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

TML? More like FML, amirite? Yet Another Off Season Thread

MindzEye said:
I wouldn't have played a struggling Fleury for 5 games either. That's the point of having 2 guys who are average or better, if one shits the bed, play the other one. It's way better than riding Jack to an 880 across the final 4 games of the series, or Fleury to similar over the final 3 games of Minnesota's series.
Click to expand...
.914, .886 (OT goal dropped it from .909), and .920 over the final three games.

I agree with pulling him earlier in Game 4, just to get him out of there and get the team to wake up too, but I'd have come right back with him. I just don't believe in the tandem thing. Have we ever even seen it result in a cup? If we have it's because one guy crapped out early and the other guy went the rest of the way, but when was that even the case, Fleury moving aside for Murray? I honestly don't know.

I just buy into the #1 starter philosophy and think it's a fool's errand to get two guys and have them split. Do that and you ALWAYS have $4M-$4.5M sitting at the end of the bench wearing a baseball cap for 82 games plus playoffs. If your starter falters, you're done. No different than if Matthews gets hurt, you're not riding the rest of the team through TB and Colorado, it's just over. Let me have the $4M forward and the $750k backup. It's a better use of the money/cap.
 
As for Reimer, I always liked the guy, and think we fucked him by bringing in that shitstain Bernier. But Toronto has a way of breaking some players, especially goalies, and I don't think I'd bank on Reimer not getting mentally smashed as soon as he ran into some trouble here. The ghosts of that Game 7 probably still haunt him to this day. Last thing I want is turning to him if we needed to in an elimination game.

Also, bringing in Reimer to compete with Jack for time will fuck with Jack's head just like Bernier did with Reimer's. Just not a fan of the 1a 1b and don't think I ever will be.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
As for Reimer, I always liked the guy, and think we fucked him by bringing in that shitstain Bernier. But Toronto has a way of breaking some players, especially goalies, and I don't think I'd bank on Reimer not getting mentally smashed as soon as he ran into some trouble here. The ghosts of that Game 7 probably still haunt him to this day. Last thing I want is turning to him if we needed to in an elimination game.

Also, bringing in Reimer to compete with Jack for time will fuck with Jack's head just like Bernier did with Reimer's. Just not a fan of the 1a 1b and don't think I ever will be.
Click to expand...
There is alot of nonsense speculation disguised as confident fact to unpack here.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I just buy into the #1 starter philosophy and think it's a fool's errand to get two guys and have them split. Do that and you ALWAYS have $4M-$4.5M sitting at the end of the bench wearing a baseball cap for 82 games plus playoffs. If your starter falters, you're done.
Click to expand...

Then the only rational course of action is to literally pay any price necessary to get a top starter. A true starter. If your entire philosophy accepts that you require your starter to play well in the playoffs for you to have any chance, betting your season on the Jack Campbell's of the world is the height of insanity.
 
MindzEye said:
Then the only rational course of action is to literally pay any price necessary to get a top starter. A true starter. If your entire philosophy accepts that you require your starter to play well in the playoffs for you to have any chance, betting your season on the Jack Campbell's of the world is the height of insanity.
Click to expand...
The problem is LOF thinks Campbell IS s true starter. Which is absurd for health and performance reasons.
 
MindzEye said:
Again though, arbitrarily deciding which games/situations are important and which aren't in a 7 game playoff series is kind of bullshit. It's all important.
Click to expand...
I'm not deciding anything, I was just speaking to your comment about "riding his .880". Again, sounds a lot worse than it really was.

Game 4 was obviously a disaster. But the last three games of the series, Jack was clearly good enough to win. He went blow for blow with Vasy, beat him once, lost in OT under bullshit circumstances, and then put up a .920 with the forwards falling on their faces as they love to do in Game 7s.

There's riding an .880 over four games, and there's playing the last three games where you were one bullshit goal away from (A) winning the series outright, and (B) posting a .914+ in every game. It's a matter of spin at this point.
 
MindzEye said:
Then the only rational course of action is to literally pay any price necessary to get a top starter. A true starter. If your entire philosophy accepts that you require your starter to play well in the playoffs for you to have any chance, betting your season on the Jack Campbell's of the world is the height of insanity.
Click to expand...
If you live in a cap-free world, where you can just sign the best goalie and pay him whatever, that's a good plan.

If you live in this world, where there is no legit #1 to get, where there are only a handful of them in the league to begin with, then you start having to work with what you've got available to you and the realities in play. We've got no Shersty in the wings, no Vasy on the team, and no opportunity to bring either type in. At that point, Jack is as good as anyone else in the pack.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
First part correct, second part incorrect.

He is a true starter. By every definition. He's not Vasy level, but neither are 30 other starters.
Click to expand...
Nope.

There are probably like 5 true starters in the NHL which is why so many teams use the 1A and 1B approach which you fundamentally do not understand.

Getting a Mrazek was a good idea that was poorly executed. Even if you believe Jack has the talent to be included in that group of 5 or so ( he doesn't) he certainly isn't durable enough. For fuck sakes you are legit worried that adding James Reimer might affect his feelings enough to not play well.
 
MyNameIsJonas said:
Nope.

There are probably like 5 true starters in the NHL which is why so many teams use the 1A and 1B approach which you fundamentally do not understand.

Getting a Mrazek was a good idea that was poorly executed. Even if you believe Jack has the talent to be included in that group of 5 or so ( he doesn't) he certainly isn't durable enough. For fuck sakes you are legit worried that adding James Reimer might affect his feelings enough to not play well.
Click to expand...
I think that about any goalie, not just Jack. I don't like the idea of adding a competitor for the goalie, just a backup. That's why I hated the Bernier add at the time. Hated that they tried to get Kiprusoff before that at the deadline. Goalie is the most mentally fragile position. I want to cover them with a nice warm blanket.

And no, there are only a handful of elite starters. The rest are still starters.
 
I mean, you do realize that in what was considered an up and down year for him, Jack went 31-9 with a .914, right?

And 17-3 with a .921 last year, right? Not to mention a .934 in the playoffs.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I think that about any goalie, not just Jack. I don't like the idea of adding a competitor for the goalie, just a backup. That's why I hated the Bernier add at the time. Hated that they tried to get Kiprusoff before that at the deadline. Goalie is the most mentally fragile position. I want to cover them with a nice warm blanket.

And no, there are only a handful of elite starters. The rest are still starters.
Click to expand...
If there was a graph to indicate confidence and wrong on either axis, you would be in the out of this world stratosphere top righthand corner
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I mean, you do realize that in what was considered an up and down year for him, Jack went 31-9 with a .914, right?

And 17-3 with a .921 last year, right? Not to mention a .934 in the playoffs.
Click to expand...
Wasnt he more or less hurt or unplayable in December/January?

Yeah, he's a 1A, and might be paid like an actual starter.

Needs a friend.

And he let up very shit goals in game 6 and 7
 
You're the one who needs a friend, and I'd suggest the Chicago board is the place to find him.

Jack is a starter, he's done a good job for us, and we should use his injuries and inconsistency this year to sign him up on a nice deal. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top