Goaltending conundrum

[Bender]

I really liked Thomas, but, I can't support anyone who uses his celebrity to speak out against gay rights, just as I wouldn't support any celebrity who made racist remarks, or any other hateful remarks.

If I understand Thomas correctly, he just wants to be seen as a "regular person" who can post things on Facebook like everybody else.  So I don't know that he is neccesarily using his status to promote his beliefs, but the press finds his posts and makes a news story out of it.

I think you are right, that it would be a terrible mix for Burke and Thomas to be working together in any capacity.

Sure, but "regular" people don't often get invited to the white house.  Regular people don't make 5 or 6 million dollars.  regular people don't get hockey cards made of them.  They guy is not a regular person, any more than Sean Avery was a regular person when he made his homophobic remarks.

I think Charles Barkley once famously said "I'm not a role model... Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids.".  Same situation.  Because he is in the public eye, he needs to be more aware of what he says, and has to know that the public won't allow him to be a "regular person".  He is a role model, and hero to many. 

Regardless, I think we agree, he is out of the mix, whether he was in it or not.

He has every right to his beliefs.  Regardless or whether you agree with him or not.  That's kind of why we have free speech laws.

Who said he doesn't have a right to his beliefs?

This is going to be one hell of a slippery slope if we continue down this road.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I think Charles Barkley once famously said "I'm not a role model... Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids.".  Same situation.  Because he is in the public eye, he needs to be more aware of what he says, and has to know that the public won't allow him to be a "regular person".  He is a role model, and hero to many.

So...wait. Are you agreeing with Barkley or not? Barkley said that he shouldn't be considered a role model and that what he said shouldn't be subject to that level of scrutiny.

Nik, this backlash is what I am talking about with this topic of homosexuality. People are idiots to publicly state any beliefs unless it lines up exactly with the gay beliefs.  Dan Cathy and Tim Thomas did not say to beat up gays like another player might have suggested.  They stated a belief opposite to the gay beliefs.

I have been in the middle of this firestorm for 35 years now because of standing with an immediate family member I dearly love.  It has been interesting for me to watch the bullying and intimidation pendulum swing.

 

[Britishbulldog]

This is going to be one hell of a slippery slope if we continue down this road.

I agree.  I am on a hockey site to discuss hockey not personal lives of the hockey players. 

As for the goal tending conundrum, I am hoping it will be solved when a certain GM gets back from Panama and trades his goalie for Komisarek and a couple of other Leaf pieces. 

 

[Kin]

Nik, this backlash is what I am talking about with this topic of homosexuality. People are idiots to publicly state any beliefs unless it lines up exactly with the gay beliefs.  Dan Cathy and Tim Thomas did not say to beat up gays like another player might have suggested.  They stated a belief opposite to the gay beliefs.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post or what exactly you mean when you refer to the very ominous sounding "Gay Beliefs". More to the point I have no idea what your problem is here. People say things. They face backlash for saying them. That's the free exchange of ideas. Free speech means the government can't throw Tim Thomas in jail for saying something, not that I can't think Tim Thomas is a dope for saying it.

Certain subjects are very touchy, sure but that's nothing new. There are lots of other things Tim Thomas could have said that would have seen him subject to a far more serious backlash of public opinion. The idea that people face legitimate public consequence for the things they say isn't tantamount to bullying or intimidation. It's a far bigger infringement on the free expression of ideas to say that it's wrong for me not to want to buy a ticket to watch Tim Thomas than it is for Tim Thomas to not want to say something for fear of offending me. Thomas can rant and rave about anything he wants, I have the freedom to not want to watch him play hockey.

I don't see the incongruity there that you do. Mel Gibson is a very talented filmmaker. Braveheart is one of my favourite flicks. Unfortunately, he seems to have some real problems with my people. I think it's pretty fair for me to decide not to give the guy any of my moderately-earned paycheck. Hockey, like the movies, are an entertainment. While I like them very much that enjoyment is secondary to my desire to not support anti-semitism or racism or sexism. I'd very much like to know which, if any, hockey players are with Mr. Gibson when it comes to Vatican II so I can make sure to never financially support the teams they play for. I don't see it as "politics" encroaching on entertainment. I see it as informing me more fully about my entertainment and whether it's worthy of my money.

Now, every single person is going to have their own ideas about what issues are or aren't worthy of that kind of boycott. For some, marriage equality fit the bill. Others, not so much. Regardless, there's nothing unfair going on. You still have to own your words.

 

[sickbeast]

Thomas is old anyway. I don't know why you guys even care about him. He will be washed up soon, trust me. His political views border on lunacy. Why would you ever refuse meeting with the president? He's probably racist. What a nut. Only Ed Belfour was crazier.

 

[Fanatic]

Thomas is old anyway. I don't know why you guys even care about him. He will be washed up soon, trust me. His political views border on lunacy. Why would you ever refuse meeting with the president? He's probably racist. What a nut. Only Ed Belfour was crazier.

The fact that you cannot accept that someone would disagree with Obama (to the point of not wanting to meet him) without thinking it is because he is racist sort of makes you the only confirmed racist in this conversation.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Only if you have some completely different definition of racism than everyone else, sure.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Why would anybody in their right mind want a 38 year old that's taking the year off. Politics or not, how does it help Reimer or Scrivens develop.

Toronto missed the boat on Vokoun and I don't think there's another skilled, aging goalie out there that can mentor the young guys.

Luongo may be an option, but the length of the contract is scary, though burying him in the minors in a few years is an option.

 

[caver]

Well obviously Toronto only wants him if he is not taking the year off. Getting one year out of a solid goalie like Thomas takes some pressure off the young goalies. The team's success (or lack of) would not be riding solely on Reimer and Scrivens. 

 

[Knobby]

Why would anybody in their right mind want a 38 year old that's taking the year off. Politics or not, how does it help Reimer or Scrivens develop.

Toronto missed the boat on Vokoun and I don't think there's another skilled, aging goalie out there that can mentor the young guys.

Luongo may be an option, but the length of the contract is scary, though burying him in the minors in a few years is an option.

I am uncertain if anyone here understands Luongo's contract. He is signed long term at a good salary for a top end goalie. He will not be playing when the contract expires and because of his age when he signed the contract, he will not count against the cap when he retires or takes a year off, as per Thomas. Money and term mean nothing, if you are getting an above average goalie, which Luongo is. I think most people on this site have drank too much Burkie Kool-Aid. Luongo is the only chance that the Leafs have at post season next year. Leave Scrivens in the AHL and Reimer as back up, where he would be on any other team.

 

[caver]

Gee... some good points there....

 

[bustaheims]

I am uncertain if anyone here understands Luongo's contract. He is signed long term at a good salary for a top end goalie. He will not be playing when the contract expires and because of his age when he signed the contract, he will not count against the cap when he retires or takes a year off, as per Thomas. Money and term mean nothing, if you are getting an above average goalie, which Luongo is. I think most people on this site have drank too much Burkie Kool-Aid. Luongo is the only chance that the Leafs have at post season next year. Leave Scrivens in the AHL and Reimer as back up, where he would be on any other team.

Thomas counts against the Bruins' cap this year. As for Luongo, according to the expiring CBA, he wouldn't, but there's a very good chance those rules could be changed to a situation where he would. Until the new CBA is signed and any potential changes to the 35+ rule are finalized, it's not worth the risk or the price the Canucks are supposedly asking.

 

[princedpw]

Why would anybody in their right mind want a 38 year old that's taking the year off. Politics or not, how does it help Reimer or Scrivens develop.

Toronto missed the boat on Vokoun and I don't think there's another skilled, aging goalie out there that can mentor the young guys.

Luongo may be an option, but the length of the contract is scary, though burying him in the minors in a few years is an option.

I am uncertain if anyone here understands Luongo's contract. He is signed long term at a good salary for a top end goalie. He will not be playing when the contract expires and because of his age when he signed the contract, he will not count against the cap when he retires or takes a year off, as per Thomas. Money and term mean nothing, if you are getting an above average goalie, which Luongo is. I think most people on this site have drank too much Burkie Kool-Aid. Luongo is the only chance that the Leafs have at post season next year. Leave Scrivens in the AHL and Reimer as back up, where he would be on any other team.

A lot of people around here understand Luongo's contract pretty well, I think.  Howener, there are several things that no one knows:

- what will the new CBA look like and how will it affect long-term contracts like Luongo's?  For instance, will it be possible to bury such contracts in the minors and wipe them off the books if Luongo starts to suck?

- how long will Luongo maintain above-average performance? Until he is 35? 38? Certainly not until he is 43.

- when will he choose to retire?  will he choose to retire when he sinks below the level of performance expected of a 5+ million/year goalie?

Everyone thinks he is a good goalie right now and thinks he would help the team next year at his current cap hit.  However, some people are worried about the future, particularly the problems that might arise from certain kinds of CBA changes.

Edit: Busta beat me to it.

 

[Knobby]

The NHL will no doubt change how long term contracts are structured with the new CBA, but I can't see how they can change the terms on a signed contract, that were within the guidelines of the previous CBA. All these contracts that are currently out there will be grandfathered in.

I am a fan of Burke's, but I am afraid that he missed the boat with regard to long term deals, especially with the financial resources of MLSEL. Could have offered some ridiculousness to Stamkos last year via offer sheet, but he doesn't like them either.

 

[bustaheims]

The NHL will no doubt change how long term contracts are structured with the new CBA, but I can't see how they can change the terms on a signed contract, that were within the guidelines of the previous CBA. All these contracts that are currently out there will be grandfathered in.

Well, firstly, there's a convenient little clause in the standard player contract that says the contract has to comply with whatever CBA is in effect, so, yeah, the league can change the terms of a signed contract because the contract allows them to. Secondly, they don't actually have to change the contract at all, they just have to change the 35+ rule to include all players over the age of 35, instead of contracts signed by players over the age of 35, and, since they didn't grandfather the original 35+ rule, who's to say they'd grandfather in any changes?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I am uncertain if anyone here understands Luongo's contract. He is signed long term at a good salary for a top end goalie. He will not be playing when the contract expires and because of his age when he signed the contract, he will not count against the cap when he retires or takes a year off, as per Thomas. Money and term mean nothing, if you are getting an above average goalie, which Luongo is. I think most people on this site have drank too much Burkie Kool-Aid. Luongo is the only chance that the Leafs have at post season next year. Leave Scrivens in the AHL and Reimer as back up, where he would be on any other team.
[/quote]

I most certainly do understand Luongo's contract.  I also understand the make up of this team at this current date, and presently they're 3 or 4 years at best away from actually competing for the cup.
I also understand the need for a veteran goalie......but, I don't think leaving Scrivens in the minors for 4 or 5 years and leaving Reimer on the bench for the next 3 or 4 is going to help this team in any way.

Reimer will either grow tired of the situation, or his skills will not develop and when Luongo is just about washed up, we'll be stuck with a 5 million dollar average goalie, a couple million dollar back up and noone to take the reigns when this team is just about ready to truly compete.

 

[Knobby]

So your take is to let Reimer continue as the starter? He wasn't so good last year, I understand he hd a concussion, but he never really looked as good as he did down the stretch the year before. Love to eat crow on this, I just am not certain he is the starter we hope he is.

 

[Jalili]

So your take is to let Reimer continue as the starter? He wasn't so good last year, I understand he hd a concussion, but he never really looked as good as he did down the stretch the year before. Love to eat crow on this, I just am not certain he is the starter we hope he is.

I'll tell ya I've still got my fingers crossed for a Luongo deal, even if it seems like that ships already sailed.

Reimer and Scrivens probably aren't ready to be a tandem, not behind a team that historically plays poor defense and doesn't exactly bring out the best in its netminders.

It doesn't seem like an atmosphere that will bring out the best in their development either, in a longterm career sense.

 

[Fletch]

I'd be calling Colorado, and seeing if JS Giguerre is available for a pick.  He was a good fit two years ago, is a known commodity, and would come cheap. 

The Reimer/Jiggy tandem seemed to work well.  I'd be willing to give it another go.

A couple of veteran UFAs who might sign, or even come to training camp tryouts, that I would consider would be Turco or Huet. 

Turco was an all star goalie not that long ago, but I seem to remember him being a bit aloof, and maybe not a good fit with the young guys.  Still, worth consideration though.

Huet, who seems long forgotten, might still be in the NHL if not for Chicago's cap problems.  In his last 4 NHL seasons he went 78-43-14.  Those are pretty good numbers for a guy who was never considered a star player.  He was loaned to the Swiss league to free up cap space, not because he was ineffective.

Short of that, there are not a lot of veteran goalies out there.  If Luongo goes to Florida, then that makes Theodore available, but at what cost?

 

[Hampreacher]

Reimer can be effective. It was a neck injure that gave concussion like symptoms. He should be 100% this year. Given the kings randsom they want for Luongo It is worth a try.