Yakupov64
Registered User
- Dec 25, 2017
- 146
- 20
I remember thinking the same exact thing about jori lehteraKoskinen is actually pretty good but yeah, I get your point.
I remember thinking the same exact thing about jori lehteraKoskinen is actually pretty good but yeah, I get your point.
Because in 2 summers, when the expansion draft happens, this guarantees us having a goalie that's eligible for exposure without threat of losing Kahkonen or Dubnyk.
Very unusual to see an older backup get 3yrs, but it's good for the Wild IMO.
I assume Stalock wanted the guaranteed money (1-way) rather than gambling later on.
You are suggesting that the Wild would be unable to sign a back up next year or the year after to expose? Pretty odd imo
They are comfortable with what they have in Stalock and the price they have him at. Plus they can still shop for other goalies and send Stalock to the AHL without taking a cap hit.
Come next year and the year after there will be a few backups getting overpayed because they have the leverage.
That wasnt the argument though
I mean he’s as solid as they come for backupsStalock is the type of goalie that could be out of the NHL in any year. Makes sense for both parties IMO.
In what way is he solid?I mean he’s as solid as they come for backups
Those are all fine reasons why nobody needs to really hate this deal. Can you come up with any reasons to like it?it's a devil you know, we have a tender signed for the expansion rules, i'm pretty sure teammates like him. why no? Not your money. he can get buried if they want.
Makes zero senseBecause you can "probably" all you want, but backups are backups because they generally aren't good enough to start. thus the "devil you know" part; stalock has been here long enough for bruce to have a better guess as to how he's feeling than he would an unfamiliar goalie. not by itself a reason not to try something else but with everything else there's no real reason to switch it up IMO. Don't have to love it--i can't think of any backup signing i'd "love".
That makes no sense? How often does he (bruce) say something like "I could tell in practice so and so wasn't going to have a good game"? One backup at that price point will be roughly as good as another unless you strike it rich somehow. I guess you can hate the re-signing if you want but I really don't see why. He's cheap, he's okay, he's familiar, he's signed for long enough to be eligible for expansion and not much longer. I honestly don't really care one way or the other. he's clearly not "goalie of the future" and anyone we sign to that spot wouldn't be either. He has as much chance as winning games as most backups.Makes zero sense
Assuming all backups are terrible and just re-signing the terrible goalie you have because you already know he's terrible? That's your logic? I'm on board with your opinion that this isn't all that big of a deal in the grand scheme, but I certainly hope that Fenton puts a little more effort than that into player evals.That makes no sense? How often does he (bruce) say something like "I could tell in practice so and so wasn't going to have a good game"? One backup at that price point will be roughly as good as another unless you strike it rich somehow. I guess you can hate the re-signing if you want but I really don't see why. He's cheap, he's okay, he's familiar, he's signed for long enough to be eligible for expansion and not much longer. I honestly don't really care one way or the other. he's clearly not "goalie of the future" and anyone we sign to that spot wouldn't be either. He has as much chance as winning games as most backups.
Assuming all backups are terrible and just re-signing the terrible goalie you have because you already know he's terrible? That's your logic? I'm on board with your opinion that this isn't all that big of a deal in the grand scheme, but I certainly hope that Fenton puts a little more effort than that into player evals.