Player Discussion Tuukka Rask VI

[4ORRBRUIN]

Ummmmm, you mean the same as last year that ended the season with 112 points and cruised into the playoffs?

Are they as good ? I don't think so. Are the teams that were bad last year going to be bad this year? Not based on what I have seen. To many things went well last year with the young guys that stepped in.

If sweeney and company are thinking they are going to be better I hope so but to me that's very risky business .

One big trade can change everything but is that out there.

 

[Seidenbergy]

Are they as good ? I don't think so. Are the teams that were bad last year going to be bad this year? Not based on what I have seen. To many things went well last year with the young guys that stepped in.

If sweeney and company are thinking they are going to be better I hope so but to me that's very risky business .

One big trade can change everything but is that out there.

I'm simply responding to your post about them not even being a playoff team. I think that's crazy talk. Short of MAJOR injuries at key positions, you don't keep a roster like this together and all of a sudden go from 112 points to not making the playoffs at all.

 

[DKH]

Get out of jail card. I will wager the beer you owe me from last year. This team as built will struggle to get in the playoffs if they make it at all.

It wouldn't shock me in the least for them to be sellers at the deadline, I would love to owe YOU a beer in the end but in my view of watching and following very closely we are in for a down year. One line team a mentally weak #1 goal is a recipe for a high first round pick.

Time will tell.

Put me down for 111 points and win 2 rounds

That will make it easy

 

[patty59]

7-3-2 and people are throwing in the towel?

A resilient bunch here.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

7-3-2 and people are throwing in the towel?

A resilient bunch here.

Goalie controversy.

First line providing too much of the offense.

The kids experiencing sophomore slumps.

All of these overrides the 7-3-2 record (played weak teams).


All of these people need to visit the “Happy Puppy” thread.

 

[Donnie Shulzhoffer]

Are they as good ? I don't think so. Are the teams that were bad last year going to be bad this year? Not based on what I have seen. To many things went well last year with the young guys that stepped in.

If sweeney and company are thinking they are going to be better I hope so but to me that's very risky business .

One big trade can change everything but is that out there.

I agree with what is bold. It sucks when that happens.

 

[Chief Nine]

Goalie controversy.

First line providing too much of the offense.

The kids experiencing sophomore slumps.

All of these overrides the 7-3-2 record (played weak teams).


All of these people need to visit the “Happy Puppy” thread.

Or the nearest bar

 

[JOKER 192]

All this stuff was said last year

All the negative crowd on HF and many media folks like Clark Booth (RIP) last November railed exactly as now

Posters like Dom Tiano, Glorydaze, Jersey Lou, Nugs, Bruinsfan94, myself and others but clearly the minority saw a very good team.

I brought back threads and posts from certain media and Bruins posters that showed how far off they were with the benefit of hindsight.

Mods I know asked me to not do it because it wouldn’t go over well so I stopped.

I’ll tell you right now - this team is a 105+ regular season group that will be winning a Cup sooner than you think based on everything I see organizationally

Time will be the judge but with heath I see them early November (5thish) I see this team taking off and by the first week of April pre playoffs 5 months later sitting very high in the NHL power rankings

Remember this I will

I see a very good team too. I just don't see what you see.

I don't see a Stanely Cup winner , not this year or next.

I see and aging corp that will be to old by the time the prospects get their shit together. And I don't see Tuukka leading this team to a SC either. Wish I was seeing something else but I'm not.

What has this team done to compete with Tampa? They are pretty much the same team as last year and likely a little worse, meanwhile Tampa has added McDonagh who is having an excellent season to an already overwhelming team. How can we expect a different result from last years playoffs. Are we going to sign Nash to add to all the bad contracts we already have? Tampa is simply a better team in all aspects. What about Washington? If they have to play Washington all bets are off. If they ever do solve their conference then they will have to deal with Nashville or Winnepeg both teams they have had trouble with for a while now. Sorry just don't see it.

I'll remember this too, however power rankings don't excite me , I prefer Stanley Cups, I'm funny that way .

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Goalie controversy.

First line providing too much of the offense.

The kids experiencing sophomore slumps.

All of these overrides the 7-3-2 record (played weak teams).


All of these people need to visit the “Happy Puppy” thread.

The only thing of any importance I got out of this is... We have a Happy Puppy thread?!!!

 

[JOKER 192]

I agree with what is bold. It sucks when that happens.

Sucks even more when it doesn't , like this year.

 

[DKH]

7-3-2 and people are throwing in the towel?

A resilient bunch here.

apparently it’s a soft 7-3-2

 

[nfld77]

A very tough Preds on Saturday night. Like last season, now is the perfect time to ride the hot hand between the pipes, which means go back to Halak. I do expect Tuukka to soon be back to form. In fact, his stats have actually improved every game he's played. He now has a 902 save% and a 3.15 Goals against average so not completely horrible considering the Caps game. Take away the 1st game of the season and he's went 3-2 with a 2.40 GAA and a .916 save %... So since the Washington game, his numbers have been pretty good, certainly not bad enough to think he's really slumping. BUT those softies gotta stop. Sure sign he's not on his complete game..
But bottom line, Halak is playing extrordinary and Rask is beginning to come around so it's heading to hopefully a William M. Jennings Trophy!!

 

[NDiesel]

7-3-2 and people are throwing in the towel?

A resilient bunch here.

Wasn't our record atrocious last year around this time as well?

 

[Dr Hook]

Wasn't our record atrocious last year around this time as well?

Yeh it was below .500 if I recall correctly

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I think the serious Tuukka detractors have pumped themselves full of confirmation bias over the last number of years. He’s a fine goalie. However, pretty much every bloated goalie contract around the league is met with questions from the fan base regarding its overall worth and the player’s real contribution.

I would be “open” to trading Tuukka as long as it does not mean retaining more than 25% of his salary and that’s if we are getting some serious assets in return. Unless it’s a complete haul, the contract needs to be gone in its entirety.

My honest opinion is that goalies are a bit of a crapshoot both before they make the NHL and during their stint. You don’t want to fall into a Philadelphia Flyers trap of never knowing who is going to be the starter the next season...or game...but these big goalie contracts almost never seem worth it.

I think if you trade Rask now, you are definitely taking a big hit as far as making any big run for the Cup this year, but maybe at some point, that becomes the best option. Time will tell. I guess the jist of my post is I understand both keeping him and looking to move him. If you can get another top 6 forward, and be relieved of that contract in its entirety, I am certainly listening.

Yes, there is a big risk to trading him...but, it may come time to take that risk.

 

[Dr Hook]

Yes, there is a big risk to trading him...but, it may come time to take that risk.

I am a Rask guy, but moving him would be fine if . . . I see the biggest risk in that we don't have anyone except a 33 year old Jaro Halak as a legit NHL goalie. A Rask trade would have to bring back at least an on the cusp NHL goalie that has starting potential. We have some good young guys who might turn out- Keyser, Swayman, Vladar- but they all seem to be some years off right now. Zane is not looking like it.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I am a Rask guy, but moving him would be fine if . . . I see the biggest risk in that we don't have anyone except a 33 year old Jaro Halak as a legit NHL goalie. A Rask trade would have to bring back at least an on the cusp NHL goalie that has starting potential. We have some good young guys who might turn out- Keyser, Swayman, Vladar- but they all seem to be some years off right now. Zane is not looking like it.

Expresses my concerns pretty accurately as well. We’d be in a Flyers position pretty quickly (I.e. a team that seemingly has not had a steady NHL goaltender since the 90’s).h

It would be nice to get some second line forward help with a Rask trade, but I certainly am wary of solving one problem only to create another maybe even larger one.

 

[NDiesel]

I think the serious Tuukka detractors have pumped themselves full of confirmation bias over the last number of years. He’s a fine goalie. However, pretty much every bloated goalie contract around the league is met with questions from the fan base regarding its overall worth and the player’s real contribution.

I would be “open” to trading Tuukka as long as it does not mean retaining more than 25% of his salary and that’s if we are getting some serious assets in return. Unless it’s a complete haul, the contract needs to be gone in its entirety.

My honest opinion is that goalies are a bit of a crapshoot both before they make the NHL and during their stint. You don’t want to fall into a Philadelphia Flyers trap of never knowing who is going to be the starter the next season...or game...but these big goalie contracts almost never seem worth it.

I think if you trade Rask now, you are definitely taking a big hit as far as making any big run for the Cup this year, but maybe at some point, that becomes the best option. Time will tell. I guess the jist of my post is I understand both keeping him and looking to move him. If you can get another top 6 forward, and be relieved of that contract in its entirety, I am certainly listening.

Yes, there is a big risk to trading him...but, it may come time to take that risk.

I think you are right in that goaltending is a crapshoot, even for the best guys. I think overall you want a guy who is consistently a top 10 goalie (obviously top 5 is ideal but it's extremely rare to find year after year). At worst you want your starter to be consistently in the top half of the league for starters.

Consistency is tough to find ESPECIALLY for goalies. I took a look back at the past 10 years to see how consistently guys are in the top 3 of Vezina voting just for my own curiosity.

It's very rare for a guy to show up in consecutive years. Holtby, Rinne and Lundvqist did it. Only Thomas and Bobrovsky have won it more than once. Rinne shows up the most, but only once in consecutive years. A top guy like Quick had a 3 year break before being top 3 again and another top guy in Bobrovsky had a 3 year break before getting his 2nd win.

2018 Vezina finalists: Rinne, Hellebuyck, Vaselevski
2017: Bobrovsky, Holtby, Price
2016: Holtby, Bishop, Quick
2015: Price, Rinne, Dubnyk
2014: Rask, Varlamov, Bishop
2013: Bobrovsky, Lundqvist, Niemi
2012: Lundqvist, Quick, Rinne
2011: Thomas, Rinne, Lou
2010: Miller, Bryzgalov, Broduer
2009: Thomas, Mason Backstrom

I stopped at 2009 because Brodeur was dominant before then, kind of ruining the theory that it's a crapshoot.

Consistency year to year for goalies isn't just a Rask issue. Lots of things affect this like defensemen regressing, systems changing and goalies simply getting worse as they age.

If someone or myself has more time I'd be curious to see what the top 5 looks like for voting as well.

My point in regards to your post? All of these guys make close to what Rask make. So you trade his 7 mil and spend it elsewhere. You aren't going to get a goalie of the caliber of the guys on the above list (maybe Bobrovsky, who has atrocious playoff stats, what people rag on Rask for), so you risk having an even streakier goalie from year to year. I'm not against a trade if we get the right pieces, but we need a better plan than Halak as our starter.

 

[Gee Wally]

If you think Tuukka Rask is the problem, the numbers don’t back you up - The Boston Globe

When Radek Faksa beat him with a cupcake off left wing Monday night, Mike from Winthrop and Eddie from Revere set their cells to Blame Tuukka auto-dial for Tuesday morn, ready for another day of Rip Rask radio.

The cudgel buddies, with pictures of Game 6 in 2013 plastered on their bathroom walls, have been emboldened this year because Halak, hired on over the summer as Rask’s relief, has been outstanding. They want Halak to be in net every night and Rask sent off to Saskatoon, after a public flogging in Saugus.

“Jaro’s played unbelievable,” Rask noted after his win over the Stars, in which he went 24 for 24 on saves after the softy. “You know, that’s how it goes. If you have a hot goalie like that, you have to let him play. I totally get it.”

Here is something few see about Rask: He answers every single time. The same can’t be said about another player in the Boston dressing room except Patrice Bergeron.

Win, lose, or lousy, Rask is the first, second, or third to come out to answer to the media contingent. Home or away. Two points or too bad for prime time. Every time he plays.

If he’s had a good night, he’ll shrug and say, “Yeah, it was a good game.” If he stunk the joint out, he’ll shrug and say, “Shoulda had it. I sucked.” Pardon the language, but yeah, he’s blunt.

Some of the other relevant numbers adding to Rask’s bona fides, when comparing him with the 11 other current NHL tenders who’ve played 300 games since Rask became a No. 1 in 2012-13:
GAMES: 1. Rask, 354; 2. Braden Holtby, 350; Henrik Lundqvist, 348.
WINS: 1. Holtby, 215; 2. Rask, 195; Marc-Andre Fleury, 184.
GAA: 1. Rask, 2.28; Jonathan Quick, 2.29; Ben Bishop, 2.33.
SAVE PCT.: 1. Sergei Bobrovsky, .922; 2. Rask, .921. Bishop, .920.
So blame the guy all you want, but of the other 11 other workhorses during his years as a starter, Blame Tuukka is first or second in all four categories.

So blame away, because that’s what we do here, but at least know your numbers.

 

[Chief Nine]

If you think Tuukka Rask is the problem, the numbers don’t back you up - The Boston Globe

When Radek Faksa beat him with a cupcake off left wing Monday night, Mike from Winthrop and Eddie from Revere set their cells to Blame Tuukka auto-dial for Tuesday morn, ready for another day of Rip Rask radio.

The cudgel buddies, with pictures of Game 6 in 2013 plastered on their bathroom walls, have been emboldened this year because Halak, hired on over the summer as Rask’s relief, has been outstanding. They want Halak to be in net every night and Rask sent off to Saskatoon, after a public flogging in Saugus.

“Jaro’s played unbelievable,” Rask noted after his win over the Stars, in which he went 24 for 24 on saves after the softy. “You know, that’s how it goes. If you have a hot goalie like that, you have to let him play. I totally get it.”

Here is something few see about Rask: He answers every single time. The same can’t be said about another player in the Boston dressing room except Patrice Bergeron.

Win, lose, or lousy, Rask is the first, second, or third to come out to answer to the media contingent. Home or away. Two points or too bad for prime time. Every time he plays.

If he’s had a good night, he’ll shrug and say, “Yeah, it was a good game.” If he stunk the joint out, he’ll shrug and say, “Shoulda had it. I sucked.” Pardon the language, but yeah, he’s blunt.

Some of the other relevant numbers adding to Rask’s bona fides, when comparing him with the 11 other current NHL tenders who’ve played 300 games since Rask became a No. 1 in 2012-13:
GAMES: 1. Rask, 354; 2. Braden Holtby, 350; Henrik Lundqvist, 348.
WINS: 1. Holtby, 215; 2. Rask, 195; Marc-Andre Fleury, 184.
GAA: 1. Rask, 2.28; Jonathan Quick, 2.29; Ben Bishop, 2.33.
SAVE PCT.: 1. Sergei Bobrovsky, .922; 2. Rask, .921. Bishop, .920.
So blame the guy all you want, but of the other 11 other workhorses during his years as a starter, Blame Tuukka is first or second in all four categories.

So blame away, because that’s what we do here, but at least know your numbers.

Yeah, but his body language...

 

[bruins repeat time]

I see no way Rask can be moved unless you have a younger option long term plan which we don't currently have . I personally am very high on Rask and would dispute with anyone that says he hasn't been really good here most of his time .

This year he has been pretty bad but it has been one month so no biggie in my eyes . Halek has been awesome but no way I am I giving him the keys for the next few years .

As far as bruins go they will coast in to the playoffs . I am not sure if they finish 1-2 or 3 in Atlantic but no one is possibly finishing ahead of them but the other big two. I think we can all agree buffalo and montreal have greatly improved but lol to anyone who thinks they can go the distance regular season wise with the bruins .

Playoff wise I have no predictions because a 1st rd match with the leafs or Lightning is pure punishment and going to be very very tough.

 

[NDiesel]

Yeah, but his body language...

People just don't like him for some reason, it isn't a recent thing either with his poorer years. I remember my friend's dad, back in 2013 when he was doing terrific and simply saying "I know he has good stats, but I just don't trust him."

I feel like that's the way tons of people feel about him. Maybe it is his body language.....

 

[Lobster57]

People just don't like him for some reason, it isn't a recent thing either with his poorer years. I remember my friend's dad, back in 2013 when he was doing terrific and simply saying "I know he has good stats, but I just don't trust him."

I feel like that's the way tons of people feel about him. Maybe it is his body language.....

for most of the people who don't like him, his biggest failing is that he isn't Tim Thomas.

 

[Chief Nine]

People just don't like him for some reason, it isn't a recent thing either with his poorer years. I remember my friend's dad, back in 2013 when he was doing terrific and simply saying "I know he has good stats, but I just don't trust him."

I feel like that's the way tons of people feel about him. Maybe it is his body language.....

I hear it all the time man. My cousin is good for at least one phone call or text after Rask has a bad game trashing him. Guys around the office where I work give that look and go "Yeah but..." and I just smile because it's like an epidemic with Tuukka

 

[Chief Nine]

for most of the people who don't like him, his biggest failing is that he isn't Tim Thomas.

You might be on to something here. Thomas was a take no prisoners type of guy and Rask, while fiery in his own way, isn't that type at all. He's not a me, me, me guy either. As that article that @Gee Wally posted upthread, Rask is one hell of a standup guy and gets very little credit for it. I think he's severely underappreciated around here