Neomaxizoomdweebie

You're avoiding the issue. If Waldo is the next Lundquist, then he will be clearly better than any of the goalies I listed, and those teams would be foolish not to take him. Unless of course they think they can win with less than elite goaltending and find building other positions more important. Hmmm.

Goalie stats among top 5 picking teams: 1. Buffalo- Ullmark (2.78/.912), Hutton (2.71/.909) 2. Seattle- no goalies 3. Anaheim- Gibson (2.58/.917), Stolarz (2.78/.914) 4. New Jersey- Blackwood (2.83/.911), Dell (2.83/.906), Wedgewood (3.07/.902) 5. Columbus- Korpisalo (2.90/.905), Merzlikins (2.54/.920) So if Waldo is supposed to be the "Next Lundqvist", then why would he even be available at 6? Certainly the 5 picking before us would take him based on their lack of elite goalies, right?

Predictable.

Also, an NHL team only has room for one starter and one backup goalie. If they have a good one on the roster, and a good prospect goalie in the system, they will inevitably try to trade one or the other. An abundance of NHL ready forwards and dmen is more easily absorbed into the system/depth chart than NHL ready goalies, which is why its harder to acquire a top line F or top pair D from other teams than it is a good starting goaltender.

You mean a top 5 pick goalie isn't winning the Cup this year?

An overhyped prospect? Always plenty of those laying around.

That's the point. Alnefelt is a gamble. Ullmark is a gamble. Waldo is a gamble. But acquiring the former 2 doesn't require a 6th overall pick, like the latter will. And again. If Detroit sucks at drafting goalies, then would it not make more sense to use their first pick to draft a player who plays a position that they historically do better with?

If Nyquist is the future.

https://thehockeywriters.com/the-grind-line-red-wings-goalies/ The first option they have is something similar. You complain that the Red Wings suck at drafting goalies. And your solution is to draft another goalie. Makes sense.

Goalies take longer to develop. Picking one now means that they would hit their prime after all the other young core players are well into, or past theirs. That significantly narrows the window to win. Too bad about Petro, but at this point, I think filling out the skating positions and then acquiring a competent goalie thru trade or free agency when the roster hits its prime is a better way to go.

My mom doesn't have a basement. And like many realists, I knew Nyquist's shooting percentage was unsustainable and his goal scoring would come back down to earth. Yep. The Wings draft history is totally the same as the other 30 teams.

I actually think this might be true in CRL's case. Don't disagree. Just don't think he gets picked up by a team in the top half of the league. Probably by a downward trending team looking to rebuild.

In the last 10 years, there were 2 goalies drafted top 10 who made the finals, only 1 more than were signed as an undrafted free agent.

Remember when he predicted that Nyquist was "the future".

Stanley Cup goalies and where they were drafted: 2021: Vasilevskiy (19), Price (5) 2020: Vasilevsliy (19), Bishop (85) 2019: Allen (34), Rask (21) 2018: Holtby (93), Fleury (1) 2017: Murray (83), Rinne (258) 2016: Murray (83), Jones (undrafted) 2015: Crawford(52), Bishop (85) 2014: Quick (72), Lundquist (205) 2013: Crawford (52), Rask (21) 2012: Quick (72), Brodeur (20) 1st round picks among finalists: 7/20 or 35% Top 10 picks: 2/20 or 10% 1st round picks among Cup winners: 2/20 or 10% Top 10 picks among Cup winners: 0, unless the Canadiens win this year Average draft position: 67 (3rd Round) But yeah. We gotta take a goalie at 6 to get to the promised land.

Blashill is an AHL coach from a prospect league. He is useful now because the team is rebuilding, and bringing in prospects. I don't see him competing with the "big boys" when this team becomes playoff bound. Just my opinion.

93 Habs Which NASCAR team does he drive for? Sounds like the antagonist in a "Talladega Nights" sequel.

Coaches are generally situational. Blasill is no different.

Selection is based on both quantifiable data and personal opinion. There is a human element to it, so there will always be discrepancies. No 2 people will ever agree completely. And I think that's ok. There are too many intangibles that should be considered, that just punching numbers into a computer, cannot factor. Hence, the HoF Selection Committee. Some players deserve to get in based on stats alone. Others need to "pad their resumes". What constitutes a relevant, contributory factor is completely subjective. So I can't always give a specific answer for "why this guy?" or "why not that guy?" Presumably, the players with better stats would also have awards to go with them, but that is not always the case, like with Shanahan. I think an argument could me made either way if he should be in. The numbers are good, but not otherworldly, and there are no personal awards to go with it. While I would put him in if I was on the Committee, that may have more to do with personal bias than fairness. But that's why there's 17 other people who vote too. Hopefully, as a group, they get it right. In regards to Osgood and Belfour specifically, the numbers are similar. Osgood has more Stanley Cups, but those are team trophies. Jennings are tandem trophies, Vezinas and the Calder are individual awards. Therefore, in my opinion, there are much bigger achievements in Belfour's favor than Osgood's, making Belfour a more deserving Inductee.

There is no proof that the Spanish had anything to do with the Maine exploding, other than it happened in Havana Harbor. The connection was a product of yellow journalism.

I doubt it. If everyone knows he's holding out for Boston, no one has a reason to waste a pick to basically just talk to him. After Buffalo wasted a pick on Vesey, I don't see anyone else doing it.

https://sinbin.vegas/drafting-a-goalie-in-1st-round-rarely-wise/ Since Marc-Andre Fleury went #1 overall in 2003 to Pittsburgh, there has been a goalie drafted in the 1st round of just eight of the 15 drafts. A total of 18 goalies have gone in the 1st round since 2004, and their success has been extremely limited. Just five of the 18 have made more than 10 starts with the team they were drafted by. That’s 13 1st round goalies who had absolutely no impact on the team that spent a 1st round pick on them. Even the five that did work, only two ended up having a significant impact on the team that selected them (Price, Vasilevskiy). 14 years of NHL Drafts and TWO turned out to be stars for the correct team.

1. To be fair, I did notice that Ozzie's win percentage was higher, but don't you think the team in front of him had a little bit to do with that? Win percentage is as much a team stat as it is a goalie stat. 2. Belfour did play in more games than Ozzie, but that's kind of my point. They played the same number of seasons, but Belfour played in 200+ more games. Why? Cuz Eddie was winning a Calder and Vezinas while Ozzie was riding the bench. Belfour was a phenom out of the gate. While Chicago was trading away Hasek because of Belfour (bad move BTW), Detroit was trading for Vernon because of Osgood. 3. Roy and Brodeur were generational talents. Ozzie doesn't belong in the same conversation. And both won Cups with less talented teams than what Ozzie had in front of him. 4. Ozzie was Smythe worthy in 08 for sure. But let's not pretend like he didn't have some playoff stinkers too. I just think that Belfour's career and personal achievements put him a step above Ozzie. All things considered, I don't think I'm wrong. Not saying your opinion about Osgood isn't valid, I just don't agree.

Total Strawman. No one is saying you shouldn't draft elite goalies, or not in the first round at all. 1. You don't have to draft one at #6. Vasilevskiy, Rask, and Varlamov, to name a few, were all late 1st rounders. And most starting NHL goalies weren't 1st round picks at all. 2. Skaters drafted in the first round are more likely to pan out than goalies. Goalies are far less predictable. Something to keep in mind when rebuilding a storied franchise. 3. You still have to have good players at all positions, good coaching, trainers, scouts, etc. No one has said otherwise. 4. Starting goaltenders are easier to find later on than top line forwards or top pair defenseman. 5. You can win a Stanley Cup with a solid, if not spectacular, goalie with a great team in front of them. Not so much the other way around. All of these are arguments that I have made. Let's not fabricate new ones.

How many Vezinas does Bernier have?