 11:03 AM
  #60
caniac247
Registered User
 
caniac247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caniac4ever View Post
Sounds like Pothier would be psyched to come back without having to break the bank. Even though most players say that kind of thing, I would hope he actually means it. Unless of course the most important thing is a 6 year contract with a NTC...
For as little as he spent here, he sure talked up the org, city, and fans. I liked how he said his stay exceeded his expectations. Said he heard all nice things about the org and city but he didn't think it could be that good and it is. I also liked how he called the fans unique than any other fans in the league. As in we actually take ownership in the team. We aren't just cheering, but take ownership in the team.

Pothier is A-OK in my book

And I seriously wouldn't mind having him back. We are going to his veteran experience. I know we have Gleason back there, but he seemed a bit overwhelmed knowing he could be the oldest guy on the back end

caniac247 is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 11:03 AM
  #61
Scorvo
Registered User
 
Scorvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Knightdale, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sam View Post
I disagree. I think the difference over the course of a full season between Legace and Peters is more than 1 game. Also, Legace brings a backup you can trust so you don't have to play Cam 21 games in a row. Sure Peters had a decent 3-5 game start, but his final 3-5 games weren't very good. It's a huge gamble to stick him into the backup slot. If he falters, then you go back to playing Ward in 70 games, which he doesn't need to be doing. I know Peters is 24 years old already so it's getting time for him to make a statement in a season where the difference between a few wins will likely mean the difference between going to the playoffs or not, I'd rather see Legace back there.

Also, the Canes can only pick #3 (if they win the lottery), #7 (if a team in front of them wins the lottery) or #8 (if a team behind them wins the lottery). It's not like the NBA where most of the spots are up for grabs. It's also a bit more likely that they pick 8th rather than 3rd.
I think Cam SHOULD be playing 70 games a year. We have an elite goalie and we need to ride him as one. Kipper, Brodeur, Lundqvist, Nabakov, Luongo, Fleury, Quick, Miller, Bryzgalov, and Anderson all had atleast 67 games played this year. All but one of those goalies is in the playoffs, and Lundqvist is the only reason the rangers got even close to the playoffs.

Edit: Forgot Kipper isn't in the playoffs, but still in the upper tier of goalies.

Scorvo is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 11:08 AM
  #62
caniac247
Registered User
 
caniac247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncpuckhog View Post
I also would not sign Whitney. I've like Ray, but I just have a feeling that in the next year or 2, he will hit a wall. Also, when he signs his next contract, it is likely his last. Given that he isn't playing for another future contract and he already has a cup, you have to wonder if he'd still do "whatever it takes" to win. I know these guys are professionals and are paid to do that, but I still wonder.
Have you listened to Whitney's interview? All I have to say is WOW

He was asked about coming back and is response was "we aren't talking about that today" and kind of had a snarl to his voice. During the whole interview he was snarly. Not the Ray we are used to seeing that's for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy
As much as I wanted as high of a pick possible (top 2), knowing this team kept their foot on the gas until game #82 is indeed a good feeling. Will the Hockey Gods be good to us?
I like how Staal called those teams out in his interview.

caniac247 is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 11:13 AM
  #63
caniac247
Registered User
 
caniac247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorvo View Post
I think Cam SHOULD be playing 70 games a year. We have an elite goalie and we need to ride him as one. Kipper, Brodeur, Lundqvist, Nabakov, Luongo, Fleury, Quick, Miller, Bryzgalov, and Anderson all had atleast 67 games played this year. All but one of those goalies is in the playoffs, and Lundqvist is the only reason the rangers got even close to the playoffs.

Edit: Forgot Kipper isn't in the playoffs, but still in the upper tier of goalies.
And that's likely what is going to happen if Cam's back doesn't act up. Which in that case, Legace would be the better choice. Legace can sit on the bench for 20 games. Peters on the other hand needs to play. He isn't at the point where he can sit for 20 games and then be expected to come in and get a win. I trust Legace with that role over Peters.

caniac247 is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 11:51 AM
  #64
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caniac247 View Post
Have you listened to Whitney's interview? All I have to say is WOW

He was asked about coming back and is response was "we aren't talking about that today" and kind of had a snarl to his voice. During the whole interview he was snarly. Not the Ray we are used to seeing that's for sure.
I agree...seemed to be something more than just being mad that they didn't make the playoffs. Not sure what went on behind closed doors, but "snarly" describes it well.

Boom Boom Anton is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 11:51 AM
  #65
What the Faulk
The Real Swede Shady
 
What the Faulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 25,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorvo View Post
I think Cam SHOULD be playing 70 games a year. We have an elite goalie and we need to ride him as one. Kipper, Brodeur, Lundqvist, Nabakov, Luongo, Fleury, Quick, Miller, Bryzgalov, and Anderson all had atleast 67 games played this year. All but one of those goalies is in the playoffs, and Lundqvist is the only reason the rangers got even close to the playoffs.

Edit: Forgot Kipper isn't in the playoffs, but still in the upper tier of goalies.
What do McElhinney, Danis, Valiquette, Greiss, Raycroft, Brent Johnson, Ersberg, Lalime, LaBarbera, and Budaj have in common? They all either suck or are unproven. Also, I said 70+ and only 6 goaltenders got more than 70 games.

In any event, you jumped on the wrong point. While I'd prefer to see Cam around 65 games, he certainly doesn't need to be starting 20+ in a row. Not too many goalies do that, regardless of how many games they do end up playing in a season. And the ones that do are guys like Brodeur who have proven that they're capable of doing that without injury. Cam hasn't proven that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caniac247 View Post
And that's likely what is going to happen if Cam's back doesn't act up. Which in that case, Legace would be the better choice. Legace can sit on the bench for 20 games. Peters on the other hand needs to play. He isn't at the point where he can sit for 20 games and then be expected to come in and get a win. I trust Legace with that role over Peters.
Another good point on why Legace is the better choice over Peters.

What the Faulk is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 12:10 PM
  #66
Scorvo
Registered User
 
Scorvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Knightdale, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sam View Post
What do McElhinney, Danis, Valiquette, Greiss, Raycroft, Brent Johnson, Ersberg, Lalime, LaBarbera, and Budaj have in common? They all either suck or are unproven. Also, I said 70+ and only 6 goaltenders got more than 70 games.

In any event, you jumped on the wrong point. While I'd prefer to see Cam around 65 games, he certainly doesn't need to be starting 20+ in a row. Not too many goalies do that, regardless of how many games they do end up playing in a season. And the ones that do are guys like Brodeur who have proven that they're capable of doing that without injury. Cam hasn't proven that.
Well that was kinda my point. Those guys are unproven, but since they have elite goalies in front of them they don't need a backup like Manny. And as far as the injury thing goes, I'm not too concerned. The leg laceration was a freak thing and could have happened to any of those guys, and I have a feeling the back situation was for precaution more than anything. And are those five games between 65 and 70 really that significant of a difference?

If you ask if I'm comfortable if Cam goes down relying on Peters, I absolutely am just like I'm comfortable letting McBain into the top 4 with only 14 games played or Cam starting 21 straight games if we are fighting for a playoff spot. Peters went 6-3-0 in his 9 games, including beating the Devils, the Penguins twice and the Caps. Yeah he stunk against the Sabres, but it happens even to guys like Brodeur and Cam. Eventually Peters is going to have to make the jump and I feel that he has nothing to prove in the AHL next year. People say he won't get the starts he needs here, but if we have a healthy Cam he never will. People also say he will have too many starts if Cam goes down. There is no ideal situation for him to develop with a young franchise goalie in front of him so let him play in the NHL, he's earned it.

Scorvo is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 12:24 PM
  #67
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,875
vCash: 2498
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sam View Post
What do McElhinney, Danis, Valiquette, Greiss, Raycroft, Brent Johnson, Ersberg, Lalime, LaBarbera, and Budaj have in common? They all either suck or are unproven. Also, I said 70+ and only 6 goaltenders got more than 70 games.

In any event, you jumped on the wrong point. While I'd prefer to see Cam around 65 games, he certainly doesn't need to be starting 20+ in a row. Not too many goalies do that, regardless of how many games they do end up playing in a season. And the ones that do are guys like Brodeur who have proven that they're capable of doing that without injury. Cam hasn't proven that.



Another good point on why Legace is the better choice over Peters.
Not that I disagree with you on keeping Legace, but I'd say you're wrong on some of the names you have listed to be sure.

Budaj had identical stats to Anderson this year for the Avs at a very respectable 2.64/.917. THis is a guy that was a starter for a couple of years so he's hardly unproven. I wouldn't want to rely on him for more then 30 games a year but the same can be said of Legace to me.

Johnson had a 2.76/.906. Not overly impressive, but the save percentage was actually slightly better then what Fleury put up. I wouldn't have signed him to the extension the Pens did, but he's hardly bad or unproven.

Ersberg has put up some decent numbers all 3 years he's been with the Kings including a 2.40/.906 this year. Not great but again, much like Johnson, right on par with the starter in LA in Quick. He definitely doesn't suck, and is relatively proven for a backup.

DaveG is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 12:47 PM
  #68
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorvo View Post
If you ask if I'm comfortable if Cam goes down relying on Peters, I absolutely am
When Cam went down, Legace and Peters put up very similar numbers. Legace is pretty much a known, but who's to say that Peters couldn't do better than he did with the experience he gained there?

geehaad is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 12:47 PM
  #69
What the Faulk
The Real Swede Shady
 
What the Faulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 25,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorvo View Post
Well that was kinda my point. Those guys are unproven, but since they have elite goalies in front of them they don't need a backup like Manny. And as far as the injury thing goes, I'm not too concerned. The leg laceration was a freak thing and could have happened to any of those guys, and I have a feeling the back situation was for precaution more than anything. And are those five games between 65 and 70 really that significant of a difference?
Cam also had the same back injury in the Pittsburgh series last year.

When it comes down to the playoffs, every game played is significant. The more rest the better. If Carolina doesn't play those two 7 game series last year are they out of gas in the ECF?

Quote:
If you ask if I'm comfortable if Cam goes down relying on Peters, I absolutely am just like I'm comfortable letting McBain into the top 4 with only 14 games played or Cam starting 21 straight games if we are fighting for a playoff spot. Peters went 6-3-0 in his 9 games, including beating the Devils, the Penguins twice and the Caps. Yeah he stunk against the Sabres, but it happens even to guys like Brodeur and Cam. Eventually Peters is going to have to make the jump and I feel that he has nothing to prove in the AHL next year. People say he won't get the starts he needs here, but if we have a healthy Cam he never will. People also say he will have too many starts if Cam goes down. There is no ideal situation for him to develop with a young franchise goalie in front of him so let him play in the NHL, he's earned it.
There's a difference between an unproven backup who's going to be directly challenged in the games he played vs. an unproven defender who can be hidden with a solid partner like Pitkanen.

Also, he wasn't just bad against Buffalo. He was bad against Phoenix and Florida, OK against Washington and OK in the 2nd Pittsburgh game (granted, he didn't play the whole game).

He's in a tough spot, that's for sure. If he's thrown in as the backup, he won't get the starts he needs. If Cam goes down, and he gets too many (and gets shelled) you run the risk of him losing confidence with no one to replace him. IMO, that's very risky.

My ideal situation for him would be to sign Legace to a 1 year deal for cheap, and let Peters prove himself in the AHL for another year. If he has a great start, no one says that Legace can't be traded (or waived, if he sucks) in December.

I guess it comes down to me believing that they can turn it around and make the playoffs next season, and I trust Legace in a backup role more so than Peters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG
Not that I disagree with you on keeping Legace, but I'd say you're wrong on some of the names you have listed to be sure.

Budaj had identical stats to Anderson this year for the Avs at a very respectable 2.64/.917. THis is a guy that was a starter for a couple of years so he's hardly unproven. I wouldn't want to rely on him for more then 30 games a year but the same can be said of Legace to me.

Johnson had a 2.76/.906. Not overly impressive, but the save percentage was actually slightly better then what Fleury put up. I wouldn't have signed him to the extension the Pens did, but he's hardly bad or unproven.

Ersberg has put up some decent numbers all 3 years he's been with the Kings including a 2.40/.906 this year. Not great but again, much like Johnson, right on par with the starter in LA in Quick. He definitely doesn't suck, and is relatively proven for a backup.
I figured I would be on a few of them, I just made a sweeping statement while only really glancing at their numbers. Still, I think that if these starters had better backups they'd be playing fewer games. Going back to the lockout, this year had a top-heavy games played list for goalies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad
When Cam went down, Legace and Peters put up very similar numbers. Legace is pretty much a known, but who's to say that Peters couldn't do better than he did with the experience he gained there?
Legace also kept up those numbers over a much longer period of time while Peters had a few good first games then tailed off. Peters very well may do better, but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take without insurance.

What the Faulk is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 01:00 PM
  #70
WoodGundy
Registered User
 
WoodGundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncpuckhog View Post
I agree...seemed to be something more than just being mad that they didn't make the playoffs. Not sure what went on behind closed doors, but "snarly" describes it well.
He was probably told, we would love to have you back, just not for "Cole money".

WoodGundy is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 01:03 PM
  #71
WoodGundy
Registered User
 
WoodGundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sam View Post
My ideal situation for him would be to sign Legace to a 1 year deal for cheap, and let Peters prove himself in the AHL for another year. If he has a great start, no one says that Legace can't be traded (or waived, if he sucks) in December.

I guess it comes down to me believing that they can turn it around and make the playoffs next season, and I trust Legace in a backup role more so than Peters.

Legace also kept up those numbers over a much longer period of time while Peters had a few good first games then tailed off. Peters very well may do better, but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take without insurance.
Definitely agreed.

WoodGundy is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 01:09 PM
  #72
caniac247
Registered User
 
caniac247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
When Cam went down, Legace and Peters put up very similar numbers. Legace is pretty much a known, but who's to say that Peters couldn't do better than he did with the experience he gained there?
They also shared time in net. Peters is not ready to sit for 20 games before he gets a start. He ain't ready to sit for 15 games. Ask any back up goalie and they will tell you that its the hardest thing to do. They have to sit for 15-20 games and then when they do get that chance, they have be prepared. Being a back up goalie in this league, especially now when coaches are playing their starter for 70 games, is a mental challenge. This is where Peters is not ready. He isn't mentally ready to sit for long periods. Legace being the veteran, knows what it takes to mentally prepare himself for the back up role behind an elite goalie whose going to play a ton of games.

In this situation Legace is the one I feel more comfortable with to get that win when Mo finally decides Cam needs a break.

caniac247 is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 01:22 PM
  #73
imayagainknowanson
Jailbait
 
imayagainknowanson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 6,726
vCash: 500
Today is the day! Top 5 pick, please, please, PLEASE.

imayagainknowanson is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 01:33 PM
  #74
ONO94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 235
vCash: 500
I agree-Peters needs to play to develop. Its not that he can't be a good back up--he's just not ready, development wise, to be a back up. LA is a good example to look at--Bernier is better than Edberg, but he needs to play on a regular basis and it wouldn't be wise to have him sitting behind Quick. If nothing else, Peters continues his development and Carolina either trades him next year to clear the log jam a bit once he can get a respectable return or they trade Manny at the deadline and call up Peters and then deal with the logjam at the end of the next season.

ONO94 is offline  
Old
04-13-2010, 01:43 PM
  #75
Gr8Dan
Registered User
 
Gr8Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caniacho View Post
Today is the day! Top 5 pick, please, please, PLEASE.
I wish we win but if we don't win the lottery, I hope only the oilers win. I just don't want to see a southeast team win it or boston either.

Gr8Dan is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:44 AM.

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.