Would you rather have...

[schenneuf]

I have been a Sharks fan since 93. I remember the Ozolinsh shot off the post, I have Zyuzin's hockey card in a sleeve, and I still have a #32 Irbe jersey. Given the team's successful history with Latvians, just a friendly question for you:

Despite not having stellar stats, Gudlevskis has looked great every time ive watched him (many say the same, again despite the mediocre save %), and i love the kid's attitude, work ethic, and calming influence in net. I think he has very good starting calibur upside.

Would you rather have traded something like a 3rd for Gudlevskis than the unprotected 1st for Jones? A much cheaper price and potentially just as much reward.

Click to read more...

 

[TheHockeyRant]

I have been a Sharks fan since 93. I remember the Ozolinsh shot off the post, I have Zyuzin's hockey card in a sleeve, and I still have a #32 Irbe jersey. Given the team's successful history with Latvians, just a friendly question for you:

Despite not having stellar stats, Gudlevskis has looked great every time ive watched him (many say the same, again despite the mediocre save %), and i love the kid's attitude, work ethic, and calming influence in net. I think he has very good starting calibur upside.

Would you rather have traded something like a 3rd for Gudlevskis than the unprotected 1st for Jones? A much cheaper price and potentially just as much reward.

Goalie's post 2005 are 100% unpredictable. Here is a list of goaltenders who have been consistently good for 5 seasons or more since 2005

1- Henrik Lundqvist
2- Roberto Luongo
3- Carey Price (barely makes the cut)
4- Jonathan Quick (barely makes the cut)

Goaltenders like Rinne haven't been around long enough, or like Miller have been too inconsistent or like Schneider/ Rask haven't had many seasons as the actual starter.

So if anything the goaltender game in the NHL these days is a crap shoot.

 

[nabbyfan]

Zyuzin is Russian, not Latvian.

That being said, the organization has Jevpalovs, Balcers, and Cukste. Quota of Baltic players has been reached...I would like Dainius Zubrus from a few years ago, but not todays player.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Zyuzin is Russian, not Latvian.

He was talking about Irbe.

 

[hohosaregood]

It's probably rather have Jones since he's farther along in his development than Gudlevskis and generally ready for to be a starter compared to Gudlevskis who hasnt really played in the NHL.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

Would you rather have traded something like a 3rd for Gudlevskis than the unprotected 1st for Jones? A much cheaper price and potentially just as much reward.

Interesting question, but I don't think Gudlevskis would have been available for a 3rd. If Vasilevsky wasn't there, he'd be the next in line to put pressure on Bishop. A 3rd may be his current value but his potential is for much more (IMO), so I doubt Tampa deals him.

Also, on the basis that Jones can go next year, I think we made the right choice.

 

[210]

Goalie's post 2005 are 100% unpredictable. Here is a list of goaltenders who have been consistently good for 5 seasons or more since 2005

1- Henrik Lundqvist
2- Roberto Luongo
3- Carey Price (barely makes the cut)
4- Jonathan Quick (barely makes the cut)

Goaltenders like Rinne haven't been around long enough, or like Miller have been too inconsistent or like Schneider/ Rask haven't had many seasons as the actual starter.

So if anything the goaltender game in the NHL these days is a crap shoot.

Define "consistently good".

 

[TheHockeyRant]

Define "consistently good".

Over the course of 5 seasons that meet the following criteria.

Be a #1 starter (at least 50 GP)
Post better stats than the league average during said year.

That's it. It may not seem like much but so many of the goalies today simply have not been consistent enough OR have not been around long enough to meet these simple standards.

 

[210]

Over the course of 5 seasons that meet the following criteria.

Be a #1 starter (at least 50 GP)
Post better stats than the league average during said year.

That's it. It may not seem like much but so many of the goalies today simply have not been consistent enough OR have not been around long enough to meet these simple standards.

I would love for you to be a GM of a team I played against a lot...

 

[TheHockeyRant]

I would love for you to be a GM of a team I played against a lot...

Subtle insult, not so subtle.

Please continue to belittle people it's highly respectable.

 

[210]

Subtle insult, not so subtle.

Please continue to belittle people it's highly respectable.

It was not intended to be subtle. After reading your posts over the last few months I really wish I were a competing GM with you and we were in the same division.

You place far too much emphasis on subjective information. In this specific case, why did you chose 5 years and not 3? Heck, why not 8? You basically picked a random number and then made an opinion from it.

What I find highly amusing is of the top 10 all time save percentage leaders (not active, all time) you dismissed two of them in Rask (#1) and Rinne (#7) based solely on they don't meet your arbitrary numbers, but they do meet the minimum qualifications set to be recorded as qualifying for that stat. Two more on that list, Jaroslav Halak (#8) and Semyon Varlamov (#9), you don't mention at all yet both have over 250 games played and are undeniably the starters on their teams.

Now I realize save percentage isn't the end all stat, but I'll certainly take just that single bit of information vs the formula you've come up with.

 

[The Great John Scott]

I guess it's rather hard to gauge how Jones will play, given that he's our all-out unproven for next season. Sure, I'd have loved to keep next year's 1st, but I have no scale with which to gauge Jones' hypothetical ceiling, nor that of any other goalie brought in to replace Niemi.

The truth is we'll all just have to wait and see before any of us can give an informed opinion of what we should do/should have done to address the goalie vacancy.

 

[Sleepy]

Gettin feisty in here.


To the OP, I'll take the Jones deal in a heartbeat. I'd like to see the Sharks make the playoffs *this year* and Jones is a better fit for that.

 

[ieglover]

I have been a Sharks fan since 93. I remember the Ozolinsh shot off the post, I have Zyuzin's hockey card in a sleeve, and I still have a #32 Irbe jersey. Given the team's successful history with Latvians, just a friendly question for you:

Despite not having stellar stats, Gudlevskis has looked great every time ive watched him (many say the same, again despite the mediocre save %), and i love the kid's attitude, work ethic, and calming influence in net. I think he has very good starting calibur upside.

Would you rather have traded something like a 3rd for Gudlevskis than the unprotected 1st for Jones? A much cheaper price and potentially just as much reward.

What is the Ozo off the post shot? Are you talking about Garpenlov off the crossbar?

 

[Dicdonya]

It was not intended to be subtle. After reading your posts over the last few months I really wish I were a competing GM with you and we were in the same division.

You place far too much emphasis on subjective information. In this specific case, why did you chose 5 years and not 3? Heck, why not 8? You basically picked a random number and then made an opinion from it.

What I find highly amusing is of the top 10 all time save percentage leaders (not active, all time) you dismissed two of them in Rask (#1) and Rinne (#7) based solely on they don't meet your arbitrary numbers, but they do meet the minimum qualifications set to be recorded as qualifying for that stat. Two more on that list, Jaroslav Halak (#8) and Semyon Varlamov (#9), you don't mention at all yet both have over 250 games played and are undeniably the starters on their teams.

Now I realize save percentage isn't the end all stat, but I'll certainly take just that single bit of information vs the formula you've come up with.

I don't exactly agree with thehockeyrant, but I don't understand your argument against it.

Have you stopped to think about why it is guys like rask, varlamov and halak look so nice in sv% all time.

Rinne is the first goalie you argue for in games played, at 381, good enough for 107th all time, or roughly 5 seasons worth. It's much easier to keep your stats higher over a shorter period of time, all it would take is like 2 great seasons, and three average at best seasons. Guys like varlamov, and rask have even less chance to screw their stats up. I mean really, you're setting your subjective threshold at 250 games played, why are you complaining he set his years of consistency at 5?

Second, these goalies all have been good within the last 4-5 years. Years that have seen the nhl average sv% higher then ever before, with defensive systems and all that hoopla. So they also benefit from playing in a much more goalie friendly era, especially in terms of sv%.

In other words, you decide to chastise thehockeyrant for picking a specific set of data he likes, and then counter it with a set you like. Seems a little hypocritical to me. At least he attempted to find a way to compare players to his peers, not all time stats that HEAVILY favor smaller sample sizes and the era the goalies were playing in.

 

[HydroF]

No. A first is appropriate value for Jones and he is the the type of goalie we should have been targeting. In terms of his age+ future potential +current starter potential, he is a great fit for this team, and it was a great trade (at least as far as things appear now...)

 

[210]

I don't exactly agree with thehockeyrant, but I don't understand your argument against it.

Have you stopped to think about why it is guys like rask, varlamov and halak look so nice in sv% all time.

Rinne is the first goalie you argue for in games played, at 381, good enough for 107th all time, or roughly 5 seasons worth. It's much easier to keep your stats higher over a shorter period of time, all it would take is like 2 great seasons, and three average at best seasons. Guys like varlamov, and rask have even less chance to screw their stats up. I mean really, you're setting your subjective threshold at 250 games played, why are you complaining he set his years of consistency at 5?

Second, these goalies all have been good within the last 4-5 years. Years that have seen the nhl average sv% higher then ever before, with defensive systems and all that hoopla. So they also benefit from playing in a much more goalie friendly era, especially in terms of sv%.

In other words, you decide to chastise thehockeyrant for picking a specific set of data he likes, and then counter it with a set you like. Seems a little hypocritical to me. At least he attempted to find a way to compare players to his peers, not all time stats that HEAVILY favor smaller sample sizes and the era the goalies were playing in.

I picked a list from an established stat using the number of games a player has to play to qualify for it versus creating a list of my own using random criteria. I actually came right out at the end of my post and said that save% isn't the only thing I would use, but if I had to use just one set of criteria I'd pick save% over his list.

 

[TheHockeyRant]

It was not intended to be subtle. After reading your posts over the last few months I really wish I were a competing GM with you and we were in the same division.

You place far too much emphasis on subjective information. In this specific case, why did you chose 5 years and not 3? Heck, why not 8? You basically picked a random number and then made an opinion from it.

What I find highly amusing is of the top 10 all time save percentage leaders (not active, all time) you dismissed two of them in Rask (#1) and Rinne (#7) based solely on they don't meet your arbitrary numbers, but they do meet the minimum qualifications set to be recorded as qualifying for that stat. Two more on that list, Jaroslav Halak (#8) and Semyon Varlamov (#9), you don't mention at all yet both have over 250 games played and are undeniably the starters on their teams.

Now I realize save percentage isn't the end all stat, but I'll certainly take just that single bit of information vs the formula you've come up with.

So you wish...that two bloggers who have different opinions suddenly were thrown into one of the most powerful jobs in sports to settle a pissing match? I didn't know you were so bitter about someone having a different opinion but okay whatever helps you sleep.

Also did you just argue that average save % today simply proves that goaltenders are better than say.. the 90s? or 80s or 70s?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

Average Save % in 2015 .915 highest ever in league history.
Average save % in 2004 .911
Average % 1994- .895
Average % in 1984- .873

So when comparing save % of all time leaders that is what you would call a "subjective stat" because before the mid 90s above .900 save % was a rareity.

Again in the NHL today the average last year was .915. Keyword here is the average.

I picked a list from an established stat using the number of games a player has to play to qualify for it versus creating a list of my own using random criteria. I actually came right out at the end of my post and said that save% isn't the only thing I would use, but if I had to use just one set of criteria I'd pick save% over his list.

Uh...no you merely berated me without even understanding why I chose a period of 5 years. Did I pick 5 years out of the air, sure, but in order to make a damn opinion you have to create a criteria. In this case you refute everything even the criteria which is hysterical.

#1 I compared goalies averages stats compared to the league average not compared to historical data. Your "method" make someone like Ondrej Pavelec look heads and shoulders above the majority of any goaltender before 1999. Just a little bit flawed.

This doesn't mean that goalies such as Rask or Schneider are bad, it simply means they don't have as much experience due to a few factors, the turnover rate after the 05 lockout. and the competitiveness in net in todays NHL. In a few years I'm sure that stat will rise as there really are no top notch goalies coming close to retirement. But instead of just insulting someone why don't you put yourself in their shoes and try to actually understand what they are saying...or ya know...ask me a question if you are confused.

We are both fans after all. High Road
Or just go back to insulting me. Low Road.

 

[210]

I'm not bitter about anything.

Your opinions are based solely on creating formulae to match what you already think. You're not alone in doing that, it's common theme from people blogging about every sport. And your comparing save % from every era is nice, but it still doesn't change the rankings of current players compared to each other.

Rask is still tops on the list even just looking at today's goaltenders. All you've done is show the rankings of the goaltenders I mentioned would be better if compared solely with their contemporaries. I'm sure if we just compared current players in goals against average you would see most of the same names as the current save% list.

 

[weastern bias]

No. A first is appropriate value for Jones and he is the the type of goalie we should have been targeting. In terms of his age+ future potential +current starter potential, he is a great fit for this team, and it was a great trade (at least as far as things appear now...)

I disagree with the bold

Jones has been placed in the unfortunate position where the quality of the deal (along with the quality of Doug's off-season) rests firmly in the hands of his own play/the performance of the team

If he's great, great trade

If he's good, good trade

If he's bad/we miss the playoffs, bad trade

You can't give away lottery tickets anymore, and I haven't seen enough turnover to convince me that that isn't what we did in the Jones trade

 

[hockeyball]

I disagree with the bold

Jones has been placed in the unfortunate position where the quality of the deal (along with the quality of Doug's off-season) rests firmly in the hands of his own play/the performance of the team

If he's great, great trade

If he's good, good trade

If he's bad/we miss the playoffs, bad trade

You can't give away lottery tickets anymore, and I haven't seen enough turnover to convince me that that isn't what we did in the Jones trade

You can put along and keep being mediocre, or you can take risks when you have the opportunity to get a player (especially a young one) who you feel has elite potential. Those players are hard to come by, and in our case taking risks is literally the only realistic way we are going to get them. I love the Jones trade, even if he doesn't pan out (which I believe he will) because he was the best goalie available in my book and the only one with elite potential on the market.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

Your opinions are based solely on creating formulae to match what you already think. list.

Welcome to message board life. That's pretty much what everyone does.

Lies, damned lies and statistics!

 

[HydroF]

I disagree with the bold

Jones has been placed in the unfortunate position where the quality of the deal (along with the quality of Doug's off-season) rests firmly in the hands of his own play/the performance of the team

If he's great, great trade

If he's good, good trade

If he's bad/we miss the playoffs, bad trade

You can't give away lottery tickets anymore, and I haven't seen enough turnover to convince me that that isn't what we did in the Jones trade

With any player you can wait to see how they perform and then judge whether or not you would prefer to have what you gave up to get them back and use that to determine if it was a good trade or not. Thats pretty much the reason why I finished my post with "at least as far as things appear now."

What if Boston wouldn't make the trade if DW insisted on the pick being lottery protected? How do we address the goalie situation now or for the future? Resign Niemi? Start Stalock? Just keep signing UFAs with the hope that one day a goalie pick pans out? We have accumulated some defensive prospects, some offensive prospects, we just need young goaltending to go with that to help try to stay competitive in the coming years. Goalie picks are the hardest to predict how well or if they can transition to the NHL. DW MINIMIZED some of the risk of potentially wasting high draft choices on a goalie that may not pan out by spending one on a guy that has already shown NHL ability and has given a better idea of what he potentially could become.

There are risks in every trade but I feel this one was very much worth it. So I say right now, great trade, but in a year or two we will certainly all re evaluate it with some hindsight. Hopefully it won't end up sucking at that point.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

If he's great, great trade

If he's good, good trade

If he's bad/we miss the playoffs, bad trade

Isn't that the same for every trade?

 

[weastern bias]

Isn't that the same for every trade?

Not every trade, but these days that's how it goes if you trade a first

You better be getting a real impact player back, and you better not miss the playoffs