Confirmed with Link: [TOR] Frederik Andersen - 5 Year Extension [25 Million - AAV: 5M]

[Bluelines]

If you think there is anything about discussing hockey on an internet forum with you, or anyone else that would elicit anything resembling a fear response of any description, you are overvaluing the weight of your argument immeasurably.

There is nothing you can table or re-contextualize which refutes history, being, that no goalie with a similar body of work to Andersen, of a similar age and experience level, has EVER succeeded in Toronto.

If you want to believe that this time, it will be different, have at it. Everyone else, save for a very small handful of veteran goalies have capitulated because Toronto is a goalie graveyard.

I get tat we all want to believe in the shiny new toy, and that all is finally as it should be. I get that anyone not slugging back the Koolaid is a buzz-kill. I get that if you want a young, skilled goalie with upside, Andersen is the pick of the litter.

What I don't get is how everyone is already convinced it was the best move the Leafs could make, when they really don't even have their house in order.. They're getting close, but they aren't there, and if Andersen misses a step, he will follow in the tracks of every anointed Leaf saviour to be eaten alive by fair-weather fans and cut-throat media that came before him.

Toronto runs "heroes" out of town for sport. Had Tukka Rask or Tyler Sequin or Dougie Hamilton become Maple Leafs, they'd have been cursed and criticized like everyone else expected to lead the Leafs to glory, who ultimately failed. Im talking about the Luke Schenns, Versteegs, Kessels, Gustavssons, Berniers, Phaneufs, Reimers Toskalas, etc. All expected to be saviours. Next: young Freddy Andersen. Hope he has better luck.

It's funny that Leaf fans toggle between faulting players, coaches and management for this team's failures while refusing to admit that the environment itself is absolutely caustic if you're not winning.

Even Babcock acknowledged that Toronto has not been a "safe" place to play.

You can question my level of "courage" in choosing to bow out of a conversation that goes nowhere if it makes you feel better about your argument.

There is only one way to find out if Andersen was a gamble worth taking and that is to wait and see.

Take a victory lap if you feel it's earned. The point remains. The only goalies to come to Toronto and win have been battle-hardened veterans who could shut the door out of sheer will, regardless of how the team in front of them played on any given night.

You and Gary are both making this debate about a singular driver, players are people, who deal with pressures and influences that are not seen or known by us, Gary thinks skill wins out over the influence a market may have, you think the other.

If a player does not have the mental make up to deal with all the crap he will have to endure in the Toronto market, in that sense yeah market can have an influence, regardless of skill.

...but no player in the last 30 years has had Lou, Shanny, Babcock, Lamare, etc as mentors to help deflect that market pressure, and to teach them how to be a winner, so comparing past performance is not really comparing apples to apples. Andersen will be sheltered here like no other goalie has in recent memory.

Things like a new baby can affect your play, baby keeps you up at night, you don't sleep well you don't perform well. What if someone close to you that means a lot to you passes away, do you go into a long malaise, will that affect your play? There are probably a billion scenarios where skill alone or market alone have little influence on a players performance.

Will he succeed? I don't know but if he does succeed its not JUST because he is a skilled player. Will he fail? I don't know but it's not JUST because of the market... I think there is a reality where both you and Gary could be correct also you could both be wrong.

Do I think you need to be mentally strong to play in a Canadian market, yes but I don't think that alone makes you or breaks you 100% of the time.

 

[4thline]

Not really.

Young players generally come with 7 years of cost control, versus a guy like Lehtonen, who wouldn't even get paid $6m if he was a UFA today.

Team control =/= cost control. You get a slight discount from lack of market forces, but unless you're willing to gamble with term the salary elasticity of performance will still prevent any major cost v. performance savings

 

[slozo]

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated. Andersen, today, has not played a single game as a "#1 Goalie". For the last 2 years, he's been the front half of a tandem -- a #1 guy, and been annointed the #1 in Toronto without playing a game.

Your last post suggested that we don't need to worry about a $1.6m buyout for 6 years -- "just make it up some other way". So why does that logic only apply to Andersen?

That's patently false. So please, don't repeat it.

Andersen was the de facto #1 goalie in Anaheim for the year of 2014-15. Andersen's stats have been posted here many times, but you can also go to the Ducks' boards and check it out yourself.

This past year, it was very much a tandem, but probably more due to injury (concussion) and illnesses (flu) to Andersen more than anything, as that was about 15 games right there, and with Gibson playing very well, they didn't rush him back either time. As Andersen got healthy just when the playoffs started, they went with Jones for the fist two games, both losses. They then put in Andersen the rest of the way.

Any goalie who STARTS 53 games is the starter. That is a fact.

Hopefully you can quiet that nonsense now, and search up yet another fruitless argument?

 

[JonnyMacAwesome]

A #1 role is somebody who generally plays ~60 games -- is the uncontested / unquestioned #1 goalie for that team.

Andersen simply hasn't been that -- he's had Gibson there tandeming with him.

Of course you're going to argue about 6 games...

Andersen had 2 injuries that season. Head injury (Feb) and a Leg injury (Nov).

Hard to believe you think him playing in 54 games, vs Gibson playing 23 (28% of the season games) is considering them a 1A/1B tandem.

Last season Bernier played 38 games, Reimer played 32. Yes he was traded at the deadline, and we had Sparks up...but THAT split is a lot more agreeable to a 1A/1B tandem you're referencing.

Andersen is a #1 goalie.

 

[Kurtz]

A #1 role is somebody who generally plays ~60 games -- is the uncontested / unquestioned #1 goalie for that team.

Andersen played 54 regular season games last year + 16 playoff games. That satisfies your criteria of ~60 games to be called a #1...

 

[JonnyMacAwesome]

That's patently false. So please, don't repeat it.

Andersen was the de facto #1 goalie in San Jose for the year of 2014-15. Andersen's stats have been posted here many times, but you can also go to the Ducks' boards and check it out yourself.

This past year, it was very much a tandem, but probably more due to injury (concussion) and illnesses (flu) to Andersen more than anything, as that was about 15 games right there, and with Jones playing very well, they didn't rush him back either time. As Andersen got healthy just when the playoffs started, they went with Jones for the fist two games, both losses. They then put in Andersen the rest of the way.

Any goalie who STARTS 53 games is the starter. That is a fact.

Hopefully you can quiet that nonsense now, and search up yet another fruitless argument?

Umm Sharks on the mind Slozo?

I think you need to replace "San Jose" with "Anaheim" and "Jones" with "Gibson" ...but your point remains the same

 

[Gary Nylund]

2014-2015 played 54 games. How is that not a #1 role?
2014-2015 playoffs 16 games, how is that not a #1 role?

Your argument is false and you're just picking a fight with no basis or reasoning. Clearly Andersen has previously established himself.

I'm haven't studied up on how many games #1 goalies typically play but those do look like #1 numbers to me.

 

[seanlinden]

Team control =/= cost control. You get a slight discount from lack of market forces, but unless you're willing to gamble with term the salary elasticity of performance will still prevent any major cost v. performance savings

Team control => cost control. You're also way better off to "gamble" with skaters than you are goalies.

 

[ACC1224]

Not really.

It's 3/4 games... every year, there's about 10-15 guys at this mark.

Of all the bizarre cases you've put out there, this is my favourite.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Not at all.

You cannot evaluate a goaltender with a stat sheet, but you can evaluate a goaltender's role with one.

A #1 role is somebody who generally plays ~60 games -- is the uncontested / unquestioned #1 goalie for that team.

Andersen simply hasn't been that -- he's had Gibson there tandeming with him.

Looking at who that description fits, we arrive at just a handful of names, including stalwarts such as Lehtonen and Ward.

Even if we accept all this, what information do we glean? That Andersen hasn't had a history of being a clear #1? Ok. But we are not trading for him because of what he has been, we did it for what he can do going forward. The determination has obviously been made that he can, and since it's been done with tools that we know nothing about, I don't see how we can judge the validity of it?

 

[seanlinden]

That's patently false. So please, don't repeat it.

Andersen was the de facto #1 goalie in San Jose for the year of 2014-15. Andersen's stats have been posted here many times, but you can also go to the Ducks' boards and check it out yourself.

This past year, it was very much a tandem, but probably more due to injury (concussion) and illnesses (flu) to Andersen more than anything, as that was about 15 games right there, and with Jones playing very well, they didn't rush him back either time. As Andersen got healthy just when the playoffs started, they went with Jones for the fist two games, both losses. They then put in Andersen the rest of the way.

Any goalie who STARTS 53 games is the starter. That is a fact.

Hopefully you can quiet that nonsense now, and search up yet another fruitless argument?

Any goalie who starts any game, is a "Starter" that night.

A #1, is somebody for whom there are no questions that he's the guy -- he plays 3/4 games, and all of the tough matchups, and that's not what Andersen has done.

 

[JonnyMacAwesome]

I'm haven't studied up on how many games #1 goalies typically play but those do look like #1 numbers to me.

I've seen people argue that 70+ games is starter goalie...like not every #1 goalie for every team is named Braden Holtby or Martin Brodeur (I'm sure there are more examples, but those 2 come to mind)

It's hilarious to me... a true starter to me - plays 2/3s of the season. If they can handle more, awesome.

 

[slozo]

Umm Sharks on the mind Slozo?

I think you need to replace "San Jose" with "Anaheim" and "Jones" with "Gibson" ...but your point remains the same

OMG, lol . . . yup my bad

 

[seanlinden]

Looking at who that description fits, we arrive at just a handful of names, including stalwarts such as Lehtonen and Ward.

Even if we accept all this, what information do we glean? That Andersen hasn't had a history of being a clear #1? Ok. But we are not trading for him because of what he has been, we did it for what he can do going forward. The determination has obviously been made that he can, and since it's been done with tools that we know nothing about, I don't see how we can judge the validity of it?

That's correct.

But that doesn't mean it makes sense to commit 5 years to a goalie who needs to do something he's never done before.

 

[4thline]

Team control => cost control. You're also way better off to "gamble" with skaters than you are goalies.

Nope, cost mitigation aided through risking with term. Once a player has arbitration rights cost control goes out the window. RFA status reduces salary expectations through changing the market structure, it is in no way "control".

 

[Nithoniniel]

Any goalie who starts any game, is a "Starter" that night.

A #1, is somebody for whom there are no questions that he's the guy -- he plays 3/4 games, and all of the tough matchups, and that's not what Andersen has done.

All of the tough matchups too, eh?

We'll soon not have a #1 goaltender in the league, if you keep adding requirements.

And again, this is where you hurt yourself. You had some good points, but then you try to pass off your subjective definition as a fact, and seems to go out of your way not to give Andersen credit for anything.

 

[Kurtz]

Any goalie who starts any game, is a "Starter" that night.

A #1, is somebody for whom there are no questions that he's the guy -- he plays 3/4 games, and all of the tough matchups, and that's not what Andersen has done.

Andersen played ~ 3/4 of Ana's games, including the "tough matchups" (playoffs) in 2014.

Or are you not counting playoffs in your completely arbitrary formula?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Andersen played more than 3/4 of Ana's games, including the "tough matchups" (playoffs) in 2014.

Or are you not counting playoffs in your completely arbitrary formula?

That's a good question.

 

[slozo]

Any goalie who starts any game, is a "Starter" that night.

A #1, is somebody for whom there are no questions that he's the guy -- he plays 3/4 games, and all of the tough matchups, and that's not what Andersen has done.

...and Andersen was the #1 the year before last.

So, you say it should be 61.5 games started that makes someone a true #1 starter. I see.

Why do I get the feeling that if Andersen had started 62 games, you'd change your criteria to 65?

 

[seanlinden]

Nope, cost mitigation aided through risking with term. Once a player has arbitration rights cost control goes out the window. RFA status reduces salary expectations through changing the market structure, it is in no way "control".

Sure, call it cost mitigation... still better than having an overpaid guy.

 

[slozo]

Andersen played ~ 3/4 of Ana's games, including the "tough matchups" (playoffs) in 2014.

Or are you not counting playoffs in your completely arbitrary formula?

This should be good.

 

[seanlinden]

...and Andersen was the #1 the year before last.

So, you say it should be 61.5 games started that makes someone a true #1 starter. I see.

Why do I get the feeling that if Andersen had started 62 games, you'd change your criteria to 65?

I've been totally consistent in that ~60 games is a #1 workload. Obviously, there's room for some variance due to luck of the draw with scheduling and whatnot. At 54, he falls just shy of that.

 

[Daisy Jane]

That's a good question.

what i am also curious is - why is 60+ games this magical mystical number all starters need to hit? Not all starters hit that number. (Some players have stated they want the work load) some coaches ride their goalies like a dead horse to the finish line (to quote Paul Maurice here). some starters play 50-55.

I'm not saying this because Andersen had 53 so phew, he's safe - I've been asking this when Reimer/Bernier were here. Neither of them ever hit 40 (let alone 50), and I know that Noodles always said for him a starter is a 50-55 gamer.

 

[seanlinden]

Andersen played ~ 3/4 of Ana's games, including the "tough matchups" (playoffs) in 2014.

Or are you not counting playoffs in your completely arbitrary formula?

We're not including playoffs. We're using GP as a proxy for the combination of workload / frequency of play, and length of time doing that. (i.e. 3/4 of the games, over a full season).

 

[NoTouchIcing]

No, it's not, neccessarily. It's the type of trade that may take you from being a cellar-dweller to being competitive. Calgary trading for Bishop is an example of a move that probably takes them from a cellar dweller to competitive.

The Andersen trade, is also the type that may prevent you from becoming a cup contender.

You can employ any type of semantics you'd like. What I said was not untrue.