Confirmed with Link: Petr Mrazek re-signed, 2 years 4m/year

[Heaton]

Having almost 10m locked up in goalies in this league is so absurd. It's ridiculous that teams pay goalies 7m+ on their own, let alone 10m across two goalies. It's terrible cap management especially when you can find serviceable goalies fairly easily these days with how the game is being played.

In two years if Mrazek signs a long term deal worth 5.5m+ I won't be thrilled with it. The Wings were in a perfect scenario back in the mid 2000's when they had Osgood on the very cheap and spent it wisely elsewhere. Now our cap is all ****ed up. I can't believe people defend it.

 

[Ezekial]

Having almost 10m locked up in goalies in this league is so absurd. It's ridiculous that teams pay goalies 7m+ on their own, let alone 10m across two goalies. It's terrible cap management especially when you can find serviceable goalies fairly easily these days with how the game is being played.

In two years if Mrazek signs a long term deal worth 5.5m+ I won't be thrilled with it. The Wings were in a perfect scenario back in the mid 2000's when they had Osgood on the very cheap and spent it wisely elsewhere. Now our cap is all ****ed up. I can't believe people defend it.

Look at Bobrovsky and Rinne, and a cheaper but pretty equally horrifying Mike Smith. Yikes.

That's the risk you take though, if he earns a 7 mil contract over these next 2 years I will have no qualms about him getting it.

 

[Heaton]

Look at Bobrovsky and Rinne, and a cheaper but pretty equally horrifying Mike Smith. Yikes.

That's the risk you take though, if he earns a 7 mil contract over these next 2 years I will have no qualms about him getting it.

He'll need to be a Vezina finalist multiple times to earn that, IMO. Rinne and Rask sure as **** aren't worth their contracts.

 

[Ezekial]

He'll need to be a Vezina finalist multiple times to earn that, IMO. Rinne and Rask sure as **** aren't worth their contracts.

It's not to be expected but he's capable of it and if he were to do it I'd be fine with his new contract. Rask is another good example.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

He'll need to be a Vezina finalist multiple times to earn that, IMO. Rinne and Rask sure as **** aren't worth their contracts.

He almost did it this year had he not got injured

All he has to do to win one is play amazing for half a year. And average for the rest

 

[HockeyinHD]

Having almost 10m locked up in goalies in this league is so absurd. It's ridiculous that teams pay goalies 7m+ on their own, let alone 10m across two goalies. It's terrible cap management especially when you can find serviceable goalies fairly easily these days with how the game is being played.

The problem with your position is that it requires you to assume that Holland thought 'Hey, yeah, I could just pay a starter 5+ mil... but I think I'm going to pay my starter 5 mil and another guy 5 mil too! Sweet!'

We know that's not what happened. What actually happened was that Howard got a big money deal after 2 really good years of 3... and then he collapsed. Had Howard continued to play well Holland would not have had to spend money on Mrazek now.

It's not a cap management issue, it's a 'paid a player who collapsed' issue. For example, had Holland allegedly 'managed the cap' better... would that mean he just kept Howard as the starter and traded Mrazek so he wouldn't have to pay two guys? I mean, come on. That'd be stupid.

Beyond that correction I agree with your general strategy re: paying goalies. That being, don't. The overall level of goaltending is so much higher now than it was 15 years ago that competence is almost a given. Even Howard, who is below average in the NHL, is competent... he's just not worth 5+. If he were a 2-2.5 mil a year guy he'd be fine.

Nobody really does this in the NHL, at least not intentionally, but oh well.

In two years if Mrazek signs a long term deal worth 5.5m+ I won't be thrilled with it. The Wings were in a perfect scenario back in the mid 2000's when they had Osgood on the very cheap and spent it wisely elsewhere.

Yes. I remember fans back then being so incredibly pleased with having Osgood 'on the very cheap'. Oh yes, he was positively covered in roses and kisses from the fans here. Carried about on a gilded throne by a phalanx of ecstatic thralls.

Now our cap is all ****ed up. I can't believe people defend it.

Depends on if you only look at one year or if you take a longer view. If all you're looking at is right at this moment... sure. There are some major flaws. When you take a step back and look at how things shake out over the next 2+ years it's really not that bad.

 

[HockeyinHD]

I have no problem with HOPING that the kids do well...or THINKING that the kids might/should/will do well. But that's very different than, "This roster simply has too much talent for any possible scenario to unfold - short of cutting or benching half the roster - that leads to a top 5 pick."

I'd put the likelihood of a top 5 pick right around that of them winning a Cup. Equal ends of the bell curve.

 

[Bench]

Honestly I'm glad it's short. If he plays great the next 2 years it still sting, but we'll see. That's no guarantee behind this roster.

 

[jkutswings]

I'd put the likelihood of a top 5 pick right around that of them winning a Cup. Equal ends of the bell curve.

Not. Even. Close. They'd sooner win the draft lottery than win 16 playoff games with a roster that can't get out of the first round.

And Howard wasn't worth a 5 year deal on the day he signed the contract. All the people I talked sports with, and the topics on sports radio, and the reaction from around the league at the time was that the AAV wasn't too bad - certainly not a discount, but tolerable - but the term was absolutely 1-2 years too long.

Jimmy Howard had the reputation of being good, but not great, and not talented enough to carry an average roster to any great length in the playoffs. That's worthy of a "prove it" deal, not being locked up for 5 years.

There's no need to debate over second guessing, when there was plenty of first guessing on the deal.

 

[KJoe88]

The Rask contract is lolz.

But Rinne is a beast when he's healthy and on his game. He really is a monster in net.

Anyways, for the Mrazek contract, imo it's more of a show-me one. And while I think he can be a vezina caliber goalie, he hasn't proved it yet for a full season.

I so badly want Petr to be truly Gr8.

 

[obey86]

The Rask contract is lolz.

But Rinne is a beast when he's healthy and on his game. He really is a monster in net.

Anyways, for the Mrazek contract, imo it's more of a show-me one. And while I think he can be a vezina caliber goalie, he hasn't proved it yet for a full season.

I so badly want Petr to be truly Gr8.

Rinne is by far the most overrated goalie in the game.

Here are Rinne's last 8 seasons (in order of S% highest to lowest) compared to the last 7 seasons of Jimmy "Garbage" Howard:
.930
.923 .924
.923 .923
.917 .920
.911 .910
.910 .910
.908 .908
.902 .906

Outside of Rinne having one additional elite season (.930, 6 years ago) they are basically identical.

Rinne career = .917%
Howard career = .915%

Rinne postseason = .912%
Howard postseason = .918%


Keep in mind, Rinne has largely played in front of the best defensive corps in the game while Howard has had crap on defense for at least 50% of the years.

One guy is a "beast" and one guy "sucks". Perception is funny sometimes.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Not. Even. Close. They'd sooner win the draft lottery than win 16 playoff games with a roster that can't get out of the first round.

Nah. There's the universe where so many things collapse that the Wings get a top 5 pick, and there's the universe where Mrazek goes white hot and Larkin ascends Mt. Olympus.

Right there, balancing each other on the Scales of Chance. The reason you're so adamant that they don't balance is that you don't think all that much stuff really needs to go wrong. Why you'd think that after seeing the 13-14 season is somewhat mystifying, but there it is.

And Howard wasn't worth a 5 year deal on the day he signed the contract. All the people I talked sports with, and the topics on sports radio, and the reaction from around the league at the time was that the AAV wasn't too bad - certainly not a discount, but tolerable - but the term was absolutely 1-2 years too long.

Sure, but those are just people who don't understand how contracts are handed out. I bet those same people are whining about the length of the deal Nielsen got.

What they don't know now and didn't know then is that 5 and up is how many years guys perceived to be top-ish players get when they are either UFAs or the deal is substantially walking into UFA status. There are perishing few examples of players perceived to be what Howard was perceived to be at the time not getting 5 year deals.

5 years, 6 years... that's pretty much the boilerplate term for starting goalies, top line forwards, top pairing dmen.

Jimmy Howard had the reputation of being good, but not great,

Year 1: 5th in GAA, t-4th in sv%,
Year 2: Bleh.
Year 3: 6th in GAA, t-10 sv%.
Year 4: 8th in GAA, 9th in sv%.

If the game is now 'well, being in the top 10 3 of 4 years only means you're good, not great', no thank you. That's a dumb game.

He put up those numbers behind a team that I would not exactly describe as super-duper, got paid, and immediately collapsed into mediocrity. It happens. It sucks when it happens to you, but it does happen.

There's no need to debate over second guessing, when there was plenty of first guessing on the deal.

Lots of people thought the contract was great, too. There are always opposing opinions on an issue. That an opinion existed does not make it evidence of foresight any more than me yelling 'heads!' and being right demonstrates I am a Seer of Great Repute.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Not. Even. Close. They'd sooner win the draft lottery than win 16 playoff games with a roster that can't get out of the first round.

And Howard wasn't worth a 5 year deal on the day he signed the contract. All the people I talked sports with, and the topics on sports radio, and the reaction from around the league at the time was that the AAV wasn't too bad - certainly not a discount, but tolerable - but the term was absolutely 1-2 years too long.

Jimmy Howard had the reputation of being good, but not great, and not talented enough to carry an average roster to any great length in the playoffs. That's worthy of a "prove it" deal, not being locked up for 5 years.

There's no need to debate over second guessing, when there was plenty of first guessing on the deal.

Yep, term was absolultely awful, particularly with Mrazek looking fantastic at every level and winning a Calder Cup in Grand Rapids. This was clearly a situation where you shouldn't have gone the brain dead route and over-ripened Mrazek.

Nope, gotta lock up Jimmy Howard who has never stolen a playoff series in his career. Anaheim actually outscored us during his signature playoff win in 2013.

 

[mouser]

Hmm, I thought you could waive an "injured" guy as long as they weren't on IR.

Injured players can be waived, but they can't be assigned to the AHL. The ~$900k cap relief only happens if the player is loaned to the AHL.

 

[Winger98]

Yep, term was absolultely awful, particularly with Mrazek looking fantastic at every level and winning a Calder Cup in Grand Rapids. This was clearly a situation where you shouldn't have gone the brain dead route and over-ripened Mrazek.

Nope, gotta lock up Jimmy Howard who has never stolen a playoff series in his career. Anaheim actually outscored us during his signature playoff win in 2013.

locking him up for term at that point was a mistake, but the guy had some very good regular seasons for us. That was essentially a UFA deal, though, and I have a feeling it was either term or cap hit, and Kenny always budges on term. If possible, he should have ate a bigger cap hit to get a shorter term.

If that option was available. It might be that Howard was fine walking without the longterm deal and then Holland's looking at who would be our goalie the next season. The other goalie under contract was Gustavsson and he'd just had an injury plagued year - not someone anyone would have felt comfortable leaning on as a starter, and who should have at least generated worries as a backup to a rookie Mrazek.

It does come back to a question I've asked before, though: when was the last long term deal that didn't bite us in the rear? Has there been any? Unless we're locking up a kid or signing a top tier guy (Stamkos, Suter) then it might just be best to avoid those deals however possible and move on.

 

[Claypool]

Yep, term was absolultely awful, particularly with Mrazek looking fantastic at every level and winning a Calder Cup in Grand Rapids. This was clearly a situation where you shouldn't have gone the brain dead route and over-ripened Mrazek.

Nope, gotta lock up Jimmy Howard who has never stolen a playoff series in his career. Anaheim actually outscored us during his signature playoff win in 2013.

Howard has advanced three times past the first round in his career. Mrazek hasn't won a playoff series yet.

Howard would have been a UFA had he not signed that deal. Three of the past four seasons leading up to that he posted a .920 save percentage or higher. If Howard hadn't hit the injury bug and been healthy the past few seasons we wouldn't care about Mrazek, because when Howard is healthy he's been better and more consistent than Pet right now.

 

[KJoe88]

Rinne is by far the most overrated goalie in the game.

Here are Rinne's last 8 seasons (in order of S% highest to lowest) compared to the last 7 seasons of Jimmy "Garbage" Howard:
.930
.923 .924
.923 .923
.917 .920
.911 .910
.910 .910
.908 .908
.902 .906

Outside of Rinne having one additional elite season (.930, 6 years ago) they are basically identical.

Rinne career = .917%
Howard career = .915%

Rinne postseason = .912%
Howard postseason = .918%


Keep in mind, Rinne has largely played in front of the best defensive corps in the game while Howard has had crap on defense for at least 50% of the years.

One guy is a "beast" and one guy "sucks". Perception is funny sometimes.

TBF I've been one of Howie's biggest supporters. Not sure if the funny perception was directed at me or not.

Either way Rinne is, imo, a very good goalie when he's on. Just like Howard.

 

[jkutswings]

Nah. There's the universe where so many things collapse that the Wings get a top 5 pick, and there's the universe where Mrazek goes white hot and Larkin ascends Mt. Olympus.

Right there, balancing each other on the Scales of Chance. The reason you're so adamant that they don't balance is that you don't think all that much stuff really needs to go wrong. Why you'd think that after seeing the 13-14 season is somewhat mystifying, but there it is.

It's more likely that an inconsistent goalie stays hot for 4 rounds, and a sophomore who was gassed at the end of his rookie year becomes elite? Mmkay... Last I checked, the only reason they even made the playoffs last year was that Boston out-collapsed them.

Sure, but those are just people who don't understand how contracts are handed out. I bet those same people are whining about the length of the deal Nielsen got.

What they don't know now and didn't know then is that 5 and up is how many years guys perceived to be top-ish players get when they are either UFAs or the deal is substantially walking into UFA status. There are perishing few examples of players perceived to be what Howard was perceived to be at the time not getting 5 year deals.

5 years, 6 years... that's pretty much the boilerplate term for starting goalies, top line forwards, top pairing dmen.

Absolutely. And it's also perfectly ok to let a guy walk away if he doesn't make sense financially. I advocated at the time to wave goodbye to Howard, because:
1) I wasn't sold that he'd ever be good enough to win a Cup here, and
2) I liked the upside of Mrazek enough to take a chance on the kid

Year 1: 5th in GAA, t-4th in sv%,
Year 2: Bleh.
Year 3: 6th in GAA, t-10 sv%.
Year 4: 8th in GAA, 9th in sv%.

If the game is now 'well, being in the top 10 3 of 4 years only means you're good, not great', no thank you. That's a dumb game.

Sorry, but that's exactly what it means. If you're 15 out of 30 for starting goaltenders in the NHL, give or take a few, that means you're average. If you're top 10 for 3 out of 4 seasons, but mediocre the other year, that means you're good, not great. Great goaltenders are the best handful in the league, year in and year out, which Howard was not (and certainly is not now).

He put up those numbers behind a team that I would not exactly describe as super-duper, got paid, and immediately collapsed into mediocrity. It happens. It sucks when it happens to you, but it does happen.

Lots of people thought the contract was great, too. There are always opposing opinions on an issue. That an opinion existed does not make it evidence of foresight any more than me yelling 'heads!' and being right demonstrates I am a Seer of Great Repute.

Nobody ever said they knew in advance that Howard would fall apart. But when lots of people had questions about his game, and thought AT THE TIME his deal was too long, that's called making an educated guess and being correct.

Ken Holland and the rest of the front office gets paid handsomely to make educated guesses and be correct...and their degree of correctness has continued to slide for nearly a decade.

 

[obey86]

TBF I've been one of Howie's biggest supporters. Not sure if the funny perception was directed at me or not.

Either way Rinne is, imo, a very good goalie when he's on. Just like Howard.

Na, it wasn't really directed at you. I just went off on a tangent. I just find it funny how the general perception on this message board is that Rinne is great and Howard is garbage. They are basically the same goalie statistically, except Rinne has had a BETTER defense in front of him.



But I think that a key part of being a very good goalie or not is consistency. Neither Rinne or Howard have had that. Every goalie is a good goalie when they are on. But the very good/great goalies are the ones who are on more much more often than not.

 

[Chance on Chance]

I dont think its as much as sv% or GAA with Howard but the timing and type of goals he gives up. He's not a bad goalie by any means

 

[Frk It]

'Consistent goalies' aren't even really a thing. That's why ideally I don't like investing a lot in them, or building around them.

 

[HockeyinHD]

It's more likely that an inconsistent goalie stays hot for 4 rounds, and a sophomore who was gassed at the end of his rookie year becomes elite?

"Right there, balancing each other on the Scales of Chance."

C/c that with "It's more likely that..."

Mmkay... Last I checked, the only reason they even made the playoffs last year was that Boston out-collapsed them.

Made the playoffs /= top 5 pick. Now if we're discussing the odds of missing the playoffs versus some positive outcome on the other end of the scale I would say... winning round 1? Yeah, winning round 1. Enh. Actually, I think there's a slightly greater chance that they'd miss than win a round, but it's pretty close.

And it's also perfectly ok to let a guy walk away if he doesn't make sense financially.

Well, yeah. Of course. The difference here, as always, is that the team wanted and still wants to keep making the playoffs, so the level of risk they are willing to take on will always be less than the level of risk you're willing to accept because you want the team to win Cups. Which given where the team is now would require much more risk.

If you're top 10 for 3 out of 4 seasons, but mediocre the other year, that means you're good, not great.

Like Henrik Lundqvist?

Nobody ever said they knew in advance that Howard would fall apart. But when lots of people had questions about his game, and thought AT THE TIME his deal was too long, that's called making an educated guess and being correct.

Tails!

Ken Holland and the rest of the front office gets paid handsomely to make educated guesses and be correct...and their degree of correctness has continued to slide for nearly a decade.

I used to bat .375 with 40 HRs and 110 RBI. I now only bat .310 with 28 homers and 95 RBIs. I should be waived.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Yep, term was absolultely awful, particularly with Mrazek looking fantastic at every level and winning a Calder Cup in Grand Rapids.

Let me run a scenario by you.

Let's say that after signing his 5 year deal Howard continues to play at his pre-2013 level... meaning he's in the top 10, and typically well inside it, 75% of the time.

Now, let's talk about this young stud goaltender, Petr Mrazek. By 2014 he's up and is really showing something as a backup. By 2015 he's demonstrated he's a near lock for a starting job.

Detroit has an already top 10 goalie under contract for 2-3 more years and a stud young player bucking for a job. Is that a bad situation to have? Are you serious? Detroit can now either move the established Howard for a nice package and slide Mrazek up or they can move Mrazek for an even better package given his RFA status.

This is, as they say, good news.

The problem is, of course, that Howard got his deal and then flopped. The term was not only fine, it was directly in line with what all late RFA/UFA #1's get, all the time.

 

[HockeyinHD]

It does come back to a question I've asked before, though: when was the last long term deal that didn't bite us in the rear?

That's what long-term deals are, though. Value up front, bites in the rear at the end.

Sure, instead of signing Zetterberg to a 47 year deal we could have locked him up to a series of 4 year contracts, but that would have meant paying 1-2 mil a year more in each of those front-end deals. We could have gone 3-4 years on Abdelkader... but instead of a 4.25 hit over the whole term we'd have a 5+ cap hit in the first 4 years.

There are costs and benefits to either strategy, which is why I like to see a team mix in <=4 year deals with longer term deals like Detroit did... offering Green a 3 year, Nyquist 4, Glendening 4 and balancing that with Abdelkader out to 7, Nielsen and DK at 6, and Helm at 5.

 

[Dotter]

Let me run a scenario by you.

Let's say that after signing his 5 year deal Howard continues to play at his pre-2013 level... meaning he's in the top 10, and typically well inside it, 75% of the time.

Now, let's talk about this young stud goaltender, Petr Mrazek. By 2014 he's up and is really showing something as a backup. By 2015 he's demonstrated he's a near lock for a starting job.

Detroit has an already top 10 goalie under contract for 2-3 more years and a stud young player bucking for a job. Is that a bad situation to have? Are you serious? Detroit can now either move the established Howard for a nice package and slide Mrazek up or they can move Mrazek for an even better package given his RFA status.

This is, as they say, good news.

The problem is, of course, that Howard got his deal and then flopped. The term was not only fine, it was directly in line with what all late RFA/UFA #1's get, all the time.

It's about shiny new toys. The "cool fad" on HF boards right now is playing recent drafted kids over vets. It's the new "trend" around here. Give it 4 years, people will be down on Mrazek in favor of the new shiny toy.