I think we’re talking past each other not going in circles.
We’ve known for some time that they weren’t looking to block the young goalies (UPL and Levi) just like they weren’t at other positions. I’m guessing this epiphany explains your zeal in the previous responses.
The number #1 goalie comment in the first post doesn’t make sense. There are two goalie spots. Having one filled by a NHL starter doesn’t black Levi from a NHL roster spot. But it would block UPL. Plus acquiring that level goalie is pretty hard to do
Agreed. It's a tall ask to sign a good veteran goalie knowing he's coming in as a stop-gap for Levi until he's ready. In the meantime, you lose UPL who had a good rookie season despite how some people around here feel about it.
It's the dream - but it's a tough thing to find - good, vet, cool with being a backup but can be a full-time starter....
From a pure asset management point of view:
- Buyout/Trade Comrie
-Sign/Acquire Upgrade to Comrie on a 2 year term.
That would give us 1 year of Levi in the AHL a year of UPL getting significant NHL starts to really make an informed decision on what to do. There's a good likelyhood that Levi will get starts at the NHL level as well, especially if we opt for an older vet. And you sign the vet to be the starter. If you really want to sweeten the pot, give them most of their salary as signing bonus the 2nd year so they can retire after one season if they aren't happy with the situation.
Moving UPL now would be selling low. Especially if we can successfully add a top 4 d-man and refit our bottom 6F to get the play in their own zone improve, it would give us a more realistic view of what to do.