• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Core 4 No More: The Motherfucking Off-Season Thread

zeke said:
ullmark gonna cost a ton, and you're getting a tandem goalie good for maybe a .915, who's also been terrible in every playoffs he's played in.
Click to expand...

1) He's not going to cost a ton.
2) A tandem giving us .915 would be top 3-5 in the league next year. Don't threaten me with a good time.
3) The playoff bit is fair. Saros is probably the better option, though in Ullmark's defence it's not like dude has been given a lot of playoff reps. But run the hot hand. If it's Ullmark, it's Ullmark, if it's Woll it's Woll. Play whoever plays well. 2 guys, not just relying on 1.
 
I worry just a little bit about Saros. I don't buy this argument that every modern goalie has to be 6'6, but he is 5'11 and did have a down year this season (.906 regular season, .900 postseason). Probably fine for a couple more years but I think I lean Ullmark here.
 
Ullmark has a career high of 49 games played. Call me when Woll shows he can play 33 games in a season without dying before we get concerned about shit like that.
 
zeke "we have one goalie (though injury prone) that plays the position well and makes the league minimum, so we should trade him"
 
axlsalinger said:
I worry just a little bit about Saros. I don't buy this argument that every modern goalie has to be 6'6, but he is 5'11 and did have a down year this season (.906 regular season, .900 postseason). Probably fine for a couple more years but I think I lean Ullmark here.
Click to expand...

Fair. But I'll take slightly above average as a down year out of a guy who isn't given the benefit of tandem's work load.
 
And raycroft and toskala. Too many examples of goalie contracts busting to feel comfortable about any of these options.

But I guess you have to try
 
Mrazek played 12 games though.

Markstromg was 3rd in GSAA, 2nd in dsv%, 1st in HDSV%, 4th in RBS.

Btw, Ullmark only had 3 RBS and .667 QS% (1st and 2nd in the NHL).
 
Preston said:
And raycroft and toskala. Too many examples of goalie contracts busting to feel comfortable about any of these options.

But I guess you have to try
Click to expand...

Eh, no one should look at those two examples as anything but an obvious failure in goaltending evaluation. Neither were good goalies at the time that we paid huge, huge premium for them

- Raycroft was 2 calendar years removed from his Calder season when we traded for him. During the lockout he was mediocre in Finland (.912) and the year after he the worst goalies in the league with an .879

- Toskala was 3 calendar years removed from his .930 season as a backup. He basically sat the entire lockout year (played 3 games in Finland), put up a .901 as a 1B/Backup the following season, and then an okay backup season with a .908 the year before we traded for him. It should not have surprised anyone when he split the difference with a .904 for us in his first year here before the pressure broke him.
 
leafman101 said:
Mrazek played 12 games though.

Markstromg was 3rd in GSAA, 2nd in dsv%, 1st in HDSV%, 4th in RBS.

Btw, Ullmark only had 3 RBS and .667 QS% (1st and 2nd in the NHL).
Click to expand...

Problem with Markstrom is 2 years left on the deal at 34 yrs old imo. If Calgary is willing to retain some salary and basically not expect any real assets back...okay, sure.

Or something like Kampf + Reaves for Markstrom, okay maybe it's worth the risk if Saros/Ullmark aren't options.
 
MindzEye said:
The Leafs trading for Bernier broke him.
Click to expand...
I get being terrified of trading for Ullmark ( or any goalie a Leaf GM trades for) but why the fuck would you want to trade Woll for like a Finn lotto ticket or late 2nd and enter the backup vortex of pain if Ullmark gets hurt?
 
I love Woll, but this season alone, the dude suffered an ankle injury that kept him out for months while standing innocuously in his crease. And then broke his back diving to make a save in the playoffs.

And it’s not isolated to this year. He’s had consistent problems with missing significant time to injury for his entire professional career.

So I think it’d be nuts to go into next season without a reliable starting goalie to tandem up with him. And Matt Murray very much does not qualify as that guy.
 
Preston said:
You can call it unlikely, that's fine. But I'm not sure how there isn't logic behind trading two studs, one for one, that have sucked in the playoffs. The media has been on Pettersson since he signed that contract. He hasn't been very good and beyond one season, he has been a clear step down from Mitch throughout his career.

Vancouver is arguably getting the better offensive player here. Contracts will be similar and a change of scenery could benefit both guys
Click to expand...
Vancouver gets the better player but the bigger headache and for virtually the same money. What is their motivation? If they've soured on EP because he's a playoff choker then they'd want to get rid of him for a non-choker, would they not? Why would they want a player just like him? And how do the Leafs benefit? EP isn't helping them win a playoff series any more than Marner did. I just don't get why either team does this apart from the fact that the dollars line up somewhat evenly.
 
Artnes said:

View: https://twitter.com/andystrickland/status/1790771550829908074?t=qJ5fi1896EBaK7KwGavYgw&s=19
Click to expand...

Nylander and Marner's primary D opposition via % of 5v5 TOI in the Bruins series:

Nylander:

McAvoy 60%
Lohrei 43.4%
Lindholm 31.1%
Carlo 29.8%

Marner:

McAvoy 50%
Lindholm 41.6%
Carlo 39.8%
Lohrei 24.2%

Marner's 5 most common linemates at 5v5 in the series:

Bertuzzi 46:01
Rielly 41:57
Domi 41:43
Tavares 41:19
McCabe 37:47

Nylander's:

Tavares 47:37
Knies 43:22
Rielly 33:10
Lyubushkin 23:45
McCabe 22:28
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top