Goaltending conundrum

[Tigger]

Why would Jonas be out of the picture in a back up role?

Because, the reality of the situation is that we're either looking at Reimer/Scrivens as the back up to an established starter or Reimer/Scrivens the starter with a more proven, consistent back up brought in. Gustavsson doesn't fit into either of those categories.

Ah, well if Reimer goes I'm not terribly confident in Scrivens holding the back up job yet so I'd rather Jonas in that case by a fair margin. Where I get bogged down is in my choice versus, as you say, what the reality of the situation might be and I'd take Jonas over Reimer after last years performance, fwiw, so yeah. It's perplexing.

 

[Tigger]

There's also the chance that Reimer is the guy moved and they retain a pretty good back up in Jonas ( presuming a number one is coming in ). The title of the thread is ringing true to me, this is a pretty strange year to try and fix the position.

If they move Reimer, it will likely be for in a deal for a starting goalie, so, Gustavsson would still be out of the picture. His time in Toronto is as good as done. If the Leafs don't trade for a starter, they'll add an experienced veteran backup, not retain Gustavsson.

Why would Jonas be out of the picture in a back up role?

Because he blows?

I suppose that's an opinion and not a question?

 

[Jalili]

I haven't been in the loop for hockey in a while, and haven't followed this storyline at all... but his contract really doesn't seem half-bad when you break it down. You're looking at 7 years max, and perhaps only 4 or 5 according to Bob McKenzie.

One would hope there's better options out there than Luongo, but patience has to be wearing thin in the organization and if they can't get something else done, it's better than watching our goalies in the system get shelled again.

 

[jonlleafs]

There's also the chance that Reimer is the guy moved and they retain a pretty good back up in Jonas ( presuming a number one is coming in ). The title of the thread is ringing true to me, this is a pretty strange year to try and fix the position.

If they move Reimer, it will likely be for in a deal for a starting goalie, so, Gustavsson would still be out of the picture. His time in Toronto is as good as done. If the Leafs don't trade for a starter, they'll add an experienced veteran backup, not retain Gustavsson.

Why would Jonas be out of the picture in a back up role?

Because he blows?

+1

But in all seriousness, he seemed to play better with more starts and if he loses his confidence he's done.  So he doesn't seem to have the mental fortitude to be a backup who is ready to give you a solid game when called on sporadically.

 

[bustaheims]

Ah, well if Reimer goes I'm not terribly confident in Scrivens holding the back up job yet so I'd rather Jonas in that case by a fair margin. Where I get bogged down is in my choice versus, as you say, what the reality of the situation might be and I'd take Jonas over Reimer after last years performance, fwiw, so yeah. It's perplexing.

I wouldn't. Statistically, there's not a huge difference between how Reimer and Gustavsson performed this past season, and Reimer showed a great deal more consistency (in only one month where he played more than one game did he have a Sv% below .900, whereas Gustavsson only had 2 over .900). Gustavsson had the best month out of the two of them, but, really, that's about it. They both gave up bad goals at a similar rate, etc. Combine that with Reimer's 10/11 being better than any of the 3 season Gustavsson has had in the NHL and the difference in age, and to me, things are clearly in favour of Reimer. Gustavsson's performance last season was on par with his other two seasons - below average overall with some stretches of brilliance, and, on the whole, he was only marginally better than an injured Reimer going through the typical struggles of a second year goalie.

 

[cw]

Burke is already likely to have a tough time in the early PR department next year with regards to keeping his job beyond next season. Keeping Gustavsson would likely only make that worse in the media and probably for Gus.

I've said many times since 2006 that for me, the goaltending position has become the position most difficult for me to predict reliably. Having said that, I'm not convinced Gus has no chance at making it in the NHL. The odds are probably up hill for him but I think he still might wind up helping someone. I just sincerely doubt it will be the Leafs next year. I think they've got to try a personnel change of some kind in goal to appease the media and fans.

Maybe contrary to many, I don't think Burke has done a terrible job with goaltending. Bringing in Giguere as a mentor, bringing in Allaire and signing well regarded prospects like Gustavsson, Scrivens, Rynnas & Owuya made plenty of sense to me. They were older to shorten development time. If Burke had had any luck, one of them might have emerged as close to an average NHL starter. One of them might yet. Given Burke's position, I still think what he attempted to do was beyond reasonable and fairly good GMing. Unfortunately for him and for us, it hasn't panned out yet. But that is a part of the difficulty as GM - predicting how prospects will turn out - particularly goalies. It doesn't necessarily make a GM a bad one when it doesn't come off.

Knowing what we know now, one might do something different. But at the time, I thought they were pretty good moves.

 

[Kin]

I'm sick of seeing other teams who are willing to take on or sign long term deals make the finals or go deep in the playoffs.

There is always a way out of a contract, Gomez didn't just get moved, they got good value for him.

I think this is kind of an important point. Good GM's, for the most part, don't seem scared off by long term deals. Ken Holland has given out two 10+ year deals. Lamoriello gave Kovalchuk his monster deal(maybe). Lombardi traded for Carter and Richards. I think they think that, should those deals turn sour, they'll figure out a way to deal with them.

 

[Tigger]

Ah, well if Reimer goes I'm not terribly confident in Scrivens holding the back up job yet so I'd rather Jonas in that case by a fair margin. Where I get bogged down is in my choice versus, as you say, what the reality of the situation might be and I'd take Jonas over Reimer after last years performance, fwiw, so yeah. It's perplexing.

I wouldn't. Statistically, there's not a huge difference between how Reimer and Gustavsson performed this past season, and Reimer showed a great deal more consistency (in only one month where he played more than one game did he have a Sv% below .900, whereas Gustavsson only had 2 over .900). Gustavsson had the best month out of the two of them, but, really, that's about it. They both gave up bad goals at a similar rate, etc. Combine that with Reimer's 10/11 being better than any of the 3 season Gustavsson has had in the NHL and the difference in age, and to me, things are clearly in favour of Reimer. Gustavsson's performance last season was on par with his other two seasons - below average overall with some stretches of brilliance, and, on the whole, he was only marginally better than an injured Reimer going through the typical struggles of a second year goalie.

Fair enough, I'd counter with what I like about his skill and athleticism and the difference team play can make ( Reimer's good stretch the year before came with a team that played an awful lot better in front of him too ) and he had some pretty serious health concerns himself ( I look at his second year as pretty much a write off ) but I have to ask, you would take Scrivens over Jonas in the back up role?

Burke's going to 'appease' fans, like cw said, but I don't like it if it's just changing the name plate on the stall with no obvious improvement or even, potentially, a more dismal situation.

 

[Corn Flake]

I'm sick of seeing other teams who are willing to take on or sign long term deals make the finals or go deep in the playoffs.

There is always a way out of a contract, Gomez didn't just get moved, they got good value for him.

I think this is kind of an important point. Good GM's, for the most part, don't seem scared off by long term deals. Ken Holland has given out two 10+ year deals. Lamoriello gave Kovalchuk his monster deal(maybe). Lombardi traded for Carter and Richards. I think they think that, should those deals turn sour, they'll figure out a way to deal with them.

And then there is DiPietro......

 

[bustaheims]

Fair enough, I'd counter with what I like about his skill and athleticism and the difference team play can make ( Reimer's good stretch the year before came with a team that played an awful lot better in front of him too ) and he had some pretty serious health concerns himself ( I look at his second year as pretty much a write off ) but I have to ask, you would take Scrivens over Jonas in the back up role?

Honestly, yes, I would take Scrivens over Gustavsson as a backup. While it's a small sample size, his Sv% in his dozen NHL games last season was slightly better than Gustavsson, and he's been awfully impressive in this Calder Cup run. Since I don't see the Leafs as being Cup contenders next season, I'd be perfectly comfortable sending him out for 25 or so starts to see what he can do.

As for the team play in front of Reimer - Reimer's play had a lot to do with that as well. His play in that stretch in 10/11 gave them an awful lot of confidence - sort of like Gustavsson's play in January of this past season did. The difference, of course, was the length for which is lasted - Gustavsson went for a month, whereas Reimer went for the entire second half of the season.

 

[Kin]

And then there is DiPietro......

I didn't say the deals themselves don't have the capacity to be bad ones just that the better GM's in the league seem willing to work with those risks.

But I mean, even then, it's not really like that deal has hurt the Islanders particularly.

 

[Tigger]

Gustavsson went for a month, whereas Reimer went for the entire second half of the season.

Well, not to get too bogged down but the team played better in front of Reimer for most of that stretch where Jonas was hung out some both by the team and, to me, by management last year.

It's probably moot anyways, I just don't like to see players get a somewhat short shrift like that.

 

[bustaheims]

It's probably moot anyways, I just don't like to see players get a somewhat short shrift like that.

I'm not sure getting 3 seasons to grab a hold of a job is a "short shrift." Nor do I think he was hung out to dry by management at all. Burke has said on a number of occasions that he almost saved their season with his play in January.

 

[Kin]

I'm not sure getting 3 seasons to grab a hold of a job is a "short shrift."

I think that judging any young goalie on what they've done on this particular Maple Leafs team is sort of unfair. Toss in his medical condition and I think you're kind of guilty of it by saying he had "three seasons" to grab the job.

 

[bustaheims]

I think that judging any young goalie on what they've done on this particular Maple Leafs team is sort of unfair. Toss in his medical condition and I think you're kind of guilty of it by saying he had "three seasons" to grab the job.

Well, there's a reason why I said "a job" rather than "the job." And, the overall body of his work, regardless of the team in front of him, is underwhelming. The team in front of him isn't responsible for him allowing bad goals, having issues with the mental side of them game, etc. They may have exacerbated those issues, but they'd be there regardless.

 

[Tigger]

It's probably moot anyways, I just don't like to see players get a somewhat short shrift like that.

I'm not sure getting 3 seasons to grab a hold of a job is a "short shrift." Nor do I think he was hung out to dry by management at all. Burke has said on a number of occasions that he almost saved their season with his play in January.

From savior to goat in a very short time to me, I don't think his future in Toronto has to do as much with his play as it does the optics of the situation and Burke's fear of being brought to book. I don't see it as 3 seasons of real work though, he had a tremendous setback in year 2 and not much to work with defensively for the most part. I didn't think management did him any favours when they yanked him for Reimer at the time either.

 

[Kin]

Well, there's a reason why I said "a job" rather than "the job."

Sure and there's a reason I didn't put the "the job" in question in quotation marks.

Boom, Englished.

And, the overall body of his work, regardless of the team in front of him, is underwhelming. The team in front of him isn't responsible for him allowing bad goals, having issues with the mental side of them game, etc. They may have exacerbated those issues, but they'd be there regardless.

I'm not sure you can really say any of that with any sense of certainty though. The kind of nebulous nature of what "the mental side of the game" is and how it manifests does leave a lot of that up for debate. Letting in bad goals, for instance, could easily be argued to be at least partially a result of playing in front of a bad team(as you note, Reimer let in bad goals at a comparable rate).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

We are quickly being converted here one by one.

Muwahahaha

 

[Deebo]

And then there is DiPietro......

I didn't say the deals themselves don't have the capacity to be bad ones just that the better GM's in the league seem willing to work with those risks.

But I mean, even then, it's not really like that deal has hurt the Islanders particularly.

I think this is the type of risk that makes sense, provided the asset cost makes sense.

 

[Kin]

I think this is the type of risk that makes sense, provided the asset cost makes sense.

Well, I think there are two different risks wrapped up in the issue. The first is the riskiness of signing a player to a long term deal with a lower cap hit vs. a short term deal with a higher one. I'm undecided on that one because we haven't really seen them play out.

On the other hand is the "the only way we can sign/acquire player X is by giving him a long term deal" risk of Player X with a long term deal vs. not having Player X. In that case, yeah, I'd tend to come down on the side of it being worth it.

In Luongo's case in particular? I mean, I tend to be of the belief that Luongo's value may actually be negative so I agree to some extent.