The Matt Murray watch is going to ramp up in the next few days with the NHL Draft set to take place on Tuesday night. Murray is clearly the goaltender the Penguins are trying to move. Pittsburgh doesn’t have either the confidence in Matt Murray bouncing back to form and/or the money to commit to him to find out. I have no problem moving on from Matt Murray. It is the same logic I used when I was fine with the Penguins moving on from Marc-Andre Fleury. Don’t spend huge money in a volatile position. There is not a high correlation between money spent on the goaltending position and success.
The problem Jim Rutherford is facing is not his fault, but a problem none the less. The goaltending market is oversaturated with quality goaltenders. There are a plethora of options for a team to choose from in both free agency and trades.
Free agents
Henrik Lundqvist
Corey Crawford
Braden Holtby
Craig Anderson
Jimmy Howard
Jacob Markstrom
Thomas Greiss
Cam Talbot
Anton Khudobin
Brian Elliott
Mike Smith
Ryan Miller
You can see there is a varying degree of quality, but the point remains there are quite a number of options that will not cost assets to acquire if they hit the market unlike Murray.
Trade options?
Tuukka Rask
Marc-Andre Fleury
Matt Murray
Antti Raanta
Devan Dubnyk (Sharks closing in on deal)
Frederick Andersen
Cory Schneider (ha)
Alexander Georgiev
How many of these goaltenders can Matt Murray claim absolute superiority over? Sure, there are a handful, but I can’t imagine a lot of general managers willing to take a bet on Murray bouncing back while also paying the premium of his new cap hit, longer term, and assets spent to acquire.
Henrik Lundqvist’s addition to the market really sours Murray’s value. Yes, Lundqvist is way older, but he is also the best goaltender of his generation and among the best to ever play the game. He too is in decline, but he is probably not going to command the money and term Murray will. He also costs nothing to acquire.
If Matt Murray’s selling point is he is a two-time Cup Champion and has shown he can do it in the past you are talking about the same basic argument for Lundqvist. King Henrik doesn’t have Stanley Cups. He has a huge sample of being elite and a Gold Medal. Both Murray and Lundqvist need their past accomplishments to pump up their current value. Both are coming off less than desirable seasons
Here are the last two seasons combined for Murray and Lundqvist
Lundqvist’s high-danger save percentages are pretty good which tells me he can still play and isn’t washed.
If you were a contender and looked at both goalies while factoring in the chance of the player bouncing back, cost to acquire, cap hit/term, which would you go with?
Lundqvist’s age is both a concern and a benefit. It is a benefit because you know you won’t have to lock in to a long term deal. The question then becomes is he capable of giving you league average or better at the age of 38? The high-danger save percentage alleviates some of that concern. Is it a better bet than going all-in on Matt Murray? I think for a lot of general managers they would rather go with the shorter term risk of Lundqvist.
I think there is a significant chance Matt Murray rebounds and returns to form. I think the risk reward for the team finding out isn’t great when compared to other options. Then again, all it takes is one general manager to take the plunge and that is what Rutherford is hoping for on Tuesday.
Thanks for reading!
Pittsburgh Penguins Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»