Landing Spots for Brodeur

[MadDog2020]

The minors, I really didn't think anyone would go there lmfao. There's a better chance of Charlie Sheen becoming a monk than Marty playing in the minors.

[RizzMB30]

There is NO way he goes to play in the minors are you seriously kidding right now?.. in his mind he still believes he is a number one.. he knows hes the best to have ever played the game.. why would you ever think he would play in the minors he would just straight up retire.

It doesn't matter what Marty thinks he is...The argument is for the love the game.  Is that a difficult concept to understand?  It doesn't matter what HE thinks or believes in terms of being a number one.  He won't be able to find a number one job.  It doesn't matter what Martin Brodeur thinks, what matters is what the other teams around the league think of him. 

Edited May 11, 2014 by RizzMB30

[RowdyFan42]

There is NO way he goes to play in the minors are you seriously kidding right now?.. in his mind he still believes he is a number one.. he knows hes the best to have ever played the game.. why would you ever think he would play in the minors he would just straight up retire.

Aaaaand out come the sticks. 

 

If, like you said, Marty believes he's a number one, the minors are his best bet.  He's not going to find a starting position in the NHL.  The best he can hope for is a situation like he was in this season, a backup role that offers him 30-ish games a year.  So, as I was saying, it depends on his motivations.  If he's thinking "NHL starter or bust", he might as well retire now.  If he's thinking that a NHL backup role would be acceptable, there are any number of jobs open to him.  If he's thinking "I just want to play, I don't care where", then yes, the minors become an option.

 

For the record, I doubt it'll happen.  He'll either retire or spend one or two more years as a backup (probably here, but maybe elsewhere).  But I'd be surprised if the thought of going to the minors doesn't at least cross his mind.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Aaaaand out come the sticks. 

 

If, like you said, Marty believes he's a number one, the minors are his best bet.  He's not going to find a starting position in the NHL.  The best he can hope for is a situation like he was in this season, a backup role that offers him 30-ish games a year.  So, as I was saying, it depends on his motivations.  If he's thinking "NHL starter or bust", he might as well retire now.  If he's thinking that a NHL backup role would be acceptable, there are any number of jobs open to him.  If he's thinking "I just want to play, I don't care where", then yes, the minors become an option.

 

For the record, I doubt it'll happen.  He'll either retire or spend one or two more years as a backup (probably here, but maybe elsewhere).  But I'd be surprised if the thought of going to the minors doesn't at least cross his mind.

 

I wonder what good it would do for some franchise to stick Marty in the minors (even if Marty was on board with the idea).  I guess if you have NO goalie prospects at all, and want depth in case your NHL goalies go down...but I think most NHL franchises know Marty's simply not very good anymore.  Tri continues to make the mistake of lumping the last four seasons together as bad, but the last two were definitely pretty bad overall.  It's really hard to make a case for Marty being any better than he was over the last two years (scary to think he could be even worse). 

Edited May 12, 2014 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[Triumph]

I wonder what good it would do for some franchise to stick Marty in the minors (even if Marty was on board with the idea).  I guess if you have NO goalie prospects at all, and want depth in case your NHL goalies go down...but I think most NHL franchises know Marty's simply not very good anymore.  Tri continues to make the mistake of lumping the last four seasons together as bad, but the last two were definitely pretty bad overall.  It's really hard to make a case for Marty being any better than he was over the last two years (scary to think he could be even worse). 

 

No, all 4 seasons were bad.  I'm not making any mistake.  2011-12 was closest to average, but again, if you have a goalie who puts up an .890 SV% in the first half, and is 39 years old, and put up an .870 in the first half of the first season - well, Bayes-wise, you've probably got a bad goalie on your hands.  Just cherry-picking the second halves of seasons leaves out the first halves, which are just as relevant.

 

Brodeur would never go to the minors.  He's one of the very few players who has been involved in all 3 lockouts and he has never signed anywhere else.  I know that Chelios played a year in the minors when he was 47 or 48 but that's Chelios, he's insane.  I do think Brodeur would wait until January before calling it quits for good, and I imagine someone will suffer an injury and not understand goaltending and will sign him.  That's if the Devils don't idiotically beat some team to it, but I don't think Brodeur wants to come back here.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

No, all 4 seasons were bad.  I'm not making any mistake.  2011-12 was closest to average, but again, if you have a goalie who puts up an .890 SV% in the first half, and is 39 years old, and put up an .870 in the first half of the first season - well, Bayes-wise, you've probably got a bad goalie on your hands.  Just cherry-picking the second halves of seasons leaves out the first halves, which are just as relevant.

 

Brodeur would never go to the minors.  He's one of the very few players who has been involved in all 3 lockouts and he has never signed anywhere else.  I know that Chelios played a year in the minors when he was 47 or 48 but that's Chelios, he's insane.  I do think Brodeur would wait until January before calling it quits for good, and I imagine someone will suffer an injury and not understand goaltending and will sign him.  That's if the Devils don't idiotically beat some team to it, but I don't think Brodeur wants to come back here.

 

You're wrong on the "bad" thing, re:  2010-11 and 2011-12.  He was very good in both second halves (.923 in his final 29 GP of 2010-11, .920 in his final 51 games of the 2011-12 season, including the playoffs).  He WAS bad in the first halves, and it's not like I've ever tried to say that he wasn't...as a matter of fact, I even pointed out those bad first halves as signs of things to come.  To just label those entire seasons bad, lousy, whatever, simply isn't accurate and is misleading (inconsistent is much a better word...he was literally two different goalies in each half, though once he got it going, he was pretty steady during his good runs).  By just stating that was "bad, end of season", you're basically saying he sucked all season for both of those years, and ignoring the prolonged stretches of solid play he provided.      

Edited May 12, 2014 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[Triumph]

You're wrong on the "bad" thing, re:  2010-11 and 2011-12.  He was very good in both second halves (.923 in his final 29 GP of 2010-11, .920 in his final 51 games of the 2011-12 season, including the playoffs).  He WAS bad in the first halves, and it's not like I've ever tried to say that he wasn't...as a matter of fact, I even pointed out those bad first halves as signs of things to come.  To just label those entire seasons bad, lousy, whatever, simply isn't accurate and is misleading (inconsistent is much a better word...he was literally two different goalies in each half, though once he got it going, he was pretty steady during his good runs).  By just stating that was "bad, end of season", you're basically saying he sucked all season for both of those years, and ignoring the prolonged stretches of solid play he provided.      

 

Like I said, it's nice to be able to cherry pick, but you finish the season with a .903 SV% you've had a bad season, I don't really care how you did it.  Now would I have an expectation that Brodeur might improve on that .903 SV% next season, given how the season ended?  Maybe, but again, that would be overwhelmed by the fact that he was 39 years old.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Like I said, it's nice to be able to cherry pick, but you finish the season with a .903 SV% you've had a bad season, I don't really care how you did it.  Now would I have an expectation that Brodeur might improve on that .903 SV% next season, given how the season ended?  Maybe, but again, that would be overwhelmed by the fact that he was 39 years old.

 

You overuse the "cherry-pick" moniker.  What I'm doing is actually showing, with facts, that you stamping both seasons as bad from start-to-end is flat-out wrong.  "I don't really care how [he] did it" is basically another way of saying "I'm determined to say he sucked for the entire time period, even though the numbers don't support that at all." 

 

The "when"s of his improved play clearly played a factor in the Devils' decision-making, especially in 2012.  If he had gotten off to a terrific start that season and then fizzled, and the Devils go out in the first round and he doesn't play well, maybe he has less leverage and he can only get a year from the Devils instead of two.  51 games is a pretty fair-sized sample...for some starting goalies, that's roughly a full season's worth, which is why I've always understood why Lou was willing to go that extra year (even though Marty's age was a red flag).  It's definitely fair to say Lou didn't re-sign Marty thinking he was going to get two pretty consistently bad years of .901 play (and while "cherry-picking", I've shown that those two years were more .885-ish years propped up...they actually felt WORSE than .901, in the same way that '11 and '12 felt better than the .903 and .908 save%s Marty put up in those two years).        

[Triumph]

You overuse the "cherry-pick" moniker.  What I'm doing is actually showing, with facts, that you stamping both seasons as bad from start-to-end is flat-out wrong.  "I don't really care how [he] did it" is basically another way of saying "I'm determined to say he sucked for the entire time period, even though the numbers don't support that at all." 

 

The "when"s of his improved play clearly played a factor in the Devils' decision-making, especially in 2012.  If he had gotten off to a terrific start that season and then fizzled, and the Devils go out in the first round and he doesn't play well, maybe he has less leverage and he can only get a year from the Devils instead of two.  51 games is a pretty fair-sized sample...for some starting goalies, that's roughly a full season's worth, which is why I've always understood why Lou was willing to go that extra year (even though Marty's age was a red flag).  It's definitely fair to say Lou didn't re-sign Marty thinking he was going to get two pretty consistently bad years of .901 play (and while "cherry-picking", I've shown that those two years were more .885-ish years propped up...they actually felt WORSE than .901, in the same way that '11 and '12 felt better than the .903 and .908 save%s Marty put up in those two years).        

 

Yes, he sucked for the entire time period.  Just because he played very well in one half of the year and played mind-bendingly awful in one half of the year doesn't mean that he didn't have a bad season, because he did.  My point is that you can't discount the time he played godawful just because he also played good - both are equally relevant.  They add up to a bad year.  Brodeur's SV% that year ranked 25th out of the 30 goalies who started 40+ games that year.  It ranks 358th out of 476 seasons since 96-97.  It's a bad year.

 

It's different if he put up a .903 in one half of the year and .935 in the other half because that's a very good year overall.

 

Lou's decision making on Brodeur is bad and will continue to be bad until he says 'Brodeur is not coming back here' or he signs a legit backup goalie in free agency.  Until then, he cannot be trusted.  A two year contract to Hedberg was beyond idiotic - a two year contract to Brodeur was also not a good idea. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by Triumph

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Yes, he sucked for the entire time period.  Just because he played very well in one half of the year and played mind-bendingly awful in one half of the year doesn't mean that he didn't have a bad season, because he did.  My point is that you can't discount the time he played godawful just because he also played good - both are equally relevant.  They add up to a bad year.  Brodeur's SV% that year ranked 25th out of the 30 goalies who started 40+ games that year.  It ranks 358th out of 476 seasons since 96-97.  It's a bad year.

 

It's different if he put up a .903 in one half of the year and .935 in the other half because that's a very good year overall.

 

Lou's decision making on Brodeur is bad and will continue to be bad until he says 'Brodeur is not coming back here' or he signs a legit backup goalie in free agency.  Until then, he cannot be trusted.  A two year contract to Hedberg was beyond idiotic - a two year contract to Brodeur was also not a good idea. 

 

I still label those seasons as inconsistent, but I won't argue that it wasn't very ugly for Marty in the first-half samples...it was:

 

2010-11  .882 (yes, that is awful) through 1/1

2011-12  .894 (less awful but still awful) through 1/31

 

Again, I was NOT completely discounting those first halves, though you're discounting the second halves a bit.  I think you have me labelling those seasons as overall good...I'm not, trust me on that. 

 

With Lou, timing was everything...Marty played his best hockey from 2/2 on in 2012.  Over a nice-sized sample that helped his team reach the SCF.  As you've noted, he played very well in that Final.  There was no way Lou was going to just let Marty walk, not off that sample, even he would've been justified strictly from a pure Vulcan standpoint.  I can understand questioning Hedberg for sure, but how can you question him re-signing Marty there? 

 

If Lou brings Marty back, then like I've said previously, he's jumped the shark and is circling back around for seconds, thirds, and fourths.  There's absolutely no argument that can be made in Lou's favor if he does this.  And there's no picking apart 2013 and 2014 to make them look any better than they were for Marty.  They were bad years, even with the occasional vintage Marty game or burst of games.         

[Triumph]

I still label those seasons as inconsistent, but I won't argue that it wasn't very ugly for Marty in the first-half samples...it was:

 

2010-11  .882 (yes, that is awful) through 1/1

2011-12  .894 (less awful but still awful) through 1/31

 

Again, I was NOT completely discounting those first halves, though you're discounting the second halves a bit.  I think you have me labelling those seasons as overall good...I'm not, trust me on that. 

 

With Lou, timing was everything...Marty played his best hockey from 2/2 on in 2012.  Over a nice-sized sample that helped his team reach the SCF.  As you've noted, he played very well in that Final.  There was no way Lou was going to just let Marty walk, not off that sample, even he would've been justified strictly from a pure Vulcan standpoint.  I can understand questioning Hedberg for sure, but how can you question him re-signing Marty there? 

 

If Lou brings Marty back, then like I've said previously, he's jumped the shark and is circling back around for seconds, thirds, and fourths.  There's absolutely no argument that can be made in Lou's favor if he does this.  And there's no picking apart 2013 and 2014 to make them look any better than they were for Marty.  They were bad years, even with the occasional vintage Marty game or burst of games.         

 

How can I question that?  Two seasons missing the playoffs where Brodeur put up a .900 SV%.  The writing was on the wall for 2 years and Lou ignored it and he's paid for that.  One year contract, okay, fine, maybe.  Two years has been a disaster.

[NJDevs4978]

You almost can't count the first half of '10-11 against 'anyone' since it was such a team wide meltdown and everyone from Marty to Kovy to Greene was so far below their career worsts it isn't even worth discussing. '11-12 you could label as 'bad' if the playoff run never happened but it did and added to Marty's good second half.

[devilsrule33]

You almost can't count the first half of '10-11 against 'anyone' since it was such a team wide meltdown and everyone from Marty to Kovy to Greene was so far below their career worsts it isn't even worth discussing. '11-12 you could label as 'bad' if the playoff run never happened but it did and added to Marty's good second half.

 

I definitely think it is worth discussing. All those guys bounced back the next season. Brodeur did not. The team was awful, but Brodeur was a big part of that.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Again, was there any way Lou was going to just say "Thanks for everything Marty, and for helping us reach the SCFs, so long?"  Tri, I know you tend to completely leave human emotions out of these things, but there was no way in hell or anywhere Lou was going to say "If you want a second year, go get it somewhere else, soyonara!", especially under the circumstances I've described in detail.  No, ultimately the re-signing didn't work out.  Yes, there were clear signs that pointed to such a scenario.  There were also signs that showed that it might not be that bad.  The prior two season samples were inconclusive overall...if you want to factor age into it, I'll give that to you.  But it all goes back to the same thing...Marty being coldly discarded after a prolonged stretch of terrific play was not an option and was never going to happen.       

[sundstrom]

the two year deal had everything to do with the lockout - even marty admitted that at the time.

[Triumph]

Again, was there any way Lou was going to just say "Thanks for everything Marty, and for helping us reach the SCFs, so long?"  Tri, I know you tend to completely leave human emotions out of these things, but there was no way in hell or anywhere Lou was going to say "If you want a second year, go get it somewhere else, soyonara!", especially under the circumstances I've described in detail.  No, ultimately the re-signing didn't work out.  Yes, there were clear signs that pointed to such a scenario.  There were also signs that showed that it might not be that bad.  The prior two season samples were inconclusive overall...if you want to factor age into it, I'll give that to you.  But it all goes back to the same thing...Marty being coldly discarded after a prolonged stretch of terrific play was not an option and was never going to happen.       

 

Teams have made the same decision and been better off for it - it's a business.  

 

There was almost nothing that pointed to that signing 'not being that bad'.

[Devil Dan 56]

Teams have made the same decision and been better off for it - it's a business.  

 

There was almost nothing that pointed to that signing 'not being that bad'.

 

Dropping franchise players after successful playoff runs could also be considered bad for business.

 

There weren't many starting goalies available that free agency period, and Zach was walking out the door. Re-signing Brodeur coming off the SCF made a lot of sense. There was no one in the system that they trusted. The second year was for lock out reasons, which Brodeur admitted.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Teams have made the same decision and been better off for it - it's a business.  

 

There was almost nothing that pointed to that signing 'not being that bad'.

 

A stretch of 51 very good games to close out 2012 says otherwise...you choose to ignore that...so be it.  Like sundstrom said, the second year was lockout-induced.  Not sure how many teams would just throw a guy like Brodeur to the curb after coming up two wins short of a Cup where he played pretty well, especially a guy who, at the time, most Devils fans wanted to see finish his career as a Devil.  The guy WAS special Tri.  And it's not like the Devils had another option to go to in house...if there was a future stud who was ready to go, maybe it all turns out differently. 

 

That being said, there's moves Lou made at the time that seemed to be made on euphoria and sentimentality that I didn't like.  Hedberg and Salvador were first and foremost on that list.  It's one thing to keep a once-in-a-lifetime franchise guy in Brodeur, even if his age says that it might not work out.  But Hedberg?  Brodeur AND Hedberg?  I didn't get that one.     

[NJDevs4978]

Yeah it's easy to say the Devils should have moved on from Marty but how...make the big trade last year for an unproven (more unproven than Cory) guy like Bernier and have him come in with the pressure of filling Marty's shoes coming off a Finals run?  They sure weren't going to find better options in FA or the system - there's less than zero chance they would ever have replaced him with a Kinkaid.  Marty and Hedberg were pretty much the best FA goalies that year.  There's no way Lou could have gotten away with kicking Marty to the curb coming off a Finals run...especially for what they would have been replacing him with.  At least when they traded for Cory he was a somewhat proven commodity that everyone knew had great potential and had already been the starter at different points in Vancouver, plus it was a year removed from the Finals run.

Edited May 12, 2014 by NJDevs4978

[Triumph]

The Devils made absolutely no move to think about replacing Brodeur after 2012.  That's what's insane.  If you bring back Brodeur, fine. but he is 40 years old.  Find a young guy to back him up and challenge him at the same time.  Don't bring back Hedberg even though you got a decent season and a solid season out of him, somehow.

 

The 'pressure' of replacing Brodeur - who cares.  Could it possibly have been any worse than what actually happened?  Brodeur isn't able to hold up to the pressure of playing like Martin Brodeur.

 

CR1976:  I'm not ignoring good games.  He's been a .907 goalie over the last 2 years, playoffs included.  He's 40.  Is he supposed to get better?

[devilsrule33]

The Devils made absolutely no move to think about replacing Brodeur after 2012.  That's what's insane.  If you bring back Brodeur, fine. but he is 40 years old.  Find a young guy to back him up and challenge him at the same time.  Don't bring back Hedberg even though you got a decent season and a solid season out of him, somehow.

 

The 'pressure' of replacing Brodeur - who cares.  Could it possibly have been any worse than what actually happened?  Brodeur isn't able to hold up to the pressure of playing like Martin Brodeur.

 

CR1976:  I'm not ignoring good games.  He's been a .907 goalie over the last 2 years, playoffs included.  He's 40.  Is he supposed to get better?

 

Lou implied that they have been after Cory for a while, so there might have been an attempt there before re-signing Hedberg.

 

As an aside, Brodeur wanted 2 years, but he was also getting free agent offers for two years. That's the main reason why he was testing free agency. Lou did not want to give him a 2-year deal, but he matched what Brodeur was apparently offered by Chicago or Toronto. And then he matched Cory Schneider's games played this season.

[Daniel]

The Devils made absolutely no move to think about replacing Brodeur after 2012. That's what's insane. If you bring back Brodeur, fine. but he is 40 years old. Find a young guy to back him up and challenge him at the same time. Don't bring back Hedberg even though you got a decent season and a solid season out of him, somehow.

The 'pressure' of replacing Brodeur - who cares. Could it possibly have been any worse than what actually happened? Brodeur isn't able to hold up to the pressure of playing like Martin Brodeur.

CR1976: I'm not ignoring good games. He's been a .907 goalie over the last 2 years, playoffs included. He's 40. Is he supposed to get better?

Ugh, we get it. Marty is the worst goalie ever, and should never show his face in public ever again.

In the end the Devils of the last two years, and especially the Devils of the lockout year was a team that could not score goals to save their lives. Meanwhile, in 2013, they missed the playoffs by 7 points or something like that in a 48 game season, but were comfortably in the playoffs until Kovalchuk got hurt. A goalie with a .914 save percentage, which is league average, would not have changed that result. Ottawa needed a lot more to get into the playoffs. This year, there's a pretty good chance, but not a guarantee, the Devils get the 8th or perhaps the 7th seed if Schneider got 60 starts. He will get that amount, and probably more, next year, and hopefully for the next seven years.

Marty got a two year deal, at slightly above what an a average starting goalie gets, where it was expected that the first of those years would be a shortened season (the NHLPA basically told the players it was a guarantee), or possibly canceled in its entirety, after getting to the Cup finals. sh!t happens, it wasn't a calamity.

You want to know what a calamity is. The Canes being on the hook for Tukka Rask money to Cam Ward for this past year, and possibly for the next two years, unless they decide to amnesty him, which you claimed would be a disaster in its own right. And that's without even considering that the Canes might be facing a cap crunch next year.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

The Devils made absolutely no move to think about replacing Brodeur after 2012.  That's what's insane.  If you bring back Brodeur, fine. but he is 40 years old.  Find a young guy to back him up and challenge him at the same time.  Don't bring back Hedberg even though you got a decent season and a solid season out of him, somehow.

 

The 'pressure' of replacing Brodeur - who cares.  Could it possibly have been any worse than what actually happened?  Brodeur isn't able to hold up to the pressure of playing like Martin Brodeur.

 

CR1976:  I'm not ignoring good games.  He's been a .907 goalie over the last 2 years, playoffs included.  He's 40.  Is he supposed to get better?

 

I'm going to guess Lou was hoping for somewhere between .908-.912 overall play from Marty (in the first year, anyway)...somewhere around his career average.  Two prolonged stretches of solid play may have had Lou thinking Marty wouldn't be consistently bad over the course of a full season. 

 

At any rate, turn off your inner Vulcan when it comes to Brodeur, Lou wasn't going to lose him that offseason, and if you can't understand the reasons why, then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

This being said, I couldn't agree more with you about Hedberg.  If you want to criticize Lou about goalies, you can do it there.  Going into the 2013 season with TWO old goalies was playing with fire in a big way.  I was very surprised both were brought back.  A late 20s-early 30s guy with a decent history would've been a better way to go.  

[Triumph]

Lou implied that they have been after Cory for a while, so there might have been an attempt there before re-signing Hedberg.

 

As an aside, Brodeur wanted 2 years, but he was also getting free agent offers for two years. That's the main reason why he was testing free agency. Lou did not want to give him a 2-year deal, but he matched what Brodeur was apparently offered by Chicago or Toronto. And then he matched Cory Schneider's games played this season.

 

Yeah, but have a plan B other than Schneider.  I agree, I have to imagine that is why he kept the pick in 2012, but he couldn't get a deal done there.  

 

Ugh, we get it. Marty is the worst goalie ever, and should never show his face in public ever again.

In the end the Devils of the last two years, and especially the Devils of the lockout year was a team that could not score goals to save their lives. Meanwhile, in 2013, they missed the playoffs by 7 points or something like that in a 48 game season, but were comfortably in the playoffs until Kovalchuk got hurt. A goalie with a .914 save percentage, which is league average, would not have changed that result. Ottawa needed a lot more to get into the playoffs. This year, there's a pretty good chance, but not a guarantee, the Devils get the 8th or perhaps the 7th seed if Schneider got 60 starts. He will get that amount, and probably more, next year, and hopefully for the next seven years.

Marty got a two year deal, at slightly above what an a average starting goalie gets, where it was expected that the first of those years would be a shortened season (the NHLPA basically told the players it was a guarantee), or possibly canceled in its entirety, after getting to the Cup finals. sh!t happens, it wasn't a calamity.

You want to know what a calamity is. The Canes being on the hook for Tukka Rask money to Cam Ward for this past year, and possibly for the next two years, unless they decide to amnesty him, which you claimed would be a disaster in its own right. And that's without even considering that the Canes might be facing a cap crunch next year.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It was an utter disaster.  It's paying $9 million for at most $2 million in value.  People kill the Clowe deal and I bet that'll turn out worse but Brodeur's deal is a fiasco.

 

As for the offense - you plan what you can plan for.  You can't plan for your entire offense going into the tank, and this has happened to better teams than the 12-13 Devils.  You can plan for your 40 year old goaltender giving up the ghost and becoming slightly better than an embarrassment.  Lou even did that the next year, but then he forgot to tell the media that Brodeur was the backup now and he forgot to tell his coach to play Schneider 60 games unless Brodeur was playing .910 hockey.  Down goes another season.  

 

I bet Ward is worth more the next 2 years - considerably more.  You keep talking about Ward as if he is this horrible goalie - he has 30 games of bad goaltending, and then he has a career before that of pretty good goaltending.  He is 30 years old, not 40.  Somehow he is awful now.  He might be, injuries might've ruined him, but he is 30.  Most goalies are not washed up at 30.

 

I'm going to guess Lou was hoping for somewhere between .908-.912 overall play from Marty (in the first year, anyway)...somewhere around his career average.  Two prolonged stretches of solid play may have had Lou thinking Marty wouldn't be consistently bad over the course of a full season. 

 

At any rate, turn off your inner Vulcan when it comes to Brodeur, Lou wasn't going to lose him that offseason, and if you can't understand the reasons why, then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

This being said, I couldn't agree more with you about Hedberg.  If you want to criticize Lou about goalies, you can do it there.  Going into the 2013 season with TWO old goalies was playing with fire in a big way.  I was very surprised both were brought back.  A late 20s-early 30s guy with a decent history would've been a better way to go.  

 

I can understand the reasons why - nostalgia, wishcasting, valuing emotion over reason, valuing loyalty over good sense.  I understand these things fully.  The team has paid for it.  Has Lamoriello or the organization learned from that mistake?  I don't think so.  He may get bailed out by giving a huge contract to Schneider so he never has to think about goaltending the rest of his career.

 

I'm almost sure Lamoriello gave not one whit of thought to what Brodeur's save percentage is, was, or will be and I imagine he never looks at that stat.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Triumph

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

C'mon Tri, you're making it sound like if only Lou had had your good sense, he would've told Marty to take a hike after the guy was a part of a Cup finalist.