Player Discussion Tuukka Rask - Part IV

[LouJersey]

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.

is this the ultimate troll post in history? If so, well done. If this is a real life post, then my condolences.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

So jones is better?

Did I say that?

If you want it plain and simple. I think Tuukka is better, but not by much at this stage. And not enough to warrant the pay difference.

Let's see at the end of this year what the numbers look like, too. This season, after about 12-13 games each, one of them needs to catch up by a lot. But hey, Tuukka has months to change that.

And for what it's worth. I have both of them on my fantasy team, so I am rooting for BOTH of them to do well this season.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

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

No. I said it's not a good barometer of how well someone played. It depends on the scoring chances that are generated. You can have a better game giving up 1 goal and standing on your head, vs facing no real scoring chances and getting a shutout. Which is why blind stat watching is idiotic in hockey. Baseball is really the only sport you can blind stat watch.

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.

The statistics are not all we have to measure who is better. Not in hockey. The contract is part of the player's overall value. You can separate them into your own argument if you want, but when talking about overall value of a player, the contract matters. The eyeball test matters.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Did I say that?

If you want it plain and simple. I think Tuukka is better, but not by much at this stage.

Then we agree and I have absolutely no idea why you felt the need to respond to my post and not the other poster who disagrees with us.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Then we agree and I have absolutely no idea why you felt the need to respond to my post and not the other poster who disagrees with us.

I responded because you were using those stats like it was a defining head and shoulders above. If you need to know "why" i felt the need to,. like it or not, the contract plays a part. And in my opinion, the argument about Tuukka being that much better is very debatable.

Anyways, carry on. Everyone is just reiterating what they've likely been saying from the get-go. (a lot of times even agreeing with one another), just being said in different ways.

 

[Seidenbergy]

I responded because you were using those stats like it was a defining head and shoulders above.

No I didn't. For the tenth time:

Post before mine (that I quoted to avoid all confusion) = Jones is better than Rask AND his contract is better than Rask's.

I conceded the contract point. I then posted the numbers to disprove the Jones is better argument. I never said anything about him being head and shoulders above anyone. All I did was post the numbers. As long as they are similar to or better than Jones's, I've essentially destroyed his argument.

like it or not, the contract plays a part.

Not to the person I was responding to. He made the contracts a completely separate argument. To anyone else that wants to include the two in an argument, knock yourselves out. My post(s) had nothing to do with that argument, so no need to quote it/them.

And in my opinion, the argument about Tuukka being that much better is very debatable.

If that's an argument, then I have yet to see it anywhere in the last few pages.

 

[BigBadBears]

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.

Unfortunately I wasn't a member here at that point. Understanding only posts here matter, I'll refrain from offering the messages I have from other sources that outline that I wanted the Bruins to dangle Rask to get the assets, the Rask contract was a suicide deal, and that I was happy with the Subban pick... If you really want them I'll share but I typically take people at face value and expect the same.

You're right - I have no clue what actually happened and admitted that in my post. I gave my opinion that I think rask was the non-public RFA hostage situation, and I my opinion hasn't changed. Since seguin, marchand and krecji signed with term left the biggest RFA contracts left was rask (after considering Kessel being a public battle).

I never said he was a bad goalie. He's not a $7M goalie and will not lead this team to a Stanley Cup when he takes up so much of the cap. If he made $2-3M less then they could fill some gaps and have a shot at winning a cup. But Rask won't take over and win it for them.

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

Again, I disagree. Personally I've seen 325 or 350 of Tuukka's regular season games in the NHL. Rask's first move is to drop down, locking himself into that spot. Too many times the puck changes directions and he is unable to adjust on the fly. When he does this he isn't able to push off (like thomas could) and is left on his knees in the exact same spot, reaching/lunging as a last ditch effort. He just doesn't have the puck sense needed to take this team to the next level. The Bruins took over the Pittsburgh series with physicality and basically made it impossible for the Penguins to generate high scoring opportunities.

I don't think it's laughable to say our goalie is overrated when he has played behind one of the defensive coaches over the last ten years. I think you need to capitalize on that and spend less $$ at the position that will give you marginal differences when you downgrade. Getting higher skilled players that make up for that defensive coach's weaknesses.

I appreciate sitting in the lower bowl, but I personally prefer the corner lower rows of the upper bowl seats in the bruins end. It allows me to see the plays develop on a more. I've sometimes felt the play was too fast too see everything when sitting down low. It definitely makes you appreciate the skill/speed/size when being that close to the action though.

 

[What The Puck]

Coach keeps playing Dobby. Not really an argument anymore at this point. Rask deserves to sit. And we are finally starting to win some games. $7 million should have been more like ~$5 million when they signed him. I think the secret to moving him is attaching him to Chara or one of our trade deadline moves.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

rask record is outstanding... his save %, gaa, shutouts per games played ratio are all top alltime territory

his win loss record isnt as good as holtby but is pretty damn good too

a bad rask season is a 915% and a 2.56gaa... thats as bad as it gets

so trying to use numbers against him is idiot

but

he does have a huge contract and he hasnt won a cup

theres history where other great goalies like jose theodore and carey price just lost it overnight

is there room to worry about rask? i have had him on all 32 of my fantasy teams this year and last... and its cost me... so yeah theres room for concern...

but are we totally ignoring reality if we dont acknowledge hes been brilliant his career up to now? the numbers are outstanding. trying to argue otherwise is just dumb

 

[BruinDust]

Unfortunately I wasn't a member here at that point. Understanding only posts here matter, I'll refrain from offering the messages I have from other sources that outline that I wanted the Bruins to dangle Rask to get the assets, the Rask contract was a suicide deal, and that I was happy with the Subban pick... If you really want them I'll share but I typically take people at face value and expect the same.

You're right - I have no clue what actually happened and admitted that in my post. I gave my opinion that I think rask was the non-public RFA hostage situation, and I my opinion hasn't changed. Since seguin, marchand and krecji signed with term left the biggest RFA contracts left was rask (after considering Kessel being a public battle).

I never said he was a bad goalie. He's not a $7M goalie and will not lead this team to a Stanley Cup when he takes up so much of the cap. If he made $2-3M less then they could fill some gaps and have a shot at winning a cup. But Rask won't take over and win it for them.

Fair enough.

But you're really grasping at straws when you say that the 2-3 million saved by going with a different goaltender over Rask is going to be the dividing line between winning and not winning a cup.

Fill in gaps? What gaps are you filling with 2-3 million?

I get trying to maximize return on the cap dollar. But there are so many more ways to save salary cap money, downgrading in net so save a couple million is insane.

This team is spending millions on Seidenberg, Hayes, Beleskey, Spooner, even McQuaid. And you're concerned about the extra couple million due to Rask over what you think he should be paid?

 

[EverettMike]

rask record is outstanding... his save %, gaa, shutouts per games played ratio are all top alltime territory

his win loss record isnt as good as holtby but is pretty damn good too

a bad rask season is a 915% and a 2.56gaa... thats as bad as it gets

so trying to use numbers against him is idiot

but

he does have a huge contract and he hasnt won a cup

theres history where other great goalies like jose theodore and carey price just lost it overnight

is there room to worry about rask? i have had him on all 32 of my fantasy teams this year and last... and its cost me... so yeah theres room for concern...

but are we totally ignoring reality if we dont acknowledge hes been brilliant his career up to now? the numbers are outstanding. trying to argue otherwise is just dumb

Nice.

 

[Killion]

Guys... Gang.... Lighten up..... be civil..... dont be makin me come in here & go all Irish on ya'll.... Not pretty.

Carry On. Go Broons.....

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Coach keeps playing Dobby. Not really an argument anymore at this point. Rask deserves to sit. And we are finally starting to win some games. $7 million should have been more like ~$5 million when they signed him. I think the secret to moving him is attaching him to Chara or one of our trade deadline moves.

is playing 2 games in a row the definition of keeps playing?

in the real world where i live goalie is a mental game and gets influenced by minor injuries too. is rask favorite aunt sick? is a kid having trouble at school? does he have a lingering cold virus? does his groin still slow him down after surgury?

i said myself 7 mill was above market... so its hard for me to defend it. i looked at quick and thought 6 would be fair. but honestly his numbers are better than the other guys. 7 isnt outrageous

where i always end up with goalies is they are all inconsistent. routinally a guy will be in norris contention one year and suck the next. its not only normal, its actually expected

guys come out of nowhere and have great runs like dubnyk and then fall off face of planet like ward then bounce back and forth like bobvosky

expecting perfection from any goalie is foolish disreguard for reality.

theres always a martin jones that had a good year last year... but rask has a better career than jones ever dreamed of

 

[BigBadBears]

Fair enough.

But you're really grasping at straws when you say that the 2-3 million saved by going with a different goaltender over Rask is going to be the dividing line between winning and not winning a cup.

Fill in gaps? What gaps are you filling with 2-3 million?

I get trying to maximize return on the cap dollar. But there are so many more ways to save salary cap money, downgrading in net so save a couple million is insane.

This team is spending millions on Seidenberg, Hayes, Beleskey, Spooner, even McQuaid. And you're concerned about the extra couple million due to Rask over what you think he should be paid?

The cap mismanagement for this team has been horrible for years and has started to be corrected by Sweeney with the lucic/hamilton deals followed by good drafting. I'd just rather miss on a $2-3M contract than an 8 year $56M one, especially one where that $$ was spent on a position so protected by the system. Sweeney's problem is he has missed on too many of those small "value" deals. I also thing the $2-3M extra paid for rask hasn't allowed them to upgrade from a $3/4M FA to a $5/7M FA forward at some point.

My personal opinion is that Rask is not the goalie that will take over and win them a cup. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[BruinDust]

The cap mismanagement for this team has been horrible for years and has started to be corrected by Sweeney with the lucic/hamilton deals followed by good drafting. I'd just rather miss on a $2-3M contract than an 8 year $56M one, especially one where that $$ was spent on a position so protected by the system. Sweeney's problem is he has missed on too many of those small "value" deals. I also thing the $2-3M extra paid for rask hasn't allowed them to upgrade from a $3/4M FA to a $5/7M FA forward at some point.

My personal opinion is that Rask is not the goalie that will take over and win them a cup. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

That's fair as well. If you don't think Rask is good enough to lead this team to a championship, you're entitled to that opinion.

But Rask aside, we're really talking about a disagreement in team building philosophy. You don't think it makes sense to hitch your wagon to an expensive starting goaltender long-term. I don't like taking chances on unproven goaltenders and pseudo-starters. Grew up during the post-Moog era when the Bruins crease was a goaltender graveyard, so I'm predisposed to holding onto legit No.1 starting goaltenders.

 

[bp13]

The cap mismanagement for this team has been horrible for years and has started to be corrected by Sweeney with the lucic/hamilton deals followed by good drafting. I'd just rather miss on a $2-3M contract than an 8 year $56M one, especially one where that $$ was spent on a position so protected by the system. Sweeney's problem is he has missed on too many of those small "value" deals. I also thing the $2-3M extra paid for rask hasn't allowed them to upgrade from a $3/4M FA to a $5/7M FA forward at some point.

My personal opinion is that Rask is not the goalie that will take over and win them a cup. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

Cap mismanagement has started to be corrected by Sweeney? Really? Were Beleskey and Backes just a bad dream of mine?

 

[What The Puck]

That's fair as well. If you don't think Rask is good enough to lead this team to a championship, you're entitled to that opinion.

But Rask aside, we're really talking about a disagreement in team building philosophy. You don't think it makes sense to hitch your wagon to an expensive starting goaltender long-term. I don't like taking chances on unproven goaltenders and pseudo-starters. Grew up during the post-Moog era when the Bruins crease was a goaltender graveyard, so I'm predisposed to holding onto legit No.1 starting goaltenders.

Such a tired argument. I grew up about the same time you did, and I don't share your opinion that we should have a guy ruin our season because you are having traumatic flashbacks to the Lacher, Dafoe, Ranford, (on and on) era. Even as a child, I was very good at identifying hockey talent. I could've told you those goaltenders were not the real deal. But you also remember that period of time was pre-salary-cap, so back in those days we had to have hand-me-downs because there's no way we were going to be paying anywhere near top dollar for premium players.

I chanted "Sinden sucks" like everyone else in the arena during that era. My only regret is that I should have chanted "JJ sucks." But alas, it is a business, and he's entitled to make as much money as he wants. And as a fan, I'm entitled to chant for the $60 ticket price, which at the time was even more outrageous. The Boston Garden had better teams and better prices, and you could actually afford the concessions.

So if your point is about nostalgia or seniority of suffering, I don't buy it. And I would think that given the ages we are now, it would be better to actually get with the times and make good choices because it's more than obvious what dog paddling with mediocrity gets you. We already did that. When the player loses it, it's time to move on. It's been three years in a row. It's about the club, not the player.

 

[BruinDust]

Such a tired argument. I grew up about the same time you did, and I don't share your opinion that we should have a guy ruin our season because you are having traumatic flashbacks to the Lacher, Dafoe, Ranford, (on and on) era. Even as a child, I was very good at identifying hockey talent. I could've told you those goaltenders were not the real deal. But you also remember that period of time was pre-salary-cap, so back in those days we had to have hand-me-downs because there's no way we were going to be paying anywhere near top dollar for premium players.

I chanted "Sinden sucks" like everyone else in the arena during that era. My only regret is that I should have chanted "JJ sucks." But alas, it is a business, and he's entitled to make as much money as he wants. And as a fan, I'm entitled to chant for the $60 ticket price, which at the time was even more outrageous. The Boston Garden had better teams and better prices, and you could actually afford the concessions.

So if your point is about nostalgia or seniority of suffering, I don't buy it. And I would think that given the ages we are now, it would be better to actually get with the times and make good choices because it's more than obvious what dog paddling with mediocrity gets you. We already did that. When the player loses it, it's time to move on. It's been three years in a row. It's about the club, not the player.

I think Rask is still a legit No.1 goaltender. You don't. This franchise couldn't find a legit starting goaltender for years, even if they wanted to pay for one.

They have no real depth in the system, or a projected future replacement.

Khudobin, while he's played well, is not the guy.

No one can seem to propose a legitimate and realistic alternative. All I keep reading is they should of kept Jones and traded Rask two years ago, but that ship has sailed.

I'll stick with Rask over some unknown quantity unless you have a better, and realistic, suggestion.

 

[LouJersey]

It comes down to who would you trade Rask for? Goalie wise swap out one for one.

Murray, Vasilevskiy, Holtby, Bob (maybe), Dubnyk (maybe), Rinne (maybe); Quick (maybe)

 

[rickizbruin]

I have found it amazing that a goalie gets traded to a good defensive team and magically his numbers get better ! Teams who are at the bottom of the league have the worst averages. I really don't believe this is sorcery.
IMO Rask is the same goalie who won the Vezina trophy. What has changed is the team in front of him.
Khodobin has been good this year. but everyone last year wanted him tared and feathered.

Its a few games .. i believe Tuka will be the Tuka were used to.

would help if we had a regular line up.

 

[BigBadBears]

That's fair as well. If you don't think Rask is good enough to lead this team to a championship, you're entitled to that opinion.

But Rask aside, we're really talking about a disagreement in team building philosophy. You don't think it makes sense to hitch your wagon to an expensive starting goaltender long-term. I don't like taking chances on unproven goaltenders and pseudo-starters. Grew up during the post-Moog era when the Bruins crease was a goaltender graveyard, so I'm predisposed to holding onto legit No.1 starting goaltenders.

My original thought was I don't think Rask is the goalie to take a team to the Bruins, regardless of contact size. Rask is a top 30 goalie in the world which is amazing when you think about it. However when you boil it down to the top 30 goalies (well 31 now..), he is an average goalie being paid an elite salary.

I find it hard to separate the player from the salary more and more these days. I'd be less concerned with Rask as our goalie if he made $4.5M (but not for diepietro term..). At lesser money the expectations aren't for him to take games over and win them. Every dollar spent on him isn't available to be spent on the other weaknesses (which range year to year from a top 6 winger to a top 4 d-man). This year it is health and a nash replacement.

I hear you on the goalies. I started with Carey/Lacher/Tallas/Dafoe/Shields/Raycroft.. (with others mixed in). But this franchise's history with committing to goalies is just bad. It's like Philly, except with a defensive system that has made them able to compete. Unless a goalie is a guaranteed stud you should not pay over $5-6M for them (lundqvist, price, rinne, quick)

Cap mismanagement has started to be corrected by Sweeney? Really? Were Beleskey and Backes just a bad dream of mine?

Cap management now is 10x better than when chiarelli was here so I'm happy - very happy. We're signing bad contracts instead of trading away talent because of $$ issues without draft options to replace them. Missing on Beleskey costs Jacobs, not us,. Bjork/debrusk come up for deals when Beleskey/Seidenberg ($5M) leaves. Mcavoy/Carlo a year earlier when $3.5M (excluding chara here) between mcquaid/hayes is freed up. Yes more $$ is needed but it's layered well. This all excludes Backes - which while he may not be worth $6M hockey-wise, he is worth having bringing the young kids up the right way. This all assumes they continue to draft young talent which is a crap shoot.

but i don't want this to go too far down the wrong path in the Rask thread..

 

[BruinDust]

Unless a goalie is a guaranteed stud you should not pay over $5-6M for them (lundqvist, price, rinne, quick).

There are plenty of guys who aren't "guaranteed studs" who make 5 million or more.

You want a legit No.1 goaltender who makes less than 5 million. Then the Bruins need to develop that goaltender themselves. Chances of finding it via a trade are remote.

Subban was drafted to be that guy, and if he had developed as expected, he might be pushing or even pushed Rask out of the starting job. But it didn't work out that way.

 

[bigcat188]

Tuukka who.

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

This thread is going to be popcorn worthy all year. I'm not sure what to say beyond just keep playing the winning goalie.

 

[ODAAT]

I`m giving him the start vs the Pens tomorrow, go ahead, hammer me for that decision.

Doby has done all a backup can be called upon to do, Tuukka`s still my guy