Enlarge by clicking.
Two games in, I know. But still...try reconciling that (above) with this (below).
DittoWarrener's salary 'doesn't count' (but actually, yes it does). Keep in mind, there's another 1.5M worth of Bubba stashed in the minors.
Does that blueline resemble a Freddie Mac portfolio to anyone else? Big money and bets everywhere.
11 comments:
the good news is that if we're slotted in at #30, there's nowhere to go but up.
Apeaking of over-valued portfolios, are fans in Calgary finally starting to turn on Kipper?
When will McElhinney get a start?
Turning? Not yet. Wringing their hands? Sure.
It could get ugly if he doesn't turn it around soon though.
That Regehr contract doesn't look bad at all.
Plus, despite the fact that he's ugly and isn't yet a top-tier defender (and no, I don't care what the Norris Trophy voters say), Phaneuf is a major difference maker on the powerplay, and will probably be a top-ten defenseman in the league this year.
The top end isn't bad - it's the foot soldiers getting bad contracts that's killing Calgary.
Turning on Kiprusoff is not the answer, I watch the games and the lost battles and feel helpless. Two games, 11 goals and blaming even 2 on Kipper approaches unfair. It's helpless, because Kipper is struggling, and playing with no confidence. The fans want more for good reason, and the "d" is responds with awful performances. Why at the all-star game do the best goalies in the league get lit-up? Its the same reason we have allowed 11 goals in two games, no support. I guess we just watch and hope for now. Anybody else wonder if Jim Playfair's head should be on the chopping block? He is the defensive coach. Maybe we didn't take the band-aid off fast enough two years ago. Go Flames.
Kipper has to shoulder some portion of the blame. All? Certainly not.
However, he is making $8.5M this season for a reason: he's expected to be a difference maker in net. That means, making both routine and difficult saves. It means having a decent SV% even when the skaters are struggling. That hasn't happened so far (and it didn't happen for the first three months last season either).
Kipper earned himself the benefit of the doubt because of his stellar play a few years ago. That is rapidly running out, though.
Of the contracts, the weirdest is Vandermeer's. He did nothing to earn that.
As for Kiprusoff, I'm still in the camp that the GAA/SV% increases are as much about coaching and philosophy as they are about him. Note I say "as much", though. He's allowed one weaky goal in each of the games, same as he did last year. In previous years, he allowed none.
So, as for coaches, I don't know enough about what goes on in the dressing room to say which coach is responsible, so you have to put it on Keenan because he's the head guy. But you also have to acknowledge that none of those assistants are his — they're Sutter's.
I agree that each individual player has a responsibility to each win and loss the Flames accumulate during the year. However, it's the forest and trees again, as another comment stated some time ago. Hockey has statistics, but statistics are not hockey. Stats skew opinion by virtue of concept, not reality. For example, Kiprusoff is a 5.8m goalie, not 8.5 (that's this year, which you know) and there is also 24.2m in D. Or thus far the Flames have paid 2.72 million per goal. 5.8/2.72 equals 2.13. So let's blame Kipper for 2.13 goals of 11 defensive responsibilities and call it even. And we aren't even talking Iginla's contribution. But this numbers talk is all just meaningless babble. What's the point? The point is, before we point at stats which reflect concepts, we should analyze symptoms, which are defensive zone break-downs. OR we can trade the goalie, sure why not, I don't care. It is EASIER to blame the goalie, but remember they all look the same fishing the puck out of the back of the net.
The point is, before we point at stats which reflect concepts, we should analyze symptoms, which are defensive zone break-downs.
I dont know what you think "concepts" means, but statistics are measurements: They provide an objective and meaningful context to assess performance. They can be misleading if they are misinterpreted but they certainly aren't "meaningless babble".
OR we can trade the goalie, sure why not, I don't care. It is EASIER to blame the goalie, but remember they all look the same fishing the puck out of the back of the net.
I have no idea why you think I (or anyone else for that matter) is blaming Kiprusoff solelyfor the poor start. My point, which was clearly elucidated both in the post and in my previous comment, is that Kipper isn't blameless. This isn't an either-or dichotomy where if one party is responsible (goalie) the other party is absolved (the defense). The blame should be spread around.
I've watched both games closely. Skaters lost checks, missed assignments and gave up odd-man rushes. At the same time, Kipper let in goals that even mediocre NHL tenders usually save.
Concepts means abstract ideas, such as a Goalie A faces ten shots from centre lets one in, Goalie B faces ten shots from the slot lets 2 in. Goalie A is better than Goalie B because his Sv% is better. Is this an objective measurement or abstract idea? My responses to the posts in no way are solely directed at you Kent W - which I feel may be assumed. They are directed at the masses, the hords of Flames fans who are quick to point to goaltending stats and deduce Kipper as the major source of the problem and assume all things are equal to 2004. ie. Kipper is worse now than then, and the reasons for my opening example. I applaud you for directing the blame in a more holistic manner to the team. I do feel though, saying he needs to "turn it around soon though" and is "let(ting) in goals that even mediocre NHL tenders usually save." doesn't reflect this team focus and seems to be reaching for the leaves in order to prove a point. I just hope when Kipper gets a shutout, (or won the Vezina) we can speak of strong defense in the same conversation. As the team Sutter coached was, and a winning team in 2008 needs to be, very different conceptually and measurably than the one Keenan and Playfair have iced against Vancouver two games in.
Ladies and gentlemen, your 2006 Toronto Maple Leafs!
Ahh, I kid... they weren't paying Raycroft nearly as much as you're paying Kipper.
(Bloody homophones.)
Post a Comment