Salary Cap: The Guds days are gone, now it's time to look forward

[Pancakes]

You're probably saving about $3 million or more if Murray wants a big cap hit, which is significant enough where you have to consider the option. You'd be looking at someone like Markstrom, Greiss or Halak in free agency to be a platoon goalie with Jarry, and I can't imagine that would cost much more than $5 million.



Make that games played requirement 40 games and Murray falls to 8th, because Bishop (46 games), Lehner (46 games), Greiss (43 games), Khudobin (41 games) and Halak (40 games) all had a save% better than Murray's .919 last year and played in that many games. Make it 30 games and you add Campbell and Binnington. So yes, I will say that's a cherrypicked size

I also don't think just mentioning a goalie's rank is that accurate. Murray is 3rd in the sample you're looking at, but the difference between #2 and #3 is the same as the difference between #3 and #12. If you lower the games played requirements to 45, the difference between Bishop (#1) and Murray (#8) is the same as the difference between Murray and Craig Anderson (#32). Saying "Murray is essentially tied in save% with Price, Rinne, Andersen and Gibson" is a more accurate representation than "Murray is 3rd in save% among players with 50 or more starts".

I think Murray falls between the 9th best and 12th best goalie in the NHL. I think Bobrovsky, Price, Vasilevskiy, Gibson, Rask, Rinne, Bishop and Andersen (he's Murray if Murray had 5 years of what he was last year) are all definitely better, and I think Fleury, Holtby, Murray and Dubnyk (super underrated IMO) fall in the 9-12 range. To me, that is not elite. Murray may have been better Bobrovsky, Price or Rinne in any given season, but he's not established as being a better goalie. Murray is above average, but he's like 10th best in the league, not "let's give him a blank check" good.

I just think you're not gaining much with that three million saved. Not enough to risk going from having a good goalie to a worse one. There's no guarantee we'd even get the goalie we want in FA anyways. Why risk it? So we can do....what? Spend three million on some halfway decent FA? If we're lucky we get a Tanev. If we're not, we get a Jack Johnson. I like Tanev a lot but not enough to risk losing Matt Murray and going to a goalie who may be worse or may not sign with us at all.

You're also forgetting that Murray is young at only 25 years old. His best days are (possibly) ahead of him. Markstrom is already almost 30.

 

[Gurglesons]

Once again. If we are speaking in hypothetical situations you arb Murray and get him for a year or two.

 

[Kasperi kapanen]

Galchenyuk+ for Zucker or Bjug+Zar for Fiala.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

could you be any more insulting? Yes, I’m blind, please lead me out of the wilderness...I watch a good deal of hockey and other teams goalies and Murray is inconsistent...his highs are high but he loses position a lot even during the same game...it’s not eight games great and then one bad one...often in the same game he’ll make great saves and then be out of position on others...not just goals but you can see him deep in his crease when the other team is buzzing and doesn’t get a goal..

yes, he’s young but if you compare him to other starting goalies in their mid-20s, he’s not soaring above those players...there are goalies both better and worse than him...he’s the very definition of average...

and that’s fine...it would be a lot better than fine if we had Sid and a Geno in their primes to make up for the average goaltending...but that doesn’t mean he should be paid a huge sum because of what he did three years ago as a backup

I mean, I don't think I said anything insulting? I said that fans -- all fans -- have a tendency to remember the bad games a lot more easily than the good ones. And Murray's performance seems to be no exception to that.

Case in point, Murray's started 12 games so far this season. In 8 of those 12 starts, he's posted a save percentage of .917 or better. In comparison, a guy who is commonly considered a top 5 goalie in Bobrovsky has also started 12 games this year and has only 5 out of his 12 starts at .917 or better. Carey Price has started 12 games this season, 6 out of 12 starts he had a .917 save percentage or better. Yet there's talk of Murray being inconsistent even this season? Murray's been more consistent than the majority of goalies I bet folks would list as being "consistent". You don't have to take my word for it. The numbers are there.

Like I said, fans are going to remember the bad games of their starter more than they will the bad games of the other starters around the league because it affects them emotionally more. No one on here gives a shit if Price lets in 4 goals on 20 shots because it doesn't affect the team we cheer for. So if that happens, it gets glossed over for the games where he does star. But if it happens to Murray, like last night versus Boston, it's remembered as the reason our favorite team lost.

 

[EightyOne]

As a part-time SJS fan, I can tell you, the second your slightly better than average goalie falters behind a team with porous defense, the whole team is sunk. Now they need to hope he turns it around so they aren't stuck with a 3+GAA sub90% save $5.8mil goalie the next four years.

We keep talking about flash in the pan guys failing after one good season ...Jones had many years of really good play and has fallen on his face.

Is that reason to sign Murray as long as possible, or keep contract shorter?

 

[LOGiK]

As a part-time SJS fan, I can tell you, the second your slightly better than average goalie falters behind a team with porous defense, the whole team is sunk. Now they need to hope he turns it around so they aren't stuck with a 3+GAA sub90% save $5.8mil goalie the next four years.

We keep talking about flash in the pan guys failing after one good season ...Jones had many years of really good play and has fallen on his face.

Is that reason to sign Murray as long as possible, or keep contract shorter?

IMO goalies are a plenty. I don't mean go the philly route (7+ goalies a season), but I also do not agree with signing goalies anything over 3 mil... 4 tops. Unless you luck out with a generational talent.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I don't disagree. That being said, what if Murray goes down and Jarry plays >45 games and has better stats?

This is something that could legitimately happen at any time with Murray.

I don't see that as a bad thing, maybe that's just me.

IF Jarry steps up and is a better goalie and is consistent with it this year at any time Murray is hurt or has a stretch of struggling as he has the last 2yrs, I'd be curious about the whole contract thing. Because yeah the 2 cups were nice, but what happens after is a huge thing as well and if you're suddenly out played by the guy that was supposed to be the #1 instead of him, yeesh.

With that said, I don't see this coaching staff wanting to give Jarry games, it feels like they purposely don't like that kid the way upper management might.

On a sidenote: I have been playing mostly Madden and NHL and it's hilarious, I signed Justin Schultz to a 4yr extension at 4.65m/yr but Galchenyuk wanted 8m/yr (he had 24pts in 22 games at that point) so I moved him for Athanasiou straight up and Chucky has been stuck at 24pts in 40 games while AA has 43pts in 40 games with Geno.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

IMO goalies are a plenty. I don't mean go the philly route (7+ goalies a season), but I also do not agree with signing goalies anything over 3 mil... 4 tops. Unless you luck out with a generational talent.

Some racist wanker just won for the Blues this past season after being a failed hype for years. All you really need is a coach that is willing to adapt and harness what he has on his roster instead of making excuses and a goalie that is above average.

I wish Rod The Bod was our coach, I love his take for the game, not the shenanigans that his team does after wins and what not, but his approach. He's forever wanting to learn and adapt, he's never complacent, he's a guy that is going to be a fantastic coach for his entire coaching career.

 

[EightyOne]

IMO goalies are a plenty. I don't mean go the philly route (7+ goalies a season), but I also do not agree with signing goalies anything over 3 mil... 4 tops. Unless you luck out with a generational talent.

Just hard to know if you HAVE that generational talent. Is MM one? I'd say no...very skilled, yes, though.

I'm coming around to..if you give MM 8+mil it better as sure not be for more than 3 years.

 

[Peat]

As a part-time SJS fan, I can tell you, the second your slightly better than average goalie falters behind a team with porous defense, the whole team is sunk. Now they need to hope he turns it around so they aren't stuck with a 3+GAA sub90% save $5.8mil goalie the next four years.

We keep talking about flash in the pan guys failing after one good season ...Jones had many years of really good play and has fallen on his face.

Is that reason to sign Murray as long as possible, or keep contract shorter?

Whichever keeps his cap hit more manageable (and preferably has less trade protection) without causing a possible stability issue from contract speculation/free agency losses while still contending. It's hard to predict when goalies will struggle (and which will recover), so just stay as flexible as you in case the unexpected happens. I'd be unhappy with less than 3. Beyond that, whatever works. I guess 5 is my ideal here but I see no point being dogmatic. If there's a substantial discount for 8, then do it.

IMO goalies are a plenty. I don't mean go the philly route (7+ goalies a season), but I also do not agree with signing goalies anything over 3 mil... 4 tops. Unless you luck out with a generational talent.

Problem is the other GMs don't. If you won't pay more than that, you get shit goalies.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I just think you're not gaining much with that three million saved. Not enough to risk going from having a good goalie to a worse one. There's no guarantee we'd even get the goalie we want in FA anyways. Why risk it? So we can do....what? Spend three million on some halfway decent FA? If we're lucky we get a Tanev. If we're not, we get a Jack Johnson. I like Tanev a lot but not enough to risk losing Matt Murray and going to a goalie who may be worse or may not sign with us at all.

You're also forgetting that Murray is young at only 25 years old. His best days are (possibly) ahead of him. Markstrom is already almost 30.

The fear of not being able to replace Murray isn't a justification to overpay him. You can't be making decisions based on the fear that something bad may happen, that's like playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

It really seems like you're making up a strawman here to defend overpaying Murray, with mentioning things like "what if they don't get a replacement" or "you'd get Jack Johnson if you aren't lucky". The argument here is that a tandem like Markstrom-Jarry plus the assets and cap space you'd get by trading Murray help you more than overpaying Murray.

 

[Peat]

The fear of not being able to replace Murray isn't a justification to overpay him. You can't be making decisions based on the fear that something bad may happen, that's like playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

It really seems like you're making up a strawman here to defend overpaying Murray, with mentioning things like "what if they don't get a replacement" or "you'd get Jack Johnson if you aren't lucky". The argument here is that a tandem like Markstrom-Jarry plus the assets and cap space you'd get by trading Murray help you more than overpaying Murray.

But you can't guarantee you'll get a replacement. The likelihood of being able to source a replacement is a pretty big part of evaluating how valuable a player is.

 

[Empoleon8771]

But you can't guarantee you'll get a replacement. The likelihood of being able to source a replacement is a pretty big part of evaluating how valuable a player is.

You can make a replacement goalie a part of the Murray trade return if you're that concerned about signing a replacement UFA goalie.

 

[Peat]

You can make a replacement goalie a part of the Murray trade return if you're that concerned about signing a replacement UFA goalie.

Who's going to trade a goalie you'd trust back for Murray?

 

[Empoleon8771]

Who's going to trade a goalie you'd trust back for Murray?

A majority of teams who'd want to trade for Murray, because a lot of teams who would want to trade for Murray will also have to get rid of their current starter.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I want to add that I don't think adding uncertainty regarding trading Murray counts as a rebuttal to the idea of trading him. The idea is independent on its own, it's whether it's smarter to overpay Murray or trade Murray, run with Jarry as the "goalie of the future" and save a good chunk of cap space by running with a Jarry-Veteran tandem. I don't think saying "what if you can't get a veteran goalie?" or "who's going to trade for Murray?" is a rebuttal to the idea of trading Murray, it's not relevant to the actual idea being discussed.

It's like saying "what if Murray regresses back to 2017-2018 form after he gets his extension?" to argue against the idea of overpaying Murray. Like that's entirely possible, but that's not an argument against overpaying Murray.

 

[vikingGoalie]

Lehner looks like he has legit turned his career around and that last year was not a flash in the pan. If MM wants 8+ I would kick the tires on Lehner after this season.

Bob is starting to look like the ultimate cautionary tale of paying to much for a goalie. 12GP 88.2% save percentage, 10M cap hit, WOOF.

 

[molon labe]

Who's going to trade a goalie you'd trust back for Murray?

Dubnyk (33, 4.33x1) would be my number 1 target. 6'6" goalie who's averaged 64 games a year on a mediocre Wild club putting up respectable numbers. You'd only get one year out of his current contract, but that would allow the expected salary cap bump to hit in the 21-22 season before giving him a raise in his final contract (if we stuck with him). The Wild would have to consider based on the ages of the two goalies and the 'rebuild' plan they surely have in place going forward.

Outside of him - I'd consider some of the older guys on a short deal or expiring deal hoping that Jarry is ready to take the reins. Those types of deals would either be via offer sheet to Murray (at the cap hit we'd rake in some nice draft picks), or by trading him for X and then signing those guys or trading a cheaper offensive piece to those teams looking to get out of them. One thing is for sure this Summer - there is no shortage of teams (both younger and older) who are in need of a #1 goalie.

 

[molon labe]

I want to add that I don't think adding uncertainty regarding trading Murray counts as a rebuttal to the idea of trading him. The idea is independent on its own, it's whether it's smarter to overpay Murray or trade Murray, run with Jarry as the "goalie of the future" and save a good chunk of cap space by running with a Jarry-Veteran tandem. I don't think saying "what if you can't get a veteran goalie?" or "who's going to trade for Murray?" is a rebuttal to the idea of trading Murray, it's not relevant to the actual idea being discussed.

It's like saying "what if Murray regresses back to 2017-2018 form after he gets his extension?" to argue against the idea of overpaying Murray. Like that's entirely possible, but that's not an argument against overpaying Murray.

I think it's also fair to add to your consideration of Jarry + Veteran the assets we would haul in for Murray.

This Summer versus nearly any other in years' past is one where a guy like him would get a haul. His only competition is Holtby. Lehner (sorta) - but really that's it. You have loads and loads of teams who either have an older guy, a vet they no longer have faith in, or are a younger team looking to build - who would all likely give up either great draft position or some solid assets to have MM. Perhaps a deal centered around something like that - knowing you have Jarry/Veteran makes it worth it versus overpaying MM to begin with. Idk.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Although I agreed with keeping MM at the expansion draft, you'd have to think that the return for him then would have been amazing. That would have been a huge gamble from JR but it could have set us up for the remainder of Sid/Geno/MAFs careers.

 

[Peat]

A majority of teams who'd want to trade for Murray, because a lot of teams who would want to trade for Murray will also have to get rid of their current starter.

And how many of those teams have a starter you'd trust?

Sure the "How do you replace him" questions aren't a rebuttal to Murray trade talk in and of themselves. But they are part of the process in terms of whether it's a good idea. Right now, I'm not hearing many answers I like, which means it's still an idea I don't like.

 

[molon labe]

Although I agreed with keeping MM at the expansion draft, you'd have to think that the return for him then would have been amazing. That would have been a huge gamble from JR but it could have set us up for the remainder of Sid/Geno/MAFs careers.

MAF was not reliable when he was here was the issue. He had both great playoffs and absolutely terrible playoffs. The Ottawa series was a microcosm of his entire tenure with the Pens. Simply not a guy you can bank on going forward. Tremendous goalie, tremendous person (allegedly) - but 50/50 shot on what you were getting in a given playoff series. This team has a hard enough time accepting that with Letang - our #1D....your #1 goalie can't be like that. Murray was good - but appeared generational when he stepped in simply because he made the routine saves we needed. He's been up and down in the regular season but absolutely a stud in the playoffs.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

MAF was not reliable when he was here was the issue. He had both great playoffs and absolutely terrible playoffs. The Ottawa series was a microcosm of his entire tenure with the Pens. Simply not a guy you can bank on going forward. Tremendous goalie, tremendous person (allegedly) - but 50/50 shot on what you were getting in a given playoff series. This team has a hard enough time accepting that with Letang - our #1D....your #1 goalie can't be like that. Murray was good - but appeared generational when he stepped in simply because he made the routine saves we needed. He's been up and down in the regular season but absolutely a stud in the playoffs.

Some of that is true and mainly why JR kept MM over MAF. However, since the 2017 TDL he's been the better and more consistent goalie especially in the POs.

It's a complete hypothetical because no GM would keep the guy 10 years older then what looked like the next great goalie, but the return would have been huge and MAFs been the better goalie so far.

 

[DeadPuckEra]

They are not going to trade Murray or let him walk. This conversation is pointless.

I don’t agree with that notion - I would much rather find an elite goaltender and hitch my wagon to him for the next 6-7 years at a higher cost... I would happily take a goalie with the same ability as Murray, but with a better health track record. I would have committed 3 years to a guy like Robin Lehner - who is a better goaltender than Matt Murray IMO (he’s just had off ice issues that scared everyone away).

I guess what I’m saying is I don’t view Murray as a franchise goaltender. He is Mike Smith.


It’s just not going to happen. Rutherford loves Murray. Murray is going to get paid and then some. Maybe deservedly so from a sentimental standpoint, having won two cups- which Rutherford does operate off of at times (see the 15 million he handed to a player he drafted and 87’s bestie)... and hiring any vet who wants to play for him again.

From a business standpoint. Goalies of/or near Matt Murray’s caliber are out there at a much lesser cost to the cap.

 

[Empoleon8771]

And how many of those teams have a starter you'd trust?

Sure the "How do you replace him" questions aren't a rebuttal to Murray trade talk in and of themselves. But they are part of the process in terms of whether it's a good idea. Right now, I'm not hearing many answers I like, which means it's still an idea I don't like.

A bunch of them? There are a lot of good goalies in the NHL today. I think you're just so against the idea that you're refusing to even consider it an option.

Let me add some more specifics to make it an easier question to answer:

1. Overpay Murray at like $8.5 million a year or more
2. Trade Murray to Calgary for Rittich, a prospect and a 1st, make Jarry the "goalie of the future" and run with a Jarry-Rittich tandem until Jarry's fully ready to be the starter.