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

The Thread about Goalies

Recommended Posts

I'm interested in one thing about Darling:  Can he stop pucks.  Period.

 

He should earn his spot next year.  Anything less he goes to Charlotte or the clearance rack.  He owes it to the franchise, not the other way around.

Share this post


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

I'm interested in one thing about Darling:  Can he stop pucks.  Period.

 

He should earn his spot next year.  Anything less he goes to Charlotte or the clearance rack.  He owes it to the franchise, not the other way around.

 

I agree with you, but at this point I'm betting that the Canes are looking at how to minimize losses on Darling as an asset (highly depreciated though he may be).  Darling will have just under $12m left on his contract after this year, and buying him out will only save $4m. So the Canes have at least $8m tied up in Darling that we probably can't get out of, regarless of what we do.  If they can invest a bit more (coaching, training, sports psychologist, etc) and turn him around, it may well be worth that effort.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't pin any #1 goalie hopes on Darling at this point.  But it may worth trying to "rehab" him in hopes of recouping some of our investment.  But our #1 G position has to be taken care of outside of Darling or Ward, imo.      

 

Oh, and I just found out that Darling has a 15 team no-trade clause, so the extremely slim chances of dealing him (with retention), are likely even slimmer.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RickD_99 said:

What do we know about Darling’s personal life? Is he married or otherwise in a stable relationship? It was mentioned above that he acknowledged that he had struggled with adapting to his new social environment. Like all of you I am struggling to understand why we are seeing the current Briscoe as opposed to the Chicago version that looked so promising. I still hope that he can turn it around and find himself by the start of next season....

 

Speaking of personal issues I wonder if that might be related to Victor Rask’s problems this year. Rask may be young and relatively wealthy but he comes across to me as a guy who might have a problem getting a date! ? These guys aren’t robots- they’re human beings with everyday real life problems!

Keep them unmarried.  E. Staal's game went to pot after getting married and having kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, this shouldn't really be here, but I can't resist....

 

How about the Hurricanes pick up another backup from Chicago? :lol:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/30/nhl-stunner-a-36-year-old-accountant-whos-never-played-pro-stars-in-blackhawks-win/?utm_term=.f8582f502cd4

 

Guy hadn't been on the ice in a game since 2005-2006, when he played 20 minutes in a college game. Working as an accountant, he got the call when Forsberg got hurt in pre-game, then had to go in when the backup cramped up and had to be helped off the ice. Played 14+ minutes, stopped all seven shots he faced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know, this shouldn't really be here, but I can't resist....

 

How about the Hurricanes pick up another backup from Chicago? :lol:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/30/nhl-stunner-a-36-year-old-accountant-whos-never-played-pro-stars-in-blackhawks-win/?utm_term=.f8582f502cd4

 

Guy hadn't been on the ice in a game since 2005-2006, when he played 20 minutes in a college game. Working as an accountant, he got the call when Forsberg got hurt in pre-game, then had to go in when the backup cramped up and had to be helped off the ice. Played 14+ minutes, stopped all seven shots he faced.

If we are going to give this a shot, why not roll out Alves? I guarantee he has the mental toughness. Marines may be crazy, but we know how to keep our head in the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Darling can turn it around but I also believe we cannot take that chance. I'd buy him out unless we are not able to secure another goalie. FSTD can afford $1,316.667 annually to buy out Darling.. 

 

  • The annual buyout cost is $1,316,667
Edited by slapshot02
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, slapshot02 said:

I believe that Darling can turn it around but I also believe we cannot take that chance. I'd buy him out unless we are not able to secure another goalie. FSTD can afford $1,316.667 annually to but out Darling.. 

 

  • The annual buyout cost is $1,316,667

 

I agree with this 100%.  He might turn it around, but the Canes just can't take the chance of it being here, next season.  The only way I see him not being bought out is if the plan is to send him to Charlotte next season and hope he turns it around and has enough value to be tradable.  If he is one of the two Canes goalies at the start of next season, it may be enough to make me just throw the towel in.  It would be such a statement to roll him out again as the savior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We would be far better off if we can get him back on track and even if we need to retain some salary in a trade it would be better than a buyout IMO.

 

If we bought him out in June the $1, 316,667 a year buy out would be with us through the 2023/24 season. We are already sending rubles to Russia for "that other guy" through 2020/21.

 

He would be an expensive AHL goalie but at least we would be getting some value and at least a chance he will become the goalie we thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, OBXer said:

 

If we bought him out in June the $1, 316,667 a year buy out would be with us through the 2023/24 season. We are already sending rubles to Russia for "that other guy" through 2020/21.

 

 

I hate looking at it like that.  It's like continuing to bet on a bad poker hand when you can fold and cut your losses.  Since we lost the last hand, staying in on this one isn't going to fix anything.

 

You don't hit on a small inside straight enough to keep dumping money on it.

Edited by super_dave_1
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Since we lost the last hand, staying in on this one isn't going to fix anything.

 

I'm inclined to agree. I just wonder if holding onto him another year would lessen the loss. But that thinking is taking into account the Waddell interview where he said he could start out in Charlotte. It is clear the goalie tandem we have isn't good enough. I just hate seeing the dead money with an owner that says he will spend what it takes. If that is the case we could become a team pushed to the cap. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I hate looking at it like that.  It's like continuing to bet on a bad poker hand when you can fold and cut your losses.  Since we lost the last hand, staying in on this one isn't going to fix anything.

 

You don't hit on a small inside straight enough to keep dumping money on it.

It sounded as if Waddell at the moment thought Darling would be back challenging for a spot and if failed would be sent to Charlotte. At 4,150,000 that could be a very expensive AHLer.  If Darling indeed ends up in Charlotte and fails you are loosing 3 years of buy out $'s advantage by having him playing in Charlotte. The non monetary side is that he also stunts the growth of our goalie prospects in the system. I'd rather start the clock on a buyout and pay $1,316.667 than take another chance at $4750.000

 

Buyout Details

Season                                 Salary                                       Initial Cap Hit                                  Actual Cost                              Savings                                       Buyout Cap Hit 

SEASON SALARY INITIAL CAP HIT ACTUAL COST SAVINGS BUYOUT CAP HIT
2018-19 $4,750,000 $4,150,000 $1,316,667 $3,433,333 $716,667
2019-20 $4,100,000 $4,150,000 $1,316,667 $2,783,333 $1,366,667
2020-21 $3,000,000 $4,150,000 $1,316,667 $1,683,333 $2,466,667
2021-22 $0 $0 $1,316,667 -$1,316,667 $1,316,667
2022-23 $0 $0 $1,316,667 -$1,316,667 $1,316,667
2023-24 $0 $0 $1,316,667 -$1,316,667 $1,316,667

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2018 at 1:43 PM, super_dave_1 said:

 

I hate looking at it like that.  It's like continuing to bet on a bad poker hand when you can fold and cut your losses.  Since we lost the last hand, staying in on this one isn't going to fix anything.

 

You don't hit on a small inside straight enough to keep dumping money on it.

 

You raise a very good and valid point: what you've put into the pot up to a point is irrelevant with regard to current decision making (that money is already gone, period), and "chasing" it because of what you've already spent is poor strategy.  But I think you need to take it a step further and consider the pot odds at any point in time.  How does the ratio of what it would cost to stay in the hand over the amount you stand to win compare to the odds of winning?  Sometimes it makes sense to make a call and draw to an inside straight, depending on the cost of the call.

 

Note that I'm just clarifying a principle, one you may have had in mind but just didn't specify.  I'm not taking a position on Darling, as I don't have a good enough feel for the odds of him turning it around vs. buying him out.   The one thing I do feel comfortable about is that the Canes can't risk going into next season with the hope that Darling is our #1.  We need an alternative play.  And I wish the Canes had longer than the end of June to make a buy-out decision.  No chance to see what Darling does over the summer to right the ship.        

 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1 thing we seem to not have considered, or possibly it has been discussed, is this: There obviously is night and day difference between Scott's play in Chicago and here. From what I've seen, most pundits, here included, seem to contribute that to his "unfamiliarity" for lack of a better term, with the area, friends and teammates? There's lately been the slam on him for showing up "out of shape". I would be curious to know if the latter were true, what kind of condition did he start the year with, and more critically, what was it while he was playing in Chicago? If you tell me that he was 15-20 lbs overweight at the start of the season, than I might suggest that a significant factor in his extreme lack of agility from the get go, and I think that god awful puck misplay early on was prime example of that, was due to excessive weight and if he could start better conditioned, we could see a different goalie. 

 

Now, I flat out admit that I'm a sucker for the under dog, and Scott caught my attention very early on with his "against all odds" hard luck story, but I for one would vote to give him another chance next year, IF and only IF he dedicates himself this offseason to 5 months of extreme conditioning under someone known for that, AND THAT I COULD MONITOR. If he is unwilling or refuses, than I cut him loose.

 

Besides, I bid on and won his military warm up jersey, so have a vested interest in him!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the argument on both sides really. But let me get this straight. The Canes have to decide on a buyout starting next year, before June 30. So once they decide to roll another year of Darling past June 30 they are all in for that year.  If they roll into next year with him, they will lose $3.4 million from that year?

 

I can see this both ways.

 

Keep Darling.

He might return to form and become a very good #1 goalie and lead this team to great things.

He might return to at least enough form that maybe he can be traded at some point. (His limited NTC not withstanding).

It would stink to have him go elsewhere and rock, a la Eric Staal and others.

 

Cut him loose:

Save some cash. Save some cap space.

Open the spot.

Don't get sucked into the temptation to play him when he is a tiny bit better but still not good.

 

The last two are the ones that trouble me. 1. UFA goalies would generally be wary of Carolina for reasons we all know anyways. But why on Earth would you even look our way if you have a $4 million goalie looking over your shoulder? So to bring in a good goalie with upside we would almost have to trade for a guy (probably one with no NTC). This limits the options of finding the guy by a lot, which by extension puts more of a bet on Darling. Plus, if we had to trade, we give up an asset. 2. Guys getting paid big bucks get lots and lots of chances (see Darling this year). If he looks a bit better in camp....then he gets in to start the year and is hit or miss, we keep going with him. This is a very difficult temptation to get around, but it can also kill the team and start racking up losses.

 

I hate the idea of this guy hitting his stride somewhere else, but there are downsides to rolling the dice on him again, that I think outweigh the upside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2018 at 4:17 PM, Manwolf said:

I'm interested in one thing about Darling:  Can he stop pucks.  Period.

 

He should earn his spot next year.  Anything less he goes to Charlotte or the clearance rack.  He owes it to the franchise, not the other way around.

 

I was talking to a friend of mine from the DC area a few nights ago, the conversation centering around hockey because he's played and officiated the sport for a while now. His take is that it would not be smart to send Darling to Charlotte. His reasoning is this: There's something wrong with Darling's head, obviously, and it shows in his positioning (often not square to the shooter, and a gaping five hole). If, as everyone says, the NHL game is a different world from the AHL, then shouldn't Darling be successful in the AHL even with NHL-substandard mechanics? Wouldn't that serve to reinforce the errors that Darling's making, not make him change his technique back to what made him successful in Chicago?

 

Of course, my friend also says that Brians pads are the *least* reactive of all the brands of goalie pads and Vaughns are among the most reactive (he loves the Brians he wears), which is contradictory to what legend_1 has posted here in the forums on more than one occasion, and he also says that he's surprised the Hurricanes didn't relocate long ago (his statement: "bad team, weak market...."), so take what he says as you will.

Edited by JonKerfoot
Spelling/typoing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, rem, our difficulty at present is the thirst for playoffs, otherwise I think we all could be more of a "gambler" and take the risk with a player like Darling? This is a conundrum of the highest magnitude, but it will turn because as a surgeon once informed me "no one bleeds forever"?? Have a Good Easter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, KJUNKANE said:

IMHO, rem, our difficulty at present is the thirst for playoffs, otherwise I think we all could be more of a "gambler" and take the risk with a player like Darling? This is a conundrum of the highest magnitude, but it will turn because as a surgeon once informed me "no one bleeds forever"?? Have a Good Easter.

Kjun, as you say, it really is of the highest magnitude because the effect of having the league's worst goalie vs one of the best is staggering. No point in bringing Tavares in here if we put sieves in goal, and after seeing that very thing w/ the Islanders, I'd think that alone would steer him clear of us. If Francis had gotten this one thing right, he would probably still be GM. And the similar classic line I've heard is "all bleeding stops". But we've been in the max pain zone of no playoffs, no lottery draft picks for a lot of bleeding that doesn't seem to stop, so I'm starting to wonder about that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trusting in team management to fix problems that are known.  Not by us, but by them.

 

If they feel after first hand experience the stylistic problems are too significant, then buy him out and find a replacement.  Alternatively, if they feel there are other problems (personal, equipment, etc.) then retain and support, but limit team damage by a start in Charlotte until proof those problems are resolved.

 

They're responsible to the whole organization and us fans.  Own it and get on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Of course, my friend also says that Brians pads are the *least* reactive of all the brands of goalie pads and Vaughns are among the most reactive (he loves the Brians he wears), which is contradictory to what legend_1 has posted here in the forums on more than one occasion, and he also says that he's surprised the Hurricanes didn't relocate long ago (his statement: "bat team, weak market...."), so take what he says as you will.

Well we can both + friend learn something I suppose Brians swings both ways with a soft and a stiff pad. Darling wears a stiff Optik series, I can't easily tell what model Cam wears but Vaughn and most other companies stick to just one type soft or stiff and don't swing back and forth. Vaughn's seem to be a traditionally soft pad.

 

So, in amendment Darling should really consider a soft pad that Brians makes and not a new brand all together or a new team that can find his rebounds before the other team.

Edited by legend-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that I'm bowing to legend on goalie issues.  He certainly is smarter than the average bear on these things.

 

On the poker analogy, we're playing 5 card stud.  We have a 2 of clubs down. First up card is a 3 of clubs.  We bet.  Second up card is a 4 of clubs.   A straight flush, straight, or flush is a possibility, so we bet strongly. Third up card is an off suited 6.  Yeah, there is a chance to hit the inside straight, but only degenerate gamblers count on that, and you are looking at a pair of face cards in another hand.  Pairing up a low card is about the best you can hope for. Bluffing doesn't work in hockey.  We are in for a good amount now and any more money is throwing good money after bad. 

 

I've called on a gut shot draw, but I'm playing for quarters, and I'm a degenerate.

Edited by super_dave_1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On poker strategy:

 

Considering what you've spent so far is foolish.  And it's downright sad in more important matters; ever hear someone you care about extend a bad relationship because of how much they've already invested in it? :cry:   But back to poker; don't you consider how much you stand to win if you do hit vs. what it costs to call to see that last card?  Take an extreme example: say there's already $8 in the pot and you can call the last bet for just  .25.   Aren't you going to make that call, even knowing that your chances of hitting your gut shot draw might only be 10% (4 cards that will make your straight out of the 40 cards in the deck you haven't seen, either yours or your opponents up cards) ?   Sure, you're going to lose 90% of the time (losing 9 times = $2.25).  But that one time in ten you do win nets you $8.00.   In the long run, that's a good raffle ticket to buy.  In that example, the optimal strategy is to call anything up to and including a 75 cent bet.   BUT you have to be able to withstand the pain of losing that extra money 90% of the time knowing you gain the benefit of winning even more the 10% of the time you do hit.  Similar principle to pulling the goalie early; the optimal strategy is going to be painful most of the time, but when it does work, you win big.

 

If anyone is wondering, no, I don't actually do those actual calculations when I'm at the table, too much work for a friendly weekly poker game, lol.  But I keep the principle in mind and try to play in accordance.  If I think I can see that last card cheaply enough, I'll call, knowing I'm buying a raffle ticket.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

On poker strategy:

 

Considering what you've spent so far is foolish.  And it's downright sad in more important matters; ever hear someone you care about extend a bad relationship because of how much they've already invested in it? :cry:   But back to poker; don't you consider how much you stand to win if you do hit vs. what it costs to call to see that last card?  Take an extreme example: say there's already $8 in the pot and you can call the last bet for just  .25.   Aren't you going to make that call, even knowing that your chances of hitting your gut shot draw might only be 10% (4 cards that will make your straight out of the 40 cards in the deck you haven't seen, either yours or your opponents up cards) ?   Sure, you're going to lose 90% of the time (losing 9 times = $2.25).  But that one time in ten you do win nets you $8.00.   In the long run, that's a good raffle ticket to buy.  In that example, the optimal strategy is to call anything up to and including a 75 cent bet.   BUT you have to be able to withstand the pain of losing that extra money 90% of the time knowing you gain the benefit of winning even more the 10% of the time you do hit.  Similar principle to pulling the goalie early; the optimal strategy is going to be painful most of the time, but when it does work, you win big.

 

If anyone is wondering, no, I don't actually do those actual calculations when I'm at the table, too much work for a friendly weekly poker game, lol.  But I keep the principle in mind and try to play in accordance.  If I think I can see that last card cheaply enough, I'll call, knowing I'm buying a raffle ticket.     

 

I don't think the point was that you should call on pot odds of 32-1 (which is correct with everything but a 1 outer).

 

i think SD was going with the case of paying $4.15 million to stay in the pot on a 1 outer, which is a generous analogy to the goalie who is 57th in the league.  There aren't even 57 cards in a deck.  It's like knowing if history repeats itself, not only are you not going to hit your card, but you'll get the worst card possible for you.  And it's not like we are going to win $60M if he plays well.

 

Ahhh, the exact analogy breaks down some, but the idea of throwing good money after bad holds true.

Share this post


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

 

I don't think the point was that you should call on pot odds of 32-1 (which is correct with everything but a 1 outer).

 

i think SD was going with the case of paying $4.15 million to stay in the pot on a 1 outer, which is a generous analogy to the goalie who is 57th in the league.  There aren't even 57 cards in a deck.  It's like knowing if history repeats itself, not only are you not going to hit your card, but you'll get the worst card possible for you.  And it's not like we are going to win $60M if he plays well.

 

Ahhh, the exact analogy breaks down some, but the idea of throwing good money after bad holds true.

 

Or could the Hurricanes "win" $60 million if SD plays well? What's the value of making the playoffs? Anyone got a guess?

Share this post


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

 

I don't think the point was that you should call on pot odds of 32-1 (which is correct with everything but a 1 outer).

 

i think SD was going with the case of paying $4.15 million to stay in the pot on a 1 outer, which is a generous analogy to the goalie who is 57th in the league.  There aren't even 57 cards in a deck.  It's like knowing if history repeats itself, not only are you not going to hit your card, but you'll get the worst card possible for you.  And it's not like we are going to win $60M if he plays well.

 

Ahhh, the exact analogy breaks down some, but the idea of throwing good money after bad holds true.

In which case we were speaking on different levels.  I was speaking generally to the principles stated, not the specifics of Darling.  You won't hear me argue against cutting our losses with Darling; I don't have enough expertise to know what the odds are of him finding a game.  Matter of fact, unless we have some experts that can identify something systematic they think they can fix, I'd be leaning towards cutting our losses, as well.  And if we don't, I'd treat Darling as a very expensive prospect who has no more of an advantage than someone like Ned.    

Edited by LakeLivin

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...