GDT: Columbus at Carolina | 9/18 7PM EDT | Preseason Game #4

[blahblah]

I'm not thrilled with the McBackup either, but Bob has earned the opportunity to play 70-75 games and I think he's up to it.

If Bob sucks/is injured, I think it's obvious to everyone that a McElhinney/McKenna tandem isn't going to cut it. The team will cross that bridge if it has to, but we don't know that yet.

Yeah if Bob gets hurt we will be overpaying for spare, sub-par NHL backup or an overpriced, expendable, starter.

Either way, we'll be overpaying.

I'm not thrilled with the plan but it's better than what Howson did. At least one of our guys played well last season at the NHL level.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Yeah if Bob gets hurt we will be overpaying for spare, sub-par NHL backup or an overpriced, expendable, starter.

Either way, we'll be overpaying.

I'm not thrilled with the plan but it's better than what Howson did. At least one of our guys played well last season at the NHL level.

Huh, today I learned that Mathieu Garon and Curtis Sanford were worse options than Jeremy Smith, Mike McKenna, and Curtis McElhinney.

McKenna is 30 years old and has played 17 career NHL games (4 wins). McElhinney is 30 years old and has 69 games (with 19 wins). Jeremy Smith is 24 years old and has 0 games (0 wins, obviously).

Sanford...two years as a rotating starter, with 108 NHL games (37 wins) when he was signed. Curtis Sanford had more NHL games than McKenna, McElhinney, and Smith combined. Mathieu Garon was 30 years old when he was signed, had three years as a starter, and 204 NHL games (94 wins). Garon had more career wins when he was signed than McKenna, McElhinney, and Smith have combined NHL games.

I'm sure you were exaggerating for effect, but c'mon.

 

[FANonymous]

Huh, today I learned that Mathieu Garon and Curtis Sanford were worse options than Jeremy Smith, Mike McKenna, and Curtis McElhinney.

McKenna is 30 years old and has played 17 career NHL games (4 wins). McElhinney is 30 years old and has 69 games (with 19 wins). Jeremy Smith is 24 years old and has 0 games (0 wins, obviously).

Sanford...two years as a rotating starter, with 108 NHL games (37 wins) when he was signed. Curtis Sanford had more NHL games than McKenna, McElhinney, and Smith combined. Mathieu Garon was 30 years old when he was signed, had three years as a starter, and 204 NHL games (94 wins). Garon had more career wins when he was signed than McKenna, McElhinney, and Smith have combined NHL games.

I'm sure you were exaggerating for effect, but c'mon.

What good is having a quality backup when your starter can't stop a beach ball?

 

[Doug19]

Huh, today I learned that Mathieu Garon and Curtis Sanford were worse options than Jeremy Smith, Mike McKenna, and Curtis McElhinney.

McKenna is 30 years old and has played 17 career NHL games (4 wins). McElhinney is 30 years old and has 69 games (with 19 wins). Jeremy Smith is 24 years old and has 0 games (0 wins, obviously).

Sanford...two years as a rotating starter, with 108 NHL games (37 wins) when he was signed. Curtis Sanford had more NHL games than McKenna, McElhinney, and Smith combined. Mathieu Garon was 30 years old when he was signed, had three years as a starter, and 204 NHL games (94 wins). Garon had more career wins when he was signed than McKenna, McElhinney, and Smith have combined NHL games.

I'm sure you were exaggerating for effect, but c'mon.

Considering his point went way over your head on this one, your whole post is rendered useless.

 

[Crede777]

I'm not thrilled with the plan but it's better than what Howson did. At least one of our guys played well last season at the NHL level.

Actually, Howson's goaltending plan in 2011 wasn't THAT different than his plan in 2012.

His plan in 2011 was to acquire a young, low-value goaltender who could push or challenge Mason. Unfortunately, Dekanich suffered injury after injury and really never played.

Then in 2012 his plan was, again, to acquire a young, low-value goaltender who could push or challenge Mason. Yes Bobrovsky did have 2 prior seasons in the NHL and had put up decent numbers, but the value was (again) low and he was still a relatively unknown commodity.

The plan right now is pretty much the same as what Howson did right after Mason won the Calder. Yes, Bob got signed for 2 years as opposed to 3, but the spot is essentially his and the organization is looking for someone to do spot duty, not challenge Bob to be the starter.

 

[NotWendell]

All these stats being thrown around is useless. Would you rather have Steve Mason as our backup? Didn't think so.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Well..

All these stats being thrown around is useless. Would you rather have Steve Mason as our backup? Didn't think so.

and there is that indisputable fact. Like pullin the goalie eh?

 

[Mayor Bee]

What good is having a quality backup when your starter can't stop a beach ball?

Considering his point went way over your head on this one, your whole post is rendered useless.

Okay, let's go back in time.

In 2009, Steve Mason had just turned 21 and was coming off his Calder season. Mathieu Garon, who had started in three of the previous four seasons, was signed to be a backup who could also carry the load if Mason was injured or ineffective. Turns out that he was, and Garon stepped in...well, ably anyway. After two years of Garon, Dekanich and Sanford were signed. One year later, Bobrovsky came in.

So let's see here:
Young goalie has a huge year, without a suitable backup in place. One response was to immediately sign an experienced starter who wouldn't fall apart on the bench if the incumbent starter continued to play well. The other response is to sign no less than three question marks who basically have no NHL experience, which means basically hoping and praying that the incumbent starter continues to excel.

 

[Jyrki]

wouldn't it be crazy if Bryz signed with us to back up bob

 

[FANonymous]

Okay, let's go back in time.

In 2009, Steve Mason had just turned 21 and was coming off his Calder season. Mathieu Garon, who had started in three of the previous four seasons, was signed to be a backup who could also carry the load if Mason was injured or ineffective. Turns out that he was, and Garon stepped in...well, ably anyway. After two years of Garon, Dekanich and Sanford were signed. One year later, Bobrovsky came in.

So let's see here:
Young goalie has a huge year, without a suitable backup in place. One response was to immediately sign an experienced starter who wouldn't fall apart on the bench if the incumbent starter continued to play well. The other response is to sign no less than three question marks who basically have no NHL experience, which means basically hoping and praying that the incumbent starter continues to excel.

And what was the NHL game played sample size for each of those starters?

 

[Nanabijou]

Okay, let's go back in time.

In 2009, Steve Mason had just turned 21 and was coming off his Calder season. Mathieu Garon, who had started in three of the previous four seasons, was signed to be a backup who could also carry the load if Mason was injured or ineffective. Turns out that he was, and Garon stepped in...well, ably anyway. After two years of Garon, Dekanich and Sanford were signed. One year later, Bobrovsky came in.

So let's see here:
Young goalie has a huge year, without a suitable backup in place. One response was to immediately sign an experienced starter who wouldn't fall apart on the bench if the incumbent starter continued to play well. The other response is to sign no less than three question marks who basically have no NHL experience, which means basically hoping and praying that the incumbent starter continues to excel.

I have no idea what you are arguing here. Your rainbow-logic spewer must be broken.

I was, and still am, perfectly happy with Howson's decision to go with Mason after his Calder season as well as sign a perfectly capable veteran goalie as backup (Garon). It makes sense, even though it didn't work out the way we all wanted.

What still pisses me off to this day is that after Mason struggled the following year, Howson goes out signs up to an early extension A YEAR EARLY when Mason was going to be an RFA! Why not wait the year to see which Mason was the real deal? He was an RFA with little leverage, we're not talking about him being able to demand a max contract if he rebounded. The fact that we continued to roll with a mercurial Mason for a further two plus years beyond that mired this franchise in the muck and was probably the top contributing factor that eventually cost Howson his job.

Bobrovsky has earned the right to be a big-time starter and the cash that comes with it. That means the backup had to be cheap - as we don't have a young goalie on an ELC in the system who could step in, getting a cheap alternative like McE is an alright option. It may not be something I'm excited about, but I'm OK with it. I'm more interested what McE did last year than his previous NHL starts, and he performed admirably (yes, I know the AHL is different from the NHL).

The comparison is not between Garon, Sanford and McE. The comparison would be if Bob and McE struggle this year and then next summer JK goes and signs Bob to a two-year extension with a year left on his current contract, with the excuse that he doesn't want his contract year to 'distract' him. The CBJ then try a carousel of backups behind him for 3 years while we pray that Bob's good days will magically return.

 

[Crede777]

The comparison is not between Garon, Sanford and McE. The comparison would be if Bob and McE struggle this year and then next summer JK goes and signs Bob to a two-year extension with a year left on his current contract, with the excuse that he doesn't want his contract year to 'distract' him. The CBJ then try a carousel of backups behind him for 3 years while we pray that Bob's good days will magically return.

True, and I'm not going to argue that sticking with Mason for so long (and re-signing him so early) was a good move.

That said, Howson did have many people in his ear including goaltending coach Ian Clarke saying things like "Mason is one small step from being a great starter," and "I think he's back to his rookie form." Mason was always "just about to take off" and "this is looking like the year!" Those sentiments certainly didn't help the situation.

Finally, look at where Howson's goalie Russian roulette (pun) ended up -- with Bobrovsky. One can argue it finally paid off and did so big time. The problem wasn't necessarily with Mason's ability. Mason can make saves, even big ones, and can certainly post a .900 save percentage, 2.88 GAA which isn't great but isn't beyond horrible. The problem was the team's trust in him. They certainly played differently in front of him than they did in front of guys like Garon, York, Sanford, and Bobrovsky. As soon as the puck went in (whether it was a good goal or a softie), the team hung its head and tapped out. Hindsight is 20/20, but if only Howson had realized the well had been poisoned sooner.