Rankings: The top 30 starting goalies in the NHL

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Rankings: The top 30 starting goalies in the NHL

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

     

    Rask issue for me is closed.   

     

     



    Oh yeah right.  This is as true as SoxFaninIL's pledge to never return!

     

     


      Im more interested in watching loui, iggy, and the new guys then i am at beating this contract to death.  Im sure i will hear it with every shutout.  

     



    Oh we have to. Seriously, you made some good points, and like you said, you hope he proves you wrong.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Rankings: The top 30 starting goalies in the NHL

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

     

    Rask issue for me is closed.   

     

     



    Oh yeah right.  This is as true as SoxFaninIL's pledge to never return!

     

     


      Im more interested in watching loui, iggy, and the new guys then i am at beating this contract to death.  Im sure i will hear it with every shutout.  

     

     



    Oh we have to. Seriously, you made some good points, and like you said, you hope he proves you wrong.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You realize my reverse curse has a great track record.  Haha.   Looking fwd to him getting us a cup.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Rankings: The top 30 starting goalies in the NHL


    Problem with ripping on shupe whenever Rask does well is that he didn't really say he thinks Rask is a bum.  He said the deal is too long and they gave it to him when he didn't have the leverage.  It's not about Rask's performance, really.  Oh, we can say "okay, so, now he's played 180 games and his career GAA is actually lower now than it was when they gave him the deal.  Is that enough of a track record?" And shupe can say so what?  He hadn't played enough at the time.  No, the only occasion to rip - to really give him both barrells - will be at about year 5 when Rask is still a top 5 goalie in the league, Chara's retired, there's hardware in the trophy case, and a number of top goalies are making more than Rask. Then the Bruins will have three more years of him at a bargain Cap number vs. what they'd have had to pay if they'd only given him the 5 year deal shupe thought was more reasonable.  But that's the great thing about the argument shupe has made - it's staked on an interpretation of certain facts.  Those facts aren't going to change, and new facts can't really alter shupe's interpretation of the original facts.  He values wins as a way to measure goalies.  I think that's looney.  But we agree to disagree and hope that the deal works out for the Bruins.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rankings: The top 30 starting goalies in the NHL

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:


    Problem with ripping on shupe...



    Can't.  Same with you, Fletch, Kel and some others.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Rankings: The top 30 starting goalies in the NHL

    Not to butt in on your discussion guys, but what if the B's lost Game 7 to Toronto...what would the terms of Rask's deal be in that scenario?




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Rankings: The top 30 starting goalies in the NHL

    Honestly, I don't know how much different the terms would be.  There would just be more outrage.  He probaby missed being a Vezina nominee by a heartbeat based on the fact that the Bruins are a sound defensive club, but both his statistics and his consistency over the year certainly would have made him worthy.  It might have been $6M instead of $7M, but I don't see the term changing or Chiarelli trying to squeeze out yet another team-friendly deal.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     

Share