Reimer avoids arbitration

[Frank E]

My feeling in this cap world is that a team cannot really afford to spend much more than 1 million on a backup. Maybe I am wrong. I am not sure of what the average backup salary is.

Why would the backup salary be a greater concern than just the total spent on goaltending? If the Rangers can be good and pay their goaltenders 9 million a year, shouldn't the Leafs be able to be good paying theirs 8.3?

I think you could make an argument that $2.3m sitting on bench for most of the season could be better used on the ice every night.

 

[Kin]

I think you could make an argument that $2.3m sitting on bench for most of the season could be better used on the ice every night.

Well, two things:

1. Even a goalie who only plays about a quarter of the season will have a pretty big impact on a team. Chad Johnson, for instance, was on the ice more last year for Boston than either Kadri or Raymond were for the Leafs.

2. That's not really what I'm asking. If Bernier's next deal paid him 7.3 million and Reimer was getting 1 million would that make paying 8.3 million for the same two players any better? What I'm saying is that so long as your total goaltending costs aren't out of whack with successful clubs, it doesn't really matter how it's split.

 

[Frank E]

I think you could make an argument that $2.3m sitting on bench for most of the season could be better used on the ice every night.

Well, two things:

1. Even a goalie who only plays about a quarter of the season will have a pretty big impact on a team. Chad Johnson, for instance, was on the ice more last year for Boston than either Kadri or Raymond were for the Leafs.

2. That's not really what I'm asking. If Bernier's next deal paid him 7.3 million and Reimer was getting 1 million would that make paying 8.3 million for the same two players any better? What I'm saying is that so long as your total goaltending costs aren't out of whack with successful clubs, it doesn't really matter how it's split.

Suppose it was the other way around, and your $1mil goalie was playing 60 games, and your $7mil goalie was on the bench...would that be a good spend of $7mil?

 

[Capn_Crunch]

My feeling in this cap world is that a team cannot really afford to spend much more than 1 million on a backup. Maybe I am wrong. I am not sure of what the average backup salary is.

Why would the backup salary be a greater concern than just the total spent on goaltending? If the Rangers can be good and pay their goaltenders 9 million a year, shouldn't the Leafs be able to be good paying theirs 8.3?

I think you could make an argument that $2.3m sitting on bench for most of the season could be better used on the ice every night.

Until you actually need to play that backup... you know the one for a mill or less a season...
Do those actually exist? In todays capworld not a bloody chance.

Who of the goalies on the market would you rather have that would also OUT perform Reims and take a mill or less a season. You pay almost league minimum for a player you shouldn't expect the moon from them.

I'd rather have Reims at 2.3 mill and know that he can not only start when needed but also steal games for us at times too.

 

[Capn_Crunch]

I think you could make an argument that $2.3m sitting on bench for most of the season could be better used on the ice every night.

Well, two things:

1. Even a goalie who only plays about a quarter of the season will have a pretty big impact on a team. Chad Johnson, for instance, was on the ice more last year for Boston than either Kadri or Raymond were for the Leafs.

2. That's not really what I'm asking. If Bernier's next deal paid him 7.3 million and Reimer was getting 1 million would that make paying 8.3 million for the same two players any better? What I'm saying is that so long as your total goaltending costs aren't out of whack with successful clubs, it doesn't really matter how it's split.

Suppose it was the other way around, and your $1mil goalie was playing 60 games, and your $7mil goalie was on the bench...would that be a good spend of $7mil?

Now that's a bad comparison. 7 Mill goalies don't get benched for an extended period of time... they get traded.

We are lucky to have a 1A and a 1B tandem... considering that we are paying less for both in a season then some teams pay for their starting goalie thats a pretty efficient and cost controled way of taking care of business.

 

[Kin]

Suppose it was the other way around, and your $1mil goalie was playing 60 games, and your $7mil goalie was on the bench...would that be a good spend of $7mil?

Again, I'm not saying it would be the best way to use cap dollars(although in light of that Chad Johnson stat it might be argued that we're undervaluing back-up goalies in general) but rather that it wouldn't prevent a team from being competitive. The Wild paid Dany Heatley way too much money to be on their 4th line last year but they were able to be a competitive team because they got enough contributions elsewhere that a short-term inefficiency didn't really matter.

Obviously going forward Bernier's ability to establish himself as an elite goaltender capable of playing 60-65 games a year will determine the wisdom of paying Reimer that much to stick around as a back-up but right now the only real risk in paying Reimer this much money is if Bernier emerges as one of the best goalies in the league and then if he gets a contract in the 6-7 million dollar range then maybe the Leafs will be committed to having one season where they can look at the back-up goaltender as a largely superfluous position they should cut back on.

 

[Frank E]

Suppose it was the other way around, and your $1mil goalie was playing 60 games, and your $7mil goalie was on the bench...would that be a good spend of $7mil?

Again, I'm not saying it would be the best way to use cap dollars(although in light of that Chad Johnson stat it might be argued that we're undervaluing back-up goalies in general) but rather that it wouldn't prevent a team from being competitive. The Wild paid Dany Heatley way too much money to be on their 4th line last year but they were able to be a competitive team because they got enough contributions elsewhere that a short-term inefficiency didn't really matter.

Obviously going forward Bernier's ability to establish himself as an elite goaltender capable of playing 60-65 games a year will determine the wisdom of paying Reimer that much to stick around as a back-up but right now the only real risk in paying Reimer this much money is if Bernier emerges as one of the best goalies in the league and then if he gets a contract in the 6-7 million dollar range then maybe the Leafs will be committed to having one season where they can look at the back-up goaltender as a largely superfluous position they should cut back on.

Sure, but I'm just trying to point out that there is indeed a number for a backup that stops making much sense.

Using your example of the backup goalie spending more time on the ice than some good players, you could then argue that maybe the Leafs should be spending $11 million on goalies and cutting back on 2nd liners if it's that important to the outcome of the games.

I'm not convinced that Reimer at $2.3mil is a bad move at all for the Leafs with a $2.9mil Bernier.  Now if Bernier indeed puts up a brick wall this season and gets the $6mil cap hit deal, then I start to wonder if they're going to need that extra mil or so premium for Reimer vs. a cheap back up to supplement the skaters, since they just allocated another $3.1 million to the goaltending from the skaters.

 

[Kin]

Sure, but I'm just trying to point out that there is indeed a number for a backup that stops making much sense.

There's a point at which a back-up goalie's salary can become inefficient, sure, but it's important to keep that in perspective. The difference between what Heatley was being paid(7.5 million) and the replacement level salary of a 4th liner in the NHL is, at least, 6.5 million which is roughly the cost of a very good 1st line forward or an elite defenseman. The difference between what Reimer is being paid and the cost of the most marginal back-up goaltender is 1.8 million which is roughly the cost of a Mike Santorelli. The difference between Reimer's salary and a good back-up goalie's market value, like Chad Johnson, is roughly the NHL minimum.

So we're not even really talking about "2.3 million that could be used elsewhere" we're talking about anywhere from just over a million to just under a million or roughly 1-2% of the salary cap.

Using your example of the backup goalie spending more time on the ice than some good players, you could then argue that maybe the Leafs should be spending $11 million on goalies and cutting back on 2nd liners if it's that important to the outcome of the games.

Well, yes. I did say that. And I think that's something worth discussing. 20 games is a significant part of the season. The difference between a good back-up and a bad-back up over the course of twenty games might be...8 points in a season? 10? 6? I don't know but I definitely think it bears discussing about the worth of that compared to, say, the value of a good 3rd or 4th liner.

But ignoring that, the inefficiency I'm talking about above really only comes up if, over the course of the next two years, Reimer's role becomes that of someone like Cam Talbot. Is there anything that could happen over the next two years that would effectively cause that? If Bernier has an amazing, Vezina calibre season next year where he plays in 65 games with a .930+ save percentage that might reduce Reimer to that role but even still, how comfortable would you be that Bernier could repeat that? I mean, Ben Bishop had that season last year and I'd bet that if you asked Tampa Bay right now, they wouldn't mind investing more in a back-up.

 

[2badknees]

I'm losing the plot a bit. A month ago he was asking for a trade out of town.

Why would he sign a two year deal?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm losing the plot a bit. A month ago he was asking for a trade out of town.

Why would he sign a two year deal?

Because this is probably as good of a situation as he's going to find, there's not many (if any) starting goalie positions available and almost no teams where he would be the clear #1.  Bernier doesn't have a long history of being a #1 and it's in Reimer's best interests to perform well and make a trade more possible.  As it stands right now there's not much of a market so it's in everyone's interest for him to perform well.  2-year deal is likely just to make him more marketable in a deal too.

 

[cw]

I'm losing the plot a bit. A month ago he was asking for a trade out of town.

Why would he sign a two year deal?

Because this is probably as good of a situation as he's going to find, there's not many (if any) starting goalie positions available and almost no teams where he would be the clear #1.  Bernier doesn't have a long history of being a #1 and it's in Reimer's best interests to perform well and make a trade more possible.  As it stands right now there's not much of a market so it's in everyone's interest for him to perform well.  2-year deal is likely just to make him more marketable in a deal too.

Bernier is a RFA next summer so 2 years may provide them a little additional protection in the haggling for Bernier's deal if Reimer is not traded.

 

[2badknees]

Bernier is a RFA next summer so 2 years may provide them a little additional protection in the haggling for Bernier's deal if Reimer is not traded.

I suppose I understand your point from a business perspective. But if someone asked for a trade, I wouldn't reward that loyalty with a 2 year deal with any other intention other than making him substantially more marketable to get him out, and I don't see how it will unless he gets (a) substantial playing time and (b) he plays much better than he did last year. Two large gambles. Its all pretty weird to me.

 

[TML fan]

Reimer's play will dictate his playing time. The Leafs obviously favour Bernier, but the way I see it is, if Reimer plays better than Bernier, he will start here. If they play the same, Reimer will be traded for sure, to the benefit of the team. If he's worse, then he's not a #1 goalie. The Leafs really can't lose here (unless they both suck). To me, the ball is in Reimer's court.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Reimer's play will dictate his playing time. The Leafs obviously favour Bernier, but the way I see it is, if Reimer plays better than Bernier, he will start here. If they play the same, Reimer will be traded for sure, to the benefit of the team. If he's worse, then he's not a #1 goalie. The Leafs really can't lose here (unless they both suck). To me, the ball is in Reimer's court.

Which is why the pressure will be more on Bernier than Reimer.  It's,  as you mentioned, up to Reimer to prove himself as a worthy 'keeper.  Reimer has really nothing to lose and everything to gain.  The rest is up to him.

 

[L K]

I'm losing the plot a bit. A month ago he was asking for a trade out of town.

Why would he sign a two year deal?

A lot has changed with the team in the last month.  That can make a big difference.  And ultimately, signing a two year deal in no way prevents him from still being traded.

 

[L K]

Suppose it was the other way around, and your $1mil goalie was playing 60 games, and your $7mil goalie was on the bench...would that be a good spend of $7mil?

Again, I'm not saying it would be the best way to use cap dollars(although in light of that Chad Johnson stat it might be argued that we're undervaluing back-up goalies in general) but rather that it wouldn't prevent a team from being competitive. The Wild paid Dany Heatley way too much money to be on their 4th line last year but they were able to be a competitive team because they got enough contributions elsewhere that a short-term inefficiency didn't really matter.

Obviously going forward Bernier's ability to establish himself as an elite goaltender capable of playing 60-65 games a year will determine the wisdom of paying Reimer that much to stick around as a back-up but right now the only real risk in paying Reimer this much money is if Bernier emerges as one of the best goalies in the league and then if he gets a contract in the 6-7 million dollar range then maybe the Leafs will be committed to having one season where they can look at the back-up goaltender as a largely superfluous position they should cut back on.

Sure, but I'm just trying to point out that there is indeed a number for a backup that stops making much sense.

Using your example of the backup goalie spending more time on the ice than some good players, you could then argue that maybe the Leafs should be spending $11 million on goalies and cutting back on 2nd liners if it's that important to the outcome of the games.

I'm not convinced that Reimer at $2.3mil is a bad move at all for the Leafs with a $2.9mil Bernier.  Now if Bernier indeed puts up a brick wall this season and gets the $6mil cap hit deal, then I start to wonder if they're going to need that extra mil or so premium for Reimer vs. a cheap back up to supplement the skaters, since they just allocated another $3.1 million to the goaltending from the skaters.

The other question though is also just how much of a backup Reimer is actually going to be.  If Bernier plays 55-60 games and Reimer's playing 20-25 games, I think you can make your argument to an extent but if the Leafs (without Carlyle's coaching staff) view him as a 1B rather than a #2, I don't think the money is nearly as costly for the franchise.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Reimer's play will dictate his playing time. The Leafs obviously favour Bernier, but the way I see it is, if Reimer plays better than Bernier, he will start here. If they play the same, Reimer will be traded for sure, to the benefit of the team. If he's worse, then he's not a #1 goalie. The Leafs really can't lose here (unless they both suck). To me, the ball is in Reimer's court.

Yup. Teams have to use their free agency status to their advantage at every instance now, especially now that players are becoming UFA sooner.

That being said, I also don't believe that the situation between Reimer and Carlyle is as bad as these things get focused on. Was he pissed that game that he was glaring at Carlyle after the pull? Sure he was, but I don't know that it went farther than that, I'm skeptical. Reimer was probably upset at his own play also, but the coach is paid to make those calls and Carlyle was probably right to pull him, if not even just to wake up his team.

Maybe Reimer asked for a trade to quick anyway and realized that, he probably shouldn't have let that get out, it only fuels the fire. Either way, Reimer still has the ball in his court to back up what he thinks about his play. It really is a win-win for the Leafs. I hope Reimer does walk the talk.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Reimer vows to challenge for the starter's job...

"I was told there's a definite opportunity," Reimer said. "That's the mindset I'm coming in with, to really take advantage of the opportunity that's been given and earn the No. 1 spot."

I'm really excited about coming back. It's not a case where I wanted to leave. I just
thought, like I said, that things were kind of done there. I'm really excited to have another
opportunity and kind of a new start there."

On the supposed "rift" with coach Carlyle:
"I think it was blown a little out of proportion," Reimer said. "Lots of people have asked me about Randy and what I think of him, and in all honesty I've always defended him.

"I think maybe we didn't see eye-to-eye last year, but that has no bearing on his ability to coach or what he can do with the team. Sometimes you just don't see eye-to-eye and that's the way things go, but I have a lot of respect for him and I think he's a greatcoach.[/

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=727284