Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 For all of you saying, "He sucks" or "He's an average goalie", you need to remember that the guy is still pretty young. Two years ago, some of us were hoping keeping Marty Biron over him. He was a key part of our playoff run in 06-07...how many goalies could put up those numbers in a run-and-gun/offense-first system? And he will only get better. He doesn't exactly have those jaw-dropping stats that will make him the big bucks, but he makes the big save when we need it. And he wins in the playoffs. We'll actually have some kind of a defense this year, and we won't have a sorry @$ excuse for a backup goalie. The FO would be making a huge mistake if October comes around and he's unsigned. I say he'll get 6 years for 6.75 million, and that will end up being a steal. What I said above to BM. Also: he didn't make the big save last season nearly enough, especially in shootouts when we squandered enough points to miss the playoffs. I think it's a giant leap to save the defense is going to be better this year, and the backup situation too. I like the optimism though. Where do I learn this optimism thing you speak of?
Buffalo Wings Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 I'm not saying they should have taken the picks and run, but they didn't even consider it. Within an hour of Vanek signing the offer sheet, there was Quinny declaring that they will match it. PS You missed the playoffs with Vanek, you could have missed them without him. Considering the state of the Edmonton franchise, those 4 first round picks could go a long way towards getting a franchise on the right track that is too cheap to gou out and sign any free agents. But imagine the outcry after already having lost you-know-who and the other you-know-who, you let your up-and-coming star (who just had a good playoff run) walk away. I know it's ridiculous money and the draft picks look enticing, but the FO needed to do something to save face. Losing Vanek in addition to the others would have been suicide. Darcy made it pretty clear he was po'd with Kevin Lowe, so it's not like they wanted to throw that much money at Vanek.
Knightrider Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 They have to sign Miller and they will do so. I'd expect a contract in the 6 years, $38 million range. And to respond to PAFan's point, making him play for his contract is not an option. The issue would be hanging over the team all season. Frankly, not signing him isn't an option either. There won't be rioting in the street, but just the opposite -- fan disgust and then apathy -- which would be much worse. In the last three seasons playoffs, here are Miller's and Lunqvist's stats: Miller: 20 Wins, 14 Losses, 2.39 GAA, .915 SV%, 29.7 Shots per game Lunqvist: 11 Wins 12 Losses, 2.57 GAA, .907 SV%, 28.6 shots per game My guess is 6 years, $41.5M (6.92M cap hit) would get him signed this summer... If you take Lundy's 6 year, 41.25M (from nhlnumbers), add the additional 13% cap increase after spreading it out evenly among 22 players, you get to 6 years/41.5M.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Am I now second man in? I've heard this justification. The obvious followup is: what is taking Miller so long to get established? Dude's pushing 30, and we're still waiting on him. Why do you believe that it's "taking him so long to get established?" The ECF appearances, the 20-14 playoff record - none of that is established? His career path is what it is. He came out of college as a 5th-round pick and went to the AHL in 02-03, and got himself stuck in the three-headed monster goalie logjam (Ryan, Marty, Mika) and was blocked by Marty and Mika in 03-04. 04-05 was the lockout, and he claimed the starter's position in 05-06 (at age 25.) He backstopped the team to consecutive ECF appearances the next two years until the entire team fell apart in 07-08. Dude's about to turn 28. Not "pushing 30" at least not in my book. What I said above to BM. Also: he didn't make the big save last season nearly enough, especially in shootouts when we squandered enough points to miss the playoffs. I think it's a giant leap to save the defense is going to be better this year, and the backup situation too. I like the optimism though. Where do I learn this optimism thing you speak of? For the last time - there aren't many people that are pointing to last season as being indicative of his capabilities. Yes, he had a down year. Pretty much the whole team did. Why is it a giant leap to think the defense won't be better? We're swapping a turnover machine (Kalinin) for a steady physical defenseman. Same goes for the backup. If Lalime can start more than 7 games - 7 - he'll be light years ahead of what T-bo gave us this year. More rest = a better starter.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Last year was disappointing, but there were several factors that should be different this season, assuming they sign him of course ... that being he won't get asked every night about losing the Captains and about Campbell's contract status, and the defense should be better in front of him and he should not play as much and he hopefully will not have to deal with a close family member passing away. I think he bounces back. His age does not worry me at all, there are a lot of guys who go strong into their late 30s in goal and I would bet that more than half the league has guys over 30 starting (I'll check and edit accordingly ...) EDIT: by my quick count there were 16 starters 30 or over ... so it's more than half but barely ...
Knightrider Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Lundqvist isn't even worth Lundqvist money. Especially if the NHL rules reduce the pads. Worth is what someone else is willing to pay them. When did you see a blue chip goalie contract award and not think, is the so an so team's front office insane?
Bmwolf21 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Last year was disappointing, but there were several factors that should be different this season, assuming they sign him of course ... that being he won't get asked every night about losing the Captains and about Campbell's contract status, and the defense should be better in front of him and he should not play as much and he hopefully will not have to deal with a close family member passing away. I think he bounces back.His age does not worry me at all, there are a lot of guys who go strong into their late 30s in goal and I would bet that more than half the league has guys over 30 starting (I'll check and edit accordingly ...) Just to get you started - a quick look at the top-10 GAA leaders from last season shows just two under 30 - Lundqvist and Leclaire, both 26.
X. Benedict Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Lundqvist isn't even worth Lundqvist money. Especially if the NHL rules reduce the pads. Yes he is.
That Aud Smell Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 My guess is 6 years, $41.5M (6.92M cap hit) would get him signed this summer. no doubt about that. still, that hit over that amount of time seems too rich. especially for someone whose hyperphoria allows for those long, floating softies. :bag:
awill29 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Also: he didn't make the big save last season nearly enough, especially in shootouts when we squandered enough points to miss the playoffs. I think some of that can be credited to the fact that he started close to 30 straight games. Quite a few of them went to shootouts, too. Any goalie in the NHL might start to lose focus if you're that tired and you have that much pressure on you (i.e., no one, except maybe Kotalik, was a reliable shootout scorer) I think it's a giant leap to save the defense is going to be better this year, and the backup situation too. No, it's not a big leap. Like Wolf said, Rivet>>>Kalinin and the kids are a year older. We finally have SOME physicality on our blue line, and I think it's safe to say that everyone believes that was our problem last year. Maybe the only question mark is if Lydman can get rid of the yips in his own zone. I think that Tallydman as a #2 behind Spock/Rivet will be good for them and the team as a whole. As for the backup, almost ANYTHING is better than T-Blow. Patty Lalime started 32 games last year for Chicago, and had a winning record. I'm not saying he's gonna be as good a backup as, say, Biron, but he'll be better than Thibault. I like the optimism though. Where do I learn this optimism thing you speak of? :lol:
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 no doubt about that. especially for someone whose hyperphoria allows for those long, floating softies. :bag: Interesting. That's why I love this board.
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 No, it's not a big leap. Like Wolf said, Rivet>>>Kalinin and the kids are a year older. We finally have SOME physicality on our blue line, and I think it's safe to say that everyone believes that was our problem last year. Maybe the only question mark is if Lydman can get rid of the yips in his own zone. I think that Tallydman as a #2 behind Spock/Rivet will be good for them and the team as a whole. As for the backup, almost ANYTHING is better than T-Blow. Patty Lalime started 32 games last year for Chicago, and had a winning record. I'm not saying he's gonna be as good a backup as, say, Biron, but he'll be better than Thibault. I'll accept your thinking on the backup goalie. But defensively, it's still a very soft, somewhat injury-prone group, and there isn't much depth if two starters go out long-term.
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Why do you believe that it's "taking him so long to get established?" The ECF appearances, the 20-14 playoff record - none of that is established? Hey, you're the one who keeps bringing up his age! What are you implying? Aren't you saying, in effect, "just you wait and see"?
Bmwolf21 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Hey, you're the one who keeps bringing up his age! What are you implying? Aren't you saying, in effect, "just you wait and see"? Where did I bring up his age? You brought it into the debate with the "dude's pushing 30" comment. And looking at the success of the goalies over 30 - yes, I am saying wait and see for a goalie who has played the equivalent of 3 full seasons. He's still learning. Last year he learned (the hard way) how much he can handle in terms of workload, how to prepare when his workload increases, etc. Do you really believe that this is it for Miller, that this is best we'll see? That his development has peaked and he will not continue to develop and get better?
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Where did I bring up his age? You brought it into the debate with the "dude's pushing 30" comment. And looking at the success of the goalies over 30 - yes, I am saying wait and see for a goalie who has played the equivalent of 3 full seasons. He's still learning. Last year he learned (the hard way) how much he can handle in terms of workload, how to prepare when his workload increases, etc. Do you really believe that this is it for Miller, that this is best we'll see? That his development has peaked and he will not continue to develop and get better? You said he was about to turn 28. Re: Ryan's development. After the season he had in 05-06, don't you think we as fans should be disappointed that in 2008, we're talking about how young he is and how much promise he shows?
Bmwolf21 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 You said he was about to turn 28. Missing the reading comprehension part, huh? I clarified devendorf's statement AND AGREED that he is not chronologically young, but is "young" in terms of NHL experience. You were the one who glossed over that with your snarky "dude's pushing 30" comment. Re: Ryan's development. After the season he had in 05-06, don't you think we as fans should be disappointed that in 2008, we're talking about how young he is and how much promise he shows? Nice try Patches O'Houlihan, but that wasn't the question. The question was: do you think Ryan has peaked at 28 and will not develop any further, or is it likely that he will continue to learn and develop his game?
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Missing the reading comprehension part, huh? I clarified devendorf's statement AND AGREED that he is not chronologically young, but is "young" in terms of NHL experience. You were the one who glossed over that with your snarky "dude's pushing 30" comment. Nice try Patches O'Houlihan, but that wasn't the question. The question was: do you think Ryan has peaked at 28 and will not develop any further, or is it likely that he will continue to learn and develop his game? All right, Maude. (No clue.) I think he peaked at 26. Put that in your corncob pipe and smoke it.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 All right, Maude. (No clue.) I think he peaked at 26. Put that in your corncob pipe and smoke it. Fair enough, you are on the record ... but if they don't sign him now, as you suggest, and he bounces back and plays well .... please do not rip the FO for not having foresight and locking him up.
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Fair enough, you are on the record ... but if they don't sign him now, as you suggest, and he bounces back and plays well .... please do not rip the FO for not having foresight and locking him up. Well, if he's that good, and carries the Sabres to a Cup, then you sign him for whatever he wants. Only fair for a true franchise player. I'm on the record, but thank God I'm not on Greta Van Susteren.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Well, if he's that good, and carries the Sabres to a Cup, then you sign him for whatever he wants. Only fair for a true franchise player. I'm on the record, but thank God I'm not on Greta Van Susteren. Wait ... so he has to CARRY them to a Cup? what if he posts career bests and the team goes out in the first round (a much more likely scenario)? and then he leaves and they have a huge hole in goal? If you were the GM and let him play out that last season I woudl say you would be subject to the same "why don't they lock up their top players!?!?!? rant to whcih DR has been subject. I mean, Briere and Drury never carried the team to a Cup, right? why does Miller have to have a Cup to prove his worth?
Bmwolf21 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 All right, Maude. (No clue.) I think he peaked at 26. Put that in your corncob pipe and smoke it. Don't watch much ESPN 8: The Ocho, do you? Patches O'Houlihan: If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge! But seriously - I really don't know what to say if you truly believe he peaked in his first year as a starter and will not develop any further or get any better. Just glad you're not the GM, I guess, considering the number of 30-year-old+ goalies who have won the Cup.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Wait ... so he has to CARRY them to a Cup? what if he posts career bests and the team goes out in the first round (a much more likely scenario)? and then he leaves and they have a huge hole in goal? If you were the GM and let him play out that last season I woudl say you would be subject to the same "why don't they lock up their top players!?!?!? rant to whcih DR has been subject. I mean, Briere and Drury never carried the team to a Cup, right? why does Miller have to have a Cup to prove his worth? BtP, you must have missed the memo - good goalies can not only carry a lousy team into the playoffs, but can single-handedly win the Cup. Your efforts are in vain, though -- Ryan could get hot in the playoffs and "carry" the team to a Cup and PA and others would simply dismiss it as a hot streak and insist that he's still just an average goaltender.
wjag Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Life time contract.... 100M... It'll be cheap in a few years.. Hell it ain't my money...
Stoner Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Don't watch much ESPN 8: The Ocho, do you? Patches O'Houlihan: If you're going to become true dodgeballers, then you've got to learn the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge! But seriously - I really don't know what to say if you truly believe he peaked in his first year as a starter and will not develop any further or get any better. Just glad you're not the GM, I guess, considering the number of 30-year-old+ goalies who have won the Cup. Listen, there are lots of average to above average goalies in their late 20s. Just how many do you expect to win the Cup? Interesting that you poo-poo the idea of a goalie carrying a team to a Cup, then you use a phrase like, "goalies who have won the Cup." Aha! I am having such a good day. Getting back on Diet Coke has done wonders for the old Coconut. Maybe I'll put some Lalime in my Coconut. OK, that just sounds wrong.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 7, 2008 Report Posted July 7, 2008 Listen, there are lots of average to above average goalies in their late 20s. Just how many do you expect to win the Cup? Interesting that you poo-poo the idea of a goalie carrying a team to a Cup, then you use a phrase like, "goalies who have won the Cup." Aha! I am having such a good day. Getting back on Diet Coke has done wonders for the old Coconut. Maybe I'll put some Lalime in my Coconut. OK, that just sounds wrong. he didn't poo-poo the idea of a goalie carrying a team to a Cup, just the idea that one HAS to before you will pay him. And the Lalime in your Coconut made me laugh ... even if I have no idea how you can drink that Liquid Ass known as Diet Coke.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.