Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
101. Langer Monk
Posted: February 25, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4375887)
Flip, and to say:
Contraction won't happen - not when they are actually gearing up for a potential expansion into Quebec and Toronto (most likely). There's just no way they kill off Phoenix and one other.
While I always have liked 4 Divisions, this 4 conference thing is a solution to the wrong problem. Until there are 32 teams, there's no fair way to split 30 into 4. Flip Columbus and Winnipeg in the current 6 division setup and double secret swear to Detroit that they will move East 'next time', and in the meantime, show them how great the Chicago-Detroit can be.
102. zack
Posted: February 25, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4375920)
and w/r/t the conferences, my preference would be for something like this:
Yeah, totally. Why even have divisions that the Flyers don't play in? That 3rd conference is like going back to the stupid '67-'69 good/bad conferences.
Yeah, totally. Why even have divisions that the Flyers don't play in? That 3rd conference is like going back to the stupid '67-'69 good/bad conferences.
it's not like they're jerryrigged together. all of the conferences are contiguous, so it's not as if i'm taking the penguins and flyers and rangers, but moving the devils and islanders to the pacific division. there are no geographic outliers in the above alignment, it's just that all of the terrible franchises in the NHL happen to be linked by common factors (specifically climate, market size, and the lack of a history with the sport) that don't just make them unprofitable now, but really act as a barrier to them ever being profitable.
The Leafs are playing well so far this season. The Leafs are doing this despite the fact that they've been sitting second and third highest paid defensemen (Komisarek and Liles), are keeping a third defenseman, Jake Gardiner, a guy who made the All-Rookie team last year in the minors, and are without Lupul and Matt Fratin.
They've been getting great goaltending and that always is very important but I don't think it's a coincidence they've played better with Komisarek and Liles not in the lineup. Komisarek simply has been lost as a Leaf and I don't think the Leafs need both Liles and Gardiner as offensive defensemen.
I also want to say that Dion Phaneuf continues to be a mediocre player. He gets a ton of ice time and is currently sporting the worst plus/minus on the team. He's -6 despite playing for a team that has scored more goals than it has allowed.
16-0-3! And yet they dont have a big lead in thrre conference....going to be a sprint to the finish.
109. Cabbage
Posted: February 26, 2013 at 12:36 AM (#4376094)
#108 reminded me of the time in my life when I last saw "Meatwad for Pope" show up on BTF.
There wasn't exactly a hockey season at that time, but the Blackhawks still sucked.
Your Meatimence, I hope your upcoming reign as Roman Pontiff (which Patriarch Ovechkin will gladly welcome back into the arms of the Universal Church once you stop putting on airs) blesses the Men of Four Feathers with continued success.
110. Papa Squid
Posted: February 26, 2013 at 12:45 AM (#4376096)
I also want to say that Dion Phaneuf continues to be a mediocre player. He gets a ton of ice time and is currently sporting the worst plus/minus on the team. He's -6 despite playing for a team that has scored more goals than it has allowed.
Sorry, but +/- is an awful way to judge a player. Do you believe Mark Fraser at +13 or whatever he is is the best D-man on the club? Phaneuf's played fine this year -- he logs huge minutes against the toughest competition in every situation -- all the while carrying an AHLer as his partner (Mike Kostka earlier, and lately Korbinian Holzer), not to mention switching sides this year.
The question with the Leafs is, "Can the goaltending hold up?" Reimer pre-injury was back to his 2011 form. If that Reimer shows up, start printing the playoff tickets. I'm not yet sold on Scrivens, but he's played much better than expected the past couple weeks.
Do you believe Mark Fraser at +13 or whatever he is is the best D-man on the club?
Obviously not but he has played well. +/- isn't perfect but it is useful in my opinion.
Phaneuf's played fine this year -- he logs huge minutes against the toughest competition in every situation -- all the while carrying an AHLer as his partner (Mike Kostka earlier, and lately Korbinian Holzer), not to mention switching sides this year.
I meant mediocre as in ordinary, not bad but not great either. He hasn't been a star defenseman. BTW, Kostka was a plus-3 tonight, paired with Gunnarsson after entering the game a -7 playing predominantly with Phaneuf.
"Can the goaltending hold up?"
I don't think you can expect the goaltending to be as good as it has been so far but I think they will make the playoffs as long as it remains above average.
112. zack
Posted: February 26, 2013 at 08:41 AM (#4376171)
Plus/minus is not particularly useful. There is more noise than signal in the stat, and any conclusions drawn on it will be suspect.
I don't know that much about advanced stats with respect to hockey but just perusing a few sites I can't seem to find a ton of sites saying that he's better than I have rated him. I actually wouldn't mind some info on the topic.
114. Papa Squid
Posted: February 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4376321)
I don't think he's a Norris candidate, but I think he's an ordinary #1 defenseman. I'm not surprised Kostka is playing better on a different pairing. Gunnarson is a good defenseman and the Leafs missed him while he was out, but moreover, he's playing against easier competition. Holzer is struggling mightily on the top pairing. I'd like a Gunnar-Phaneuf pair, but I'm not surprised Carlyle is trying to spread them out.
Russlan, do you ever visit Pension Plan Puppets? They're like the baseball primer for Leafs fans.
the flyers just reacquired simon gagne for a 4th round pick.
i don't like it. the worst forwards on the team so far this season have been fedotenko and knuble, and gagne just doubles down on that. if the first line is hartnell-giroux-voracek and the third line is talbot-couturier-rinaldo, that means that gagne is either on the 2nd line with schenn and simmonds/briere/read, or he's on the 4th line with mcginn/fedotenko/knuble. in either case, i don't like it. he doesn't score enough to be on the 2nd line anymore, and as a 4th liner, he's way too soft.
i have no idea what they think he's going to be able to do here.
I've been there a few times but I didn't think they discussed a lot of statistical stuff on that site. I guess what I need is the hockey version of Rob Neyer to introduce me to this stuff.
the flyers just reacquired simon gagne for a 4th round pick.
Wow, I'm surprised the Kings just gave Gagne away like this. Penner's been better lately but at some point one of the forwards will go down and he would be useful. He must have been making noise about wanting to play.
i have no idea what they think he's going to be able to do here.
well, one game isn't exactly a conclusive answer, but i can kind of see what they think they'll get out of it.
they put gagne on couturier's wing, and that looks like it may awaken some of the offensive creativity that couturier has kind of buried to this point in his career. gagne isn't the same caliber of point-producer that he was earlier in his career, but it does appear as though he still has the knack of getting himself in a scoring position around the net. if couturier can get in the habit of feeding him the puck when he's in that position, that could actually fast track his development as an offensive threat.
119. Ebessan
Posted: February 27, 2013 at 11:17 PM (#4377444)
what if two of the teams were contracted? does the NHL really need teams in carolina, phoenix, tampa bay, and nashville? they've been talking about contraction for a while, but now that the CBA has been resolved, if it's ever going to be done, now would be the time.
If you just went insane with the scissors and came up with a completely deranged realignment, dump Florida, Phoenix, and Tampa (who REALLY don't deserve contraction, they have developed a good fanbase but there's just nowhere to put them)
5/6 against each conference rival, home and home against everyone else, 76/84 games. Nobody loses their absolute biggest rival, only Dallas and Winnipeg have blatantly awful schedules but they both already do. The only truly iconic seasonal pairing lost is Boston-Montreal, but neither of those teams particularly lack for rivals (and they still keep the home-and-home), unlike the Midwestern teams that can be put out (Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Nashville, and St. Louis).
I'd honestly want to see a 12 team playoff system with the top three from each guaranteed and three wild cards, but it is really, really hard to do byes in the NHL.
120. zack
Posted: February 28, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4377552)
Any format that does not preserve the San Jose - Winnipeg rivalry is worthless.
Is there any rhyme or reason to Quenneville's usage of Saad? First shift of the game he starts with Hossa and Toews. After which it sure seemed like he and Carcillo 'rotated' playing shotgun with those two. I'd much rather Saad get those minutes, with Carcillo playing on the fourth line with Frolik and someone other than Brandon Bollig.
Then again, maybe it's just my perception that's off -- Saad had 33% more TOI than Carcillo last night. I'd be curious to see the ES numbers, as it seems like Carcillo's return has resulted in fewer minutes for Saad on the top line.
125. squatto
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 11:49 AM (#4378336)
I'm going to tonight's Hawks game. Sadly, I haven't really been following them that closely due to my being in the Blackhawk NHL Gamecenter Live blackout zone. Still, I'm pretty pumped to see some live hockey.
126. squatto
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4378345)
So very excited, I had to say it twice.
127. zack
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4378463)
Is there any rhyme or reason to Quenneville's usage of Saad?
Yes, I think so. Bollig essentially did not play except for the first handful of minutes and after it was 3-0. Q was trying to avoid having Carcillo and Bollig on the ice at the same time (they only shared a single shift). I also think, with the lead, he was trying to prevent the Blues from taking liberties with Toews and Hossa. Everyone on 'hawks sites is railing about it, but against the Blues I don't think it's a problem. If it becomes a trend, then it's a problem. As for the ES TOI, Saad had a little over 2 minutes more than Carcillo.
128. puck
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4378497)
I thought teams rarely signed offer sheets to restricted free agents because the price was so steep (lots of draft picks in addition to throwing money at the player).
After Calgary signed Ryan O'Reilly to a sheet and the Avs matched, there were stories of "etiquette" about not signing offer sheets, and the Avs' GM seemed pissed. So, is there basically collusion on RFA's?
I like that the Avs matched during the game vs the Flames.
130. Copronymus
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4378518)
After Calgary signed Ryan O'Reilly to a sheet and the Avs matched, there were stories of "etiquette" about not signing offer sheets, and the Avs' GM seemed pissed. So, is there basically collusion on RFA's?
In this case, hilariously, it turned out to be good for Calgary that Colorado matched, because thanks to some weird loophole in the CBA, they would have had to put O'Reilly on waivers before he could play this season, meaning they would almost certainly have lost the draft picks for nothing. If any other GMs knew about that, it's at least a good reason why the sharks weren't circling O'Reilly.
131. zack
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4378528)
because thanks to some weird loophole in the CBA, they would have had to put O'Reilly on waivers before he could play this season
Because it's a certain point into the season or what?
132. APNY
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4378531)
Because it's a certain point into the season or what?
Because he played in the KHL after the NHL season started. It's the same rule that applied to Nabakov, Miettinen, and a whole bunch of other players over the last few years and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. A major screw up by the Flames GM.
That the rule was recently changed to exempt players already in the organization (which is why O'Reilly wont have to be waived by the Avs) should have made GMs more aware of the situation. In fact, just the other day Sather was talking about how the Rangers could bring back Zucarrello this year because of the rule change.
The Flames say they have a different interpretation of the rule, which could only be that they are arguing that giving up the picks in exchange for his rights essentially constitutes a trade. It's moot now, but good luck with that Feaster.
134. puck
Posted: March 01, 2013 at 04:12 PM (#4378554)
Sounds like the Avs really effed up their end as well.
They really didn't want to pay O'Reilly $5 million/yr so that's why he was a holdout, and yet they are now paying him that. They can't trade him for one year. If they keep him to the end of the contract, the deal is backloaded, so after 2013-14 his qualifying offer will have to be $6.5 million. But that will be complicated because a bunch of other contracts are coming up, too (Landeskog, Matt Duchene, Paul Stasny, Verlamov the goalie). Plus he missed half the season.
so, there's a flyer who has been ejected for hits in twoconsecutive games, and who is now suspended for 4 games for the latter hit.
now, personally, i don't think either hit was a blatant cheapshot, but i don't like either of them. the first one occurred with 20 seconds left in the 3rd period of a game that the flyers were leading 4-1, so despite the fact that it was textbook legal (his ejection was rescinded after the fact), i think it was actually the more egregious hit.
and the second one looks terrible. it looks like he left his feet, it looks like he led with his elbow, but his elbow was tucked to his body, and his feet only left the ice after he made contact. still, i don't like that hit, either. he was 5 seconds into a shift that consisted of him skating at full speed across the width of the ice to hit a guy whose head was down, and legal or not, it should have no place in the sport.
141. zack
Posted: March 04, 2013 at 09:18 AM (#4380063)
and his feet only left the ice after he made contact
Not a chance. And on the other one, I think he was lucky that he got thigh instead of knee. The reverse angle is damning, though it's possible it was not attempted kneeing, but Perreualt's turn screwed him up.
So, that Blackhawks-Red Wings game is getting lauded as game of the season, for the 4th consecutive year was the exemplar of how modern hockey should be played, with speed, skill and a minimum of shanahanigans...and they're moving them to separate conferences.
Yeah, I'm an insane hockey fan, and you're right, most people here don't chat hockey. It's all soccer all the time, it seems.
I was angry as #### during the B's game--as a B's fan, not interested in watching Emelin do his usual injure-then-turtle routine. They teach that on the Habs: how to be as big a cowardly lowlife as possible.
I can't ####### stand the Habs. I hate that team so much. The other rivalries the Bruins have I at least can respect the other teams, but the Canadiens are straight up punks.
So, that Blackhawks-Red Wings game is getting lauded as game of the season, for the 4th consecutive year was the exemplar of how modern hockey should be played, with speed, skill and a minimum of shanahanigans...and they're moving them to separate conferences.
Brought to you by the same people that thought another fan alienating lockout was a good idea.
I think the Leafs are going to actually make the playoffs this year. They've survived the injury an injury to their starting goaltender, Reimer, and their backup, Scrivens, has proven to be capable. They have quality guys that are ready to step in when they come back from injury in Lupul and Frattin. They have three guys in Gardiner, Liles, and Komasirek who are ready to step in when they need reinforcements on defense. Not only that, but teams like the Devils, Senators, and
I know making the playoffs is a modest goal for most franchises but this is the Leafs. We will take our victories where we can get them. I'd love to see them trade for a legitimate #1 center and actually think they have the pieces to do so.
158. zack
Posted: March 06, 2013 at 10:25 AM (#4381851)
#1 was the LEGENDARY Roman Hamrlik, for those not playing at home. He was waived yesterday.
And #4 (Kovalev) was cut yesterday. Brian Rolston (previous #5) retired in the offseason and Jason Arnott (previous #6) failed his physical earlier and is unlikely to play again. So if Teemu and Jagr retire after this year, the entire top of the list will turn over this season, from the high 1300's to the low 1200's in Ray Whitney, "Elbows" Doan and Iginla.
159. zack
Posted: March 06, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4381891)
and sorry but it's hard not to be a fanboy of this time. This streak will end, but for now I will enjoy it. Also I agree whit what was said before I would like to see more Saad. I say thinks knowing Carcilio scored the game winner tonight.
The Maple Leafs won against the Senators and that gives them two straight against teams that they will compete with for a playoff spot. They are going to play the Bruins tomorrow night and that one could get ugly. Third game in four nights against a team that absolutely owns them.
163. zack
Posted: March 07, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4382804)
About a week ago, I picked last night to be the end of the 'hawks streak. It was the last game of a 5-in-7 and 3-in-4, against a struggling but fast team. Not that broken up about being wrong.
As good as the Hawks have been, I'd have to say that the Penguins have to be the favorites. They were red hot before they got Malkin back and traded for Iginla et al. They are absolutely stacked.
As long as the Leafs don't completely collapse, it looks like they are going to make the playoffs. It looked like they were going to collapse but now have not been beaten in regulation in their last 7 games.
As good as the Hawks have been, I'd have to say that the Penguins have to be the favorites. They were red hot before they got Malkin back and traded for Iginla et al. They are absolutely stacked.
Man, how long have the Flyers been trying to figure out their goaltending situation? It's amazing. It seems like whatever they decide, it's the wrong decision. They just traded for Chris Mason, formerly of the Blue Jackets. Mason was relegated to backup duty behind a guy, Bobrovsky, who has been excellent for Colombus after being traded by Philly.
The Leafs didn't do much at the deadline and that's what made the most sense for them anyway.
Crosby's season is probably over, and if so, the Penguins are going to be the most vulnerable 1 seed ever. Sometimes a good team just gets wrecked by injuries and there's not much else to say about it. Malkin's been in and out of the lineup, Letang has a groin injury that isn't going away until he rests for three months, and Paul Martin's season was over, just when he was actually being a useful player again. James Neal hasn't been injured that I know of, but he's had suckitis most of the year. The only really good player on the team that hasn't missed time injured is Brandon Sutter. And Chris Kunitz, if you count him as really good, I guess.
The Flyers' problem is that they refuse to acknowledge that NHL goaltenders are basically fungible. Numerous teams have this problem, but the combination of being in Philadelphia, a long string of bad goaltending luck, and a front office flailing around desperately trying to fix the perceived problem has blown it out of proportion there.
The Flyers' problem is that they refuse to acknowledge that NHL goaltenders are basically fungible.
I think you need excellent goaltending to win in the NHL playoffs. Sometimes, that can be provided by a good goalie getting hot and sometimes it is provided by an excellent goalie. I don't think goaltenders are fungible at all if competing for a Cup is a reasonable expectation for your team.
I don't think goaltenders are fungible at all if competing for a Cup is a reasonable expectation for your team.
By way of counterpoint I'll just list the last ten Stanley Cup winning goaltenders:
Jonathan Quick
Tim Thomas
Antti Niemi
Marc-Andre Fleury
Chris Osgood
Jean-Sebastien Giguere
Cam Ward
Nikolai Khabibulin
Martin Brodeur
Dominik Hasek
In fairness setting the cutoff at ten years stops it just as a short run of Hall of Fame goalies winning Cups is concluding. In counter-fairness, if I set it at eight years instead of ten I have list with no HOF goalies on it at all and several that were just random guys that got hot in the playoffs or had a career year (Khabibulin, Ward, Giguere, Niemi, and, as unduly hyped being a #1 pick made him, Fleury. Also Quick may well fall into that category.)
Sorry, but I don't think the evidence supports your argument. Goaltenders in the NHL are like running backs in the NFL: dramatically overvalued because (a) they have an obviously important job, and (b) at lower levels of competition where skill disparity is much greater, they do matter a lot. But at the highest level there's a certain minimum skill you need to play there, and past that minimum the returns diminish extremely quickly.
Investing big cap space in a goalie, in the current NHL cap environment, is probably always a mistake. Put another way, the Flyers' blunder wasn't investing heavily in Bryzgalov; it was investing heavily in a goalie at all. Take that $5-6 million a year in cap space and invest it in a great defenseman or a couple good ones and it will be better for your team's defense.
It's funny but I look at that list and I see some very talented guys. Quick had two excellent seasons prior to this one (a weird one because of the lookout). Thomas had a pretty superb run of 5 years. Fleury is an obviously talented guy whose results haven't always matched the talent but there's a reason he was picked first overall. I'll give you Osgood because the Wings always ran a pretty good system. Giguere's overall numbers aren't outstanding but his prime was excellent. Ward has been excellent for most of the last five years.
We may actually be in agreement. I think there are about 15 goalies who are talented enough to win a Cup in the NHL, half of them by playing like they normally do and the other half are talented guys who need to be hot during the playoffs. That might be fungible to some people.
We may actually be in agreement. I think there are about 15 goalies who are talented enough to win a Cup in the NHL, half of them by playing like they normally do and the other half are talented guys who need to be hot during the playoffs. That might be fungible to some people.
That's where our disagreement lies; I think there are about 40 of them.
The reason Fleury was picked #1 was that he was (and is) extraordinarily agile even for a goaltender, and it caused everyone to think 'ZOMG next Dominik Hasek!' Unfortunately he has severe ADD and probably already holds the career record for soft goals allowed. He offsets this somewhat by making a number of genuinely remarkable saves that a lot of goaltenders could not make. On balance, though, he is and always has been a below-average goaltender.
It's the same thing with the Flyers. The more bad luck you have with goalies the more inclined you get to panic and keep changing them every few months, and the problem snowballs.
The Maple Leafs' struggles keeping the puck out of their net have a lot more to do with bad defensemen than bad goaltenders.
Man, how long have the Flyers been trying to figure out their goaltending situation? It's amazing. It seems like whatever they decide, it's the wrong decision.
ain't that the truth.
i think the best case scenario is that the flyers buyout bryzgalov, tender mason so that he's on the team next year, and resign joacim eriksson, who was drafted by the flyers and is tearing apart the SEL.
Take that $5-6 million a year in cap space and invest it in a great defenseman or a couple good ones
matt carle makes $5+ million per year and he is neither a great defenseman nor a good one.
We may actually be in agreement. I think there are about 15 goalies who are talented enough to win a Cup in the NHL, half of them by playing like they normally do and the other half are talented guys who need to be hot during the playoffs. That might be fungible to some people.
That's where our disagreement lies; I think there are about 40 of them.
i'm closer to agreement with 40 than 15. but then i think an issue that comes into play is that a lot of those 40 goalies are backups to one of the other 40 goalies (schneider and luongo in VAN, quick and bernier in LA), and also that a lot of those 40 goalies play on teams that have nowhere near enough talent to sniff the playoffs, let alone the cup.
The Maple Leafs' struggles keeping the puck out of their net have a lot more to do with bad defensemen than bad goaltenders.
It's a chicken or the egg argument. Are the Leafs actually better defensively this year or are they doing better because Reimer has played well. I happen to think Reimer is a quality goalie. He has a very good minor league track record and has played quite well in the NHL when healthy. Are the Leafs better because of the defense or does the Leaf defense look better because of their goaltending?
181. zack
Posted: April 03, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4403825)
The problem with goalies is that a bad one can absolutely tank a great team into irrelevance, but a great goalie doesn't guarantee you great goaltending either. It's pretty much the same as relief pitching, you need it to win but it doesn't make sense to pay top dollar for it.
Pretty crazy deadline day after all that talk about how it would be historically slow.
My team will probably use both compliance buyouts, so I shouldn't complain, but I'm pissed that the Flyers are going to get to buy out Bryzgalov. That management team should be punished for a decade for their stupendously awful decision making. You could see this coming the day they signed that contract.
182. MHS
Posted: April 03, 2013 at 09:38 PM (#4403853)
2 of those 10 goalies are sure fire hall of famers (Marty and Dom) a third (thomas) had arguably the greatest season a goalie has ever had and has been mentioned as a hall of famer. Without commenting on the others, who are largely good or better players... that doesn't seem fungible,
Nonsense.
183. zack
Posted: April 03, 2013 at 09:53 PM (#4403866)
Conveniently, both the "sure-fire" hall of famers are wildly overrated, and that argument would lose badly, since Hasek had two seasons better than Thomas' best. Quick, Thomas, Brodeur and Hasek are great goalies, but that doesn't prove anything more than Niemi, Osgood, Khabibulin and Giguere do the other way.
Is there anyone who does a transaction oracle for the NHL? I check puck daddy and TSN and the hockey news, but none of them understand even basic value in the modern NHL, or if they do, they throw it out the window every other analysis. It doesn't have to be advance stats or anything, just that they understand basic concepts like the cap, the difference between a player with years left and one who's contract is expiring, that even great players can be bad values if their contracts suck, that draft picks have real value, that all prospects aren't the same, etc.
matt carle makes $5+ million per year and he is neither a great defenseman nor a good one.
Yeah, well, as with all contracts in all sports, you can't really help a front office that goes around giving big contracts to mediocre players.
The Penguins have a similar problem (James Neal, to a lesser extent Chris Kunitz) where they put a decent but fairly mediocre forward who has a nice enough shot but doesn't really add value in any other facet of the game with one of the most talented offensive centers in the game, and when he scores a bunch of goals they think they have a star and give him star money. You can't get away with that kind of mistake with the modern cap, especially not when you're already grossly overpaying your goaltender and have two bona fide superstars requiring max contracts. It leaves you with no choice but to fill out your roster with guys making near the minimum.
edit: naturally having two superstars is a problem every other team would love to have. I'm just commenting on the cap space challenges it presents.
edit 2: I wonder if the Penguins play terrible defense and lose in the first round again (which is certainly possible if Crosby doesn't play) they would consider buying Fleury out. Up till now there's no way they could have done it without inciting a fan mutiny, but another early and ugly playoff exit could swing the prevailing fan opinion the other way.
Is there anyone who does a transaction oracle for the NHL? I check puck daddy and TSN and the hockey news, but none of them understand even basic value in the modern NHL, or if they do, they throw it out the window every other analysis. It doesn't have to be advance stats or anything, just that they understand basic concepts like the cap, the difference between a player with years left and one who's contract is expiring, that even great players can be bad values if their contracts suck, that draft picks have real value, that all prospects aren't the same, etc.
I'd say Hockey Prospectus, but it looks like they only analyzed Dallas' deals.
What do you think of the Handzus trade? I think it's a good move if it keeps Bollig and/or Mayers out of the lineup, but I'm not sure if he'll be able to keep up with the Hawks' overall speed. I'm getting Andrew Brunette deja vu (though Handzus should not be near the top line).
186. zack
Posted: April 03, 2013 at 10:33 PM (#4403895)
I think he's a lot more Ryan Johnson than John Madden, and I don't get it, to be honest.
The newspapers all lead with it being a move to bolster the faceoffs, but that makes no sense. Yeah, he's won 55% of his faceoffs this year, but in the past 3 he was around 51, which is nothing special. And if they wanted a FOGO (face-off get-off) guy, they have Mayers, who has actual bonafides at the dot. Plus, you know, faceoffs aren't that important. The only thing he's good at anymore are shootouts, which are irrelevant for the hawks now, and penalty killing, at which the hawks have been excellent. It's a no-cost move since they have cap space and there's no more roster limit, but I don't see the point. The downside is Q plays him at 2C and it's Brunette redux, like you say.
The Penguins have a similar problem (James Neal, to a lesser extent Chris Kunitz) where they put a decent but fairly mediocre forward who has a nice enough shot but doesn't really add value in any other facet of the game with one of the most talented offensive centers in the game, and when he scores a bunch of goals they think they have a star and give him star money.
You'd think the owner of the team (Mario Lemieux) would remember when he played and how he turned a journeyman (Rob Brown) into a star (for a couple of seasons), and avoid making the same mistake.
i think the best case scenario is that the flyers buyout bryzgalov, tender mason so that he's on the team next year, and resign joacim eriksson, who was drafted by the flyers and is tearing apart the SEL.
LOL, Joacim Erikson. There's a reason he's in Europe.
The Penguins have a similar problem (James Neal, to a lesser extent Chris Kunitz)
Neal was a good player in Dallas. But yes, I hope they give Kunitz a contract he doesn't deserve. And that Iginla doesn't take much of a pay cut. They have 7 or 8 UFAs, 3 or 4 RFAs and only about $8M in cap space next year. They're not on the verge of crippling themselves but they did some mortgaging this year, and Malkin and Letang hit free agency after next season.
Neal was a good player in Dallas. But yes, I hope they give Kunitz a contract he doesn't deserve.
This is probably pretty likely since Crosby and Kunitz are BFFs.
Neal was a good player in Dallas. But yes, I hope they give Kunitz a contract he doesn't deserve. And that Iginla doesn't take much of a pay cut. They have 7 or 8 UFAs, 3 or 4 RFAs and only about $8M in cap space next year. They're not on the verge of crippling themselves but they did some mortgaging this year, and Malkin and Letang hit free agency after next season.
Letang's as good as gone. He'll command max or near-max money and they don't have the cap space. I'm not sure how I feel about this; he's extremely talented, but also injured almost constantly. I think I'm OK with letting another team overpay him to hop in and out of the lineup for the next seven years.
You're saying a below average goalie can win you a Cup. Which has never happened.
Except it has. Fleury and Osgood were both below-average goalies when they played for the Cup two consecutive years.
Except it has. Fleury and Osgood were both below-average goalies when they played for the Cup two consecutive years.
Osgood was good (say that five times fast) in 07-08. In 08-09 he wasn't, but they didn't win. Fleury wasn't great (and has since become overrated) but I don't see 15 goalies that were better than him that year.
192. Yardape
Posted: April 04, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4404187)
Osgood was good (say that five times fast) in 07-08.
By what measure? He was 22nd in raw save percentage. By Alan Ryder's Point Contribution analysis, he was the 31st best goalie in the NHL regular season. Niemi was 19th in his Cup-winning season. I think they were both below-average goalies who won the Cup. Ward wasn't even the starter for most of his Cup-winning season and doesn't rank in the top 30 of Point Contribution goalies for that year.
By what measure? He was 22nd in raw save percentage.
Where are you getting 22nd from? I see him being 16th among starters. Anyways, save percentage isn't the be all and end all. Lundqvist was a little worse despite leading the league in shutouts, Luongo was a little better. Those two of course were well above average goalies.
I am giving Osgood too much credit on memory. He split the season with Hasek that year, who wasn't very good. I agree that you don't need a sure fire HOFer to win between the pipes, but I don't agree that there are 40 goalies that you can win with either. There's probably about 20.
ard wasn't even the starter for most of his Cup-winning season
I don't see how that matters.
194. Yardape
Posted: April 04, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4404266)
Where are you getting 22nd from?
I...don't know. Sorry about that, you are right.
There's probably about 20.
I think this is about right, and means that it is possible to win with a below-average starter. I don't know if that makes them truly fungible, but there sure aren't a lot of goalies I would give a big contract to. (As a Montreal fan, though, I will be happy if Carey Price proves me wrong about this).
I think this is about right, and means that it is possible to win with a below-average starter. I don't know if that makes them truly fungible, but there sure aren't a lot of goalies I would give a big contract to.
It all depends on how you define "average." Is the 16th best goalie really "below average"? From a strict sense, okay, but what is separating him from the 15th best? Or 12th best? Personally I like tiers or groupings better. Of course, it's all subjective anyway. Completely agree there are only a handful of goalies I would give a big contract to. The problem is they're almost never available.
There is not one goaltender in the NHL right now I would give a big contract (more than about $3.5 million a year) to. There hasn't been since Hasek and Roy were at their peaks, I don't think. Brodeur just on consistency, maybe, but there's a lot of question as to where his skill starts and the Devils' team defense ends.
I might spare him $4M because he's so marketable. I would certainly not go as high as $5. Which is why I'd never have a consensus "best goalie in the league" on my team; they cost max contracts or damn close to it, and no goalie can be worth that much cap space. There just isn't enough gap between the best goalie in the NHL and the 25th best to justify it.
Alex Ovechkin has scored 16 goals in his last 14 games. That's not points, that's goals. He now is tied with Stamkos for the league lead. It's nice to see Ovechkin be the guy he was a few years ago. The guy was so dynamic.
200. Copronymus
Posted: April 09, 2013 at 04:22 PM (#4408777)
It's nice to see Ovechkin be the guy he was a few years ago.
I'm just glad to get a brief respite from the constant "What's Wrong With Ovechkin" columns, when the answer is just that goalscorers peak relatively young and the team got a fair bit worse/was coached by someone out of his depth.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Contraction won't happen - not when they are actually gearing up for a potential expansion into Quebec and Toronto (most likely). There's just no way they kill off Phoenix and one other.
While I always have liked 4 Divisions, this 4 conference thing is a solution to the wrong problem. Until there are 32 teams, there's no fair way to split 30 into 4. Flip Columbus and Winnipeg in the current 6 division setup and double secret swear to Detroit that they will move East 'next time', and in the meantime, show them how great the Chicago-Detroit can be.
Yeah, totally. Why even have divisions that the Flyers don't play in? That 3rd conference is like going back to the stupid '67-'69 good/bad conferences.
Garbage. Certainly not worth breaking up Detroit and Chicago over. If I was a fan of either team I'd be in conniptions.
They've been getting great goaltending and that always is very important but I don't think it's a coincidence they've played better with Komisarek and Liles not in the lineup. Komisarek simply has been lost as a Leaf and I don't think the Leafs need both Liles and Gardiner as offensive defensemen.
I also want to say that Dion Phaneuf continues to be a mediocre player. He gets a ton of ice time and is currently sporting the worst plus/minus on the team. He's -6 despite playing for a team that has scored more goals than it has allowed.
There wasn't exactly a hockey season at that time, but the Blackhawks still sucked.
Your Meatimence, I hope your upcoming reign as Roman Pontiff (which Patriarch Ovechkin will gladly welcome back into the arms of the Universal Church once you stop putting on airs) blesses the Men of Four Feathers with continued success.
Sorry, but +/- is an awful way to judge a player. Do you believe Mark Fraser at +13 or whatever he is is the best D-man on the club? Phaneuf's played fine this year -- he logs huge minutes against the toughest competition in every situation -- all the while carrying an AHLer as his partner (Mike Kostka earlier, and lately Korbinian Holzer), not to mention switching sides this year.
The question with the Leafs is, "Can the goaltending hold up?" Reimer pre-injury was back to his 2011 form. If that Reimer shows up, start printing the playoff tickets. I'm not yet sold on Scrivens, but he's played much better than expected the past couple weeks.
Obviously not but he has played well. +/- isn't perfect but it is useful in my opinion.
Phaneuf's played fine this year -- he logs huge minutes against the toughest competition in every situation -- all the while carrying an AHLer as his partner (Mike Kostka earlier, and lately Korbinian Holzer), not to mention switching sides this year.
I meant mediocre as in ordinary, not bad but not great either. He hasn't been a star defenseman. BTW, Kostka was a plus-3 tonight, paired with Gunnarsson after entering the game a -7 playing predominantly with Phaneuf.
"Can the goaltending hold up?"
I don't think you can expect the goaltending to be as good as it has been so far but I think they will make the playoffs as long as it remains above average.
Russlan, do you ever visit Pension Plan Puppets? They're like the baseball primer for Leafs fans.
i don't like it. the worst forwards on the team so far this season have been fedotenko and knuble, and gagne just doubles down on that. if the first line is hartnell-giroux-voracek and the third line is talbot-couturier-rinaldo, that means that gagne is either on the 2nd line with schenn and simmonds/briere/read, or he's on the 4th line with mcginn/fedotenko/knuble. in either case, i don't like it. he doesn't score enough to be on the 2nd line anymore, and as a 4th liner, he's way too soft.
i have no idea what they think he's going to be able to do here.
Wow, I'm surprised the Kings just gave Gagne away like this. Penner's been better lately but at some point one of the forwards will go down and he would be useful. He must have been making noise about wanting to play.
they put gagne on couturier's wing, and that looks like it may awaken some of the offensive creativity that couturier has kind of buried to this point in his career. gagne isn't the same caliber of point-producer that he was earlier in his career, but it does appear as though he still has the knack of getting himself in a scoring position around the net. if couturier can get in the habit of feeding him the puck when he's in that position, that could actually fast track his development as an offensive threat.
If you just went insane with the scissors and came up with a completely deranged realignment, dump Florida, Phoenix, and Tampa (who REALLY don't deserve contraction, they have developed a good fanbase but there's just nowhere to put them)
EAST: Boston-Buffalo-Carolina-Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-New Jersey-New York-New York-Washington.
CENTRAL: Chicago-Columbus-Detroit-Minnesota-Montreal-Nashville-Ottawa-St. Louis-Toronto.
WEST: Anaheim-Calgary-Colorado-Dallas-Edmonton-Los Angeles-San Jose-Vancouver-Winnipeg.
5/6 against each conference rival, home and home against everyone else, 76/84 games. Nobody loses their absolute biggest rival, only Dallas and Winnipeg have blatantly awful schedules but they both already do. The only truly iconic seasonal pairing lost is Boston-Montreal, but neither of those teams particularly lack for rivals (and they still keep the home-and-home), unlike the Midwestern teams that can be put out (Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Nashville, and St. Louis).
I'd honestly want to see a 12 team playoff system with the top three from each guaranteed and three wild cards, but it is really, really hard to do byes in the NHL.
That is all.
Then again, maybe it's just my perception that's off -- Saad had 33% more TOI than Carcillo last night. I'd be curious to see the ES numbers, as it seems like Carcillo's return has resulted in fewer minutes for Saad on the top line.
Yes, I think so. Bollig essentially did not play except for the first handful of minutes and after it was 3-0. Q was trying to avoid having Carcillo and Bollig on the ice at the same time (they only shared a single shift). I also think, with the lead, he was trying to prevent the Blues from taking liberties with Toews and Hossa. Everyone on 'hawks sites is railing about it, but against the Blues I don't think it's a problem. If it becomes a trend, then it's a problem. As for the ES TOI, Saad had a little over 2 minutes more than Carcillo.
After Calgary signed Ryan O'Reilly to a sheet and the Avs matched, there were stories of "etiquette" about not signing offer sheets, and the Avs' GM seemed pissed. So, is there basically collusion on RFA's?
My read is that it's probably not formal collusion, but the culture looks very harshly on signing RFAs so most GMs avoid it at all costs. Brian Burke was about to rent a barn to have a fistfight with Kevin Lowe after the Penner offer sheet.
In this case, hilariously, it turned out to be good for Calgary that Colorado matched, because thanks to some weird loophole in the CBA, they would have had to put O'Reilly on waivers before he could play this season, meaning they would almost certainly have lost the draft picks for nothing. If any other GMs knew about that, it's at least a good reason why the sharks weren't circling O'Reilly.
Because it's a certain point into the season or what?
Because it's a certain point into the season or what?
Because he played in the KHL after the NHL season started. It's the same rule that applied to Nabakov, Miettinen, and a whole bunch of other players over the last few years and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. A major screw up by the Flames GM.
That the rule was recently changed to exempt players already in the organization (which is why O'Reilly wont have to be waived by the Avs) should have made GMs more aware of the situation. In fact, just the other day Sather was talking about how the Rangers could bring back Zucarrello this year because of the rule change.
They really didn't want to pay O'Reilly $5 million/yr so that's why he was a holdout, and yet they are now paying him that. They can't trade him for one year. If they keep him to the end of the contract, the deal is backloaded, so after 2013-14 his qualifying offer will have to be $6.5 million. But that will be complicated because a bunch of other contracts are coming up, too (Landeskog, Matt Duchene, Paul Stasny, Verlamov the goalie). Plus he missed half the season.
Well, both teams have been effing it up for years. That's how they got into this situation.
now, personally, i don't think either hit was a blatant cheapshot, but i don't like either of them. the first one occurred with 20 seconds left in the 3rd period of a game that the flyers were leading 4-1, so despite the fact that it was textbook legal (his ejection was rescinded after the fact), i think it was actually the more egregious hit.
and the second one looks terrible. it looks like he left his feet, it looks like he led with his elbow, but his elbow was tucked to his body, and his feet only left the ice after he made contact. still, i don't like that hit, either. he was 5 seconds into a shift that consisted of him skating at full speed across the width of the ice to hit a guy whose head was down, and legal or not, it should have no place in the sport.
Not a chance. And on the other one, I think he was lucky that he got thigh instead of knee. The reverse angle is damning, though it's possible it was not attempted kneeing, but Perreualt's turn screwed him up.
So, that Blackhawks-Red Wings game is getting lauded as game of the season, for the 4th consecutive year was the exemplar of how modern hockey should be played, with speed, skill and a minimum of shanahanigans...and they're moving them to separate conferences.
Sorry we're not cheerleading for your Hawks.
I was angry as #### during the B's game--as a B's fan, not interested in watching Emelin do his usual injure-then-turtle routine. They teach that on the Habs: how to be as big a cowardly lowlife as possible.
Brought to you by the same people that thought another fan alienating lockout was a good idea.
I know making the playoffs is a modest goal for most franchises but this is the Leafs. We will take our victories where we can get them. I'd love to see them trade for a legitimate #1 center and actually think they have the pieces to do so.
I didn't finish my thought there. I wanted to say that those teams are struggling right now.
Name the NHL's active leader in games played. No cheating.
And #4 (Kovalev) was cut yesterday. Brian Rolston (previous #5) retired in the offseason and Jason Arnott (previous #6) failed his physical earlier and is unlikely to play again. So if Teemu and Jagr retire after this year, the entire top of the list will turn over this season, from the high 1300's to the low 1200's in Ray Whitney, "Elbows" Doan and Iginla.
oh its 21-0-3 now.... halfway home.
As long as the Leafs don't completely collapse, it looks like they are going to make the playoffs. It looked like they were going to collapse but now have not been beaten in regulation in their last 7 games.
The Leafs didn't do much at the deadline and that's what made the most sense for them anyway.
The Flyers' problem is that they refuse to acknowledge that NHL goaltenders are basically fungible. Numerous teams have this problem, but the combination of being in Philadelphia, a long string of bad goaltending luck, and a front office flailing around desperately trying to fix the perceived problem has blown it out of proportion there.
I think you need excellent goaltending to win in the NHL playoffs. Sometimes, that can be provided by a good goalie getting hot and sometimes it is provided by an excellent goalie. I don't think goaltenders are fungible at all if competing for a Cup is a reasonable expectation for your team.
By way of counterpoint I'll just list the last ten Stanley Cup winning goaltenders:
Jonathan Quick
Tim Thomas
Antti Niemi
Marc-Andre Fleury
Chris Osgood
Jean-Sebastien Giguere
Cam Ward
Nikolai Khabibulin
Martin Brodeur
Dominik Hasek
In fairness setting the cutoff at ten years stops it just as a short run of Hall of Fame goalies winning Cups is concluding. In counter-fairness, if I set it at eight years instead of ten I have list with no HOF goalies on it at all and several that were just random guys that got hot in the playoffs or had a career year (Khabibulin, Ward, Giguere, Niemi, and, as unduly hyped being a #1 pick made him, Fleury. Also Quick may well fall into that category.)
Sorry, but I don't think the evidence supports your argument. Goaltenders in the NHL are like running backs in the NFL: dramatically overvalued because (a) they have an obviously important job, and (b) at lower levels of competition where skill disparity is much greater, they do matter a lot. But at the highest level there's a certain minimum skill you need to play there, and past that minimum the returns diminish extremely quickly.
Investing big cap space in a goalie, in the current NHL cap environment, is probably always a mistake. Put another way, the Flyers' blunder wasn't investing heavily in Bryzgalov; it was investing heavily in a goalie at all. Take that $5-6 million a year in cap space and invest it in a great defenseman or a couple good ones and it will be better for your team's defense.
We may actually be in agreement. I think there are about 15 goalies who are talented enough to win a Cup in the NHL, half of them by playing like they normally do and the other half are talented guys who need to be hot during the playoffs. That might be fungible to some people.
That's where our disagreement lies; I think there are about 40 of them.
The reason Fleury was picked #1 was that he was (and is) extraordinarily agile even for a goaltender, and it caused everyone to think 'ZOMG next Dominik Hasek!' Unfortunately he has severe ADD and probably already holds the career record for soft goals allowed. He offsets this somewhat by making a number of genuinely remarkable saves that a lot of goaltenders could not make. On balance, though, he is and always has been a below-average goaltender.
The Maple Leafs' struggles keeping the puck out of their net have a lot more to do with bad defensemen than bad goaltenders.
ain't that the truth.
i think the best case scenario is that the flyers buyout bryzgalov, tender mason so that he's on the team next year, and resign joacim eriksson, who was drafted by the flyers and is tearing apart the SEL.
matt carle makes $5+ million per year and he is neither a great defenseman nor a good one.
i'm closer to agreement with 40 than 15. but then i think an issue that comes into play is that a lot of those 40 goalies are backups to one of the other 40 goalies (schneider and luongo in VAN, quick and bernier in LA), and also that a lot of those 40 goalies play on teams that have nowhere near enough talent to sniff the playoffs, let alone the cup.
It's a chicken or the egg argument. Are the Leafs actually better defensively this year or are they doing better because Reimer has played well. I happen to think Reimer is a quality goalie. He has a very good minor league track record and has played quite well in the NHL when healthy. Are the Leafs better because of the defense or does the Leaf defense look better because of their goaltending?
Pretty crazy deadline day after all that talk about how it would be historically slow.
My team will probably use both compliance buyouts, so I shouldn't complain, but I'm pissed that the Flyers are going to get to buy out Bryzgalov. That management team should be punished for a decade for their stupendously awful decision making. You could see this coming the day they signed that contract.
Nonsense.
Is there anyone who does a transaction oracle for the NHL? I check puck daddy and TSN and the hockey news, but none of them understand even basic value in the modern NHL, or if they do, they throw it out the window every other analysis. It doesn't have to be advance stats or anything, just that they understand basic concepts like the cap, the difference between a player with years left and one who's contract is expiring, that even great players can be bad values if their contracts suck, that draft picks have real value, that all prospects aren't the same, etc.
Yeah, well, as with all contracts in all sports, you can't really help a front office that goes around giving big contracts to mediocre players.
The Penguins have a similar problem (James Neal, to a lesser extent Chris Kunitz) where they put a decent but fairly mediocre forward who has a nice enough shot but doesn't really add value in any other facet of the game with one of the most talented offensive centers in the game, and when he scores a bunch of goals they think they have a star and give him star money. You can't get away with that kind of mistake with the modern cap, especially not when you're already grossly overpaying your goaltender and have two bona fide superstars requiring max contracts. It leaves you with no choice but to fill out your roster with guys making near the minimum.
edit: naturally having two superstars is a problem every other team would love to have. I'm just commenting on the cap space challenges it presents.
edit 2: I wonder if the Penguins play terrible defense and lose in the first round again (which is certainly possible if Crosby doesn't play) they would consider buying Fleury out. Up till now there's no way they could have done it without inciting a fan mutiny, but another early and ugly playoff exit could swing the prevailing fan opinion the other way.
I'd say Hockey Prospectus, but it looks like they only analyzed Dallas' deals.
What do you think of the Handzus trade? I think it's a good move if it keeps Bollig and/or Mayers out of the lineup, but I'm not sure if he'll be able to keep up with the Hawks' overall speed. I'm getting Andrew Brunette deja vu (though Handzus should not be near the top line).
The newspapers all lead with it being a move to bolster the faceoffs, but that makes no sense. Yeah, he's won 55% of his faceoffs this year, but in the past 3 he was around 51, which is nothing special. And if they wanted a FOGO (face-off get-off) guy, they have Mayers, who has actual bonafides at the dot. Plus, you know, faceoffs aren't that important. The only thing he's good at anymore are shootouts, which are irrelevant for the hawks now, and penalty killing, at which the hawks have been excellent. It's a no-cost move since they have cap space and there's no more roster limit, but I don't see the point. The downside is Q plays him at 2C and it's Brunette redux, like you say.
You'd think the owner of the team (Mario Lemieux) would remember when he played and how he turned a journeyman (Rob Brown) into a star (for a couple of seasons), and avoid making the same mistake.
LOL, Joacim Erikson. There's a reason he's in Europe.
Neal was a good player in Dallas. But yes, I hope they give Kunitz a contract he doesn't deserve. And that Iginla doesn't take much of a pay cut. They have 7 or 8 UFAs, 3 or 4 RFAs and only about $8M in cap space next year. They're not on the verge of crippling themselves but they did some mortgaging this year, and Malkin and Letang hit free agency after next season.
You're saying a below average goalie can win you a Cup. Which has never happened.
Agreed. Niemi is the only outlier to me, and if the Flyers didn't have dogshit in goal he wouldn't be on the list.
This is probably pretty likely since Crosby and Kunitz are BFFs.
Letang's as good as gone. He'll command max or near-max money and they don't have the cap space. I'm not sure how I feel about this; he's extremely talented, but also injured almost constantly. I think I'm OK with letting another team overpay him to hop in and out of the lineup for the next seven years.
Except it has. Fleury and Osgood were both below-average goalies when they played for the Cup two consecutive years.
Osgood was good (say that five times fast) in 07-08. In 08-09 he wasn't, but they didn't win. Fleury wasn't great (and has since become overrated) but I don't see 15 goalies that were better than him that year.
By what measure? He was 22nd in raw save percentage. By Alan Ryder's Point Contribution analysis, he was the 31st best goalie in the NHL regular season. Niemi was 19th in his Cup-winning season. I think they were both below-average goalies who won the Cup. Ward wasn't even the starter for most of his Cup-winning season and doesn't rank in the top 30 of Point Contribution goalies for that year.
Where are you getting 22nd from? I see him being 16th among starters. Anyways, save percentage isn't the be all and end all. Lundqvist was a little worse despite leading the league in shutouts, Luongo was a little better. Those two of course were well above average goalies.
I am giving Osgood too much credit on memory. He split the season with Hasek that year, who wasn't very good. I agree that you don't need a sure fire HOFer to win between the pipes, but I don't agree that there are 40 goalies that you can win with either. There's probably about 20.
I don't see how that matters.
I...don't know. Sorry about that, you are right.
I think this is about right, and means that it is possible to win with a below-average starter. I don't know if that makes them truly fungible, but there sure aren't a lot of goalies I would give a big contract to. (As a Montreal fan, though, I will be happy if Carey Price proves me wrong about this).
It all depends on how you define "average." Is the 16th best goalie really "below average"? From a strict sense, okay, but what is separating him from the 15th best? Or 12th best? Personally I like tiers or groupings better. Of course, it's all subjective anyway. Completely agree there are only a handful of goalies I would give a big contract to. The problem is they're almost never available.
You wouldn't pay Henrik Lundqvist $4M?
I'm just glad to get a brief respite from the constant "What's Wrong With Ovechkin" columns, when the answer is just that goalscorers peak relatively young and the team got a fair bit worse/was coached by someone out of his depth.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main