Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SterioDesign

Devils rumoured to be interested in Jonathan Bernier

97 posts in this topic

what scares me about a stopgap or well anything future goalie related. Is that with goalies you never know. Everyone seems to think we're dead set in a few season with Wedgewood and Kinkaid ... but seriously who knows ? how many goalies never panned out or only got to NHL level around 30 years old ?

 

so we could either sign a good stopgap who could sh!t the bed even though he was solid before or have to wait like 5+ years for Kinkaid or Wedge to be ready. Seriously we don't know

 

That's the big issue. Goalies are a risk, and rarely are as consistent as Marty and Moose has been (not including this year). This is also the main reason I can't see Lou giving up assets or picks for Bernier. I can't think of many goalies he's traded for other than established ones, like Terreri or Vanbiesbrouck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the big issue. Goalies are a risk, and rarely are as consistent as Marty and Moose has been (not including this year). This is also the main reason I can't see Lou giving up assets or picks for Bernier. I can't think of many goalies he's traded for other than established ones, like Terreri or Vanbiesbrouck.

 

Marty and Moose weren't consistent last year either.  The Devils were all ready to miss the playoffs if they had kept playing as they had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if Marty continues to play well he will sign one more season after next year.. For the most part this year he was playing pretty well not showing much age... Unless they some how manage to win another cup between now and then, then I'm more then sure he would call it quits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marty and Moose weren't consistent last year either.  The Devils were all ready to miss the playoffs if they had kept playing as they had.

 

I mean consistent year in and year out, like Marty is and Moose has been for most of his career. I mean you aren't really going to pick up a young goalie like Bernier and expect that he can solve your goalie problems for the next 10 years. We've been fortunate to have a very consistent goaltending situation here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean consistent year in and year out, like Marty is and Moose has been for most of his career. I mean you aren't really going to pick up a young goalie like Bernier and expect that he can solve your goalie problems for the next 10 years. We've been fortunate to have a very consistent goaltending situation here. 

 

Hedberg has been consistently terrible for most of his career.  It's amazing the Devils have gotten out of him what they've gotten out of him.

 

Among active goalies on hockey-reference's all-time SV% list, Hedberg ranks 30th out of 32.  He's above Brian Boucher and Andrew Raycroft.  When he signed he would have been last.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it could be very possible.

 

Unless Moose retires or gets bought out, it looks like 2013-14 will be Marty and Moose again. IF Moose is gone, and the Devils don't want to use Kinkaid, here are a few 2013 UFA's that may fit as a stopgap... (assuming Lou sticks with his 'veteran backup' approach)

 

Chris Mason, Theodore, Garon, Labarbera, Emery, Budaj, Boucher, Leighton, Ellis, Danis (!!), Montoya, Macdonald.

 

 

It looks like 2014-15 would be Marty and Kinkaid (assuming Marty re-signs after next season.) If Marty leaves and/or Kinkaid isn't ready, here is what the UFA market looks like that year...

 

Lundqvist (Rags will sign him longterm), Miller (probably same for Buffalo), Kirpusoff (will be 37), Hiller, Halak, Dubnyk (doubt Oilers let him go), Crawford, Vokoun (also 38), Elliot, Gustavsson, Giguere (god no), Biron, Clemmensen, Scrivens, Peters, Zatkoff

 

Nothing amazing, but maybe some stopgaps that can be had at a reasonable price is the Devils truly believe Kinkaid or Wedge are right around the corner.

 

I wouldn't mind Kipper (if he isn't traded by 2014-15) for a short term option. Hiller and Halak would seem completely unrealistic....however if Allen really outperforms Halak and shows that he should be the number one there then maybe we could make a move for him. (Which I doubt and know there is a .5% chance of that happening)

 

I was all on the Bernier bandwagon a few years ago but we really don't need him. The one plus however of him coming to NJ (assuming we don't give up Wedgewood or Kinkaid) is that if Wedge pans out then we could have an amazing Bernier/Wedgewood tandem. Our goaltending situation would be as deep as ever if Wedge pans out to be a confident number one and Bernier plays phenomenal (which is expected as he's done a good job on LA so far)

 

Also don't assume about Miller/Buffalo as Kypreos said on Sportsnet the other night that "Miller's days in Buffalo are numbered"

 

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/12/report-ryan-millers-days-could-be-numbered-in-buffalo/

Edited by TheMazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hedberg has been consistently terrible for most of his career.  It's amazing the Devils have gotten out of him what they've gotten out of him.

 

Among active goalies on hockey-reference's all-time SV% list, Hedberg ranks 30th out of 32.  He's above Brian Boucher and Andrew Raycroft.  When he signed he would have been last.

 

Good grief. Yes yes, Moose is the worst ever. Fine.

 

The Devils have enjoyed tremendous luck in the consistency of their goaltending the last 15-20 years. Brodeur has been the starter for 20 years. Their backups have usually performed well enough to win. I just think it's too risky to overpay for a guy like Bernier when there are several goalies who will hit the market in the next couple of years. There really is no way to guarantee that one guy will solidify the position for a long period of time. It's very rare for a team to have the same starter for 10 years, let alone 20, and it's often unpredictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miller in NJ would be pretty awesome. Instant cup. Plus I'm sure there is a Lou/Team USA angle to be exploited if he's interested in moving.

Edited by ZeroGravityFat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RUMOURS ARE that Calgary is also interested in Bernier but that the devils remain the "most aggressive" on that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that source is 'the voices in your head' or 'HockeyInsiderr'

 

With the way Quick is playing, I don't think LA's too keen on dealing Bernier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that source is 'the voices in your head' or 'HockeyInsiderr'

 

With the way Quick is playing, I don't think LA's too keen on dealing Bernier.

You're being awful snippy for a guy who just completely ignored the fact that Hedberg has been on some really bad teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being awful snippy for a guy who just completely ignored the fact that Hedberg has been on some really bad teams.

 

Being on a bad team does not affect a goalie's save percentage.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being on a bad team does not affect a goalie's save percentage.

Ok. Whatever you say.

You know. I agree with you on the luck stuff, how it doesn't exist. I'm a logic person, so I get the stats, but lately, you've had this holier than thou attitude and it's unbecoming.

It's also beyond silly to say that being on a bad team doesn't affect save percentage. A bad team gives up higher quality chances, more regularly.

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being on a bad team does not affect a goalie's save percentage.

 

Wait so you're telling me that 15-20 shots on goal with no real chance of going in is the same as 10-15 shots with traffic, deflection etc. if the save percentage is the same? this is new territory of bullsh!t stats clouding the reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait so you're telling me that 15-20 shots on goal with no real chance of going in is the same as 10-15 shots with traffic, deflection etc. if the save percentage is the same? this is new territory of bullsh!t stats clouding the reality.

I recall us getting a decent amount of shots in the 1st half of 10-11. I don't remember scoring a lot though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shots on goal and save percentage are useless indicators on their own. you can throw the kitchen sink but if it's hitting the logo even the worst goalie will stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shots on goal and save percentage are useless indicators on their own. you can throw the kitchen sink but if it's hitting the logo even the worst goalie will stop it.

That's my point. All our shots that first half were from the outside and seemingly all hit the goalie, dead center on the logo. My point is, worse teams get worse chances and give up better chances than better teams. This is indisputable fact. Therefore, a goalie's stats are somewhat dependent on the team he plays on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Whatever you say.

You know. I agree with you on the luck stuff, how it doesn't exist. I'm a logic person, so I get the stats, but lately, you've had this holier than thou attitude and it's unbecoming.

It's also beyond silly to say that being on a bad team doesn't affect save percentage. A bad team gives up higher quality chances, more regularly.

 

That isn't true.  Bad teams simply give up more shots.  They usually have worse goaltenders too, which doesn't help - if you're Atlanta and you have Roberto Luongo, maybe you get into the playoffs, but if you have Johan Hedberg, you're probably going to be bringing up the rear.

 

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/3/shot-quality-matters-but-how-much

 

The only thing being on a bad team really affects can be how many power plays and power play shots a goalie faces - that can affect save percentage, but even if Atlanta was undisciplined and a bad penalty killing team, Hedberg's stats are still bad.  Now if you want to argue that playing in front of a rotten team affected Hedberg's confidence and caused him to play worse, go ahead, but that can't be proven.

 

Wait so you're telling me that 15-20 shots on goal with no real chance of going in is the same as 10-15 shots with traffic, deflection etc. if the save percentage is the same? this is new territory of bullsh!t stats clouding the reality.

 

No, I'm not telling you that.  I'm saying that NHL games and teams don't really work like that.  You don't get to choose what type of chances you give up, and there's a lot of puck luck in giving up things like breakaways, odd-man rushes, etc.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't true.  Bad teams simply give up more shots.  They usually have worse goaltenders too, which doesn't help - if you're Atlanta and you have Roberto Luongo, maybe you get into the playoffs, but if you have Johan Hedberg, you're probably going to be bringing up the rear.

 

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/7/3/shot-quality-matters-but-how-much

 

The only thing being on a bad team really affects can be how many power plays and power play shots a goalie faces - that can affect save percentage, but even if Atlanta was undisciplined and a bad penalty killing team, Hedberg's stats are still bad.  Now if you want to argue that playing in front of a rotten team affected Hedberg's confidence and caused him to play worse, go ahead, but that can't be proven.

 

 

No, I'm not telling you that.  I'm saying that NHL games and teams don't really work like that.  You don't get to choose what type of chances you give up, and there's a lot of puck luck in giving up things like breakaways, odd-man rushes, etc.

I can no longer take you seriously. I didn't even read your post beyond "Bad teams simply give up more shots".

And yes, you don't choose the chances you give up. You give up the one's you can't stop and bad teams stop less chances. PERIOD. Therefore, bad teams give up more quality chances than good teams. You cannot argue that is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can no longer take you seriously. I didn't even read your post beyond "Bad teams simply give up more shots".

And yes, you don't choose the chances you give up. You give up the one's you can't stop and bad teams stop less chances. PERIOD. Therefore, bad teams give up more quality chances than good teams. You cannot argue that is not true.

 

You're the one who is refusing to challenge what you believe, not me.  I wouldn't've believed this either but the numbers bear it out - lots of people have looked for 'shot quality' and no one's found it yet.  It might exist, but it seems less and less likely.  Some players might have an ability to affect save percentage by their goalie one way or another, but not significantly enough to cause what happened to Hedberg in Atlanta.

 

Bad teams give up more quality chances than good ones, but they do it at the same rate as they give up shots on goal.  If you want to sift through the data to try to find evidence of more than that, feel free.  If you want to believe Johan Hedberg was a good goalie trapped on a bad team - again, feel free, but it just isn't the case, he was bad, and it's a minor miracle the Devils have gotten out of him what they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one who is refusing to challenge what you believe, not me.  I wouldn't've believed this either but the numbers bear it out - lots of people have looked for 'shot quality' and no one's found it yet.  It might exist, but it seems less and less likely.  Some players might have an ability to affect save percentage by their goalie one way or another, but not significantly enough to cause what happened to Hedberg in Atlanta.

 

Bad teams give up more quality chances than good ones, but they do it at the same rate as they give up shots on goal.  If you want to sift through the data to try to find evidence of more than that, feel free.  If you want to believe Johan Hedberg was a good goalie trapped on a bad team - again, feel free, but it just isn't the case, he was bad, and it's a minor miracle the Devils have gotten out of him what they have.

So you're telling me that it's just as easy to stop 1 high quality chance as it is to stop 10? This is what you're saying, right? That a goalie will be able to stop all types of chances with the same frequency in which he has done before, despite whether there were more high quality chances than low quality, is this correct?

Let me ask you one thing: Have you played sports before? In particular, hockey?

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me that it's just as easy to stop 1 high quality chance as it is to stop 10? This is what you're saying, right? That a goalie will be able to stop all types of chances with the same frequency in which he has done before, despite whether there were more high quality chances than low quality, is this correct?

Let me ask you one thing: Have you played sports before? In particular, hockey?

 

That's not at all what I am saying.  I will not post again about this subject until you tell me you've read the link I pasted, otherwise I am just talking to a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Whatever you say.

You know. I agree with you on the luck stuff, how it doesn't exist. I'm a logic person, so I get the stats, but lately, you've had this holier than thou attitude and it's unbecoming.

It's also beyond silly to say that being on a bad team doesn't affect save percentage. A bad team gives up higher quality chances, more regularly.

 

Gotta have to agree 100% with you there on everything you said, Tri is becoming cockier by the minutes it seems lol

 

and obviously being on a bad team DOES affect your save percentage, bad coverage on the left side when you're covering the left post is on the dmen. We shouldnt even have to explain ourselves on this actually... it's so obvious.

 

But let's just keep that in mind that he said that. One day when he'll decide to bash a player for not covering an open guy in the slot, we'll remind him that it doesnt not affect the goaltending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not at all what I am saying.  I will not post again about this subject until you tell me you've read the link I pasted, otherwise I am just talking to a wall.

Now you know how we feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0