Confirmed with Link: LA Kings Sign Goaltender Cal Petersen

[RaymondReddington]

Earlier this summer Robin Lehner listed Peterson as one of the five best goalies in the NHL.

 

[Matt13]

Earlier this summer Robin Lehner listed Peterson as one of the five best goalies in the NHL.

Which Robin Lehner though?

 

[funky]

To me this is a gamble. There were a lot of times last year I was happy Quick was still here.

I like Cal a lot and am very excited to see if his growth continues but the 5 million a year surprises me with his limited amount of playing time. Blake is taking a gamble here.

In the end it may look like a great contract but I am a bit worried at this point. I know UFA played a role and I think having Danault and Edler on the team will help our goalies. I am hoping Cal lives up to the contract. We have been so spoiled having Quick all these years

 

[Schrute farms]

I think going into the season and potentially the off-season with only Quick signed for 2022-2023 is a HUGE gamble.
Personally, I would not consider extending Cal 3 years at $5M/per a "gamble" considering the other options we have post the 2021-2022 season.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

People need to also keep in mind those are 3 UFA years purchased and that this year he’s still sub 1m.

His contract fits his comps nearly perfectly, it was an easy bang bang deal. Imagine HAVING to sign a UFA next year and how much more a good year from Peterson would have Blake over a barrel, we’d have to pursue a cheap-ish vet with such few options in the system. And there’s something to be said for goaltending stability during/coming out of a rebuild.

 

[Sol]

I guess my real problem with this is that if this is what Cal has to offer being what like ten years younger than Quick? I'd rather give Quick a short extension if he still wants to play and continue looking for a real number one goalie.

I don't think Cal has shown any reason to dethrone an old goalie like Quick. Be realistic, Cal is only has his foot through the door because Quick is old. Definitely not performance last year.

If Cal has another season like the last one, I'd extend Quick for a season, and look hard to trade for a Goalie if possible.

Cal as a King has shown nothing personally to me that says he deserves 5 million a year when a back up at 1 million a year could have easily replicated his performance.


This contract is purely on hope, and how he's done before the Kings.

Nothing else. And that bothers me.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Petersen was the better goalie last year, despite winning fewer games than Quick. If he raises his SV% from .911 to .920+, the Kings actually do stand a chance to be competitive in the division. He’ll have to pull that off if he wants to be in the conversation with Markstrom, Lehner and Grubauer.

His head to head numbers versus Gibson will be worth watching. Both guys are similar in age and headed in opposite directions team wise and career wise

 

[kingsfan]

People need to also keep in mind those are 3 UFA years purchased and that this year he’s still sub 1m.

His contract fits his comps nearly perfectly, it was an easy bang bang deal. Imagine HAVING to sign a UFA next year and how much more a good year from Peterson would have Blake over a barrel, we’d have to pursue a cheap-ish vet with such few options in the system. And there’s something to be said for goaltending stability during/coming out of a rebuild.

You pay for certainty. If Peterson goes out and has a great year and it costs us $7 mill instead of $5 mill, I'm fine with it. At least then we'd know we'd have a likely up and coming starter for years to come. Here, we save a few mill but inherit a huge risk given he has 54 games to his name at the age of 26. People in this thread talking about all the cap space we have going forward, why not use it to either pay a guy who's proven himself or to trade for someone who has if Peterson falls on his face? Two goalies that play like a 1A/backup getting a cap hit of $10.8 mill combined is a terrible thing to have if you want to ice a legitimate playoff caliber team, and there is just as much chance of that happening as there is Peterson goes out and plays like a true number one IMO.

 

[kilowatt]

Petersen's career save percentage is higher than Quick's, his numbers over the past three seasons are significantly better, and he was the better goalie last season. Petersen is our #1 starter. I expect everyone on the team to be better next season, Petersen included.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

You pay for certainty. If Peterson goes out and has a great year and it costs us $7 mill instead of $5 mill, I'm fine with it. At least then we'd know we'd have a likely up and coming starter for years to come. Here, we save a few mill but inherit a huge risk given he has 54 games to his name at the age of 26. People in this thread talking about all the cap space we have going forward, why not use it to either pay a guy who's proven himself or to trade for someone who has if Peterson falls on his face? Two goalies that play like a 1A/backup getting a cap hit of $10.8 mill combined is a terrible thing to have if you want to ice a legitimate playoff caliber team, and there is just as much chance of that happening as there is Peterson goes out and plays like a true number one IMO.

What if he goes out and has a great year--and someone poaches him? Then we're left with nothing at all.

You don't pay for certainty anymore, though. Just looking at the comps mentioned in this thread:

Shesterkin - $5.6M, 25 years old: .921, 2.55, 47gp
Sorokin - $4M, 26 years old: .918, 2.17, 22gp
Demko - $5M, 25 years old: .911, 2.93, 72gp
Saros - $5M, 26 years old: .920, 2.50, 155gp
Ullmark - $5M, 28 years old: .912, 2.78, 117gp
Petersen - $5M, 26 years old: .916, 2.79, 54gp

How are any of those more 'certain' than Cal by any reasonable measure? The market has been set for mid-20 goalies with good pedigree and potential.

It's nice to have some stability for a few years between Quick and Cal and I don't think Cal is at risk of falling on his face any more than any other goalie that's not a sure franchise guy. To me, this is better than just hiring whatever 1B goalie merc is available year after year until you find a surefire solution (which they're still clearly pursuing, ie the Wallsteadt news), which Cal might even be. Three years allows for a guy growing with the team, a stylistic mesh, and expectation.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Petersen's career save percentage is higher than Quick's, his numbers over the past three seasons are significantly better, and he was the better goalie last season. Petersen is our #1 starter. I expect everyone on the team to be better next season, Petersen included.

Yeah I"m not really sure where all this "Petersen sucked with the Kings" stuff is coming from when he was in the Vezina conversation and leading or near-leading many goalie stats and advanced stats before everything burst at the end of the season.

I think it's fair to question if he's a guy who can play a full workload, and I'm the first to mock '40 game vezina winners', but it's not accurate to act like he had a bad year, and @Sol acting like Cal has no pedigree is particularly baffling. He's not some hobo journeyman goalie we signed off the street.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Earlier this summer Robin Lehner listed Peterson as one of the five best goalies in the NHL.

A couple from the division he sees most and his own teammate, as I recall.

 

[TopT]

What if he goes out and has a great year--and someone poaches him? Then we're left with nothing at all.

You don't pay for certainty anymore, though. Just looking at the comps mentioned in this thread:

Shesterkin - $5.6M, 25 years old: .921, 2.55, 47gp
Sorokin - $4M, 26 years old: .918, 2.17, 22gp
Demko - $5M, 25 years old: .911, 2.93, 72gp
Saros - $5M, 26 years old: .920, 2.50, 155gp
Ullmark - $5M, 28 years old: .912, 2.78, 117gp
Petersen - $5M, 26 years old: .916, 2.79, 54gp

How are any of those more 'certain' than Cal by any reasonable measure? The market has been set for mid-20 goalies with good pedigree and potential.

It's nice to have some stability for a few years between Quick and Cal and I don't think Cal is at risk of falling on his face any more than any other goalie that's not a sure franchise guy. To me, this is better than just hiring whatever 1B goalie merc is available year after year until you find a surefire solution (which they're still clearly pursuing, ie the Wallsteadt news), which Cal might even be. Three years allows for a guy growing with the team, a stylistic mesh, and expectation.

Hm, I wonder is the rangers would give us Shesterkin for Cal if they are so equal

 

[kingsfan]

What if he goes out and has a great year--and someone poaches him? Then we're left with nothing at all.

You don't pay for certainty anymore, though. Just looking at the comps mentioned in this thread:

Shesterkin - $5.6M, 25 years old: .921, 2.55, 47gp
Sorokin - $4M, 26 years old: .918, 2.17, 22gp
Demko - $5M, 25 years old: .911, 2.93, 72gp
Saros - $5M, 26 years old: .920, 2.50, 155gp
Ullmark - $5M, 28 years old: .912, 2.78, 117gp
Petersen - $5M, 26 years old: .916, 2.79, 54gp

How are any of those more 'certain' than Cal by any reasonable measure? The market has been set for mid-20 goalies with good pedigree and potential.

It's nice to have some stability for a few years between Quick and Cal and I don't think Cal is at risk of falling on his face any more than any other goalie that's not a sure franchise guy. To me, this is better than just hiring whatever 1B goalie merc is available year after year until you find a surefire solution (which they're still clearly pursuing, ie the Wallsteadt news), which Cal might even be. Three years allows for a guy growing with the team, a stylistic mesh, and expectation.

Demko was for five years.
Sorokin is $1 mill cheaper
Shesterkin is 4 years
Saros has 100 more games so yeah, he is more proven. Also for four years.
Ullmark has more than double the number of games and put up all his numbers in Buffalo. And was also for four years.

Every deal except Sorokin's was for a longer term. Only Shesterkin's cost more. Only the Shesterkin deal I'd say is arguably worse than Peterson's given the higher salary and modified NTC he gets over the final two years but then again, would you turn down a trade of Shesterkin for Peterson?

 

[Stimpythecat]

Anyone else think how relieved Petersen is to not be a sabre?

 

[Sol]

Yeah I"m not really sure where all this "Petersen sucked with the Kings" stuff is coming from when he was in the Vezina conversation and leading or near-leading many goalie stats and advanced stats before everything burst at the end of the season.

I think it's fair to question if he's a guy who can play a full workload, and I'm the first to mock '40 game vezina winners', but it's not accurate to act like he had a bad year, and @Sol acting like Cal has no pedigree is particularly baffling. He's not some hobo journeyman goalie we signed off the street.

That doesn't mean much in a shortened season. I think you among other people in this forum have a very terrible time accepting any disagreement, and the fact there's disagreements in this thread about his worth should tell you that there is merit to the contention.

And I stated consistently that his time as a King has been unimpressive entirely. You are reading what you want to read because I never said his career outside of the Kings has been unimpressive.

 

[kingsfan]

Anyone else think how relieved Petersen is to not be a sabre?

Should have taken a discount for us doing him that solid too

 

[Lt Dan]

Anyone else think how relieved Petersen is to not be a sabre?

Start it at 1:10

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Demko was for five years.
Sorokin is $1 mill cheaper
Shesterkin is 4 years
Saros has 100 more games so yeah, he is more proven. Also for four years.
Ullmark has more than double the number of games and put up all his numbers in Buffalo. And was also for four years.

Every deal except Sorokin's was for a longer term. Only Shesterkin's cost more. Only the Shesterkin deal I'd say is arguably worse than Peterson's given the higher salary and modified NTC he gets over the final two years but then again, would you turn down a trade of Shesterkin for Peterson?

And the vast majority of those are also RFA years, and as you point out, taking more term to get the money down. Shorter term and UFA term = higher money should mean the .5 - 1m difference between them all is pretty negligible, no?

Only one of those guys I'd take over Petersen straight up is Shesterkin, the rest have just as many question marks.

IMO this is a lot of consternation over potentially spilled milk if Cal regresses. I think it's fair to consider risk analysis as a bit of a gamble but I guess I'm not seeing a guy with Cal's background falling to pieces.

That doesn't mean much in a shortened season. I think you among other people in this forum have a very terrible time accepting any disagreement, and the fact there's disagreements in this thread about his worth should tell you that there is merit to the contention.

And I stated consistently that his time as a King has been unimpressive entirely. You are reading what you want to read because I never said his career outside of the Kings has been unimpressive.

Imagine that, discussing things on a discussion board. Sounds like you're taking this a little personally and reading what you want to read. I acknowledged merit to the contention in my very post, I even acknowledged a shortened term isn't as powerful as a full season. I just don't think it's that he's played bad as a King, and the numbers don't back up 'bad' play. That's not about disagreement of opinion, that's disagreement on fact. Maybe re-read my post.

NO Kings goalie has 'impressed' you frankly, you've spent Quick's entire contract shittalking him and it's only moved to Petersen since he started becoming the #1. What are you looking for from the guy? I think he faded down the stretch like much of the team, but he was a monster for most of the year. High standards are great, but you motherf*** every goalie that passes thru here.

The point is it's not purely on hope, the guy has the same pedigree as the comps and has demonstrated some competency in the NHL and extreme competency at every other level.

Edit: in the interest of transparency, I feel like Cal should be a top 10-15 goalie during this deal. He's shown the physical tools and the mental makeup at every level. Whether that's 'enough' for this team to get over the hump, I'm not certain. So I realize I'm higher on him than most, and I can 'accept that disagreement.' I just think the idea that he had a bad year is utterly misguided, so yeah, I won't just accept that as a prevailing narrative when all evidence points to the contrary.

He still has to prove he's not a Brian Elliott 40-game wonder, at the very least. But so do his comparables.

 

[Sol]

And the vast majority of those are also RFA years, and as you point out, taking more term to get the money down. Shorter term and UFA term = higher money should mean the .5 - 1m difference between them all is pretty negligible, no?

Only one of those guys I'd take over Petersen straight up is Shesterkin, the rest have just as many question marks.

IMO this is a lot of consternation over potentially spilled milk if Cal regresses. I think it's fair to consider risk analysis as a bit of a gamble but I guess I'm not seeing a guy with Cal's background falling to pieces.





Imagine that, discussing things on a discussion board. Sounds like you're taking this a little personally and reading what you want to read. I acknowledged merit to the contention in my very post, I even acknowledged a shortened term isn't as powerful as a full season. I just don't think it's that he's played bad as a King, and the numbers don't back up 'bad' play. That's not about disagreement of opinion, that's disagreement on fact. Maybe re-read my post.

NO Kings goalie has 'impressed' you frankly, you've spent Quick's entire contract shittalking him and it's only moved to Petersen since he started becoming the #1. What are you looking for from the guy? I think he faded down the stretch like much of the team, but he was a monster for most of the year. High standards are great, but you motherf*** every goalie that passes thru here.

The point is it's not purely on hope, the guy has the same pedigree as the comps and has demonstrated some competency in the NHL and extreme competency at every other level.

Edit: in the interest of transparency, I feel like Cal should be a top 10-15 goalie during this deal. He's shown the physical tools and the mental makeup at every level. Whether that's 'enough' for this team to get over the hump, I'm not certain. So I realize I'm higher on him than most, and I can 'accept that disagreement.' I just think the idea that he had a bad year is utterly misguided, so yeah, I won't just accept that as a prevailing narrative when all evidence points to the contrary.

He still has to prove he's not a Brian Elliott 40-game wonder, at the very least. But so do his comparables.

Uhhh where to begin in this mess of a post, no offense.

1. Decent amount of people think I have an axe to grind against Quick, that's pretty much a fact on this board. If you see me saying Quick played better than Petersen I feel like I'm not just saying that because for some reason I suddenly love Quick and hate Petersen. I'm saying that because while Petersen did good in the beginning he STILL looked worse than Quick does at his age. That's not a drive by comment.

Evidence to the contrary? You mean the times where he wasn't an NHL goalie? How quickly did you forget about the prophecy of Jonathan Bernier?

And which goalie should have impressed me? Last goalie besides Quick that impressed me was Martin Jones when he was posting ridiculous stats.

I'm happy that you're optimistic about everything on the team it seems, my issue with the whole Petersen circle jerk is based on his pedigree and his limited flashes of brilliance in his time with the Kings.


This can end up being a really good bridge contract, or a shitty one. You CAN argue either way with the limited information. I just happen to be on the other side.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Uhhh where to begin in this mess of a post, no offense.

1. Decent amount of people think I have an axe to grind against Quick, that's pretty much a fact on this board. If you see me saying Quick played better than Petersen I feel like I'm not just saying that because for some reason I suddenly love Quick and hate Petersen. I'm saying that because while Petersen did good in the beginning he STILL looked worse than Quick does at his age. That's not a drive by comment.

Evidence to the contrary? You mean the times where he wasn't an NHL goalie? How quickly did you forget about the prophecy of Jonathan Bernier?

And which goalie should have impressed me? Last goalie besides Quick that impressed me was Martin Jones when he was posting ridiculous stats.

I'm happy that you're optimistic about everything on the team it seems, my issue with the whole Petersen circle jerk is based on his pedigree and his limited flashes of brilliance in his time with the Kings.


This can end up being a really good bridge contract, or a shitty one. You CAN argue either way with the limited information. I just happen to be on the other side.

I'm just walking away from the personal stuff because frankly you're just being a whiny little bitch about my personality so whatever, that's a you problem.

Evidence to the contrary meaning his stats for the vast majority of the season were literally top-10. You're basing your 'evidence' of a 'bad season' on anecdotes. Even with the falloff at the end, he finished in the top half of save % for starting goalies, no small feat for a guy on a basement team.

We're not talking about a prospect/rookie Jon Bernier; we're talking about mid-20s goalies with professional track records.

I'm not optimistic about everything on the team. We have issues, TM is at the forefront of those, and there are a LOT of questionmarks that, if not answered this season, start to make me question the rebuild and organizational vision. It's not all sunshine and rainbows. But stable goaltending is good, and CP was one of the emergent bright spots last year before the entire team imploded.

There's no 'circle jerk,' there are a number of fans who see reasonable comparables with similar backgrounds/stats/ages/pedigrees as well as potential and a short term as well as no certain pipeline behind Petersen and see a reasonable investment thats commensurate with the above. I haven't seen anyone higher on CP than me, frankly, and it's not like I've been running around tooting his horn as a saviour.

Like I said, you can argue you disagree that it's a good bridge, and I think some fair claims are his previous workload, questions of his ceiling, ability to be 'the guy.' I think your fair conclusion rests entirely on a flawed premise of 'bad season.' that's all. If you don't like the callout, feel free to back it up with something more than "I feel like Petersen sucks." Others have.

 

[johnjm22]

Petersen's play trended down the more often he played. He would also show sulky and crappy body language when things got bad, which is something you never want to see from a goalie.

If the team in front of him plays better, then he should improve as well, but I have my concerns about him.

 

[Schrute farms]

Sometimes I wonder if why some fans forget the origin/concept of professional sports being a source of fun and entertainment.
If you want to be a downer all the time and crap on everything, why not just be into politics and follow that dumpster fire and join in with those miserable people. Or twitter and whatever social media miserable crowds are at these days.

 

[kingsfan]

And the vast majority of those are also RFA years, and as you point out, taking more term to get the money down. Shorter term and UFA term = higher money should mean the .5 - 1m difference between them all is pretty negligible, no?

Only one of those guys I'd take over Petersen straight up is Shesterkin, the rest have just as many question marks.

IMO this is a lot of consternation over potentially spilled milk if Cal regresses. I think it's fair to consider risk analysis as a bit of a gamble but I guess I'm not seeing a guy with Cal's background falling to pieces.

I'd take almost all of those guys over Petersen. Especially the Russian duo.

And if shorter = a higher cap hit then why wouldn't we want to go longer? We gave him 3 years and $5 mill per, so we invested a lot of years and money in him. The length and dollars state he's our starter, so if Blake really thinks that, go for a 5 year deal and get that cap hit down a bit more. If he doesn't think that yet, then why are we doing three years? People saying he has us over a barrel because he's a UFA in a season and could have a great year and bolt. We're coming off an off-season when Ullmark got $5 mill to go be a starter in Boston and the Vezina winner was given away. The market for goalies isn't going to burn a hole in your pocket if we have to walk from him.

 

[YP44]

i like it