Zadorov and Varlamov... what's your analysis?

[henchman21]

There is really nothing suggesting that Varly has even been at replacement level or above average that last few seasons. He has produced worse numbers on the same team (save for this season), and has a $5.9m cap hit to boot. If he had a ~$3-4m cap hit, we'd probably accept the inconsistency and lower level of play... at his cap hit though, he should at very least be above average... and nearing top 10 level play. That is the crux of the issue, Varly is getting paid really well to not make a positive difference on the team.

 

[Tweaky]

The only issue with those stats is they do not agree with your narrative, so you refuse to believe them.

Allowing the most goals in the league despite being 7th in scoring chances against....maybe a result of shitty goal-tending? Or are you saying that Pickard was good despite his numbers last year? The guy that was waived by an expansion team and is now apparently an AHL backup/1B (granted with stud numbers, but not as good as his starter/1A Garrett Sparks).

A goal against has two factors that the scored on team can control....quality of scoring chance, and quality of net-minding. If you are getting scored on a lot, then one can be decent, and the other bad....and you still get bad results.

A teams record (which you brought up for the Avs last year), consists of 3 main factors. Offense (how well they score), defense (how well the limit chances against), and goal-tending. Last year, the Avs were dead last in scoring, second last in goal-tending, and 7th in defense. Being that bad in two categories is going to make for a horrible season.

You can have crappy D that gives up a ton of scoring chances but decent goal-tending, and allow a ton of goals. Or you can have decent D that limits chances but crappy goal-tending, and still allow a ton of goals.

My theory is the latter. The D system is decent (not good, but not bad either), but the goal-tending is usually letting them down.

Also, I would like to see score effects on where the Avs would end up in the SC/60 list for last year....a lot of teams let off the gas on them once they were up a goal or three. If the offense had been good enough to keep the score close, and teams had to press more, I bet they would be farther down that list. (Played around a bit, Tied they were 16th, Leading they were 15th...both situations had horrible goal-tending...sub .900)

 

[dahrougem2]

Thought Varly looked bad - again - vs Washington. 1st goal he was slow reacting. 3rd goal he was slow reacting. There's major, major issues tracking the puck that I don't see getting fixed.

 

[Foppa2118]

There is really nothing suggesting that Varly has even been at replacement level or above average that last few seasons. He has produced worse numbers on the same team (save for this season), and has a $5.9m cap hit to boot. If he had a ~$3-4m cap hit, we'd probably accept the inconsistency and lower level of play... at his cap hit though, he should at very least be above average... and nearing top 10 level play. That is the crux of the issue, Varly is getting paid really well to not make a positive difference on the team.

To me the cap issue is pretty irrelevant. Either the goaltender is performing well as a starter and giving your team a chance to win most nights, or they're not.

If you're paying more for a bad goaltender, that just makes the problem worse. If a bad goalie is making $2-3M or $3-4M, it doesn't mean it's ok to use them as your starter. You still have to be looking for a replacement that's better.

The only thing that really matters is if the goalie is good enough to be a starter or not. If so you pay them to keep them. If not you spend every day looking for a replacement.

$5.9M or so, should just available to use on the starting goaltender no matter what. If there's a chance they're worth that, and there's no better alternatives available, you just pay them that. If they perform well as a starter great. If they don't you need to find a new goaltender either way.

Varly was bad last night no doubt, but overall how confident are we that there's a goalie available out there that can perform better than Varly in a starters role? Night in night out, season after season. In front of this team that's still loaded with mistakes, and bad performances?

People thought it was Picks, and then he was given the starters role last year after Varly went down, and showed he can't play that role. Then we was claimed by Vegas where he couldn't make the team out of camp, and was traded to Toronto and sent to the AHL where he's putting up good numbers, but that doesn't mean he can be a good starter in the NHL.

I feel like most goaltenders out there, except the ones teams aren't going to move, aren't likely to be better than Picks on the Avs, and he was clearly at a level below Varly in the starters role. He's a good backup, but when he was given the starters role he couldn't hack it. Even if Varly is inconsistent, at least you know he has a history of some good seasons as a starter, and has it in him to play at that level.

 

[henchman21]

To me the cap issue is pretty irrelevant. Either the goaltender is performing well as a starter and giving your team a chance to win most nights, or they're not.

If you're paying more for a bad goaltender, that just makes the problem worse. If a bad goalie is making $2-3M or $3-4M, it doesn't mean it's ok to use them as your starter. You still have to be looking for a replacement that's better.

The only thing that really matters is if the goalie is good enough to be a starter or not. If so you pay them to keep them. If not you spend every day looking for a replacement.

$5.9M or so, should just available to use on the starting goaltender no matter what. If there's a chance they're worth that, and there's no better alternatives available, you just pay them that. If they perform well as a starter great. If they don't you need to find a new goaltender either way.

Varly was bad last night no doubt, but overall how confident are we that there's a goalie available out there that can perform better than Varly in a starters role? Night in night out, season after season. In front of this team that's still loaded with mistakes, and bad performances?

People thought it was Picks, and then he was given the starters role last year after Varly went down, and showed he can't play that role. Then we was claimed by Vegas where he couldn't make the team out of camp, and was traded to Toronto and sent to the AHL where he's putting up good numbers, but that doesn't mean he can be a good starter in the NHL.

I feel like most goaltenders out there, except the ones teams aren't going to move, aren't likely to be better than Picks on the Avs, and he was clearly at a level below Varly in the starters role. He's a good backup, but when he was given the starters role he couldn't hack it. Even if Varly is inconsistent, at least you know he has a history of some good seasons as a starter, and has it in him to play at that level.

Picks got a raw deal and is still getting one. He isn't a NHL starter IMO, but he isn't worse than Varly. For as 'bad' as Picks was last year, he had better numbers under Bednar (Varly has a worse GAA and SV % over similar amounts of games... yeah Varly had injuries last year, Picks dealt with a worse defensive team).

You talk about the inconsistency... I think that is worse. Varly being up for a game and pulling a .940+, then average for one at .915, then out right bad and below .900 is much worse than a goalie that gives you .910 every game. At least with the latter you can plan around a below average goalie and try to compensate. With a goalie like Varly is right now, the team can play great and lose 4-3.

You're missing the point of the money. If you are spending $2m on a goalie instead of Varly, that is $4m available to make the rest of the team better. Instead of pulling in Yakupov as a UFA, you try to pull in a Radulov. If you have a goalie that is worth $6m... by all means pay him. But to just waste that money on below average goaltending seems dumb to me. If a team isn't getting better than average, I see no reason to pay more than $4m. Ideally more around $3m. That $3m would be better put to use on defense.

 

[dahrougem2]

Varlamov looks like a bottom-5 starter in this league. There's no reason for him to be making the money that he is currently getting at 5.9M per season. He's highly, highly overpaid.

 

[Foppa2118]

Picks got a raw deal and is still getting one. He isn't a NHL starter IMO, but he isn't worse than Varly. For as 'bad' as Picks was last year, he had better numbers under Bednar (Varly has a worse GAA and SV % over similar amounts of games... yeah Varly had injuries last year, Picks dealt with a worse defensive team).

You talk about the inconsistency... I think that is worse. Varly being up for a game and pulling a .940+, then average for one at .915, then out right bad and below .900 is much worse than a goalie that gives you .910 every game. At least with the latter you can plan around a below average goalie and try to compensate. With a goalie like Varly is right now, the team can play great and lose 4-3.

You're missing the point of the money. If you are spending $2m on a goalie instead of Varly, that is $4m available to make the rest of the team better. Instead of pulling in Yakupov as a UFA, you try to pull in a Radulov. If you have a goalie that is worth $6m... by all means pay him. But to just waste that money on below average goaltending seems dumb to me. If a team isn't getting better than average, I see no reason to pay more than $4m. Ideally more around $3m. That $3m would be better put to use on defense.

You have to know that comparing a healthy Pickard's numbers last year, half of which consisted of games against lesser competition as a backup, to Vary's numbers last year purely as a starter, and when he obviously was playing injured and eventually needed surgery, is incredibly misleading. You can't draw anything meaningful from that comparison.

I understand your point about the cap hit. It's not a hard concept. If you save money on a goaltender, you have more to spend on the rest of the team. What I'm saying is that the goaltending position is unlike any other spot in the lineup, and you need to treat it as such when building your team under the cap. You need to be prepared to spend a certain amount of money. You can't allocate those funds elsewhere.

If you decide to spend $2M on a starting goaltender, most likely you're going to get a $2M goalie. If you then think you can spend $4M on someone instead of Yakupov, and you get a $2M performance from your goaltender, you're screwed. Now you don't have enough money to pay what a true starting goaltender is worth. It's a shortsighted approach.

If the goaltender isn't cutting it as a starter, you need to replace him regardless of what his cap hit is. If he is playing well, or if he's close to that level and you have no better alternatives, you need to suck it up and pay the man.

Quibling over the cap hit of a goaltender is how you end up with one bad starter after another.

 

[henchman21]

Nobody is quibbling over the cap hit if Varlamov is playing like an average starter. He’s playing way below that. If a player is way below, you’re better off playing a replacement level goalie then spending the money elsewhere. Varly hasn’t been better than replacement level in years. At this point it is a trend.

Picks played way harder teams last year than Varly and was put in a way worse situation/s. There also wasn’t a year where Picks put up worse numbers than Varly. Not a single one. Let’s not act like he had a normal backup job either. It was callup and full in for a Varly injury as long as Roy could ride him. The last year, take over when Varly needed surgery and was the starter on a team that flat gave up on Bednar.

 

[Pokecheque]

Yeah, I feel terrible for Picks. Went from highly-regarded NHL tandem guy to AHL backup simply because the Bruins are run by morons. And I'm wondering why in hell the Leafs haven't dangled him to the 18+ teams desperate for some depth between the pipes right now. If Dubnyk's injury is really that serious they should give Toronto a call (but it'd kill me to see CP in a Wylde pullover).

I'm not sure the Avs could've prevented Picks being...uh, selected. I mean, I guess they could have but it might have required one of these crazy "steer 'em this way" trades, and I'm okay that they concluded it wasn't worth giving up an asset of value to hold onto him.

Unless it was Duncan Siemens, then they absolutely should've done it.

 

[dahrougem2]

I'm still of the opinion - and will always be of the opinion - that there was no chance in hell Vegas was selecting Semyon Varlamov in the expansion draft had we protected Pickard.

 

[Foppa2118]

Nobody is quibbling over the cap hit if Varlamov is playing like an average starter. He’s playing way below that. If a player is way below, you’re better off playing a replacement level goalie then spending the money elsewhere. Varly hasn’t been better than replacement level in years. At this point it is a trend.

Picks played way harder teams last year than Varly and was put in a way worse situation/s. There also wasn’t a year where Picks put up worse numbers than Varly. Not a single one. Let’s not act like he had a normal backup job either. It was callup and full in for a Varly injury as long as Roy could ride him. The last year, take over when Varly needed surgery and was the starter on a team that flat gave up on Bednar.

There's not much I can say if your opinion is that he's playing way below the level of an average starter. I think that's entirely overblown, and ignoring that the vast majority of the goals he has very little if any chance on. This team just gives up very dangerous scoring chances, especially during that losing streak which is when most of these complaints started.

Regarding Pickard, I don't see how you can say he played against way harder teams last year than Varly, when he wasn't the starter until January. It's also ignoring my point that he was clearly playing injured and had season ending surgery. You simply can't compare their numbers last year.

Saying there isn't a year where Picks put up worse numbers than Varly is making the same misleading argument. It doesn't matter if he filled in as a starter for like 15-20% of his games or whatever it breaks down to. Varly's role has been as a starter for about 90% of his games. It's not even close to the same situation.

Picks puts up good numbers as a backup, then finally gets put in a starters role full time last year and his save percentage drops to .904. Personally I'm not too concerned with his save percentage on the Avs, for the same reason I'm not concerned about Varly's, but it's not like he had good numbers either.

 

[henchman21]

There's not much I can say if your opinion is that he's playing way below the level of an average starter. I think that's entirely overblown, and ignoring that the vast majority of the goals he has very little if any chance on. This team just gives up very dangerous scoring chances, especially during that losing streak which is when most of these complaints started.

Regarding Pickard, I don't see how you can say he played against way harder teams last year than Varly, when he wasn't the starter until January. It's also ignoring my point that he was clearly playing injured and had season ending surgery. You simply can't compare their numbers last year.

Saying there isn't a year where Picks put up worse numbers than Varly is making the same misleading argument. It doesn't matter if he filled in as a starter for like 15-20% of his games or whatever it breaks down to. Varly's role has been as a starter for about 90% of his games. It's not even close to the same situation.

Picks puts up good numbers as a backup, then finally gets put in a starters role full time last year and his save percentage drops to .904. Personally I'm not too concerned with his save percentage on the Avs, for the same reason I'm not concerned about Varly's, but it's not like he had good numbers either.

I'm not ignoring anything. Varly has played poorly and you are giving him a ton of benefit of doubt. All goalies have some bad to deal with, there are worse defenses than the Avs... yet Varly is still the one near the very bottom. Not amount of proof will be enough for you to see that. As the season goes on, we will continue to see that Varly just isn't the goalie he used to be or had the talent to be. He is a below average starter at best.

Picks only year as a starter was under Bednar... I'd like to see him get a shot away from that. May never happen though. I'm not ignoring the injury, you're ignoring the situation that Picks was thrown into last year as the starter.... this team as a complete mess to the point the NHL hasn't seen in over a decade... and he had to backstop it.

 

[Foppa2118]

I'm not ignoring anything. Varly has played poorly and you are giving him a ton of benefit of doubt. All goalies have some bad to deal with, there are worse defenses than the Avs... yet Varly is still the one near the very bottom. Not amount of proof will be enough for you to see that. As the season goes on, we will continue to see that Varly just isn't the goalie he used to be or had the talent to be. He is a below average starter at best.

Picks only year as a starter was under Bednar... I'd like to see him get a shot away from that. May never happen though. I'm not ignoring the injury, you're ignoring the situation that Picks was thrown into last year as the starter.... this team as a complete mess to the point the NHL hasn't seen in over a decade... and he had to backstop it.

You absolutely are ignoring that Varly was playing injured last year. You're intentionally not acknowledging it, so that you can compare Pickard's numbers favorably to Varly's last year, even though Pickard was healthy, played in backup role for half the season, and still only finished with a .904%.

The amount of proof needed to declare a goaltender bad is when he gives up bad goals. Last game he played poorly because he gave up bad goals. You started complaining about him in this thread during the Avs losing streak in which none of the goals were bad. Now you're acting like he's gone multiple games in a row where he played poorly. That is not the reality.

You're trying way too hard to compare Pickard favorably to Varly because that's the only comparison you have on the Avs. He didn't perform well as a starter. He went to Vegas, and gives up 5 goals in a losing effort his first pre season game. I don't know if any of them were bad goals because there's no video, but five goals isn't a great number. Then his second game he lets in an unscreened wrist shot from the point that ties the game, and they end up losing to LA in OT.

That apparently was enough for Vegas to look elsewhere for a goaltender, and since it hurts your argument to acknowledge Pickard's not the goalie you wanted him to be, you're saying he got a raw deal.

I like Picks and think he's a good backup, but he wasn't guaranteed a backup job in Vegas. He needed to earn it. He didn't play well enough to earn it, and this was on the heels of not earning the starting job last year.

 

[pylon17]

Talbot's SV% this year for a ghastly EDM blueline and team defense is .903 or something. It does have something to do with it.

 

[Foppa2118]

Talbot's SV% this year for a ghastly EDM blueline and team defense is .903 or something. It does have something to do with it.

Not just him, look at the save percentage of some of the other guys on teams in the bottom 10.

Lehner - .911
Anderson - .897
Talbot - .903
Howard - .906
Reimer - .894
Price - .899
Darling - .899
Elliott - .912
Markstrom - .911

 

[Ivan13]

I've said it numerous times, Varlamov simply cannot be trusted in a starter role anymore, the reasons being his fragility and uneven play throughout his career with the Avs save for one season. The sooner he is out the door and they start the search for a true #1 the better.

 

[Iceberg]

We should have traded Varlamov before the 2016 draft.

As for Zadorov, i don't have hope for him becoming Pronger (LOL!!!), but maybe he can still turn into a reliable top 4 D. But i would include him in a package for a more stablished and dependable top 4.

 

[henchman21]

You absolutely are ignoring that Varly was playing injured last year. You're intentionally not acknowledging it, so that you can compare Pickard's numbers favorably to Varly's last year, even though Pickard was healthy, played in backup role for half the season, and still only finished with a .904%.

The amount of proof needed to declare a goaltender bad is when he gives up bad goals. Last game he played poorly because he gave up bad goals. You started complaining about him in this thread during the Avs losing streak in which none of the goals were bad. Now you're acting like he's gone multiple games in a row where he played poorly. That is not the reality.

You're trying way too hard to compare Pickard favorably to Varly because that's the only comparison you have on the Avs. He didn't perform well as a starter. He went to Vegas, and gives up 5 goals in a losing effort his first pre season game. I don't know if any of them were bad goals because there's no video, but five goals isn't a great number. Then his second game he lets in an unscreened wrist shot from the point that ties the game, and they end up losing to LA in OT.

That apparently was enough for Vegas to look elsewhere for a goaltender, and since it hurts your argument to acknowledge Pickard's not the goalie you wanted him to be, you're saying he got a raw deal.

I like Picks and think he's a good backup, but he wasn't guaranteed a backup job in Vegas. He needed to earn it. He didn't play well enough to earn it, and this was on the heels of not earning the starting job last year.

I specifically pointed out that Varly had injuries in that post. Go back and re-read it. I said " (Varly has a worse GAA and SV % over similar amounts of games... yeah Varly had injuries last year, Picks dealt with a worse defensive team)" Varly has a better defense this season, and Picks dealt with an EJ less D for most of his starts on a team that had given up. I'm not ignoring a thing there.

I've been complaining about Varly for a couple seasons now... my post history on the subject is pretty vast.

I'm not trying hard to compare Picks favorably... I'm saying Picks, on the same team, performed better. Varly hasn't had a single season other than 13-14 where he put up better numbers than his teammates in net. This isn't about Picks, Berra, or JSG though... this is about Varly just not being good. Varly hasn't been replacement level for a while now, and there is a certain time to call a spade a spade.

 

[Foppa2118]

I specifically pointed out that Varly had injuries in that post. Go back and re-read it. I said " (Varly has a worse GAA and SV % over similar amounts of games... yeah Varly had injuries last year, Picks dealt with a worse defensive team)" Varly has a better defense this season, and Picks dealt with an EJ less D for most of his starts on a team that had given up. I'm not ignoring a thing there.

I've been complaining about Varly for a couple seasons now... my post history on the subject is pretty vast.

I'm not trying hard to compare Picks favorably... I'm saying Picks, on the same team, performed better. Varly hasn't had a single season other than 13-14 where he put up better numbers than his teammates in net. This isn't about Picks, Berra, or JSG though... this is about Varly just not being good. Varly hasn't been replacement level for a while now, and there is a certain time to call a spade a spade.

And I remember that you've complained about Varly for a couple seasons now that's why I remember you wanted to trade him and use Picks as the #1. Something he showed very quickly he wasn't capable of doing. Now we're back to comparing them, either using save percentage in years where Varly played with a groin/hip that needed surgery, or in years where Pickard was a backup.

You have an argument to make that Varly hasn't been good enough, but Varly's numbers from 2016-17 shouldn't be the focus of that argument, since he was playing injured. That makes up the bulk of what we've been talking about.

If you’ve noticed, I haven’t brought up his 2013-14 season once. On top of that, when you’ve brought it up to say we can’t use those numbers, I’ve agreed with you that it was an outlier. For the same reasons you’ve mentioned, that he stood on his head all year, and Roy’s system inflated the Avs shot totals, and therefore inflated his save percentage.

You can’t have it both ways. Focus on his outlier bad season, and take his outlier good season off the table.

I’ve already stated that I think his regular level of play when healthy, is somewhere around his 2014-15 season. Playing well, getting a decent save percentage with a. .921, but not well enough to fix the Avs problems.

When he's not healthy that's another matter, and absolutely a fair concern to have. He may never get over it, and it's a big problem.

Now if you would focus on something like his 2015-16 season, where he was a level below 2014-15, and finished with a .914%, or even his first season in Colorado in 2011-12 where he had a .913%, then that’s a fair argument.

He needed to be better in those seasons, but he wasn’t terrible, and it wasn’t a shortened season where he played with a groin and hip that needed surgery, or this year where we’re only a 1/3 or so into the season.

The end of this year is absolutely fair to judge him on, and if he has another subpar performance, than it’s absolutely fair to criticize him for it. If the team is playing ok, and he still only manages around a .910% or so, then it's also fair to say he wasn't good enough.

But we can’t just pick his best or worsts seasons, that have strong influential factors that lead to those being his best or worst, and only focus on his numbers during that time.

Same with his stats right now this year, when one game can raise or lower his save percentage 10 points like I showed. If he had one or two good weeks, it would change pretty drastically.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Thats a big if. It's been 19 games already and only once all year has he had two good games in a row, %wise. And that was the first two games of the year.

I don't see this team having a week or two of keeping the opponent off the board.

I really don't see why we can't compare his performace this year to Pickard last year at this point in the season.

 

[henchman21]

And I remember that you've complained about Varly for a couple seasons now that's why I remember you wanted to trade him and use Picks as the #1. Something he showed very quickly he wasn't capable of doing. Now we're back to comparing them, either using save percentage in years where Varly played with a groin/hip that needed surgery, or in years where Pickard was a backup.

You have an argument to make that Varly hasn't been good enough, but Varly's numbers from 2016-17 shouldn't be the focus of that argument, since he was playing injured. That makes up the bulk of what we've been talking about.

If you’ve noticed, I haven’t brought up his 2013-14 season once. On top of that, when you’ve brought it up to say we can’t use those numbers, I’ve agreed with you that it was an outlier. For the same reasons you’ve mentioned, that he stood on his head all year, and Roy’s system inflated the Avs shot totals, and therefore inflated his save percentage.

You can’t have it both ways. Focus on his outlier bad season, and take his outlier good season off the table.

I’ve already stated that I think his regular level of play when healthy, is somewhere around his 2014-15 season. Playing well, getting a decent save percentage with a. .921, but not well enough to fix the Avs problems.

When he's not healthy that's another matter, and absolutely a fair concern to have. He may never get over it, and it's a big problem.

Now if you would focus on something like his 2015-16 season, where he was a level below 2014-15, and finished with a .914%, or even his first season in Colorado in 2011-12 where he had a .913%, then that’s a fair argument.

He needed to be better in those seasons, but he wasn’t terrible, and it wasn’t a shortened season where he played with a groin and hip that needed surgery, or this year where we’re only a 1/3 or so into the season.

The end of this year is absolutely fair to judge him on, and if he has another subpar performance, than it’s absolutely fair to criticize him for it. If the team is playing ok, and he still only manages around a .910% or so, then it's also fair to say he wasn't good enough.

But we can’t just pick his best or worsts seasons, that have strong influential factors that lead to those being his best or worst, and only focus on his numbers during that time.

Same with his stats right now this year, when one game can raise or lower his save percentage 10 points like I showed. If he had one or two good weeks, it would change pretty drastically.

I've focused on all of his seasons... before and after 13-14. You just refuse to hear it. I've said multiple times that he has had 1 great season, good season, and a bunch of below average seasons with the Avs. We are in the midst of his 7th season, and only once has he performed at a high end level. If you just take 13-14 out, Varly becomes a career .912 goalie (with the Avs a .911). That is below average by a .004 tilt and would be right with Mason during the same period. The numbers say what they say, and everything points to him being below average and that 13-14 was a fluke.

You keep wanting to take the injuries out with Varly, but the guy has had constant injury issues going back to his draft year. It was a well known risk we he was acquired. He is pretty likely to continue having nagging injuries as he ages. He isn't likely to be perfectly healthy, and even if this surgery has cured that... it looks like it may have taken away part of what made him good in the first place.

 

[pylon17]

Was the blowout 7-2 loss to DAL a fair game to judge Varly? Because the Dmen were horrendous even by Leafs standards that game. If that is what he’s getting for support more often than not...

 

[Foppa2118]

I've focused on all of his seasons... before and after 13-14. You just refuse to hear it. I've said multiple times that he has had 1 great season, good season, and a bunch of below average seasons with the Avs. We are in the midst of his 7th season, and only once has he performed at a high end level. If you just take 13-14 out, Varly becomes a career .912 goalie (with the Avs a .911). That is below average by a .004 tilt and would be right with Mason during the same period. The numbers say what they say, and everything points to him being below average and that 13-14 was a fluke.

You keep wanting to take the injuries out with Varly, but the guy has had constant injury issues going back to his draft year. It was a well known risk we he was acquired. He is pretty likely to continue having nagging injuries as he ages. He isn't likely to be perfectly healthy, and even if this surgery has cured that... it looks like it may have taken away part of what made him good in the first place.

You really haven't. You're revising your own post history. Almost all of your posts on the subject have been primarily focused on the last "2+ seasons" or the "last few seasons" or comparing Varly's numbers against Pickard last year. It's been your primary argument. I just went back and read it all over again. That was your primary argument from the beginning, and it still is.

Like I said, his performance in 2015-16 is a fair critique to make. So is 2011-12. So will his numbers at the end of this year.

If you want to focus on those seasons, that's a fair argument. If you want to mention his numbers last year or this year as a small part of your argument that's fine as well. Focusing primarily on last year where he played with a groin and hip that needed surgery, and this year where one game can raise his save percentage 10 percentage points because we're only a 1/3 or so into the season, that's not a fair argument.

All of this is giving you a pass on not putting forth your plan for getting a better goaltender. I'd love to hear it?

 

[Pokecheque]

Was the blowout 7-2 loss to DAL a fair game to judge Varly? Because the Dmen were horrendous even by Leafs standards that game. If that is what he’s getting for support more often than not...

Bernier started that game, by the time Varly came in the damage was done.

I'm actually looking at the Washington game as one where he wasn't horrible, but wasn't good either. I get there were some bad stretches but statistically speaking the Avs more or less matched the Caps in that game.

 

[Foppa2118]

Bernier started that game, by the time Varly came in the damage was done.

I'm actually looking at the Washington game as one where he wasn't horrible, but wasn't good either. I get there were some bad stretches but statistically speaking the Avs more or less matched the Caps in that game.

I think that describes a lot of losses this year, but in the interest of fairness I can't include the Washington game personally.

The first and third goals were iffy as Varly was too slow to react to the pass. The Carlson goal was just straight up bad. Even if it's a hard slapper, he can't let that go in unscreened from that far out.