Namikaze Minato
Registered User
So you think Dubas is a good enough GM that if he were to be fired he would immediately be hired to another team as GM?
You must really like him.
Combined Goalie Discussion Thread - PART TWO!
- Thread starter LeafChief
- 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
You must really like him.
Im talking about his actual salaryHis cap hit is $4,687,500 million
He was originally paid 6.25 mill
Menzinger
Kessel4LadyByng
Conversely, what's the actual argument they wouldn't? Teams always need goalies, and some have to make sure they hit the cap floor. Getting a 3rd or equivalent asset seems fair in that regard
It's only one year and his contract is almost certainly insured in case he is unable to play.
Menzinger
Kessel4LadyByng
Is that because he doesn't trust him, or because he sees no need to fatigue the guy and also wants others to play?
LeafalCrusader
Registered User
His cap hit is $4,687,500 million
He was originally paid 6.25 mill
But it's 6 million in actual salary as his deal is backloaded. Combine that and a partial ntc and good luck unloading him.
Cap hit is more significant though. Teams can figure the cash out a few ways, but the cap hit stays with you.
We could also retain some for a year to move him if needed.
There are so many options.
LeafalCrusader
Registered User
Buyout. Attach a pick. Retain salary. Take another bad contract back. LTIR. Lots of options none of them good.
Menzinger
Kessel4LadyByng
Sure. But the Leafs have been intending on running a tandem in net since the start of the season - and that's exactly how things have unfolded. I don't see that as lack of trust - especially since as a younger goalie he's never played a full season as a full starter, there's no need to overwhelm him if they can ease him into the role. The Leafs record hadn't suffered because of this either
Maple Leaf
VIP
- Sep 18, 2009
- 10,200
- 5,433
So a team trying to win a cup and needs every available dollar to improve the roster needs to retain to get rid of Murray?
How about not trading for him in the first place? Everybody knew Murray had these issues but our management team traded for him anyway
The only reason this hasn't turned into an absolute **** show is Woll taking a massive and unforseen developmental step forward
Samsonov playing far better than he has for literally years and Kallgren getting some wins
Murray has been injured at least 3 times, been God awful for months and is basically unusable as we go into the playoffs
The Murray trade was bad at the time, is bad now and the entire management team should be hauled into a room to explain how they thought this was in any way a good idea especially when the guys cap hit is over 4.5M
For a so called "smart" management team they sure do some of the dumbest **** imaginable
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 83,096
- 62,013
I'm not sure how Woll's 5 games played has been the thing that saved the season, though I do agree that Samsonov has been a great addition with Kallgren pitching in 10 GP as well.
Early Murray was very quality as well in the fall, but the parlay on health and quality has not always held up. He did his good work early.
Murray has been worse than Jack Campbell for months and been injured 3 times this season
Now it's looking dicey if he can even give us games in the playoffs
The only thing he had going for him before we traded for him was his playoff history half a decade ago, now he doesn't deserve to start in the playoffs even if he was fit (which doesn't seem likely)
He's also on the books next season for over 4.5M, which would be very useful
I don't see how this is anything but a predictable failure
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 83,096
- 62,013
I think Murray was a bad idea and it's looking that way now with his poor health and poor play. I guess for me, it's all about Samsonov and if he can be a strong goalie for us we can win... no different than Tampa Bay. They're going to be relying on Vasilevskiy, not worrying about Brian Elliott.
We brought Murray in to be our Vasilevskiy, now we're relying on a guy with one career playoff win and a kid with very little experience
I have a lot of faith in Samsonov but Jesus that's one hell of a dice roll
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 83,096
- 62,013
Murray was a bad long shot bet at the time but came with an unexpected insurance policy, to mix up some metaphors.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,692
- 25,533
makbeer
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2006
- 1,234
- 1,251
I don't think you had a good read on who Murray is as a goalie bro.
makbeer
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2006
- 1,234
- 1,251
I got hit HARD for lobbying for Ullmark to the Leafs and defending Boston's move to pick him up. But for me the signs where all there and I wasn't that worried when he had a mediocre (by this year's standards - he was still a .917) first season.
Of course with goaltending it's always a gamble which is why studying goalies visually is extremely important to get an idea of how big a gamble you are taking - how are their tools, their technique and most importantly are the saves they make repeatable and how often are they able to maintain a goaltending position - meaning making a save in a position where they could easily move into a second save.
I expected the downfall of Jack Campbell because his technique was inconsistent - he was making different movements to different positions and was inconsistent with his depth in the similar scenarios. He also made a lot of saves where he was off-balance or disengaged to the point where he would not be able to move immediately in one or both directions after the save.
Joseph Woll rates highly for me in these regards. I'm not too sure where his ceiling is yet (there is the mental side which only time can tell) but when I watch him I feel like his technique is very repeatable. He enters and exists posts the same way, he is at consistent depth when faced with similar situations and his movement around the crease is exceptional. He also makes a very high percentage of his saves in a goaltending position. I remember a couple of saves where he covered a really huge distance laterally and made the save in a controlled butterfly and also used his edges to break rather than slide out of position and scramble back.
Samsonov is somewhere in-between Woll and Campbell technically, I think he is about at his ceiling right now.
Murray on the other hand feels like a complete enigma. There's times he looks technically immaculate, and times he looks like he's flopping all over the place. Really hard goalie to evaluate and get a good read on imo.
Everything's subjective of course, our eyes all pick up different things so if anyone has a bettter read on Murray keen to hear it.
Of course with goaltending it's always a gamble which is why studying goalies visually is extremely important to get an idea of how big a gamble you are taking - how are their tools, their technique and most importantly are the saves they make repeatable and how often are they able to maintain a goaltending position - meaning making a save in a position where they could easily move into a second save.
I expected the downfall of Jack Campbell because his technique was inconsistent - he was making different movements to different positions and was inconsistent with his depth in the similar scenarios. He also made a lot of saves where he was off-balance or disengaged to the point where he would not be able to move immediately in one or both directions after the save.
Joseph Woll rates highly for me in these regards. I'm not too sure where his ceiling is yet (there is the mental side which only time can tell) but when I watch him I feel like his technique is very repeatable. He enters and exists posts the same way, he is at consistent depth when faced with similar situations and his movement around the crease is exceptional. He also makes a very high percentage of his saves in a goaltending position. I remember a couple of saves where he covered a really huge distance laterally and made the save in a controlled butterfly and also used his edges to break rather than slide out of position and scramble back.
Samsonov is somewhere in-between Woll and Campbell technically, I think he is about at his ceiling right now.
Murray on the other hand feels like a complete enigma. There's times he looks technically immaculate, and times he looks like he's flopping all over the place. Really hard goalie to evaluate and get a good read on imo.
Everything's subjective of course, our eyes all pick up different things so if anyone has a bettter read on Murray keen to hear it.
Even though he's been unable to stay fit and sucked for literally months Leafs management still wasn't willing to name a game one starter between Murray and Samsonov
You would have to be touched if you think management didn't strongly prefer Murray to be game 1 starter
That's the only reason to trade for him in the first place, he has nothing else to recommend him for half a decade
I'm in great company then because it's pretty clear Leafs management didn't either
He's bad, expensive, has another year left on his contract and they traded for him
No you just listed the bad options
You have to their the dice and Murray has not been a total disaster.
I'm sure they will figure the money out
Last edited:
We're in here talking about buyouts and what we'd need to attach to him to get rid of him
He's also been God awful for months, injured 3 times and is doubtful for the playoffs because he's broken down again
I'm not sure what your definition of a total disaster is but if he's not it's pretty damn close Salt
He is an improvement from our backup last year. That alone is an improvement
Total disaster would have been re signing Campbell
Did Murray turn out as we wished? Nope but he is an improvement from last year, so by definition that's success.
As for his injury status, yes it was a known factor and he had lived up to that too, though the last injury was not a freaky one.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,692
- 25,533
How many teams have named their game one starter?
Campbell's .886SV% is signed for 5x5, if you think Murray's "pretty damn close" to that then there's nothing else to say here.
Sleep it off dude. Even if it takes months, sleep it off.
Apex Predator
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 4,494
- 4,797
That bar was set so low for improvement.He is an improvement from our backup last year. That alone is an improvement
Total disaster would have been re signing Campbell
Did Murray turn out as we wished? Nope but he is an improvement from last year, so by definition that's success.
As for his injury status, yes it was a known factor and he had lived up to that too, though the last injury was not a freaky one.
