Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
alfredoh2009

Who may be best UFA goalie to target in 2020?

Recommended Posts

It is a slow summer, and with the recent article on UFA Ds the CH may target: I took a look at UFA goalies.

 

Out of Markstrom, Lehner, Holtby and Crawford: who would you prefer?

 

I would pick Holtby to play back-up and maybe take over Price if Carey goes cold or is tired. I do not know much about Markstrom, but he may be another choice before considering the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

It is a slow summer, and with the recent article on UFA Ds the CH may target: I took a look at UFA goalies.

 

Out of Markstrom, Lehner, Holtby and Crawford: who would you prefer?

 

I would pick Holtby to play back-up and maybe take over Price if Carey goes cold or is tired. I do not know much about Markstrom, but he may be another choice before considering the others.

We’d be paying at LEAST $15m for goalies if we went after any of those guys. I also can’t see any of them want to go into what is clearly a backup role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones I would really want (Markstrom, Lehner and Holtby) won't want to be a backups, so no use talking unless MB does the UNEXPECTED and trades Price

 

If Crawford accepts being a backup he might be the best option of the four.

 

However, I don't expect MB to "challenge" Price with a backup capable of playing 30 games so it will likely end up being a minor UFA, Lindgren or Demchenko as Carey's backup ... I would love to give McNiven a full year as Primeau's only backup in Laval to see how he develops but I fear he has been crowded out.

I have a gut feeling that Demchenko will surprise.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a clue who would be a good back up goalie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather give it to Lindgren (or Demchenko) than another rent-a-goalie. This is the last two seasons:

 

image.png

 

Primeau looks great but only two games. (Even the Lindgren and Kinkaid sample sizes are pretty small.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

I'd rather give it to Lindgren (or Demchenko) than another rent-a-goalie. This is the last two seasons:

 

image.png

 

Primeau looks great but only two games. (Even the Lindgren and Kinkaid sample sizes are pretty small.)

 

I think you have a point tomh009

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

We’d be paying at LEAST $15m for goalies if we went after any of those guys. I also can’t see any of them want to go into what is clearly a backup role.

 

Too hot outside to be thinking too much, but you are right: signing an UFA goalie would be to expensive. I still like Holtby though, I think he gives the CH the best chance to  slow Price's decline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

I'd rather give it to Lindgren (or Demchenko) than another rent-a-goalie. This is the last two seasons:

 

image.png

 

Primeau looks great but only two games. (Even the Lindgren and Kinkaid sample sizes are pretty small.)

 

Agree, on the rent-a-goalie aspect.

 

IMO Primeau should be in Laval playing 45-50 of the 76 game season ... he could get some pre-scheduled NHL starts but shouldn't be sitting on the bench ... Lindgren has the incumbent's edge but have a hunch that Demchenko will win the backup job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Too hot outside to be thinking too much, but you are right: signing an UFA goalie would be to expensive. I still like Holtby though, I think he gives the CH the best chance to  slow Price's decline

 

I'm sure he would be but why does he sign to be a backup in Montreal when there are starting jobs available elsewhere?

 

4 hours ago, GHT120 said:

IMO Primeau should be in Laval playing 45-50 of the 76 game season ... he could get some pre-scheduled NHL starts but shouldn't be sitting on the bench ... Lindgren has the incumbent's edge but have a hunch that Demchenko will win the backup job

 

It'd be interesting if Demchenko won the job but after the year he had, I think he's going to need some time in the minors (not unlike his former tandem mate in Pavel Francouz when he came over).  I've seen nothing from Lindgren that suggests he's a reliable backup goalie.  His fundamentals are still not particularly sharp and while that allows him to make the odd big stop and win a game here and there, his well-established penchant for allowing bad goals in the minors will get exploited the more NHL time he sees.  He's a capable #3 but they can't go into next season with him as the backup thinking they've solved their backup goalie situation.  With them perhaps needing to re-sign McNiven for expansion purposes, I expect that Lindgren will be shopped hard this offseason with the return basically being a minor league skater on a one-way deal.

 

With Primeau and potentially Demchenko on the horizon, they're going to be looking for a one or two year deal at most.  That takes them out of the equation for the top guys and puts them in the Elliott/Smith/Talbot/Dell territory.  I know they had interest in Elliott had he made it to the open market last summer so I wouldn't be shocked if they looked at him if he gets there.  Smith is old but having him and Price (two high-end puck handlers) could be intriguing in terms of installing a system where the goalies could play the puck up more quickly to even speed up the transition game further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prediction: Montreal takes Jake Allen in a cap dump move that frees up space for the blues to re-sign pietrangelo.  Montreal also gets promising LHD who is an rfa in Vince Dunn in the deal.

 

Lindgren is part of the return.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GHT120 said:

 

Agree, on the rent-a-goalie aspect.

 

IMO Primeau should be in Laval playing 45-50 of the 76 game season ... he could get some pre-scheduled NHL starts but shouldn't be sitting on the bench ... Lindgren has the incumbent's edge but have a hunch that Demchenko will win the backup job

That’s assuming there is an AHL season.  If there are no fans, I can’t see an AHL season.

 

 If there isn’t an AHL season you can’t let Primeau not play a whole year.  I think in that scenario you end up having 3 goalies and only play in half of the games - assuming next year is a shorter season. Play Primeau as much as he deserves to play and you have the other goalie for expansion exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

That’s assuming there is an AHL season.  If there are no fans, I can’t see an AHL season.

 

 If there isn’t an AHL season you can’t let Primeau not play a whole year.  I think in that scenario you end up having 3 goalies and only play in half of the games - assuming next year is a shorter season. Play Primeau as much as he deserves to play and you have the other goalie for expansion exposure.

That is an excellent point . I think you are right and that this should be a factor on how the play-in lineups shall be constructed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

That’s assuming there is an AHL season.  If there are no fans, I can’t see an AHL season.

 

 If there isn’t an AHL season you can’t let Primeau not play a whole year.  I think in that scenario you end up having 3 goalies and only play in half of the games - assuming next year is a shorter season. Play Primeau as much as he deserves to play and you have the other goalie for expansion exposure.

 

Who is the 'other' goalie for expansion exposure in this scenario?  It can't be a prospect (including Demchenko) and Lindgren isn't eligible as a pending UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

Who is the 'other' goalie for expansion exposure in this scenario?  It can't be a prospect (including Demchenko) and Lindgren isn't eligible as a pending UFA.

 

Would he be eligible if we signed him to a 1Y contract first?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dlbalr said:

I've seen nothing from Lindgren that suggests he's a reliable backup goalie.  His fundamentals are still not particularly sharp and while that allows him to make the odd big stop and win a game here and there, his well-established penchant for allowing bad goals in the minors will get exploited the more NHL time he sees.  He's a capable #3 but they can't go into next season with him as the backup thinking they've solved their backup goalie situation. 

 

Yeah, I agree that he's unlikely to be a solution. But if it's a choice between Lindgren and another Niemi/Kinkaid-level UFA, I'd rather stick with the devil we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Would he be eligible if we signed him to a 1Y contract first?

 

For Lindgren or another UFA-eligible goalie, no.

 

I went over some of the goalie requirements in this piece the other day on the main site: http://www.habsworld.net/2020/06/michael-mcnivens-montreal-future-may-be-tied-to-seattle/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

For Lindgren or another UFA-eligible goalie, no.

 

I went over some of the goalie requirements in this piece the other day on the main site: http://www.habsworld.net/2020/06/michael-mcnivens-montreal-future-may-be-tied-to-seattle/

 

Thanks, that was a good read!

 

But your article does say we could extend Lindgren, even though it's not likely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

Who is the 'other' goalie for expansion exposure in this scenario?  It can't be a prospect (including Demchenko) and Lindgren isn't eligible as a pending UFA.

That’s where I’d think they have to bring in a 3rd backup if there is no AHL.  And ensure that players plays the minimum number of required games and that if Primeau has gets to play enough games based on his performance. If there is no AHL season, I don’t think you can go in with a platoon combination of backups that include two of Lundgren, McNiven and Primeau.  You need a bona fude backup with experience and you need to give him a two year contract . 
without an AHL season, I think Price would have to have his workload reduced in what I think will already may be a condensed season - to get 80 games in they would have to play through the following summer as well if they are looking at a Jan 1 start date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tomh009 said:

Thanks, that was a good read!

 

But your article does say we could extend Lindgren, even though it's not likely?

 

You're right - Lindgren (if extended) is eligible for exposure but if unsigned, he won't meet the exposure requirement.  I'm not sure what I was thinking when I responded to your other post.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

That’s where I’d think they have to bring in a 3rd backup if there is no AHL.  And ensure that players plays the minimum number of required games and that if Primeau has gets to play enough games based on his performance. If there is no AHL season, I don’t think you can go in with a platoon combination of backups that include two of Lundgren, McNiven and Primeau.  You need a bona fude backup with experience and you need to give him a two year contract . 
without an AHL season, I think Price would have to have his workload reduced I what will already may be a condensed season. 

 

I agree with your logic here.  But if you're a good backup goalie, why are you picking Montreal in this scenario?  Yes, Price will have a reduced workload but Primeau is going to get some of that playing time so how much is there for your new backup? 

 

Two-year deals for backups are going to be handed out like candy in October (and that's not a Halloween reference since that's probably when free agency will be) because of Seattle as teams will give them out to meet their expansion requirement.  If you're a good backup, the only thing Montreal has that other teams don't is more money.  Or, more specifically, cap space, as there's no guarantee Molson is willing to spend to the cap.  There are better situations in terms of who they're playing behind, potential for playing time, and current success.  I don't know how willing the Habs are to give a $3M+ contract to a backup for multiple years with Price being the top-paid goalie and at least one quality prospect on the horizon. 

 

There's definitely a need for a more proven backup but their current and future situation doesn't make them the most desirable of landing spots for the good ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

I agree with your logic here.  But if you're a good backup goalie, why are you picking Montreal in this scenario?  Yes, Price will have a reduced workload but Primeau is going to get some of that playing time so how much is there for your new backup? 

 

Two-year deals for backups are going to be handed out like candy in October (and that's not a Halloween reference since that's probably when free agency will be) because of Seattle as teams will give them out to meet their expansion requirement.  If you're a good backup, the only thing Montreal has that other teams don't is more money.  Or, more specifically, cap space, as there's no guarantee Molson is willing to spend to the cap.  There are better situations in terms of who they're playing behind, potential for playing time, and current success.  I don't know how willing the Habs are to give a $3M+ contract to a backup for multiple years with Price being the top-paid goalie and at least one quality prospect on the horizon. 

 

There's definitely a need for a more proven backup but their current and future situation doesn't make them the most desirable of landing spots for the good ones.

I think with the cap squeeze, backups aren’t going to get that great of a contract.  Hell, I doubt If most starters are going to get big deals. Most teams are going to scrambling to dump salary - not add.

I do like the idea of trading for a guy like Jake a Allen as was suggested - if he has 2 yrs left and keeping him as a backup For expansion draft exposure- assuming of course that The blues would be willing to offer a good sweetener for taking the contract.

 

i doubt if seattle would target any of our goalies (even if it included Jake Allan), but we still have to meet the exposure  requirements.  There are going to be enough starter calibre goalies for Seattle to pick.

 

what I worry about is potentially losing a dman like Jullson who because of injuries we don’t know what we have. Can he be a legit top 4, or is he a fringe/borderline NHL’er?  Will we see enough of him next year to know if he is worth protecting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the no-AHL scenario I would play ... oh, crap, I don't know how to even make this work.

 

If there are to be no spectators allowed, what the NHL should do is fund AHL teams so that they can continue to play. It's not a massive cost to the NHL. And otherwise the teams will not be able to develop their prospects. And will, in the worst case, lose them to a European league or KHL.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think with the cap squeeze, backups aren’t going to get that great of a contract.  Hell, I doubt If most starters are going to get big deals. Most teams are going to scrambling to dump salary - not add.

I do like the idea of trading for a guy like Jake a Allen as was suggested - if he has 2 yrs left and keeping him as a backup For expansion draft exposure- assuming of course that The blues would be willing to offer a good sweetener for taking the contract.

 

i doubt if seattle would target any of our goalies (even if it included Jake Allan), but we still have to meet the exposure  requirements.  There are going to be enough starter calibre goalies for Seattle to pick.

 

what I worry about is potentially losing a dman like Jullson who because of injuries we don’t know what we have. Can he be a legit top 4, or is he a fringe/borderline NHL’er?  Will we see enough of him next year to know if he is worth protecting?

 

Allen only has one year left so they'd still have to have a goalie eligible for exposure. 

 

Juulsen is interesting - if he is indeed fully healthy, I think he's ahead of Fleury and Brook on the depth chart and gets the 3rd RD role next season and that would be a decent-sized set of games to evaluate him on as long as he doesn't get injured again.  (If he does, he probably wouldn't be picked anyway.)  He's eligible for waivers so it's quite unlikely he'd be in Laval.

 

59 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

In the no-AHL scenario I would play ... oh, crap, I don't know how to even make this work.

 

If there are to be no spectators allowed, what the NHL should do is fund AHL teams so that they can continue to play. It's not a massive cost to the NHL. And otherwise the teams will not be able to develop their prospects. And will, in the worst case, lose them to a European league or KHL.

 

Funding 30 teams' travel and accommodations for a whole season while subsidizing for a lack of gate revenues would be a pretty big expense when you add it all up.  NHL owners wouldn't want to foot the bill, especially since half the teams in the AHL aren't owned by an NHL franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

Funding 30 teams' travel and accommodations for a whole season while subsidizing for a lack of gate revenues would be a pretty big expense when you add it all up.  NHL owners wouldn't want to foot the bill, especially since half the teams in the AHL aren't owned by an NHL franchise.

 

AHL teams will lose their ticket revenues (and sometimes concession revenues). Attendance of 6.5M total, assume $20 average (some spectators will not have paid) for a $130M total gross ticket revenue. Subtract maybe $10M (or more) for operations costs for home games. That would leave $120M to be covered by 30 NHL teams, or $4M or so per team. A pretty small percentage of an NHL team's budget (really it would be $2M paid by the team and $2M paid by the players). On the other hand, you could leave the AHL on its own, and just hope that it (or the team you care about) doesn't collapse.

 

Logically, it makes sense for me, just like Boeing and Airbus are supporting their suppliers. But, yes, getting all the owners to agree might be a non-starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fawk off,  Expose Price and  make a deal à la Josh Anderson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...