As Pucksandbooks pointed out in his recent post, his assessment of the Capitals’ goaltender situation was his own. Now I don’t dispute Pucks’ facts, nor are his conclusions irrational — but from my perspective they seem a bit dire and premature mere hours after the signing. So, as a counterpoint, here’s my take on the situation which, while hardly sunny, is a more optimistic outlook.
Let’s start with the bad: There’s no doubt that a combination of bad planning and bad luck has left the organization with a goaltender dilemma — one that has been hanging over the team, Sword of Damocles-like, for years now. Olie Kolzig’s career naturally progressed from stellar to solid to adequate as he aged; a successor needed to be a top team priority before Kolzig’s ability to carry a starter’s workload was in doubt. As Pucks pointed out, the organization made such an attempt by bringing in Maxime Oulett from Philly; sadly, Maximus turned out to be more of a minimus.
Varlamov and Neuvirth are top prospects and progressing quickly; it is certainly feasible to see one if not both in Caps’ uniforms come 2010-11. Yet, really, a top-tier netminder was needed five years ago to avoid the team’s recent stop-gap measures. Easier said than done, to be sure . . . building and maintaining a team is tough. But if it were an easy job then it wouldn’t pay well, and GMGM couldn’t afford all those snazzy suits.
While the team’s need for a “bridge” goaltender, and its difficulty in addressing that need earlier, led to their shaky netminder situation this offseason, the team could do little to change the past on July 1, 2008.
So let me say this: the organization made the right call with Huet. The information slowly revealing itself indicates that, while the Capitals tried to lowball Huet initially, they were more than flexible in eventually giving him exactly what he asked for . . . only to have Huet reject the contract like James T. Kirk scoffed at alien STDs.
Once Huet made the business decision to squeeze a bit extra from another team, the Caps immediately snagged the best guy still available: Jose Theodore. General consensus saw Huet and Theodore as the two best ‘tenders in this year’s admittedly goalie-light free agent pool. Some would say they were equal; some feel Huet was #1 and Theodore #2 or #1A.
Regardless, once Huet made it clear that he wanted more money and a four-year deal, the Caps acted quickly to get the remaining free agent with the best potential as a starting netminder.
Huet returning for 3 years at a reasonable price would have likely been the best outcome for the Caps. But Theodore is no slouch; their styles are different, yet in many ways Huet and Theodore have similar pasts, similar potential, and similar stats. Remember, too, that expectations for Huet would have been intense based on his 20 games in a Capitals sweater . . . a mercenary like Huet may be one of those archetypal contract-year wonders who slip back to normalcy once they get their big deal. Tying up $22 million for four years of average play is not what the Capitals need — particularly not with a pricey Alexander Semin contract just a year or two away.
Has the loss of Huet impacted the Capitals’ chances of a deep post-season run in the next two or three years? Perhaps a bit — but mostly due to the team adjusting to their third starting goalie in less than a year, and the impact that may have on defensive strategies and cohesiveness, than a significant drop-off in goaltender skill.
Change is scary; changing a goaltender doubly so. But with a well rounded roster, stars like Ovechkin and Green, and top-notch coaches and staff (notably in Theodore’s case, superstar goalie coach Dave Prior), the 2008-09 Capitals hardly project to be bottom-feeders.
Let’s see Theodore don his new Capitals’ sweater and get a few games under his belt before deeming his signing a failure or a success.
20 Comments
Makes sense to me…
Allow me to beat the dead horse into submission - the main source of angst should be that the 3 for 15 was not jumped on in April and May. That would have been BEST for the team and it is awfully presumptuous to say that had that demand been met in early May he would have reneged. Of course we didn’t want to match 4 for 22 or whatever it is, but IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN TO THAT POINT. You can villianize Huet, and more appropriately, his agent, but it ALL could have been avoided. That’s what bothers me.
Fair point JR. We’ll never know the timetable of the negotiations, nor the true nature of the dollars/terms offered in the two months prior to July 1 . . . if the organization had proffered 15/3 in May or early June, perhaps things would have worked out.
I’m sure as with most failed negotiations both sides share the blame (with the agent likely claiming the majority of blame). But as things stood on July 1, the team made the right call.
I’m not convinced that had the Caps made the 3 for 15 offer in April or May that the agent and Huet wouldn’t have continued to drag it out to July 1 without making a commitment. My gut tells me that he was being purely mercenary about getting the biggest bang for the buck and that the Caps were merely a means to that end.
Moving forward, I take Theodore at his word that he is excited to be coming here. And, for all the ups and downs he’s had, the his stats for the last half of last year were pretty good. He gets a fresh start here, and with all the gnashing of teeth and angst being expressed here, I bet he’s going to work overtime to prove himself to the team and the fans. I say we start to assess this deal in January and not now.
JR: I think GMGM said they offered Huet 3 yr/3.7M the day after the season; and that Huet countered a “month” later at 3 yr/15M. I guess that puts the true beginning of negotiation in mid to late May. GMGM then mentioned the Caps countered 3 yr/4.2M, then 3 yr/4.6M, but I don’t believe he mentioned when that all occurred. Be that as it may….it should have been resolved well before 1 July. Who knows….by the time GMGM heard back from Huet, it might have given him time to be talked out of any deal by his wife…or perhaps more accurately his agent.
Or we could look at it all this way. Aren’t we all happy that we are looking at the team on July 1 (OK, July 2) and wondering if the team signed the right goalie to take them to the Stanley Cup? Shouldn’t we be glad that it looks like the team has the financial flexibility to sign all of its key players and still make some trades at the deadline if needed? Isn’t it great that the team just signed a goalie in his prime (or darn close to it) that wants to play here?
What a difference from the past several years. I think I prefer the way I feel this summer than to those in years past.
It’s foolish to suggest that the team should have offered Huet 3/15 right out of the gates. It’s a team’s right and obligation to NEGOTIATE; the Caps appeared to have done so in good faith. Assuming Huet’s counter-offer was done in good faith, the Caps’ response was hardly low-ball.
It’s easy to say in hindsight that the Caps just should have pounced on the 3/15 counter-offer, but I hardly fault them for trying to save what they could.
or we could talk about how we now have a goalie who has been able to win a first round series. Huet had a great run at the end of the season, but that is not the full season Huet. That was the same Huet who just got hot, but also lost the #1 job to Cary Price at times last year as well. Theodore played real well after finaly getting to be the #1 goalie last year and really ran with it. Huet truely is worth what we paid Theodore and Theodore really is about the same as Huet as far as skill goes, just Theodore has more expirence as a #1
@ Michael: I agree that starting negotiations at 3/15 would have been silly. I think some of the debate is whether the team took too long to finally make that offer.
Regardless, my perspective is that’s water under the bridge, spilt milk, [insert cliche here]. The Caps have a solid netminder for the next two years with two high-value prospects on the way. All in all, not a bad place to be.
I’m going to go in a totally diffferent direction with this one, but it is brought on by a point made in the post. What happens when Semin comes up for a new contract? First of all is it 1 year or 2 years from now? Then, and I know this might be sacrilege, but do you trade him at that point in order to stay competitive for longer by bringing back a new round of young talent rather than tie up so much money? This is hoping of course that you have a reasonably talented player ready to take the reigns and provide the scoring that you are trading away? It is also I guess dependant on how close you are to bringing the cup home.
Just curious on your thoughts.
@ gozling:
That’s a very important question with potentially huge impact on the team’s future. While Semin’s performance this season will impact any decision, my take is that at this point you do not consider trading/losing that kind of talent. The team will try to maintain flexibility under the cap so keeping Semin can remain part of their plan.
Nothing’s set in stone, of course, and it’s hard to say if the picture will look the same a year from now. Certainly it’s a situation that warrants ongoing attention. But for now I think the plan is to keep the team’s 1-2 punch at LW and force teams to defend two lines’ worth of scoring threat.
Huet has never really been able to make it through a whole season. Top year for GP was 42. Whereas Theodore has played up to 67 some years. His stats seem to point to the fact that the more he plays the stronger he gets. I’ll take durability hands down.
Well, Semin will still be restricted at the end of his current contract in 2010, so they do have some flexibility. I could see them going either way with him in terms of signing him or trading him. The good thing is that knowing he’s got a potentially big payday coming, he should put up some big numbers in the next two seasons.
While I’m sad to see Theo go from Colorado, I applaud him for grabbing a better contract. Francois Giguere, the Avalanche GM, was quoted as saying he “won’t overpay” for a player.
I have to wonder if that was really a better idea for Theo, though. He’s a goaltender that has spent the past few seasons struggling. He’s shown huge growth after moving to Colorado, but I think one more move will end up hindering any progress he’s making in his play.
I am eager to see what Gabby can do for Theodore. Look at how many other players on the team have blossomed under his guidance.
One thing that is overlooked in all of this is the job GMGM did when he found out Huet was bolting for Chicago. GMGM responded. McPhee didn’t sabotage the negotiations, on the contrary, he took action, damage control. He came up with Theodore. Would Conklin have been better? Maybe Emery? How about getting Kolzig back? None of those would have been better than Theodore. On the contrary, some would have been disasters.
Give the man credit for making the best of a bad situation. Quite frankly, there is the distinct possibility that things might actually work out better. Who knows? It could turn out worse too… The point is nothing is for certain. You just make the best decisions you can.
I, for one, think GMGM made the right choice under the circumstances.
Well stated, Muddapucker. Theodore is a Cap now; we owe him a fair chance.
People are naive or just dumb if they think that offering Huet 3 years at $5mil per from the start would have changed anything. EVERYTHING Huet and his agent have been saying proved to be untrue. He said when he got here and throughout that he wanted to be a clear-cut #1 goalie, then he goes and signs in Chicago. I really hope khabibulin plays lights out and forces them to play him, since Chicago is in a win now mode. That would really put them in a bind with him being a UFA next year, and it would be Karma if Huet was right back on the bench after thumbing his nose at the Caps offer.
I agree… Bartlett, Huet’s agent was quoted as saying in response to what it would take to sign Huet that “… you don’t know until you open the Christmas presents on Christmas morning” or something to that effect.
Clearly, it was their intent to go to the marketplace. He got his “Christmas” present and they ran with it. I think the writing was on the wall all along. They were going to the highest bidder that Huet could be comfortable with.
Looking at what TSN says Fleury signed with the Pens for, 7 yrs, $35M, I don’t think that Chicago got much of a deal paying Huet $5.6 annually for 4 years.
More from GMGM on NHL.com:
“You have to be careful when signing goalies,” McPhee said. “If you sign a player to play on your first line and you pay him a lot of money and it’s not working out, sometimes you can get away with dropping him down to the third or fourth line. But if you make mistakes on goalies, you can’t play them, so they’re sitting on the bench and then you’re not getting anything out of them.
“If you’ve got a top-five goalie and are willing to do a long-term deal for big money, that probably makes sense, but any of the other goalies you must be sharp and prudent and try and construct short-term deals. This way, if it’s not working out, you can get out of it and if it is working out, you can always renew the contract.”
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=367540&page=NewsPage&service=page
Post a Comment