- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,857
- 13,012
So this didn't happen the eve of the draft.
“On the eve of,” has a figurative meaning, indicating close proximity, in addition to its literal meaning of “the night before.”
So this didn't happen the eve of the draft.
Great postI'm in the same boat here. In my eyes, Geogiev has the same value as Cam Talbot, James Reimer, and Scott Darling were -- That's roughly a collection of 2nd/3rd round picks + throw in players/contracts... you can lump Martin Jones into this conversation if you want, as his costs was a 29th overall, so nearly a 2nd rounder.
There's absolutely no reason Geo can't pull this in... Also, people keep saying the goalie market is flooded?
View attachment 369534
It's 3 solid goalies (Lehner, Holtby, Markstrom) that will get paid a ton which is $8M or so -- that's a completely different market compared to what Georgiev is a target of... After those three goalies, it's approximately, 3 goalies that will be grossly overpaid (Murray, Crawford, Khudobin). Of the remaining 16 goalies, 8 of them were bondafide backups... The remaining 6 are are either journeymen, very bad backups, 3rd stringers that teams were forced to play, or *very old*... That leaves Georgiev as a very good option here.
Oh, another aside, 6 of those goalies are RFA's... So they are likely going nowhere. That leaves you with a starting UFA pool of 16 goalies
For those that say the goalie market is flooded, please tell me what team is signing Jimmy Howard at 36, Mike Smith at 38 , Craig Anderson or Ryan Miller at 39, as a *starter*? Why would any of those guys be signed over Georgiev who will a) likely get the same contract ($2-3M), b) is 24 years old (an average of 13 years younger), and is cost controlled as an RFA?
Great post
Is the understanding that management considers this situation is independent of the Georgiev situation?
@Edge @bobbop @Amazing Kreiderman @jas
![]()
Thank youuuuu. Always much appreciated.My understanding is that Lundqvist and Georgiev are seen as two separate situations with outcomes pretty much unrelated to one another.
I mean word is coming out here from different writers that this was very much mutually decided and it’s because hank doesn’t want to be a backup. Look we KNOW he’s not a back up. He needs to play a lot. His worst hockey even in his prime was always after a day off. He can’t sit for a week on the bench and he knows it. But again what I can’t figure is where he thinks he’s going to be a starter that isn’t for a joke of a team. Could he start in San Jose? Sure. Could he split time in Minnesota maybe (I actually think this is his best bet with Zucc)
but is it worth it? If he really believes he’s still an nhl starter sure. Go have fun
I mean word is coming out here from different writers that this was very much mutually decided and it’s because hank doesn’t want to be a backup. Look we KNOW he’s not a back up. He needs to play a lot. His worst hockey even in his prime was always after a day off. He can’t sit for a week on the bench and he knows it. But again what I can’t figure is where he thinks he’s going to be a starter that isn’t for a joke of a team. Could he start in San Jose? Sure. Could he split time in Minnesota maybe (I actually think this is his best bet with Zucc)
but is it worth it? If he really believes he’s still an nhl starter sure. Go have fun
Calling @Vitto79My understanding is that Lundqvist and Georgiev are seen as two separate situations with outcomes pretty much unrelated to one another.
He is a backup now though thats the issue and its not just that Shesterkin is better than him, so is Georgiev. I've heard he will retire and not move somewhere else but i still believe he should go to Colorado but maybe he knows himself he can't be the guy he once was. Great career, great guy and wondeful representative of the Rangers.