Quote:
Originally Posted by bluejays
I don’t see it as confirmation bias in this case. It’s just a differing view. When you lose spectacularly as an athlete the question arises. For the record I loved the acquisition of Markstrom originally. I only started truly questioning him after some tough playoff games. The Edmonton series being the worst. Doesn’t mean it’s a confirmation bias - just that in a big second round he fell face down and into the next year it lingered.
|
Well I was referring more to the original poster who was critical of the acquisition of Markstrom from Day 1, and seems to ignore when he's been good and only pay attention to when he's played badly.
And to be clear. He was awful during that Oiler series. No question. And bad last year. So that should absolutely be factored in.
My overall assessment is that he's a legitimate #1 goalie, but probably a middle of the pack one. Which means he's probably slightly overpaid, but to the tune of 1M max, or less.
I also think the number of #1 goalies in the league that are very consistent is very small. So the argument could be that's why you don't allocate that much cap to a legit goalie. But then I go back to the fact that the Flames thought they had a team that could contend, and needed a legit starter. Previous attempts with guys like Elliott just weren't sufficient, so they went out and got a legit #1. I think that's sound logic even though things didn't work out with that core.