Expansion Draft II | Page 37 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Expansion Draft II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am in the Mrazek or bust camp. Holland is seriously losing it.

Side note, Brian Rust is being overrated here IMO. He seems like a product of the Pittsburgh system more than a high-reward player.
 
Ghosts Beer said:
For the record, I'm not saying I want Elliott and I have long said his success had a lot to do with Hitchcock.

I'm just saying people are giving Mrazek a hell of a lot of credit for two seasons in the NHL where he was still only 26th and 16th in the league in save percentage, and being very willing to write off his most recent season where he was 56th (and dead last among starters). Meanwhile, there are players out there for a lot cheaper who also have had some really good NHL seasons, in addition to some off ones, yet for some reason Mrazek is being rated as a much surer thing.
Click to expand...

Think people are going out of their way to say Mrazek carries more risk than many other options. Who said Mrazek is a "sure thing"? But he does carry significantly more reward. Those players out there for a lot cheaper basically have league average potential at best. Mrazek has one bad year in his entire pro career, on a terrible team yet. Goalies do have down years, and he was only 24 this year. You don't win big by playing it safe. I seem to remember a goalie who was just here (rest his soul) coming off four years in a row (!) like Mrazek just had.

Due to his salary and down year, he could probably be had in a quite reasonable trade. He only has a convenient 1 year deal too.
 
Ghosts Beer said:
For the record, I'm not saying I want Elliott and I have long said his success had a lot to do with Hitchcock.

I'm just saying people are giving Mrazek a hell of a lot of credit for two seasons in the NHL where he was still only 26th and 16th in the league in save percentage, and being very willing to write off his most recent season where he was 56th (and dead last among starters). Meanwhile, there are players out there for a lot cheaper who also have had some really good NHL seasons, in addition to some off ones, yet for some reason Mrazek is being rated as a much surer thing.
Click to expand...
It's not that Mrazek is a sure thing, it's just the overall sentiment that we will NEVER solve our goalie issue long term unless we start to take chances like this.

Mrazek is a chance worth taking IMO. 25 and has shown flashes of brilliance. Just the other day most of us were thinking Mike ****ing Smith was gonna be our guy, and now Mrazek is there and ripe for the picking and he could be a long term solution IF he pans out.

Like previously stated, if he crumbles again, we can cut our losses and try again. But it's not like Mrazek has an albatross of a deal. He's at a point where he either earns his next contract or doesn't.
 
Magua said:
Think people are going out of their way to say Mrazek carries more risk than many other options. Who said Mrazek is a "sure thing"? But he does carry significantly more reward. Those players out there for a lot cheaper basically have league average potential at best. Mrazek has one bad year in his entire pro career, on a terrible team yet. Goalies do have down years, and he was only 24 this year. You don't win big by playing it safe. I seem to remember a goalie who was just here (rest his soul) coming off four years in a row (!) like Mrazek just had.

Due to his salary and down year, he could probably be had in a quite reasonable trade too.
Click to expand...

That's sort of my point -- does Mrazek really carry that much better a reward over the risk? There are plenty of goalies out there who have had a few very good seasons mixed in with a few bad ones. Many are deeming Mrazek a class above the others, when I'm not sure there's evidence he's any different. He's volatile like the rest, just more expensive.
 
LegionOfDoom91 said:
I don't think Mrazek will cost a lot in a trade either given his year last year & the overall goalie market. Perhaps a third rounder could do it.
Click to expand...

I know this is HFBoards where draft picks are worth their weight in gold, but I would easily do a 2nd round pick.

If they needed a warm body to play in the NHL, I'd give them one of those, too.

If Hexy wants to get a goalie from Vegas, then I'd be fine doing a 2nd round pick for whichever goalie Hextall thinks is the right one.
 
Ghosts Beer said:
That's sort of my point -- does Mrazek really carry that much better a reward over the risk? There are plenty of goalies out there who have had a few very good seasons mixed in with a few bad ones. Many are deeming Mrazek a class above the others, when I'm not sure there's evidence he's any different. He's volatile like the rest, just more expensive.
Click to expand...

Don't think 1 bad blip of a year makes a player volatile.

Who are these other mysteriously available starting goalies that are both safer and carry close to the same level of reward with a longer track record?
 
Magua said:
Don't think 1 blip of a year makes a player volatile.

Who are these other mysteriously available goalies that are both safer and carry close to the same level of reward with a longer track record?
Click to expand...

My point is that almost *no* goalies are safe, and obviously Mrazek is no exception. I have no clue which ones will have hot or cold seasons; hence I don't want to pay one of them $4M.

Mrazek was 26th, 16th, and 56th in the league in save percentage the last 3 years. Elliott has had multiple seasons in the top 5. Two seasons ago Chad Johnson was above Mrazek in Mrazek's best season. Michal Neuvirth at his best has had better seasons than Mrazek. Bernier not long ago had a .923 season where he was 17th in the league.

I don't see this reward with Mrazek that makes him any different than a zillion other goalies on the market. And I see the same risk, at a higher price tag in terms of salary and having to trade an asset to acquire him.
 
If Vegas plays picks their cards right it seems they could have a pretty legitimate roster right out of the gate.

How concerning will the salary cap be for them with the list available?
 
Ghosts Beer said:
My point is that almost *no* goalies are safe, and obviously Mrazek is no exception. I have no clue which ones will have hot or cold seasons; hence I don't want to pay one of them $4M.

Mrazek was 26th, 16th, and 56th in the league in save percentage the last 3 years. Elliott has had multiple seasons in the top 5. Two seasons ago Chad Johnson was above Mrazek in Mrazek's best season. Michal Neuvirth at his best has had better seasons than Mrazek. Bernier not long ago had a .923 season where he was 17th in the league.

I don't see this reward with Mrazek that makes him any different than a zillion other goalies on the market. And I see the same risk, at a higher price tag in terms of salary and having to trade an asset to acquire him.
Click to expand...

Elliott is no more than a 32 year old platoon guy at best, and he has indeed struggled when not in St. Louis. As is Bernier. Bernier has had 1 above league average season and only 2 years as a starter in his career and is about to turn 29. That year looks every bit the exception, and he grades out poorly in many advanced stats. Chad Johnson is a full fledged 31 year old backup with less career starts than Mrazek. But yes, he had 1 solid year getting 40 starts 2 seasons ago. Not a one of them has any real starter ability, and they are what they are. You go into next season hoping they can platoon and be league average at best.

How are those guys even comparable? Cost on a one year contract is a non-issue for this team. It's $4 mil, not $7 mil. Elliott and Bernier probably can get $2.5-3 mil anyway.
 
Ghosts Beer said:
My point is that almost *no* goalies are safe, and obviously Mrazek is no exception. I have no clue which ones will have hot or cold seasons; hence I don't want to pay one of them $4M.

Mrazek was 26th, 16th, and 56th in the league in save percentage the last 3 years. Elliott has had multiple seasons in the top 5. Two seasons ago Chad Johnson was above Mrazek in Mrazek's best season. Michal Neuvirth at his best has had better seasons than Mrazek. Bernier not long ago had a .923 season where he was 17th in the league.

I don't see this reward with Mrazek that makes him any different than a zillion other goalies on the market. And I see the same risk, at a higher price tag in terms of salary and having to trade an asset to acquire him.
Click to expand...

And we all saw how Elliott looked away from Hitchcocks stifling D system.
 
Stizzle said:
I see no reason to trade Stolarz. Sit tight on him. He should be the backup here next year.

I just hope we can grab a goalie from LV without giving up pick #44. Any pick after that would be gravy.
Click to expand...

If we are trading for a 25 yr old goalie with Hart and Sandstrom coming, Stolie would not likely not have a future here.
 
Mrazek did so while playing 50+ games in the one year though. That holds more value than some guys who were ahead of him that played 20-30 games. In 2015-2016 Neuvy had .003 higher of a save percentage than Mrazek but in 24 less games.

He was 7th in sv% of guys who played 50+ games in 2015-2016.
 
2nd rd pick has a lot of value, I don't trade them idley.
3rd rd pick has value, but for the right player I wouldn't hesitate.
4th rd picks are currency, later picks are pocket change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom