James Tanner: Why Are NHL Teams So Dumb About Their Rosters?

I get the sense that they have been trying to get a goalie. The guys you mentioned either aren't available or aren't much better than what they have... A guy like Gibson isn't going anywhere for less than Draisaitl, so that's just not happening. Quick is done. Dubnyk doesn't seem very good anymore and Halak is a backup. Who's selling a reliable #1 goalie right now? It's a pretty rare occurrence. And if you do find one for sale then you have to convince them to move/stay in Edmonton. That's even more difficult.

Although I would absolutely hate to trade JG ... that package would do it...

It would seem that very few goalies are able to predictably perform each year at the top of their level.

For example, if we look at this year's save percentage leaders, few star goalies are represented.

If we sort NHL.com goalie stats by games played, you see a list of star players with good reputations as starting goalies, but only Hellbuyck, Andersen, Bishop and Binnington have save percentage above .915 while starting 30 games.

Bobrovsky, Rask, Price, Holtby, Gibson, Rinne, Lundvquist, Kuemper are all absent from the list. (Though obviously back up goalie strength, team defense, random luck etc. all play a part here).

This isn't meant to be scientific - save percentage isn't the best stat, and this is just a half season sample, but it does illustrate something I think we all know: goalie performance is a little bit unpredictable.
- James_Tanner

OK, got it. Goalies are unpredictable. There are no guarantees.

Take whatever you need to - RNH, Bear, Nurse, future draft picks etc - and trade for a goalie.
- James_Tanner

Wait, what?

Koskinen is currently above the league averge... is he really that bad?

OK, got it. Goalies are unpredictable. There are no guarantees.



Wait, what?
- Atomic Wedgie

Look, you can talk in absolutes and make a really strong point, but it will be dumb. My point is that there is risk involved - you might make the wrong choice. But you've got to try because without a top goalie you've got almost no chance.

- Lucas.Neilson

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I wish you were a gm. At least you would fly in the face of unorthodox and shake poop up

Good for you, James!!
You found new ground to break and completely misunderstand the game of hockey in a whole new way!!! Many hear didn't think you could do it!
So, some quick questions... Does McDavid play the whole 60 minutes, then? Do his superpowers allow him to play without getting tired and reducing his impact? No? Ok then, what happens for the 35 minutes or so each game when he's on the bench and the other, deeper team gets to dance through the bunch of plugs you've assembled and break in on your unpredictable goalie?
This blog read like you completely made it up as you were typing.

I get the sense that they have been trying to get a goalie. The guys you mentioned either aren't available or aren't much better than what they have... A guy like Gibson isn't going anywhere for less than Draisaitl, so that's just not happening. Quick is done. Dubnyk doesn't seem very good anymore and Halak is a backup. Who's selling a reliable #1 goalie right now? It's a pretty rare occurrence. And if you do find one for sale then you have to convince them to move/stay in Edmonton. That's even more difficult.
- mgriffen

I'm just listing possibilities, obviously some are better than others. I think Halek could be a perfectly good starter, but Quick is probably done, probably was always overrated.

I honestly think Draisaitl would be worth parting with to get Gibson.

Look, you can talk in absolutes and make a really strong point, but it will be dumb. My point is that there is risk involved - you might make the wrong choice. But you've got to try because without a top goalie you've got almost no chance.
- James_Tanner

All you ever do is talk in absolutes.
Amazing.

Trading for a goalie is the last move EDM should make. They would just be creating one hole to plug another.

I'm just listing possibilities, obviously some are better than others. I think Halek could be a perfectly good starter, but Quick is probably done, probably was always overrated.

I honestly think Draisaitl would be worth parting with to get Gibson.
- James_Tanner

Halak was a perfectly good starter...about 7 years ago. He's 34 years old. He's your guy through McDavid's prime?

Good for you, James!!
You found new ground to break and completely misunderstand the game of hockey in a whole new way!!! Many hear didn't think you could do it!
So, some quick questions... Does McDavid play the whole 60 minutes, then? Do his superpowers allow him to play without getting tired and reducing his impact? No? Ok then, what happens for the 35 minutes or so each game when he's on the bench and the other, deeper team gets to dance through the bunch of plugs you've assembled and break in on your unpredictable goalie?
This blog read like you completely made it up as you were typing.
- Tonybere

Not sure if you understand how writing works (if you did, it'd be a first) but you basically do make it up as you type. It's sort of like walking - just one foot in front of the other.
While I agree is counter-intuitive - depth in the NHL is perhaps the most overrated concept. Outside of elite players, all other players are practically interchangable.

you've got the internet, go read about this stuff man, it's not like I make it up.

Halak was a perfectly good starter...about 7 years ago. He's 34 years old. He's your guy through McDavid's prime?
- Tonybere

No, but he could be the guy for this year.

Look, you can talk in absolutes and make a really strong point, but it will be dumb. My point is that there is risk involved - you might make the wrong choice. But you've got to try because without a top goalie you've got almost no chance.
- James_Tanner

The risk is extreme, especially when you start throwing in names like Draisaitl.

I’d much rather gamble on a unproven but promising goaltender. Georgiev comes to mind.

Trading for a goalie is the last move EDM should make. They would just be creating one hole to plug another.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

That's probably what the GM thinks, but anyone with ten minutes and an internet connection should be able to figure out that's wrong.

All you ever do is talk in absolutes.
Amazing.
- Tonybere

He is a Sith

The risk is extreme, especially when you start throwing in names like Draisaitl.

I’d much rather gamble on a unproven but promising goaltender. Georgiev comes to mind.
- Wildschwein

Is the risk extreme if you get someone like Gibson? If I round up the five smartest guys I know when it comes to hockey, I think four of them will say Gibson is the NHL's best goalie.

I wish you were a gm. At least you would fly in the face of unorthodox and shake poop up
- 10inchTerror

I wish I was too! The ironic thing is that almost any amateur hockey stats enthusiast could outperform nine out of ten NHL gms.

Getting back to the last blog for one sec:

God, you can be dense.
Yes, I live in Canada about 100km from you.
And from everything I have heard and read, the refs call was correct.
Really the camera was above ice level? Not embedded in the ice???? Wow, newsworthy.
The camera sits virtually in line with the glass, just above it. It could be possible for the puck to travel infinitely close to parallel with the glass, but not be completely out of the playing surface and still contact the camera. Therefore, the decision is made BEFORE THE TOURNAMENT EVEN BEGINS to consider ANY contact with the camera as a dead puck with no penalty assessed.
It always seems like a team gets screwed over whenever a seldom enforced rule has to be applied. But, its still a rule.
Try being less concerned with whether you are right and you'll learn something that makes you better at what you do... whatever that might be.
- Tonybere


This is not a subjective argument. The camera was out of play and therefore the refs got it wrong. There is virtually no disagreement about this. But sure, I`m the dense one.

Yes, you are the one who is dense. This was not supposed to be a subjective argument. The puck hitting the camera is a scenario that was planned for and has a rule in place for just such an occasion. The refs huddled, discussed the situation and applied the rule that was created for that situation. They did not get it wrong. You did. The only question left is, are you too stupid to understand that or are you too ignorant to admit you are wrong?

The first part of this article seemed like it was aimed at making fun of Florida for throwing so much money at Sergei Bobrovsky. The second part seemed like it was suggesting that Edmonton throw a bunch of money at Sergei Bobrovsky. You're a strange, strange cat.

Look, you can talk in absolutes and make a really strong point, but it will be dumb. My point is that there is risk involved - you might make the wrong choice. But you've got to try because without a top goalie you've got almost no chance.
- James_Tanner

1. what do you consider a "top goalie"? Is it the guy who's been historically good, or the one who's on a heater that particular year. Most of the "top goalies" in the league right now don't have cups (price, rinne, bob, bishop, lundqvist, vasilevski, etc).

2. what about all the teams that have won the cup in the last 20 years without a "top goalie"? Pittsburgh (1), Chicago (3), Detroit (3), Carolina (1), Tampa.......their goalies were good, but not "top goalies" in the league at the time they won. that's 9 of 20 cups won without "top goalies"....so i'd say teams have a chance.