Player Discussion Tuukka Rask - Part IV

[jdz]

And Daugavins doesn't miss a wide open net.

Thanks for bringing that one back up.

Years of therapy allowed me to repress that memory.

 

[hrdpuk]

Finding a goalie 2 mill cheaper than Rask is not going to get a better goalie. Every year some goalie will get hot and look like the next best thing. Rask has been good for a long time .
If you look at the times he's healthy he's the best.

Then you have 2 mill more in cap space and what are you going to buy? A super star that's going to be so good he'll win more games than one of the best goalies in the NHL. And when the star is injured or has a slow start we're right back to the same discussion of over paying but without Rask.

I don't see it

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Has every other post in this thread, but "doesn't have the time" to find backup for any of his claims. Classic.

I just posted like a 900000 word essay backing up my claims, and I've backed them up many times in this thread. I'm just not going to make a lowlight reel.

Finding a goalie 2 mill cheaper than Rask is not going to get a better goalie. Every year some goalie will get hot and look like the next best thing. Rask has been good for a long time .
If you look at the times he's healthy he's the best.

Then you have 2 mill more in cap space and what are you going to buy? A super star that's going to be so good he'll win more games than one of the best goalies in the NHL. And when the star is injured or has a slow start we're right back to the same discussion of over paying but without Rask.

I don't see it

I never once said that any of those goalies are better individual players than Rask. My point is, you're better off allocating that money elsewhere and having a better team in front of your goalie, than overextending for someone who is marginally better and just as inconsistent.

I've exhausted my points over and over again, if someone disagrees, I don't care.

 

[bob27]

I never once said that any of those goalies are better individual players than Rask. My point is, you're better off allocating that money elsewhere and having a better team in front of your goalie, than overextending for someone who is marginally better and just as inconsistent.

Is there a goalie who is more consistently good year to year than Rask? Lundqvist maybe, but then that's why he has 8.5 million AAV.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Is there a goalie who is more consistently good year to year than Rask? Lundqvist maybe, but then that's why he has 8.5 million AAV.

Exactly my point. Even the best are extremely inconsistent, so it's dumb to overextend at that position when you can instead allocate money to the team in front of them and minimize damage that way.

 

[Barnum]

Exactly my point. Even the best are extremely inconsistent, so it's dumb to overextend at that position when you can instead allocate money to the team in front of them and minimize damage that way.

Who are you going to allocate that money too? It’s easy to just say things willy nilly, it’s another to put those words in action. So, who are you going to pick up when you trade away Rask? Who’s your goalie replacement and who is going to minimize the damage for the extra 2 mill?

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Who are you going to allocate that money too? It’s easy to just say things willy nilly, it’s another to put those words in action. So, who are you going to pick up when you trade away Rask? Who’s your goalie replacement and who is going to minimize the damage for the extra 2 mill?

I listed a bunch of names on the previous page. I'm not going to compile a fantasy list of players you could acquire to help in front of the goalie because there are a billion different factors at play, but one example was maybe they wouldn't have traded Boychuk if they had a goalie making a reasonable salary. Then if they had a better team in front of the goalie, maybe they wouldn't have completely wasted 2 years of everyone's primes. There are and were a bunch of bad contracts on the team, so there are other places where money could've been spent better too, to be fair.

 

[Barnum]

I listed a bunch of names on the previous page. I'm not going to compile a fantasy list of players you could acquire to help in front of the goalie because there are a billion different factors at play, but one example was maybe they wouldn't have traded Boychuk if they had a goalie making a reasonable salary. Then if they had a better team in front of the goalie, maybe they wouldn't have completely wasted 2 years of everyone's primes. There are and were a bunch of bad contracts on the team, so there are other places where money could've been spent better too, to be fair.

So, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I scrolled back 7 pages. All you posted “on the previous page” was, admitted to a long time dislike for Rask, crapped on Rask’s career stats, for reasons I’ll never understand and listed a bunch of goalies with simliar stats over the last 2 years that have a lower cap hit.

So, I’ll ask again, what’s your plan? You just traded away a star goalie for a player(s). You now have an extra 7 million (minus money for the player or players you traded for), to find a starter quality goalie plus a skater that (in your words) minimizes the damage out front. Remember you need to replace Rask along with find that skater(s) that improves the team.

What’s your plan? I’ll wait as long as you need.

In case you need help understanding what I am driving at, I’m pointing out, just ranting “get rid of Rask means an extra 7 million” is alot more complicated once you break it all down and understand what you need to do to make the team better. Mid-season, it’s very dumb to trade your starter goalie unless he’s so bad, it’s impossible to not trade him. Rask has been outstanding for the last few months or since he got healthy.

PS Bringing up Boychuk was a hailmary statement, its been so long that Boychuk was traded, I forgot he was a Bruin.

 

[rocketdan9]

Haggerty: I don't think Bruins can win Stanley Cup with Tuukka Rask

 

[LSCII]

Haggerty: I don't think Bruins can win Stanley Cup with Tuukka Rask

That cements it. GET THE DUCK BOATS READY!!!!

Listen, if you're looking to haggs for your takes, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[JoeIsAStud]

Haggerty: I don't think Bruins can win Stanley Cup with Tuukka Rask

So when he played the greatest series any goalie has ever played beating an absolute Juggernaut Penguins team in 2013, he didn't win any big games

He ended up 2013 playoffs with the same Save% and a better GAA than Thomas had in the cup year. And he had to face the 2 dynasty teams of this era along the way

 

[rocketdan9]

So when he played the greatest series any goalie has ever played beating an absolute Juggernaut Penguins team in 2013, he didn't win any big games

He ended up 2013 playoffs with the same Save% and a better GAA than Thomas had in the cup year. And he had to face the 2 dynasty teams of this era along the way

That was 5 years ago. Look Tuukas top 10 saves highlight clip below ... I don't remember (recently) the last time he made saves like these. He has lost quickness/flexibility and basically resorts to positional/dropping down a few sec early to cover the net save attempts

This might be ok for a decent goalie/backup. But to shutdown offensively skilled teams like the Caps, Pens etc. it won't cut it

 

[Barnum]

That cements it. GET THE DUCK BOATS READY!!!!

Listen, if you're looking to haggs for your takes, I don't know what to tell you.

Man, to think I used to defend Haggs. But since his Barzal/ Bruin bashing, his stories have just stunk, one after another. He’s turned into a mini f***ing Red Headed Dan Shaughnessy clone. Just terrible.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

That was 5 years ago. Look Tuukas top 10 saves highlight clip below ... I don't remember (recently) the last time he made saves like these. He has lost quickness/flexibility and basically resorts to positional/dropping down a few sec early to cover the net saves

This might be ok for a decent goalie/backup. But to shutdown offensively skilled teams like the Caps, Pens etc. it won't be enough.

quite the opposite. He has gotten quicker and better at reading the play so he is making more of the mundane looking positional saves.

Highlight reel saves like above are the result of being out of position. The more technically sound a goalie is in positioning the more boring his game will look

 

[JoeIsAStud]

That was 5 years ago. Look Tuukas top 10 saves highlight clip below ... I don't remember (recently) the last time he made saves like these. He has lost quickness/flexibility and basically resorts to positional/dropping down a few sec early to cover the net save attempts

This might be ok for a decent goalie/backup. But to shutdown offensively skilled teams like the Caps, Pens etc. it won't cut it

That's nice clips, but Tuukka's game was never being the crazy guy making insane highlight film stops.

Tuukka's game has always been way more about hockey sense, and being positional soundness, one of the reason people have always diserespected him has been he doesn't make the number of highlight film saves others do, because he doesn't get out of position as others do.

 

[rocketdan9]

quite the opposite. He has gotten quicker and better at reading the play so he is making more of the mundane looking positional saves.

Highlight reel saves like above are the result of being out of position. The more technically sound a goalie is in positioning the more boring his game will look

Perhaps...but also such goalie is able to make difficult saves.

when the Penguins PP twist a goalie around left and right.... being positional sound is not going to do much. Ability to react or cover the net (end to end) in milliseconds is going to make the difference in ability to stop these kind of chances

In the playoffs, teams just don't shoot and back away like they do in the regular season. They shoot, pounce on for second chances. And of course the intensity is that much greater that quicker reactions is required.

This is not the yesteryears where a big positional butterfly goalie like Patrick Roy can help you reach the promise land. It is a much quicker game today and there is a reason why goalies such as Matt Murray, Jonathan Quick have been able to come out on top (positional saves + scrambling ability, reflex, quickness and maybe a little unorthodox)

 

[DKH]

It's not a card, who the hell has the time to do that? There are plenty of people who agree with me, so it's not like its some contrarian unfounded take.

you are correct- 20%

 

[Seidenbergy]

In the playoffs, teams just don't shoot and back away like they do in the regular season. They shoot, pounce on for second chances. And of course the intensity is that much greater that quicker reactions is required.

This is not the yesteryears where a big positional butterfly goalie like Patrick Roy can help you reach the promise land. It is a much quicker game today and there is a reason why goalies such as Matt Murray, Jonathan Quick have been able to come out on top (positional saves + scrambling ability, reflex, quickness and maybe a little unorthodox)

Tuukka Rask's career playoff numbers are actually better than his regular season numbers, so what exactly is your argument here?

.928 save % and 2.12 GAA in the playoffs
.923 and 2.24 in the regular season

 

[Glove Malfunction]

That was 5 years ago. Look Tuukas top 10 saves highlight clip below ... I don't remember (recently) the last time he made saves like these. He has lost quickness/flexibility and basically resorts to positional/dropping down a few sec early to cover the net save attempts

This might be ok for a decent goalie/backup. But to shutdown offensively skilled teams like the Caps, Pens etc. it won't cut it

Honestly, this is a factually incorrect, and seemingly intentionally disingenuous analysis of Rask's play and technique. It's also telling of a serious case of confirmation bias.

 

[rocketdan9]

Honestly, this is a factually incorrect, and seemingly intentionally disingenuous analysis of Rask's play and technique. It's also telling of a serious case of confirmation bias.

I disagree

Tuuka has lost a step..... are you saying he is as quick/flexible as he was 5 years ago?

 

[Seidenbergy]

I disagree

Tuuka has lost a step..... are you saying he is as quick/flexible as he was 5 years ago?

Last year, he suffered a groin injury that required offseason surgery, so sure, his quickness and flexibility perhaps wasn't there. Since he's gotten healthy, I see no evidence of him being slower or less flexible than at any other time in his career.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

I disagree

Tuuka has lost a step..... are you saying he is as quick/flexible as he was 5 years ago?

Lost a step?

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I disagree

Tuuka has lost a step..... are you saying he is as quick/flexible as he was 5 years ago?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Others in this thread have said the same thing.

 

[LSCII]

From a business standpoint in terms of how much money they bring in, they are worth those millions of dollars. The fact they're playing a child's game is irrelevant. Players like Tom Brady are actually grossly underpaid for the value that they bring to a billion dollar industry. If there were no salary cap, a player like Tom Brady would be worth 100 million a year, easily.

I would prefer a goalie who is "good enough", which realistically, you'd get for anywhere from 4-5ish million on the cap. Then invest that extra 2-3 million into the team in front of the goalie, which is far more important than the goalie itself, again, in my opinion.

As for names, I don't know, that Martin Jones seems good enough and would give you 4 million extra dollars to improve the team in front of him. Rask is not 4 million dollars better than Jones. If only we could somehow acquire Martin Jones.

What would be ideal is to be able to identify talent and get high level of play from someone on an entry level deal. Malcolm Subban is playing unreal hockey in Vegas, and we let him go literally for nothing.

If you want purely stats that demonstrate Rask's recent mediocre play in the past two years, here:

2015-2016

SV% ranked 28th in the NHL among qualified goaltenders
GAA ranked 26th in the NHL among qualified goaltenders

2016-2017

SV% ranked 20th in the NHL among qualified goaltenders
GAA ranked 6th in the NHL among qualified goaltenders

Those are just the stats, with zero context of anything actually in the games. That doesn't account for quality of goals allowed, quality of saves, timing of saves, positioning, rebounding, play vs good or bad teams, anything. All of which is relevant.

In terms of just this year, Khudobin has a .925 SV% and 2.37 GAA, to Rask's .920 and 2.23. Khudobin has played less games of course, but still. Is there an almost 6 million dollar difference in the production difference in those numbers? Of course not.

For a list of names comparable to Rask, but with better cap hits that give at least 2 million more in cap wiggle room, guys who I think the Bruins could possibly be better off overall with if you invest the excess cap hit into the team in front of them. Just including starters because of the smaller sample sizes of backups:

Andersen
Bishop
Allen
Dubnyk
Anderson
Murray (obviously)
Vasilevski
Jones
Hellebuyck

Jones was cheap, but that ends after this year. Then his salary jumps way up. So the suggestion that he should have been kept only matters if the salary difference was still larger. After this year, he's essentially making the same as Rask. And he's not as good, you know, since Rask has put up better numbers over the previous two seasons and including this one than Jones has. But hey, you want him, so it must be true that he's better.

Dobby is having a good season this year, which is great, but it's the anomaly for him. Look at the previous three years. SV% of .909, .904, and .900. And that's what you want in your net as the starter? Yikes. Agenda driven is exactly what you are, and I say that as someone who is not typically a Rask guy.

As for the rest of the guys you mentioned, sheesh. Lots of crap in your list. Could go guy by guy, but there's really no point since it's really not about them, but really about you simply having a bias against Rask.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

I'll be happy when/if Tuukka actually wins a Stanley cup while in the net.

Until then, I think it's completely valid to question it.