leafman101
Well-known member
Honestly, the safest bet is just to completely ignore last year bc of sample size (See: Mrazek).
Same mistake.
Leafs acquire Matt Murray
- Thread starter LeafGm
- Start date
Honestly, the safest bet is just to completely ignore last year bc of sample size (See: Mrazek).
Same mistake.
Preston
MBow30 alt account
Even if you go back to his October games, that's .920 hockey over 18 games. Yes it's just 18 games but he hasn't done that over 18 games since his last elite season in 2018-2019. I will never knock Dubas identifying him as a potential bounce-back candidate. But he was always supposed to be a cheap value attempt. This isn't that.
Preston
MBow30 alt account
Yeah just saying there's enough there to identify him as a guy who could bounce back. But you don't pay him Mrazek or Mrazek+ money. That was never part of my thesis.
hockeylover
Well-known member
Oof. If Mrazek has a better season than Murray next year, I'm gonna cry myself to sleep for the next few years.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
But, on the one hand, the cost is relative to what the going rate is out there. It cost us nothing to get him, plus we got a couple of assets out of the exchange. And if FMV for a UFA goalie is going to be minimum 5x5, then the "cost" of Murray for 2 years is way more palatable. We can piss on his achievements, but the guy DID win two cups. He was good for a good team until he got hurt. He was bad for a bad team but was also hurt. And then was very good for a bad team until he got hurt last year. There's a lot of shitty circumstance and risk associated with this move, but if he's indeed fully healthy, he's going to have the best team he's ever played on in front of him, or at least up there with the Pens teams. He's poised to have a big year if he's just even a .910-.915 goalie consistently through the playoffs.
On the other hand, in terms of "cost", yes, everyone agrees Ottawa was in a bad position and should've retained 50%. I'm not quite sure why Dubie jumped the gun there and even not just wait until the last few minutes of the buyout period to pull the trigger. Just go dark and see what they do. I mean, I pull that on almost every negotiation I do where the other side is standing firm on something I think they'll cave on. I'd like that extra $1.5m to play with, and agree we should have it, but I'm not losing sleep over it either. If we want to create cap space, we're in such a good position in having several young guys ready to step up and take jobs for $1.5M or less, and make guys like Muzz, Kerf, and Holl expendable.
Cap space is only as good as what you can get to fill it. Forsberg is gone, a few others have resigned. So, there needs to be a UFA or trade target out there that we can get where having the $1.5M would make a difference. If there isn't, no big deal. The beauty of this gamble is that it's just two years. By year 3 and 4 of Jack in Edmonton, is he even playable? Who knows.
LeafGm
Well-known member
It’d be a lot easier to talk ourselves into believing glasses knows what he’s doing if he hadn’t just signed Mrazek last summer, or if he’d acquired Murray in a halfway intelligent way (50%+ retention and/or better asset return).
Artnes
Well-known member
We have watched this episode too many times for it not to happen
uncus
Well-known member
You know it would be so leaflike that in 4 years we are looking at Murray as being one of the greatest leaf goalies of all time.
We could be talking about Marner and Matthews with the likes of Hull and Oats, Gretzky and whoever, etc etc.
Who knows if Murray can be pulled off the heap like Eddie belfore was by Quinn and company? Remember how bad before had been and it was viewed that he was getting old lol.
It would be so leaflike to look back in three years after the leafs have finished their 3 peat and Murray as the mvp again lol.
We could be talking about Marner and Matthews with the likes of Hull and Oats, Gretzky and whoever, etc etc.
Who knows if Murray can be pulled off the heap like Eddie belfore was by Quinn and company? Remember how bad before had been and it was viewed that he was getting old lol.
It would be so leaflike to look back in three years after the leafs have finished their 3 peat and Murray as the mvp again lol.
Artnes
Well-known member
#firecharron
WellPlayed
Well-known member
$1.5m is always valuable to a contending team. Always. These overpays that you consider no big deal add up and come with an opportunity cost.
Wayward DP
Well-known member
most recent 18 AND ignoring 10% of the most recent season including the most recent 2.
and sure a bounce back may happen. I don't want to bet $4.7 m annually on it though.
Wayward DP
Well-known member
yeah this moves just kinda reeks of either desperation or dumbassery. either way, not a great look.
Preston
MBow30 alt account
Correct. I'm presuming that the rumors of him playing extremely hurt in the most recent 2 are correct. I believe he shut it down for the year right after so that's not a crazy thought.
If I'm Dubas he's a guy I identify as a target. He got the cost horrendously wrong though. He was in a position of strength and botched it brutally. We're on the same page with that.
Preston
MBow30 alt account
I will say though, that if he sat out those last two games and shut it down earlier, maybe some nerves would be calmed. Not mine, personally. Small 18 game samples don't often have great predictability, but .920 sure looks a lot sexier than .906. The narrative of him bouncing back would be stronger and feel more realistic and health would be the main question mark.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
As long as you have good players up and down the lineup, you can always find a way to make something work.
You want to add a guy for $1.5M and don't have the space? Give a 5th to the team and get them to retain 50%. Still need another $750k because you're fully capped out? Waive a fourth liner and replace him with a kid. Move Holl, lift everyone up a slot, and have some other guy as your 7th D.
Better to have lots of space to work with, sure. Moving Muzz and reallocating those dollars is the way to go. But even if they don't do that, they have lots of players they could move at any moment to make a move that improves us.
WellPlayed
Well-known member
And just to put my official position the record, I don't even hate gambling on Murray....with more retention and another solid 1a/b option with some upside. That's not an awful plan.
But this deal and a $4.7m cap hit is just brutal. Ottawa had zero leverage, and there's lots of other high risk options on market.
But this deal and a $4.7m cap hit is just brutal. Ottawa had zero leverage, and there's lots of other high risk options on market.
leafman101
Well-known member
Last 2 years (Min 1500 FA)
sv%: .901 (45th out of 52)
GSAx: -11.44 (38th)
5v5 sv%: .910 (37th)
5v5 GSAx: -9.05 (32nd)
pk sv%: .873 (27th)
pk GSAx: 0.41 (29th)
Last 3 years (Min 2000 FA)
sv%: .900 (54th out of 62)
GSAx: -25.42 (55th)
5v5 sv%: .908 (46th)
5v5 GSAx: -23.82 (45th)
pk sv%: .879 (16th)
pk GSAx: 3.58 (19th)
Last 4 years (Min 2500 FA)
sv%: .904 (44th out of 63)
GSAx: -25.5 (50th)
5v5 sv%: .917 (35th)
5v5 GSAx: -13.87 (41st)
pk sv%: .867 (36th)
pk GSAx: -2.86 (37th)
Literally makes no sense. Silver lining is Dubas drove down the cost of eating bad contracts.
sv%: .901 (45th out of 52)
GSAx: -11.44 (38th)
5v5 sv%: .910 (37th)
5v5 GSAx: -9.05 (32nd)
pk sv%: .873 (27th)
pk GSAx: 0.41 (29th)
Last 3 years (Min 2000 FA)
sv%: .900 (54th out of 62)
GSAx: -25.42 (55th)
5v5 sv%: .908 (46th)
5v5 GSAx: -23.82 (45th)
pk sv%: .879 (16th)
pk GSAx: 3.58 (19th)
Last 4 years (Min 2500 FA)
sv%: .904 (44th out of 63)
GSAx: -25.5 (50th)
5v5 sv%: .917 (35th)
5v5 GSAx: -13.87 (41st)
pk sv%: .867 (36th)
pk GSAx: -2.86 (37th)
Literally makes no sense. Silver lining is Dubas drove down the cost of eating bad contracts.