Joonas Korpisalo

[Crede777]

Before you beat up the front office too much for the Bobrovsky contract, look back at his first 2 seasons stats that led to that contract.

43-31-11 .928 sv% 2.19 gaa...........and a Vezina

and he had a strong season the year we signed him:

30-17-3 .918 sv% 2.69 gaa

He struggled last season, and that is fresh in our minds.

This is a big year for him to prove he's still in top form. I like what he showed in the WCH, now let's see if that carries over and if he's stays healthy. Bob is hands down the most important player on this team.

Bob's contract is a scary one but even I, who am supremely critical of JK, have to admit it was necessary. It's like the Foligno contract. They couldn't let either guy walk at that time.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Bob's contract is a scary one but even I, who am supremely critical of JK, have to admit it was necessary. It's like the Foligno contract. They couldn't let either guy walk at that time.

Well they should have signed him before he/they peaked.
Foligno had a career year. He has been a solid 3rd line player, and even last year that is what he was. But he had one big year and suddenly we signed him to a long-term deal paying him around 2nd line money. It was a bad signing. Not a bad player but if they liked his leadership should have signed him earlier, not banked on his contract year setting the parameters for his next contract.

Bob - He did the same thing with Philly. Played great, then played not so great and they traded him. We got him he's played great at times but is oft injured. Plus the general dynamic is 2 goalies now, and Bob seems to need about every day to be effective. Very tough to see $7M going to a guys who will likely only play 40-55 games with injuries.

 

[Monk]

Well they should have signed him before he/they peaked.
Foligno had a career year. He has been a solid 3rd line player, and even last year that is what he was. But he had one big year and suddenly we signed him to a long-term deal paying him around 2nd line money. It was a bad signing. Not a bad player but if they liked his leadership should have signed him earlier, not banked on his contract year setting the parameters for his next contract.

Bob - He did the same thing with Philly. Played great, then played not so great and they traded him. We got him he's played great at times but is oft injured. Plus the general dynamic is 2 goalies now, and Bob seems to need about every day to be effective. Very tough to see $7M going to a guys who will likely only play 40-55 games with injuries.

Yes, they should have predicted the future and structured both their contracts accordingly. I agree completely.

But seriously, they have to gamble - especially when historically it's been difficult to attract top-tier talent to Columbus. They win some, they lose some. Jury is still out for me whether either of these can be chalked up in the "lose" column.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

Well they should have signed him before he/they peaked.
Foligno had a career year.

Look it at from the agent/player perspective. What you have going into your first UFA deal? A career year and 29 other potential options. I am sure Fog loved Columbus as Kenzie's son and Letestu both sure as hell did but boy do we love money?

 

[major major]

Well they should have signed him before he/they peaked.
Foligno had a career year. He has been a solid 3rd line player, and even last year that is what he was.

You should know not to post like this when I'm lurking.

Seriously, what statistical basis do you have for that claim? Because I got scoring rates, minutes played, points, possession stats, etc...