Confirmed with Link: Petr Mrazek signed 1 year, 1.5M

CandyCanes

Caniac turned Jerkiac
Jan 8, 2015
7,667
26,727
A lot of you are writing off Darling and Mrazek already, which is slightly understandable.

But Mrazek & Darling aren’t the first goalies to put up great numbers to start their careers and then crap the bed one season. There’s stories of goalies rebounding. These guys both have potential. Both these guys have shown they can play at a level of hockey that’s above a .920 sv% if they’re on their game. Let’s not write them off just yet, I think there’s a decent chance we can unlock one of the guys to play good hockey. My bet is on Mrazek, but I am intrigued to see what an inshape Scott Darling can do.

Lastly I’ll throw out that if there’s anyone to overcome adversity it’s Scott Darling. That guy has gone through a lot in his life and has defeated a lot of his demons. What’s stopping him from overcoming this adversity?

I’m just being my optimistic self, but I can see at least one of Darling or Mrazek having a nice rebound year for us.
 

MinJaBen

Canes Sharks Boy
Sponsor
Dec 14, 2015
21,377
82,960
Durm
Washington turned down our better offer because they didn’t want Gru in the division. So we didn’t have a trading partner there, it would have only worked if other teams wasn’t interested in him.
Our offer wasn't really any better. It was the same. When you are looking at a mid second round pick before the round begins, the value of 5 spots in the middle of the round are nearly meaningless. Nobody would know if the guy you are interested in is still there, or if somebody has fallen unexpectedly...its a crap shoot to say 42 vs 47 is any better.
 

Unsustainable

Seth Jarvis has Big Kahunas
Apr 14, 2012
39,100
108,934
North Carolina
Our offer wasn't really any better. It was the same. When you are looking at a mid second round pick before the round begins, the value of 5 spots in the middle of the round are nearly meaningless. Nobody would know if the guy you are interested in is still there, or if somebody has fallen unexpectedly...its a crap shoot to say 42 vs 47 is any better.

Unless the guy you want is on the board.
 

Chrispy

Salakuljettaja's Blues
Feb 25, 2009
8,763
28,527
Cary, NC
Washington turned down our better offer because they didn’t want Gru in the division. So we didn’t have a trading partner there, it would have only worked if other teams wasn’t interested in him.

Equivalent offer, truth be told. The difference was 5 picks in the second round, so technically better but not enough to keep Grubauer in the division.

This probably would have been the use of a late 1st rounder if Skinner had been dealt at the draft. That would be enough of a better offer to let Grubauer stay in division.

Would I feel better about Grubauer/Darling than Darling/Mrazek? Probably, but we would also know the team was paying Grubauer/Darling almost $8M for the next few years to do so based on his Colorado contract. This way there is a bit more flexibility to grab someone off waivers or make a mid-season trade if someone is suddenly available.
 

AD Skinner

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
13,277
40,872
bubble bath
One thing I will say for Mrazek from watching some of his highlights is that he is a battler. He fights through traffic, he dives at pucks in front of him, he celebrates making big saves. More animated than any goalie we've had here in a long time. The highlights posted above of him at the worlds he was a man possessed
 

geehaad

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2006
7,531
18,994
One thing I will say for Mrazek from watching some of his highlights is that he is a battler. He fights through traffic, he dives at pucks in front of him, he celebrates making big saves. More animated than any goalie we've had here in a long time. The highlights posted above of him at the worlds he was a man possessed
That's what I picked up on, too, and it gave me pause that maybe that's not a good thing. Great for a tournament or the playoffs, but maybe not so much for the grind of an 82-game season. If you excel when you play off of emotion, that grind might make it difficult for you to find that laser focus night in, night out.
 

Svechhammer

THIS is hockey?
Jun 8, 2017
25,498
92,978
One year, $1.5 million isn't bad for a good BACKUP goalie.

Yes, but that guy was brought in to backup Darling, who himself should be the backup, not the other way around.

A lot of you are writing off Darling and Mrazek already, which is slightly understandable.

But Mrazek & Darling aren’t the first goalies to put up great numbers to start their careers and then crap the bed one season. There’s stories of goalies rebounding. These guys both have potential.

The problem is that neither have truly shown the ability to have any sustained success as the starting goalie of an NHL franchise. Sure, both have put up decent numbers in the past, but that was done almost exclusively as the backup goalie to an established starter. For both, the second they were given a chance to show what they were made of in regards to being the guy for a franchise, they shat the sheets and proceeded to frolic in the stench.

We have 2 career backups that we're trying to shoehorn into being NHL starters. This is a recipe for utter disaster.
 

CandyCanes

Caniac turned Jerkiac
Jan 8, 2015
7,667
26,727
Yes, but that guy was brought in to backup Darling, who himself should be the backup, not the other way around.



The problem is that neither have truly shown the ability to have any sustained success as the starting goalie of an NHL franchise. Sure, both have put up decent numbers in the past, but that was done almost exclusively as the backup goalie to an established starter. For both, the second they were given a chance to show what they were made of in regards to being the guy for a franchise, they shat the sheets and proceeded to frolic in the stench.

We have 2 career backups that we're trying to shoehorn into being NHL starters. This is a recipe for utter disaster.

Not necessarily true with Mrazek. He did manage to establish himself as a starter in 2016. He played 54 games that year and finished the season with a .921 sv% that year. He followed up that season with 3 spectacular starts in the playoffs finishing with a .945 sv%. All I'm saying is the talent is there, and he has a solid chance at rebounding.

I'd say it's a 50/50 shot that we can get one of Mrazek or Darling to rebound back to average NHL goaltending. Trust me though I wish we have a guaranteed shot of getting good goaltending, not a 50/50 shot.
 

Hulkacaniac

You MUST
Jun 4, 2015
1,712
9,331
NC
I don't know what people expected, really. We knew we would be disappointed. The market is crap. The only goalie traded wasn't going in division (Isles pushed hard for gru too and didn't get him). When there were actually goalies available for trade, Francis f***ed up and went with darling. The opportunity is gone. We knew darling was going to have to come back. He's probably bought out if he poops himself again this year. That contract isn't an easy one to buy out for any team, especially one that's still paying semin. Halak, reimer, lehner, whoever, they're all crap just like mrazek. But his 1.5 is easy to swallow and send down if we want to call up nedeljkovic or if a trade option comes up. Like someone said, the market next year looks much better, and that'll be another year for our goalie prospects to progress, too. We just need Ned, mrazek, darling to be mediocre. We had .891 goaltending or whatever last year and still didn't finish bottom 10. Amazingly there are situations worse than ours. The islanders haven't got their goalie yet and the senators don't look too great either. I think mediocre, is acheiveable, though, especially when we're out from bill peters' system and hopefully the players come in with more confidence.

I'm more irritated that it looks like they've fumbled on the skinner and Faulk trades. They were too open about wanting to trade them and now they're trying to backtrack. Faulk should've been gone before his NTC came in and we should've signed a replacement.
 

What the Faulk

You'll know when you go
May 30, 2005
42,121
3,851
North Carolina
I don't know what people expected, really. We knew we would be disappointed. The market is crap. The only goalie traded wasn't going in division (Isles pushed hard for gru too and didn't get him). When there were actually goalies available for trade, Francis ****ed up and went with darling. The opportunity is gone. We knew darling was going to have to come back. He's probably bought out if he poops himself again this year. That contract isn't an easy one to buy out for any team, especially one that's still paying semin. Halak, reimer, lehner, whoever, they're all crap just like mrazek. But his 1.5 is easy to swallow and send down if we want to call up nedeljkovic or if a trade option comes up. Like someone said, the market next year looks much better, and that'll be another year for our goalie prospects to progress, too. We just need Ned, mrazek, darling to be mediocre. We had .891 goaltending or whatever last year and still didn't finish bottom 10. Amazingly there are situations worse than ours. The islanders haven't got their goalie yet and the senators don't look too great either. I think mediocre, is acheiveable, though, especially when we're out from bill peters' system and hopefully the players come in with more confidence.

I'm more irritated that it looks like they've fumbled on the skinner and Faulk trades. They were too open about wanting to trade them and now they're trying to backtrack. Faulk should've been gone before his NTC came in and we should've signed a replacement.

I agree with most of this, but I'm find with them standing pat on Faulk and Skinner for now. Every year we see rental players get dealt for a pot of gold at the trade deadline, and I don't see why Skinner would be any different. It hurts if they're a bubble team (which is likely) and they have a decision to make, but I think they see what happened with Tavares and would be more open to dealing Skinner for something rather than letting him walk for nothing. Hell, they could even deal him in November or December in an effort to shake up the team should they get off to a slow start. I'm just tired of watching this team lose, and the fans are voicing their same displeasure with their wallets. If there's not a deal out there to make this team better in 2018-19, I think it's fine to wait.
 

Hulkacaniac

You MUST
Jun 4, 2015
1,712
9,331
NC
I agree with most of this, but I'm find with them standing pat on Faulk and Skinner for now. Every year we see rental players get dealt for a pot of gold at the trade deadline, and I don't see why Skinner would be any different. It hurts if they're a bubble team (which is likely) and they have a decision to make, but I think they see what happened with Tavares and would be more open to dealing Skinner for something rather than letting him walk for nothing. Hell, they could even deal him in November or December in an effort to shake up the team should they get off to a slow start. I'm just tired of watching this team lose, and the fans are voicing their same displeasure with their wallets. If there's not a deal out there to make this team better in 2018-19, I think it's fine to wait.
I guess my concern is how it will affect the room if we've got two guys that think they're on the block and that the organization doesn't want them. It also just makes management look kind of incompetent and reminds me a bit of the "putting the gm search on hold."

Personally I'd like to see skinner stay and Faulk get swapped for a forward.
 

Stickpucker

Playmaka
Jan 18, 2014
16,266
39,505
That's what I picked up on, too, and it gave me pause that maybe that's not a good thing. Great for a tournament or the playoffs, but maybe not so much for the grind of an 82-game season. If you excel when you play off of emotion, that grind might make it difficult for you to find that laser focus night in, night out.

Right now he is in a playoff for his NHL career. If he shots the bed here he's pretty much done.
 

Ole Gil

Registered User
May 9, 2009
5,764
9,204
I agree with most of this, but I'm find with them standing pat on Faulk and Skinner for now. Every year we see rental players get dealt for a pot of gold at the trade deadline, and I don't see why Skinner would be any different.

The downside of waiting, is they will get futures at the deadline. Right now, they could get a comparable they think fits better in the lineup (if they can find a deal). Doing it now also takes the "Sell at the deadline while in contention" issue off the table.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad