How do the Panthers fans feel about Bob’s contract now ?

[Idiot Stick]

still think hes been our mvp both runs, well worth it

 

[Dread Clawz]

still think hes been our mvp both runs, well worth it

He definitely has been. Barky had a monster run this year, but Bob was even a little better.. in game 7 he was huge, and that's probably the difference. Not that Barky wasn't good....

 

[letsgrowcactus]

Still an overpay.

Was it worth it? Well, we got a Cup. I don’t doubt Zito could have used the cap space in a number of smart, creative ways. Who knows how the team would have looked then? Which players could have been kept, acquired - or would not have been acquired at all? The problem is, all of that is speculation. I mean, would Zito even be here if Bob didn’t suck ass the first few years with us? I don’t doubt that was part of the reason Tallon was let go, but "the contract was so horrible at one point it meant we got a new GM" is not exactly an argument in favor of it...

Let me put it this way: IMO it was a high-risk gamble that I wouldn’t advice on replicating. In our circumstances, it eventually worked out for us and Bob was a big part of our playoff success the past two years. In that sense, yes it was worth it, with all its ups and downs.

Got a Cup!!! Really happy for Bob, the team and all of us.

 

[Dread Clawz]

Still an overpay.

Was it worth it? Well, we got a Cup. I don’t doubt Zito could have used the cap space in a number of smart, creative ways. Who knows how the team would have looked then? Which players could have been kept, acquired - or would not have been acquired at all? The problem is, all of that is speculation. I mean, would Zito even be here if Bob didn’t suck ass the first few years with us? I don’t doubt that was part of the reason Tallon was let go, but "the contract was so horrible at one point it meant we got a new GM" is not exactly an argument in favor of it...

Let me put it this way: IMO it was a high-risk gamble that I wouldn’t advice on replicating. In our circumstances, it eventually worked out for us and Bob was a big part of our playoff success the past two years. In that sense, yes it was worth it, with all its ups and downs.

Got a Cup!!! Really happy for Bob, the team and all of us.

Well when you frame it that way, it was DEFINITELY worth it. We got Zito AND one Cup.

 

[KW]

I agree, can’t look at it in a vacuum. One thing affects the next affects the next… my opinion is that once you get the Cup, at that time it became worth it. But admittedly there was no way to know that in advance… and if Bob doesn’t stop the tying goal… who knows he might be called the reason why we didn’t win! LOL

 

[pantherbot]

Originally I was going to say no, but thinking about it more I think the answer is reluctantly yes. I think it comes down to what you're paying for with a goalie. Most goalies can give you 0.910 sv% on average. Bobrovsky, Hellebuyck, Kuemper, Hill, Campbell, and Skinner are all career average 0.910-0.915 in regular season, but there's clearly separation between them.

I think with elite goalies, you're paying for peak potential. It's the only position that can steal you games. All goalies are capable of going on hot streaks for periods of time, but...some goalies can go on those hot streaks more often, with higher peaks, and for longer periods than others. So I think for Bob, you're paying for the peaks, which can be really high and can come in stretches, and you deal with the lows. In all four close-out games this playoffs, he had >0.950 sv%.

Winning the Cup requires so many things to go right at the same time, but also you only need to be one game better than the other team in each series. We know this better than anyone, doesn't matter how badly you lose in three games as long as you win four. In the playoffs, you also need higher peaks as you're going up against stronger competition. A goalie who's consistently above average could still mean you lose because the quality of your goaltending is too low vs. elite competition. So if your goalie can peak more often than not, and those peaks are really high, then your chances are better.

At the end of the day, there's different ways to win the Cup,. You can also win with a $2M goalie, but the rest of the team needs to make up for that and you have to hope that goalie doesn't become your single point of failure. I think with "elite" goalies, its just more likely they can peak when you need them to, and they'll have less crappy games when it matters.

So his contract I think needs to be viewed as paying for a goalie that can more likely help win the games when it matters the most. The stats don't look great a lot of times, because he can be inconsistent, but he's been clutch when we need him to be. Not sure how you measure that and maybe that's just results-based reasoning, but it does feel like he's been on when needed. Is that worth $10M AAV? Hard to say because stats don't back it up, but we did we just have two SCF runs and a Cup, with him as a key contributor to both so I'd have to go with yes.

 

[KW]

Originally I was going to say no, but thinking about it more I think the answer is reluctantly yes. I think it comes down to what you're paying for with a goalie. Most goalies can give you 0.910 sv% on average. Bobrovsky, Hellebuyck, Kuemper, Hill, Campbell, and Skinner are all career average 0.910-0.915 in regular season, but there's clearly separation between them.

I think with elite goalies, you're paying for peak potential. It's the only position that can steal you games. All goalies are capable of going on hot streaks for periods of time, but...some goalies can go on those hot streaks more often, with higher peaks, and for longer periods than others. So I think for Bob, you're paying for the peaks, which can be really high and can come in stretches, and you deal with the lows. In all four close-out games this playoffs, he had >0.950 sv%.

Winning the Cup requires so many things to go right at the same time, but also you only need to be one game better than the other team in each series. We know this better than anyone, doesn't matter how badly you lose in three games as long as you win four. In the playoffs, you also need higher peaks as you're going up against stronger competition. A goalie who's consistently above average could still mean you lose because the quality of your goaltending is too low vs. elite competition. So if your goalie can peak more often than not, and those peaks are really high, then your chances are better.

At the end of the day, there's different ways to win the Cup,. You can also win with a $2M goalie, but the rest of the team needs to make up for that and you have to hope that goalie doesn't become your single point of failure. I think with "elite" goalies, its just more likely they can peak when you need them to, and they'll have less crappy games when it matters.

So his contract I think needs to be viewed as paying for a goalie that can more likely help win the games when it matters the most. The stats don't look great a lot of times, because he can be inconsistent, but he's been clutch when we need him to be. Not sure how you measure that and maybe that's just results-based reasoning, but it does feel like he's been on when needed. Is that worth $10M AAV? Hard to say because stats don't back it up, but we did we just have two SCF runs and a Cup, with him as a key contributor to both so I'd have to go with yes.

Great point. Skinner let in a savable goal in game 7. If he’d played like Bob in G7 and Bob like him, we’re probably looking at an opposite result.

So Bob indeed was the/a difference that brought us the Cup. I’m betting that Viola thinks it was worth the contract!

That’s why also coach was right to not cause any goalie controversy but start Bob all thru the final.

 

[Gentle Man]

If Bob didn't get that 10 mil, it would have gone to another player or players.

Who knows if that new combination gives us more or less success, add Zito to that as well. Does Tallon end up hanging around?

It was/is a bad contract but it was is worth it. Results dictate history and you can't argue with the results

 

[zeroG]

If Bob didn't get that 10 mil, it would have gone to another player or players.

Who knows if that new combination gives us more or less success, add Zito to that as well. Does Tallon end up hanging around?

It was/is a bad contract but it was is worth it. Results dictate history and you can't argue with the results

reminds me of zito's story from the last press conference



we lost that signing. everyone knew we'd be overpaying, maybe significantly. but it was done with the idea that in 5 years, if you build a team around barkov, ekblad and the other key guys, the goaltending will be there. and if the goaltending's there, you'll have a few cracks at winning a cup. it seems tallon was right. just took some time.

put another way, the end justifies the means.

 

[Beezers Mask]

Since we won the cup and Bob played a big role in that over the last two years it was definitely worth it. I just wish the contract ended one year sooner so we could reset our cap structure next offseason with Ekblad and Bob coming off the books at the same time.

 

[scholl]

Since we won the cup and Bob played a big role in that over the last two years it was definitely worth it. I just wish the contract ended one year sooner so we could reset our cap structure next offseason with Ekblad and Bob coming off the books at the same time.

I think he might get traded next year. The problem is his list. He would be a good player for a team that has cap space and mainly younger players like Utah. It could be a statement to show that the new ownership is willing to become successful.

 

[TotalHomer]

I think he might get traded next year. The problem is his list. He would be a good player for a team that has cap space and mainly younger players like Utah. It could be a statement to show that the new ownership is willing to become successful.

The goaltending situation has to be resolved next year one way or the other. It's up to Knight, if he can show he's ready then Bob will be dealt. Can't lose Benny/Swag.