Toggle sidebar

Confirmed Signing with Link: [NYR] G Igor Shesterkin signs extension with the Rangers (8 years, $11.5m AAV)

Ciao said:
In the past 10 years, five of the Cup-winning goaltenders have been paid between 8-12% of the cap.

Three others - Murray twice and Binnington, were on ELCs or re-signed as RFAs.

The two others -- Keumper and Hill -- were the mid-range guys that are the exception to the rule.

If you don't have a hot, young, low-cost goalie on a roll, then you probably need to pay for what you get, and even that isn't a sure-fire guarantee.

Three of the past five years were high-priced veterans. That kind of speaks for itself these days.
Click to expand...
Yes I think it’s a bit odd that people say the high priced goalie is the exception to the norm but treat the Darcy Kuemper, call it like the 20-something best goalie on a mid level type UFA contract as the “norm”.

Sure it’s sufficient if you have MacKinnon and Makar on your team with great depth. But you have to kinda take the team you got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nogatco Rd and Pablo El Perro
WarriorofTime said:
Most teams don’t win the cup, so it’s a bit silly to focus on “look at all the teams that didn’t win the cup with an expensive goalie!” More to, look at all the teams that had a very good/great goalie regardless of cap. Of course you bias yourself intentionally by pointing out cap savings because cup winners tend to have some good/great contracts somewhere. MacKinnon was on a very cheap contract when the Avs won, does this mean it’s a bad idea to pay MacKinnon and just try and find a new number 1 center for cheap? No of course not. While MacKinnon for cheap is better than MacKinnon expensive. The latter is still better than the alternative of no MacKinnon.
Click to expand...
I guess if you're not interested in winning a Cup then allocate the cap anyway you see fit. I thought the discussion had loosely been around the NYR's chances of winning it all so that's how I focused my analysis.

MacKinnon is a center and has nothing to do with this conversation. Centers and goalies don't play the same position nor impact the game the same way. It's a false analogy.

WarriorofTime said:
What we see from recent seasons is that an expensive goalie is neither necessary nor preventative from winning a cup. More to the point, citing expensive goalies that didn’t win the cup is of course a nonsense way especially as many did get close like Luongo, Lundqvist and Price. Plus Vasilevskiy or Bobrovsky who reached the finals the year after/before actually winning. But of course phrasing it entirely as “cup or bust” will bias the results incredibly. And this is of course not how we do it for any other player where if MacKinnon scores 140 points and the team loses in the first or second round, we don’t say it was a mistake to pay MacKinnon.
Click to expand...
Only three teams have won a Cup with a goaltender carrying a double-digit cap hit. I think this is a relevant point when it comes to team building.

There are lots of good goaltenders in the league and most are paid accordingly. At no point have I said only Cup winning goaltenders are worthy of praise; I'm at a loss as to where you've gotten this idea. However, from the years of cap history we do have to go off of, it doesn't appear allocating a lot of cap to the position leads to repeatable success, outside of Vasilevskiy and Bobrovsky.

Again, not sure what MacKinnon has to do with anything here. What a bizarre tangent.
 
I've seen ~$7M in this thread as the most that people think goalies should be paid. So a difference of ~$4.5M. On my team, that's a Middleton or Hartman type player (currently, will soon be less than that). I like both players a lot, but neither are deciding if my team is winning/contending for a Cup or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Takeahnase, 19nazzy and japhi27returns
Shane Diesel said:
Only three teams have won a Cup with a goaltender carrying a double-digit cap hit. I think this is a relevant point when it comes to team building.
Click to expand...

How about Cup winners with double digit cap hit dmen? Would you let a Norris caliber dman walk rather than pay him big money? Should only centers be paid large salaries?
 
FiveTacos said:
How about Cup winners with double digit cap hit dmen? Would you let a Norris caliber dman walk rather than pay him big money? Should only centers be paid large salaries?
Click to expand...
Considering skaters are far more responsible when it comes to the impact of the game then yes, impact centers and defensemen should be paid more than goaltenders, generally speaking. In certain situations the dynamics could be different.

WarriorofTime said:
If you are not able to comprehend the purpose of that, you can ask for clarification. It’s very logical.
Click to expand...
No, it's a distraction from the main argument. Centers and goaltenders are not equally responsible for the impact on a hockey game.
 
I guess there's many different ways to win a championship.

I don't think paying top dollar for a top-flight goaltender either guarantees or precludes winning the Stanley Cup.

I do think almost any other team would gladly take Shesterskin with his new contract, if that were available to them.
 
Shane Diesel said:
Considering skaters are far more responsible when it comes to the impact of the game then yes, impact centers and defensemen should be paid more than goaltenders, generally speaking. In certain situations the dynamics could be different.
Click to expand...

Well this is one of those situations. They have no young center or D that's coming up on a superstar extension either on the roster or in the pupeline. So it's not as if they can say "well if we pass on Shesterkin we can save that money for a superstar 1C or 1D instead". No one's trading them one. Even if they crap out and draft one they're a half decade or more away from even starting to budget for it.
 
Dr Jan Itor said:
I've seen ~$7M in this thread as the most that people think goalies should be paid. So a difference of ~$4.5M. On my team, that's a Middleton or Hartman type player (currently, will soon be less than that). I like both players a lot, but neither are deciding if my team is winning/contending for a Cup or not.
Click to expand...
At least someone understands how this all works. Then can have Igor, or a lesser goalie and Hartman. Gee I wonder which gives them a higher likelihood of winning.

The folks in here that would walk away from a top 5-10 player in the league over 5mm fascinate me.
 
FiveTacos said:
Well this is one of those situations. They have no young center or D that's coming up on a superstar extension either on the roster or in the pupeline. So it's not as if they can say "well if we pass on Shesterkin we can save that money for a superstar 1C or 1D instead". No one's trading them one. Even if they crap out and draft one they're a half decade or more away from even starting to budget for it.
Click to expand...

And since it came up, does anyone actually have a list of the highest paid D and C on each of the Cup winners? If that standard is enough for someone to conclude "don't pay a goalie that much," then the exact same argument should apply across other positions.
 
Hollowmoon said:
Way too much money for a goalkeeper
Click to expand...

I would say way too much term.

It's tough because if you're the Rangers are you really going to let a goalie like Shesterkin walk?

But committing 8 years to a goaltender rarely works out .
 
WarriorofTime said:
It's a massively outdated take from when when league scoring was comically low a decade ago, and every goaltender had giant pads on so random no names was posting .920 save percentages.

Wake up sheeple, league wide save percentage isn't .915 anymore.
Click to expand...
Sheeple? What are you trying to convey and who’s your target audience? Why are you calling random readers of a hockey board discussing the value of goaltending “sheeple”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pablo El Perro
Dr Jan Itor said:
Maybe, but the contract itself doesn't really have anything to do with that.
Click to expand...

Well it certainly doesn’t help them with adding those types of players

When Igor was determined to break the goaltending market. Money over winning
 
Henrik Lundqvist's last two contracts against a cap space of 92 million would have been 11,16 and 11,33 million. Rangers were twice in Confrence Finals and once in Stanley Cup Finals during those contracts. Yes, it would probably be nice and easier if you paid a million less to every star player on your roster. No, this contract alone doesn't hamper their chances at all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: River Meadow
BB88 said:
Well it certainly doesn’t help them with adding those types of players

When Igor was determined to break the goaltending market. Money over winning
Click to expand...
You can say this about everybody that makes more than the previous guy.

The guys that take notable discounts for the sake of "winning" is extremely few and far between, if even existent at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom