Well, yes. Fleury definitely has some compiling.
But again - longevity is a good thing, not a bad thing. Compiling is less compelling then eliteness maybe, but it's still a positive, not a negative.
Sure, it isn't a negative.
Going back to some previous players then- how did you feel about Dryden's lack of longevity? Carey Price's relative lack of longevity for the era? If longevity is a positive, wouldn't lack of longevity be a negative?
I like Fleury's resume because he does have a lot of "elite" moments in his career, sprinkled into a long career. So it's not just compiling. Some examples:
Lots of goalies have "elite moments" sprinkled into their career. Barrasso, to use another (former Pens) goalie, similarly had an inconsistent career with some high peaks.
Vezina. Lifetime achievement award? I'm sure voters were happy to vote for him so that didn't hurt, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't deserving. I thought he was the best choice for Vezina that year.
Vasilevskiy was the best choice that year, IMO. I think I'd also have taken Hellebuyck, too. I remember Varlamov having a strong year as well.
Playoffs. He has at least 4 very significant playoff runs. For a goalie in this era, that's a lot. 2008, he was the best goalie in the playoffs, and it's a "smythe worthy run". 2009 - not as great overall, but he still won the cup, and was particularly excellent in games 6 and 7 of the finals to win. 2017 - stepped in when Murray went down, and was arguably playoff MVP through 2 rounds. 2018 - was smythe favorite going into the final on an expansion/underdog team (he didn't have a great final). That's quite good for "peak playoff".
2008 was a great run, I agree. But 2009- he's the... 3rd? most important Penguin. 2017- if he was having that strong of a run, he wouldn't have been replaced by Murray. But he was, and the Penguins won the cup. With Fleury on the bench, and a kid who would have maybe another season or two of relevance in net, the Penguins won two Cups after YEARS of failing to do so.
The Penguins literally paid the Golden Knights to take Fleury.
2018 Season in Vegas. He was fantastic that season, and the impact of his performance cannot be understated. Without his amazing start - Vegas likely stumbles in the first season (everyone expected them to be bottom feeders)....doesn't make final in year 1....doesn't end up a perrenial cup contender as quickly as it happened etc. An unexpectedly great season for Fleury, and a huge impact on that franchise.
Are you talking 17-18? You are giving credit to MAF for that season? Despite what people thought, the Knights were actually good. Look at their track record, regardless of who has been in goal, they have been a consistently strong team.
They move on from MAF after 20-21, miss the playoffs. Alright, looks good for Fleury, right? However, this can easily be attributed to the injuries that Vegas suffered that year. With a healthy roster, the Knights win the Cup the next year despite a carousel of goalies.
When we vote Fleury in - I agree that it won't be because he was a top 2 or 3 goalie in the world for many, many years. That's not his claim to fame. His claim to fame is that he was a #1 goalie in the league for almost 21 years, and was probably a top ~10 goalie for majority of his career, with some sprinkled in greatness.
He was a top 10 goalie in a 30-32 team league?! That's the argument now? He was one of the top 30% of goalies? There have to be goalies with better arguments than that.
You vote him in because he has a fantastic overall resume, powered by longevity.
I'd argue his resume is powered by longevity and team success (sounds a lot like Worsely, honestly, and the group resoundingly rejected Worsely last round).
