What Would You Pay a Goalie?

[Pete]

Simple question.

 

Shesty setting up for a Vasilievski-like deal. You have to think he's asking for $9Mx8 minimum, and no point quibbling over if he's worth 9/10/11 million. That's not the issue. 

 

Simply put, are you willing to pay +9M for a goalie? 

 

I'll go first. 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Pete

[jsm7302]

No. Not touching over 6 mil for a goalie. 

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

I mean lets see what the cap looks like when that time comes

 

if the cap goes up by a shit ton of money then yeah, we're gonna pay that much for Shesty and its gonna be fine

[Morphinity 2.0]

Definitely not. The Lightning are the only team I can think of that has succeeded with a goalie eating a significant portion of the cap.

[Blue Heaven]

[jsm7302]

10% of the cap should go to the goalie position. That includes the backup imo.

[Cash or Czech]

The forecasted salary cap for when Shesterkin hits UFA is $92M, or $9.5M more than what it is this season. After that season, Trouba and Panarin are both UFAs. Fox and Zibanejad are locked in. I think this is a much different scenario than when Lundqvist had an $8.5M cap hit and the salary cap was $69M back in 2014-15 when it was signed. Hank signed at 12.3% of the total cap back in 14-15. $9M for Shesterkin would amount to 9.8% of the cap in 2025-26.

 

It also depends on what the alternates are. How does Garand develop? How is the free agent market? Are we still in a window to compete for a Stanley Cup? If we're rebuilding, it's a no-brainer to try and trade him for assets that'll help the team move forward. If we're still in a window because Kakko, Laf, Chytil, Miller, and Fox are driving the team then we evaluate our options more seriously, especially if he continues to be a top-5 NHL goalie. 

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

I mean lets see what the cap looks like when that time comes

 

if the cap goes up by a shit ton of money then yeah, we're gonna pay that much for Shesty and its gonna be fine

The way it's projecting is that you'd have to give most of the extra cap to Shesty by the time his deal expires. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Pete

[Gravesy]

 

You ride out Shesty's contract, and you take your chances after that. The examples where paying a goalie at the top of the market works out are few and far between.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Gravesy

[Pete]

Just now, Cash or Czech said:

The forecasted salary cap for when Shesterkin hits UFA is $92M, or $9.5M more than what it is this season. After that season, Trouba and Panarin are both UFAs. Fox and Zibanejad are locked in. I think this is a much different scenario than when Lundqvist had an $8.5M cap hit and the salary cap was $69M back in 2014-15 when it was signed. Hank signed at 12.3% of the total cap back in 14-15. $9M for Shesterkin would amount to 9.8% of the cap in 2025-26.

 

It also depends on what the alternates are. How does Garand develop? How is the free agent market? Are we still in a window to compete for a Stanley Cup? If we're rebuilding, it's a no-brainer to try and trade him for assets that'll help the team move forward. If we're still in a window because Kakko, Laf, Chytil, Miller, and Fox are driving the team then we evaluate our options more seriously, especially if he continues to be a top-5 NHL goalie. 

The Rangers weren't successful by giving Hank that much. He's the cautionary tale. 

 

The position of goalie can't take 10% of your cap. It's bananas. 

[Cash or Czech]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

The Rangers weren't successful by giving Hank that much. He's the cautionary tale. 

 

The position of goalie can't take 10% of your cap. It's bananas. 

 

I mostly agree, but it depends on if the costs of other players raise as well. Or if Laf, Chytil and Kakko develop into 60+ point players and sign long-term at $5-6M each, does that free up extra money around the rest of the roster? 

 

The UFA goalies that season are Shesterkin, Ullmark, Saros, Husso, Georgiev, Vanacek, Thompson, Vejmelka.... Granted, there'll be more young goalies coming up through the ranks.

[jsm7302]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

The Rangers weren't successful by giving Hank that much. He's the cautionary tale. 

 

The position of goalie can't take 10% of your cap. It's bananas. 

^^ 10% of the cap is a good barometer for the position not a sole individual though imo.

 

8.2 million today

7 mil- starter

1.2 mil- backup

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

The way it's projecting is that you'd have to give most of the extra cap to Shesty by the time his deal expires. 

I was gonna add this to my original post as an edit but ill just make it a new one here in response to that

 

 

while we can't know exactly what the cap situation will look like when Shesterkin becomes a UFA, what I would say is, how much better does the team get with an extra $3mil in cap space?

 

Are we better with a goalie who, when the cap is increased, commands a $6mil contract and getting what would probably be an extra third-line guy at best, or with Shesterkin at $9 mil?

 

Maybe Garand turns out to be a superstar and we get a string of franchise level goalies and could use him more cost-controlled at that point. if that's the case, than I'm all for it. If not

 

If Not, I don't know what kind of goalie you'd get on the free agent market at a good price who keeps us just as good, or is worth worth the subtraction in net to what the cap space adds to your lineup

 

not a perfect example but thinking about it in terms of cap space. Say we didnt have Shesterkin at 5.6 but had MacKenzie Blackwood making 2.8 (or insert any goalie making around that much) and had that extra almost 3 mil to fill in the line up. I don't think that makes us a better team

 

We obviously do have to factor in having to pay our own players more as well, which poses an issue. But if your asking me rtight now, Shesty is more important to this teams success than any of them

[jsm7302]

4 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

I was gonna add this to my original post as an edit but ill just make it a new one here in response to that

 

 

while we can't know exactly what the cap situation will look like when Shesterkin becomes a UFA, what I would say is, how much better does the team get with an extra $3mil in cap space?

 

Are we better with a goalie who, when the cap is increased, commands a $6mil contract and getting what would probably be an extra third-line guy at best, or with Shesterkin at $9 mil?

 

Maybe Garand turns out to be a superstar and we get a string of franchise level goalies and could use him more cost-controlled at that point. if that's the case, than I'm all for it. If not

 

If Not, I don't know what kind of goalie you'd get on the free agent market at a good price who keeps us just as good, or is worth worth the subtraction in net to what the cap space adds to your lineup

 

not a perfect example but thinking about it in terms of cap space. Say we didnt have Shesterkin at 5.6 but had MacKenzie Blackwood making 2.8 (or insert any goalie making around that much) and had that extra almost 3 mil to fill in the line up. I don't think that makes us a better team

 

We obviously do have to factor in having to pay our own players more as well, which poses an issue. But if your asking me rtight now, Shesty is more important to this teams success than any of them

Bad year to make that analogy. 3 extra mil makes all the difference this off season.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

Just now, jsm7302 said:

Bad year to make that analogy. 3 extra mil makes all the difference this off season.

we'll have a cap crunch but do you think that we'd be better off as a team without Shesterkin and the extra cap space?

[jsm7302]

4 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

we'll have a cap crunch but do you think that we'd be better off as a team without Shesterkin and the extra cap space?

Point received. No, we wouldn't.

[BrooksBurner]

This is going to depend on performance of younger players between now and then. I don't know if Kakko or Lafreniere will be $5M players or $9-10M players yet. I don't know if Miller will be a $5M player or an $8M player yet. If those kinds of guys are decent players, but short of franchise altering, then Igor will still be one of your franchise players who represent the best bet to win Cups. In that scenario, you pay him the money.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

This is the reason I wanted them to lock him in for longer on his current contract. They should’ve known he was the real deal by then and given him 6-8 years, now we’re in a tough spot when his contract is up.

 

He’ll be a UFA at 29. Giving him 7-8 years at 29 is a really bad idea, but if our window is open and we have no goalies in the organization that can take over, we kinda have no choice.

 

It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. Luckily we’re still 2 and a half year away from having to make that decision.

[Ozzy]

32 minutes ago, Pete said:

The Rangers weren't successful by giving Hank that much. He's the cautionary tale. 

 

The position of goalie can't take 10% of your cap. It's bananas. 

 

This!

 

Think about this though;  If we actually had a true "Defensive system" in place, where players had to be responsible to clear the zone, and responsibly pick up opponents defensively, would we even need Superman?

 

I say no.  I would never again pay a goalie that much.  We should learn from Hank...end of story.

 

If this team gets bounced early this season, we gotta unload Grandpa Gallant.  Get a coach that teaches defensive responsibility.  God knows we have enough offense to light up a city. 

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

This is going to depend on performance of younger players between now and then. I don't know if Kakko or Lafreniere will be $5M players or $9-10M players yet. I don't know if Miller will be a $5M player or an $8M player yet. If those kinds of guys are decent players, but short of franchise altering, then Igor will still be one of your franchise players who represent the best bet to win Cups. In that scenario, you pay him the money.

No it doesn't. Every position has a budget. Why spent $10M on a goalie when you can spend $6M and still win?

[Ozzy]

Just now, Pete said:

No it doesn't. Every position has a budget. Why spent $10M on a goalie when you can spend $6M and still win?

 

Every other team that's won a Stanley Cup has done it without Igor.  Why can't we??

[RJWantsTheCup]

9 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

Every other team that's won a Stanley Cup has done it without Igor.  Why can't we??

But didn't Tampa just win all their cups with the best goalie at the time?

If there was an exact formula for winning the cup every team would be trying to do it.

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

No it doesn't. Every position has a budget. Why spent $10M on a goalie when you can spend $6M and still win?

 

Spending $6M on a goalie and winning generally requires franchise players at other positions, which is my point. We don't know who's a franchise player in 3 more years to be a definitive yes or no. We do know right now, though, that Igor is a franchise goalie.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

2 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

But didn't Tampa just win all their cups with the best goalie at the time?

If there was an exact formula for winning the cup every team would be trying to do it.

exactly this

 

everyone tries to copy every team that wins to eventually find out that things change.

We drafted McIlrath instead of tarasenko because we needed to try and be the big bad bruins

 

A string of teams won with mediocre goaltending. Tampa won two and went to a third final with high paid elite goaltending. There's no secret formula (except for putting elite players on LTIR untilt he playoffs, that one works every time)

[Br4d]

You should be able to figure this out by looking at what the goaltender's efficiency in terms of goals saved is.  The goaltender's efficiency should be a positive number in relation to what his peers in the NHL (peers being starting goalies) produce or negative if he is below his peers.  This number is probably some factor of save percentage and shots faced, since a goal tender who faces more shots will allow more goals than a peer who faces less shots and at in almost all cases the goalie who faces more shots with the same save percentage will be more valuable. 

 

The number will be 1 +/- a fraction probably on a sliding scale that reflects where good goalie level begins.  Goalies above this level  getting 1+ on this number depending on where they stand in the rankings based on the number produced in the first paragraph.  A very good goalie might get up to 1.5 on this scale.   Maybe 1.99 for a legendarily good goalie.  Not sure where Shesterkin's numbers would be at this point but he has clearly prevented a lot of goals that an average NHL goalie would not have prevented.  Let's give him a 1.8 for last season, which was an exceptional season by any account.

 

I'm not sure the metric exists but it should be ascertainable with logical deduction.

 

If you want to establish a basis for logical expenditure you can start with what percentage of the time the goalie is on the ice.  This gives you their Opportunity for Effect.

 

Then the basis has to take into account that there are 6 positions on the ice at most times and goalie is 16.67% of the time on ice, trending upwards of that due to time short handed.

 

The question is to what extent does a goalie effect overall play on the ice in terms of goals prevented?  Play is in the goalies end of the ice probably 40% of the time and he has very little if any effect on the rest of play.

 

So take the 1/6 of the cap * Opportunity for Effect * .4 * the first number produced above.  So theoretically Shesterkin's valuation against the cap last year would have been $6.3M give or take because I got lazy and did not take TOI into account just games played.  If he'd played 60 games, which is where most workhorse goalies sit, he'd have been worth $7.2M.

 

Note that if Shesterkin played for a Ranger's team that allowed the opponent to dominate in his end and so the actual percentage of play in that end was 45% of the time then his value last season would have been $7.2M even in 53 games played.

 

The point is that last season odds are pretty good that Shesterkin in a great season and injured at least once was worth between $6.3M and $7.2M so a bargain over his $5.67M cap number.

 

The other thing is that as the cap goes up the amount that should go to the goalie also goes up.

 

If the cap in '25-26 is $90M and Shesterkin has a season like last year with 60 games played he might well be worth close to $9M.  The rough formula above suggests $7.9M.