|
Post by shawkins on Aug 8, 2006 17:40:03 GMT -5
Does anyone like this move as much as I do?
A lot of my friends think it was a bad move and that Raask may end up being a great goalie.
Personally I think this was an excellent trade. I liked Raycroft in Boston, even though I hated the Bruins. I thought he was a good young goalie that had a bright future in the league. I certainly didn't expect him to be traded any time soon.
Yes, he had an awful year last year, one that was riddled with injuries, but I believe he's ready to bounce back. He may not be Cujo, or Belfour (before he died this year) but I think he's going to be a very good goalie for us. Maybe not as good as his Rookie of the Year season, but certainly a lot more productive than 2005-2006.
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on Aug 8, 2006 19:20:35 GMT -5
The 2006-2007 Goalie Situation has improved considerably. Raycroft is an improvment over eddie.
|
|
|
Post by TheGreenHornet on Aug 9, 2006 17:10:38 GMT -5
i couldn't disagree more. we replaced one of the worst starting goaltenders in the league last season with a guy who was even worse. a lot worse even. raycroft is a huge question mark. a question mark we gave up argueably our top prospect for. there were better options in the ufa market. not to mention rask could have been used to upgrade our weak forwaord core. just horrible asset management.
and yes i will concede that IF raycroft rebounds to his rookie form then this trade is a lot better. but i don't think we were in a position to take that gamble. especiialy given what was given up to get him.
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on Aug 9, 2006 17:20:45 GMT -5
Did we give up too much - - - Sure we did, but heck, look at their ages. Eddie will be 42 in April - Raycroft is only 26. Leafs had to do something. Remember Telly will most likely be traded for something.
|
|
|
Post by sportznutt on Aug 9, 2006 17:56:32 GMT -5
Hopefully Raycroft can get better. He is better than Eddie though.
|
|
|
Post by BroadST on Aug 9, 2006 20:52:01 GMT -5
I agree. A YOUNG question mark is much better than an OLD guy past his prime.
|
|
|
Post by TheGreenHornet on Aug 9, 2006 22:22:12 GMT -5
I agree. A YOUNG question mark is much better than an OLD guy past his prime. for this up coming season, absolutely. however this wasn't an either or situation. there was other options. we certainly did not have to trade our top prospect for a guy who we hope bounces back. a guy who we hope wasn't a fluke in his rookie season. a guy who had arguably the worst season of any nhl starting goaltenders last season. you know as bad as belfour was last year, raycroft was worse. that is saying a lot. this move was an unnecassry risk at to high of a price. poor asset management.
|
|
BeLeafer
Registered Member
Remember to kick it over
Posts: 14
|
Post by BeLeafer on Aug 9, 2006 23:40:27 GMT -5
It's a risky move.
If you're going to go after a player with risk, Legace was a much better option -- cost nothing but cash.
|
|
|
Post by glg on Aug 10, 2006 19:20:43 GMT -5
Agreed on Legace.
And let's remember that Rask wasn't going to sign here. In that respect, we lost nothing.
|
|
|
Post by TheGreenHornet on Aug 10, 2006 19:35:44 GMT -5
regardless of him signing with toronto or not... we didn't lose nothing, we lost a good tradeable asset. an asset that could have been used to upgrade this team in another area. such as our weak forward core. a highly regarded goaltending prospect who was a first round pick certainly could have been a nice starting point for a good young forward.
|
|
|
Post by glg on Aug 10, 2006 21:39:30 GMT -5
Then I suppose it depends where the priority lies, in the eyes of the person judging the move.
At the time we landed Raycroft, our priority was a goalie that can stop a beachball. Telly was not consistent enough, and while Aubin was more than solid for the latter part of last season, he has had inconsistent years before him also - more than Telly and Raycroft have, actually.
Now, the counter-argument is that Raycroft was the only starter worse than Belfour last season. Sure. But he was also a Calder trophy winner before that, and spent much of last year injured, and in an environment where many other super talents were not playing up to par. I believe the change of scenery and the extra time to recover from his injuries will make this a much better year for him. He won't be the worst twice in a row, IMO. Those odds are in our favour.
But goaltending was the priority, after Belfour's shutdown.
So the trade was the right one at the time.
In June, if Raycroft repeats last year's performance, then you may have a point. But at the time the move was made, it was the right one, IMO. He's 26. He's a hell of a lot more likely to rebound from a bad year than Belfour is at over 40.
|
|
|
Post by TheGreenHornet on Aug 11, 2006 18:17:58 GMT -5
i will certainly concede that there is the posibilty that raycroft rebounds to his rookie season form. however you have to admit that with the season he is coming off of it is a risky move. it is a risk that certainly could pay off but i strongly disagree that it was one we needed to take. there was absolutely no reason we couldn't have waited untill free agency to test the waters in that market. i doubt very much that teams were beating down boston's door lined up for a shot at raycroft. he most likely could have still been an option at that point and time.
i really think we would have been one hell of a lot better of with legace in net and rask used as part of a package for a young forward. i am sure i am begining to sound like a broken record but we jumped the gun and took a big gamble when it wasn't needed. unnecessary risk.
|
|
|
Post by glg on Aug 11, 2006 19:09:30 GMT -5
i really think we would have been one hell of a lot better of with legace in net and rask used as part of a package for a young forward. I actually wanted Legace also. But remember that as much as nobody was beating down Boston's door for Raycroft, there was nobody beating down Ken Holland's door in Detroit either. Legace is the same risk as Raycroft, in that he's older and would have potentionally taken more cap space away than Raycroft would. (We had no idea Legace would sign for as low as he did, especially since he was hoping for a better offer from Detroit.) Where Raycroft is the "safer" risk is his age. Legace is not as old as Belfour, but still older. If either of these two goalies are going to rebound huge this year, IMO, it'll be the younger Raycroft who'll lead in that department.
|
|
CCF23
Registered Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by CCF23 on Aug 15, 2006 5:20:59 GMT -5
Raycroft is a huge gamble. JFJ has to be taking sleeping pills or something to get himself to sleep at night because his job probably rides on whether or not the Leafs get last season Andrew Raycroft or Calder Trophy winning Andrew Raycroft. It's kind of a hard situation to judge because Raycroft has neither proved himself to be great, nor terrible but has shown flashes of both. There's no denying in his Calder year he was all world but then you look at last year and in 30 games he posts a high 3 GAA and a save % barely on par with Jocelyn Thibault or Nik Khabibulin. Also, chances are with your current core of forwards you're going to need Raycroft at his best. The Leafs probably aren't going to be a team that can simply outscore their problems; they'll need help between the pipes. I'd be biting my nails until about 10-15 games into the season when you can get a good reading on which Andrew Raycroft you guys bought. I hope you bought the extended warranty!
|
|
|
Post by mikedumar on Aug 15, 2006 7:08:39 GMT -5
as for raask not wanting to sign here
that statement is somewhat false
i said in through the media, that when he comes over to north america he would like to play full time minutes, otherwise he would stay over there until the time was right
we did not even begin to negotiate with his agent, so we will never know for sure what was going to happen
as we could have signed him, and still had him play over there for another year or two
|
|
|
Post by goleafsgo89 on Aug 15, 2006 21:32:15 GMT -5
I love this move as well.. he came off a bad year, where he was injured for the most part, and missed training camp. I think with a full training camp under his belt, and with some solid defence infront of him, JFJ will look brilliant by signing this guy. He's still young, and has some great potential. That being said, let's just hope that his confidence isn't shot after last year.
|
|
shooter
Registered Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by shooter on Aug 18, 2006 21:26:52 GMT -5
I'm very excited about this upcoming season then I have been for past seasons. The team is heading in a new direction, with a new coaching staff, goalie & some other additions.
Raycroft, has to show others he will rebound from last season & I think people are anxious to see how he will perform.
The coaching staff - After 8 years under Quinn, it's exciting to see how Paul Maurice will run this club. Everythiing from players performing poorly during some shifts and if Maurice will bench them for a few shifts, or will the player still be going out there the next shift, to how the players will react to Maurice's style of coaching.
That being said about Quinn, I hope he gets another head coaching job, before the season starts. He is too knowledgeable of the game not to.
|
|
FRANTIC
Registered Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by FRANTIC on Aug 21, 2006 15:37:33 GMT -5
imo, the trade was a good one. raycroft has proven he can play in the NHL, while rask... well, not so much.
i think that a healthy raycroft, with a new contract, and something to prove to himself and his teammates, and a better team in front of him than he had in boston, has a great chance of returning to his ROTY form.
btw, anyone know if boston has signed rask, yet?
or if he even has wants to come to NA anytime soon?
|
|
|
Post by sunface on Aug 23, 2006 14:57:48 GMT -5
It's a risk, no doubt. But it's a risk with huge upside. If Raycroft can bounce back, he has the capacity to be a top-5 goalie in the NHL. And Rask might do nothing, or he might be amazing. Time will tell but this is the kind of risk that we should be taking. Legace has proven that he doesn't have the chops to be a #1. And I don't think Gerber was a great choice either.
I really think we stole Raycroft from the Bruins... I hope I'm right!
|
|