2018-19 Roster talk; Part two

[JojoTheWhale]

And his backups are putting up great numbers this year, Kings might be the best at protecting their goalies, so buyer beware, even if Quick was healthy.

It's one thing to gamble on 2 aging goalies on 2 year contracts, that combined cost less than Quick's deal, another to gamble on 4 years of Quick at $5.8M.

Even if Hart gets sent down this year for more seasoning, to me he's the best bet for 2019-20, and Stolarz/Lyon as the backup. If a veteran goalie comes available at the right price, sure, but really any veteran who comes available is usually a bad gamble - teams don't give up starting goalies they trust. Hutton may be off to a hot start, but let's see how he holds up, Elliott had a solid first half last season.

Basically two ways most teams get top goalies, develop them or trade for them.

Problem with trading for goalies is you usually have to do that in June, and a true starter (potential top 10 quality) comes available maybe once a year or once every two years - I don't think Grabby is starter material, for example.

Campbell's just flat out been the superior Goalie this year. So has Petersen. Hell, both Campbell (SSS of 5 Games) and Kuemper had better numbers than Quick last year on the same team.

Had another surgery in November too.

 

[1865]

Campbell's just flat out been the superior Goalie this year. So has Petersen. Hell, both Campbell (SSS of 5 Games) and Kuemper had better numbers than Quick last year on the same team.

Had another surgery in November too.

He just needs to be better. He's a cup winner, a Conn Smythe winner signed for 2/3 more years at an affordable hit. A good mentor for Hart and a decent stop-gap.

More to the point, i don't know who we could realistically get who's better.

 

[wankstifier]

He just needs to be better. He's a cup winner, a Conn Smythe winner signed for 2/3 more years at an affordable hit. A good mentor for Hart and a decent stop-gap.

More to the point, i don't know who we could realistically get who's better.

You don’t pay almost 6MM for a mentorship and mediocrity. You can get that out of Elliott for a fraction of the cost

 

[JojoTheWhale]

He just needs to be better. He's a cup winner, a Conn Smythe winner signed for 2/3 more years at an affordable hit. A good mentor for Hart and a decent stop-gap.

More to the point, i don't know who we could realistically get who's better.

He's signed for another 4.5 years at 5.8 per, which is well into very good starter money. That takes him to Age 37.

I'm not sure he'd be significantly better than Elliott on this team, let alone other guys on the market. I'm damn sure I'm not ~20MM more confident that he'll be better. And you have to trade something for him on top of it.

 

[landsbergfan]

Not that Quick would be teaching Hart how to play goalie, but the two couldn't be more opposite in terms of style. Quick is crazy and relies on elite athleticism and reaction to make stops and Hart is reliant on smarts and positioning. Quick has worked with our goalie coach too. He is a pretty obvious expansion target at this point as well because his name value is huge (and salary low). I would take him because he is fun to watch, but I don't think trading for him is necessary at all. I just think his cost will be too high

 

[baudib1]

Right. Goalies are voodoo. So why pay Quick 5.8 x 4.5 well into his mid 30s? What makes you so much more confident about him to be worth both trading assets for and giving a more than UFA rate contract? If he was a UFA and would take a 2 year deal, that's a completely different conversation.



I'm more bullish on Crawford than you are (if he's healthy), but when you phrase it like this, it sure makes it seem like Hextall made a logical bet on Elliott.

Because Quick has a pretty good chance to be better than the usual dreck we've had around here. AFAIK we haven't brought in any goalies with Stanley Cups. You're looking at a guy "declining" when he's played 13 bad games. I'm seeing a guy whose market value has never been lower.

Still haven't heard your younger/cheaper/healthier/better alternative.

 

[Prongo]

Everyone wants the perfect situation it seems but this isn’t a perfect world. You have to go out and make the deals that are available. Quicks cap hit isn’t a killer. This isn’t a price type contract. 5.8 won’t cripple this team especially while hart is on his rookie deal

 

[Curufinwe]

Anyone else on a one year deal > Quick.

 

[Znith]

I don't understand why the flyers would trade for a goalie when they are clearly out of it for this season.

Might as well keep Hart in the mix and see what you have, then re-evaluate in the off season. If you need to bring in a guy for next year, might as well see what you have for free right now.

I think the ideal situation is actually a Hart/Elliot tandem. Elliot has shown that he can't be a #1, but he has proven in the past he is a great #1b playing less than 40 games per year. He's a pretty calm guy and would probably be a great influence on a young goalie too.

 

[baudib1]

Elliott would probably have been fine if Hakstol hadn't ruined him.

My preference would have been Crawford but his career is probably over at this point.

The UFAs are basically Bob and Varlamov, Mike Smith, Jimmy Howard. After those guys? Brian Elliott starts to look pretty good.

 

[JayRosehillMVP]

Why bother with Quick when Hart’s likely ready sooner then later? Elliott’s a capable stopgap, and more than willing to be a backup if need be.

 

[Prongo]

We aren’t accounting for the idea of Hart struggling too. We’ve had stop gaps for awhile now. Quicks contract doesn’t kill us and gives us a #1 goalie.

What if Hart isn’t ready to be the starter in two years? What are we doing then? Trying to patch it up at that point in time.

 

[ItMe]

A lot of goalie talk but we can't forget about the system the Flyers are going to use once Gordon incorporates it completely. Does is favor defense? If so, it would be wise to invest in another goalie.

 

[baudib1]

The last two Stanley Cup winners started 2 goalies in the playoffs. As a Flyers fan you might have observed that goalies sometimes get hurt.

I guess my preferred option after Quick is Bob on a 6-year/$60M deal.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

"Doesn't kill us" isn't an argument. It's an excuse.

Because Quick has a pretty good chance to be better than the usual dreck we've had around here. AFAIK we haven't brought in any goalies with Stanley Cups. You're looking at a guy "declining" when he's played 13 bad games. I'm seeing a guy whose market value has never been lower.

Still haven't heard your younger/cheaper/healthier/better alternative.

We clearly have a communication disconnect here somewhere along the line. The bar is not "Who's better?" because that assumes that everyone will agree a Goalie must and will be added almost immediately. The discussion is whether Quick is a good trade target or not and some people are disagreeing with you, while certainly others agree.

So far, you've pointed to Hasek as the case for athletic Goalies aging well. I agree that the greatest Goalie ever aged well. Why does that standard as opposed to the other hundreds of data points we have apply to Quick? More to the point, why should I bet assets and a massive contract on it? That's the entire point. You have to be so much more sure with Quick than you would be handing out a 1 or 2 year UFA deal.

What does winning Cups 5 and 7 years ago have to do with what he'll do going forward? I want to project what will happen from today forward. Hell, what does a team achievement have to do with his play at all?

I worry that an aging Goalie who succeeds because he's so damn athletic has never controlled Rebounds well. Even going back to 2017 and before, his Rebound control was poor. For frame of reference, Bobrovsky's were equally poor. That's a concern there too. There are guys like MAF and Luongo who historically had poor Rebound control who aged well, but I would hope we can agree those are very different types of Goalies to Quick.

By the way, as you are, I would be completely in on Crawford if he was healthy. He's a better Goalie on a MUCH better contract, and a solid bet to have a smoother aging curve -- at least as much as any Goalie can be a good bet.

 

[wankstifier]

A lot of goalie talk but we can't forget about the system the Flyers are going to use once Gordon incorporates it completely. Does is favor defense? If so, it would be wise to invest in another goalie.

What system?

Also, Gordon might not even finish out the season

 

[1865]

You don’t pay almost 6MM for a mentorship and mediocrity. You can get that out of Elliott for a fraction of the cost

Right now we're getting less and less out of Elliott.

 

[wasup]

The last two Stanley Cup winners started 2 goalies in the playoffs. As a Flyers fan you might have observed that goalies sometimes get hurt.

I guess my preferred option after Quick is Bob on a 6-year/$60M deal.

What? 10 mil /yr for a goalie , how's that working for Montreal . There is no way i throw that kind of money at a goalie they are too unpredictiable . 5.5/6 is max

 

[baudib1]

"Doesn't kill us" isn't an argument. It's an excuse.

So far, you've pointed to Hasek as the case for athletic Goalies aging well. I agree that the greatest Goalie ever aged well. Why does that standard as opposed to the other hundreds of data points we have apply to Quick? More to the point, why should I bet assets and a massive contract on it? That's the entire point. You have to be so much more sure with Quick than you would be handing out a 1 or 2 year UFA deal.

.

Because there aren't better alternatives. Because there is no goalie who will take a 1/2-year UFA deal that anyone would want.

Besides alternate universe Crawford, who do you want?

 

[baudib1]

What? 10 mil /yr for a goalie , how's that working for Montreal . There is no way i throw that kind of money at a goalie they are too unpredictiable . 5.5/6 is max

Then you want to sign Mike Smith?

 

[AdamParrot]

One answer.

Carter. Hart.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Because there aren't better alternatives. Because there is no goalie who will take a 1/2-year UFA deal that anyone would want.

Besides alternate universe Crawford, who do you want?

You have no interest. Message received. Enjoy your day.

 

[deadhead]

I wouldn't touch Bob, heck Elliott has a far superior playoff record, and Bob has struggled in the playoffs his entire career, so I doubt that would change here.

Quick has prospered in a conservative Kings' system where I suspect (are there numbers?) excels at helping goalies with rebounds. He's aging and at this point is no longer reliable, if he was a 1-2 year gamble without giving up significant assets sure, but 4 years at $5.8M plus trade at least a solid prospect? Pass.

Hart probably isn't ready right now and will be exposed the next couple weeks. Fine, give him a taste, get another goalie healthy, send him back until March, he's not that far away.

Stolarz just has to get healthy and play another 20 games or so, he was clearly better than most of the goalies we've thrown out there the last couple years, just needs to shake off the rust and trust his knee.

Lyon just had a shutout, I can't believe he's as bad as he looked, he had a great Calder Cup run, let him start in LHV for a few weeks then give him another shot.

Elliott and Neuvirth can be used as traffic cones while the kids develop this year.

These three are probably as good as what we're going to get from any veteran goaltenders out there, and this summer Fletcher can see if any good goalies shake loose at a reasonable price.

 

[freakydallas13]

I would take a look at signing Varlamov to a 3 year contract in the offseason, if he is willing to sign for that short

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Quick has prospered in a conservative Kings' system where I suspect (are there numbers?) excels at helping goalies with rebounds..

I don't think anyone has done public work on systemic likelihood of Rebounds. I do know of a Rebound Probability Model that takes an xG-like approach of Expected Rebound Rates vs Actual, but that only applies at the Individual level. It looked solid when I saw the writeup a few years ago, but I haven't kept up on it. All models are bad, but some are useful and all of that.

I'm sure you could use that same data to draw some systemic conclusions, but I haven't seen it written up.