• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Leafs acquire Matt Murray [25% retained]

Nik said:
bustaheims said:
5 years is way too long of a commitment for Campbell.
Click to expand...

Forget Campbell, how many goalies in the league would you really be enthused about making a 5 year commitment to? It may be the cost of doing business in some cases but I'd like to think that five year deals for goalies will become rarer and rarer unless they've got real solid credentials behind them.
Click to expand...

And let's be real here, Campbell was pretty bad last year. I know people were saying he didn't cost us the series but I mean... it was still sub .900 goaltending in the playoffs. There's a lack of consistency for a guy over 30. Even a .905 like Murray could've advanced us.
 
gunnar36 said:
Still not quite understanding this.  If a 5x5 offer by Oilers was enough to secure Cambell, do you think Leafs couldnt of also had him on a 5x5?  They are paying Murray 4.6875, a marginal cap savings vs Campbell for someone who needs to still find his game.  And recouping a 3rd and 7th pick shouldn't have been enough incentive to go with a downgrade in net.
Click to expand...

Obviously yes. But 5x5 for Campbell is nuts. If I can see that then actual hockey professionals running the team can certainly see that.
 
Bender said:
And let's be real here, Campbell was pretty bad last year. I know people were saying he didn't cost us the series but I mean... it was still sub .900 goaltending in the playoffs. There's a lack of consistency for a guy over 30. Even a .905 like Murray could've advanced us.
Click to expand...

I feel like just based on what we've seen on him I'd have preferred Campbell/Samsonov to Murray/Samsonov if Campbell had come on a deal very similar to Murray(maybe 3/15 would be the max there) but the extent to which I'd feel on surer footing with the team's goaltending is pretty minimal. It's the difference between being "Well, I'm pretty sure that the team's goaltending won't be catastrophically awful next year" to where I am now which is genuinely having no idea how good they'll be in net. You could legitimately tell me they'll be top 5 next year in net or bottom 5 and neither would shock me.
 
bustaheims said:
gunnar36 said:
Still not quite understanding this.  If a 5x5 offer by Oilers was enough to secure Cambell, do you think Leafs couldnt of also had him on a 5x5?  They are paying Murray 4.6875, a marginal cap savings vs Campbell for someone who needs to still find his game.  And recouping a 3rd and 7th pick shouldn't have been enough incentive to go with a downgrade in net.
Click to expand...

5 years is way too long of a commitment for Campbell.
Click to expand...

Yeah i guess that makes sense if you truly dont believe in your goalie to make that commitment.  Campbell will be in his prime for most of that contract, it is a risk for sure but could pay off for Oilers.
 
Nik said:
Bender said:
And let's be real here, Campbell was pretty bad last year. I know people were saying he didn't cost us the series but I mean... it was still sub .900 goaltending in the playoffs. There's a lack of consistency for a guy over 30. Even a .905 like Murray could've advanced us.
Click to expand...

I feel like just based on what we've seen on him I'd have preferred Campbell/Samsonov to Murray/Samsonov if Campbell had come on a deal very similar to Murray(maybe 3/15 would be the max there) but the extent to which I'd feel on surer footing with the team's goaltending is pretty minimal. It's the difference between being "Well, I'm pretty sure that the team's goaltending won't be catastrophically awful next year" to where I am now which is genuinely having no idea how good they'll be in net. You could legitimately tell me they'll be top 5 next year in net or bottom 5 and neither would shock me.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I think my point is people are freaking out that we got Murray for almost the same cost as Jack and that Murray isn't good and Jack hasn't been that bad. Last year he did the team nearly no favours at all, so it's kind of a crapshoot. I'd take Jack back for 2yrs but not at 5, and if he's somewhat interchangeable with Murray who carries only a 2yr commitment (and is younger) then who cares.
 
gunnar36 said:
Yeah i guess that makes sense if you truly dont believe in your goalie to make that commitment.  Campbell will be in his prime for most of that contract, it is a risk for sure but could pay off for Oilers.
Click to expand...

He's already 30. He'll be in his prime for the first couple years, maybe - and, if his performance this past season is indicative of his prime, he's not going to live up to that deal.
 
gunnar36 said:
Campbell will be in his prime for most of that contract, it is a risk for sure but could pay off for Oilers.
Click to expand...

The Oilers have enough firepower that even getting mid-range goaltending could see them have some serious success. The Leafs aren't really there.
 
I think we really need to temper the "Murray has two Cups to his name" narrative.  That was 5+ years ago.  It means squat now, save for the fact that we know what his potential can be.

Cam Ward won a Cup and Stanley Cup in the same way Murray did, and he put up nothing more than an average career after that when he was expected to be the next big thing in net.

I'm simply hopeful that his issues from last season and the ones prior are behind him and that he can provide at least some competent goaltending, all the while remaining healthy.
 
Peter D. said:
I think we really need to temper the "Murray has two Cups to his name" narrative.
Click to expand...

I only scanned things really quickly but not including this one I could only find 4 posts in these 10 pages that even reference Murray having won a Cup (and 2 of them were from you). I don't think that's a narrative that's all that large.
 
Peter D. said:
It means squat now, save for the fact that we know what his potential can be.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I've seen anyone reference those cups to mean anything other than that. It may seem like not much but this is a fanbase that seems pretty convinced that a lot of why the team hasn't succeeded in the playoffs is because some guys on the team simply do not have the mental make-up to succeed when the pressure is on. That you're bringing in a goalie who has conclusively proven otherwise seems relevant to that even if, as again I don't think I've seen anyone claim, it means much about how he'll hold up next year.
 
Yeah, past performance is not a guarantee of future results (so says my mutual fund, and boy were they ever right). 
 
I think the bigger question is?which team took the bigger risk here?

The Oilers for signing Campbell to a 25mil/ 5 year contract ?or the Leafs for not matching that, letting him walk and replacing him with Murray?
 
RedLeaf said:
I think the bigger question is?which team took the bigger risk here?

The Oilers for signing Campbell to a 25mil/ 5 year contract ?or the Leafs for not matching that, letting him walk and replacing him with Murray?
Click to expand...

They both have question marks as to durability for a full season. So going 2 years is less of a risk in my opinion, but I guess we'll see.
 
https://twitter.com/dalter/status/1547306999309819907

Not that this is a surprise but there it is straight from Dubas. Simply didn't want to go 5 years with Campbell.
 
And I don?t blame either of them. Campbell has every right to cash in and the Leafs have every right not to over commit.
 
Iafrate said:
And I don?t blame either of them. Campbell has every right to cash in and the Leafs have every right not to over commit.
Click to expand...
They?ve got some big contracts coming up in 2 years and can?t risk having a bad goalie contract tying their hands.
 
https://hockeypdocast.com/2022/07/15/ep-449-the-goaltending-excellence-department/

New HockeyPDOcast on goaltending, featuring a conversation towards the end about Campbell ?> Murray (1:05 mark)

The jist of Murray's situation is, the game has changed since he won the Cups, and became far more lateral (Royal Road passing; east-west lane crossing). His playstyle prior was getting set in his save position (low and wide) once the puck crossed centre ice. His injuries gave him an opportunity to initiate a change to his playstyle (that side-to-side movement mentioned earlier), staying narrow and upright longer. It was just starting to solidify towards the back end of his tenure with Ottawa, where the relationship soured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top