inkman Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 I tried to broach this subject in another thread but was mostly ignored, so here we are. Since 2003 no real franchise goalies have anchored a Stanley Cup winner. It begs the question, is it necessary to have one, or better yet is it a detriment to have one? It may sound crazy but are we seeing a new evolution on how to build a cup winner? Detroit has operated this way for more than a decade, should the Sabres follow suit?
JJFIVEOH Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 A few weeks ago during the 2nd intermission when Harry, Mike and Rob discussed a topic Rob brought this up indirectly. I forget the question, but it was something along the lines of what makes a Stanley Cup winner. Rob mentioned Detroit and talked about their depth, their leadership, blah blah blah........... but he finished off with something that seemed like more of a jab. He said one thing that Detroit has always done is they NEVER make their goaltending their primary concern. I had to agree with him 100%.
Stoner Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 A few weeks ago during the 2nd intermission when Harry, Mike and Rob discussed a topic Rob brought this up indirectly. I forget the question, but it was something along the lines of what makes a Stanley Cup winner. Rob mentioned Detroit and talked about their depth, their leadership, blah blah blah........... but he finished off with something that seemed like more of a jab. He said one thing that Detroit has always done is they NEVER make their goaltending their primary concern. I had to agree with him 100%. Interesting. I remember that. You get little whiffs here and there that Miller is not well-liked. Vanek's reaction last night was pretty interesting. Vanek the emotional zombie. I could be and probably am wrong. Miller-ites, relax.
PromoTheRobot Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 If you don't need good goaltending then what do you need? PTR
wjag Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Interesting. I remember that. You get little whiffs here and there that Miller is not well-liked. Vanek's reaction last night was pretty interesting. Vanek the emotional zombie. I could be and probably am wrong. Miller-ites, relax. Does a Goalie need to be liked? Just like a QB, there are probably members of the team that like him and others that grouse. You may not need an elite goalie, but it sure helps. To me it's economics. If you have too much invested in a goalie, then there is less for the Forwards and Dmen. If you have too much invested in the Dmen and Forwards, you have less to invest in a goalie. I think every team who could have an elite goalie would snap him up in second. The Detroit argument is a red herring. They snapped up all world Hasek in a blink of an eye.
Stoner Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 If you don't need good goaltending then what do you need? PTR "Franchise" and "good" are not the same. I hate to pile on. We all liked the grumpy PTR better. Still, I'm glad you're here. I've always liked your posts.
R_Dudley Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 I tried to broach this subject in another thread but was mostly ignored, so here we are. Since 2003 no real franchise goalies have anchored a Stanley Cup winner. It begs the question, is it necessary to have one, or better yet is it a detriment to have one? It may sound crazy but are we seeing a new evolution on how to build a cup winner? Detroit has operated this way for more than a decade, should the Sabres follow suit? That is a very good question. I think I can say that SC champions have all at least had some very good timely goaltending if not great goalies. The only great ones that quickly come to mind that I might make a argument as made a difference are ones like Brodeur NJ, Patrick Roy(Mon, Col), Belfour Dallas, Smith NYI, Parent Phl, I am tempted to say Dryden Mon but those teams were so talented up front I am not sure he was the difference. I think a very good argument can be made most SC winners really do it as a team with all things working together over the total playoff march vs one player on the team. Can it be a simple as looking back at all the past SC MVP's and seeing how many where goalies? 2010 Jonathan Toews, forward, Chicago Blackhawks 2009 Evgeni Malkin, forward, Pittsburgh Penguins 2008 Henrik Zetterberg, forward, Detroit Red Wings 2007 Scott Niedermayer, defenseman, Anaheim Ducks 2006 Cam Ward, goaltender, Carolina Hurricanes 2004 Brad Richards, forward, Tampa Bay Lightning 2003 Jean-Sebastien Giguere*, goaltender, Mighty Ducks of Anaheim 2002 Nicklas Lidstrom, defenseman, Detroit Red Wings 2001 Patrick Roy, goaltender, Colorado Avalanche 2000 Scott Stevens, defenseman, New Jersey Devils 1999 Joe Nieuwendyk, forward, Dallas Stars 1998 Steve Yzerman, forward, Detroit Red Wings 1997 Mike Vernon, goaltender, Detroit Red Wings 1996 Joe Sakic, forward, Colorado Avalanche 1995 Claude Lemieux, forward, New Jersey Devils 1994 Brian Leetch, defenseman, New York Rangers 1993 Patrick Roy, goaltender, Montreal Canadiens 1992 Mario Lemieux, forward, Pittsburgh Penguins 1991 Mario Lemieux, forward, Pittsburgh Penguins 1990 Bill Ranford, goaltender, Edmonton Oilers 1989 Al MacInnis, defenseman, Calgary Flames 1988 Wayne Gretzky, forward, Edmonton Oilers 1987 Ron Hextall*, goaltender, Philadelphia Flyers 1986 Patrick Roy, goaltender, Montreal Canadiens 1985 Wayne Gretzky, forward, Edmonton Oilers 1984 Mark Messier, forward, Edmonton Oilers 1983 Billy Smith, goaltender, New York Islanders 1982 Mike Bossy, forward, New York Islanders 1981 Butch Goring, forward, New York Islanders 1980 Bryan Trottier, forward, New York Islanders 1979 Bob Gainey, forward, Montreal Canadiens 1978 Larry Robinson, defenseman, Montreal Canadiens 1977 Guy Lafleur, forward, Montreal Canadiens 1976 Reg Leach*, forward, Philadelphia Flyers 1975 Bernie Parent, goaltender, Philadelphia Flyers Probably not truly indicative but one way to slice it BTW I did my first few mentioned tenders off the top of my head before doing the lookup of mvp's
Weave Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 I tried to broach this subject in another thread but was mostly ignored, so here we are. Since 2003 no real franchise goalies have anchored a Stanley Cup winner. It begs the question, is it necessary to have one, or better yet is it a detriment to have one? It may sound crazy but are we seeing a new evolution on how to build a cup winner? Detroit has operated this way for more than a decade, should the Sabres follow suit? As alluded to in that other thread, it depends on how you want to define "franchise goalie". But as shown by Chicago, Detroit, and aguably Pittsburgh and Carolina, a good goalie (but not elite) is good enough to win a Stanley Cup. Is it a detriment to winning the Cup to have an elite, top tier goalie? My thought is, it depends on how much you are paying that goalie. Every dollar tied up in a goalie is a dollar that can't be spent to put pressure on the other team and put the puck in the net. And that is where Detroit is showing the rest of the league how it's done. Does Detroit have the forward depth and killer defence it has today if they have a $7M goaltender? Of course not. Does it mean they wouldn't be as successful as they are without one? We'll never know. When Detroit had Hasek there was no salary cap. No way they grab a guy like Hasek today. They know their strength is in forward depth and high end puck moving defence. They couldn't fit a top end goalie into their cap and still maintain the depth of talent they have. It seems to me that the winning formula today is a team in which all 4 lines and all 6 defencemen are capable of applying heavy pressure on the opposing puck handlers and those players have enough talent to turn the inevitable turnovers into scoring opportunities. Tying up $6-8M in a goaltender seems to hamper a teams' ability to assemble a roster with enough talent and gumption to win a puck pressure game IMO.
Weave Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Does a Goalie need to be liked? Just like a QB, there are probably members of the team that like him and others that grouse. You may not need an elite goalie, but it sure helps. To me it's economics. If you have too much invested in a goalie, then there is less for the Forwards and Dmen. If you have too much invested in the Dmen and Forwards, you have less to invest in a goalie. I think every team who could have an elite goalie would snap him up in second. The Detroit argument is a red herring. They snapped up all world Hasek in a blink of an eye. In a non-salary cap era when they could throw enough money to maintain their depth of talent AND have an all world goalie. They can't do that today. So no, it's not a red herring.
JJFIVEOH Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 If you don't need good goaltending then what do you need? PTR Cap space...............
inkman Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Posted March 31, 2011 Interesting. I remember that. You get little whiffs here and there that Miller is not well-liked. Vanek's reaction last night was pretty interesting. Vanek the emotional zombie. I could be and probably am wrong. Miller-ites, relax. Vanek sure did fire a shot across Ryan's bow. I can't remember the exact quote but something about letting in easy ones? Probably not an intentional shot but ad you said, Vanek never says anything too harsh in his interviews.
kishoph Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Do you still need a "franchise goalie" to win the cup? I think Chicago answered that last year with NIEMI.
R_Dudley Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 It seems to me that the winning formula today is a team in which all 4 lines and all 6 defencemen are capable of applying heavy pressure on the opposing puck handlers and those players have enough talent to turn the inevitable turnovers into scoring opportunities. Tying up $6-8M in a goaltender seems to hamper a teams' ability to assemble a roster with enough talent and gumption to win a puck pressure game IMO. I think a solid argument can be made for this given the war of attrition the playoff haul becomes. It regularly seems the teams that win always have some unsung hero emerge that was not part of the top 6. The style gets so tight and defensive that maybe depth spread across several players vs one may actually improve the odds.
thesportsbuff Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 No, you don't need a franchise goalie to win the cup. The goaltender is the most overrated position in all of hockey. There's so much inconsistency in net just due to the nature of the game. So many goals these days are what you might label "fluke" goals -- lucky bounces off the end walls, deflections off a skate in front, i remember one Toronto scored on us a few years back where it hit the linesman and rocketted straight in front to open Leaf, who buried it -- there's just so much more going on in a game than a goalie has control over, and being a good goaltender can only help so much. Good positioning, good reflexes, good puck control don't necessarily equate to having a good game when you're being screened, pucks are going in off your own defenders, players are making impossible deflections, etc. Not that having a good goaltender can't HELP, but why spend $6 mil a year on a "superstar" goalie like Miller when you can find an average goalie for 2-3 mil and probably not notice that extreme of a fall off. Especially if you use that extra $3-4 mil to sign a stalwart defenseman or a Top 6 talent who's goal scoring abilities can off-set the loss of a superstar goalie.
Claude_Verret Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 I think X said it perfectly a few weeks ago. No you don't need a franchise goalie to win a Cup, you just need the one that you have to play like one for a few months.
Taro T Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 In a non-salary cap era when they could throw enough money to maintain their depth of talent AND have an all world goalie. They can't do that today. So no, it's not a red herring. Pittsburgh and Vancouver seem to maintain pretty good "depth of talent" while having a $5MM or so goalie between the pipes. Which is more damaging to the Rangers: having Lundqvist at at smidge below $7MM or Drury or Gaborik (each coming in above $7MM)? The Pens won with Fleury (who has at a minimum been in the discussion of who's elite) and the Hawks won w/ a $5MM+ goalie on the bench. So the Hawks even MISSED on an 'all world' 'franchise-type' goalie but still won the prize. Having a high priced goalie does not doom a team to also ran status. Going back to Inky's original Q, clearly a team can win w/out the franchise goalie. I haven't seen where having one necessarily puts a team over the top, but I haven't seen enough (or more accurately any) evidence that having a top goalie causes other areas be too weak to get to the top. The question actually breeds a more basic question: is there enough variance in skill level from 1-10 (and realistically from 1-20) to claim that there currently is a "franchise" goalie? Has the science of honing the butterfly combined with the increased size of the equipment and the athletes removed a significant portion of what separates the good from the great? Tim Thomas won the Vezina 2 years ago and might win it again this year, but wasn't even the best goalie on his team last year. (Yeah recovering from injury was part of it, but even if healthy he wouldn't have been playing THAT much better than Rask.) If there isn't the separation between the best goalies, then the decision to pay the top guys should end up coming down to other intangibles. Is the leadership brought to the 'Nucks or Strangers worth the price of Luongo or Lundy? With the cap close to $60MM, having A $5-7MM goalie doesn't hurt a team's depth any more than having a 2nd high priced center. I'd actually say that it's ballsier to go the Wings route with bargain basement goalies backstopping high priced talent. If a Connolly screws up (and it isn't on the pp) he's got 2 D and a goalie back there to cover for him. If the goalie screws up, there's no one left to fix it. (I'd also like to point out that according to nhlnumbers, there are no goalies that are even making $7MM against the cap, so arguments about $8MM goalies don't seem to be terribly appropriate.)
Eleven Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 Pittsburgh and Vancouver seem to maintain pretty good "depth of talent" while having a $5MM or so goalie between the pipes. Which is more damaging to the Rangers: having Lundqvist at at smidge below $7MM or Drury or Gaborik (each coming in above $7MM)? The Pens won with Fleury (who has at a minimum been in the discussion of who's elite) and the Hawks won w/ a $5MM+ goalie on the bench. So the Hawks even MISSED on an 'all world' 'franchise-type' goalie but still won the prize. Having a high priced goalie does not doom a team to also ran status. Going back to Inky's original Q, clearly a team can win w/out the franchise goalie. I haven't seen where having one necessarily puts a team over the top, but I haven't seen enough (or more accurately any) evidence that having a top goalie causes other areas be too weak to get to the top. The question actually breeds a more basic question: is there enough variance in skill level from 1-10 (and realistically from 1-20) to claim that there currently is a "franchise" goalie? Has the science of honing the butterfly combined with the increased size of the equipment and the athletes removed a significant portion of what separates the good from the great? Tim Thomas won the Vezina 2 years ago and might win it again this year, but wasn't even the best goalie on his team last year. (Yeah recovering from injury was part of it, but even if healthy he wouldn't have been playing THAT much better than Rask.) If there isn't the separation between the best goalies, then the decision to pay the top guys should end up coming down to other intangibles. Is the leadership brought to the 'Nucks or Strangers worth the price of Luongo or Lundy? With the cap close to $60MM, having A $5-7MM goalie doesn't hurt a team's depth any more than having a 2nd high priced center. I'd actually say that it's ballsier to go the Wings route with bargain basement goalies backstopping high priced talent. If a Connolly screws up (and it isn't on the pp) he's got 2 D and a goalie back there to cover for him. If the goalie screws up, there's no one left to fix it. (I'd also like to point out that according to nhlnumbers, there are no goalies that are even making $7MM against the cap, so arguments about $8MM goalies don't seem to be terribly appropriate.) What he said. And on top of it, Miller is on the team this year. Can we stop planning the off-season long enough to enjoy the run to the playoffs and, hopefully, beyond? Geez. This is your team.
Weave Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 The question actually breeds a more basic question: is there enough variance in skill level from 1-10 (and realistically from 1-20) to claim that there currently is a "franchise" goalie? Has the science of honing the butterfly combined with the increased size of the equipment and the athletes removed a significant portion of what separates the good from the great? I've talked about this recently. IMO there is nearly zero difference in the 1-20 goailies right now. If there were a Hasek or Brodeur type in their primes currently I'd say there are a couple franchise goalies, but that isn't the case currently. And I think Miller is a good example of this. Right now his GAA and SV% is ranked in the 20's. But, is he really any worse than Fleury? or Lundqvist? I don't think so. Is he demonstrably better than Ward? And this gets to the point of the lack of need for a franchise goalie. IMO right now there are probably 20, maybe 25 goalies good enough to win a Stanley Cup. Is one of the top 3 to 5 goalies in the league any better suited to win it than the #20 goalie? Hell, is Thomas better suited to win it than Ward? Cuz there is your #1 vs a guy in the 20's for stats. I really don't think so. The difference in talent and effectiveness isn't great enough to be meaningful IMO. Give me an above average goalie and a solid, deep, determined team in front of him.
Weave Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 I think X said it perfectly a few weeks ago. No you don't need a franchise goalie to win a Cup, you just need the one that you have to play like one for a few months. I don't believe that is what happened for Chicago, Detroit, and Carolina. Those goalies played well. Their teams played extremely well. They didn't play like frnchise goalies. They didn't have to. What they didn't do is, they didn't get soft in the big games. You don't have to be playing like a franchise goalie to avoid soft goals. You just have to play to your ability.
X. Benedict Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 I don't believe that is what happened for Chicago, Detroit, and Carolina. Those goalies played well. Their teams played extremely well. They didn't play like frnchise goalies. They didn't have to. What they didn't do is, they didn't get soft in the big games. You don't have to be playing like a franchise goalie to avoid soft goals. You just have to play to your ability. Niemi was pretty good last year. Totally shut down Nashville, San Jose and Vancouver. Philly solved him. But he played every game I think. Fluery is a franchise goaltender. Osgood in 2008 gave up 4 goals once in the playoffs .930 save percentage. He might have been the exception in terms of franchise talent being at the end of his career, but still...he probably had had 500 career starts for Detroit over the years. Ward is clearly a franchise guy. Giguerre was a franchise guy. Detroit the exception. maybe. They had Osgood and Hasek for cheap that year. But they haven't had chump careers.
Weave Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 Niemi was pretty good last year. Totally shut down Nashville, San Jose and Vancouver. Philly solved him. But he played every game I think. Fluery is a franchise goaltender. Osgood in 2008 gave up 4 goals once in the playoffs .930 save percentage. He might have been the exception in terms of franchise talent being at the end of his career, but still...he probably had had 500 career starts for Detroit over the years. Ward is clearly a franchise guy. Giguerre was a franchise guy. Detroit the exception. maybe. They had Osgood and Hasek for cheap that year. But they haven't had chump careers. I guess that depends on how you are defining "franchise" and I suspect mine will differ from yours.
Taro T Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 I've talked about this recently. IMO there is nearly zero difference in the 1-20 goailies right now. If there were a Hasek or Brodeur type in their primes currently I'd say there are a couple franchise goalies, but that isn't the case currently. And I think Miller is a good example of this. Right now his GAA and SV% is ranked in the 20's. But, is he really any worse than Fleury? or Lundqvist? I don't think so. Is he demonstrably better than Ward? And this gets to the point of the lack of need for a franchise goalie. IMO right now there are probably 20, maybe 25 goalies good enough to win a Stanley Cup. Is one of the top 3 to 5 goalies in the league any better suited to win it than the #20 goalie? Hell, is Thomas better suited to win it than Ward? Cuz there is your #1 vs a guy in the 20's for stats. I really don't think so. The difference in talent and effectiveness isn't great enough to be meaningful IMO. Give me an above average goalie and a solid, deep, determined team in front of him. The bolded is probably why you still see a handful of guys paid over $6MM but you don't see any goalies w/ OV-like salaries. Paying a goalie $5-6.5 and 'knowing' (?) that he'll be sharp day in day out is a reasonable insurance policy that a horrible goal won't scuttle an otherwise promising season. But there is only 1 goalie in the top 20 salary cap hits in the league and there aren't any others in the top 30 of the league. So judging by what GM's are paying out, it doesn't look like there are many 'franchise' goalies to begin with. As X said, (paraphrasing here) "you don't need a franchise goalie to win but you need franchise goaltending." The lower priced guys can get the job done for a team, but there is more risk involved. The more I think about Inky's question, I think it isn't necessarily having a bargain goalie that teams need to win the SC in the salary cap era; it's more likely though that they have to have some form of key bargain players. (I'd have to look closer at the rosters and $'s for the Ducks and Pens so see if this actually holds or if it just seems like it is. But the Canes had Staal & the goalies at a minimum, the Hawks had a whole bunch of low priced stars, and the Wings had that bargain basement goaltending and arguably all their players could have earned more w/out giving the 'hometown discount.') Getting back to goaltending, there isn't a whole lot of difference from good to great, but you have to make sure you have the consistancy. I still think the Wings are playing a game of Russian roulette with having NO established goalie backstopping all that talent. And while it might not make sense for the Sabres to go and pick up a Miller in FA if they didn't already have him, it also probably doesn't make sense to get rid of him unless the offer is a true 'wow.' Now, if Enroth keeps developing and playing as he's showing signs of being capable of doing, then maybe Miller becomes tradable down the road. But for now, they have Miller, prior to this latest injury he's been playing well, and his salary is not why this team doesn't have a real #1 center.
X. Benedict Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 And while it might not make sense for the Sabres to go and pick up a Miller in FA if they didn't already have him, it also probably doesn't make sense to get rid of him unless the offer is a true 'wow.' Now, if Enroth keeps developing and playing as he's showing signs of being capable of doing, then maybe Miller becomes tradable down the road. But for now, they have Miller, prior to this latest injury he's been playing well, and his salary is not why this team doesn't have a real #1 center. Excellent Post. I'm never surprised when a new goaltender shows up and plays well for a while. In time teams catch on to their weaknesses. After that the goaltenders have to adjust. The better ones do it. And then some can never adjust.....see Steve Mason. Actually I've always believed the most overrated stat for goaltenders (though not unimportant) is the shutout. In a shutout your D can collapse in the home zone the entire game. The shutout is credited to the goaltender, but it says how your D played. Last night for example. Only 1 penalty and the D kept everything to the outside.
bunomatic Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 Excellent Post. I'm never surprised when a new goaltender shows up and plays well for a while. In time teams catch on to their weaknesses. After that the goaltenders have to adjust. The better ones do it. And then some can never adjust.....see Steve Mason. Actually I've always believed the most overrated stat for goaltenders (though not unimportant) is the shutout. In a shutout your D can collapse in the home zone the entire game. The shutout is credited to the goaltender, but it says how your D played. Last night for example. Only 1 penalty and the D kept everything to the outside. Exactly. The shutout is a team stat. At times a goalie can completely stand on his head but that isn't the norm. On the franchise goalie question I believe that only a select few goalies can handle the pressure that goes along with being labeled a 'franchise' goalie. There's something about a good but not considered great goalie sneaking in under the radar in the postseason and winning the cup.
LGR4GM Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 I thought about this one for quite a while. Do you need a franchise goalie to win the cup. Answer is NO. Does it help, yes. However, I think we are seeing more and more than having a star goalie guarantees you less and less. I am not saying that eventually you could put in lalime every night and it wouldnt matter. I am saying that I think paying a guy 6mil to stand btw the pipes is going to go extinct because the 3-4mil guy will do the same thing. Goalies are funny creatures and thats what makes answering this question difficult. Olympic Miller is an example of a goalie winning games for a team. I think however that 9 out of 10 nights its a team effort and every 10th game or so a gt will stand on his hand and win it for you. Miller is a franchise gt because he is the best known sabre player and american hockey player, is he the best goalie this year, no. So Franchise does not = best and therefor you can win the cup without a franchise gt.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.