I like a veteran goalie who gets the vast majority of his teams starts. And also, a goalie gets credit for a win whether he plays well or not, so a really good team with a meh goalie, the meh goalie gets wins.

  Niemi is on my sleeper list, everyone seems down on him but he has a cup and plays for an outstanding regular season team and his backup, Stalock, who everyone is in love with is what, 27?

 Lundqvist for obvious reasons, winning team, 60 or so starts is my choice as a regular.

 And i totally disagree with Varly. Giguere moved on, no real backup, it is his team, sink or swim. 60-65 starts and 35 or so wins. Take him any day of the week and twice on sunday.

I wouldn't slate Quick in the 2 slot, as a NHL goalie, heck yes, as a fantasy goalie, heck no. Defensive team that allows very little shots, and he is notorious for playing fewer games doe to surgery, which he is also coming off this year once again!

I wouldn't slate Quick in the 2 slot, as a NHL goalie, heck yes, as a fantasy goalie, heck no. Defensive team that allows very little shots, and he is notorious for playing fewer games doe to surgery, which he is also coming off this year once again!

I agree! Quick is an amazing goalie during the postseason but only a very good one during the season.

My ESPN league allowed me to pick 4 goalies and play 2 per night. I got Price, Rinne, Bobrovski and Lehtonen.  According to this list, I did pretty well

Love this blog.

 

@Mr.Beantown  -- Terrific points about Quick.  Pick him for your playoff pools but careful in regular season.  Good call. 

 

I'm in a keeper league, so I'm definitely keeping Bishop.  I'm selling on Niemi, though.  He put up decent fantasy stats last year, but I wonder a bit about the psychology of the team in front of him with taking away C's and the weird reindeer games that front office has played all offseason.   I'll probably start the season with Bishop and two random draft choices and play it from there.

 

I'd like to know why the "buyer beware" on Varly, though.  Just being controversial or you figure this year has to be a step back from last both for the team and the goalie?

 

I think the Mason call is reasonable, though.  Hope it's wrong, but it's reasonable.

I chose to keep only one netminder in my keeper league this season.  Last year I kept 2.  As we can only keep 5 players.  I let Crawford go keeping Rask, then keeping Kane, Parise, Bergeron, and Backes, letting Marleau, H. Sedin, and Flippula walk.

In our pay FHL I'm happy with my goaltending quartet as I chose Bishop, Mason, Stalock, and Kuemper.   Maybe a bit of risk with Stalock and Kuemper getting more than half of the goalie starts for their respective teams, but I'm hoping their quality play will earn them the starting role.  Goalie starts are one of 8 scoring categories.

I like a veteran goalie who gets the vast majority of his teams starts. And also, a goalie gets credit for a win whether he plays well or not, so a really good team with a meh goalie, the meh goalie gets wins.

  Niemi is on my sleeper list, everyone seems down on him but he has a cup and plays for an outstanding regular season team and his backup, Stalock, who everyone is in love with is what, 27?

 Lundqvist for obvious reasons, winning team, 60 or so starts is my choice as a regular.

 And i totally disagree with Varly. Giguere moved on, no real backup, it is his team, sink or swim. 60-65 starts and 35 or so wins. Take him any day of the week and twice on sunday.

I'd avoid Niemi if you are hoping he plays a lot of games Yave. Granted, yes, as a Shark fan who has seen him play 40 playoff games and get zero shutouts, I am a bit hating on him.

 

But management wants youth to get a bigger role this season and the specifically mentioned Stalock would be playing more games this season, so Niemi will not get the same volume of games he did in past years. Stalock might not get the starter position, but he will definitely see a more even split, which will affect Niemi's numbers.

I'd avoid Niemi if you are hoping he plays a lot of games Yave. Granted, yes, as a Shark fan who has seen him play 40 playoff games and get zero shutouts, I am a bit hating on him.

 

But management wants youth to get a bigger role this season and the specifically mentioned Stalock would be playing more games this season, so Niemi will not get the same volume of games he did in past years. Stalock might not get the starter position, but he will definitely see a more even split, which will affect Niemi's numbers.

Niemi is the scapegoat in San Jose, at least with the fans. Easily the best netminder on the team, I still see 50 starts out of him even with Stalock out there.

Niemi sucks. I just watch all Sharks games and he is never the guy. Never the game stealer. Never do I see him as the reason we won a game. And I tried. I hoped. I wished.

 

A goalie needs to be able to steal a game occasionally. Niemi just never does. He makes the odd great save here and there, but then let's in an incredible softie moments later. He handles the puck like it is a live grenade and usually coughs it up to the wrong place and shooting high on him and forcing side to side movement just catches him off guard.

ben bishop. I think he is a stud and tampa is going to run gamut in their division.

For what is is worth...Rask / Sir Henry / Bishop all gone when I picked...

 

i took Quick.  He didn't help me on opening night...though I also did take Nemi and I got a Shut Out win over the defending Cup Champs

 I kept Bob and Varly and added Martin Jones after dropping Khudobin (I realized just how bad the defense was in front of the poor lad)....I think Varly will bounce back from the bad start, he's a solid goalie. Bob is fantasy gold....and Jones might only start once a week, but it will be against a weaker team and there is always the chance he can pull a shutout, with that Kings defense in front of him....AND if Quick ever gets hurt (which has happened in the recent past)....Jones can win it all for you.

for me, its bishop and / or bobs. Sv pctg and starts. Both teams are up-and-coming. 35-40 W are not unreasonable for each, if not higher.