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

Don't pay for goaltending?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-23-2010, 08:17 PM
  #1
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,505
vCash: 500
Don't pay for goaltending?

Sharks General manager Doug Wilson seems to think this.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=325399

Quote:
Wilson noted a direction in the NHL in which teams have had great success with lower-paid goaltenders, most recently with Chicago winning the Stanley Cup with Antti Niemi, who made $827,000 this season.

"If you look at the trends in this league the last four or five years in particular and the dollars that are dedicated to that position," he said. "If you're dedicating $5 or $6 million, that's coming out of somewhere else."
I don't think Wilson's wrong on any of this, but I also don't think that means you can't win with a top goalie who's getting top dollar.

So can we win with so much money tied up with Hank in today's NHL?

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 08:21 PM
  #2
Dagoon44
Registered User
 
Dagoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Dagoon44 Send a message via Yahoo to Dagoon44
Hank is far from the problem. The problem is the crap that plays in front of him. The defense was soft as baby crap and to many forward don't back check on this team. In the NHL the top 12 goalies are interchangeable but I would rather have hank at 100% then Biron and taking a chance.


Last edited by Dagoon44: 06-23-2010 at 08:34 PM.
Dagoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 08:23 PM
  #3
John Torturella
Registered User
 
John Torturella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,832
vCash: 500
You can pay big money for goalies as long as you do not pay big money washed up, past their prime bums.

59 million dollars leaves room to pay for a big money goalie. The Sharks biggest problem is/was not their goaltending. Its big money forwards that do not show up in the playoffs.

And the Flyers probably would have won the Stanley Cup with say Henrik Lundqvist or a goalie of that caliber in goal.

Can you win without a big goalie? Sure. But if you have a goalie that can put your team on his back it gives you a definitive advantage.

John Torturella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 08:31 PM
  #4
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagoon44 View Post
Hank is far from the problem. The problem is the crap that plays in front of him. The defense was so as baby crap and to many forward don't back check on this team. In the NHL the top 12 goalies are interchangeable but I would rather have hank at 100% then Biron and taking a chance.
Damn, it seems like Dagoon is coming to his senses about Lundqvist!

As for the OP's question, why focus on Lundqvist as sucking up all the cap money when we have Redden, who makes almost the same as Lundqvist and contributes a lot less? At least Lundqvist earns his salary. Replace Redden with Pronger and it's a whole different ballgame.

The Sharks are in a predicament because they don't have a lot of cap space and had to choose between Marleau and Nabokov. If he didn't have to re-sign Marleau, I bet Wilson would have no problem handing out a $5-6 million contract to Nabby. If they plan on going with a second tier goalie, I hope they are thinking of upgrading their defense. The Sharks have a nice defense but it's not as good as Chicago or Philly.

OverTheCap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 08:34 PM
  #5
DogwoodFLY
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 33
vCash: 500
Flyers fan... but wouldn't this theory be somewhat ruined by the money Huet was getting?

DogwoodFLY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 08:45 PM
  #6
Richard Brads
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericnyrusername View Post
Sharks General manager Doug Wilson seems to think this.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=325399



I don't think Wilson's wrong on any of this, but I also don't think that means you can't win with a top goalie who's getting top dollar.

So can we win with so much money tied up with Hank in today's NHL?
i agree, i don't think he's wrong but there's not only one answer here.

if you swap campbell for lundqvist do you think they don't still win the cup? i think a lot of it comes down to who you give your big contracts to (in addition to good drafting), and you simply can't afford to give out bad contracts

Richard Brads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 08:50 PM
  #7
Leetch3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogwoodFLY View Post
Flyers fan... but wouldn't this theory be somewhat ruined by the money Huet was getting?
exactly...the hawks spent $7+ mil on goaltending this year just the much more expensive guy was sitting on the bench...

and before anyone jumps to the conclusion that you don't need a goaltender to win, i think we need to factor in the fact that chicago lucked out in a way that they faced a flyers team that also didn't have a goalie and niemi had to match an equally crappy goalie, not a legit #1.

if the flyers had even a decent #1 goalie behind the team they have the cup would be in philly right now

Leetch3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 09:06 PM
  #8
Banks3rdLineCenter
 
Banks3rdLineCenter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 2,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
exactly...the hawks spent $7+ mil on goaltending this year just the much more expensive guy was sitting on the bench...

and before anyone jumps to the conclusion that you don't need a goaltender to win, i think we need to factor in the fact that chicago lucked out in a way that they faced a flyers team that also didn't have a goalie and niemi had to match an equally crappy goalie, not a legit #1.

if the flyers had even a decent #1 goalie behind the team they have the cup would be in philly right now
They didn't "luck out" of anything. The Flyers made it to the Stanley Cup Finals by winning the Eastern Conference and they accomplished that with sub-par goaltending. There's nothing "lucky" about it.

As to your second point, the Flyers would have had to sacrifice players at other positions if they wanted a top tier goaltender. Maybe they don't trade for Pronger.

It took Doug Wilson all these years to find out what Ken Holland realized coming right out of the lockout.

I read an interview with Holland in THN sometime after the Wings won their last Cup. I've been looking for it on their site for a while and I can't find it but basically they asked him to elaborate on what his franchise does differently from everyone else. He specifically stated that where other teams will sink tons of money into goaltending, he'd rather invest that cap space in forwards and defense.

All that being said, this team is a bottom 5 team in the league without Henrik Lundqvist. However, in a perfect world, would I rather have a couple of elite forwards and D-men and a "mediocre" , low-paid goaltender? Absolutely. The goalie market is completely oversaturated.

Edit: This isn't the exact quote I had read in THN but this article references something else Holland said about the goalie market:

http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=2929

Quote:
My feeling is if you can get one of the five or six best goalies in the league you can spend the money. We can’t get into those guys, and the difference between the eighth goalie in the league and the 15th goalie, it’s a big difference in money. It’s not a big difference in performance.
Another article by Pierre Lebrun that references Holland's thinking:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/blog/_/name/n...ffs/id/5208198


Last edited by Banks3rdLineCenter: 06-23-2010 at 09:12 PM.
Banks3rdLineCenter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 09:17 PM
  #9
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,921
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
I don't understand the big deal made about goalies winning the Cup who aren't already established, big money superstars. It's happened before. Khabibulin wasn't exactly a sure thing when he didn't start a playoff game for Tampa in 2003. Won the Cup the next year. Mike Richter won the Cup after winning 69 games over parts of 4 seasons, none of which would be called stellar.

Doesn't mean you should go cheap in goal. Lots of big name goaltenders who get paid big salaries played huge roles in their teams' championship runs. For every Niemi or Ward there's a bunch of big time goalies with their names on the Cup--Brodeur, Hasek, Roy, Belfour to name a few. Are those teams Cup winners without spending the millions required to pay these goalies?

I wouldn't be concerned about Lundqvist at this point because the team is not close to competing for a Cup. Let's see him help the team make it back into the playoffs and then out of the second round for the first time in a long time before we worry about whether the Rangers really need to be spending the amount of money they are on him. Who knows how disappointing or successful his Rangers career will be at this point? In my opinion he's earned his salary so far.

And in the end, it's really about the performance of the entire team and not necessarily how much money you're pumping into each particular position. Sure, the Rangers pay Lundqvist a lot of money compared to what Chicago paid Niemi this season. But Lundqvist is the Rangers' best player and on most nights is the difference between them winning and losing.

NYR94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 09:20 PM
  #10
Banks3rdLineCenter
 
Banks3rdLineCenter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 2,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR94 View Post
I don't understand the big deal made about goalies winning the Cup who aren't already established, big money superstars. It's happened before. Khabibulin wasn't exactly a sure thing when he didn't start a playoff game for Tampa in 2003. Won the Cup the next year. Mike Richter won the Cup after winning 69 games over parts of 4 seasons, none of which would be called stellar.

Doesn't mean you should go cheap in goal. Lots of big name goaltenders who get paid big salaries played huge roles in their teams' championship runs. For every Niemi or Ward there's a bunch of big time goalies with their names on the Cup--Brodeur, Hasek, Roy, Belfour to name a few. Are those teams Cup winners without spending the millions required to pay these goalies?
Are those teams Cup winners if they spent those millions on goalies in a salary capped league?

Banks3rdLineCenter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 09:26 PM
  #11
Callahan Auto
Rational Police
 
Callahan Auto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 1,674
vCash: 500
All I'm getting out of this is that you don't overpay for players. The difference between elite goaltending and average goaltending is high but the difference between average and crappy goaltending isn't nearly as high. We have an elite goaltender that's worth every dollar and has nothing to do with this discussion.

Callahan Auto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 09:51 PM
  #12
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,294
vCash: 500
Have fun continuing to choke in the playoffs then.

SJ doesn't have the defense of the Flyers or Hawks so they can't afford to cheap out in the goaltending department.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 10:02 PM
  #13
gotmonte
Registered User
 
gotmonte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,545
vCash: 500
Once Redden and Drury are banished somewhere and Rosival goes away on a trade, we will be OK.

But as we sit, we are not a well build team in transition. We have young players lookin to tear up the NHL but the old times are taking up their cushie spots. Not happy about that at all.

Lets See with Sathers Cahonaz look like pre-draft

gotmonte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 10:17 PM
  #14
ThirdEye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,671
vCash: 500
Wilson is just giving excuses. Honestly, I agree with him to some extent, but like other mentioned, the cap allows for sufficient flexibility to build a solid team without being thrifty regarding the goalie position.

Of course you have to make smart decisions and Sather has made some terrible ones (Drury, Gomez, Redden are probably all in the top 5 worst contracts in the league).

I'm not really sure how 3 or so million would make our team much different. It would give us more room to improve depth, but it's not like it would turn the team around. And Drury and Redden will still be here

Sather really had little choice with Lundqvist. He proved he was a great young goalie and did earn that contract (imo at least). What was Sather really left to do? It would have been too much of a risk to start bargaining with him, especially since our goalie depth at the time was non-existent. I would have done the same thing

I think it makes sense in certain cases where the money could be better allocated to sign top end players like Malkin, Ovechkin, etc... but we don't have those players.

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 11:20 PM
  #15
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
It's a coincidence to me. And even when you don't have high paid goaltenders, you need GOOD goaltenders. Cam Ward and MAF may not have been paid amazing money when they went to the finals, but they were certainly top 10-15 goalies the years they went to the finals.

Prior to the lockout you've got Khabibulin, Brodeur, Osgood in his prime, Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour, etc. making it to the finals.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2010, 11:26 PM
  #16
HockeyGuy1985*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Paying an elite goalie 6.75 million is fine.. but not when you also pay 6.5 million for a Redden and 7.05 million for a Drury.

Thats why it hurts at the moment.

The money Redden, Drury and Rozsival make is nearly 18 million, and thats alot of money to be allocated elsewhere, which really, makes the goalie salary completely fine.

You can essentially pay any elite player any amount, it has more to do with the entire team's cap management than rather one player "taking up" space.

HockeyGuy1985* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 03:58 AM
  #17
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,711
vCash: 500
I don't think there is any 'best way' to win the cup. The main thing is you have as many quality players as possible and that you don't have big money players--Drury, Redden who underachieve expectations. Even with that you have to have a number of young players who can fill the holes that can't be plugged because of the built in limitations presented by the salary cap. By the way Chicago and Philadelphia are both going to be moving pieces because they can't hold their teams together.

Wilson is just trying to explain his own logic. It may work for him and it may not. The Sharks have always failed in the past even with more than the average talent year in and year out. As for the Wings--Yzerman, Lidstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg and you know what that is--good drafting. Players you can build a team around. Of the Rangers drafted players Lundqvist is the best example of a player you can build the team around.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 05:33 AM
  #18
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
in today's NHL, we are indeed paying too much for the goaltender position

but that's the least of my concerns with this team

i WISH we were in the position where Hank's contract was a concern....but as numerous people people have pointed out, he takes a back seat to Redden and Drury

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 05:38 AM
  #19
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericnyrusername View Post
Sharks General manager Doug Wilson seems to think this.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=325399

I don't think Wilson's wrong on any of this, but I also don't think that means you can't win with a top goalie who's getting top dollar.

So can we win with so much money tied up with Hank in today's NHL?
Detroit have won with avg goaltending. Carolina maybe didn't face the best teams at their best times, and Ward stood on his head.

MAF were very good. Before that you have a really long series of Roy, Brodeur and Belfour victorys.

Is it fair to say that its not important to have great goaltending to win? I don't know. The best goalies have been stuck on not so great teams.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 05:40 AM
  #20
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullichicken25 View Post
in today's NHL, we are indeed paying too much for the goaltender position

but that's the least of my concerns with this team

i WISH we were in the position where Hank's contract was a concern....but as numerous people people have pointed out, he takes a back seat to Redden and Drury
I don't know, how many teams fails to win because their goaltending sucked?

I've many times felt that it was the other way around, that teams didn't pay close enough attention to goaltending and therefor did not win a Cup. Philly. Ottawa. And many others.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 05:41 AM
  #21
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,346
vCash: 500
Of course an elite goalie alone doesn't win a cup, you need a great team, and you usually need a lot of money to have one. But if the Hawks can win the Cup while paying Campbell and Huet a combined $12 million, you can definitely pay Henrik $6.75 million and have a great team. And a great goalie still gives you better chances to win than an average one.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 08:24 AM
  #22
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,956
vCash: 500
The teams that win without elite goaltending are able to do so because they have a strong defense. The defense Sather has built is crap.

If Sather didn't waste so much cap space on Redden, Rozsival and Drury, he could use that money to actually build a good team. Well Sather obviously can't do it, he's tried and failed, but a good GM could.

So, since the team Sather built is Gaborik and Staal and a huge dropoff after that, we're going to be needing that elite goaltender to almost get us into the playoffs.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 09:04 AM
  #23
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Detroit have won with avg goaltending. Carolina maybe didn't face the best teams at their best times, and Ward stood on his head.

MAF were very good. Before that you have a really long series of Roy, Brodeur and Belfour victorys.

Is it fair to say that its not important to have great goaltending to win? I don't know. The best goalies have been stuck on not so great teams.
Wilson seems to think this is not just coincidence, that the best teams can not afford to have elite goaltending.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 09:55 AM
  #24
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by genericnyrusername View Post
Wilson seems to think this is not just coincidence, that the best teams can not afford to have elite goaltending.
And that is bs imo. If a team can pay Campbell $7.1 million and win the cup, they could pay $5-6 million for an elite goalie (and indeed they are paying that much to their backup...)

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2010, 10:13 AM
  #25
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
I think there are several ways you can go about building a cup winner. It just happened that the two goalies in the most recent finals were cheap and not elite.

Gigeure and Fleury were top goalies when they won their cups. Not to mention that Brodeur, Hasek, Roy, all have Stanley cups to their credit as well.

ocarina 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 06:37 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.