Dojji

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.

He paid Manny Fernandez.

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.

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.

Because payroll flexibility is more important than stability between the pipes. Got it.

Neither are you. everything we hear is speculation up until the cap is actually set. everyone thought the cap was going down THIS year too, it's just something we hear that gets leaked out regularly by the owners to scare players into taking smaller contracts. I highly doubt the players union is ever going to permit the cap to ACTUALLY go down significantly. Personally I think the whole cap structure is doomed anyway, too many important franchises to the NHL have already been screwed over by it.

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, and by the time we're ready to move him there'll only be a year or two left on the deal.

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.

Quite a bit, but not all. We've had enough goaltenders who simply couldn't do the job that we should appreciate the guys that do. You could also ask whether Thomas in net helped the defense, too, allowing them to play more within themselves and trust that most of what gets past them will be stopped. You don't win a Vezina without more than enough talent of your own, regardless of what the defense does. Even if I give you this, which is probably the case, there's nothing sacred about Rask's ankle, and we have no depth at goaltender. One more reason to keep TT around. if it can be avoided with a little planning I'd like to not have our season imperiled by one lone injury. That's because you're a spoiled, spoiled fan. The devil are you talking about? I'm not even sure which particular brand of lunacy this is so I can't respond to it properly. So the 5 NHL games he's played count as convincing evidence of this to you? Remember, Price had much more than that, and so did Toivonen and Raycroft. I refer you to the lesson a couple posts back. A stud goaltending prospect and a stud goaltender are not the same thing. We're in the running for a cup for at least next year and probably the year after. We'd be insane to pin our cup hopes on an unproven rookie when we have a reasonable alternative. Cap space I could buy as an argument, except the Bruins so far have had little trouble getting the players they want. I doubt they'd have much trouble making room for Kessel once his price comes down far enough to suit them either. The problem here is that if you get really optimistic here and you make Rask the starter and he dominates, he also reaches his bonus incentives so you're really only saving about 1.6M or so of cap hit. that's not enough to be worth taking the risk on the single most important position in hockey. As for development, this is actually developmentally ideal for a young goaltender. Takes all the pressure off him, and when Thomas goes he'll be what, 26? I'm not convinced playing second fiddle to guy who's learned some lessons Rask could stand to benefit from is anything but a very, very good thing for his development. And besides, you know Thomas' usage patterns as well as I do. Rask will be getting about one start in 3

Not too bloody great, Duchy. Not too bloody great. We're lucky as heck that Tim Thomas decided to be aonce-a-generation story on this team and that he got the chance to do it -- remember at the stard of the 2006 season everyone was presuming Toivonen's career in Boston would stretch well into the next decade. And in fact, it's only AFTER he wins the Vezina that he'll start his first year secure in his position as the starting goaltender. Thomas had every excuse to fail, except he didn't, and a good thing for Boston -- If he hadn't become the dominator between the pipes he is today, we don't make the playoffs in 07 and we suire as heck aren't the first seed last year. Rask won't suffer from a few years behind the big guy picking up the lessons Thomas had to work to earn that will come far more naturally to the Finn. I'm no judge of hockey talent, but it seems to me that having an amazing worker like Thomas mentoring an amazing talent like Rask can only be a good thing for Rask's development.

Point is we've had enough trouble finding a decent goaltender that once we have one dropped in our laps by little more than dumb luck, no one should be in too much of a hurry to throw ourselves back into the lap of chance.

I liked JVE. He should have had a legit shot as someone's 4th OF by now. Has all the tools to really be useful, just never got a real chance. I guess with Bubba Bell in Pawtucket though we really didn't need him anymore. He's pretty much the same guy just younger. And someone had to go when it came time to take Lowrie off the 60-day DL. I guess JVE was nominated. He should catch on somewhere. We might even see him in the majors if he joins a team with a weak outfield.

Indeed, and I'd like to think we've learned our lesson from Raycroft and Toivonen. To recap that lesson: a stud goaltender and a stud goaltending prospect are not the same thing See: Price, Carey.

SAFE!!!

A cup.

Think that was gone? i dunno, kinda close on that.

Why would you call up a LF/DH to play 1B?

I find it funny anyone has a problem with it.

... with both hands.

J. D. Martin, P, minors.

Quick! Check the bathroom stalls! He might be stuck in one!

Well, Francona's on field finesse has never been held in high regard. It's an easy criticism to make so you might as well rebut it out of hand.

Some people are crazy. The game rarely swings on managerial moves as long as you have a talented team, and we do. Building a good clubhouse environment and doing a good job taking care of your players, getting them fired up and confident, these things probably add more wins than who you bring in out of the pen (especially this pen where everyone's a weapon) or who you pinch hit with.

He may not be the greatest tactician, but he's a very good man, and sometimes that matters even more.