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

Jul 18, 2010
26,716
57,526
Atlanta, GA
I mean this guy put up a great season with a starter’s workload in 15-16, and is still young. There was no exciting goaltending market to speak of, so we punted the goalie issue one year down the line and still got a guy that’s been a real starter before.

It’s not ideal but we aren’t in an ideal spot. I’m ok with giving this a shot.
 

cptjeff

Reprehensible User
Sep 18, 2008
21,819
39,284
Washington, DC.
Yikes. Darling better have taken all the steroids this offseason if we're going with Mrazek. He was worth a shot at the deadline (or well before) last year, IMO, because we should have been throwing everything at the wall like Vegas did when MAF went down to find something, anything, that wasn't Darling. After his flyers meltdown? Yikes. How the f*** were we not able to trade for literally anyone else?
 

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
25,185
43,570
colorado
Visit site
Ok, ok.

So NOW will people admit that we should have spent less than $1 million to see if Mrazek was a fit last year?

I think Mrazek has the highest ceiling of the bunch. Just a lot of issues.
Seriously no. Why? What sense did that make? We can scout him just as good playing for other teams.

I agree he has the highest ceiling because he still has a little unknown about him. I like him more than Lehner, and I’m glad it’s only one year. And cheap. I’m also glad we didn’t waste a Skinner or Faulk trade on a desperation goalie trade.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad