Jump to content

Visit Rotoworld.comRotoworld Forums  
Rotoworld: MLB | NFL | NBA | NHL | NASCAR | CFB
Sports Talk Blogs: PFT | HBT | PBT | CFT | PHT
  Visit NBCSports.com

Photo
- - - - -

Do Goalies Matter?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 My Dinner With Andre

My Dinner With Andre

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:04 PM

Disclaimer: I am not talking about fantasy-wise

Over the past few years I've been beginning to think that the star NHL goalie is a thing of the past, and that investing in resources in a goalie (either via high draft pick, trade, or $$$) is a waste. The Flyers went to the finals with Michael-friggin-Leighton. Then they gave Bryzgalov like a 10-yr. deal or something. How'd that work out?

Look at all the no-names with great statistics: Brian Elliot, Josh Harding, Anton Khudobin.

Has Ryan Miller been a difference-maker in St. Louis?

This guy?

Posted Image

#2 gdon

gdon

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta

Posted 13 April 2014 - 03:32 PM

I think coaching plays more into goalie stats than most would think. Totally agree with you in your post. Saw a graph that had Martin Brodeur's career sv% broken up by coaching. As you would expect Lemaire, Robinson, (maybe Ftorek can't remember exactly) years were superb. Other years were sub par. Not saying he wasn't a certain HOF'er but the difference was stark. Another blogger looked at shot quality between Price and Rask last year. Rask hardly faced any shots from in the slot or screened and very little rebounds compared to Price who faced much tougher shots. It was an interesting look. I think the days of a goalie signing a 10 year 80 million dollar deal like Luongo's is done. Teams are starting to realize they need a goalie to not lose a game they don't need one to win it for them as long as they play good team defence in front of them.

#3 oresteez

oresteez

    Just Drafted

  • Probationary Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 15 April 2014 - 09:32 AM

. I think the days of a goalie signing a 10 year 80 million dollar deal like Luongo's is done. Teams are starting to realize they need a goalie to not lose a game they don't need one to win it for them as long as they play good team defence in front of them.


Have you met Henrik Lundqvist yet? How about his crazy contract? hahaha

Also, did you guys not notice Jonathan Quick practically win the cup for the Kings 2 years ago?

I kind of agree with you about sometimes you don't need an amazing goalie, but I also think that an amazing goalie can push a team farther than they deserve to go. Case in point--the Rangers right now. The Maple Leafs for a large chunk of the year while they made Bernier stand on his head and make 35+ saves every night. I think a cardboard cutout in net for Boston will finish the game with a decent save %, not to take anything away from their goalies...

#4 gdon

gdon

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta

Posted 16 April 2014 - 02:43 AM


. I think the days of a goalie signing a 10 year 80 million dollar deal like Luongo's is done. Teams are starting to realize they need a goalie to not lose a game they don't need one to win it for them as long as they play good team defence in front of them.


Also, did you guys not notice Jonathan Quick practically win the cup for the Kings 2 years ago?


But before that playoff run who had Quick as a top ten goalie? Just saying you can't predict when a goalie will get hot so why spend millions to over pay for one when a Bobrovsky or Crawford could have been had for cheap.

#5 NYR Fan 116894

NYR Fan 116894

    Hall of Famer

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,590 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 April 2014 - 04:50 PM

I really think a big part of it is having timely goaltending. Goaltending that gets hot come playoff time.

Personally, as a Rangers fan, in the salary cap era, I don't think it's such a smart move to give a goalie $9 million a year. I'd much rather pay a goalie $4 million while strengthening other parts of the team. I love having Lundqvist, but I feel having $9 million tied up with him greatly affects our ability to improve other parts of the team.
  • gdon likes this
Adam Brown (Fearless)=Hero. May you never be forgotten.

#6 SurlyRobot

SurlyRobot

    Superstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts

Posted 21 April 2014 - 01:08 AM

Aren't the Islanders still paying DiPietro too(speaking of horrible goalie contracts)? :P
  • gdon likes this

#7 NYR Fan 116894

NYR Fan 116894

    Hall of Famer

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,590 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 April 2014 - 03:55 PM

I'm just feeling that the goalie position is sort of trending towards the direction of the RB in football. You need one, but you don't need the best one to win. Maybe that's not the best comparison, I don't know.

Look at the Rangers-Flyers game yesterday. The Rangers have a 2-0 lead and have one of, if not the best goalie in the world in Henrik Lundqvist. Should be a win, correct? Well, the Flyers score 4 unanswered goals, and win the game 4-2. The Flyers have Emery in net, who is an experienced veteran, but let's face the facts here, Lundqvist is way better. Lundqvist has a 2-0 lead, but yet the Emery lead team comes back and wins.

Look at the Kings-Sharks game yesterday. Another great goalie in Quick has a 2-0 lead, but the Sharks score 7 unanswered to win 7-2.

This era isn't like the Brodeur era of the mid to late 90's where a 2-0 lead with Brodeur in net is almost monumental to come back from. We witnessed two of the top goalies in the game yesterday have 2-0 leads, and fail to end up winning the game. The majority of it is how the team plays in front of the goaltender, and if you have $7+ million tied up with a goalie, the team playing in front of the goalie most likely won't be very good.
  • gdon, SurlyRobot and My Dinner With Andre like this
Adam Brown (Fearless)=Hero. May you never be forgotten.

#8 My Dinner With Andre

My Dinner With Andre

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 21 April 2014 - 11:25 PM

1. I'm just feeling that the goalie position is sort of trending towards the direction of the RB in football. You need one, but you don't need the best one to win. Maybe that's not the best comparison, I don't know.

2. This era isn't like the Brodeur era of the mid to late 90's where a 2-0 lead with Brodeur in net is almost monumental to come back from. We witnessed two of the top goalies in the game yesterday have 2-0 leads, and fail to end up winning the game. The majority of it is how the team plays in front of the goaltender, and if you have $7+ million tied up with a goalie, the team playing in front of the goalie most likely won't be very good.


1. Agreed. It's a good comparison

2. Bingo.

#9 th3ory

th3ory

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 07:27 AM

I really think a big part of it is having timely goaltending. Goaltending that gets hot come playoff time.

Personally, as a Rangers fan, in the salary cap era, I don't think it's such a smart move to give a goalie $9 million a year. I'd much rather pay a goalie $4 million while strengthening other parts of the team. I love having Lundqvist, but I feel having $9 million tied up with him greatly affects our ability to improve other parts of the team.


Coming from another Ranger fan, they're only good because of Lundqvist. That has been the case for over 5 years now.

#10 My Dinner With Andre

My Dinner With Andre

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 23 April 2014 - 10:03 PM

MAF -- does he make a difference (no sarcasm intended)?

I mean he's got a .910 career save % so he's good, but was he worth the #1 overall pick in 2003 and is he worth whatever they're paying him today? The ship has sailed on dumping him for some assets, but I don't believe in my heart of hearts that the Pens would be much worse off by picking up two guys off street and applying the MAF savings elswhere

#11 My Dinner With Andre

My Dinner With Andre

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 05:12 PM

Ryan Miller lol

I guess if Halak was in goal the Blues would have been swept? ;)

Edited by My Dinner With Andre, 27 April 2014 - 05:16 PM.


#12 th3ory

th3ory

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts

Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:19 PM

Ryan Miller lol

I guess if Halak was in goal the Blues would have been swept? ;)

He wouldn't have done any worse.

#13 gdon

gdon

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta

Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:29 PM

MAF -- does he make a difference (no sarcasm intended)?

I mean he's got a .910 career save % so he's good, but was he worth the #1 overall pick in 2003 and is he worth whatever they're paying him today? The ship has sailed on dumping him for some assets, but I don't believe in my heart of hearts that the Pens would be much worse off by picking up two guys off street and applying the MAF savings elswhere


.910% isn't good at all. league average is .914. You could say that Pit plays more open and gives up better quality shots but I don't know if that's necessarily true because Vokoun was excellent behind the same team.


Ryan Miller lol

I guess if Halak was in goal the Blues would have been swept? ;)


This trade will haunt me all summer. I was just making a move in the goalie cats of my roto league and I had Stewart...watching both get shipped off to Buffalo killed any shot of making it into the money. And the futures bet I put on St. Lou to win the west went down the tubes too. Bring back John Davidson!! (he could play net again too)

#14 NYR Fan 116894

NYR Fan 116894

    Hall of Famer

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,590 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2014 - 02:02 PM


I really think a big part of it is having timely goaltending. Goaltending that gets hot come playoff time.

Personally, as a Rangers fan, in the salary cap era, I don't think it's such a smart move to give a goalie $9 million a year. I'd much rather pay a goalie $4 million while strengthening other parts of the team. I love having Lundqvist, but I feel having $9 million tied up with him greatly affects our ability to improve other parts of the team.


Coming from another Ranger fan, they're only good because of Lundqvist. That has been the case for over 5 years now.


I love Lundqvist. Probably my favorite player on the team. But that contract is going to hurt them real bad.

At that money, he's not worth it. You don't need a top level goalie to win. Honestly, I'd rather have a legit #1 center than Lundqvist at that price. Stepan is not a #1 C. He's just not. He is much better suited as a #2 C. Love the player, hate the contract. And it's only going to get worse because Lundqvist is getting older. He's not 24 years old, he's 32. $9 million is way too much to tie up with a goalie in today's day and age.

Hank has a .910 save percentage in these playoffs so far. I love Lundqvist and all, but that's unacceptable. And I'm sure someone will say, "Hey, it's a team sport. It's not all on him." And understandably so, however, if we weren't paying him $9 million, we'd be able to field a better team in front of the goalie. This contract affects multiple parts of the team, and may prevent us from getting that #1 C that we need.
  • gdon likes this
Adam Brown (Fearless)=Hero. May you never be forgotten.

#15 My Dinner With Andre

My Dinner With Andre

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 09:57 AM

Now MAF has two straight shutouts

The unpredictable world of NHL goaltending
  • gdon and SurlyRobot like this

#16 My Dinner With Andre

My Dinner With Andre

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 11:44 PM

So Boudreau decides to throw a rookie (John Gibson) with three career starts in net in a must-win game instead of Jonas Hiller.

Hmmm...

#17 gdon

gdon

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta

Posted 11 May 2014 - 09:13 PM

It'll be interesting to see where Hiller ends up next year, because it definitely won't be in Anaheim. Gibson is the future...the future is now.

#18 My Dinner With Andre

My Dinner With Andre

    On the Ballot

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 19 May 2014 - 08:00 PM

Dustin Tokarski, 5th round pick with 7 career starts getting the start game 2 of the Conference Finals? Man, these coaches really do not care who's in net anymore.

#19 gdon

gdon

    Allstar

  • Established Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta

Posted 20 May 2014 - 04:30 AM

"We took a swing ...and we gave up a lot to get Ryan and at the end of day we didn't accomplish as an organization what we needed to." -- St. Louis GM Armstrong. They've decided not to try to re-sign him. Sure hindsight is 20/20. I didn't like the move when it happened and said so on this forum. I think GMs don't get enough credit for the trades they don't make, but I give credit to Army for saying he made a move and didn't work...can't fault a guy for trying. I think injuries played more of a factor for the Blues than goaltending anyway. But Allen is a keeper and ST. Louis will be good for years to come.

Tough spot for Tokarski, but he played pretty well. Lundqvist is just in a zone right now and this series isn't over if they can find a way past him.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users