Variable
New member
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,023
- Liked Posts:
- 122
Well it's a good thing I didn't come up with that theory then. Because I never said that a good defensive team can do that. The Hawks are a really good offensive and defensive team that has been either the top or near top of the league in puck possession. Big difference there. It's easy to move the goalposts in any discussion Jim, it's nothing special. You went from asking what goalie(s) would a championship team need in order to be successful to me now somehow coming up with a non-existent theory of how a good defensive team can win with average goal tending.</p>
</p>
And Ton, again, was Niemi "reputable" before 2010? Was Crawford? I was asked what type of goalie would a championship caliber team need and I answered it. The one's they've had those seasons. Unproven goalies. Average to slightly above average. Since most all goalies depend on the quality of the team, if you're the Hawks, there's no need to shell out extra money for that position. Even if it's only something like a 1.5-2 million difference in cap hit when it comes down to it. Because for a team like the Hawks who will be scraping the cap ceiling for the foreseeable future, that type of money is the difference in having to reluctantly let go or move players like Ladd.</p>
</p>
There's a lot more gray area between the Henrik Lundqvists and the Carter Huttons of the league Ton. It's all moot because the Hawks already committed money to Crawford, but there are/were moves they could've made. You mentioned Reimer in that, I'd take him easily. On the Hawks? Have you seen the Leafs? They are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. A goalie's worst nightmare of a team in how they play. Being even average there by the numbers, to me, makes him pretty damn reputable and just as if not more proven than a lot of "established" goalies in the league. That's just not how it's seen across the board in hockey because the advanced metrics are still looked down on by a lot of people. But that's a big part of the future of hockey analysis.</p>
</p>
And Ton, again, was Niemi "reputable" before 2010? Was Crawford? I was asked what type of goalie would a championship caliber team need and I answered it. The one's they've had those seasons. Unproven goalies. Average to slightly above average. Since most all goalies depend on the quality of the team, if you're the Hawks, there's no need to shell out extra money for that position. Even if it's only something like a 1.5-2 million difference in cap hit when it comes down to it. Because for a team like the Hawks who will be scraping the cap ceiling for the foreseeable future, that type of money is the difference in having to reluctantly let go or move players like Ladd.</p>
</p>
There's a lot more gray area between the Henrik Lundqvists and the Carter Huttons of the league Ton. It's all moot because the Hawks already committed money to Crawford, but there are/were moves they could've made. You mentioned Reimer in that, I'd take him easily. On the Hawks? Have you seen the Leafs? They are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. A goalie's worst nightmare of a team in how they play. Being even average there by the numbers, to me, makes him pretty damn reputable and just as if not more proven than a lot of "established" goalies in the league. That's just not how it's seen across the board in hockey because the advanced metrics are still looked down on by a lot of people. But that's a big part of the future of hockey analysis.</p>
