:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/16620627/167093519.0.jpg)
In the comments of his article on Devan Dubnyk's future, Scott and I have been discussing the best course of action forthe Oilers to take, and is our custom, we disagree. At the end of his article, Scott asks:
So what should the Oilers do now? Let's say Dubnyk's agent is looking for $5M per season for five years to sign an extension today. Would you do it?
He argues for signing Dubnyk, or, not so much argues for it, as points out the risk of letting him walk:
the best available candidates under 35 are going to be Jaroslav Halak, Jonas Hiller, Ryan Miller, and Devan Dubnyk. Now, some of those teams will go with cheaper options, but I’m pretty confident that, barring a meltdown season in 2013-14, those four guys are going to get paid. The Oilers can be one of the teams going in a different direction, but it is a bigger risk, especially with their lack of depth in the system.
I’d expect the following goalies to be on the market next season:
Craig Anderson, Martin Biron, Scott Clemmensen, Brian Elliott, Dan Ellis, Ray Emery, Devan Dubnyk, Thomas Greiss, Josh Harding, Jonas Hiller, Anton Khudobin, Jason LaBarbera, Anders Lindback, Chris Mason, Ryan Miller, Al Montoya, and Tomas Vokoun.
Are Ray Emery and Jason LaBarbera for less than Dubnyk a bad deal? Or Vokoun and Khudobin?
To my regular readers, my thoughts on goaltenders are well-known. Wasting big money on a goaltender (unless it's Dominik Hasek) is rarely the right move, and divining which goalies are going to develop long term is alchemy. I'd much rather tack towards less risk and league average in a tandem.
Am I wrong in this thinking? Should the Oilers get the steady guy and invest long-term, especially given they have nothing coming by way of their developmental system? Which direction is best?