Peltz
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2019
- 3,671
- 5,113
There is zero argument in favor of the contract being a mistake. His play got the franchise its first ever cup. It was worth it.
The end.
The end.
90% of goalies wouldn't be offered 10m per year in the first place though.This, but it also shouldn’t be used as a basis for future goalie contracts or anything. That contract looked bad up until two strong playoff runs (50-60 games max?) that luckily coincided with a really strong roster. Goalies tend to fall off/get hurt more these days, it seems, and Bob struggled for a few seasons after that big deal. It’s a coin flip as to whether a guy can right the ship, and then whether he can produce in the playoffs (see: Freddie Andersen). Bob did both those things because he’s awesome, but I wouldn’t bank on that with 90% of goalies.
Glad he did it- I remember people saying he got lazy after the deal, and I hate that narrative. Nah, pressure just be like that, performance comes and goes, dude took some shit and came back stronger. Worth it.
When evaluating a contract do you evaluate every year, or just the peaks?On Hfboards cap space > everything else. Sure, they got a cup but what else could they have gotten with that cap space?!
Also, people simply cannot let go of things like that. He had a couple of bad seasons to start his contract which burned it into their heads that it was a bad contract, which of course it was until it wasn't. People are like children with their inability to pivot to a different opinion based on different circumstances.
It's the same with Brock Boeser here in Vancouver. People could not let go of his previous seasons and simply could not come to terms with the fact that he had turned it around. Because that would mean they were wrong, and that just can't be. 40 goals and leading playoff goal scorer? Nice, that'll up his trade value and some sucker will finally take him off our hands.
Honestly don't know if this is a trick question.Yeah, but they've paid him a lot of money and still owe some, pretty big some I'd say. That's why the question.
He hasn't been able to hit the .920 mark he did in Columbus four out of seven seasons. That said his performance in the playoffs for the past three postseasons is very good (his save percentage was great last playoffs but he got lit up once every series which skewed it. He was the Conn Smythe favourite until Edmonton.)
Last season he was a .915 but 6th in save percentage for goalies that played at least 30 games.
I think he got paid to be a .920+ goalie and he hasn't done it, so one could argue he was overpaid. He struggled at the start of the deal but bounced back and if he finishes his final two seasons strong then once you add the Cup I would say he was a good return.
Pro scouting matters but I would rather pay Bobrovsky a couple million more than whatever his "true value" is over what too many teams do, which is skimp on the goalie budget while overpaying free agents to fill holes in the lineup.
Context matters. Scoring was much lower and league average save percentages were much higher in Bob’s time in Columbus. It was DPE 2.0.
Now scoring is higher. Save percentage is lower. Bob is still providing excellent goaltending.
Completely agree with you bud, love Bob, it was worth every penny. Just seeing if the new deals being signed sway the negative people on this threadI still can not believe this thread is alive--- 2 cup finals and 1 cup win. That is what the game is about. They won the cup! Seriously, there is no longer a debate--you win the cup everything you did to win it was worth it
Completely agree with you bud, love Bob, it was worth every penny. Just seeing if the new deals being signed sway the negative people on this thread
And you would be mistaken. Sports owners do not buy the teams for profitability. They buy them for the almost 100% assured increase in value. That pays out when they sell. The day to day profitability is a very miniscule concern.I'd say the ultimate goal is actually to be profitable.