Player Discussion Tuukka Rask - Part IV

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

You reference 7M dollars a year. Why is this such an important point? Okay. Hypothetically, let's remove Rask from the equation and gain 7M dollars. It's not like you're getting 7M dollars to go pay for an impact player. You still need to pay a goalie. Starting goalies in the NHL make 4M+. If you want a good one, you're looking at 5.5-6M+. The top 10 highest paid goalies in the league are:

1.) Lundqvist
2.) Bobrovsky
3.) Rinne
4.) Rask
5.) Price
6.) Holtby
7.) Crawford
8.) Varlamov
9.) Lehtonen
10.)Quick (cheapest at 5.8M)

I'm sorry but this notion the goalie is overpaid is, for one, a complete joke. He's paid right with his peers. Also, if you remove Rask from the equation and want to be competitive, 4-6M+ of that is going to the new starter. If that's the case, you freed up anywhere from 1-2.5M~ on a roster player. Is that getting you a legitimate upgrade at a position of need?

So my point is that removing TR40 from the equation is not landing the team an impact player at another position. If you don't have a good goalie, you will not compete, and you're not getting a good goalie for pennies.

The funny thing... Only Quick has actually won a Stanley Cup while in the net on that list.

I'm not even arguing they are or aren't good goalies. I'm just not sure a high paid goalie is the solution.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Are we counting this year? Is this season already in the books? Don't answer that...I'm not allowing you to use this season, since it's not even remotely close to being over yet. So you said "3 years now of substandard performance"? This'll be fun!:

2014-2015: 70 GP (34-21-13) -- 2.30 GAA -- .922 SV%
2015-2016: 64 GP (31-22-8) -- 2.56 GAA -- .915 SV%
2016-2017: 65 GP (37-20-5) -- 2.23 GAA -- .915 SV%

What is "substandard" about any of this? Do you do any research before spewing nonsensical hottakes? Michael Felger, is that you?

Questions:
Is Tuukka capable of being Vezina quality goalie?

Are those Vezina quality numbers?

He's a good goalie. He's more than capable. The team is less than mediocre and Tuukka isn't the guy that's going to make a bad team good. He can make a good team a contender, but we aren't that.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

The funny thing... Only Quick has actually won a Stanley Cup while in the net on that list.

I'm not even arguing they are or aren't good goalies. I'm just not sure a high paid goalie is the solution.

Crawford has won 2 Cups. Having the highest paid goalie doesn't mean winning the Cup. My point is that people reference his salary too much. Removing his salary from the equation, you still need to replace him. Starting goalies, in this league, make anywhere from 4-7M. So even if you find a guy and get him on a good deal 4-5M, that doesn't leave you with a crazy amount of extra money to go acquire an impact player at another position (speaking in the Bruins case specifically).

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

Questions:
Is Tuukka capable of being Vezina quality goalie?

He's won a Vezina in the past, so I would say yes, he is capable.

Are those Vezina quality numbers?

Not Vezina quality, but over the past 5+ years, you've had to post around a 2.00 GAA and a .920 SV%. Those numbers, minus 2015/2016 (where his GAA was higher than normal), are extremely good.

He's a good goalie. He's more than capable. The team is less than mediocre and Tuukka isn't the guy that's going to make a bad team good. He can make a good team a contender, but we aren't that.

The team is less than mediocre due to injuries, but we've seen the impact that Krejci has had since coming back. I don't know what the Bruins truly are, right now. I think we'll get a better look once a few more guys are back in there and healthy.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Seeing as Dobby has the same team in front of him as Rask, can one of the apologists explain why he is doing better?

Not the same team at all actually. The fact that you would claim that proves you don't look at the game rosters much less actually watch the games.

 

[BigBadBears]

Yes, the Bruins really should of moved on from Rask the summer of 2013 when he was an RFA. Who cares that he just helped them get 2 wins away from a Cup.

Agree to disagree. Said it then and saying now. Yes they should've. Not being able to separate emotions from reality (evaluation wise) is what got him such a large contract. His value was completely inflated by a defensive coach that limited shots to the outside and a great core with young stars.

Chiarelli mentioned two large RFA battles during his tenure. One public and one not. I believe this is the non-public one (could be wrong) where they could've landed significant assets.

2013 results weren't on rask's shoulders. Closer first round than it should've been and two other easy series and that should've been seen by management.

 

[BruinDust]

Agree to disagree. Said it then and saying now. Yes they should've. Not being able to separate emotions from reality (evaluation wise) is what got him such a large contract. His value was completely inflated by a defensive coach that limited shots to the outside and a great core with young stars.

Chiarelli mentioned two large RFA battles during his tenure. One public and one not. I believe this is the non-public one (could be wrong) where they could've landed significant assets.

2013 results weren't on rask's shoulders. Closer first round than it should've been and two other easy series and that should've been seen by management.

You said it then huh? On this board? Prove it.

You have no idea what has gone on behind closed doors as far as RFA negotiations between Chiarelli and whoever. So lets leave that out altogether.

Were his numbers in his career inflated due to Julien's system and a real good team in front of him? Sure it was. Same as it was for Thomas, or any of the other back-ups who played for Julien in that prime era of 2007-2014. Doesn't make him a bad goaltender.

 

[DKH]

He's 30 he's been one of the top goalies for years

His playoff performance against the Penguins in 2013 sweep was the best single series I've ever seen by Bruins goalie with respect to Gilles Gilbert in 1979 against Montreal, Tim Thomas in 2011 against Vancouver, and Reggie Lemelin in 1988 against Montreal.

These guys have ups and downs

Bobrovski

2014-15 36-17 .918
2015-16 15-19 .908
2016-17 41-17 .931

He may be best goalie in the world right now

Even Rask was outstanding in 2010 and 2012 but in year they won Cup he was

11-14

Historically he's a .920+ goalie who wins 30 games

I'm not getting rid of him unless it's off ice or injury

Seguin had 1 goal in 22 playoff games and by the Chicago game fans were calling him Sally Seguin around me

People lament that deal and will forever - it likely cost Chiarelli his job

The guy will be a Vezina finalist again before he hangs them up I want it here

Of course I'm sure Montreal would love to trade Price for him

 

[DKH]

Agree to disagree. Said it then and saying now. Yes they should've. Not being able to separate emotions from reality (evaluation wise) is what got him such a large contract. His value was completely inflated by a defensive coach that limited shots to the outside and a great core with young stars.

Chiarelli mentioned two large RFA battles during his tenure. One public and one not. I believe this is the non-public one (could be wrong) where they could've landed significant assets.

2013 results weren't on rask's shoulders. Closer first round than it should've been and two other easy series and that should've been seen by management.

I sit in the second row in back of Bruins net right twice a game by the goal judge so I watch all these goalies like a hawk watching a squirrel.

I look for technique, demeanor, and athleticism and Rask is a high end puckstopper.

That series against Pittsburgh Rask and Jesus Christ himself were in my opinion the only two who walked the. Earth could have done what he did.

I know he's a target - I get the 80/20 rule and the vocal minority but to say he's basically lucky and stops shots from the outside and relies on a defensive system to get by is laughable

 

[Hali33]

As much as I haven’t been happy with him, I will say in his defense I don’t think the numbers correspond with the eye test for this season. It surprises me to see him sub 900, even with the challenges of a small sample size. That’s bad and I don’t even think he’s been BAD a game this season. Maybe 1.

I think sometimes the numbers can influence the opinion on what you’ve seen. If I didn’t know the numbers I would have placed him in an 910 or less, average “not good enough” range.

 

[chrisab123]

Move the goalposts a little more why don't you?

You claimed he was only good at the start of the year and sucked down the stretch last year. I proved you wrong beyond any possible argument. You can't even admit that. Shocker.

And about your beloved Martin Jones.....I always love these comments. Nevermind that his GAA, save %, shutouts, etc. All worse than Rask's last season.

I mean you certainly showed me. You picked a sample of the last 6 games of the season. Yes, down the stretch he was so good that people wanted Dobby to start. He needed a kick in the ass, got it and played well the final 6 games. Martin Jones is a better goalie and has a better contract than Rask. Hes just one example. Would you really sit here and take Rask over guys like Crawford Price Lunquist Quick? If you say yes then theres really no reason to carry on this conversation.

 

[chrisab123]

Rask stinks but imagine being stuck with Price? Two over paid frauds.

Sad part is I'd rather have Price.

 

[Seidenbergy]

I mean you certainly showed me. You picked a sample of the last 6 games of the season.

12 games: 6 regular season and 6 postseason, which equals 25% of his appearances last season. Plenty big enough sample size.

Common core math has failed you again.

Yes, down the stretch he was so good that people wanted Dobby to start.

Same % of folks that wanted Michael Bishop to start over Brady back in the day. The Internet is full of idiots. I will never argue that.

Martin Jones is a better goalie and has a better contract than Rask.

Jones last year .912 2.40 2 SOs
Rask last year .915 2.23 8 SOs

Better contract? Yes. Better goalie? No, and it's really not even debatable.

Would you really sit here and take Rask over guys like Crawford Price Lunquist Quick? If you say yes then theres really no reason to carry on this conversation.

You really stepped in it with this one.................again.

The same Carey Price that is rocking the .877 save % and 3.77 GAA?
The same Jonathan Quick and Corey Crawford that have essentially identical (or worse) numbers to Rask, both last season and for their career, as I've already pointed out?
The same Lundqvist that has an almost identical GAA as Rask and has a FAR higher salary/cap hit......which you seem to value very highly in your critiques of Rask?

Regardless, even if I conceded your overall point, where did I say that Rask was the best goalie on the best contract in the NHL? Please show me. Because, unless you can do that, I fail to see your point.

 

[Bruinfanatic]

I don't have anything against Rask,I just want the Bruins to win,and right now I think they have a better chance with Dobby simple as that.I say ride Dobby to he falters.

 

[bp13]

Sad part is I'd rather have Price.

Even with that contract?

Contract aside I think anyone would much rather have Price, but that cap hit is brutal.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Jones last year .912 2.40 2 SOs
Rask last year .915 2.23 8 SOs

Better contract? Yes. Better goalie? No, and it's really not even debatable.

That's your argument? The difference in those stats are miniscule. Shutouts are not a good barometer of how well you played, you could give up a goal or two and still have played better than if you were to get a shutout, depending on what the chances were like, etc. This is why blind statistics are idiotic to use as the crux of your argument for hockey. Rask has the best save percentage of any goalie in the history of the NHL. Is he the best goalie in the history of the NHL? Not even close.

Jones is pretty much just as good, and for the last 3 years has had a way better contract. You have to factor in the contract when you determine the player's overall value. Jones has far greater overall value than Rask. Rask isn't 4 million better than Jones. It's debatable if he's even better at all at this point.

 

[NDiesel]

That's your argument? The difference in those stats are miniscule. Shutouts are not a good barometer of how well you played, you could give up a goal or two and still have played better than if you were to get a shutout, depending on what the chances were like, etc. This is why blind statistics are idiotic to use as the crux of your argument for hockey. Rask has the best save percentage of any goalie in the history of the NHL. Is he the best goalie in the history of the NHL? Not even close.

Jones is pretty much just as good, and for the last 3 years has had a way better contract. You have to factor in the contract when you determine the player's overall value. Jones has far greater overall value than Rask. Rask isn't 4 million better than Jones. It's debatable if he's even better at all at this point.

Are you seriously trying to say that letting zero goals in 8 times is not impressive? Yikes.....

 

[Seidenbergy]

That's your argument? The difference in those stats are miniscule. Shutouts are not a good barometer of how well you played, you could give up a goal or two and still have played better than if you were to get a shutout, depending on what the chances were like, etc. This is why blind statistics are idiotic to use as the crux of your argument for hockey. Rask has the best save percentage of any goalie in the history of the NHL. Is he the best goalie in the history of the NHL? Not even close.

Jones is pretty much just as good, and for the last 3 years has had a way better contract. You have to factor in the contract when you determine the player's overall value. Jones has far greater overall value than Rask. Rask isn't 4 million better than Jones. It's debatable if he's even better at all at this point.

Please learn to read.

chrisab123 very clearly said that Jones was better AND had the better contract. He separated it into 2 separate arguments.

I conceded that Jones's contract was obviously better.
I then compared the statistics. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS ALL WE HAVE TO MEASURE WHO IS BETTER.......unless of course you want to try to argue the always fun "eyeball test".

Look. I'm willing to hear an argument for why Jones is better outside of the contract. That is separate. So do it. Make an argument. I made mine.

 

[LouJersey]

Jones next deal is 5.75, making Tuukka the better goalie and bargain.

 

[Boston Bruno]

There really is something to be said about the quality of the D around the goalies as well. I suppose that was mentioned many posts ago..

Once upon a time we were strong and cleaned the house when we wanted. Now it seems we give up the crease and prime areas a little more easier. That said, it probably makes any goalies Lives little more miserable. Don't get me wrong Rask is also struggling, but new Cassidy coach , different d, injuries and new forwards back checking. It is a nice formula for tumult. Thank goodness Khudobin is on fire.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

He's won a Vezina in the past, so I would say yes, he is capable.



Not Vezina quality, but over the past 5+ years, you've had to post around a 2.00 GAA and a .920 SV%. Those numbers, minus 2015/2016 (where his GAA was higher than normal), are extremely good.



The team is less than mediocre due to injuries, but we've seen the impact that Krejci has had since coming back. I don't know what the Bruins truly are, right now. I think we'll get a better look once a few more guys are back in there and healthy.

With this being hockey, and the Bruins being the Bruins, we can be waiting for health and saying that for years and never "know". It's actually when injuries happen, you find out what you have. It was a dark part of Bruin's history, but I don't think the Bruins really get to see Krejci in his prime if Savard doesn't get injured.

The thing now, guys go down, and we haven't really had a guy step up that's really stuck out as a mainstay (yet). I have a feeling it might, sooner or later, but if we are waiting for "health", history makes me think we are waiting for the wrong thing.

 

[mjhfb]

Rasks task is to stop the puck. Period.
He doesn't forcheck, backcheck, create time and space, angle off players, throw body checks, absorb body checks, get open, find the open man, take faceoffs, one time shots, crash the net, cycle down low, switch coverage, learn offensive systems, take a beating in the slot, or pick the best option in a split second what to with the puck before you get crushed into the glass.
He just has to stand in one place and stop the puck. He knows how. Yes it's hard to do, but it's not complicated.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Jones last year .912 2.40 2 SOs
Rask last year .915 2.23 8 SOs

Better contract? Yes. Better goalie? No, and it's really not even debatable.

Jones @ less than half of what Rask makes. Add the rest of the goaltending stats, take the names out, and just look at the numbers themselves. It don't scream goalies of completely different calibers, especially not paygrade.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Claiming that a goalie's job is simple because they only have to stop the puck is like saying a pitcher's job is simple because they only have to throw a ball.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Jones @ less than half of what Rask makes. Add the rest of the goaltending stats, take the names out, and just look at the numbers themselves. It don't scream goalies of completely different calibers, especially not paygrade.

So jones is better?