pld459666
Registered User
While I can see the rationale behind that as a reason, ultimately it's still just a month.
Prospect Info: 2014 NHL Draft / Pick #118 - Igor Shestyorkin (G) - Part III
- Thread starter Krams
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
While I can see the rationale behind that as a reason, ultimately it's still just a month.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,071
- 40,921
Sure, but we have had players before opting out of their contracts to go back for financial reasons. Those were mostly UDFA signings, but still.
pld459666
Registered User
They were also marginal players that had no NHL future so opting out to go back to their home country made sense for them.
Not likely to be the case with Igor.
Also, let's not forget that he will probably be working with Allaire exclusively while on the farm.
There's no downside to a month in the AHL
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,071
- 40,921
This reminds me of something posted earlier this season by someone. What exactly is Allaire's claim to fame? Aside from Lundqvist, he has not really turned anyone into a starting NHL goalie
Talbot and Raanta were two of the best backups in the league and Georgiev has been very good. Talbot and Raanta got starting jobs. If they regressed under a different goalie coach how is that Allaire's fault?
pld459666
Registered User
Actually, those goalies regressing under a different coach enhances Allaires reputation.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,071
- 40,921
Did they really regress? Or were they just the product of a better system at first? Talbot's first 2 years in Edmonton were better because their team performed better. To me, neither Talbot, nor Raanta, has proven to be an NHL starter.
It's just more Chad Johnson
pld459666
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,851
- 9,483
I was the guy who a few weeks ago brought up the whole, "Who cares if Allaire like him?" in response to the justifications of the Lindbom draft pick, pointing out that Allaire has liked numerous guys we've drafted or signed that never became anything resembling NHL goalies. I also acknowledged that the anecdotal evidence of guys talking about how Allaire had helped them leads me to believe that he is, in fact, good at what he does. Still, those are some odd choices in his fluff bio.
Sean Burke, for one. His career started in the late-80s, early-90s, when the average GAA was around 3.50 and the average SV% was around .890. His "renaissance" came in the late-90s, early-00s, and you could actually see it in his numbers prior to even joining Phoenix/Allaire. His best seasons as a starter were 00-01 and 01-02, when the averages dropped all the way to 2.65/.903 and then 2.51/.908. This was also when the "clutch and grab" era started, and everyone got better, some guys substantially. Did Allaire help? Probably. Did changes in the game help? Without question, they played a huge role for every goalie.
Boucher's shutout streak is great, but is a statistical curiosity more than anything. Both seasons he was with Allaire, he was actually below-average relative to the league. He actually had a bit more success later on, post-lockout, when the numbers for goalies actually continued to improve.
Khabibulin's first year under Allaire wasn't good. His second year was great. They roll them together to make it look like there was an overnight change. His best successes came a few years after leaving for Tampa. He was lights-out for Tampa in that Stanley Cup run with five shutouts. This is well after leaving Allaire. And then over a full decade later, he started the season with a 0.98 GAA in nine games which was the lowest in the expansion era (and like Boucher's streak, is a statistical curiosity and not much else).
So, IDK. It's not to say he deserves no credit for helping those guys, because again, he's a good coach and he does help guys. It just seems like the narrative that he's a miracle worker persists and everyone now tries to spin everything as "any goalie who ever did anything good under Allaire is because of Allaire."
Talbot is guy that I don't doubt Allaire had a great influence on. When I'm feeling snarky, I deny this, because a few people have tried to wash the failed goalies from Allaire by saying we had no minor league goalie coach; so if we can't hold the failures in the AHL/ECHL against him, we can't give him credit for Talbot, right? I do give him credit for Talbot though, like I said, it's just snark. Raanta is harder, since he was known to be a really promising goalie and Chicago fans weren't thrilled to give him up. He was outstanding in 14 starts with Chicago before coming here, was very good here, and then was awesome his first year away from here. He's having a more difficult go this year, though we know what's going on with Chicago. People also talk about Biron, but if you look at his body of work, that doesn't really work. Valiquette is borderline and he played such a small amount of games here.
And then you get into the guys Allaire loved--Lafleur, Halverson, Stajcer, Wiikman, Missiaen, etc. Lindbom is now a guy that's going to go either into the success pile or the flaming trash pile.
Allaire is good at what he does, I think. Even if he just helped make Hank, that justifies his entire career with us. But he's not a miracle worker. I think what we've seen is he can take very talented goalies and help them maximize their potential. I don't think we've really seen a case of him taking some rough, raw, long-shot prospect and turning him into something special, or even average.
That's my f***ing long take on Allaire.
The S5
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2017
- 4,473
- 4,310
When Raanta is healthy, he has proven to be a top 10 goalie. Sample size is small, but he was great for the Yotes last year.
pld459666
Registered User
I was the guy who a few weeks ago brought up the whole, "Who cares if Allaire like him?" in response to the justifications of the Lindbom draft pick, pointing out that Allaire has liked numerous guys we've drafted or signed that never became anything resembling NHL goalies. I also acknowledged that the anecdotal evidence of guys talking about how Allaire had helped them leads me to believe that he is, in fact, good at what he does. Still, those are some odd choices in his fluff bio.
Sean Burke, for one. His career started in the late-80s, early-90s, when the average GAA was around 3.50 and the average SV% was around .890. His "renaissance" came in the late-90s, early-00s, and you could actually see it in his numbers prior to even joining Phoenix/Allaire. His best seasons as a starter were 00-01 and 01-02, when the averages dropped all the way to 2.65/.903 and then 2.51/.908. This was also when the "clutch and grab" era started, and everyone got better, some guys substantially. Did Allaire help? Probably. Did changes in the game help? Without question, they played a huge role for every goalie.
Boucher's shutout streak is great, but is a statistical curiosity more than anything. Both seasons he was with Allaire, he was actually below-average relative to the league. He actually had a bit more success later on, post-lockout, when the numbers for goalies actually continued to improve.
Khabibulin's first year under Allaire wasn't good. His second year was great. They roll them together to make it look like there was an overnight change. His best successes came a few years after leaving for Tampa. He was lights-out for Tampa in that Stanley Cup run with five shutouts. This is well after leaving Allaire. And then over a full decade later, he started the season with a 0.98 GAA in nine games which was the lowest in the expansion era (and like Boucher's streak, is a statistical curiosity and not much else).
So, IDK. It's not to say he deserves no credit for helping those guys, because again, he's a good coach and he does help guys. It just seems like the narrative that he's a miracle worker persists and everyone now tries to spin everything as "any goalie who ever did anything good under Allaire is because of Allaire."
Talbot is guy that I don't doubt Allaire had a great influence on. When I'm feeling snarky, I deny this, because a few people have tried to wash the failed goalies from Allaire by saying we had no minor league goalie coach; so if we can't hold the failures in the AHL/ECHL against him, we can't give him credit for Talbot, right? I do give him credit for Talbot though, like I said, it's just snark. Raanta is harder, since he was known to be a really promising goalie and Chicago fans weren't thrilled to give him up. He was outstanding in 14 starts with Chicago before coming here, was very good here, and then was awesome his first year away from here. He's having a more difficult go this year, though we know what's going on with Chicago. People also talk about Biron, but if you look at his body of work, that doesn't really work. Valiquette is borderline and he played such a small amount of games here.
And then you get into the guys Allaire loved--Lafleur, Halverson, Stajcer, Wiikman, Missiaen, etc. Lindbom is now a guy that's going to go either into the success pile or the flaming trash pile.
Allaire is good at what he does, I think. Even if he just helped make Hank, that justifies his entire career with us. But he's not a miracle worker. I think what we've seen is he can take very talented goalies and help them maximize their potential. I don't think we've really seen a case of him taking some rough, raw, long-shot prospect and turning him into something special, or even average.
That's my ****ing long take on Allaire.
There's not a coach out there at any level that can do what you mention in the last paragraph and if that is your line in the sand on what is a good accomplishment or not, then be prepared to be disappointed...like in always.
No one ever said he is some svengali that can turn water into wine.
What we are saying is that with Allaire's tutelage, the acclimatization time for Shesty would be shortened.
Because for all of the points made above, what cannot be disputed is that established goalies improved under him. Young goalies that were back ups here went on to be starters elsewhere and the young goalie that we have now, just stopped 55 shots against one the better offensive teams in the league.
No one is saying that hes going to make a bad goalie into a Vezina caliber goalie, but he will make a good goalie better and of that there is no dispute
My post here is a little out of context, since it was initially in response to giving guys like Lindbom the benefit of the doubt because Allaire "loved!" him. Then I pointed out he's loved lots of guys that did kak, and we then went through a bunch of guys he's worked with. So my post isn't really wholly relevant to Shesterkin, and that's my bad. Though I will say, the first part of my last sentence (turning mediocre prospects into something special) is far-fetched, but the second (turning them into something average) really isn't.
Maybe, maybe not. I think it likely would be, but we don't know for sure.
The points made above indicate that some guys did improve under him, some didn't. As for our backups that thrive elsewhere, again, Talbot? Sure, okay. Raanta was well on his way to becoming a good goalie before coming here; Hawks fans will tell you that. Georgiev's performance the other night was great, quite the feather in his cap. He's still a guy that has been up-and-down at both the NHL and AHL level and is far from being considered a success story.
Well that's good, because I haven't really disputed this either. I think I said he's good at helping good goalies get closer to maximizing their ability in the very post you quoted.
Finally, we see guys come out of relative obscurity all the time. We also see established guys fall apart for seemingly no reason, and then sometimes regain their form. Goalies are so often mercurial in their performances. It's really hard to establish the reason behind their peaks and valleys.
I just think Allaire's value is somewhat overstated.
pld459666
Registered User
Allaire is there to give our goalies confidence and build on their game whether they won or lost their last game, that s the 'guru' part of it or whatever you want to call it.
He's built a reputation around the league and when you mentioned goalie coaches he's one of the more respected in the modern era, whether that's hype or not it doesn't matter the goalies that have worked out for us have proven to be a valuable assets, no?
That said, he's not good at picking the talent with high draft picks. Better in later rounds.
He's built a reputation around the league and when you mentioned goalie coaches he's one of the more respected in the modern era, whether that's hype or not it doesn't matter the goalies that have worked out for us have proven to be a valuable assets, no?
That said, he's not good at picking the talent with high draft picks. Better in later rounds.
Yeah of course, this is all true. You've got other guys, too--Korn, Wamsley, Billy Ranford, Waite, etc., that are all really well-respected. I'm not coming at this due to anything said in this thread or anything like that. It's just over the years, so many times I've heard, "Benny loves him!" or "Just let Allaire work with him!" as justifications for picks or signings. And Allaire is very good at what he does, but he's not a miracle worker. Maybe the people in this thread get it but otherwise I feel like there's this mysticism surrounding him that is unwarranted for him or anyone else.
But, again, I guess this isn't necessarily relevant to a discussion about Shesterkin, who I think would probably find success regardless of who we had working with him.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,071
- 40,921
If that's the case, I don't see how Allaire getting as much as possible out of them somehow reflects poorly on him. Maybe that's as far as they could go.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,071
- 40,921
We will pick 10th overall, and we will go with Pavel Dorofeyev. Mark my words.
A year ago, I said we would pick Kravtsov around 8th (pre lottery) and look what happened
Will he be BPA at #10 or will it be another Jessiman (and I hope Lias isn't a bust).We will pick 10th overall, and we will go with Pavel Dorofeyev. Mark my words.
A year ago, I said we would pick Kravtsov around 8th (pre lottery) and look what happened
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,071
- 40,921
Jessiman was not a bad pick on draft day. People remember him as a bad pick because his career was destroyed with an awful injury.
And Kravtsov was ranked 20-30 on draft day and nobody is complaining about him not being "BPA"
I think Dorofeyev is on the Rangers radar from what I've seen. Gordie Clark being in Hodonin, saying he was not just there for our current prospects, made me think at the time he was there for Podkolzin. But Dorofeyev is the type of player the Rangers go for. In the Kravtsov/Chytil mold
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
We will pick 10th overall, and we will go with Pavel Dorofeyev. Mark my words.
A year ago, I said we would pick Kravtsov around 8th (pre lottery) and look what happened
Doro would be a great pick for us.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,071
- 40,921
Dorofeyev at 10 seems high to me. If we can snag another first round pick that ends up in the low-20s, I think he could still be there.
Either way, I'm not particularly interested in taking a player committed to the KHL for any length of time unless he's far and away the best player available. I don't care his nationality; I'm anti-KHL, not anti-Russian, to be clear.
Either way, I'm not particularly interested in taking a player committed to the KHL for any length of time unless he's far and away the best player available. I don't care his nationality; I'm anti-KHL, not anti-Russian, to be clear.
- Status
