What Would You Pay a Goalie?

[Pete]

27 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

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.

You don't need a franchise goalie to win.

 

If you have a franchise goalie, you still need franchise players at other positions.

 

We don't know who on this team will be a franchise player, but it's the Rangers. If you don't think they're going to be all in on Matthews or McDavid, or the next one, should one hit UFA—not sure what to tell you.

[Pete]

33 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.

Didn't Colorado just win one with Darcy Keumper?

 

Don't you think that TB would have loved some more money to keep their team together? Could have kept Palat if they didn't spend so much on goaltending.

[RJWantsTheCup]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

Didn't Colorado just win one with Darcy Keumper?

 

Don't you think that TB would have loved some more money to keep their team together? Could have kept Palat if they didn't spend so much on goaltending.

Not sure what Tampa thinks, but it’s been working for them.  To me it looks like they pay to keep their stars and rotate role players around them. 

[Phil]

So, in a vacuum, I'd say absolutely not, but the problem is the Rangers are largely built backwards with their best player in net, and then their next best on defense. It's gonna be awfully difficult for them to replicate their same success, me thinks, without an elite goalie, which I'm not sure you're getting at $6 million.

 

This team is often compared to the Leafs, but they're like bizarro versions of one another. Toronto's best players, who they live and die by, are at forward, so they can "get away with" paying Matt Murray or Samsonov, or whomever, to stop pucks every now and then. If New York tries replicating this same formula, my fear is it blows up in their face... spectacularly.

 

This is basically a long winded way of saying I agree in principle with the idea of not committing huge dollars to a goalie, but I have serious concerns of what happens if and when they act on that.

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

You don't need a franchise goalie to win.

 

If you have a franchise goalie, you still need franchise players at other positions.

 

We don't know who on this team will be a franchise player, but it's the Rangers. If you don't think they're going to be all in on Matthews or McDavid, or the next one, should one hit UFA—not sure what to tell you.

 

Of course you don't need a franchise goalie to win. And yes, there's a higher percentage chance of winning with franchise skaters, specifically forwards, rather than franchise goalies. None of this is the point. If the Rangers don't have franchise forwards in 3 years from their current crop of youth, the choice will simply be keep Shesterkin and take a lower-than-ideal percentage at winning a Cup, or rebuild and look for franchise forwards in the draft again.

 

Great. Make a list of Cup winners whose best forwards have been big free agent signings.

[Phil]

30 minutes ago, Pete said:

Didn't Colorado just win one with Darcy Keumper?

 

Don't you think that TB would have loved some more money to keep their team together? Could have kept Palat if they didn't spend so much on goaltending.

 

Not to hijack the convo, but they're another example like the Leafs, built from the front out. I have a really hard time comparing them directly to the Rangers who are built the opposite way.

[Sod16]

Sheshty will turn 30 in December 2025, in the middle of his first year on a new contract.  If he signs for 8 years, as I expect he will insist, he would be 38 in the last season.  He will, no doubt, be in decline to at least some degree during a substantial portion of the contract.

 

It's never too early to start planning and worrying about this, as this situation will have to be dealt with while Panarin's contract is still on the books, but let's see how the next two years play out for Sheshty.  Is he a Big Cat, King or Price, who remains among the elite for a good 10 years, or is he one of many Vezina winners who have had a career year or two but generally have just been good, perhaps better than average, goalies?

[phillyb]

It has be proven over and over again that you do not need to pay a goalie top dollar to win a cup. 

[Phil]

Just now, phillyb said:

It has be proven over and over again that you do not need to pay a goalie top dollar to win a cup. 

 

*on teams who's best players are forwards.

[fletch]

Check out https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/cap/  

 

You can show how much each team is spending on their goalie tandem.  Widely varying rate on return.  I did % of cap calculation.  For this year

 

		Goaltender	Total Cap	% of Cap
1	Florida Panthers	10,910,059	81,862,500	13.33
2	Tampa Bay Lightning	10,400,000	82,500,000	12.61
3	New York Islanders	9,000,000	80,148,050	11.23
4	Seattle Kraken	7,900,000	82,721,432	9.55
5	Anaheim Ducks	7,717,026	69,005,031	11.18
6	St Louis Blues	7,250,000	81,400,000	8.91
7	New York Rangers	7,166,667	84,785,132	8.45
8	Winnipeg Jets	7,066,666	80,161,051	8.82
9	Calgary Flames	6,750,000	81,133,469	8.32
10	Columbus Blue Jackets	6,700,000	82,500,000	8.12
11	Nashville Predators	6,500,000	79,963,830	8.13
12	Carolina Hurricanes	6,500,000	82,387,500	7.89
13	Los Angeles Kings	6,389,855	80,499,441	7.94
14	Washington Capitals	6,350,000	82,400,000	7.71
15	New Jersey Devils	6,200,000	82,500,000	7.52
16	Boston Bruins	5,925,000	82,500,000	7.18
17	Edmonton Oilers	5,750,000	81,604,000	7.05
18	Colorado Avalanche	5,400,000	82,475,000	6.55
19	Detroit Red Wings	5,318,512	74,925,290	7.10
20	San Jose Sharks	5,308,358	82,500,000	6.43
21	Vegas Golden Knights	5,266,666	82,500,000	6.38
22	Philadelphia Flyers	5,188,186	82,205,000	6.31
23	Dallas Stars	5,000,000	82,191,145	6.08
24	Minnesota Wild	4,287,500	78,713,430	5.45
25	Chicago Blackhawks	4,222,839	77,263,502	5.47
26	Buffalo Sabres	3,934,923	63,562,076	6.19
27	Montreal Canadiens	3,875,000	81,367,500	4.76
28	Arizona Coyotes	3,458,333	63,924,088	5.41
29	Pittsburgh Penguins	2,170,863	82,500,000	2.63
30	Toronto Maple Leafs	2,088,540	82,287,500	2.54
31	Vancouver Canucks	781,946	81,250,000	0.96
32	Ottawa Senators	619,035	79,303,055	0.78

[fletch]

You can go to nhl.com and filter goalie stats.  I filtered for save percentage, goalies who played at least 20 games, and got:

1. Ullmark BOS .937

2. Gustavsson MIN .926

3. Oettinger DAL .925

4. Hellebuyck WIN .924

5. Sorokin NYI .923

6. Jarry PIT .921

7. Vasilevskiy TBL .920

8. Georgiev COL .919

9. Swayman BOS .918

10. Samsonov TOR .918

11. Saros NSH .917

12. Vanecek NJD .916

13. Shesterkin NYR .915

14. Kuemper WSH .914

15. Thompson VGK .914

16. Hill VGK .913

17. Skinner EDM .913

18. Korpisalo CBJ .912

19. Hart PHI .911

20. Lindgren WSH .907

 

You can pick your favorite stats, and look at advanced stats, and come up with other rankings. 

 

My point is that the teams that are paying the most for their goaltending (ex. Panthers, Kraken) aren't necessarily getting the best performance on the ice.

 

Do I think Shesterkin is better than a .915 goalie?  Yes.  But I also don't think he's going to throw up .935 every year, like he did when he won the Vezina.

https://www.nhl.com/player/igor-shesterkin-8478048

 

So let's say that a typical Shesterkin year puts him in the elite band of goalies that includes goalies such as Vasilevskiy, Hellebuyck, Oettinger, Ullmark.  

 

Look at the Bruins cap situation and how much they are paying the Ullmark/Swayman combo.

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/bruins

 

Would I miss Shesterkin if he left?  Absolutely.  But if the Rangers could swing a trade for a young, developing, mid-tier goalie, I think their roster construction would be better for a Cup run.  Focus on getting about .920 save percentage for less money, and use the money saved on the skaters.

 

[Ozzy]

That's great work!! 

 

@fletch

 

Fletch, I'm nominating you for "Forum Accountant/Statistician"!!! 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Of course you don't need a franchise goalie to win. And yes, there's a higher percentage chance of winning with franchise skaters, specifically forwards, rather than franchise goalies. None of this is the point. If the Rangers don't have franchise forwards in 3 years from their current crop of youth, the choice will simply be keep Shesterkin and take a lower-than-ideal percentage at winning a Cup, or rebuild and look for franchise forwards in the draft again.

 

Great. Make a list of Cup winners whose best forwards have been big free agent signings.

You're muddying the waters. You don't need a $10M goalie to win a Cup. If you're signing a $10M goalie and you don't have star players at other positions, especially at forward, you're not going to win anyway. We already know this to be true.

 

So if you don't have stars at key positions, why are you paying a goalie $10M? To not win anyway?

Edited February 17, 2023 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

You're muddying the waters. You don't need a $10M goalie to win a Cup. If you're signing a $10M goalie and you don't have star players at other positions, especially at forward, you're not going to win anyway. We already know this to be true.

 

So if you don't have stars at key positions, why are you paying a goalie $10M? To not win anyway?

Not muddying anything. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. If Kakko and Lafreniere are 60 pt forwards opposed to 80-90 pt franchise forwards, then I’m signing Shesterkin. If they are 80-90 point guys, and signing Shesterkin would cost me one of them, I’ll pass on signing him.

 

You can win with non-franchise forwards.  Blues, Kings early 2010s, etc. It’s just easier to do if you have them. Rebuilding is a distant third option.

Edited February 17, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Not muddying anything. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. If Kakko and Lafreniere are 60 pt forwards opposed to 80-90 pt franchise forwards, then I’m signing Shesterkin. If they are 80-90 point guys, and signing Shesterkin would cost me one of them, I’ll pass on signing him.

Let's leave aside that this is not nearly enough data to make any kind of decision, it still makes no sense because you're still likely to lose...because...

 

Quote

 

You can win with non-franchise forwards.  Blues, Kings early 2010s, etc. It’s just easier to do if you have them. Rebuilding is a distant third option.

There is no "etc." That's literally the only examples over the past 15 or so years.

[BrooksBurner]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

Let's leave aside that this is not nearly enough data to make any kind of decision, it still makes no sense because you're still likely to lose...because...

 

There is no "etc." That's literally the only examples over the past 15 or so years.

Kings won twice (2012, 2014). There’s also the 2011 Bruins. So okay, 4 Cups won by teams without a prototypical franchise forward in the last 12 years. That’s a third. Shesterkin is probably better than the goalies on those teams. We already established it was a lesser probability of winning without a franchise forward, but a 33% chance of a non-franchise forward team winning the Cup isn’t too shabby. That’s higher than finding a franchise forward in the draft. Apparently that’s impossible for the Rangers no matter how high in the first they pick.

[Pete]

27 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Kings won twice (2012, 2014). There’s also the 2011 Bruins. So okay, 4 Cups won by teams without a prototypical franchise forward in the last 12 years. That’s a third. Shesterkin is probably better than the goalies on those teams. We already established it was a lesser probability of winning without a franchise forward, but a 33% chance of a non-franchise forward team winning the Cup isn’t too shabby. That’s higher than finding a franchise forward in the draft. Apparently that’s impossible for the Rangers no matter how high in the first they pick.

I don't think I've ever seen more mental gymnastics, but it's Friday night on a 3 day weekend so I'm just going to say that you're wrong, and we'll move on.

 

(PS Yes, I know the Kings won twice, you're entering @Phil levels of telling people shit they already know and acting like it's breaking news. Next will be "Did you know that on the LOST Finale, they were dead?!?!?!?!?")

Edited February 17, 2023 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't think I've ever seen more mental gymnastics, but it's Friday night on a 3 day weekend so I'm just going to say that you're wrong, and we'll move on.

 

(PS Yes, I know the Kings won twice, you're entering @Phil levels of telling people shit they already know and acting like it's breaking news. Next will be "Did you know that on the LOST Finale, they were dead?!?!?!?!?")

 

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Yea, I gave up on you understanding hockey like 3 years ago.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Pete

[jamsim1967]

Igor in my opinion, is not Hank, and what did the Rangers win with Hank? It wasn't to long ago that Hank was almost all the Rangers had, and he did a great job of getting the Rangers to the playoffs, and a final, but no cup. You have to be able to score goals, and if your defense can limit shots and chances, you may not need a vezina winner to win a Stanley Cup.

 

Also, with a little bit of luck, Hank could have carried the Rangers to a Stanley Cup vs the Kings. I could be wrong, and I like Igor, just don't think he is in the same class.

Edited February 18, 2023 by jamsim1967

[The Dude]

I just don't think the Rangers should want any part of his next contract unless he gives them a hometown discount. 

 

By the time he's a free agent, I'd only be willing to go 8 - 8.5  max for 5 years. I think he can find better elsewhere.  Paying a goalie in his UFA years isn't something that generally works out in the long run. It's always too many years and it's usually done for sentimental reasons. 

 

If he's still posting .925+ save % at that time I'd have to think harder about it. But I'm OK with walking away from him, if he demands a kings ransom.  Guy came over here a little late. The Rangers missed out on a good 3 years of ELC value.