In TODAY'S NHL, is getting a "top 3 goalie" WORTH

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

In TODAY'S NHL, is getting a "top 3 goalie" WORTH

Postby Farhan Lalji » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:08 pm

In TODAY'S NHL, is getting a "top 3 goalie" WORTH the $$$$?

Before the era of salary cap, this question wouldn't have even had merit. As we Canuck fans knew all to well, a top-tier goalie wasn't a luxury....it was a NECESSITY. It's no coincidence that teams like New Jersey, Colorado, Detroit, and Dallas were the only Stanley Cup winners between 1995 and 2003. These teams had Martin Brodeur, Patrick Roy, Dominik Hasek, and Ed Belfour respectively.

Since 2004 however, perhaps the "rules" have changed. Case in point: Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim, and now San Jose (arguably the "team to beat" this year).

While all of these teams have very very very GOOD goaltending, I think it's fair to say that NONE of these teams goalies are of the calibre of Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo, or Mikka Kiprasoff (who in my opinion, are the 3 best goalies in the league).

However - these 3 goalie, as we all know, do NOT come with a cheap price tag (as our beloved Calgary Flames will soon discover :)).

The QUESTION that I have for you, is if it's truly worth paying the $$$$$ for a top 3 goalie nowadays?

In the salary cap era, is it wise to pay a HUGE salary for a top 3 goalie, at the expense of not having as much $$$$ for other areas?

As we are seeing with the Canucks right now - outside of Luongo......there isn't much else. Yes - Naslund, the Sedin twins, etc. should have been better than they've been, but still.....it's about the WHOLE team in its entirety. Marleau and Cheechoo struggled mightily for the Sharks this season.....but did that affect the Sharks? The Ducks scoring woes were even worse than the Canucks.....but are THEY fighting for a playoff spot?

Perhaps there's a reason why teams such as Calgary, New Jersey, and the Canucks have NOT been elite teams since 2004 (although at times, each of these teams have been close to it).

Perhaps there's a reason why teams such as Tampa Bay, Edmonton, Carolina, and Anaheim, have all played in the Stanley Cup finals in the last few years.

These teams were willing to pay a fair (but no HUGE) price for goalie, that while not "top 3", were still pretty damn good.....good enough to get hot at the RIGHT time and carry their respective teams. Dwayne Roloson and Cam Ward a few years ago, are excellent examples.

And think about this: Which goalie is going to outperform the other goalie in the following scenario:

A) A superstar "top 3" goalie that has a medicore/above average team in front of him...and as result, has to constantly be at his best for the team to have a chance to win (pressure! pressure! )

B) A "very good" goalie (that has the ability to "get hot" come crunch time) that doesn't have to work as hard....thanks in large part, to the team in front of him kicking ass.

By the way - for those that don't know, I was describing Vancouver vs. Anaheim from last season's playoffs. However - one can easily insert "Calgary vs. Detroit" or "New Jersey vs. Ottawa" from last season's playoffs as well.

EDIT: I just realized that Calgary isn't a very good example.....since they're currently getting Kiprasoff at a NON superstarish salary. On that note - it will be interesting to see what Calgary does with Kiprasoff when his contract is up.
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby Cornuck » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:15 pm

I also think that the average talent of goalies goes up each year. Better training, more experience, better athletes - each year there seem more of the "very good" goalies (as you call them). WIth this, they remain valuable, and could replace the 'top 3' in terms of value to team per $.

The other side is that 'very good' goalies have off years, and can make a decent team look bad.

And for what it's worth, I think Luongo is being wasted this year as a Canuck.
Over 40 years of pain - I just want one day of glory.
User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4799
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Chester, NE

Postby Farhan Lalji » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:33 pm

Cornuck wrote:I also think that the average talent of goalies goes up each year. Better training, more experience, better athletes - each year there seem more of the "very good" goalies (as you call them). WIth this, they remain valuable, and could replace the 'top 3' in terms of value to team per $.

The other side is that 'very good' goalies have off years, and can make a decent team look bad.

And for what it's worth, I think Luongo is being wasted this year as a Canuck.


Good points:

I guess what really boggles my mind, is how our CURRENT team, is so DIFFERENT from our team 2 years ago.....but is the exact same in terms of the final result.

Ditto for our team last year. Our team last year was SO DIFFERENT from the Canuck team in 02/03.........but was the exact same in terms of the final result.

So......what has REALLY changed in Canuck land over the past 5-6 years? With the much needed additions to our goaltending and team defense, our we REALLY any better than what we were during the WCE era?.........or are we just different?

Is having a top superstar goalie really the "holy grail" in building a contender? (as it was perhaps between 1995-2003).

One thing I highly suggest for the future GM's of the Canucks, is to recognize when an "era" has ended. In 1995 when there was a lockout, it pretty much ended "free-flowing" hockey and gave birth to clutching, grabbing, and the dreaded trap. As result - the "soft" Canuck teams that Pat Quinn built (which would've been IDEAL pre-1995), were NOT effective after the lock-out.....and ultimately got demolished in late 97.

Perhaps the same thing has happened here? (i.e. Canuck management's inability to recognize/capitalize on a shifting trend that occurred after the lock-out.....still clinging on to past ideals?).
Farhan Lalji
 

Postby Cookie La Rue » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:48 pm

Just to add some thoughts. I'm glad that we have Roberto, but overall goaltending is way to overhyped imo.

It's the final essence but if you don't have a team in front nobody can rescue it ...
"Every dog has its day." - CC Hockey Pool Champion 2004 & 2013
User avatar
Cookie La Rue
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: 50° 10' North / 8° 34' East

Postby Reverend Smack » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:52 pm

I'm to lazy to look it up, but I am positive that Kipper is locked up for the next 4 or so years at 6mill plus.
If it was not for Roberto, Vancouver would be in the Stamkos sweepstakes!! Again, Vancouver's biggest problem is their warm and fuzzy forwards. :mex:
The truth may hurt...but it is still the Truth...Have a nice day :)
User avatar
Reverend Smack
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:46 pm
Location: Clearly not where I should be !!

Postby Haida Knucklehead » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:24 pm

Reverend Smack wrote:I'm to lazy to look it up, but I am positive that Kipper is locked up for the next 4 or so years at 6mill plus.
If it was not for Roberto, Vancouver would be in the Stamkos sweepstakes!! Again, Vancouver's biggest problem is their warm and fuzzy forwards. :mex:


according to hockeyanalysis.com Kipper is signed for the next 4 years at $5.8 mill


Brodeur has been a good deal for the devils for years, His cap number is $5.2 million[/quote]
Haida Gwaii is Canuck Country
User avatar
Haida Knucklehead
CC Rookie
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:27 am
Location: Haida Gwaii

Postby rockalt » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:28 pm

My God, if we're already at this point than clearly we don't deserve the world-class goalie we have! I'm sorry you guys, but I simply find this thread ridiculous. We FINALLY have that goalie and now we're already discussing what we can get for him. It's preposterous. First it doesn't make any sense. Second, it's never going to happen because the moment Nonis trades Luongo, he removes his greatest coup from the picture and is consequently fired.

It's simple. The WCE-era Canucks was a far superior team to this year's version. We had two bonafide first line forwards, two top d-man anchoring our defense, and a strong supporting cast. Sure we were somewhat of a one line team, but we could afford to do that when we had the best line in hockey. The only thing that was missing was a quality goaltender and it was ultimately our undoing. People can bitch about leadership all they want but Nazzy potted 9 points in 7 games in the 2003-2004 playoffs (including one miraculous rush in the dying seconds of game 7) and 14 points in 14 games in the 2002-2003 playoffs. We lost because of Cloutier, plain and simple. The team had no confidence in their goaltender, as much as I loved the guy.

Fast forward to the current squad. Luongo was brought into a team handcuffed by gross salaries to aging stars. For one thing, Nazzy is a shell of his former self and at 6 million, that will kill you. If we had the Nazzy from 2002-2003, then we probably wouldn't even be in this situation. Ohlund - as much as I love him, he's slowed down a lot over the years and isn't as rock solid as he was 5 years ago. Mo at 3.2 mill is killer. The Sedins are elite second liners but completely pale in comparison to Nazzy-Bertuzzi circa 2002-20003. They can't carry a team with little to no offensive talent.

Wait until next year when some of the larger contracts come off the books and then reserve judgement. I don't see how saving 1 maybe 2 million at the goaltender position (which is realistically all you'd save if you went for a "very good" goalie) will do nothing. Every team needs elite talent to succeed. Investing that money in a goalie makes a hell of a lot more sense than devoting it one stellar left-winger. It's not like we're going to be able to load up on 2-3 million dollar 20 goal scorers even if we unload Luongo.
User avatar
rockalt
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: London

Postby Mikodat » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:55 pm

Of course its worth it to have a top goaltender.. its the rest of the salaries I question... Without Luongo this team would be at the bottom of the league. next year doesn't look great either... remember we will be saddled with a 3.5 mill contract for Bieksa ( Thanks Nonis ).... who is proving to be a defensive liability.. Sure Nasluns 6 mill salary is in the pocket... but it really isn't enough difference. Ohlund is still a force and trading him makes no sense.. Take a look at the last few games since Ollie got injured and Bieksa took over ... sad? I doubt we can get a better center for 3.2 mill than Mo.. He's a consistent 2 way player .. unlike our " stars " who wont backcheck worth a dammm. Sorry I cant see much ahead except a 500 hockey team with no guts coming into next season no matter who is in goal.. Maybe if Nonis and management go for the big trade... ( Sedins ) to bring in tougher talent..
Nuck fan Since 1970 and still no Cup :(
User avatar
Mikodat
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Victoria

Re: In TODAY'S NHL, is getting a "top 3 goalie" WO

Postby Linden Is God » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:34 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote: It's no coincidence that teams like New Jersey, Colorado, Detroit, and Dallas were the only Stanley Cup winners between 1995 and 2003. These teams had Martin Brodeur, Patrick Roy, Dominik Hasek, and Ed Belfour respectively.


One flaw here. When Detroit won in 1997 and repeated in 1998 they Osgood and Vernon in net.
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Postby DonCherry4PM » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:10 am

rockalt wrote:My God, if we're already at this point than clearly we don't deserve the world-class goalie we have! I'm sorry you guys, but I simply find this thread ridiculous. We FINALLY have that goalie and now we're already discussing what we can get for him. It's preposterous. First it doesn't make any sense. Second, it's never going to happen because the moment Nonis trades Luongo, he removes his greatest coup from the picture and is consequently fired.

It's simple. The WCE-era Canucks was a far superior team to this year's version. We had two bonafide first line forwards, two top d-man anchoring our defense, and a strong supporting cast. Sure we were somewhat of a one line team, but we could afford to do that when we had the best line in hockey. The only thing that was missing was a quality goaltender and it was ultimately our undoing. People can bitch about leadership all they want but Nazzy potted 9 points in 7 games in the 2003-2004 playoffs (including one miraculous rush in the dying seconds of game 7) and 14 points in 14 games in the 2002-2003 playoffs. We lost because of Cloutier, plain and simple. The team had no confidence in their goaltender, as much as I loved the guy.

Fast forward to the current squad. Luongo was brought into a team handcuffed by gross salaries to aging stars. For one thing, Nazzy is a shell of his former self and at 6 million, that will kill you. If we had the Nazzy from 2002-2003, then we probably wouldn't even be in this situation. Ohlund - as much as I love him, he's slowed down a lot over the years and isn't as rock solid as he was 5 years ago. Mo at 3.2 mill is killer. The Sedins are elite second liners but completely pale in comparison to Nazzy-Bertuzzi circa 2002-20003. They can't carry a team with little to no offensive talent.

Wait until next year when some of the larger contracts come off the books and then reserve judgement. I don't see how saving 1 maybe 2 million at the goaltender position (which is realistically all you'd save if you went for a "very good" goalie) will do nothing. Every team needs elite talent to succeed. Investing that money in a goalie makes a hell of a lot more sense than devoting it one stellar left-winger. It's not like we're going to be able to load up on 2-3 million dollar 20 goal scorers even if we unload Luongo.



Very good post. We have one of the best goaltenders in the league. I think one could easily argue that his best is the best bar none. In what has been a goalie graveyard, he brings more solidity than we have ever had. To get rid of him now would be ludicrous. If he were at the end of his contract and didn't want to resign then yes, grab a whole boatload of players and prospects. But until that time comes, no.

Mikodat wrote:remember we will be saddled with a 3.5 mill contract for Bieksa ( Thanks Nonis ).... who is proving to be a defensive liability.

I am cautiously optimistic that Bieksa will rebound next year. I know his play this year, both before and after the injury has been less than stellar, but I would argue that this may just be a delayed sophomore slump. It would seem that his play is partially due to trying to hard to live up to the bar he set last year. I like his grit and offensive talent, and while the contract was a risk, I still think it will pay off.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu
User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Postby BingoTough » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:32 am

:shock:

Nonis, don't you dare trade Luongo.

Like Mikodat says, our problems are elsewhere. Certain players (and in my view aspects of AV's style) play a part.

Plus Nonis seems to bring in bags of hockey pucks from time to time (is anybody a Weaver fan?)
User avatar
BingoTough
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:16 am

Postby georoa » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:37 pm

Yes absolutely it is worth it. Like so many have said befor eme whats the big deal, a couple more million for the best it's worth it. Just watching Lou in action has been worth it. And no nobody I know is a Weaver fan. Plenty of Beaver fans though LMAO
georoa
CC Rookie
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:12 pm


Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Jovorock and 1 guest