• Announcements

    • OBXer

      Use email to sign-on   11/17/2016

      If your email doesn't work for sign-on use contact us link at the bottom of the page to send us a message
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
LakeLivin

The Great #1 Goalie Thread

81 posts in this topic

Seems like the #1 issue for the Canes this offseason will be acquiring a #1 goaltender.  So I thought it might be useful to create a central place to capture and discuss our likely options.  I'll kick it off with a few.

 

                                  Age    Ht                            16-17                                              NHL Career*             

UFAs:                                             Salary      Games     GAA     Save%          Games    GAA     Save%  

Ben Bishop                 30    6'7"       $5.95m        39         2.54     .910                270       2.32      .919

Scott Darling               28    6'6"       $588k          32         2.38     .924                  75       2.37      .923

Brian Elliott                 32    6'2"       $2.5m          49         2.55     .910                372       2.42      .913

 

Trade options due

to expansion draft?  

Philip Grubauer(RFA)  25   6'1"        $750k         24         2.04      .926                 66       2.25      .923  

M.A. Fleury                32   6'2"        $5.75m       38         3.02      .909                691       2.58      .912 

Antti Raanta               27   6'0"        $1m            30         2.26      .922                 79        2.32      .917

 

* doesn't include playoff games (the site I referenced had them listed separately)

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bishop would be great but he's going to get very big $s and term.  Would a) RF be able to pony up a competitive offer and b ) how likely is it that Bishop would choose Carolina?

 

Darling, Grubauer, and Raanta have good numbers and seen very promising but their limited NHL experience makes them risky given how variable goalies are.  Remember, Eddie Lack looked good with good numbers over 82 games before he came to Carolina.

 

Elliott was inconsistent this year, starting off very poorly before bouncing back, iirc. 

 

Fleury: well, most have a strong opinion on him one way or another.

 

We all agree that RF needs to do something but I don't see a clear cut best option.  What do you think we should do?

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather take one of the younger ones (Grubauer, Raanta, and Darling, to an extent). Get some more mileage out of them. Darling is the hot topic, of course. Everybody brings up Chicago's system for his success, but I'm also more gun shy considering the whole Eddie situation, like maybe he's just lucky right now. Grubauer and Raanta would be really expensive, but maybe we could move some of our picks and decent prospects to get one of them.

 

When it comes to the older guys, they'd have to be pretty cost effective based on their ages (except for MAF, since he isn't a free agent). Bishop would be great, but I think I heard somewhere (maybe on these boards) that he wants a 7x7 deal. I definitely would not want that contract. I, like many others, would not be interested in Fleury unless we could get him for cheap.

 

I agree with many that it is time to move on from Cam. I'd say: Go after Grubauer, then Raanta if we can't get Grubauer. Expose Eddie for the expansion draft, with a decent back-up lined up on the off-chance that Vegas takes him. Give Grubauer/Raanta the first few starts. If it doesn't work out, then give Eddie the next few starts. If neither work out, then we all cry. If either works out, then we all celebrate!

 

That's just my advanced statistic-less opinion. Looking forward to hearing what others have to say about this topic!

Edited by Citizen_Quinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Citizen_Quinn said:

I'd rather take one of the younger ones (Grubauer, Raanta, and Darling, to an extent). Get some more mileage out of them. Darling is the hot topic, of course. Everybody brings up Chicago's system for his success, but I'm also more gun shy considering the whole Eddie situation, like maybe he's just lucky right now. Grubauer and Raanta would be really expensive, but maybe we could move some of our picks and decent prospects to get one of them.

. . .

 

A mitigating factor is that Caps and Rags pretty much have to trade them or stand a good chance of losing them to Vegas for no return.  So their trade value could be lower in that it's essentially limited to other teams looking for an new #1 for next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point in the Peters/Francis Show, interview, besides the woeful save percentage, was the acknowledgement that drafting goalies is throwing darts, and so far none of our darts are hitting the target. So, inferior goalies here, with nothing ready in the pipeline, means that this is one move I'd mortgage the house and bet on. We will have a new NHL proven goalie in here.

 

Also, with the pipeline a bit dry at the moment, I could see going for a longer term deal too. If Nedel or someone suddenly looks great, they can keep improving and wait for a chance to back up.

 

We desperately need a high end forward too, but this move is even more sure.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also mentioned the 5-6 Dmen and I won't be surprised to see them move on that rather quickly. Quickly equals the snails pace early off-season usually brings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, remkin said:

Another point in the Peters/Francis Show, interview, besides the woeful save percentage, was the acknowledgement that drafting goalies is throwing darts, and so far none of our darts are hitting the target. So, inferior goalies here, with nothing ready in the pipeline, means that this is one move I'd mortgage the house and bet on. We will have a new NHL proven goalie in here.

 

For those that missed the interview, this is exactly what RF said.  Rem isn't making up the metaphor.   Ron used that exact term.  ... Ouch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted about a year ago:

 

On 5/3/2016 at 1:59 PM, LakeLivin said:

Given the talk about goalies I thought I'd take a look at some of the stuff Eric Tulsky has written.  Although Tulsky is surely informing RF, I'd guess that RF is combining Tulsky's analytics stuff with his own thoughts and experience, so who knows what RF is actually going to do.  Here are some excerpts. Note that any text that's in bold italics represents my emphasis, not Tulsky's.

  • Goalies are really variable. You never really know who's going to be good in any given year
  • It's true that goalie performance varies quite a bit from year to year, but that's not something you can avoid. You'll be stuck with that variability no matter which goalie you sign . However, a good goalie's good years will be better and his bad years will be less bad -- that doesn't mean his bad years will be better than someone else's good years, but the average will clearly be better.
  • A save percentage of .920 is a top-ten performance, while .910 would be nothing more than a good backup. But the difference between the two is just one save every 100 shots. That's an awfully narrow margin, and it takes an awfully large sample size to reliably identify differences that small. Much larger than you might expect -- several thousand shots, and even more if you want finer distinctions than top-ten versus good backup.
  • Variability is a reason to be cautious about identifying a goalie as superior. This is where teams can get into trouble: an average goalie can have a good year early in his career as a result of natural variability. The mistake some teams seem to make is in misreading him as a superior goalie on the rise and signing him to a big-money deal, only to find out later that they have overpaid for an average goalie. It is possible that scouts can detect star goalies earlier and more reliably than stats can, but several recent goalie contracts suggest that their projections are prone to significant error as well. The truth appears to be that if just a few tenths of a percent separate decent from great, we need we need to see multiple years to get that refined an understanding of a goaltender's skill.
  • Because top players seem to be able to command long-term deals these days, this may be a risk that teams have to accept if they want to land a top goalie, but it should be a risk they take knowingly. In essence, this argument means that teams that are building should focus on goalies on short-term contracts and hope to develop a goalie from within, that they should spend big money for an upper-tier goalie only if their prospects don't pan out and they find themselves with a team that is capable of competing for a championship in the near term.
  • Teams should be extremely cautious about signing a goalie who does not have a track record of several years at the desired performance level
  • Teams should also understand that long-term deals carry a unique risk of the goalie being rendered obsolete by new and improved goalies hitting the market in the coming years.
  • It's easy to see how a goalie's AHL performance would make you quite sure that he's not going to make it in the NHL, but it's harder for his AHL performance to make you sure that he will.

I also seem to recall reading where Tulsky highlighted a "lottery" type approach to acquiring goalies if you couldn't get one with a well established NHL record but I can't find that article to confirm.  i.e., sign goalies that show preliminary promise at reasonable short term deals and hope that one of them hits.  If true, that would seem to cover the Lack signing imo.

 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not completely ignore the possibility trying to trade for an established #1 with term on the contract using our picks and assets. So look for teams with two good goalies.  I know that Jonathan Quick was mentioned by prohockeytalk.com as someone the Kings could look to unload if they are trying to retool the team.  He still has 27 million left on his contract, but would definitely be that #1 we are searching for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ironman87 said:

I would not completely ignore the possibility trying to trade for an established #1 with term on the contract using our picks and assets. So look for teams with two good goalies.  I know that Jonathan Quick was mentioned by prohockeytalk.com as someone the Kings could look to unload if they are trying to retool the team.  He still has 27 million left on his contract, but would definitely be that #1 we are searching for.

I'd like someone proven like Quick. Like what everybody said with Matt Duchene: "It's not everyday that a player like this is available."

 

I have some concerns with him though.

 

1. His age: He is already 31, which means he'll probably start slowing down soon.

2. His contract: He is getting 5.8 million in average salary. He had better play some great hockey for us if he's getting that much money.

3. The price: What is it going to cost us to get him? I'm a horrible judge of value, but I'd assume that we'd have to give up multiple draft picks (maybe our 1st?), a good prospect or two, and one of either Cam or Eddie to soften the blow for L.A. Maybe we could take one of Brown or Gaborik off of their hands to lessen what we have to give up, though.

Also: I'm not sure whether or not this is relevant to the conversation, but it seems like he has had some injury troubles of late. He had a pretty big injury in 2013, and was out most of this past season. I'd hate to claim that he may be injury prone, but it may be something to consider. Plus, it must be tougher to come back from an injury as an older player and still perform to the same standards. 

 

I like him better than the other 30+ year old options (Bishop, MAF, Elliott), but it could still be dangerous for us. But I guess all of our options in net are a gamble in some way (age, experience, cost).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 2:42 PM, LakeLivin said:

                                  Age    Ht                            16-17                                              NHL Career*             

UFAs:                                             Salary      Games     GAA     Save%          Games    GAA     Save%  

Ben Bishop                 30    6'7"       $5.95m        39         2.54     .910                270       2.32      .919

Scott Darling               28    6'6"       $588k          32         2.38     .924                  75       2.37      .923

Brian Elliott                 32    6'2"       $2.5m          49         2.55     .910                372       2.42      .913

I have a feeling that if we get any free agent goalie, it will be Steve Mason. He could probably be had for the cheapest of them all, and has performed pretty well the past few seasons. Not amazing, but passible on paper. He's the least hyped option, and I've yet to see RF buy in to the hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I'm just mentioning Quick as an example of another avenue we could explore.  To be honest, I am not enamored with any in the chart above.  But they are better than what we had this year for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What type of goalie we pursue could tell a lot about (1) how willing PK is to open the purse strings, and (2) how sincerely RF believes an improvement in goal will get us to the playoffs. I'm open to any of the goalies mentioned in this thread, but a lot of them do have fewer career NHL starts than Eddie had when we traded for him. And his numbers looked pretty promising if I remember correctly. The upshot is that any move we make is a crapshoot, each with different risks and potential rewards. But I don't think anyone on these boards is in favor of another year of the status quo. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And Ron came about as close to an absolute statement that goaltending would be addressed as he ever has said about anything. Notwithstanding everything to the contrary posted here, I would bet he, and especially BP have a strong preference to hold onto Cam as the fallback. There is 2 years of evidence that they prefer Cam to Eddie. If they really want to make a move, though, and a trading partner had a strong preference for Cam, I could see either goalie being traded.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bluedevilcane said:

What type of goalie we pursue could tell a lot about (1) how willing PK is to open the purse strings, and (2) how sincerely RF believes an improvement in goal will get us to the playoffs. I'm open to any of the goalies mentioned in this thread, but a lot of them do have fewer career NHL starts than Eddie had when we traded for him. And his numbers looked pretty promising if I remember correctly. The upshot is that any move we make is a crapshoot, each with different risks and potential rewards. But I don't think anyone on these boards is in favor of another year of the status quo. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And Ron came about as close to an absolute statement that goaltending would be addressed as he ever has said about anything. Notwithstanding everything to the contrary posted here, I would bet he, and especially BP have a strong preference to hold onto Cam as the fallback. There is 2 years of evidence that they prefer Cam to Eddie. If they really want to make a move, though, and a trading partner had a strong preference for Cam, I could see either goalie being traded.

 

What I was thinking, although I don't know I'd have described it quite as strongly as "a crapshoot", lol.  Hopefully our scouts can help mitigate the risks associated with the small sample size of the more promising younger goalies in contention.

 

If Lack had finished out the year playing like he did during his 6 game hot streak I could see mgmt perhaps going with him over Ward.  But he didn't, and I still believe there's more to Peters' frustration with Eddie than just his play on the ice.  When you add in what Ward presumably brings as far as leadership to our young group, I'd be surprised if they went with Lack as our #2 rather than Ward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

What I was thinking, although I don't know I'd have described it quite as strongly as "a crapshoot", lol.  Hopefully our scouts can help mitigate the risks associated with the small sample size of the more promising younger goalies in contention.

 

If Lack had finished out the year playing like he did during his 6 game hot streak I could see mgmt perhaps going with him over Ward.  But he didn't, and I still believe there's more to Peters' frustration with Eddie than just his play on the ice.  When you add in what Ward presumably brings as far as leadership to our young group, I'd be surprised if they went with Lack as our #2 rather than Ward.

Unfortunately, that is the rub. Lack's inconsistency has been, well consistent and Cam's consistency has been inconsistent.

Lack was brought here to challenge and supplant Cam as the #1 and it has not materialized as mgmt and coach has expected. Lack has shown glimpses of brilliance, but has just been too inconsistent. Perhaps its due to goalie coaching or the system the team plays. Hard to say. He had so much promise when brought here but has fallen well short.

Cam is the more known commodity for the franchise and is the only reason he is still here. He is that veteran voice in the locker-room that helps with the youth we have. Mgmt and coach knows what they're going to get. Only problem is the lack of not necessarily a backup but a solid partner, a 1A/1B if you will, to ease the load and that no matter who is in net, goaltending is consistent. Unfortunately, what we need are not one but TWO solid goaltenders.

 

Altshuller and Nedelkovic are still a ways away from being NHL ready. Expect Nedelkovic to require more AHL time before even getting a sniff at the NHL level.

Edited by hopper915

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching these playoffs, one thing is clear.  You need a goalie.

 

After the first 2 or 3 games, the collective save percentage average in the league was 0.936.  Woah!  Jake Allen alone was 1.000 after 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So first, who is kept as the announced backup: Taco or Wardo?

 

My $0.02 is that any big big buck contracts will go to a UFA forward who can score goals and I hope bring some leadership into the room.  Maybe between a $5.5 - $7m on a 4 year deal.  I'm not holding my breath on that happening. Well maybe I am, a little but it will be a tall order. I think at best we end up with a B level UFA with between 20-25 goals.

 

On the goalie side of things maybe a Darling or Phil Grub would work because they can be had fairly inexpensively, are young and have posted good numbers although based on not too many games. Their numbers are almost identical.  I guess it has to be asked are they as good as their numbers show considering they are both playing on powerhouse teams?  Goalie trades rarely happen but that might be another way to approach this. I really like Ben Bishop but the rumor is he has a chronic groin problem which for a goalie is the kiss of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I'm really iffy on Grubauer and Darling is it could be Lack 2.0.  GMRF seemed very serious on upgrading the crease, so you have to think he wants proven veteran presence.  Even though I want Bishop, I think all roads lead to MAF.  I think someone (Calgary) is going to offer Bishop a boatload of money. I think Darling/Grubauer are options that RF would consider, but I think being burned by Lack would drift his mind towards someone with more experience.  We're already semi-regular trade partners Pittsburgh, and I think Carolina has more assets to acquire MAF than any other team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys realize the MAF's career numbers are not much better than Ward's?

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

Do you guys realize the MAF's career numbers are not much better than Ward's?

 

 

 

I don't want to go out on a limb here, but I daresay he "may" have had better talent around him too... could have helped his cause a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hag65 said:

 

I don't want to go out on a limb here, but I daresay he "may" have had better talent around him too... could have helped his cause a bit.

 

People are confusing his skill level with the success level of the Pens.  His numbers are almost identical to Ward's.  Do the Canes really need another $6M goalie that isn't playing at league average numbers?  While a Grubauer or Darling may not be the sure thing many fans want, MAF is fool's gold.

 

Finding an NHL starting goalie is about like looking for a unicorn, and a short lived one at that.  So many promising goalies have enough good seasons to merit a big contract, and then never play to that level again.  Seems like their "best if used by date" is always closer on the calendar than one would like.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that we want a guy who manages to play decently in spite of being on a crappy team... oh wait, I might have just named Ward or Lack by accident.

 

Just in case I come off like a know it all...  I have no idea who to get.  I find goalie to be the hardest thing for an amateur fan to scout.  If we get a guy and he does great, I'll be the first to say great job, I had no idea.

Edited by hag65
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even begin to imagine what the numbers would be if those two had swapped teams for their careers. I don't even think MAF would still be in the NHL had he been on a bad team. 

 

I hate to think of the seasons Cam played his *edit* off and his SV% couldn't reflect it because of how crappy the team in front of him was. The Canes pissed away the prime years of a great goalie.

 

Anyway, don't mix this up with me thinking Cam should continue being in goal. It need's a change but not for MAF.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back and listened to portions of the Francis/Peters post season presser looking for clues on what the might do. It appears to me all options are open to obtain another goalie but I think it was apparent that RF hasn't yet explored all options or even homed in on any one particular goalie. He may of by now but at that moment in time I don't think he had narrowed his wish list.

 

Two things are for certain in my mind. (1) we will have a new face in the crease (2) only one of Ward/Lack will be back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, super_dave_1 said:

 

People are confusing his skill level with the success level of the Pens.  His numbers are almost identical to Ward's.  Do the Canes really need another $6M goalie that isn't playing at league average numbers?  While a Grubauer or Darling may not be the sure thing many fans want, MAF is fool's gold.

 

Finding an NHL starting goalie is about like looking for a unicorn, and a short lived one at that.  So many promising goalies have enough good seasons to merit a big contract, and then never play to that level again.  Seems like their "best if used by date" is always closer on the calendar than one would like.

 

I'll repeat, Ben Bishop would be my 1st choice, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to call MAF fools gold for playing for a top team, while promoting two backup goalies for top teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0