Mike's Quick Thoughts
by Mike @ MHH on Feb 18, 2009 1:57 PM MST
in NHL News
Email
PrintNow that everybody is in full on piss-n-moan mode about the Avalanche front office and thier lack of anything resembling a hockey move since last year's trade deadline, I thought I'd reiterate one quick point:
GOING INTO THIS SEASON:
- Combined $$ Spent on Top 6 Forwards: $20.46 million (Smytty, Joe, The Duke, The Baron, SoS, and The Svats Machine)
- Combined $$ Spent on Top 4 Defensemen: $14.45 (The Hobbit, Footer, Clark, Male-Model)
- Combined $$ Spent on Goaltending: $1.6 million (Boots and Rayzor)
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS SEASON:
- Combined $$ Spent on Top 6 Forwards: $19.45 (Smytty, The Duke, The Baron, The Svats Machine, Sham-WOW, Sanjaya)
- Combined $$ Spent on Top 4 Defensemen: $14.725 Million (Same as above, but substitute Leoprone for Footer)
- Combined $$ Spent on Goaltending: Same as above.
Look at those two lists. Then go here to see how the Avs rank on Offense and Defense. Of the three groups in each, which one is performing up to the level indicated by the money (all numbers taken from nhlnumbers.com)?
Seriously, if you want to argue that the goaltending is the big issue, then you show me how the Top 4 defensemen have earned that cash and how the Top 6 forwards are worth their salary and THEN we can point at the men between the pipes.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’ll take that challenge
the avs have 11 losses by 1 goal, I didn’t check to see if the two goal losses were empty net goals because while I’m writing this I’m actually supposed to be working. You put a average to above average goalie in there and I think the avs gain 7-10 more points out of those games and would be in the playoffs. Do I think they’d go far? No.
Think about how much better the D and then the O would be if they avs had some consistant, decent goalie-ing.
I'm Mr. Positive
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Feb 18, 2009 2:18 PM MST reply actions
I’ll turn that back around on you:
If the $20 million offense scores 5 more goals this season over 5 of those games, they get AT LEAST one more point in each (going to OT) and possibly pick up all 10 due to the record in the shootout and OT (let’s not call the goalies complete garbage because of that either. Remember, they have to stop more shots than the other guy for the Avs to win in the SO).
Or how about this:
Your $14 million defense gives up 2-3 fewer average to above average scoring chances in those 5 magic games and and you get to OT and the SO and pick up those 5-to-10 points.
So I have to ask: Why is 100% OF THE BLAME (by most people, not necessarily you) ON THE TWO GOALIES MAKING A COMBINED $1.6 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
only because management wanted to sell the fans that this was a good combination.
Going forward, it will be easier to get one good goaltender, than to switch out 4ea. of the defensemen and forwards. ANd that good goaltender makes the players ahead of him better.
I'm Mr. Positive
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Feb 18, 2009 3:49 PM MST up reply actions
So the management sold the fans a bag of shit on the goalies, forwards, and defenseman (playoff caliber TEAM remember) but the only people to get the blame are the goaltenders? Makes complete sense.
ANd that good goaltender makes the players ahead of him better.
I see your rhetoric and I raise you a:
And that good defense makes the goalies behind them better.
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
Plus
look at the shootout record. If the goalies really sucked as bad as people say (and I’m not going to say they’re great) I would think the SO record would be worse.
Get rid of the loser point
I’m not either, but be that as it may, it still lends at least a little credence to the “don’t blame it all on the goalies” argument, especially when taken in light of the fact that everyone was saying Budaj wasn’t very good in shootouts before this year.
Get rid of the loser point
completely different set of skills, if the avs were being killed on breakaways I’d agree.
I'm Mr. Positive
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Feb 18, 2009 6:28 PM MST up reply actions
So what we have then is a couple of goaltenders that can shut down the other teams’ most skilled players in a 1-on-1 situation, but when they have the Colorado defense in front of them, they don’t have the necessary skills anymore?
I’m not trying to be a dick, but that appears to be the gist of your argument there.
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
You put an average to above average coach in there and I think the avs gain 7-10 more points out of those games and would be in the playoffs.
You put an average to above average offense in there and I think the avs gain 7-10 more points out of those games and would be in the playoffs.
You put an average to above average defense in there and I think the avs gain 7-10 more points out of those games and would be in the playoffs.
Sorry, but blaming it all on the goalie still hides what’s really wrong with team. The Avs defense has been downright abhorrent this season, and to rationalize it as “they’re always looking over their shoulder” just isn’t going to cut it. Inconsistent goaltending is not an excuse for missed assignments, poor clears (and the Avs may be the worst clearing team in the league led by Clark and Hannan) , and defensive mix-ups.
Here’s the bottom 13 goaltender save %‘s in the league. With the notable exception of Osgood and Theodore the common theme behind every goaltender is that the team in front of them sucks. That’s because goalie play is proportional to the team in front of the goalie. The biggest reason Vesa Toskala went from “promising young goalie prospect” to “shitty starter” is that he went from San Jose to Toronto.
This isn’t to say that the goaltending hasn’t been a problem. It’s clear that it is, but saying “this is a playoff team” with just a switch in net is inaccurate. This team has a lot of holes. Goaltending. Behind the bench. The entire third line is pretty much useless on offense (Third line defined as : Tucker-Arnason- poor sacrificial lamb who has to deal with those two) and the second line hasn’t been all that great at putting pucks in the net either. Being physical. Blown defensive zone assignments. Faceoffs. lack of point shot.
Let’s not let the closeness of points fool us. The Avs are a bad team. the “only 7 points out” of a playoff spot is misleading to say the least. They are tied for the 6th worst record in the league, and they have picked up 7 extra points from the shootout. Shootouts are essentially luck and if the Avs hadn’t been lucky in the shootout they would have 4-5 less points this season.
This is a bad team, but it’s bad in all areas.
The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters
by Jibblescribbits on Feb 19, 2009 9:12 AM MST up reply actions
I agree it’s not going to be sunshine and farts when they eventually get another goalie, but it’s easier to change out a goalie than the rest of the team. And yes it would be even easier to switch out the coach of an under achieving team but he must have pictures of giguere or something….
I'm Mr. Positive
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Feb 19, 2009 9:47 AM MST up reply actions
Coach
I honestly think you would see a marked improvement from every member of the team (goalies included) by getting rid of the coach.
And there are more quality coaches currently out there, than there are quality goalies. Next season in UFA the Avs are looking at:
Manny Fernandez
Dwayne Roloson
Brent Johnson
Scott Clemmenson
Martin Biron
Khabibulin.
That’s not exactly the greatest list to choose from there, considering the age of the best goalies on that list. That’s why I’m adamant that the Avs should trade for a goaltending prospect, if they can swing it. However coaches that could have been had during this season are (even after the season started):
Dineen (Portland Pirates)
Toterella
Laviolette
Hartly
Burns (maybe).
The upgrade in coaches will have a lot more impact than an upgrade in goalie, based upon the candidates.
*(I know Backstrom is going to be an UFA but I see no possible way Minnesota doesn’t re-sign him, so I didn’t include him. If he makes it to the market he should be the Avs #1 priority in the offseason)
The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters
by Jibblescribbits on Feb 19, 2009 10:14 AM MST up reply actions
i would be furious at the avs if they went after most of the goalies on that list as well. Biron is the only one I think might be a passable option. if the Wild re-sign Backstrom, though, it leaves them vulnerable to an offer sheet on Harding. Backstrom will probably make ~6m per year on a new contract. that puts them at 43.2m with 3 defensemen slots empty and Gaborik to think about.
You could toss a ~2.6m offer Harding’s way and see what happens — if they don’t match, you’re only out a 2nd, if they do, they’ve committed 8-9m to their goalies, which screws them too. Or you could just threaten an offer and force them into a favorable trade.
RFA sheets are nasty dirty business, but it’s not like there’s any love lost between the organizations already…
I like that idea. Is Harding a pretty sure thing or more a product of having a real coach with a real system?
MHH: Shagging Dater one contributor at a time.
by Bob in Boulder on Feb 19, 2009 11:00 AM MST up reply actions
graded by sportsnet as having potential as a #1 goalie. graded by hockey’s future as an 8.0B — meaning has talent of a a true #1 goalie, and “should reach potential.”
Maybe
It depends what they do at the trade deadline. If they get a top goaltending prospect (Like Enroth out of Buffalo/Portland) and then sign Khabibulin for a couple years to hold the fort until Enroth is ready I would be ok with that. None of those guys are a long term solution though.
I’m not a big fan of trying to sign RFA’s, mainly because I think the return for anyone good is too steep. I don’t think the Wild are sold on Harding, which means the Avs shouldn’t try and pluck him unless the compensation for him is very reasonable.
The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters
by Jibblescribbits on Feb 19, 2009 11:02 AM MST up reply actions
if they’re not sold on him, all the more reason to try and snag him on the cheap. 2.6m a year is too much for a backup, but very reasonable as a starter.
More than likely, the Avs will try and go a stop-gap route with the goaltending next year (Welcome to the show Tyler Weiman) while waiting for Sauer and Delmas to come of age.
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
billy sauer? if he plays in the big leagues for one game i will crap my pants. i’ll be mildly surprised if he makes the AHL.
Who’s the other guy? It’s always Delmas and somebody, but I can’t remember who…
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
cann? bacashihua? patterson?
i’ve actually liked Cann when watching him in person but Delmas was clearly the most talented goalie in dev camp, though still raw. Weiman I watched for almost a full season in fort Collins when he backstopped the Eagles to a CHL championship — I still think he’s got the skill for a backup role at least.
And the main jist of my argument (I apologize if I’m not being clear) is that unless the Avs get an ELITE goalie, changing out that one guy won’t amount to much in the long run. Great goalies play on shitty teams and loose all the time (see: Luongo, R. on the Florida Panthers) so to say that a great goalie would lift the play of the remainder of the roster is a little skewed IMO.
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
Lifting the play
even if a new goalie did lift the play of the team. Going from ground zero to the first rung of the ladder isn’t much of an improvement when you have 20-30 other rungs to climb.
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
Now and then we had the hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be PIRATES.
-Mark Twain-
by Americanario on Feb 19, 2009 1:20 PM MST up reply actions
Think about how much better the D and then the O would be if they avs had some consistant, decent goalie-ing.
Think about how much better the goaltending would be if the Avs had some consistent D and O.
Avs. Sticking it to the Red Wings
rather than circular argue with you, you build a team from the goal out, this team is build the other way around.
I'm Mr. Positive
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Feb 18, 2009 6:29 PM MST up reply actions
Circular arguments rule!!!
BTW, did the Carolina Hurricanes build from the goal out? Did last year’s Red Wings? Did the Pens?
Let’s look at some teams that have built from the goal out in recent history: Buffalo (can’t win deep in playoffs), NY Isles (teh suck), Minny (no Cup Finals). I know you’re just touting a long-standing theory on how to build a championship team and that you share that opinion. I’m of the opinion that the best team wins, even if certain aspects of the team are legitimately considered weak. Again, I point at Detroit.
I’m of the opinion that you build a good team with more than one player being the foundation and the order you do it in doesn’t matter as long as the TEAM is good. Now, if Giggy does nothing in the next two seasons but get an elite goalie and the Avs become world-busters, then I’ll recant. But I’d wager that NOBODY will have success with the personnel on D and O that the Avs currently have, coupled with the complete lack of system and coaching, regardless of how good the goalie plays.
Feel free to cavalierly discount me as a goalie homer, but that’s MY opinion.
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
So I go into McDonald's
and I order myself a Big Mac Meal. I pay my $5.59 for the meal. I get home and open the sack. I get pissed because somehow on the drive home I got it in my head I was supposed to have a gourmet 5 course meal with fine wine. WTF. Oh, that’s right, I forgot: I didn’t ask for that gourmet meal, I didn’t order it, I really wasn’t expecting it when I ordered it, and I didn’t pay for it. Why is it later when I get home, I expect it?
Avs. Sticking it to the Red Wings
I love how everyone on this site wants to defend the goalies*.
They suck. Period. They are the biggest problem on this team (save for management, who hired said goalies). If the rest of the team wasn’t looking over their shoulders constantly, perhaps they would be better at their jobs.
If you have never played on a team with potential that had a terrible goalie, then you don’t know what I’m talking about. Confidence in your team, the system, and the wins…all start in the goal crease.
I don't believe in Peter Budaj.
If the rest of the team wasn’t looking over their shoulders constantly, perhaps they would be better at their jobs.
That must be really distracting for the offense while they are shooting. I guess that explains why they aren’t scoring any goals. Those damn goaltenders.
Avs. Sticking it to the Red Wings
they are worried about their defensive assignments, except for Arnason who just doesn’t want to get hit.
I'm Mr. Positive
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Feb 18, 2009 3:47 PM MST up reply actions
How about if the goalies weren’t trying so hard to overcompensate for the horrible D, or clutching the stick because they knew if they gave up more than a goal the pop-gun offense wouldn’t be able to compensate, they’d be able to get in a groove and win games?
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
I love how everyone everywhere wants to throw the goalies under the bus for every little problem.
If you’ve never played on a team with inconsistant defense then you don’t know what I’m talking about. A goalie shouldn’t have to expect a forward to go straight through the defense and get a quality scoring chance every time the other team has the puck. Apparently goaltenders are the only people you can lose confidence in, it seems impossible for a goalie to lose confidence in his defense. Why does the goalie have to play ridiculously good every single game when the offense and defense seems to be allowed to phone in half their performances with no one saying anything. Any goalie, I don’t care if it’s me or patrick Roy is gonna get pissed when he has to make the big save and win every single game because the offense and defense suck. Also knowing that if you let a goal in it’s probably over does not help a goaltenders confidence at all.
The Savage has spoken. Let it be done
"Two roads divurged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by, and that has made all the difference"
R. Frost
Well I’m sure the defense gets sick of cleaning up your sloppy rebounds!
Forwards end up having to come deep into their end to cover corners where the defense should be, but instead are too busy standing in the crease waiting to clear out the inevitable rebound they’ll be blamed for if it’s not cleared out.
I’m not saying the defense or the offense has been great, but the goaltending is by far the worst aspect of this team’s on-ice product. This team easily has the worst goaltending duo in the league, with the exception of perhaps Toronto.
Look at the beginning of the year when the Avs were among the tops in the league in goals for per game. Those numbers instantly went down as soon as the team realized they couldn’t get into run and gun shootouts with other teams as long as they had a .880 goalie in their net.
I don't believe in Peter Budaj.
That argument might have more weight IF teh defense cleared out rebounds, but they don’t. How many goals have been scored on the 2nd or 3rd shot. How many goals have been scored by someone alone near the crease. wheres the defense cause they sure as hell aren’t hanging by the crease waiting for rebounds. And contrary to popular opinion, all goalies leave rebounds. Roy gave up huge rebounds, so has Brodeur, Thomas, Naby, Lundqvist and Kipprusoff.
The Savage has spoken. Let it be done
"Two roads divurged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by, and that has made all the difference"
R. Frost
I remember the recent Sharks 2-0 loss. The Avs could have scored at least 3 goals, if not for the Sharks’ defense. Two times Naby left a rebound laying right there in the crease, which was immediately scooped up by the defense before the Avs could get to it. Then, there was that one amazing catch by the D-man (don’t remember which) when the puck was flying into the net and he caught it and threw it out. So, even the best goalies need help from the defense. Even Naby can’t win the game alone.
Avs. Sticking it to the Red Wings
You're right
But you’re wrong about why.
Yes, the goalies are the worst part about this team’s on-ice product. The problem is that that is exactly what you should expect when you pay a fraction of the cap on a key position. So you’re essentially saying the least paid guys on the team are the worst.
Well thanks, genius.
The problem is that the highest paid guys on the side aren’t playing like it. We could get away with our goalies playing at their ability level if the guys who get paid a lot more were playing to their salaries. But their not.
So when we say that the problem on this team is not the goaltending, we’re not deluding ourselves. We know our goalies aren’t up to much. But neither is the rest of the team, and they’re getting paid a whole fuckload more, which means it’s their damn fault.
Not the goalies.
by eltharion_doa on Feb 19, 2009 3:51 AM MST up reply actions
Genius I may not be, but my opinion is still my opinion.
Yes, they’re the lowest paid guys on the team, and yes they’re playing like it. But my POINT is that the rest of the “overpaid” guys on the team have to take away from there game in order to concentrate on the “underpaid” guys’ shortcomings. Fact.
Here’s another interesting fact I’ll throw your way. The Avalanche are ranked 11th in the league on shots against, yet they’re a pathetic 27th in the league at actual goals against. That is a 16 position difference—by far the widest margin in the league.
Now I’ll throw all this out there mind you, with the complete understanding (and lack of insults) that this team has a LOT of problems, starting with management on down. But the fact is, the goaltending is the weakest part of this team’s game, and if they had a solid goalie, they would probably have 10+ points on the season.
I don't believe in Peter Budaj.
by BraxtanFILM on Feb 19, 2009 11:17 AM MST up reply actions
I wasn’t attempting to insult, just got fired up.
I will take umbrage with your supposition that the high-priced guys are attempting to compensate for the goalies as a fact. For instance, wouldn’t the best way for the offense to compensate be to score more goals? If it’s as simple of turning on and off the “compensation” switch, shouldn’t they be able to do a better job at it for the money they are paid?
I saw the rankings you speak of, but I have a theory that the quality scoring chances given up by the Avalanche are much higher than other teams with comparable salaries on D and O. I remember many, many games this season where the Avs gave up shots in the mid- to high 20’s, but almost half of them were within 10 feet of the goal, and typically with plenty of time and space for guys with NHL skill to pick corners. I used to have a metric for this somewhere, but I can’t put my hands on it right now (I’ll have to look at home tonight).
I’d also ask if shots against is shots taken or SOG? Cuz the Avs block a ton of shots (I’m pretty sure they’re top 5 in this category), so take that with the SOG and they may be pretty mediocre in that regard.
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
The Avalanche are ranked 11th in the league on shots against, yet they’re a pathetic 27th in the league at actual goals against. That is a 16 position difference—by far the widest margin in the league.
The Avs also block a lot of shots. The shots the Avs most likely block (low and straight at the goal with little other traffic)) are the ones a goalie is more likely to save. Since they don’t get through those High save % shots don’t ever hit the goalie. I’ve said all season that the Ava goalies are seeing a higher percentage of “high quality” shots than other goalies because of poor defense.
this isn’t saying the Avs should stop blocking shots, but it just illustrates my point that Save % is a marginal stat at best.
The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters
by Jibblescribbits on Feb 19, 2009 1:58 PM MST up reply actions
I remember the glory days when we didn’t have to argue about who was the crappiest part of our team…
Those days will return!
I don't believe in Peter Budaj.
Ah yes
It makes me long for those days.
The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters
by Jibblescribbits on Feb 19, 2009 2:26 PM MST up reply actions
Hey, you know what shots result in rebounds? Shots from high-probability scoring areas! Guess what shots the Avs give up the most? A competent D would force more perimeter shots and low-risk scoring chances, which would result in fewer rebounds overall and fewer dangerous rebounds in particular. The ‘logic’ that every shot should result in no rebounds is an indicator of a lack of understanding on how the position is played, how the equipment operates, and how the team plays in front of the goalie as a whole.
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
Good NHL goalies control MOST of their rebounds. Nobody is perfect, but some are obviously better than others.
I don't believe in Peter Budaj.
by BraxtanFILM on Feb 19, 2009 11:18 AM MST up reply actions
Rebound control
does not mean “no rebound”, it just means they are better able to put the puck in a less dangerous position. Unfortunately, physics doesn’t always allow for that to happen.
Every NHL goalie also gives up bad rebounds, in which case they need good defense to assist them/bail them out.
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
Now and then we had the hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be PIRATES.
-Mark Twain-
by Americanario on Feb 19, 2009 12:49 PM MST up reply actions
love how everyone on this site wants to defend the goalies*.
I hardly think this exercise in “Who’s the least sucky?” is a defense.
The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters
by Jibblescribbits on Feb 19, 2009 8:50 AM MST up reply actions
According to DD’s “Why” Post http://www.milehighhockey.com/2009/2/11/756046/why
The offense was supposed to have 9 20 goal players. That’s 180 goals. So far, those 9 players are about 90 goals short (I’m not sure which of the 9 players it was supposed to be, so I picked the top lines).
The defense was supposed to have 5 30 point defensemen. That’s 150 points. So far, those 5 D-men are about 85 points short.
So, I expect there to be 4 goals in each remaining game by those 9 offensive players (and I am happy if any other player would like to additionally score a goal), and I expect each of the D-men to have at least a 4 point game. This will compensate for what they have failed to deliver thus far this season.
We’ll see how the goaltending looks once the O & D do what they were expected to this year.
Avs. Sticking it to the Red Wings
I guess another way of looking at my main point is this:
Lots of people like to draw comparisons between pitchers in baseball and goalies in hockey, as they are dubbed the most important cog in the team. I have one HUGE fundamental problem with this. A pitcher who sucks initiates all the facets of his suckitude, be it pitch selection, not enough arm strength, working the count incorrectly, ball placement, stupid jewelry choices, etc. A goaltender isn’t responsible for the shot against him. He is, but definition, reacting to the world/game around him. A good defense will generate shots that are easier to react to, and will allow a goalie with less skill to handle them better. A bad defense will do just the opposite. Change to a stud goalie behind a bad defense, and number of quality chances won’t decrease (in fact, they’ll likely increase), but the requisite skill to stop those high quantity/quality chances is tapped more. Just because a stud goalie stops 5% more of those chances than an average goalie doesn’t suddenly mean that the defense no longer sucks.
Does that make any sense?
Colorado Avalanche: Gellin' and Propellin'!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
