Value of: Your goaler to the Avs

TS Quint

Stop writing “I mean” in your posts.
Sep 8, 2012
8,472
5,928
1. In the immediate scenario, Rs are not acquiring ufa/rfa so no negotiation on their end is nec.
2. MacK and Shesty are both gonna be expensive for whoever holds their rights and there is no getting around that. They are gonna be in the same ballpark number. Beginning next season, both will be under contract long term. Not seeing a big whoop there.

3. No on Marner for Shesty. NY does not want/need.
Something around core pieces Shesty + Zib for Nylander + Knies
Yeah, we both know at best your big push for valuable negotiation rights is pretty bullshitty. That has the value of a 3rd rounder AT BEST. Now you need to start adding to make up the difference in value and term from there and that's a long road.

Rangers would be adding to get Marner.
 

NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS

Registered User
Oct 23, 2022
2,121
4,339
Leafs can do a deal, 4-ish pieces each side, enuf coming + going win win

LA really only needs include Byfield, rest can be smoothing of the edges

As to Makar, sure, but taking into acct age etc, and need for position I don't see COLO considering him either
I cannot argue with the first two points.

But I think Colorado with cap uncertainty of stars and a need to shake up their core easily does a deal centered on Makar. But does NYR need two elite defenders? MacGinnon makes more sense from a team composition.
 

bernmeister

Registered User
Jun 11, 2010
28,479
4,106
Da Big Apple
I cannot argue with the first two points.

But I think Colorado with cap uncertainty of stars and a need to shake up their core easily does a deal centered on Makar. But does NYR need two elite defenders? MacGinnon makes more sense from a team composition.
I appreciate you recognizing the full value of Shesty
I think Colo does not want to pay top top $ in any currency for an elite Vez quality G.
We did not know that prior, but I think we can conclude that now.

Avs will go bargain basement and live with the results
 
  • Like
Reactions: NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS

bernmeister

Registered User
Jun 11, 2010
28,479
4,106
Da Big Apple
Yeah, we both know at best your big push for valuable negotiation rights is pretty bullshitty. That has the value of a 3rd rounder AT BEST. Now you need to start adding to make up the difference in value and term from there and that's a long road.

Rangers would be adding to get Marner.
we don't "both know"
you are pushing a false narrative.
Ability of suitor to nail down Shesty contract prior to transfer is huge.

Rs do not need, want Marner, would not add
 

glenngineer

Registered User
Jan 27, 2010
6,943
1,735
Franklin, TN
I'd give you Saros. Unfortunately, we no longer have Askarov. Not sure what the return would be even if we did. I think the 8-year deal that doesn't kick in until next year was a smart move.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,702
13,500
Elmira NY
Georgiev is talented…genuinely…but he’s completely broken.

This happens with talented, mercurial goalies. It’s such a mental game. It’s the position that defies “analytics” and trends. I will say the Avs definitely made a buyer beware decision because the one thing known about Georgiev is New York was that he definitely had ups and downs mentally. Worked for a while in Denver but now has clearly blown up. In retrospect, this was probably the expected outcome. From top 10 in GSAA in 22-23 to unplayable in 2024. That’s the range of play you get with him.

Anyways, I’m ready for a cranky veteran with a track record like a Gibson who wants to take a stab at a playoff run. Cost and compensation we can work out.

Please don’t come to us with your head case goalies, goalies who meltdown every spring or second half of the season. We don’t care as much about the SV% record over the last three years as much as we do about the mental make-up of the player.

It's the sense I had with him. He could be lights out for a week and a half but he never could sustain really good play for any length of time. He's also moody as f***. It wasn't a great situation for him in New York first as backup to Lundqvist and then overtaken by Sheshterkin. Again I had (but also a lot of Rangers fans seem to have) the sense that he was bubbling over with frustration and resentment by the time the Rangers moved him to the Avalanche. Not good things for a goalie. When things aren't going right with him his unhappiness seems to permeate through the team. It was a positive thing for the Rangers to move on from him but then also for him it was a chance to get his act together. To become the starting goaltender for one of the best NHL teams. It's like everything he could have asked for. His personality continues to be an issue though. It's like you can be good at something (and a goalie making it to the NHL for as long as he has is good at the fundamentals etc.) but be in the absolute wrong kind of work and it's telling for this kind of job.

Goaltending is mental---staying in focus and it helps a lot to always (or at least almost always) to be in a positive frame of mind. Alex seems to lose his way a lot and when that happens things go to shit for his team.
 

TS Quint

Stop writing “I mean” in your posts.
Sep 8, 2012
8,472
5,928
we don't "both know"
you are pushing a false narrative.
Ability of suitor to nail down Shesty contract prior to transfer is huge.

Rs do not need, want Marner, would not add
We both DO know negotiation rights have very little value. We both know that little value is the reason why you can’t find an example to fit your narrative.
 

Craig Ludwig

Registered User
Jun 16, 2005
697
793
Has anyone just thought that maybe the Avs are terrible defensively, instead of always blaming the goalie? Admittedly, Georgiev is bad, but my feeling is that unless they trade for a superstar goalie, whoever they get will suffer the same wrath because the Avs can't play D.

Right now, with Toews injury, your top 4 includes Josh Manson and Oliver Kylington, yikes...
 

bernmeister

Registered User
Jun 11, 2010
28,479
4,106
Da Big Apple
We both DO know negotiation rights have very little value. We both know that little value is the reason why you can’t find an example to fit your narrative.
false and a bad look by you attempting to prevail by simply being contrarian.

The FACT is negotiation rights may have huge or little value or anything in between based on specifics.
In this case, nailing down Shesty agreement before so deal is not a rental IS HUGE.
 

BKarchitect

Registered User
Oct 12, 2017
8,052
14,278
Kansas City, MO
Has anyone just thought that maybe the Avs are terrible defensively, instead of always blaming the goalie? Admittedly, Georgiev is bad, but my feeling is that unless they trade for a superstar goalie, whoever they get will suffer the same wrath because the Avs can't play D.

Right now, with Toews injury, your top 4 includes Josh Manson and Oliver Kylington, yikes...

Manson is still a top four defenseman. He was great in the playoffs last year. The blueline has too many lightweights and the two best defensive forwards haven’t played a minute yet, but the Avs have outshot their opponents 32-27 in their 3 games so far. They are top 10 in limiting shots against. They are 11 in xGA.

When your goalie gives up 3 goals in the first 9 shots against every single night, it tends to impact how the entire team is forced to play.

They aren’t the 96 Devils defensively but this is a goalie problem that has infected the entire team. The Avs are definitely not a terrible defensive team.
 
Last edited:

TS Quint

Stop writing “I mean” in your posts.
Sep 8, 2012
8,472
5,928
false and a bad look by you attempting to prevail by simply being contrarian.

The FACT is negotiation rights may have huge or little value or anything in between based on specifics.
In this case, nailing down Shesty agreement before so deal is not a rental IS HUGE.
I’m not being contrarian to anything. You haven’t shown anything. You are presenting something as fact when you can’t find an example of it in this history of hockey. YOU made the claim, YOU need to back it up.

The extension is going to be huge but that is between the new team and Shesty. The Rangers don’t own ANY of those years on the extension. NONE. They get no to very little value to what they don’t own.
 

CellyHard

Registered User
May 27, 2012
1,185
2,141
Massachusetts
What about Korpisalo (15%) retained so his contract matches Georgiev at 3.4?

Bruins get out of the term, Avs get a (hopefully) better quality goaltender?

He lost his 1st game against the cats but he looked solid IMO
 

tucker3434

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 7, 2007
20,260
11,303
Atlanta, GA
Has anyone just thought that maybe the Avs are terrible defensively, instead of always blaming the goalie? Admittedly, Georgiev is bad, but my feeling is that unless they trade for a superstar goalie, whoever they get will suffer the same wrath because the Avs can't play D.

Right now, with Toews injury, your top 4 includes Josh Manson and Oliver Kylington, yikes...

In two of our losses, we gave up 23 shots or less. And here are Georgiev’s numbers, almost twice as bad as the second worst goalie.


The team could certainly play better. But our starter’s .787 is absolutely killing us.
 

BKarchitect

Registered User
Oct 12, 2017
8,052
14,278
Kansas City, MO
What about Korpisalo (15%) retained so his contract matches Georgiev at 3.4?

Bruins get out of the term, Avs get a (hopefully) better quality goaltender?

He lost his 1st game against the cats but he looked solid IMO
So Georgiev for Georgiev for more term? If there's any goalie in the league as erratic as Georgiev - with both pretty high "highs" and absolutely poverty-level "lows" - it's Korpisalo. That's a pass.

The Avs made their "why not" move picking up Kahkonen and did it because it was free and cheap with no commitment. As horrific as Georgiev has been, there are far worse goalie situations for a cap-strapped team like the Avs to be in, and that's locked into multiple years of contract with an untrustworthy solution.

I can hear the chorus already - "well what are they gonna do?!?!?!".

They haven't started KK or Annunen yet - so at some point, that. That's what they'll do. And they will give the season more than three games before taking on everybody's unwanted 3-4 year goalie contract as "the answer".
 

bernmeister

Registered User
Jun 11, 2010
28,479
4,106
Da Big Apple
I’m not being contrarian to anything. You haven’t shown anything. You are presenting something as fact when you can’t find an example of it in this history of hockey. YOU made the claim, YOU need to back it up.

The extension is going to be huge but that is between the new team and Shesty. The Rangers don’t own ANY of those years on the extension. NONE. They get no to very little value to what they don’t own.
This is the pt, BUT you fail to admit that happens b'c Rs give suitor full opportunity to talk + negotiate w/him first
by reason of the above, I AM BACKING IT UP
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad