[Signing] Tampa signs Vasilevskiy to extension starting in 2020 (8 yrs, $9.5 mil AAV)

[The Hendog]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is the new normal for NHL starting goalies: Fewer regular season games in hopes that they will be in better condition for a long playoff run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True true

Based on this then you would have thought the Tampa GM would do a better job negotiating this contract down. In my opinion he did not do a very good job in this regard.

[agulati]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well when it comes to goaltending if you have a top 5 goalie you probably want to hold on to him as long as possible because the alternative can be what you have seen in Alberta for most of this decade with the Flames and Oilers taking flyers on european goaltenders and recycling declining veteran goaltenders. I much preferred previous decade with Kipper when goaltending was never a question mark going into the season.

That is a fair point. I'm thinking more about the fact that teams are moving towards tandems. Vasilevskiy himself played only 53 games last year. I'd think Bobrovsky will be playing around 70 games a year to justify his 10 million price tag. On top of that Florida is a team that is built to rely on their goaltending a decent bit. Tampa Bay (or even Calgary) have decent defense cores that share the defensive burden to a greater extent.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Vasilevskiy has been lights out since the world juniors. There are no question marks in his game. Solid signing, lock up a goalie like that when you have one.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is the new normal for NHL starting goalies: Fewer regular season games in hopes that they will be in better condition for a long playoff run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by The Hendog

True true

Based on this then you would have thought the Tampa GM would do a better job negotiating this contract down. In my opinion he did not do a very good job in this regard.

Okay fine, I agree with Textcritic that the League is trending that way, but I also fully agree with Hendog.

How can you afford a solid 51/31 tandem if one of those guys is hauling in $9.5M?

People constantly wonder why goaltenders, a very, very important position, consistently get paid less than superstar forwards, in my opinion its because the Goaltending position has to be shared by a minimum of 2 players now.

A superstar forward is a superstar forward and similar importance is in net but you need 2-3 guys to solidify that part of the roster using the same slice of cash.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay fine, I agree with Textcritic that the League is trending that way, but I also fully agree with Hendog.

How can you afford a solid 51/31 tandem if one of those guys is hauling in $9.5M?

People constantly wonder why goaltenders, a very, very important position, consistently get paid less than superstar forwards, in my opinion its because the Goaltending position has to be shared by a minimum of 2 players now.

A superstar forward is a superstar forward and similar importance is in net but you need 2-3 guys to solidify that part of the roster using the same slice of cash.

They paid their backup $1.1mil last season.

They signed McElhinney to $1.3mil for the next two seasons.

Back up goalies for legit starters make ~$1mil, and you can mitigate that by drafting and developing your backup goalie. There are lots of options to get 20 games out of someone for a reasonable cap hit. Especially on a well built roster.

(He also had a broken foot last season so I don’t know why everyone’s hung up on 51 games)

[blankall]

Vasilevskiy is one of two NHL goalies I'd consider throwing this kind of term at (the other being Gibson). Even then, this is a lot of scratch, and there is huge risk here. Even the best goalies are only one case of hip tendinitis away from being a huge cap anchor.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

They paid their backup $1.1mil last season.

They signed McElhinney to $1.3mil for the next two seasons.

Back up goalies for legit starters make ~$1mil, and you can mitigate that by drafting and developing your backup goalie. There are lots of options to get 20 games out of someone for a reasonable cap hit. Especially on a well built roster.

(He also had a broken foot last season so I don’t know why everyone’s hung up on 51 games)

Okay, but thats still $10.5M+ tied up in goaltending.

[The Cobra]

I'd much rather have Vasky than Rittich, Talbot and Lucic.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He was absolutely not a problem, until last year.

I don't know about that.

Sure, in 2013-2014 you can't complain, they won the Cup. But unlike 2012 where Quick was the best player in the world at the time, in 2014 he was very much more human. I won't go so far as to say they won in-spite of him, but Jones and Scriven that year both had insane numbers (0.930+) in the regular season.

2014-2015 was fine.

2015-2016, probably too early to call him a problem but another where Enroth is posting better percentage than Quick in his limited games.

2016-2017 is definitely an issue though even if it's not his fault he got injured. 17 games played, and Budaj's numbers are just as good.

2017-2018 Kuemper now posts insane numbers, once again bettering the stats of Quick in his limited game.

2018-2019 is terrible.

That's five years out of six in his current contract that his backups have had better save percentage. Jones, Scriven, Enroth, Budaj, Kuemper, Campbell. Imagine if Kiprusoff was routinely having McLennan, McEliheney, Toskala, etc. post better numbers. And even if you don't want to call that a 'problem' there's no doubt years 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 were certainly. And he still has 4 more years left.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I'd much rather have Vasky than Rittich, Talbot and Lucic.

You don't say?

[442scotty]

Crazy expensive!

[jayswin]

I'm of the simple minded opinion (yes I know that you can still scrutinize contracts and trades within a Stanley Cup winner's era) that teams like LA, Chicago and Pittsburgh should look back at their multi Stanley Cup win eras and say they did it right.

Every team in the league is desperately attempting to work towards maybe one cup in a thirty year period. If you do it twice, you're amazing.

Sure you can say "Well maybe LA still would have won the second Cup because the backups were amazing" like above. But maybe they wouldn't have? Quick had the experience of winning one Cup already, maybe a backup folds in the Finals.


Easy to pick apart Cup winners years later and say "Well, see you can tell they didn't need this guy or they shouldn't have signed this guy, or should have given shorter contracts to Kane and Toews", etc.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't know about that.

Sure, in 2013-2014 you can't complain, they won the Cup. But unlike 2012 where Quick was the best player in the world at the time, in 2014 he was very much more human. I won't go so far as to say they won in-spite of him, but Jones and Scriven that year both had insane numbers (0.930+) in the regular season.

2014-2015 was fine.

2015-2016, probably too early to call him a problem but another where Enroth is posting better percentage than Quick in his limited games.

2016-2017 is definitely an issue though even if it's not his fault he got injured. 17 games played, and Budaj's numbers are just as good.

2017-2018 Kuemper now posts insane numbers, once again bettering the stats of Quick in his limited game.

2018-2019 is terrible.

That's five years out of six in his current contract that his backups have had better save percentage. Jones, Scriven, Enroth, Budaj, Kuemper, Campbell. Imagine if Kiprusoff was routinely having McLennan, McEliheney, Toskala, etc. post better numbers. And even if you don't want to call that a 'problem' there's no doubt years 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 were certainly. And he still has 4 more years left.

Backups on good teams often play against poorer competition.

If for a minute you think the likes of Bujaj, Enroth, Scrivens etc. were leading the Kings to a SC, you are likely mistaken.

There is more to SC winning goaltending than having a fancy save percentage during the regular season in part time duty against poor competition.

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I'd much rather have Vasky than Rittich, Talbot and Lucic.

Yeah, well I'd rather have Crosby than Lucic and Ryan.

Tell your friends.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Backups on good teams often play against poorer competition.

If for a minute you think the likes of Bujaj, Enroth, Scrivens etc. were leading the Kings to a SC, you are likely mistaken.

There is more to SC winning goaltending than having a fancy save percentage during the regular season in part time duty against poor competition.

When they actually won the Cup, the backups played 38 games, so hardly cherry picking against only soft teams. They averaged 0.933 save percentage to Quick's 0.915 in the regular season and 0.911 in the post-season. It was the best defensive team in at least the past 5 years and that had more to do with the team than the goalie.

Obviously Quick had a very good reputation but this was closer to a late-Osgood situation where any reasonable goalie in net would have won the Cup. Just needed a goalie not to lose, they didn't need one to win.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

When they actually won the Cup, the backups played 38 games, so hardly cherry picking against only soft teams. They averaged 0.933 save percentage to Quick's 0.915 in the regular season and 0.911 in the post-season. It was the best defensive team in at least the past 5 years and that had more to do with the team than the goalie.

Obviously Quick had a very good reputation but this was closer to a late-Osgood situation where any reasonable goalie in net would have won the Cup. Just needed a goalie not to lose, they didn't need one to win.

How can you say that with certainty? I back up couldn't have collapsed at the sheer magnitude of a Stanley Cup playoff run?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

When they actually won the Cup, the backups played 38 games, so hardly cherry picking against only soft teams. They averaged 0.933 save percentage to Quick's 0.915 in the regular season and 0.911 in the post-season. It was the best defensive team in at least the past 5 years and that had more to do with the team than the goalie.

Obviously Quick had a very good reputation but this was closer to a late-Osgood situation where any reasonable goalie in net would have won the Cup. Just needed a goalie not to lose, they didn't need one to win.

I don't really look at him compared to his backups. I just look at his numbers, which were perfectly fine. And if his backups were better, shouldn't they been the number one? I guess Sutter didn't see it that way. Quick, for most of the time, met the eye test and the stats. That said, way too long and it looks like it's not going to end well.

[GreenLantern2814]

I try not to, but I really really really resent the Tampa Bay Lightning and how easy things look for them.

They've got a helluva goalie.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I try not to, but I really really really resent the Tampa Bay Lightning and how easy things look for them.

They've got a helluva goalie.

It may look "easy" today, but TB's situation is progressively becoming dire.

As of this moment they have $5.5 m of space with 2 players yet to fill out the roster, one of which will be among the highest paid RFAs this summer. Yes, they have LTIR flexibility for this season with Ryan Callahan's contract, but then things start to become uncomfortable. For 2020–21 TB has $67 m committed to seven forwards, three defensemen and two goalies, and in 2021–22 $62 m committed to only six forwards, two defensemen and one goalie—all before factoring in Brayden Point's new deal.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by jayswin

How can you say that with certainty? I back up couldn't have collapsed at the sheer magnitude of a Stanley Cup playoff run?

I prefaced with a 'reasonable' goalie. And you saying that a backup would collapse is just as speculative.

I'm just saying it was nowhere near 2012 where it's pretty obvious that they don't win without Quick. He carried them to the Cup that year.

In 2014, he had a subpar 0.911 save percentage in 26, his counterpart in King Henrik had 0.928 in 25.

It's not like I'm rewriting history. It was the story of the matchup and Quick's inconsistency was noted throughout the playoffs:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...mistake-prone/

Quick’s wild inconsistency has been front and center during the 2014 playoffs.
...
but his inconsistent nature almost cost the Kings in the first round as they failed to provide the adequate support for Quick’s style.