Buds Board Keepers League

Again its always interesting to see all the new Gms defending a point of view that the more veteran GMs don't agree with, sure having an elite goalie is nice, but not at the expense of a balanced roster that allows you to compete in all non-goalie categories. Hank is getting older and is expensive and the cost of acquiring him in a trade is prohibitive making him a lot less valuable than he actually is in real life, or perhaps should be in a league like this- that's all Bruyns is saying and I for one agree. For me its easiest/best to gamble on a middle of the back/ slightly above average goaltending because they generally don't have awful weeks even if they don't put up elite numbers either, tread water in the goalie cat's and ice a competitive team of skaters and you'll do just fine imo. If you ice a mediocre team with an elite goalie and that goalie has a bad week you are setting yourself up to lose. Look at my roster for example, if Halak has an excellent week I can set myself up for a really nice win or perhaps a sweep, if Halak plays average I'm in the running for a split of the goalie cat's and hope to win enough with my skaters to take the week or pull off a tie, and if Halak has a bad week, well I'll still win a decent chunk of periph cat's based on my team make up.

K. Might toss an offer.

The point Fraser is making that you seem to be ignoring is it isn't that Lundy loses 4 stats by himself it's that he has to play against another goalie who might also have a really good week causing Lundy to lose all 4 stats despite a 1.5 GAA and .95 SV%. We don't just compare year end numbers, there is a ton of variance on a week to week basis with goaltending and to me 8.5 is maybe worth it if you were guaranteed top 3 GAA SV% and wins but that's not the case and because of this it makes paying 10M~ for 2 goalies tough to swallow since it likely means downgrading your roster to make cap space or you aren't a contender and then a 33 year old Lundqvist is less appealing since you have to hope he is top 10 in a few years.

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLONAgain its always interesting to see all the new Gms defending a point of view that the more veteran GMs don't agree with, sure having an elite goalie is nice, but not at the expense of a balanced roster that allows you to compete in all non-goalie categories. Hank is getting older and is expensive and the cost of acquiring him in a trade is prohibitive making him a lot less valuable than he actually is in real life, or perhaps should be in a league like this- that's all Bruyns is saying and I for one agree. For me its easiest/best to gamble on a middle of the back/ slightly above average goaltending because they generally don't have awful weeks even if they don't put up elite numbers either, tread water in the goalie cat's and ice a competitive team of skaters and you'll do just fine imo. If you ice a mediocre team with an elite goalie and that goalie has a bad week you are setting yourself up to lose. Look at my roster for example, if Halak has an excellent week I can set myself up for a really nice win or perhaps a sweep, if Halak plays average I'm in the running for a split of the goalie cat's and hope to win enough with my skaters to take the week or pull off a tie, and if Halak has a bad week, well I'll still win a decent chunk of periph cat's based on my team make up.

Not really sure how that makes any sense. A goalie wouldn't be mediocre if they don't have awful weeks. That is what makes them mediocre. Some good weeks, some bad weeks. Not really sure where anyone gets the idea that you can't have a good roster and spend on goaltending.

Tl:dr

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe point Fraser is making that you seem to be ignoring is it isn't that Lundy loses 4 stats by himself it's that he has to play against another goalie who might also have a really good week causing Lundy to lose all 4 stats despite a 1.5 GAA and .95 SV%. We don't just compare year end numbers, there is a ton of variance on a week to week basis with goaltending and to me 8.5 is maybe worth it if you were guaranteed top 3 GAA SV% and wins but that's not the case and because of this it makes paying 10M~ for 2 goalies tough to swallow since it likely means downgrading your roster to make cap space or you aren't a contender and then a 33 year old Lundqvist is less appealing since you have to hope he is top 10 in a few years.

That's exactly what he said. And how often is something like that going to happen? You guys are arguing special cases. Of course any worthless ass motherfucker can get hot any given week, but it's about consistency. How many times is that ever going to happen? Not often. There will always be outliers, but you can't plan for that.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON Not really sure where anyone gets the idea that you can't have a good roster and spend on goaltending.

DId anyone say that? Seems you are making it a little too black and white when to me it seems we are talking about optimal cap allocation and how cap hits affect value not whether teams that spend on goalies have a bad roster.

i think everyone can agree on the fact that one cannot lean on completely skaters or goalie for any given weekly matchup, and that reliance should come in combination of both. The better your goalies/skaters are, the better the chance that your team would make up for the upset/lack of production for the other

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe point Fraser is making that you seem to be ignoring is it isn't that Lundy loses 4 stats by himself it's that he has to play against another goalie who might also have a really good week causing Lundy to lose all 4 stats despite a 1.5 GAA and .95 SV%. We don't just compare year end numbers, there is a ton of variance on a week to week basis with goaltending and to me 8.5 is maybe worth it if you were guaranteed top 3 GAA SV% and wins but that's not the case and because of this it makes paying 10M~ for 2 goalies tough to swallow since it likely means downgrading your roster to make cap space or you aren't a contender and then a 33 year old Lundqvist is less appealing since you have to hope he is top 10 in a few years.

That's exactly what he said. And how often is something like that going to happen? You guys are arguing special cases. Of course any worthless ass motherfucker can get hot any given week, but it's about consistency. How many times is that ever going to happen? Not often. There will always be outliers, but you can't plan for that.

You think it`s a special case for two goalies in the NHL to have a good week? It happens quite often where two teams put up great goalie stats just like sometimes both teams goalies shit the bed. I've lost with GAA in the 1s and won in the 3s that is why I was talking about weekly variance.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON Not really sure where anyone gets the idea that you can't have a good roster and spend on goaltending.

DId anyone say that? Seems you are making it a little too black and white when to me it seems we are talking about optimal cap allocation and how cap hits affect value not whether teams that spend on goalies have a bad roster.

Seems implied to me. That seems to be the consensus that you aren't field the best possible roster you can by investing dollars in goaltenders.

Yeah. Of course goalies have swings up and down week to week. but if you have the 5th best goalie in sv%, gaa, and wins, then on average they will win 25 weeks and lose 5 weeks. They will come up against a hot goalie in the same week they are hot and lose, but then they could come up against a cold goalie in the same week they are cold and win that week also. being a top goalie just means that on average you will end up on the better side of the equation. seems fairly important to me if a goalie can go 25-5 in his categories, and shift the playing field to your side of the field before the skaters have even started.

also, smith had good games once in a while, but he never ever evvveeerrr strung together 4 games in a row of elite goaltending and get 2 or 3 wins on arizona. lundy is capable of doing that week in and week out.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe point Fraser is making that you seem to be ignoring is it isn't that Lundy loses 4 stats by himself it's that he has to play against another goalie who might also have a really good week causing Lundy to lose all 4 stats despite a 1.5 GAA and .95 SV%. We don't just compare year end numbers, there is a ton of variance on a week to week basis with goaltending and to me 8.5 is maybe worth it if you were guaranteed top 3 GAA SV% and wins but that's not the case and because of this it makes paying 10M~ for 2 goalies tough to swallow since it likely means downgrading your roster to make cap space or you aren't a contender and then a 33 year old Lundqvist is less appealing since you have to hope he is top 10 in a few years.

That's exactly what he said. And how often is something like that going to happen? You guys are arguing special cases. Of course any worthless ass motherfucker can get hot any given week, but it's about consistency. How many times is that ever going to happen? Not often. There will always be outliers, but you can't plan for that.

You think it`s a special case for two goalies in the NHL to have a good week? It happens quite often where two teams put up great goalie stats just like sometimes both teams goalies shit the bed. I've lost with GAA in the 1s and won in the 3s that is why I was talking about weekly variance.

How often is it going to happen against the same team? Yes it happens all the time, but how many times are you going to run into a hot goaltender consecutive weeks? You know you are getting consistent performance week to week from Lundqvist. There isn't going to be much fluctuation with him week to week.

Lots of goalies are very close in the stats of GAA and SV% to Lundqvist

!!!!!!!!!

It is frustrating to try and get you to see any side other than your own since in your mind Lundy wins goalie stats almost every week and in reality if you took his weeks and compared it to the other 30 starters in the league the amount of extra wins he gets your team won't be significant except for against the bottom 5 statistical goalies maybe bottom 10. Some weeks your team can win without needing to win goalie stats and other weeks your team may lose despite sweeping goalie stats. It is of my opinion you are severely overrating the value of an 8.5M Lundqvist, but since I don't want him you only need to find one other GM out of 29 who shares your opinion. Option 2 is you keep both goalies to the detriment of your team since their is 0 advantage to holding 2 starters with an 82GP limit.

Bruyns wroteCOLONLots of goalies are very close in the stats of GAA and SV% to Lundqvist

!!!!!!!!!

It is frustrating to try and get you to see any side other than your own since in your mind Lundy wins goalie stats almost every week and in reality if you took his weeks and compared it to the other 30 starters in the league the amount of extra wins he gets your team won't be significant except for against the bottom 5 statistical goalies maybe bottom 10. Some weeks your team can win without needing to win goalie stats and other weeks your team may lose despite sweeping goalie stats. It is of my opinion you are severely overrating the value of an 8.5M Lundqvist, but since I don't want him you only need to find one other GM out of 29 who shares your opinion. Option 2 is you keep both goalies to the detriment of your team since their is 0 advantage to holding 2 starters with an 82GP limit.

Not really. There is such a thing as playing matchups. I can press box either guy any given week.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONLots of goalies are very close in the stats of GAA and SV% to Lundqvist

!!!!!!!!!

It is frustrating to try and get you to see any side other than your own since in your mind Lundy wins goalie stats almost every week and in reality if you took his weeks and compared it to the other 30 starters in the league the amount of extra wins he gets your team won't be significant except for against the bottom 5 statistical goalies maybe bottom 10. Some weeks your team can win without needing to win goalie stats and other weeks your team may lose despite sweeping goalie stats. It is of my opinion you are severely overrating the value of an 8.5M Lundqvist, but since I don't want him you only need to find one other GM out of 29 who shares your opinion. Option 2 is you keep both goalies to the detriment of your team since their is 0 advantage to holding 2 starters with an 82GP limit.

Not really. There is such a thing as playing matchups. I can press box either guy any given week.

True enough and if I was only getting shit offers and I was in your shoes I'd do the same. Improving your roster would be ideal, but I wouldn't give away a very good goalie either.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONLots of goalies are very close in the stats of GAA and SV% to Lundqvist

!!!!!!!!!

It is frustrating to try and get you to see any side other than your own since in your mind Lundy wins goalie stats almost every week and in reality if you took his weeks and compared it to the other 30 starters in the league the amount of extra wins he gets your team won't be significant except for against the bottom 5 statistical goalies maybe bottom 10. Some weeks your team can win without needing to win goalie stats and other weeks your team may lose despite sweeping goalie stats. It is of my opinion you are severely overrating the value of an 8.5M Lundqvist, but since I don't want him you only need to find one other GM out of 29 who shares your opinion. Option 2 is you keep both goalies to the detriment of your team since their is 0 advantage to holding 2 starters with an 82GP limit.

Not really. There is such a thing as playing matchups. I can press box either guy any given week.

True enough and if I was only getting shit offers and I was in your shoes I'd do the same. Improving your roster would be ideal, but I wouldn't give away a very good goalie either.

Exactly. I can afford to keep both and are more beneficial to me than the offers I have received to date.

To much writing in this thread.

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLONTo much writing in this thread.

I would have to agree

KapG wroteCOLON

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLONTo much writing in this thread.

I would have to agree

Less writing more offers

Hot damn