I feel like you are missing the boat here. Basically, our two turd goalies put our high flying team on the top of the WC last year. Unless you have a trade proposal which drastically improves our goaltending duo while subtracting one of the current ones without also shipping out a top prospect, there isn't much to talk about.
No, that's being greedy on your part, sorry I gotta call ya out here.
You admit you have 2 turd Gs, you want NY to take one back, that is separate and apart from the transaction of paying for what we are sending. Not saying we won't try to help, but kindly admit that is not free, and you have to pay for that. As to dramatic, it would be nice if a Cam Talbot were available but does not appear to be had. Also, again cap reality. Cap limitations, Raanta a
1 for a half solution is reasonable, with Halvy down the road, buys you time as you flip either or both of your turds to work out of your situation.
Finally as to "without also shipping out a top prospect", what, are you kidding me? Why should any club send another valued assets without getting a substantive return? What would you consider fair for NY if not Gurianov?
Btw, when someone says "so and so has not proven able to do such and such", a reasonable and effective counter is not "well he has not proven that he can't"
you are ignoring the follow through, which is he only sat cause he was behind King Hank.
What's unfair about it? He lost his job to Darling in Chicago during a season, not because of age or cost. They made the decision based on who could help them win. When Crawford struggled in the playoffs, Darling saved their bacon before he went on to struggle. Most people would say that a player who lost his spot to an average backup is probably not going to become an NHL starter. This isn't Cory Schneider waiting in the wings to become one of the best goalies in the NHL, this is a journeyman backup.
If we are talking about facts and perception, the fact is we did pretty good with Lehtonen and Niemi last year. 50 wins, #1 seed, 7 playoff wins. Another fact is that this system change shaved 10 points off Lehtonen's save percentage. 4 goalies have come through Dallas during it and none have been close to league average in boxcar stats. Enroth for example had a .906 with us, then he went to LA and put up better numbers than Raanta. If you believe in some kind of transitive property of goaltending this should raise a mighty red flag on Raanta.
Now that we have a neat comparable, lets see how much people value goalies. It says here, nobody wanted Enroth and he took a big pay cut to 750k in late August. If we could get a better, cheaper goalie for free that late in the summer, I don't see the part where you get a 1st rounder from 2015 for your backup. And don't kid yourself about Halverson, he is worthless. He'll be lucky to have the lofty career of journeyman backup Raanta, like 95% of goalie prospects that are also worth zero. We've already got 3 or 4 Halversons, we don't need yours. And if you thought he might be something, you'd never trade him to us instead of grooming him to eventually replace Lundqvist.
If that is truly the case, then there would be no basis to go beyond Raanta as for immediate help. Do other Stars fans concur you have solid Gs in the pipeline? As to NYR, and replacing Lundqvist, even without Shesty, we have Skapski and Hulska.
As to Darling, I apologize if I was not more clear
All I meant is each had value, but Darling was younger, younger is usually cap friendlier at min., and possibly has higher potential. As to Crawford, warts and all, he IS THE guy for them, cause he has shown he can handle playoff pressure.
Even that is iffy. It's not a bad deal on paper, but then Dallas has three backup goalies. Raanta was really good last year, but 24 games is a very small serving. This is not as bad as the original deal, but still a risky deal because of the inexperience of Raanta.
thank you
hence the addition of Halvy for down the road, and it is for you guys to flip the incumbents as you see fit.
consider him more underutilized than inexperienced given his time in Chicago
Man I hate Chicago as much as anyone but this is selling Crawford short. He is a good goalie and calling marginally better than Raanta is a terrible judge of skill. Crawford is a much better goalie than Raanta and Raanta is not that great/has not shown the ability to play a starter role as shown by no none offering him more than back up money.
like i said they are both good.
Crawford cuts the mustard, then goes cold, then cuts it again, but he always shows up in the playoffs, that's the horn he can toot. That's why he gets top $.
Does not mean if the martians kidnapped Craw, and Raanta filled in, they'd lose the playoffs.
In other words, unlike your guys in Dallas, no track record of major AOL for playoffs.
Absolutely no. Dallas is not trading their recent 12th pick for a backup goalie and a goalie prospect...
How about Buch for Oduya and a 3rd?
Your vote of no is acknowledged, thank you.
My comments on value and demand for return are noted herein.
Dallas only gives up top prospects for a clear upgrade to go for a cup IMO. So from NYR that means Lundqvist, who has a NMC and has never given any inclination that he will waive. Neither of Halverson/Raanta are enough of a proven upgrade to require payment like Gurianov/Honka.
would argue Raanta is def improvement and, not alone by himself, enough of a down payment, esp given his salary (1m) and term (2yrs) very favorable. A Hank type will be upwards of 8m, even less, is prohibitive.
Show me one Stars fan that agrees with you that Raanta and Halverson are enough of a core for a deal involving one of their top prospects and then we'll decide whose assertion is wrong. Respectfully.
trying to assess if that is the case, and if not, how far off is it. Is it a core and a solid add does it, or not enough even then. Any constructive analysis you would add in that regard is welcome. So far not enough sampling. Also, I don't mind Gurianov being highly rated, but I feel Raanta and Halverson underrated. If that gap is not bridged, no deal.
Also, while not endorsing, post 53 recognized Raanta COULD be worth discussing as and for an improvement
