Daisy Jane
everything is gonna be okay!
- Jul 2, 2009
- 70,276
- 9,314
Are we seriously arguing about a backup being ok vs good? They are backups for a reason. Management went with the cost controlled asset for the very situation this thread is about- the ability to re-sign someone that's been in your organization on the cheap. McElhinney will sign for 1.5+ after this season, something the Leafs cannot afford to do with their situation next season. They thought 2 steps ahead, and even though Sparks has disappointed, he has managed to stay afloat.
Anyways, it's sad that this type of stuff gets so much freaking attention. I'll take Andersen/Sparks over Toskala/Raycroft and Reimer/Bernier, but no, let's piss out pants online over paying a backup goalie almost league minimum.
When two teams in your division (the top two, by the way) can have their goaltenders be out for a long period of time - and not miss a beat - then I do think it stands to reason that you have to have faith in your back up goaltender to do the same thing - do you not agree? and I'm sorry. I don't have that feeling of security with Sparks.
I haven't said anything about Dubas signing Sparks to a cheap contract. it's the league minimum. I haven't argued against it (because whatever), I haven't argued for it (because I really don't care).
what you quoted me on, was me replying to someone how the decision was a good one to keep sparks. It wasn't. that's my opinion. if McBackup wanted 1.2 mill we say goodbye to him at the end of the year - and we find another steady older goaltender who wouldn't mind taking less to be on a good team - while finding/drafting/developing a younger goalie who would be ready to take over as #1. that's all i've been saying.) - and I don't understand how that's apparently a taboo topic simply because it's "the back up" position.