WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
herman said:
Tapatalk previews the last image posted in a thread, so everytime I check tapatalk and this thread shows unread posts, I see this gif.
Bravo.
Steve Stamkos?
- Thread starter sickbeast
- Start date
- Status
Tapatalk previews the last image posted in a thread, so everytime I check tapatalk and this thread shows unread posts, I see this gif.
Bravo.
mr grieves
New member
Nik the Trik said:
I don't have anything like decent recall of a full list of goalie transactions, but don't young, cheap guys with the ability to handle a significant workload tend to shake free and move about pretty often? I seem to recall a lot of teams operating in the space between 'sign a star' and drafting/developing your own guy in house.
bustaheims
Active member
mr grieves said:
The better goalies are pretty consistent and stay that way for sustained stretches. The volatility starts to come into play when you're looking at that middle tier of starting goalies.
Looking at the list of the top paid goalies, most of the guys that weren't among the leaders in Sv% were either injured for large chunks of the season (Price, Bobrovsky), just barely missed your cutoff (Lundqvist was also .920, Quick .918), are approaching the end of their careers but still putting up decent numbers (Miller .916, Smith .914), or had an off year (Rask - first time he's started 40+ games with a Sv% below .922). You're left with Rinne, who's seen injuries slow him down; and Lehtonen & Howard - the only two that really look like mistake contracts.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
bustaheims said:
If you exclude the losses, they were one of the hottest teams in the league.
bustaheims
Active member
mr grieves said:
How many of those teams are actually successful? I mean, if we're going to actually take advantage of the first half of Stamkos' contract, we need more than a guy who can simply "handle a significant workload." We need a guy who can excel with a significant workload. Those guys don't shake loose super frequently - and, when they do, it's usually at a significant cost.
Nik the Trik said:
Yeah, they aren't building exclusively through the draft. They've just put the right amount of importance it for team building to acquire necessary pieces in today's NHL to build an effective core and they have done enough of it now to start improving by other means as well.
They didn't draft Zaitsev and have him pencilled into the top 4. Gardiner and JVR aren't Leafs draftees. Our best goaltender this season was a Leafs Draftee, put through the ringer here, came out on top and we traded him.
Plus McKenzie and LeBrun are BOTH speculating that a number of the Leafs 12 picks this season are going to be traded for young, NHL ready players that we didn't draft either.
What do you think of that speculation?
Nik the Trik said:
The Sabres out of the group are currently the most flush with cap and the 2nd most convenient geographical location if he wants to be close to home. They are also 1 year ahead of the Leafs in their rebuild.
I'm going to speculate that they put in the highest bid.
mr grieves
New member
bustaheims said:
Well, the four teams in the Finals, for starters. Blues and Sharks both got far with tandems cobbled together of trades, reclamation projects, and not-stars they developed. The Lightning got someone who shook loose from Ottawa, went deep with him last year, and signed him to a big contract, which they're now trying to move. Pens just won the Cup with their younger, cheaper option and are now trying to move Fleury. -- I mean, seems there's been a pattern of teams going deep or winning with cheaper options, overpaying them, and regretting it as they're passed by teams getting value of cheaper, younger options.
Again, Mirtle:
McGarnagle
New member
I don't really care where he signs, as long as its not Toronto or Montreal for much different reasons.
Teams that make sense? I would think St. Louis or Florida.
Teams that make sense? I would think St. Louis or Florida.
groundskeeper willie
New member
Part of me hopes he doesn't sign with any team in the Leafs division because he is a very good player and I would prefer they didn't have to play against him too often.
Part of me hopes he does sign with a team in the Leafs division and signs such a huge contract that it screws their cap and prevents them from becoming too good.
Part of me hopes he does sign with a team in the Leafs division and signs such a huge contract that it screws their cap and prevents them from becoming too good.
bustaheims
Active member
mr grieves said:
The Blues struggled to go deep into the playoffs until Allen - the goalie they drafted and rode this spring - developed into a solid starter. When they rode mediocre goaltending, they had mediocre showings in the playoffs. This was only the 2nd time in the past decade they made it out of the 1st round.
San Jose gave up a 1st round pick to get their goalie - they're one of the teams that paid the significant cost I mentioned, and it remains to be seen whether or not this run was a one time thing.
The Pens drafted and developed both their goalies - they weren't "operating in the space between." They went from one highly thought of goalie prospect to another - and, like with Jones, it remains to be seen if Murray can actually handle the job full-time - he has yet to play a full season in the league, after all.
Tampa Bay is a different story, but I also wouldn't call Bishop a goalie that shook loose for a team to operate in the space between. He's a legit #1 and one of the better goalies in the league. They got awfully lucky that A) St Louis felt they could part with him and sent him to Ottawa, and that B) Ottawa was stupid enough to basically give him away because they had so much faith in Anderson and Lehner.
And, as for Mirtle's article, I've read it. I don't agree with it. It's really not a coincidence that the highest paid goalies are consistently among the league leaders in Sv%. Yes, there's a few less heralded goalies that have a season or two up there, but, the big money guys are up there almost every season. It doesn't make sense to invest in a middle tier guy, but in one of the best? It absolutely does. It just means you need to be smarter about your spending elsewhere.
It remains to be seen just how the Leafs will arrive at a solution in net, but even just competent NHL goaltending would be a start. I'd earmark at least 6 mil for that position, more or less depending, not necessarily for next year or the year after mind you.
Stamkos can't play net from what I understand.
Stamkos can't play net from what I understand.
Kin
New member
TBLeafer said:
Right, I didn't say exclusively. It's undeniable though that in just about every trade the Leafs have made since starting the rebuild(and you can present whatever ridiculous timeframe you want for when the rebuild began, it's a fact that they didn't really start tearing down the previous iteration of the team until last year's trade deadline) the Leafs haven't looked for NHL ready players but rather for picks/prospects to develop. The first Winnik trade, the Franson/Santorelli deal, the Kessel trade, the Phaneuf trade, Polak, Reimer, Matthias...all of those trades the only NHL ready pieces were effectively salary or placefillers. The Leafs were in them for picks/prospects.
The only possible exceptions are trading a 4th for Marincin and, although I don't agree with this reading of it, the 2nd Winnik deal(I think it was mainly a deal for the 2nd, you're higher on Carrick than I am). Those are relatively minor deals adding guys who probably won't be pieces of the core.
I've said repeatedly that this isn't about building exclusively through any one way but rather using each method judiciously and appropriately so your continued reliance on that straw man isn't surprising but it does need calling out. There's not really a difference between trading for a pick or trading for a prospect in this sense, the team that drafted them not really being important, and even a signing like Zaitsev fits into that mold. The Leafs can "pencil" him in for whatever they like, Burke used to pencil his entry level free agent signings in for big things all the time, but ultimately he's a low cost, low risk signing that doesn't really detract from building the team with patience unless you look at him as someone who's going to step into the team and immediately become a #2 on par with some of the better top pairings in the league. Being as I don't see him that way, he fits the mold of the sort of free agent they should be signing.
Again, to make this abundantly clear, trading for prospects, signing college ufa's, signing veterans to short term deals...I think all of those options can and should be used as the team tries to lay their foundation. That doesn't mean trading anyone on the team not drafted by them(and, conversely, if Kessel or Phaneuf had been Leafs draft picks trading them still would have been the right thing to do).
Also, you have to remember, I still think the Leafs are in the tear-down phase. So JVR and Gardiner being here doesn't say much to me. I've said elsewhere I think it's even money JVR gets dealt this summer and guys like Bozak may very well join him.
TBLeafer said:
Well, I'd have to actually see what they said specifically to respond to it with any sort of measure or consideration(I'm funny that way) but I suppose what I think immediately falls into two points. One, that over the years I've learned not to get two worked up by any sort of pre-draft speculation regardless of the source and two, I'd have to wait and see what shape it took before being able to effectively say whether or not it fit into what I think the Leafs are doing.
I mean I think it's pretty fair to say the Leafs aren't dealing the #1 pick for NHL ready players so it's not like they have much to work with. Low firsts and a high second(and thirds and fourths and fifths and so on) aren't likely to return a NHL ready player of that much significance so, like I said above, you can flip a third or fourth for someone like they did Marincin last year and not have it be incompatible with a slow, patient rebuild.
- Status