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.
$3 mil is what I figured he'd end up signing for. I dunno, I think it's a good deal for both sides. But this is definitely, and I mean definitely, Cloutier's last chance to prove he can be a playoff goaltender.
I know some think Cloutier is a pretty poor keeper, and really I'm sick to death of arguing over it. However, I was worried he'd get much more, and I think he is about ready to become quite a goaltender in the playoffs when hockey is played again.
I like the fact that its an one-year deal.
1.) Feeds Cloutier some line (flops like a fish in playoffs) and motivates him to fight for a new contract next year.
2.) If he bends over again in the playoffs this year then its buh-bye for good.
3.) Doesn't matter too much if the CBA changes the financial climate of the league.
4.) Gives Morrison the indication that he isn't going to get his 3 - 3+ year long-term contract.
Like the Tanguay move, this was a wise signing. Arbitration was an area the Nucks needed to avoid at all costs with Cloutier. I figured last year would be his last chance to prove he was the Nucks goalie, but after playing such a great year.......and getting hurt in the playoffs, I think he definitely earned another chance with the team. At the very least, he will be able to get the team to the playoffs......although I think he has the ability and possibly even the maturity now, to carry them deeper. Time will tell, but I would have to agree with PG's assertion that this is Cloutier's last chance. At 3 million......he has to perform where it counts, and if he doesn't.......I think he is gone, and Auld is allowed to step in.
I guess the new Canucks GM hasn't seen Clout's '02,'03 playoff performances. I guess the Canuck fans will be letdown once again.
In 2002 the Canucks were supposed to be steamrolled by the Detroit Red Wings, a juggernaut force at the time. Most analysts thought a 4-0 domination was an accurate estimate and mind you, this was before Detroit choked to Calgary and Anaheim and was actually playing hockey to perfection in every single area with Hasek in net. Albeit Cloutier didn't steal games 1 or 2 but he was excellent and allowed the Canucks to jump to a 2-0 lead. Maybe Lidstrom's goal from center ice drowned all of Vancouver's confidence but Cloutier played well in game 4 and 5. I don't think he did too badly considering we lost to the eventual Cup Champions that had 8 hall-of-famers,
In 2003, Cloutier played great hockey and allowed us to overcome the Blues in 7 games. Cloutier even continued playing great in games 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the Minnesota series. Sure he choked in games 5, 6 & 7 but still, the whole team did bad in front of him. Cloutier isn't great but he is still a top 20 goalie in the league overall and a top 10-15 goalie in the regular season.
3 mils isn't a lot considering the Canucks hadn't made the playoffs in 5 years before we had Cloutier. Every subsequent year the Canucks have improved as a team and made the playoffs every season. Cloutier may or maynot be a terrible goalie in the playoffs but accounting his age & other achievements for Vancouver, he isn't toooooo bad a match.
I can think of maybe 20 goalies I'd rather have than Cloutier. I'm not talking about for the long-term like a Lehtonen or Montoya, but rather for one season only.
*blindly throws insults at Cloutier because everyone is doing it, even though he is likely better than half the starters in the league*
That isn't unreasonable; it'd put him around 15, not counting teams that may have two starters or other such situations. He may not be the best goaltender but the 'Nucks aren't going to find anything better right now. I see him as Osgoodesque... not great but he can win a cup if the team around him plays worthy of Lord Stanley.
I can think of maybe 20 goalies I'd rather have than Cloutier. I'm not talking about for the long-term like a Lehtonen or Montoya, but rather for one season only.
But who is available??? Of the current FA crop only a Sean Burke strikes me as an improvement. And that is if he returns to full form from last seasons injury concerns. Otherwise there aren't any real improvements over Cloutier out there.
But who is available??? Of the current FA crop only a Sean Burke strikes me as an improvement. And that is if he returns to full form from last seasons injury concerns. Otherwise there aren't any real improvements over Cloutier out there.
Oh yeah this is definately Cloutier's last stand, but I can still see Auld taking over if he starts to slip this season, and I prefer Auld over Cloutier anyways
But who is available??? Of the current FA crop only a Sean Burke strikes me as an improvement. And that is if he returns to full form from last seasons injury concerns. Otherwise there aren't any real improvements over Cloutier out there.
Kevin Weekes wasn't qualified by CAROLINA after being their starter. He was here once before and completely flamed out, his only playoff experience was as a backup to Irbe, and his work ethic and attitude have been called into question before. He is not an upgrade over Cloutier.
Vancouver's been there and done that. Crawford and Weekes don't get along. It's not gonna happen.
I'd love to see Cloutier get the boot personally, but there's just no better options out there at the moment that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg in a trade.
Oh yeah this is definately Cloutier's last stand, but I can still see Auld taking over if he starts to slip this season, and I prefer Auld over Cloutier anyways
and everybody was saying how much better Hedberg was and how he was going to steal the starters job once Dan would slip. once he was put in the Canucks system he flopped, choked in the playoffs, and was beaten out by a guy with 14 games experience. Dan easily beat out Hedberg to keep the starting job.
I can think of maybe 20 goalies I'd rather have than Cloutier. I'm not talking about for the long-term like a Lehtonen or Montoya, but rather for one season only.
Ok whip out your list then.
I'll help you out a bit.
Suppose you eliminate Lehtonen, Montoya, Fleury, Blackburn, LeClaire, Noronen, Miller, Ahonen et al
In no particular order
Brodeur
Theodore
Belfour
Turco
Giguere
Khabibulin
Nabokov
Kiprusoff
Luongo
Those were 9 who would be consensusly better than Cloutier imo
Imo, Cloutier is on the same level with guys like Biron, Thibault, Aebischer, Denis, Esche, Vokuon. They also happen to be in the same age group.
Then you have guys like Osgood, Joseph, Legace, Kolzig, Hasek, Dunham, Lalime, Roloson and Burke who are also on the same level (some may be slightly [and I mean slightly] better) but older.
Then you have younger players who are also on the same level (or slightly worse) in Raycroft and Dipietro.
I'd like to see your 20.
Those are the only reasonable choices imo. Weekes is terrible, please don't bring him up. He sucked in Vancouver and sucking once is enough. Also, don't bring up people like Gerber or Garon or Toskala or Prusek as they haven't proven anything yet. Imo there also shouldn't be any more candidates other than the ones I've listed above.
Ok whip out your list then.
I'll help you out a bit.
Suppose you eliminate Lehtonen, Montoya, Fleury, Blackburn, LeClaire, Noronen, Miller, Ahonen et al
In no particular order
Brodeur
Theodore
Belfour
Turco
Giguere
Khabibulin
Nabokov
Kiprusoff
Luongo
Those were 9 who would be consensusly better than Cloutier imo
Imo, Cloutier is on the same level with guys like Biron, Thibault, Aebischer, Denis, Esche, Vokuon. They also happen to be in the same age group.
Then you have guys like Osgood, Joseph, Legace, Kolzig, Hasek, Dunham, Lalime, Roloson and Burke who are also on the same level (some may be slightly [and I mean slightly] better) but older.
Then you have younger players who are also on the same level (or slightly worse) in Raycroft and Dipietro.
I'd like to see your 20.
Those are the only reasonable choices imo. Weekes is terrible, please don't bring him up. He sucked in Vancouver and sucking once is enough. Also, don't bring up people like Gerber or Garon or Toskala or Prusek as they haven't proven anything yet. Imo there also shouldn't be any more candidates other than the ones I've listed above.
I wouldn't say Kipper YET! Cloutier, also played fairly well until he got injured! He made a great save, that kept us in the game. Take this from a Cloutier basher. Cloutier has the ability to burn the Canucks in the ass if we don't re-sign him, but that is a choice I'm willing to take for an improvment. Also the only good playoff goalies Vancouver IMO has had where Richard Brodeur, and Kirk Mclean. Gary Smith was something, but we hardly had him, but he was with us he was a monster! Also if Kipper has another strong season next year I would put him with the best. Biron is also better than Cloutier too IMO.
I wouldn't say Kipper YET! Cloutier, also played fairly well until he got injured! He made a great save, that kept us in the game. Take this from a Cloutier basher. Cloutier has the ability to burn the Canucks in the ass if we don't re-sign him, but that is a choice I'm willing to take for an improvment. Also the only good playoff goalies Vancouver IMO has had where Richard Brodeur, and Kirk Mclean. Gary Smith was something, but we hardly had him, but he was with us he was a monster! Also if Kipper has another strong season next year I would put him with the best. Biron is also better than Cloutier too IMO.
I agree that Cloutier is better than Kipper, and I also think he is better than Biron and Aebischer. Clouts has had a consistantly good save % and makes saves when they count, unlike Biron, who must compete for the starting position with Noronen.
And Aebischer and Turco choked worse in the playoffs than Cloutier. Cloutier was keeping his team afloat when they were falling apart due to a noticable lack of effort.
