Goalie Game Limits?

[Deleted]

Just a quick piece of information:

Since after the trade deadline of last season there has been approximately 17 trades involving goalies. Out of those 17 times only 7 times (41%) was a goalie moved by both teams. 59% of the trades resulted in a team choosing to dilute their own goaltending systems.

*Above I said approximately 17, just in case I missed one. I am pretty confident that I did not.

[Deleted]

I don't know what to draw from that. Yea those 40% are diluting but how many goalies did they have to start?

Cool stats though.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards

[Deleted]

Actually it was 60%  diluting.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Jan 9, 2015 21:50:52 GMT -5 @sullinator said:

Just a quick piece of information:

Since after the trade deadline of last season there has been approximately 17 trades involving goalies. Out of those 17 times only 7 times (41%) was a goalie moved by both teams. 59% of the trades resulted in a team choosing to dilute their own goaltending systems.

*Above I said approximately 17, just in case I missed one. I am pretty confident that I did not.

Thanks for taking the time to look into that.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

I don't think there will ever be a team that has no means of obtaining a goalie if they really want one. It is more difficult in a 30 team league, but with 24 teams there will always be goalies a team would be willing to make available for the right price.

I'd consider moving Niemi for a backup and a good forward and no one has ever asked if Niemi or Halak were available. Some weeks I'd prefer adding the extra skater, but I don't have a lot of cap space and would have to leave one of my starters on the bench.

Is there even a team out there right now that is trying to add a goalie, but has had no success? I'd be curious what they are offering.

[Deleted]

Speaking for myself, I can share my experience last year when Harding was rolling.

I tried to acquire two Minny goalies for insurance of MS or injury. The price for the Minny third stringer (Kuemper) was a blue chip prospect + a high end goalie prospect. Obviously way too much; especially considering this GM had a good 5 or 6 NHL goalies in his system. Then, I tried to get the Minny back-up (Backstrom), but the GM wouldn't move him as his goalies system had depleted and he was unable to add another goalie through trade.

I never tried for Niemi. I suppose if I had Stalock it would make sense. Lots of controversy in SJ if Stalock will surpass Neimi for the starting job. That might be scaring away the trade offer Matt. Not sure.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

Imo Kuemper for that blue chip prospect (Vatanen) and high end goalie prospect (Pickard) was fair value. At the time, Harding was already on LTIR and Kuemper was a split goalie with Backstrom, and had just gone on a lengthy run as starter. He was an immensely valuable piece to me given he had starter potential for the playoff run that year.

Like you all must know, the key to getting players for value is before they gain such value and establish themselves. All three of the above demonstrate that.

Are Goalie valuations really that high? 17 trades since last year seems to indicate trades can be made. Even now, goalies are on the market and made openly available. Even a Top Tier 1 goalie in Fleury was obtained for a pretty nice price.

Is the motivation to help out the weaker teams or teams without starters? Are those teams even trying to obtain starting goalies like Matt said? I had Elliott sitting in my minors all year and only had 1 inquiry about him, which I can understand. Some teams want to go in a certain direction, and Elliott probably doesn't quite fit their potential need. Instead, it probably fits mine perfectly - short term starter/split, longer term question mark. That's a big reason why I still own him - not that I'm valuing him like a superstar.

Or are we trying to shape the direction of how GMs build their teams now by trying to change valuation methods on certain players? We all have our own strategic methods and value players differently, that is at the heart and core of any fantasy league and what makes trades possible.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 11:29:16 GMT -5 Tbone (Kelowna) said:

Imo Kuemper for that blue chip prospect (Vatanen) and high end goalie prospect (Pickard) was fair value. At the time, Harding was already on LTIR and Kuemper was a split goalie with Backstrom, and had just gone on a lengthy run as starter. He was an immensely valuable piece to me given he had starter potential for the playoff run that year.

Like you all must know, the key to getting players for value is before they gain such value and establish themselves. All three of the above demonstrate that.

Are Goalie valuations really that high? 17 trades since last year seems to indicate trades can be made. Even now, goalies are on the market and made openly available. Even a Top Tier 1 goalie in Fleury was obtained for a pretty nice price.

Is the motivation to help out the weaker teams or teams without starters? Are those teams even trying to obtain starting goalies like Matt said? I had Elliott sitting in my minors all year and only had 1 inquiry about him, which I can understand. Some teams want to go in a certain direction, and Elliott probably doesn't quite fit their potential need. Instead, it probably fits mine perfectly - short term starter/split, longer term question mark. That's a big reason why I still own him - not that I'm valuing him like a superstar.

Or are we trying to shape the direction of how GMs build their teams now by trying to change valuation methods on certain players? We all have our own strategic methods and value players differently, that is at the heart and core of any fantasy league and what makes trades possible.

Vatanen is arguably the best Fantasy D right now for cap hit/H2H and just look what Pickard did while Varly was out.

Right now Minny is currently shopping to solve their goalie issue and Kuemper is dropping the ball.

And for the record, Harding was not on LTIR when I asked See below PM:

"Jan 17, 2014 at 4:00pm

Quote

Hey hows it going

Are you looking for anything in particular right now to add for the playoffs? I was wondering if Darcy Kuemper would be available as I have Harding and it would be nice insurance to pick up another Wild goalie.

Thanks

Eric"

From Fantrax (notice dates):

"Jan. 14, 2014

Harding (illness) skated with his teammates Tuesday morning, Chad Graff of the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports.

Analysis: It represents another step forward for Harding, who had not skated with the team in over a week. He won't dress for Tuesday's game against the Senators, but Harding appears to be nearly over the still-unspecified illness"

"Jan. 18, 2014

Harding (illness) has practiced four days in a row, but will not play Saturday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

Analysis: It's not clear when he'll return, but he's making progress. Darcy Kuemper will get a fourth consecutive start Saturday against Dallas."

You should be careful about posting misleading false statements to try and defend yourself. Kuemper did not make a "lengthy run" as a starting goalie as you claim. It was four games he served as starter when the trade was proposed. Neither was Harding in LTIR.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Jan 10, 2015 9:25:44 GMT -5 @rdrebels said:

Speaking for myself, I can share my experience last year when Harding was rolling.

I tried to acquire two Minny goalies for insurance of MS or injury. The price for the Minny third stringer (Kuemper) was a blue chip prospect + a high end goalie prospect. Obviously way too much; especially considering this GM had a good 5 or 6 NHL goalies in his system. Then, I tried to get the Minny back-up (Backstrom), but the GM wouldn't move him as his goalies system had depleted and he was unable to add another goalie through trade.

I never tried for Niemi. I suppose if I had Stalock it would make sense. Lots of controversy in SJ if Stalock will surpass Neimi for the starting job. That might be scaring away the trade offer Matt. Not sure.

Targeting a specific goalie or a goalie in general are two very different things. Jimmy was probably right to hold onto Kuemper and a back up in Pickard and Vatanen seemed fair to me too if it was believed Kuemper would be a starter which was a reasonable assumption. Vatanen broke out this year so it doesn't look as good today.

My point is some teams that are not competing and don't have strong goalies might not view adding a goalie as a priority and it would be good to know if there are actually GMs out there actively shopping for a goalie, but unable to add one due to outrageous prices. I don't know if this is the case right now and if it isn't the case then is goalie distribution an actual issue or are we just perceiving it to be one?

We have already heard of two goalies available and I'm sure others could be had to, but if teams are trading them they deserve fair value and shouldn't be expected to trade them for a 2nd and decent prospect or be forced to trade them if we make a rule stating you can only hold so many goalies, but that's just my opinion.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 13:24:31 GMT -5 Bruyns (Barrie) said:

Targeting a specific goalie or a goalie in general are two very different things. Jimmy was probably right to hold onto Kuemper and a back up in Pickard and Vatanen seemed fair to me too if it was believed Kuemper would be a starter which was a reasonable assumption. Vatanen broke out this year so it doesn't look as good today.

My point is some teams that are not competing and don't have strong goalies might not view adding a goalie as a priority and it would be good to know if there are actually GMs out there actively shopping for a goalie, but unable to add one due to outrageous prices. I don't know if this is the case right now and if it isn't the case then is goalie distribution an actual issue or are we just perceiving it to be one?

We have already heard of two goalies available and I'm sure others could be had to, but if teams are trading them they deserve fair value and shouldn't be expected to trade them for a 2nd and decent prospect or be forced to trade them if we make a rule stating you can only hold so many goalies, but that's just my opinion.

Thanks Matt for replying.

This is the problem I see in bold above. IFFHL clubs with a wealth of goalie assets seem to think they need "insurance" by holding onto one of their many goalie assets. I think it is fair to say most GMs would like a 3rd stringer for insurance. But what about if an IFHL club has 4th, 5th, and 6th stringers that are legit NHL goalie options? This is what makes it unfair to the league.

Asking for a blue chip (Vatanen)+ another 3rd stringer(Pickard) for a different 3rd stringer (Kuemper) is way too much by the way. We don't agree there.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 13:41:42 GMT -5 @rdrebels said:

Jan 10, 2015 13:24:31 GMT -5 Bruyns (Barrie) said:

Targeting a specific goalie or a goalie in general are two very different things. Jimmy was probably right to hold onto Kuemper and a back up in Pickard and Vatanen seemed fair to me too if it was believed Kuemper would be a starter which was a reasonable assumption. Vatanen broke out this year so it doesn't look as good today.

My point is some teams that are not competing and don't have strong goalies might not view adding a goalie as a priority and it would be good to know if there are actually GMs out there actively shopping for a goalie, but unable to add one due to outrageous prices. I don't know if this is the case right now and if it isn't the case then is goalie distribution an actual issue or are we just perceiving it to be one?

We have already heard of two goalies available and I'm sure others could be had to, but if teams are trading them they deserve fair value and shouldn't be expected to trade them for a 2nd and decent prospect or be forced to trade them if we make a rule stating you can only hold so many goalies, but that's just my opinion.

Like Matt said at the time it was reasonable since Pickard was a unknown and Vatanen was ok at best.  We all figure that Bryz and Backstrom wouldn't have a long future in Minny.  So kuemper was the golden goose.  Why lower your value because he was his 3rd or 4th or 5th string goalie.  If that goalie become your back up then the value was there at the time.

Today no one would do it since Pickard and Vatanen are showing how good they can be.  Yes Kuemper will play more but will he be able to maintain a better stats like GAA and Save %?  The way I see it is when Pickard will play which is at best 1 start for every 3 games will have better stats then Kuemper.  As a backup that exactly what you want.  You never want your back up to destroy you stats that you have accumulated with your starter. 

Thanks Matt for replying.

This is the problem I see in bold above. IFFHL clubs with a wealth of goalie assets seem to think they need "insurance" by holding onto one of their many goalie assets. I think it is fair to say most GMs would like a 3rd stringer for insurance. But what about if an IFHL club has 4th, 5th, and 6th stringers that are legit NHL goalie options? This is what makes it unfair to the league.

Asking for a blue chip (Vatanen)+ another 3rd stringer(Pickard) for a different 3rd stringer (Kuemper) is way too much by the way. We don't agree there.

[Deleted]

I see your point Frank. Thanks for chiming in.

And to be clear, my intention is not single out one single GM. Unfortunately, this thread lead to this with Jimmy. Jimmy is an excellent GM and runs his team very well.

My focus is on the league here. I want goalies distributed more evenly throughout the league. It is never going to be perfect (every team with 2 or three goalies), but I think we can help get close to this mark. It starts with understanding we cannot hide NHL goalies in the minors or keeping them on the bench. Yes, I understand sometimes we need to bench goalies for GP limits or for weekly-match ups. But EVERY week having a starting/split goalie in the minors or on the bench is not good for the league overall.

I have a tough time understanding the argument that "no good offers have been made". I have talked to GMs privately who are looking for goalies and they say the prices are too high.

[Deleted]

Just thinking out loud here:

Goalies (and other positions) are accumulated for the benefit of the playoffs, a time of year when season waiver rules are not applicable and players are permitted to move freely in and out of the roster. If that rule was removed and waivers were in effect for the entire season (both regular and playoffs), then the extra players would lose value as bench fodder until they are called up in the playoffs. Having a 3rd starting goalie in the minors system would be less beneficial than having a young, waiver exempt back up goalie. This would probably encourage GMs with NHL players in their minors to distribute those players for other assets, creating a larger base of availability of goalies, and non-goalies, alike.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2015 14:21:56 GMT -5 @sullinator said:

Just thinking out loud here:

Goalies (and other positions) are accumulated for the benefit of the playoffs, a time of year when season waiver rules are not applicable and players are permitted to move freely in and out of the roster. If that rule was removed and waivers were in effect for the entire season (both regular and playoffs), then the extra players would lose value as bench fodder until they are called up in the playoffs. Having a 3rd starting goalie in the minors system would be less beneficial than having a young, waiver exempt back up goalie. This would probably encourage GMs with NHL players in their minors to distribute those players for other assets, creating a larger base of availability of goalies, and non-goalies, alike.

I get what your saying Denton but that was the point of making everyone waiver free during the playoff. I base that rule on my other league which I feel it made sense and everyone started the league with the understanding that we would make the playoff waiver free. So everyone as the same advantage. Why change something that is working and we still see tons of deals being made. If no one was trading or if the trade deadline was effected by the playoff rules then I think we would look to fix it. I just don't think it's that time quite yet.

[Deleted]

I actually like things as is. And am in favour of keeping things the same. 

What that suggestion is, is a thought. Although I may not be in favour of changing things at this time, I am in favour of discussion. Since we are discussing change, I figured we may as well have a broad scope discussion, covering various possibilties. Thoughts and ideas trigger further thoughts and ideas.