Combined Goalie Discussion thread

[Stephen]

They also must have played for the same team. To be even more accurate.


Didn't he still break the most wins in a season?

Yep, Raycroft actually held the wins record for a number of years, but that was in the days when teams thought it was smart to play a goalie 72 games.

 

[Gallagbi]

How could Jack Campbell's track record not be tied overall to Kyle Dubas' track record as a GM? By design, circumstances, lack of other options, etc. Kyle Dubas has entrusted 40% of his playoff runs at a critical position to Jack Campbell which all have had undesired results. Personally, I thought Campbell was actually okay. But you can't kick him down without it looking bad on the management team that put him in that critical position.

Im not worried about Management looking bad, im evaluating a player. Good management teams make bad decisions. Bad management teams will make good decisions. Heres what i posted above on the GM

The sum of those (player) evaluations (and their value/circumstances) will impact my view on the GM, but who made the decision isnt the driver on how effective the player is.

Feels like were back on the carousel of you looking for a narrative that doesnt exist.

 

[Stephen]

Im not worried about Management looking bad, im evaluating a player. Good management teams make bad decisions. Bad management teams will make good decisions. Heres what i posted above on the GM

The sum of those (player) evaluations (and their value/circumstances) will impact my view on the GM, but who made the decision isnt the driver on how effective the player is.

Feels like were back on the carousel of you looking for a narrative that doesnt exist.

It's not that complicated.

Your position is Kyle Dubas is good management and he's made good decisions by bringing in Murray and Samsonov, who are replacing bad old Jack Campbell.

I'm okay to go along with the first two points and see if we have a solution here. But I'm not okay with people downrating Jack to make the latest moves look better or to pretend like there wouldn't be massive blow back on Dubas if Campbell was a below average starter for us during critical years of contention.

 

[Gallagbi]

It's not that complicated.

Ironic.

Your position is Kyle Dubas is good management and he's made good decisions by bringing in Murray and Samsonov, who are replacing bad old Jack Campbell.

Heres a fantastic example of my high praise on the move, youre quoted for the response as an FYI:

As a tandem, our goaltending was below average last year. Our new tandem? Also below average last year when looking at their weighted starts, albeit marginally better. Im using GSAX/60 for those who ask why I think that

Ive also said we overpaid for Murray and its a big gamble. I expect our goaltending to be better on the whole, but still below average this season. Hardly a "good move" but better than overpaying Soupy on a 5 year deal.

I'm okay to go along with the first two points and see if we have a solution here. But I'm not okay with people downrating Jack to make the latest moves look better or to pretend like there wouldn't be massive blow back on Dubas if Campbell was a below average starter for us during critical years of contention.

Maybe youd be in a better spot if you actually read the responses and opinions instead of making them up.

Last response from me on it btw, the position is clear and ive wasted enough time hand holding for the second week in a row. If you cant grasp it, no point circling back any further

 

[Menzinger]

That is the thing Mrazek only 20 games last year.. But he only played 14 games the prior season with Carolina due to injuries when the GM gave him his 3 year X $3.8 mil deal.

Taking on a injury prone risk goalie you know of in advance through your own due diligence is on the GM making the decision. You can't hide behind injuries when you knew the background injury first first.

Now enter Matt Murray .. He only played in 20 games last year the same # as injury prone Mrazek dressed for the Leafs.

Murray also has a long injury history well documented dating back years, but included 38 games missed last year alone, with multiple serious brain injury concussions.

View attachment 583583

So hopefully after next season, the reasoning here isn't the same its not the GM's fault for Murray's injuries and time on IR, because not only are the Leafs taking on Murray's struggling play on the ice as a major gamble, but also facing an equally high injury risk situation. We know that going in, however this isn't hindsight analysis, should the pattern continue.

We're hoping Murray's health holds up , not looking for more how could anyone see this coming retrospective analysis to avoid blaming the GM for taking this gamble.

Let's be fair here though - to get his previous contract Mrazek would have needed to pass a team medical assessment. One that he obviously passed.

 

[Stamkos4life]

It says the GM bet on a goalie who under performed down the stretch. He opted not to pay the price to upgrade in net, just like he passed on forward depth in Hagel and the scoring of our depth forwards also hurt us.

It feels like you're trying to tie all decisions back to the GM either being good or bad. Dubas has done some good and sone bad. Goaltending has been a weakness with him.

Sounds like the gm bet on the wrong goalie.

Also, every decision does in fact tie back to the gm. They are in charge of the team. They make the decisions.

How could Jack Campbell's track record not be tied overall to Kyle Dubas' track record as a GM? By design, circumstances, lack of other options, etc. Kyle Dubas has entrusted 40% of his playoff runs at a critical position to Jack Campbell which all have had undesired results. Personally, I thought Campbell was actually okay and Dubas came out ahead on the gamble. But you can't kick down an outgoing Leaf without it looking bad on the management team that put him in that critical position.

The person responsible for Campbell being on the team and being the #1 goalie is dubas.

If cambell did amazing, these posters would be saying how awesome dubas is. But since Campbell didn't work out, it's not tied to dubas.

The lack of consistency and logic is astounding.

 

[Leaf Fans]

It's not that complicated.

Your position is Kyle Dubas is good management and he's made good decisions by bringing in Murray and Samsonov, who are replacing bad old Jack Campbell.

I'm okay to go along with the first two points and see if we have a solution here. But I'm not okay with people downrating Jack to make the latest moves look better or to pretend like there wouldn't be massive blow back on Dubas if Campbell was a below average starter for us during critical years of contention.

Campbell was good with the Leafs. I agree that he shouldn't be given 5 years. I also agree that bring Murray and Samsonov was was good management.

Sounds like the gm bet on the wrong goalie.

Also, every decision does in fact tie back to the gm. They are in charge of the team. They make the decisions.



The person responsible for Campbell being on the team and being the #1 goalie is dubas.

If cambell did amazing, these posters would be saying how awesome dubas is. But since Campbell didn't work out, it's not tied to dubas.

The lack of consistency and logic is astounding.

Very few people would believe that Campbell is not connected with Dubas- he traded for him.

 

[Stephen]

Ironic.


Heres a fantastic example of my high praise on the move, youre quoted for the response as an FYI:

As a tandem, our goaltending was below average last year. Our new tandem? Also below average last year when looking at their weighted starts, albeit marginally better. Im using GSAX/60 for those who ask why I think that

Ive also said we overpaid for Murray and its a big gamble. I expect our goaltending to be better on the whole, but still below average this season. Hardly a "good move" but better than overpaying Soupy on a 5 year deal.


Maybe youd be in a better spot if you actually read the responses and opinions instead of making them up.

Last response from me on it btw, the position is clear and ive wasted enough time hand holding for the second week in a row. If you cant grasp it, no point circling back any further

I'm just sticking up for Jack Campbell and appreciating the fact that he did an okay job for us all things considered, where he came from and how long the bet was. And in aggregate it doesn't work to say he was a below average goalie on the whole because he had very high highs, very low lows and a so so finish. Happy to move on and try something new. But Leafs fans shouldn't kick him in the butt on the way out.

Murray and Samsonov having marginally better GSAX/60 and making the statement they're better options than Soup on a 5 year deal? That's completely TBD and we have to see what the bring before we can make that statement, can't sneak that one by. For all we know Murray could take us on deep runs, Samsonov might be our Vasilevsiky or Campbell might be the Oilers guy for a number of years.

 

[Stephen]

The person responsible for Campbell being on the team and being the #1 goalie is dubas.

If cambell did amazing, these posters would be saying how awesome dubas is. But since Campbell didn't work out, it's not tied to dubas.

The lack of consistency and logic is astounding.

I think Campbell worked out as well as he could have, and Dubas was fine using him and we've reached a point where we could try something completely different. But yeah, it's TBD until we see how the new goalies play before we can arrive at the conclusion that new duo is the right answer.

And to be clear, success or failure belongs to this management group.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I'm just sticking up for Jack Campbell and appreciating the fact that he did an okay job for us all things considered, where he came from and how long the bet was. And in aggregate it doesn't work to say he was a below average goalie on the whole because he had very high highs, very low lows and a so so finish. Happy to move on and try something new. But Leafs fans shouldn't kick him in the butt on the way out.

You're not "sticking up for Jack Campbell". You've been trying to turn a discussion about Campbell's performance last year into a discussion on Dubas, while putting words in people's mouths. Again, NOBODY has said that Campbell is a "below average goalie", and nobody has "kicked him in the butt on the way out". All that was said was that he was below average last year, which is a simple, true fact. He had a mixture of excellent play, average play, below average play, and horrific play, and all together, he ended up with negative results in the regular season and playoffs. Somebody can be more than a below average goalie, and be a good acquisition overall, but still have a below average season.

Murray and Samsonov having marginally better GSAX/60 and making the statement they're better options than Soup on a 5 year deal? That's completely TBD and we have to see what the bring before we can make that statement, can't sneak that one by. For all we know Murray could take us on deep runs, Samsonov might be our Vasilevsiky or Campbell might be the Oilers guy for a number of years.

If your position is that it could end up good or bad, and we have to wait and see, why have you been arguing against the very people taking a similar position, instead of the people repeatedly denouncing this as a horrible, disastrous downgrade before we've seen a single game?

 

[Stephen]

You're not "sticking up for Jack Campbell". You've been trying to turn a discussion about Campbell's performance last year into a discussion on Dubas, while putting words in people's mouths. Again, NOBODY has said that Campbell is a "below average goalie", and nobody has "kicked him in the butt on the way out". All that was said was that he was below average last year, which is a simple, true fact. He had a mixture of excellent play, average play, below average play, and horrific play, and all together, he ended up with negative results in the regular season and playoffs. Somebody can be more than a below average goalie, and be a good acquisition overall, but still have a below average season.

If your position is that it could end up good or bad, and we have to wait and see, why have you been arguing against the very people taking a similar position, instead of the people repeatedly denouncing this as a horrible, disastrous downgrade before we've seen a single game?

Kyle Dubas puts the roster together, so it's ultimately always about what Kyle Dubas chooses to put on the ice. My point is you can't say Campbell was below average (season/player/who cares?) without inadvertently blaming the GM as well... and your position is pretty clear on that front.

I personally think Dubas won the Campbell bet. Campbell was alright but we need a goalie upgrade.

I also didn't denounce Murray or Samsonov. I went on record saying I hated the Murray deal when it happened, is a big roll of the dice and we didn't get the salary retention we ought to have, but now we have just have wait and to see how his rebuilt game looks, and Samsonov has potential that our new goalie staff needs to unlock.

But the whole idea that Campbell at $5 million/5 years is automatically the worse option than Murray Samsonov before a game has been played by either the Leafs or Oilers? because there's a GSAX/60 stat out there? Let's wait and see.

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[Stephen]

Looks like a super clean set up and hopefully a non DaveArt mask...

 

[Dekes For Days]

My point is you can't say Campbell was below average (season/player/who cares?) without inadvertently blaming the GM as well...

It's in fact quite easy to discuss a player's performance without always turning it into a discussion about the GM. Don't we have enough of that? I'm not sure how you can say "who cares" when a below average player and a below average season are very different things. Overall, the Campbell acquisition was a positive, and after a good 2020-2021, there were valid reasons to go with Campbell last year, but Campbell ended up with below average results last year.

I also didn't denounce Murray or Samsonov.

But in a cesspool of people that are denouncing Murray/Samsonov as horrible, disastrous downgrades before we've seen a single game, you instead decided to single out and argue against those also on a similar "wait and see" train, just because they stated simple facts about last year and weren't eternally negative.

But the whole idea that Campbell at $5 million/5 years is automatically the worse option than Murray Samsonov before a game has been played by either the Leafs or Oilers? because there's a GSAX/60 stat out there? Let's wait and see.

The belief that Campbell at 5m x 5 is inadvisable isn't because of a GSAx/60 stat. It's because there are a lot of question marks around him that make him a risky bet to sign for term at starter money through his early-mid 30s. We've got to wait and see how everything turns out, but I don't see how the position that Murray/Samsonov is better than making that commitment to Campbell (or that they could, as a tandem, produce better than the -21 GSAx goaltending we got last year) is anywhere close to the most outrageous position being spread in this thread.

 

[Stephen]

It's in fact quite easy to discuss a player's performance without always turning it into a discussion about the GM. I'm not sure how you can say "who cares" when a below average player and a below average season are very different things. Overall, the Campbell acquisition was a positive, and after a good 2020-2021, there were valid reasons to go with Campbell last year, but Campbell ended up with below average results last year.

When has a discussion about any key Leaf player been firewalled from the GM who traded for him or signed his contract, like they appeared out of thin air and no one is inherently responsible for why they're Leafs?

If Campbell was below average, it means the GM put a below average goalie in a wasted year of contention. That's what you would be implying.

But in a cesspool of people that are denouncing Murray/Samsonov as horrible, disastrous downgrades before we've seen a single game, you instead decided to single out and argue against those also on a similar "wait and see" train, just because they stated simple facts about last year and weren't eternally negative.

The belief that Campbell at 5m x 5 is inadvisable isn't because of a GSAx/60 stat. It's because there are a lot of question marks around him that make him a risky bet to sign for term at starter money through his early-mid 30s. We've got to wait and see how everything turns out, but I don't see how that position you've targeted is anywhere close to the most outrageous position being spread in this thread.

I've kept a very even keel stance on Murray and Samsonov and both of them have unique upside and redemption potential. I just think you're downplaying Campbell unfairly to frame the new crew in a more positive light. We haven't even seen their new equipment.

 

[Fogelhund]

Campbell is a goalie who has elite level capabilities, but lacks both the durability, and mental strength, to be relied upon as our starter, much less commit to five years with him. These guys... well, we commit to less time for them, and that's all there is really to be said about that.

 

[Tarmore]

I love how so many people are insinuating that Dubas is a horrable GM because of the performance of Campbell or their perceived view on Murry or Sam, how about Bunting, Kampf there are a few homerun signing and there are a couple of other good decisions.

Not everything ANY GM touched turns to pure gold.

There will be good and bad and in between.

Many people on both sides of this (I think) need to step back a little and admit this is a grey topic and not black or white.

 

[Dekes For Days]

When has a discussion about any key Leaf player been firewalled from the GM who traded for him or signed his contract, like they appeared out of thin air and no one is inherently responsible for why they're Leafs?

You can have discussions about Dubas' handling of the goalie position, but every single statement or discussion about a Leaf player or their performance over any period of time doesn't have to turn into a referendum on Dubas that completely distracts from the actual discussion that was taking place. The statement was simply about how Campbell performed last year. It was not about Dubas.

If Campbell was below average, it means the GM put a below average goalie in a wasted year of contention. That's what you would be implying.

That's not what's being implied. Nobody has said that Campbell is a "below average goalie". They have merely stated the fact that he had a below average performance last year, which is very different. It means Dubas went with a goalie who posted good results in 2020-2021, and that goalie ended up putting up below average results last year.

I just think you're downplaying Campbell unfairly to frame the new crew in a more positive light.

Nobody has downplayed Campbell at all. They've merely stated a simple fact about his performance last year. Why are you concerned with mildly optimistic "wait and see" perspectives on the new duo and their potential to put up better results than we got last year when there are people around you attempting to frame this as a horrible, disastrous downgrade before we've even played a game - a position built largely on misrepresentations that contrasts far more with your claimed position?

 

[Stephen]

You can have discussions about Dubas' handling of the goalie position, but every single statement or discussion about a Leaf player or their performance over any period of time doesn't have to turn into a referendum on Dubas that completely distracts from the actual discussion that was taking place. The statement was simply about how Campbell performed last year. It was not about Dubas.

That's not what's being implied. Nobody has said that Campbell is a "below average goalie". They have merely stated the fact that he had a below average performance last year, which is very different. It means Dubas went with a goalie who posted good results in 2020-2021, and that goalie ended up putting up below average results last year.

Nobody has downplayed Campbell at all. They've merely stated a simple fact about his performance last year. Why are you concerned with mildly optimistic "wait and see" perspectives when there are people around you attempting to frame this as a horrible, disastrous downgrade before we've even played a game - a position built largely on misrepresentations that contrasts far more with your claimed position?

Why separate Dubas from player decisions and results, unless you think it’s unfavourable to the GM? That’s a link you can’t plausibly sever in a discussion about the team receiving below average performance or however you want to word it in a year where the Leafs didn’t realize their championship aspirations. So however you down rate Campbell, it doesn’t reflect well on the guy who put him there.

Regarding the wait and see aspect, Toronto is making 2 big bets. But If the ceiling of the new Murray Samsonov tandem could give us a playoff savvy cup winning goalie or the next Russian great, it also has to be acknowledged the floor of this tandem could also be much lower than an average Jack Campbell due to injuries, recent performance and the circumstances of how they even became Leafs. Wait and see is just simply all you can do before making a decision on whether Dubas has made the right choices or not.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Why separate Dubas from player decisions and results, unless you think it’s unfavourable to the GM? That’s a link you can’t plausibly sever in a discussion about the team receiving below average performance or however you want to word it in a year where the Leafs didn’t realize their championship aspirations. So however you down rate Campbell, it doesn’t reflect well on the guy who put him there.

Are you saying that we're not allowed to have discussions about anything in this forum without it becoming a referendum on the GM that distracts from the entire discussion? Why not just open one big Dubas thread and shut down the rest of the forum then? Dubas went with a goalie who was good with us and took over the starting role in 2020-2021. That's not really a decision that reflects poorly on him, even if the goalie didn't end up performing as well in 2021-2022.

But If the ceiling of the new Murray Samsonov tandem could give us a playoff savvy cup winning goalie or the next Russian great, it also has to be acknowledged the floor of this tandem could also be much lower than an average Jack Campbell due to injuries, recent performance and the circumstances of how they even became Leafs

I think anybody that watched the highs and lows of Campbell this past season should be able to acknowledge that the floor of Campbell isn't really much better than the floor of Murray/Samsonov. There are advantages, disadvantages, and risks for all of Campbell, Murray, and Samsonov, but the idea that this tandem could produce better results than the -21 GSAx goaltending we got last year isn't unreasonable at all.

And when there's people around you attempting to frame this as a horrible, disastrous downgrade before we've even played a game - a position built largely on misrepresentations that contrasts far more with your claimed position - it's weird that you're going after a rather mundane and level-headed position on the situation instead.

 

[IPS]

And when there's people around you attempting to frame this as a horrible, disastrous downgrade before we've even played a game

On the contrary - everybody already knows that if the pairing fails, you're 100% going to chalk it up to it just being bad luck and how Dubas made the right move regardless.

 

[zeke]

Shit that looks good.

Goaltending sucked last year unfortunately.

I don't have super high hopes for this new duo but if they play to their usual level we'll get similar Goaltending as last year.

But with their size, age, and with Murray's playoff pedigree, maybe there's a bit more upside.

 

[PanniniClaus]

Whatever success this group will have will have to come through Samsonov... him finding the magic that made him a first rounder, not unlike Campbell.

Matt Murray has aged in dog years so while he may be younger than Jack on paper.. his body is not.. He is cooked...

I've done my best to just follow the Jays and not think about goaltending but camp is upon us and i'm very very concerned..

 

[Dekes For Days]

On the contrary - everybody already knows that if the pairing fails, you're 100% going to chalk it up to it just being bad luck and how Dubas made the right move regardless.

Not sure what you're saying "on the contrary" to, since your random, incorrect guess about the future has nothing to do with the partial statement you quoted.

 

[Stephen]

Are you saying that we're not allowed to have discussions about anything in this forum without it becoming a referendum on the GM that distracts from the entire discussion? Why not just open one big Dubas thread and shut down the rest of the forum then? Dubas went with a goalie who was good with us and took over the starting role in 2020-2021. That's not really a decision that reflects poorly on him, even if the goalie didn't end up performing as well in 2021-2022.

I think anybody that watched the highs and lows of Campbell this past season should be able to acknowledge that the floor of Campbell isn't really much better than the floor of Murray/Samsonov. There are advantages, disadvantages, and risks for all of Campbell, Murray, and Samsonov, but the idea that this tandem could produce better results than the -21 GSAx goaltending we got last year isn't unreasonable at all.

And when there's people around you attempting to frame this as a horrible, disastrous downgrade before we've even played a game - a position built largely on misrepresentations that contrasts far more with your claimed position - it's weird that you're going after a rather mundane and level-headed position on the situation instead.

Let's try an analogy:

Imagine you write a review for a fancy restaurant, saying what a below average meal you had, how poorly the steak was cooked, did not meet expectations. What do you think the takeaway from someone reading that will be, will they think there's a problem with the chef or the restaurant, or attribute your negative experience to "bad luck", "cooking is voodoo"?

Well, next time someone goes to that restaurant, they'll have to wait and see if the place is any good, won't they?