Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Chauncey Billups Injures Achilles Tendon

Redundancy

In 2007-08, the Edmonton Oilers employed a two-goaltender system for the third time in the MacTavish/Lowe era, and for the second time, it was a decision forced on the team by a starter's regression (Roloson, Salo in 2003-04) and a better than expected performance by the back-up (Garon, Conklin in 2003-04). Thus, with the exception of the 2005-06 goaltending train wreck, the Edmonton Oilers have never entered the NHL season under Lowe with the intention of employing a two-goaltender tandem.

It looks like the Oilers will employ a tandem (or possibly, three-headed monster) in net this coming season, with Mathieu Garon not yet established as an NHL starter, Dwayne Roloson's contract close to unmoveable, and a desire to test Jeff Deslauriers at the NHL level. It isn't a great-looking lineup, and there's questions to be answered by each, but as a group they should provide average to better-than-aerage NHL goaltending (of course, the last time I said that was before 2005-06, so take it for what it's worth).

Since I referenced the Conkkanen tandem earlier, Craig MacTavish alternated between Conklin and Markkanen as backups to Dwayne Roloson during the SCF run. When Roloson went down in game 1 against Carolina, Ty Conklin was the guy on the bench, and we all remember the tragic miscommunication between him and Jason Smith, which reulted in Rod Brind'Amour scoring the game winner. After the game, Don Cherry was harshly critical of MacTavish for not picking one backup and using him, with the idea that the better goaltender should always be the back up. Ron McLean countered that there wasn't much of a difference in performance between MacTavish's options, an idea that Cherry refused to consider.

I remember largely agreeing with Cherry at the time; clearly, there must have been some difference in quality between Markkanen and Conklin. Now, I'm not so sure. At the time, I was also skeptical about tandem systems; Minnesota, for example, has never had a goaltender reach the 60 game mark, always employing a rotation. My belief was that an NHL team should have one player who got 75%+ of the starts, with a cheap backup who could step in when needed. The majority of NHL GM's folow this pattern; in 2007-08, 14 goaltenders played more than the 58 games that Niklas Backstrom posted. In other cases (Anaheim, Washington, Columbus, Colorado, Nashville, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay) either injuries of unexpected variance in performance meant that the projected starter played less than sixty games. That leaves four teams who went into the season with true goaltending partnerships:

Detroit: Dominik Hasek/Chris Osgood
Minnesota: Niklas Backstrom/Josh Harding
Montreal: Cristobal Huet/Carey Price/Jaroslav Halak
Ottawa: Ray Emery/Martin Gerber

There was an interesting post over at Mc79Hockey, largely about goaltenders. One paragraph stands out, one where Ken Holland was quoted:

"My feeling is if you can get one of the five or six best goalies in the league you can spend the money. We can’t get into those guys, and the difference between the eighth goalie in the league and the 15th goalie, it’s a big difference in money. It’s not a big difference in performance."

Now, Tyler Dellow pretty much proves what Holland is arguing in his post, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time re-treading his arguments. Suffice to say, it's easy to sign a relatively cheap 1A goaltender (such as Chris Osgood) to a mid-length contract, and it's probably not going to result in a big drop off in performance. Lowe managed this last year when he signed Mathieu Garon from Los Angeles.

So if we accept Holland's premise (aside from the top-end goalies, it isn't worthwhile to spend a ton of money on a puck-stopper), the majority of teams should be signing their starting goaltenders for somewhere between 1.5 and 3 million dollars per season. The other point is that these goaltenders likely have issues; inconsistency, durability, whatever. Tyler alluded to one problem with these guys: "I think that the line between the tenth best goalie in the NHL and the twenty fifth best goalie in the NHL is a pretty hazy one and that there’s an awful lot of movement around that line from year to year."

So, if a team is playing a fairly cheap 1A goalie as their starter, why not pick up another goaltender of a similar type and run with him, rather than grabbing a lousy back-up? And, if a team has two options that are fairly close in terms of ability, and given that players levels of ability tend to fluctuate not only season-to-season, but week-to-week, why not just play the hot hand and keep the games played close? This is something that Minnesota (a very well-run organization, IMO) has done since joining the league, and it has a few non-trivial benefits:

1) Insurance in case of injury/slumps/etc.
2) Keeps salaries low (because the goaltender doesn't have an opportunity to put up nice numbers over a whole bunch of games)
3) Keeps both goaltenders fresh and competitive

Looking at the four examples of tandems from last season, we can see how beneficial it was to run with a pair of competent goalies. In Detroit, both Hasek and Osgood slumped at different points during the season, and when Hasek looked shaky in the playoffs, Babcock was able to turn to Osgood with a minimum of drama/lost confidence. In Minnesota, the team was able to develop a talented youngster with a comfortable safety net, as was Montreal. Gainey's trade of Huet at the deadline was a regrettable decision, and if he'd kept Huet for the playoff run, the team would have had a decent option to turn to when Carey Price started leaking goals against. The only case where the pairing was a failure was in Ottawa, and would the team have been any better going with only one of the two goalies? Not likely.

Short term, I'd like to see the Oilers keep Roloson/Garon, at least unless Jeff Deslauriers can do a convincing job in net, which seems unlikely. Long term, the Oilers should sign Garon if they can do it at a reasonable salary (say 6M/2 yrs) and then either re-sign Roloson short-term (if he rebounds) or pick up a goaltender from the same talent level as Garon.

Unfortunately, Lowe/MacTavish seem to prefer a clear-cut starter, and judging from the Canucks decisions over the years, it would seem that Steve Tambellini is of the same mindset.

Comment 11 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Good stuff.

The goaltending tandem has been on my mind since I wrote my own post on the position a little while ago. It occurred to me that Minnesota might just be on to something (while CHI has it completely wrong right now).

by Kent W. on Aug 20, 2008 6:26 PM MDT reply actions  

It occurred to me that Minnesota might just be on to something (while CHI has it completely wrong right now).

I was thinking about Chicago when I wrote this; now that's bad redundancy.

by Jonathan Willis on Aug 20, 2008 6:33 PM MDT reply actions  

You might be underselling Garon a bit. Remember, goalies often emerge rather late in their careers as top netminders. And let's not forget how awful this team was defensively for the longest time. You remember how they kept giving up that backdoor goal? They just kept giving that goal up, regardless of the team, and they just couldn't get it through their collective skulls to cover the guy with nothing between him and the yawning cage. A lot of goalies would have died under that kind of ineptitude.

Also, while I know it's the trend to take everything a Detroit executive says as the Inspired Word of Hockey, but let's not forget that the Red Wings have often been sunk by inadequate goaltending. They're hardly an authority on the subject.

by Paper Designer on Aug 20, 2008 7:28 PM MDT reply actions  

You might be underselling Garon a bit.

Well, we'll see next year, but he hasn't proven much yet.

Also, while I know it's the trend to take everything a Detroit executive says as the Inspired Word of Hockey, but let's not forget that the Red Wings have often been sunk by inadequate goaltending.

On the other hand, they've won three Stanley Cups with the same goaltender often cited as woefully inadequate - Chris Osgood.

Holland isn't perfect, nobody is, but he's easily the best G.M. out there, so when he puts out that kind of theory it's worth listening to. Doug Risebrough's no dummy either.

by Jonathan Willis on Aug 20, 2008 7:36 PM MDT reply actions  

I don't really understand the opinions of others regarding Roloson.

I hear all the time about how he stepped it up for the playoff run when Garon was sidelined. This, in my mind, is completely false. He let in numerious, IMO, "soft goals".

Garon is the kind of goalie that came up with the big save when needed. Not so much unlike Roli during the cup run in '06. I would guess that numbers would be similar to what LT is projecting in that the tandem would be more so Garon starting the majority at 55+ games and Roli/Deslaurier splitting the backup duties. I don't think that is too much to ask from a guy that showed he could play with consistency game to game.

This is obviously dependant on Deslaurier's ability to keep up to a goaltender that looked like, at the end of last season, he was fading into the twilight of a pretty successful backup career.

by jdrevenge on Aug 21, 2008 8:22 AM MDT reply actions  

This is obviously dependant on Deslaurier's ability to keep up to a goaltender that looked like, at the end of last season, he was fading into the twilight of a pretty successful backup career.

The last time Roloson put up a .901 SV%, he rebounded with a .927 and .933 the following years. Age may have caught up to him, or he could have another pair of decent seasons in him.

I would guess that numbers would be similar to what LT is projecting in that the tandem would be more so Garon starting the majority at 55+ games and Roli/Deslaurier splitting the backup duties.

Which would fall under my definition - I think if the starter is playing 70% or fewer games (57-58 or less) than it really is a tandem, as most NHL starters are over the 60 game mark.

I expect Garon to be the starter, but he's never shown an ability to handle a heavy workload, and he's never looked like the goalie he did last season except in flashes. I'm mostly cautioning against putting all the eggs in that basket.

by Jonathan Willis on Aug 21, 2008 8:43 AM MDT reply actions  

Osgood is the very proof of their ineptitude; he's been the guy they've consistently been able to win with, and yet they've always been looking to other goalies.

As for Garon, I honestly have more questions about MacTavish's ability to handle goalies than I do about his play.

by Paper Designer on Aug 21, 2008 10:51 AM MDT reply actions  

Osgood is the very proof of their ineptitude; he's been the guy they've consistently been able to win with, and yet they've always been looking to other goalies.

Well, Joseph, Legace and Hasek isn't exactly a bad group. They've been better post-lockout than they were before. As for Osgood, his .914 SV% this last season is the best number he's put up since he posted .917% in 1994-95; he deserved the starting job this season, but it's certainly no crime to try and upgrade the position. Th Red Wings had Hasek last year, and it didn't work out, so they'll try Conklin as a backup(who had very nice numbers in Pittsburgh) this year.

As for Garon, I honestly have more questions about MacTavish's ability to handle goalies than I do about his play.

Since the lockout, Garon's posted save percentages of .894, .907, and .913 this past season. He's also never played more than the 63 games he layed for L.A. in 2005-06 (that's his .894 SV% year). I really do like Garon, and I think he's a good goaltender, but he isn't a sure thing, not yet. Going into the season without a reliable backup (Roloson, or someone else not named Deslauriers) seems like a bad and unneccessary risk to me.

by Jonathan Willis on Aug 21, 2008 11:20 AM MDT reply actions  

Poor Osgood is the Rodney Dangerfield of goalies....the dude has never had a losing season, even outside of Detroit, and should have won at least one Vezina along the way.

by Oilman on Aug 21, 2008 11:22 AM MDT reply actions  

Poor Osgood is the Rodney Dangerfield of goalies....

Well, Jason Labarbera's in a similar situation.

by Jonathan Willis on Aug 21, 2008 4:36 PM MDT reply actions  

Yeah, except for the vast difference in personal and team success...but he is under appreciated.

by Oilman on Aug 22, 2008 9:34 AM MDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dukeriver2_small
A Narrative Revisited: Hemsky 83

Recent FanPosts

Small
Ken Campbell Wants to Make You Angry
Small
Oilers Worst (Quiet) Trade Ever
Ovechkin1_small
How Ryan Smyth Stunted Magnus Paajarvi
2012-01-21-012338_small
Milan Kytnar Loaned To SM-liiga Club HPK Hämeenlinna
N512640129_624767_3878_small
Jay Feaster Revisited : How do the Oilers get back to competing?
Ovechkin1_small
Grading Tambellini (free agent signings)
Ovechkin1_small
Grading Steve Tambellini (Trades)
Mets002_small
Reaching out to The Copper & Blue: Community research project
N512640129_624767_3878_small
Now and Then: the more things change...

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Northwest Standings

GP W L OTL PT
Vancouver 52 32 15 5 69
Minnesota 52 25 19 8 58
Calgary 53 24 22 7 55
Colorado 54 26 25 3 55
Edmonton 53 21 27 5 47

(updated 2.7.2012 at 7:26 AM MST)

21 - 27 - 5

Lost 1

Clear Victory Standings

Western Conference

  1. Detroit Red Wings (22-7, .759)
  2. San Jose Sharks (13-5, .722)
  3. Vancouver Canucks (17-7, .708)
  4. St. Louis Blues (11-6, .647)
  5. Chicago Blackhawks (16-11, .593)
  6. Nashville Predators (11-10, .524)
  7. Los Angeles Kings (9-9, .500)
  8. Phoenix Coyotes (11-12, .478)
  9. Dallas Stars (11-14, .440)
  10. Edmonton Oilers (11-15, .423)
  11. Anaheim Ducks (10-14, .417)
  12. Colorado Avalanche (8-13, .381)
  13. Calgary Flames (9-15, .375)
  14. Minnesota Wild (7-13,.350)
  15. Columbus Blue Jackets (5-19, .208)

Eastern Conference

  1. Boston Bruins (21-3, .875)
  2. New York Rangers (18-8, .692)
  3. Pittsburgh Penguins (16-9, .640)
  4. Philadelphia Flyers (14-11, .560)
  5. Toronto Maple Leafs (14-12, .538)
  6. Washington Capitals (13-13, .500)
  7. Montreal Canadiens (11-11, .500)
  8. Ottawa Senators (10-12, .455)
  9. New Jersey Devils (10-12, .455)
  10. Winnipeg Jets (10-14, .417)
  11. Carolina Hurricanes (9-13, .409)
  12. Florida Panthers (7-11, .389)
  13. Buffalo Sabres (7-14, .333)
  14. Tampa Bay Lightning (9-19, .321)
  15. New York Islanders (6-14, .300)

Division Standings

  1. Central (50-38, .568)
  2. Northeast (49-38, .563)
  3. Atlantic (45-37, .549)
  4. Pacific (36-36, .500)
  5. Northwest (33-44, .429)
  6. Southeast (33-53, .384)


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Columnists

Batman_small ryanbatty

0615pisani_small dawgbone98

Okc_shoulder_small Eric Rodgers

Neal_small Neal Livingston

Mike_small Mike Wntrz

Contributors

Newtwitter2_small Jonathan Willis

Mccurdycloseup_small Bruce McCurdy

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

Me_smyth_bobblehead3__1_of_1__small Lisa McRitchie

Small Triumph44

Gyi0062208469-bobrovsky_small Chase W

Small JaredL