GDT 2/21 GDT : Red Wings at New York Rangers, 7:00 EST

[joesuffP 1,746]

Because Howard is too expensive and aside from his last game coming off the worst stretch of hockey of his career. He hasn't won a game since December 2nd I believe. Think like you're another team and are trying to make this trade for the better of your team

I think this just shows you shouldn't lock up goalies to long term contracts ever unless you're Lundquist or Price

[kliq 3,763]

Because Howard is too expensive and aside from his last game coming off the worst stretch of hockey of his career. He hasn't won a game since December 2nd I believe. Think like you're another team and are trying to make this trade for the better of your team

I think this just shows you shouldn't lock up goalies to long term contracts ever unless you're Lundquist or Price

That's easy to say now as hindsight is 20/20. The market is what the market is, when Howard was signed he was signed for market value. Problem is, you never know who a goalie is going to turn out to be. Great goalies have fallen off the map, and bad goalies have turned it around.

If you have a rule that you only sign goalies at the caliber of Lundqvist/Price to long term contracts, you are likely never going to sign a goalie to a long term contract. Having that philosophy will likely lead to instability in net for a long time.

Would you sign Mrazek to a long term contract?

Edited February 23, 2016 by kliq

[joesuffP 1,746]

That's easy to say now as hindsight is 20/20. The market is what the market is, when Howard was signed he was signed for market value. Problem is, you never know who a goalie is going to turn out to be. Great goalies have fallen off the map, and bad goalies have turned it around.

If you have a rule that you only sign goalies at the caliber of Lundqvist/Price to long term contracts, you are likely never going to sign a goalie to a long term contract. Having that philosophy will likely lead to instability in net for a long time.

Would you sign Mrazek to a long term contract?

I would go 3 years. Sometimes players want longer deals and have more leverage so we don't get ideal contracts obviously but anything over 3 years for a young goalie is going to be risky. Even Price had a lot of doubters until he had established himself

[kickazz 5,459]

Mrazek's contract shouldn't be too long since he would want non-RFA money at some point. He'll likely sign 3-4 years at most and will be one of the highest paid RFA's. But who knows.. I think Lundquist made like 6+ as an RFA and then boosted to 10 mill in his 2nd contract. Not the same goalie obviously but just a comparison

Edited February 23, 2016 by kickazz

[LeftWinger 5,153]

$4M×3yrs...

[Bill Berzeench 310]

Why? and please don't say the NTC....

No, not the NTC!! Nobody needs a 5.25 million dollar backup goalie.