Bruins Off-Season Thread

[BoSox21]

Do you think Rask will learn more about facing NHL players by playing 60 games a year or by playing 5-10 games a year until he's 26? And then there's the fact that I don't think neither he nor his agent will tolerate sitting around for the next four years

[Dojji]

If youi think Rask is only going to play 5 games a year then you're blind, deaf, and very dumb. haven't you been following this team throughout the Thomas era? Timmy's good for 50-55 games a season, much more than that and you start running into performance issues. the balance of those games, about 27-32 of them, will be played by the backup.

 

He's been good these last couple years because we had guys behind him who allowed him to rest regularly. that equation doesn't change with Rask -- quite the reverse, I imagine. Tuuka could play as many as 30 games in the first year and go up from there if he earns it. But if Rask spits the bit, Thomas is there and we can ride him until we find a tandem partner for him. if we just throw Rask in there and he spits the bit, we're screwed.

[TheKilo]

So finishing first in a season when everyone pegged them to finish 4th or lower, and sweeping the Habs in their centennial year, these mean nothing?

 

Spoiled.

 

WTF does sweeping the Habs have to do with anything? They SHOULD have beaten them, they were a much better team.

 

This isn't the Sox losing to the Rays last season, where you take a superior team to the limit. The Bruins played like garbage in Game 2-4 and 7 and lost to a clearly inferior team on home ice.

 

How anyone could say that's anything but abject failure is beyond me.

 

Prospects are never a sure thing but the chances of Rask taking the puck and running with it are probably greater than the chances of Thomas being effective and living up to his salary for the next four years.

 

Bingo.

 

 

You're speaking the obvious when you say you need to be 'above-average in all facets of the game'' date=' that's a pretty basic point if you want to contend. But you are more likely to succeed with better goaltending and defense than a stellar offense, though it helps. [/quote']

 

My point is you don't need to give TT $5 million AAV over the next four years to get above average goaltending.

 

What about a platoon with a guy like Dwayne Roloson and Tuukka? Ty Conklin? These guys on short money would allow Tuukka to grow into the starter's position over the next few years - now we're running the risk of stunting Tuukka's development.

 

If I was Rask's agent I'd be demanding a trade.

 

Fleury, while I understand is overrated, is still a very very good goalie, and is only going to improve at his age. And if you're suggesting getting the two best superstars on the planet instead of a great goaltender is a better cup formula all teams should follow, then yes I agree, but something tells me that's not easy to come by.

 

I'm not saying that at all - the Penguins didn't build from the net out, though, which was my overall point.

 

Ward I like even better, and you can't credit that to their style of play, because they're not that great defensively to begin with. He stole a few games in the Bs series, Devils series and already stood on his head during their Cup winning run, not to mention I'm just a sucker for his smooth style of play.

 

Cam Ward finished 7th in Vezina Trophy voting this season. He didn't finish in the top 10 last season.

 

I think he's a touch overrated from his Cup run, same as Giggy.

 

Okay, so that's two goalies on the list of seven that I named, and I take that since you didn't critique the rest of them, you don't exactly mind them. There's a reason you hear of a goalie stealing a series, and not just one player. The Goaltender position is the most important in hockey, so don't you think you should have your best player at that position?

 

Just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean anything. Brodeur, Roy, and Hasek are all-time greats (it's pretty clear TT isn't in that group).

 

Giguere is overrated based off the Duck's Cup run. Khabibulin is OK but like Thomas is getting up there in age (and he just signed a 4/15 deal with the Oilers). 4/15 is a big difference than 4/20 especially when you have a ring.

 

I do understand what you're saying, it is a handcuffing contract, especially since the cap hit stays no matter if we buy him out. But who's to say we don't trade him after 2 years or even after this year and let Rask take over? I think that's the only way this deal makes sense, unless we don't think Rask can cut it, because we can't expect him to sit and play backup for 4 years.

 

First off, I think TT will have next to little trade value because his flopping style of goaltending will not age well.

 

Second, if trading Thomas in year 2 is the only way the deal makes sense, how can you defend the deal?

 

This is similar to the CC Sabathia contract last season where the BCS for the Yankees is he pitches well for three years, then opts out for more money. Of course the key difference between the two is there's no salary cap in the NHL.

 

It is a handucffing deal now and has the potential to be absolutely crippling.

 

Bottom line is one of them has to go within the next two years, and my money's on Thomas. But for now, we have once again one of the best tandems in hockey. Because Thomas is an elite NHL goaltender, you can say maybe in 4 years he won't be, but you cannot deny that about this year, and especially last year.

 

I really very strongly disagree. Elite goaltenders don't let in goals TT did in Game 7s.

 

Tim Thomas is a good goaltender who had a very good season but hasn't done a thing to justify a 4/20 contract.

 

I don't think that contract will be difficult to move when Rask is more definitely ready. It's roughly market value for an above average goaltender' date=' and by the time we're ready to move him there'll only be a year or two left on the deal.[/quote']

 

That's of course assuming TT will be an above average goaltender in two years.

 

Goalies in their mid-30s don't age well if your last name isn't Hasek, Roy, or Brodeur. And even Marty started showing some chinks in the armor last season.

[Cityofchampions33]

Do you think Rask will learn more about facing NHL players by playing 60 games a year or by playing 5-10 games a year until he's 26? And then there's the fact that I don't think neither he nor his agent will tolerate sitting around for the next four years

 

He won't be Thomas' backup for 4 years, he either starts within the next 2 or he's gone.

[TheKilo]

I've read conflicting reports regarding a buyout option in Thomas' contract.

 

Apparently the B's can buy him out at any time and cut their $ commitment by one-third, spreading those payments over the remainign term of the deal.

 

One report I read indicated that the cap hit would be reduced if the buyout happens. However a more recent article I read indicates Thomas contract is considered a 35+ contract and that the B's are saddled with his cap hit even if Thomas retires or is bought out.

 

If there is a significant potential cap savings by way of buyout (which was my initial understanding) I like the deal. If not? Very questionable.

 

The brief article that concerns me:

http://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2009/4/5/824026/tim-thomas-new-deal-will-be

 

I think it was discovered that his deal would indeed be a 35+ contract.

[TheKilo]

How exactly does sharing time with Thomas stifle Rask's development? I see this line thrown out by a lot of people who hate the contract but everyone who does, throws that out as if it's a given. I mean, does anyone here REALLY think that they signed Thomas with no regard for Rask's development? Really?

 

Rask is not a typical backup who might play once a week. He'll get into the lineup on a pretty regular basis as long as he's performing reasonably well, and instead of slowing down and getting hurt more often, I'm pretty sure this team just plans to rest Thomas more and let Rask play more as the contract goes on. It'll probably play out that rask gets playing time as he earns it.

 

Jeremy Jacobs is going to pay TT $5m AAV to be a platoon goaltender.

 

lulz

[BoSox21]

If youi think Rask is only going to play 5 games a year then you're blind' date=' deaf, and very dumb. haven't you been following this team throughout the Thomas era? Timmy's good for 50-55 games a season, much more than that and you start running into performance issues. the balance of those games, about 27-32 of them, will be played by the backup.[/quote']

 

guess what, Imgran? they aren't paying 5 mil for a guy who's gonna platoon

 

He won't be Thomas' backup for 4 years' date=' he either starts within the next 2 or he's gone.[/quote']

 

They aren't gonna pay Thomas 5 mil to sit on the bench and no team is gonna deal for a 38 year old goalie making 5 mil. And Rask won't stand for sitting on the bench for 4 years. There's your conundrum.

[TheKilo]

If youi think Rask is only going to play 5 games a year then you're blind, deaf, and very dumb. haven't you been following this team throughout the Thomas era? Timmy's good for 50-55 games a season, much more than that and you start running into performance issues. the balance of those games, about 27-32 of them, will be played by the backup.

 

He's been good these last couple years because we had guys behind him who allowed him to rest regularly. that equation doesn't change with Rask -- quite the reverse, I imagine. Tuuka could play as many as 30 games in the first year and go up from there if he earns it. But if Rask spits the bit, Thomas is there and we can ride him until we find a tandem partner for him. if we just throw Rask in there and he spits the bit, we're screwed.

 

So what happens if TT spits the bit over the next few years as a late 30s goaltender with a $5m AAV cap hit?

[Dojji]

He paid Manny Fernandez.

[TheKilo]

Manny Fernandez got hurt, there's an incredible difference there.

[Dojji]

So what happens if TT spits the bit over the next few years as a late 30s goaltender with a $5m AAV cap hit?

 

Then we have Rask, and Thomas almost certainly clears waivers and heads to Providence. that's what redundancy means. It means you have a Plan B. Unlike, say, letting your Vezina winner walk and throwing the dice with a rookie.

[BoSox21]

He paid Manny Fernandez.

 

well there's your justification right there...

[TheKilo]

Then we have Rask' date=' and Thomas almost certainly clears waivers and heads to Providence. that's what redundancy means. It means you have a Plan B. Unlike, say, letting your Vezina winner walk and throwing the dice with a rookie.[/quote']

 

lol paying $5m for a minor league goaltender

 

Faaaaaantastic.

 

And signing a Roloson or a Conklin for short money means we wouldn't be "rolling the dice" with Rask next season.

[Dojji]

Manny Fernandez got hurt' date=' there's an incredible difference there.[/quote']

 

Manny Fernandez was a $4M platoon goaltender who we knew would likely be a platoon goaltender when we got him. Or at least I did. I mean heck, when we got him he'd recently recovered from an injury that allowed Backstrom to get playing time and break through to the bigs, that's why he was available..

[Dojji]

lol paying $5m for a minor league goaltender

 

Faaaaaantastic.

 

And signing a Roloson or a Conklin for short money means we wouldn't be "rolling the dice" with Rask next season.

 

You really think if Rask can't hack it that we can have Roloson starting every day. OK. Not much I can do to argue with that level of delusion.

[BoSox21]

Then we have Rask' date=' and Thomas almost certainly clears waivers and heads to Providence. that's what redundancy means. It means you have a Plan B. Unlike, say, letting your Vezina winner walk and throwing the dice with a rookie.[/quote']

 

Thomas wouldn't clear waivers, there are several teams out there who would take Thomas at 2.5 mil

 

And I still don't get why you can't understand that Thomas living up to the value of the contract for the next four years isn't a roll of the dice as well

[BoSox21]

Manny Fernandez was a $4M platoon goaltender who we knew would likely be a platoon goaltender when we got him. Or at least I did. I mean heck' date=' when we got him he'd recently recovered from an injury that allowed Backstrom to get playing time and break through to the bigs, that's why he was available..[/quote']

 

They signed Fernandez cause they didn't think Thomas was the real deal. Teams don't throw 4 mil at platoon goaltenders.

[TheKilo]

Manny Fernandez was a $4M platoon goaltender who we knew would likely be a platoon goaltender when we got him. Or at least I did. I mean heck' date=' when we got him he'd recently recovered from an injury that allowed Backstrom to get playing time and break through to the bigs, that's why he was available..[/quote']

 

When Manny Fernandez signed here it was the intention of this team to make him the starting goaltender.

 

It doesn't matter what you thought. It matters what the Bruins FO thought. There might have been a reason they brought him in even though TT played most of the 2006-2007 season, no?

[Dojji]

well there's your justification right there...

 

hey, he proposed the scenario, called it ridiculous, right in the face of it actually having happened THIS YEAR. Go ahead and laugh, it suits the shade of stupid this thread is sliding into.

[BoSox21]

It doesn't matter what you thought. It matters what the Bruins FO thought. There might have been a reason they brought him in even though TT played most of the 2006-2007 season, no?

 

yea, cause Thomas had a mediocre 3.13 GAA and .905 save% in 06-07

[Dojji]

When Manny Fernandez signed here it was the intention of this team to make him the starting goaltender.

 

It doesn't matter what you thought. It matters what the Bruins FO thought. There might have been a reason they brought him in even though TT played most of the 2006-2007 season, no?

 

If they weren't aware of Manny's fragility they only have themselves to blame. It was there, and obviously so, when they acquired him. I mean heck, that offseason wasn't he recovering from something knee related?

 

And Manny did not sign here. He was traded for with the Minnesota Wild. IIRC it was Peter Kalus going the other way, not exactly a star acquisition or anyone who became anything with Minnesota.

[Dojji]

yea' date=' cause Thomas had a mediocre 3.13 GAA and .905 save% in 06-07[/quote']

 

Why is this relevant now? That was basically TT's rookie year and we learned that year that he needs regular rest, not surprising to put 2 and 2 together and realize a second quality goaltender was in order..

[TheKilo]

You really think if Rask can't hack it that we can have Roloson starting every day. OK. Not much I can do to argue with that level of delusion.

 

Holy crap it's like arguing with a three year old, I can see why they banned you at SoSH.

 

This is the same Dwayne Roloson that put up a .915 SPCT with a terrible Oilers defense in front of him last year.

 

Alex Auld put up a similar SPCT in Julien's system last year.

 

You're telling me that if we didn't sign Thomas and Rask didn't live up to the hype we would have been screwed?

 

Any system that makes Alex Auld look like a competent goaltender has to be pretty damn good defensively.

 

Roloson just signed a 2/5 contract with the Islanders. I think he could have been counted on to put up OK numbers for 40 games next season.

 

Conklin signed a deal for 2 yrs at 1.3 AAV!

[TheKilo]

If they weren't aware of Manny's fragility they only have themselves to blame. It was there, and obviously so, when they acquired him. I mean heck, that offseason wasn't he recovering from something knee related?

 

And Manny did not sign here. He was traded for with the Minnesota Wild. IIRC it was Peter Kalus going the other way, not exactly a star acquisition or anyone who became anything with Minnesota.

 

I didn't say sign, I said brought in. Learn to read plz

[BoSox21]

Scott Clemmensen and Craig Anderson each signed for 2 years for around a million each per year I believe. There was plenty of competent goaltending out there for reasonable years and money.

[BoSox21]

Why is this relevant now? That was basically TT's rookie year and we learned that year that he needs regular rest' date=' not surprising to put 2 and 2 together and realize a second quality goaltender was in order..[/quote']

 

I was making it clear as to the reason they decided to bring in Manny Fernandez

[Dojji]

Roloson is 40 years old. I thought 40 year old goaltenders couldn't be counted on, got hurt, etc.

 

it'd be easier to have a reasonable discussion if your arguments were actually internally consistent.

[Dojji]

I didn't say sign' date=' I said brought in. Learn to read plz[/quote']

 

When Manny Fernandez signed here it was the intention of this team to make him the starting goaltender.

 

Holy crap, Kilo. Maybe you need to take a break.

[BoSox21]

Roloson is 40 years old. I thought 40 year old goaltenders couldn't be counted on' date=' got hurt, etc.[/quote']

 

2 years @ 2.5 mil per for a platoon goalie vs. 4 years @ 5 mil per for a starting goalie

 

seriously...up your game a bit

[Dojji]

I was making it clear as to the reason they decided to bring in Manny Fernandez

 

And the reason they kept him when Thomas was putting up a .927 SV% the next season was...

 

BTW, and just for the record, Thomas' career stats in playoff games (SSS of course)

 

2.16 GAA, .926 SV%

 

Even without that he's got a career .918 SV% and has gotten better every year. You gonna find that in the bargain bin?