Jump to content

Lundqvist, Rangers agree on extension


Neb00rs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tri will keep pointing to the pure overall numbers and saying the goaltending was awful is '10-'11 and '11-'12, but like I've said, the goaltending showed that it could be good for long stretches during those seasons as well...it didn't hinder the Devils from getting to the Cup Finals (and once they got there, if someone told me Marty would hold the opposition to one regulation goal in four games, I would've happily taken that).  Yes, it stunk in the first half of the 2010-11 campaign, but they were hardly alone in that regard.  It wasn't terribly good for a significant chunk of 2011-12, but the Devils managed to overcome it (and were helped by having a great year in the shootout, in part by the goalies playing well in them, as Tri has acknowledged). 

 

If Lou can really be criticized for anything, it would be for bringing back Hedberg...having two 40+ year-olds in net is a pretty dangerous way to go (Marty was clearly coming back, and I understand why, and support it), but Lou must REALLY have not had any confidence in Frazee at all.  Hedberg had put up a respectable .915 save% in two seasons (61 games) as a Devil as well, so one can see why Lou thought he might be able to squeeze one more solid backup year out of him.   

 

He can be criticized for bringing back Hedberg all 3 times he signed Johan Hedberg.  I understand bringing back Brodeur (although again, 2 years is too long, and he way overpaid, but c'est la vie).  And that's the other issue - when you have a goalie who has played not well in the last 2 years and is old, you should be looking to supplant him.  But who would want to sign as a backup to Brodeur, ever?  He gets all the starts he can and some of the ones he can't, historically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is the face of their franchise.  $8.5 million is a lot in a cap restricted world, however, operationally, that is chump change for the Rangers.  It affects the cap, but certainly not the Ranger's bottom line.

 

This, however, will have a bearing on Callahan.  All remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can be criticized for bringing back Hedberg all 3 times he signed Johan Hedberg.  I understand bringing back Brodeur (although again, 2 years is too long, and he way overpaid, but c'est la vie).  And that's the other issue - when you have a goalie who has played not well in the last 2 years and is old, you should be looking to supplant him.  But who would want to sign as a backup to Brodeur, ever?  He gets all the starts he can and some of the ones he can't, historically.

 

 

Hedberg put up a .915 save% combined in '10-'11 and '11-'12.  Played in 61 games, had a 32-19-4 record. 

 

How could the first two times he signed Hedberg be considered a mistake?  Marty was good in '09-'10 and was not really showing signs of declining at that point (.916 save%, same as the previous injury-shortened season), so I can understand why Lou didn't think he needed to bring a potential "supplanter" in at that time (he might've still considered Frazee as part of the future as well)...and Hedberg was not bad overall in '10-'11.  He was at .918 in '11-'12, and again did a solid backup job.  With the way Marty bounced back in '10-'11 and '11-'12, an argument can be made that any potential "supplanter" wouldn't have played any better than Marty did, once he turned things around (though I guess you can argue that he might have gotten less time to turn in around that he ultimately did in '11-'12). 

 

Agree that a two-year deal wasn't ideal, but that's how it goes, and what did you think the Devils were going to sign him to, money-wise?  We all knew this was more of a lifetime achievement, thanks for everything contract, and not based on pure performance value. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is the face of their franchise. $8.5 million is a lot in a cap restricted world, however, operationally, that is chump change for the Rangers. It affects the cap, but certainly not the Ranger's bottom line.

This, however, will have a bearing on Callahan. All remains to be seen.

I think callahan's value was pretty much set after brown signed his deal. I'd be surprised if it wasn't very similar...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean - you're just deluded.  The Devils have a team SV% of .906, .911, and .894 over the last 3 years.  Since the .894 was in a half year, that probably comes to an average of around .906.  That's close to the worst mark in the NHL over that time.  Just about anything would've advanced the ball.  

 

Of goalies who played 20 games - and I'm being generous to you here because of survivorship bias - Brodeur ranks 54th and Hedberg 50th in SV% out of 74 goalies over the last 3 years.   There are 2 goalies who played 100 games over the last 3 years and had a worse SV% than Brodeur.  Now scorer bias blah blah, indeed, but it's still bad.

 

How much further would the Devils have gotten with the goalies your suggesting?  You're telling me they would have won the Cup in 2011-12?  That's wrong.  Are you saying that 2010-2011 wouldn't have been the disaster that it was?  That's wrong.

 

At most, they might have made the playoffs with say Victor Fasth instead of Hedberg?  But that's doubtful.  Ottawa was basically the same hot garbage in the scoring department, and needed Vezina level goaltending to make up for it.  (Notice by the way that Craig Anderson kind of stinks this year, which again puts the lie to this idea that you can plug in save percentage regardless of the circumstances, but that's another story). 

 

Again, the assertion that the goaltending has been a calamity is just wrong.  The Devils problem over the past two years has been goal scoring.  Period.  I know it's not contrarian enough for you, but it also happens to be true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much further would the Devils have gotten with the goalies your suggesting?  You're telling me they would have won the Cup in 2011-12?  That's wrong.  Are you saying that 2010-2011 wouldn't have been the disaster that it was?  That's wrong.

 

At most, they might have made the playoffs with say Victor Fasth instead of Hedberg?  But that's doubtful.  Ottawa was basically the same hot garbage in the scoring department, and needed Vezina level goaltending to make up for it.  (Notice by the way that Craig Anderson kind of stinks this year, which again puts the lie to this idea that you can plug in save percentage regardless of the circumstances, but that's another story). 

 

Again, the assertion that the goaltending has been a calamity is just wrong.  The Devils problem over the past two years has been goal scoring.  Period.  I know it's not contrarian enough for you, but it also happens to be true. 

 

Hahaha.  Where do I start here?  I guess I don't.  You don't have any idea how to sort out hypotheticals.  The Devils' goaltending was bad and it cost them wins.  This is indisputable.  To what extent it cost the Devils wins to separate them from the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years, I don't know, but it most certainly did.  It took a while for the Devils to really go down the tubes that year - maybe with better goaltending the team doesn't give up after Thanksgiving?  Who knows.   Brodeur played excellent in the playoffs after Round 1, and his play was the reason why that series with the Kings went 6 games.  

 

The idea that you can 'plug in save percentage' - whatever that means, I'm not quite sure, but whatever it is, you're wrong about it.  Defensemen have shown no contribution towards save percentage.  Save percentage is largely random year to year - guys like Craig Anderson who are average starters can go anywhere from .930 to .900.  It's unclear whether Anderson's drop in SV% is bad luck or poor play or some combination of both.  Either way, it's been 42 games he's played - that is nothing for a goalie.

 

The Devils absolutely had a problem scoring goals - again, you can't understand that just because I say one thing is wrong with the team that there can't be other things wrong with it.  The thing about goal scoring is that to fix that problem you need 3 or 4 players, and they will usually be expensive, if you can even get them at all.  To fix goaltending you can get just one, and he might not even be that expensive.

Edited by Triumph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha.  Where do I start here?  I guess I don't.  You don't have any idea how to sort out hypotheticals.  The Devils' goaltending was bad and it cost them wins.  This is indisputable.  To what extent it cost the Devils wins to separate them from the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years, I don't know, but it most certainly did.  It took a while for the Devils to really go down the tubes that year - maybe with better goaltending the team doesn't give up after Thanksgiving?  Who knows.   Brodeur played excellent in the playoffs after Round 1, and his play was the reason why that series with the Kings went 6 games.  

 

The idea that you can 'plug in save percentage' - whatever that means, I'm not quite sure, but whatever it is, you're wrong about it.  Defensemen have shown no contribution towards save percentage.  Save percentage is largely random year to year - guys like Craig Anderson who are average starters can go anywhere from .930 to .900.  It's unclear whether Anderson's drop in SV% is bad luck or poor play or some combination of both.  Either way, it's been 42 games he's played - that is nothing for a goalie.

 

The Devils absolutely had a problem scoring goals - again, you can't understand that just because I say one thing is wrong with the team that there can't be other things wrong with it.  The thing about goal scoring is that to fix that problem you need 3 or 4 players, and they will usually be expensive, if you can even get them at all.  To fix goaltending you can get just one, and he might not even be that expensive.

 

You're avoiding the issue.  How much further would a cheap non-diamond in the rough goalie gotten the Devils?  All you're saying is that it "cost them wins".  That's not the issue, even if it's correct.  It's whether the amount of wins that the goaltending cost them above a realistic alternative kept them from, say, making the playoffs or advancing within the playoffs.  At most, you can say decent goaltending would have gotten them into the playoffs last year.  But again, that's a huge stretch given that it took amazing goaltending to get Ottawa into the playoffs last year with the same abysmal goals for.    It doesn't matter who your goalie is.  When you are one goal above having the fewest amount of goals in a season, you need much more than a decent replacement.  You need Vezina level save percentage.  If you think your GM does a bad job with the goaltending because he didn't manage to get that, then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

 

Agree that a two-year deal wasn't ideal, but that's how it goes, and what did you think the Devils were going to sign him to, money-wise?  We all knew this was more of a lifetime achievement, thanks for everything contract, and not based on pure performance value. 

 

And as you've noted, it hasn't been a calamity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've both hit a brick wall with this disagreement.... Diverging a bit- it's crazy that the rags only have 3 skaters signed to a contract that extends beyond next year, and one of them is Richards who may get bought out.

They will have a lot of flexibility and that roster could be very different quickly.

But of course it's still sather so I'm not too worried...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're avoiding the issue.  How much further would a cheap non-diamond in the rough goalie gotten the Devils?  All you're saying is that it "cost them wins".  That's not the issue, even if it's correct.  It's whether the amount of wins that the goaltending cost them above a realistic alternative kept them from, say, making the playoffs or advancing within the playoffs.  At most, you can say decent goaltending would have gotten them into the playoffs last year.  But again, that's a huge stretch given that it took amazing goaltending to get Ottawa into the playoffs last year with the same abysmal goals for.    It doesn't matter who your goalie is.  When you are one goal above having the fewest amount of goals in a season, you need much more than a decent replacement.  You need Vezina level save percentage.  If you think your GM does a bad job with the goaltending because he didn't manage to get that, then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

Like I said, you don't know how hypotheticals work.  We're done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is the face of their franchise.  $8.5 million is a lot in a cap restricted world, however, operationally, that is chump change for the Rangers.  It affects the cap, but certainly not the Ranger's bottom line.

 

This, however, will have a bearing on Callahan.  All remains to be seen.

 

A lot of Rags fans are starting to really hate Callahan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.