Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
winger52

Who's your Goalie?

Who's your Goalie?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Given recent events, and we can protect only one goalie, who do you protect?

    • Eddie Lack
      18
    • Cam Ward
      7


Recommended Posts

Like RF, I am not going to answer this until the deadline to submit my protected list.  I reserve the right to change my mind several times before then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hag65 said:

Like RF, I am not going to answer this until the deadline to submit my protected list.  I reserve the right to change my mind several times before then.

 

No problem. Being a Cane fan is the pro sport version of a roller coaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took Eddie. Of the two, he has the most potential to play here the longest and to become a bonafide #1 keeper. Cam's had his chance, and sometimes the only way to cure a limp is to stop using crutches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, canes2017 said:

Don't think either goalie is in jeopardy of being taken by vegas..

I disagree. No matter what, he's a Cup-winning veteran keeper with a Conn Smythe trophy. I seriously doubt there'll be another exposed with that resume, and for a new franchise, the positive PR of that alone could be pretty hard to pass up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is over a decade ago... and the NHL junk pile littered with goalies who have a hot 1-2 yrs as "top" and that's it:

 

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=goaliesummary&pos=G&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,24&sort=savePctg,wins,goalsAgainstAverage

 

cam's 40th in save percentage..heck  fluery is 27th.. i'd say much more likely vegas looking at a raanta,chad Johnson,ben bishop or scott darling before cam...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, canes2017 said:

that is over a decade ago... and the NHL junk pile littered with goalies who have a hot 1-2 yrs as "top" and that's it:

 

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=goaliesummary&pos=G&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,24&sort=savePctg,wins,goalsAgainstAverage

 

cam's 40th in save percentage..heck  fluery is 27th.. i'd say much more likely vegas looking at a raanta,chad Johnson,ben bishop or scott darling before cam...

 

Grubauer will be taken if he is available. He was drafted and developed by Washington under McPhee, he is a RFA that is arbitration eligible, he is only 25, has played as well as any guy in the league this year, and Washington doesn't need him as they have Holtby and another excellent prospect just about ready to be brought up. My guess is he is exactly who both Vegas and Washington want Vegas to take at the expansion draft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, canes2017 said:

that is over a decade ago... and the NHL junk pile littered with goalies who have a hot 1-2 yrs as "top" and that's it:

 

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=goaliesummary&pos=G&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,24&sort=savePctg,wins,goalsAgainstAverage

 

cam's 40th in save percentage..heck  fluery is 27th.. i'd say much more likely vegas looking at a raanta,chad Johnson,ben bishop or scott darling before cam...

They still need two. Cam would be a great backup in Vegas. Here, I don't believe that's even possible.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MinJaBen said:

 

Grubauer will be taken if he is available. He was drafted and developed by Washington under McPhee, he is a RFA that is arbitration eligible, he is only 25, has played as well as any guy in the league this year, and Washington doesn't need him as they have Holtby and another excellent prospect just about ready to be brought up. My guess is he is exactly who both Vegas and Washington want Vegas to take at the expansion draft.

Yep- he is another..think darling in Chicago another who is very good,but doesn't get a #1 chance..Just saying there are a lot of good goalies who are in prime to be had by vegas.. and the way this will go would look at those to build a franchise from well before looking at an end of career goalie

Edited by canes2017
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

They still need two.

 

Nope. By rule, Vegas has to pick:

 

Quote

* The Las Vegas franchise must select the following number of players at each position: 14 forwards, nine defensemen and three goaltenders.

 

So probably two NHL players and then a prospect of some sort to put in their AHL franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MinJaBen said:

So probably two NHL players and then a prospect of some sort to put in their AHL franchise.

So, how is that not needing two, at the NHL level?

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MinJaBen said:

 

Grubauer will be taken if he is available. He was drafted and developed by Washington under McPhee, he is a RFA that is arbitration eligible, he is only 25, has played as well as any guy in the league this year, and Washington doesn't need him as they have Holtby and another excellent prospect just about ready to be brought up. My guess is he is exactly who both Vegas and Washington want Vegas to take at the expansion draft.

 

Can we add Grubauer to our poll selections?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, top-shelf-1 said:

So, how is that not needing two, at the NHL level?

 

Well, it means they need to pick three. They could pick three at the NHL level, I just guessed that two NHL and one AHL. They could decide also to pick a UFA goalie just to release after July 1 so they don't have so many contracts. There will be some guys they pick just to let go so they have flexibility, or pick to immediately flip to another team, like us with a goalie for draft picks. So that could mean three NHL goalies (or more) picked by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MinJaBen said:

 

Well, it means they need to pick three. They could pick three at the NHL level, I just guessed that two NHL and one AHL. They could decide also to pick a UFA goalie just to release after July 1 so they don't have so many contracts. There will be some guys they pick just to let go so they have flexibility, or pick to immediately flip to another team, like us with a goalie for draft picks. So that could mean three NHL goalies (or more) picked by them.

Okay, but none of that negates my point, i.e., they will need two on their NHL roster when the puck drops. Cam could be a solid backup at a decent price there, or pretty much anywhere--except here.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, top-shelf-1 said:

Okay, but it doesn't negate my point, i.e., that they will need two when the puck drops on their NHL roster. Cam could be a solid backup at a decent price there, or pretty much anywhere--except here.

 

Ok, yes you are correct in that is what they will need on their team. I took your statement that in the quote you quoted that they will take not one, but two of those goalies listed. I confused your meaning in your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MinJaBen said:

 

Ok, yes you are correct in that is what they will need on their team. I took your statement that in the quote you quoted that they will take not one, but two of those goalies listed. I confused your meaning in your statement.

English can be brutal :lol:. No worries. I just think Cam's deal last summer was carefully structured to make his hit attractive to Vegas - or anyone else - as a #2. It's pretty clear RF wanted Lack to be the guy going forward, and whether it turns out that he is or not, and whether it's to Vegas or elsewhere, I think the plan is to move Cam this off-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack, when given the opportunity to play for long stretches, Lack has played like a #1 goalie, so I'm going to go with Lack for those reasons.  Also - I think, just as it was with Staal, it's time for both parties to move on from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, top-shelf-1 said:

It's pretty clear RF wanted Lack to be the guy going forward, and whether it turns out that he is or not, and whether it's to Vegas or elsewhere, I think the plan is to move Cam this off-season.

 

I don't agree with you on that. If the plan was to move Cam this offseason, giving him a modified NTC was pretty stupid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

They still need two. Cam would be a great backup in Vegas. Here, I don't believe that's even possible.

 that makes no sense- know most people want to throw our junk and pretend its gold to other teams.. but if cam can't even be a back up in Carolina- why would vegas take him?, when much better available to them in this draft?..Their building sold out already- so ticket sales and be being the "shiny new" in vegas, means don't need a name to draw.. IMO vegas getting a "once-in-a-lifetime" chance , to "steal" other teams hard work, scouting and development on players these teams want to keep,but can't. IMO you are not going to waste that opportunity on a 32+ age goalie, who can be had for 2 used pucks over summer.. You use these picks on young, coveted, developing talent that can be part of your future3-7 yrs down the line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MinJaBen said:

I don't agree with you on that. If the plan was to move Cam this offseason, giving him a modified NTC was pretty stupid.

Cam is on the record saying he "thought I was gone" two years ago, when he still had a full NTC, and that if the org felt it was best to go in a new direction he'd understand and work with it. IMO he got the modified NTC because RF knows he'll be reasonable about it.

 

 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canes2017 said:

 that makes no sense- know most people want to throw our junk and pretend its gold to other teams.. but if cam can't even be a back up in Carolina- why would vegas take him?

You're being too literal. Cam "can't" be a backup in Carolina for reasons other than his ability. He'd be a great backup here, too, if putting him in that diminished role was tenable, and if we still wanted him here, representing, as he does, the past. That's what I meant regarding his history: He's been the #1 here for so long that I think it becomes hard for him to watch 50 or more games from the bench, and harder, from a "moving on" POV, for RF/BP to allow it.

 

I get that there's a vocal contingent here that believes that as long Cam is here he will be the #1, and that this year's actions prove it. I disagree. I think BP reacted very badly to Eddie's injuries because they ruined the plan, which has been all along for Eddie to become the #1. I think this was the year that transition was to begin in earnest, and that when Eddie's injuries prevented it, BP/RF made a really bad decision by not sending Eddie down to the AHL after the second concussion and bringing up Leighton for the rest of the year. They instead (and again) overplayed Cam. But by doing so, they now have all the proof they need that Cam is never going to be a guy who can shoulder more than a 50-game workload, and at his age, giving him more than 30 is risky.

 

Eddie is showing why we got him, and playoffs or no, I think it becomes very hard to justify keeping Cam Ward. If he wants to keep playing you expose him and, if he isn't taken, you move him. Worst case you buy him out; he's only got a year left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

You're being too literal. Cam "can't" be a backup in Carolina for reasons other than his ability. He'd be a great backup here, too, if putting him in that diminished role was tenable, and if we still wanted him here, representing, as he does, the past. That's what I meant regarding his history: He's been the #1 here for so long that I think it becomes hard for him to watch 50 or more games from the bench, and harder, from a "moving on" POV, for RF/BP to allow it.

 

I get that there's a vocal contingent here that believes that as long Cam is here he will be the #1, and that this year's actions prove it. I disagree. I think BP reacted very badly to Eddie's injuries because they ruined the plan, which has been all along for Eddie to become the #1. I think this was the year that transition was to begin in earnest, and that when Eddie's injuries prevented it, BP/RF made a really bad decision by not sending Eddie down to the AHL after the second concussion and bringing up Leighton for the rest of the year. They instead (and again) overplayed Cam. But by doing so, they now have all the proof they need that Cam is never going to be a guy who can shoulder more than a 50-game workload, and at his age, giving him more than 30 is risky.

 

Eddie is showing why we got him, and playoffs or no, I think it becomes very hard to justify keeping Cam Ward. If he wants to keep playing you expose him and, if he isn't taken, you move him. Worst case you buy him out; he's only got a year left.

 Do not disagree with you about cam in Carolina- its hard when a star to be demoted( its why staal needed a new place.. Vinnie in tampa etc etc).. Guess we just agree to disagree that Cam is worthy of being one of the 2 goalies Vegas chooses- just see 5-6 guys at east i'd take before cam, for why just do not think either Cane goalie a worry to go there

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it as being untenable for Ward to assume a backup role at this point in his career IF we had a true #1.  Which is not to say I think he should be our backup going forward; I'm waiting to see how the rest of the season plays out before making a call (I remember how good Khudo looked over a limited number of games).

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...