anton girdeaux
New member
Arn said:
I'd have him back as back up.
Goaltending Options
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
I'd have him back as back up.
McGarnagle
New member
Come to think of it - I wonder if it might be more prudent to be very conservative in terms of outlay for a goalie until it's determined what the individual effects of the equipment changes make.
herman
Well-known member
McGarnagle said:
That's what Bernier's for...
Based on the/my dev projections for our forward corps, and depending greatly on what the defense shakes up to be, if we can't pick up an upstart goalie with promise in the next two years, I think we're going to have to buy/trade for one. And it will cost a bit of pretty coin if we want a known name that is not on the tail end of his career.
My ideal scenario would be that the expansion draft gives us the traded gift of a 23-25 year old goaltender with above average save percentage and still early in the dev curve, and one of the goaltenders we draft a week from today will free us up to trade that first guy in 5-6 years.
Way to go out on a limb there Mike.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Man, I completely forgot about that guy.
bustaheims said:TBLeafer said:No, I just think some GM's might be a little "keener" to make a trade or two, prior to the expansion draft than you think.
The expansion draft poses an interesting conundrum. There are definitely going to be GMs looking to move assets they don't feel they're going to be able to protect. I don't doubt that. The issue I see is on the other side - the GMs who might be looking to acquire these players are going to have to decide if it's worth sacrificing the assets needed to acquire the players they're looking at, while also risking exposing players on their roster they might have otherwise been looking to protect. For the handful of goalies who might be on the market, that's probably not going to be a huge issue, but for forwards and defencemen, it's going to complicate the already complicated trade process.
Possibly. In that case its probably gonna be a little trickier to trade roster players for draft picks.
Players for players wouldn't interrupt the balance teams have to protect, just teams that have areas of need using each other to fill those roles. More straight ups in other words.
bustaheims
Active member
TBLeafer said:
Maybe. It's obviously something that's going to vary pretty significantly team to team.
That being said, I don't expect to see a ton of expansion draft related deals until the week or so before the draft itself. Other than some of the obvious moves (a couple of the goaltending situations, mostly), I imagine most GMs are going to wait until their closer to finalizing their protected lists, have locked up potential UFAs, etc., before making any significant moves. Things may start getting going at the deadline, but I would expect most teams to want to retain players for the coming season and playoff run, and then addressing expansion, than potentially weakening their roster now.
Kin
New member
Something to maybe also keep in mind is that the expansion draft rules are what they are because, by most accounts, Bettman doesn't want a situation where a team comes into the league and is garbage for 5 or 6 years.
So while he probably can't mandate teams don't do it, I think there will be pressure for GMs not to take pennies on the dollar for players just to avoid losing them to an expansion draft.
So while he probably can't mandate teams don't do it, I think there will be pressure for GMs not to take pennies on the dollar for players just to avoid losing them to an expansion draft.
In terms of goaltending, I'm still not convinced that we're going to see a huge uptick of goalies being moved. Even at fair value. The only situation that seems to be worth watching is the one happening in Pittsburgh, and I'd imagine that the Pens would be making a move with their goalies next summer with or without expansion.
Kin
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Yeah, maybe I'm wrong about this but in thinking back to the older expansion drafts I seem to remember goalies typically being among the better players selected. I think to a certain extent teams won't be devastated at the prospect of losing their back-up goalies unless they're super valuable in which case they'll be dealt for a very valuable return.
But, as we've seen in recent years, if you've got a very valuable back-up goalie you're probably going to trade him anyway. So the idea that anyone will be more available might not hold up.
Nik the Trik said:
Sportsnet had a top-10 players taken in modern expansion drafts list a couple of months ago. 3 goalies appeared on it: Mike Richter, Dwayne Roloson, and Tomas Vokoun. Richter was a pending UFA who re-signed with the Rangers after he was picked. Roloson and Vokoun ended up having good careers but at the time I don't think they were very highly thought of.
Corey Schwab, Trevor Kidd, and some guy named Norm Maracle were the goalies taken by Atlanta in 1999.
Nik the Trik said:
Fair enough, I certainly don't have any recollection of that time. His numbers don't seem very impressive. Maybe it was just the "Brodeur's back-up" hype that surrounded him? Anyway, he seems to be more of the exception.
Goalies taken in the expansion drafts from 98-00 are: Frederic Chabot (x2), Mike Dunham, Mike Richter, Mikhail Shtalenkov, Tomas Vokoun, Trevor Kidd, Norm Maracle, Corey Schwab, Rick Tabaracci, Jamie McLennan, Mike Vernon, Dwayne Roloson, Chris Terreri.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Yeah. I took a look at things, and there's basically 3 goalies I expect to be moved - one in Anaheim (probably Andersen), Fleury, and Howard. We might see Kuemper or Grubauer move, too, but that's really it as things stand right now. I don't think Detroit, Minnesota, or Washington would be particularly heartbroken if their respective goalies go in the expansion draft, either. So, really, there's two goalies where there's likely some urgency to make a move - maybe a third, if TBay signs Bishop to an extension before the expansion draft, but that's really it.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
If I recall correctly, Dunham had a pretty solid stretch filling in for an injured Brodeur a season or two before the expansion draft, which inflated his value.
bustaheims said:
Yeah, and those 3 situations aren't even being motivated by the expansion draft. Andersen's getting moved (almost definitely this offseason) because he's a RFA looking for big money and they already have Gibson signed for a reasonable rate. Howard's lost his starting job to a cheaper, better, and younger goalie. He's also had 3 straight seasons of below-average play. Fleury's in a similar boat but he's coming off a couple of very good years. Of course Detroit and Pittsburgh will look to move those two.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Agreed. The timing of the expansion draft is really more coincidental. It puts some pressure on Detroit and Pittsburgh that they may not have felt as strongly, but, that's about it.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
No love for John Vanbiesbrouck? He was a 2nd team all-star for Florida in 1994 after going in the 1993 expansion draft and took them to the Cup finals 2 years later.
Heroic Shrimp said:
"Modern", old-timer.