Vanflyer Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 @orange_crushYour definition of "played well in the playoffs last year" and my definition of played well are two completely different things. For his 8 wins last year, the sharks scored on average 3.5 goals per game for him while he allowed 2.88 goals per game, and those were for his WINS. He did have 4 really exceptional games against Detroit (3 for wins and 1 in a losing cause). Aside from that, he was pedestrian the rest of the time, just like the year that Chicago won the cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orange_crush Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 @orange_crushYour definition of "played well in the playoffs last year" and my definition of played well are two completely different things. For his 8 wins last year, the sharks scored on average 3.5 goals per game for him while he allowed 2.88 goals per game, and those were for his WINS. He did have 4 really exceptional games against Detroit (3 for wins and 1 in a losing cause). Aside from that, he was pedestrian the rest of the time, just like the year that Chicago won the cup.All you can ask from your goalie is to give your team a chance, and he's done that wherever he plays.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 @AndyS"Ever wonder why the Blackhawks didn't keep him?"Not only did they not want to keep him, but they replaced him with feakin' Marty Turco!He got an arbitration award that was too high for their cap structure and when they walked away they were unable to re-sign him due to the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyS Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 He got an arbitration award that was too high for their cap structure and when they walked away they were unable to re-sign him due to the rules.If he was worth anything, that would not have stopped them from keeping him. You don't let a legit Cup-winning goalie walk.He wasn't, so they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 If he was worth anything, that would not have stopped them from keeping him. You don't let a legit Cup-winning goalie walk.He wasn't, so they did.While I don't think highly of Neimi, he's not that bad. Put in context of a high arbitration award with Toews/Kane/Keith/Hossa on a roster, Neimi walks if even slightly overpaid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Oh yeah, and they were OVER the cap when they won the Cup. Against the Flyers. FML. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @radoranHis arbitration was 2.75m. You can be 10% over the cap until the start of the season. I would think that if you REALLY wanted the goalie you would sign him for the arbitration amount and move some other pieces in the mean time before the start of the season. At a minimum sign him and trade him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @radoranHis arbitration was 2.75m. You can be 10% over the cap until the start of the season. I would think that if you REALLY wanted the goalie you would sign him for the arbitration amount and move some other pieces in the mean time before the start of the season. At a minimum sign him and trade him.I'm not arguing that the Hawks "couldn't" have kept Niemi, nor that they didn't "choose" not to.But the award made the decision for them - whether simply easier or not - in the end. The simple fact that the Hawks walked away from the arbitration award is not necessarily a reflection on how good a goalie Niemi is or isn't. If you'll recall, in a scheme that sounds tragically familiar, Niemi was the surprise young goalie who supplanted the high-priced "established starter" Cristobal Huet who was making... $5.6M... no, really...They made a calculated decision based on the players they wanted to keep and already had under contract versus keeping a player who just got an arbitration award that obviously the club felt - like many of us here, myself included - was overpriced. I don't have the timeline on the Hawks dealings, nor do I care to research it beyond the observation that Kane/Toews went from $6.5M to $12.6M against the cap and Campbell/Keith were on at $12.6M as well. That's $25.2M of the cap eaten up in four players.Niemi did sign with San Jose for less than his arbitration award ($2M) before signing his current long term deal for $3.8M per through 2015. The Hawks spent $2.1M on Turco and Crawford in 10-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @radoranAll good points. I did not know that he signed with San Jose for only 2M. I mean Chicago signs Turco for 1.4m. They couldn't find 600k SOMEWHERE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyS Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @radoranAll good points. I did not know that he signed with San Jose for only 2M. I mean Chicago signs Turco for 1.4m. They couldn't find 600k SOMEWHERE?Because Niemmi sucks. He is NOT a franchise goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @AndyS"Because Niemmi sucks. He is NOT a franchise goalie."While I do not think he sucks, I just don't think he is all that and a bag of chips and certainly not a franchise goalie like you pointed out. He basically lost his starting job to Nitty at one point last year and then was very lucky in the first round against LA last year as he stunk the joint out twice and was pulled and Nitty saved his bacon. Orange_Crush has his opinion and is entitled to it, but I don't see it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @radoranAll good points. I did not know that he signed with San Jose for only 2M. I mean Chicago signs Turco for 1.4m. They couldn't find 600k SOMEWHERE?That wasn't their option. Their option was to accept the arbitration award or reject it. There is no negotiation after arbitration awards between the parties.Chicago wound up spending $100K more on two goalies than Niemi signed for as one goalie, and $650K less than Niemi's arbitration award.Because their cap situation made them.I'm not at all arguing that Niemi is a great goalie or one that the Flyers should have traded JVR for, just that the simple fact alone that Chicago walked away from an arbitration award doesn't necessarily have a direct impact the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 @radoran"I'm not at all arguing that Niemi is a great goalie or one that the Flyers should have traded JVR for, just that the simple fact alone that Chicago walked away from an arbitration award doesn't necessarily have a direct impact the discussion."Totally get that and thanks for bringing clarity to me regarding the Chicago situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.