My thought: Leafs will go after Tim Thomas

Post #41 » by **Crowned** » Tue May 1, 2012 10:16 pm

You realize the Marlies don't play a full 82 game schedule....right? And you realize that he started with the Leafs for 12 games, and was the backup for more? Again, that's no reasoning to think he has no potential.

Drake_02 · Post #42 » by **Drake_02** » Tue May 1, 2012 11:15 pm

Crowned wrote:You realize the Marlies don't play a full 82 game schedule....right? And you realize that he started with the Leafs for 12 games, and was the backup for more? Again, that's no reasoning to think he has no potential.

Yes, but Rynass played 30 games. So what I'm saying is maybe they start Scrivens like 40-45 games. Only reason he was up with the leafs is because he has the most talent out of the Marlies goalies.

Post #43 » by **Crowned** » Thu May 3, 2012 3:51 am

Rynnas played 30 games because he took over as starter once Scrivens left. He's also one of the teams current prospects, splitting time amongst the organizations young goaltenders is extremely important. You can't have him sit on the bench every game.

Drake_02 · Post #44 » by **Drake_02** » Fri May 4, 2012 1:24 am

Crowned wrote:Rynnas played 30 games because he took over as starter once Scrivens left. He's also one of the teams current prospects, splitting time amongst the organizations young goaltenders is extremely important. You can't have him sit on the bench every game.

You do realize scrivens is 25? If he has good potential, I think he would be in the nhl by now, or atleast higher on the depth charts. And if the maple leafs were to go in the season with Scrivens on the roster, the goalie tandem would be garbage.

whysoserious · Post #45 » by **whysoserious** » Fri May 4, 2012 2:13 am

You do realize that some goalies develop later and Scrivens came up through the NCAA system which is not the same as being drafted out of the CHL or early on spending a lot development time with an organization.

Drake_02 · Post #46 » by **Drake_02** » Fri May 4, 2012 11:05 pm

whysoserious wrote:You do realize that some goalies develop later and Scrivens came up through the NCAA system which is not the same as being drafted out of the CHL or early on spending a lot development time with an organization.

How late? Will this kid be 28 by time he's NHL ready? When you have a younger guy like Reimer (24) whats the point on having Scrivens? If he has potential, and by what I'm getting, people think he has high potential, why not trade him for something? I don't care where he came from. Frankly, if you're good, you're good, and if you have high potential, then you have potential. A lot of great players came out of NCAA. Kane,JVR,Modano Etc.

Post #47 » by **Crowned** » Sat May 5, 2012 4:45 am

Drake_02 wrote:
whysoserious wrote:You do realize that some goalies develop later and Scrivens came up through the NCAA system which is not the same as being drafted out of the CHL or early on spending a lot development time with an organization.

How late? Will this kid be 28 by time he's NHL ready? When you have a younger guy like Reimer (24) whats the point on having Scrivens? If he has potential, and by what I'm getting, people think he has high potential, why not trade him for something? I don't care where he came from. Frankly, if you're good, you're good, and if you have high potential, then you have potential. A lot of great players came out of NCAA. Kane,JVR,Modano Etc.

Mike Modano played in the WHL, he never played in the NCAA. Patrick Kane played for the London Knights, and was drafted after 1 year in the OHL...he never played in the NCAA either.

What would it matter if he were 28 when he was NHL ready? He turned 'pro' in 2010, where he put up good numbers in the AHL as a rookie. In 2011, he went 22-15 with a 2.06 G.A.A.

Why would we trade a young goaltender? For a 'rebuilding' team, that doesn't make sense. If he has potential to even be an adequate backup, you don't trade him. This team needs to stop trading their youth or picks for stopgap solutions.

whysoserious · Post #48 » by **whysoserious** » Sat May 5, 2012 4:05 pm

Drake_02 wrote:How late? Will this kid be 28 by time he's NHL ready? When you have a younger guy like Reimer (24) whats the point on having Scrivens? If he has potential, and by what I'm getting, people think he has high potential, why not trade him for something? I don't care where he came from. Frankly, if you're good, you're good, and if you have high potential, then you have potential. A lot of great players came out of NCAA. Kane,JVR,Modano Etc.

The age gap between Reimer and Scrivens is one year, why are we willing to wait one Reimer but not give Scrivens a chance to develop. And so far, Scrivens has shown just as much as Reimer has at the NHL level in limited time and won a Hobey Baker award in NCAA.

Reimer had a good run last year at the end, he got hurt this year but there are flaws in his game. He has no more potential than a Scrivens. Now I'd look for an upgrade over both but we'll have to see.

Drake_02 · Post #49 » by **Drake_02** » Sat May 5, 2012 4:25 pm

whysoserious wrote:
Drake_02 wrote:How late? Will this kid be 28 by time he's NHL ready? When you have a younger guy like Reimer (24) whats the point on having Scrivens? If he has potential, and by what I'm getting, people think he has high potential, why not trade him for something? I don't care where he came from. Frankly, if you're good, you're good, and if you have high potential, then you have potential. A lot of great players came out of NCAA. Kane,JVR,Modano Etc.

The age gap between Reimer and Scrivens is one year, why are we willing to wait one Reimer but not give Scrivens a chance to develop. And so far, Scrivens has shown just as much as Reimer has at the NHL level in limited time and won a Hobey Baker award in NCAA.

Reimer had a good run last year at the end, he got hurt this year but there are flaws in his game. He has no more potential than a Scrivens. Now I'd look for an upgrade over both but we'll have to see.

Sorry, but Ill take a guy who went 20-10-5 in the NHL over a guy who went 4-5-2 in 12 NHL games. Theres a huge difference in putting up in the NHL than putting up in the AHL. How can you say that. That makes no sense at all.

Drake_02 · Post #50 » by **Drake_02** » Sat May 5, 2012 5:41 pm

Crowned wrote:
Drake_02 wrote:
whysoserious wrote:You do realize that some goalies develop later and Scrivens came up through the NCAA system which is not the same as being drafted out of the CHL or early on spending a lot development time with an organization.

How late? Will this kid be 28 by time he's NHL ready? When you have a younger guy like Reimer (24) whats the point on having Scrivens? If he has potential, and by what I'm getting, people think he has high potential, why not trade him for something? I don't care where he came from. Frankly, if you're good, you're good, and if you have high potential, then you have potential. A lot of great players came out of NCAA. Kane,JVR,Modano Etc.

Mike Modano played in the WHL, he never played in the NCAA. Patrick Kane played for the London Knights, and was drafted after 1 year in the OHL...he never played in the NCAA either.

What would it matter if he were 28 when he was NHL ready? He turned 'pro' in 2010, where he put up good numbers in the AHL as a rookie. In 2011, he went 22-15 with a 2.06 G.A.A.

Why would we trade a young goaltender? For a 'rebuilding' team, that doesn't make sense. If he has potential to even be an adequate backup, you don't trade him. This team needs to stop trading their youth or picks for stopgap solutions.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/almana ... istory.php

Isn't it obvious were not a rebuilding team. We have pieces, just because you finish in the bottom 5 one year does not make you a rebuilding team. This is a team that needs tweaks, not a rebuild. Really, why do we need Scrivens? We have Reimer, and we need a veteran fro Reimer, so whats the point? If you think he has potential, then why not trade him for something that will help us? Because we do have Reimer, and then I think we will get a veteran, so wheres Scrivens fit in? Would it not make sense to trade him in a package for a player.

whysoserious · Post #51 » by **whysoserious** » Sat May 5, 2012 7:31 pm

Drake_02 wrote:Sorry, but Ill take a guy who went 20-10-5 in the NHL over a guy who went 4-5-2 in 12 NHL games. Theres a huge difference in putting up in the NHL than putting up in the AHL. How can you say that. That makes no sense at all.

Reimer is an average goaltender, barely anything he does screams of high potential. He had a good run last year picking up wins in many meaningless games when we were practically out of it. I don't want t o diminish what he did either. Scrivens has shown me more in his play that he's at worse equal to Reimer and the point is with Reimer not hands down better, why move another of your prospect goalies.

Realistically, we need an upgrade over both of them for success. Reimer ain't gonna get it done. This team doesn't need tweak, it's needs some serious overhaul. And that doesn't mean there isn't good here, but collectively it's just not good. Average at best.

Post #52 » by **Crowned** » Sun May 6, 2012 3:29 am

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/almanac/draft-history.php

Isn't it obvious were not a rebuilding team. We have pieces, just because you finish in the bottom 5 one year does not make you a rebuilding team. This is a team that needs tweaks, not a rebuild. Really, why do we need Scrivens? We have Reimer, and we need a veteran fro Reimer, so whats the point? If you think he has potential, then why not trade him for something that will help us? Because we do have Reimer, and then I think we will get a veteran, so wheres Scrivens fit in? Would it not make sense to trade him in a package for a player.

I'm not sure what the link proves. It even shows in the chart that Modano and Kane were both US born players, but didn't play in the NCAA

This team needs more than tweaks. Improving the defense, acquiring a #1 center, acquiring 2 shutdown 3rd line players, and even a 2nd line player to fill in for Kulemin if he doesn't show signs of improvement are more than tweaks.

Drake_02 · Post #53 » by **Drake_02** » Sun May 6, 2012 10:59 pm

whysoserious wrote:
Drake_02 wrote:Sorry, but Ill take a guy who went 20-10-5 in the NHL over a guy who went 4-5-2 in 12 NHL games. Theres a huge difference in putting up in the NHL than putting up in the AHL. How can you say that. That makes no sense at all.

Reimer is an average goaltender, barely anything he does screams of high potential. He had a good run last year picking up wins in many meaningless games when we were practically out of it. I don't want t o diminish what he did either. Scrivens has shown me more in his play that he's at worse equal to Reimer and the point is with Reimer not hands down better, why move another of your prospect goalies.

Realistically, we need an upgrade over both of them for success. Reimer ain't gonna get it done. This team doesn't need tweak, it's needs some serious overhaul. And that doesn't mean there isn't good here, but collectively it's just not good. Average at best.

What makes you say those things? (in the bolded)

U_Mad · Post #54 » by **U_Mad** » Mon May 7, 2012 4:30 am

Lets wait 1 more year then Quick will be a FA

whysoserious · Post #55 » by **whysoserious** » Mon May 7, 2012 12:36 pm

U_Mad wrote:Lets wait 1 more year then Quick will be a FA

Based on the recent run, can you honestly see LA just letting him walk. He'll probably sign an extension this summer depending on LA's cap situation.

whysoserious · Post #56 » by **whysoserious** » Mon May 7, 2012 12:39 pm

Drake_02 wrote:What makes you say those things? (in the bolded)

Scrivens seems to have better lateral movement, he seems to be better at tracking the puck and has a better glove than Reimer. Reimer's biggest thing is he's big and gets in the way of a lot of shots. At
the end of the day, not one of the two is really that far ahead or behind the other. I'd rank Scrivens as having a higher ceiling but I'd still look for an upgrade over both.

It's why if I'm the Leafs, the guy to target now may very well be Bernier. Quick has been amazing in the playoffs and they may look at Bernier and moving a contract so they can sign Quick to an extension. That's something I'd jump on, especially if it's a player you don't see helping us, but you can bury in the minors.

sanity · Post #57 » by **sanity** » Mon May 7, 2012 11:14 pm

Schneider is still an option... perhaps even Luongo, but I think its obvious the Canucks will deal 1 of them. If I"m the Leafs, I'd deal anyone on the roster for a legit #1 goalie. Thomas I'd also like. Given the way Burke constructed this roster from the blue-line out, we need actual goaltending before we can really worry about our scoring/forwards situation.

Drake_02 · Post #58 » by **Drake_02** » Tue May 8, 2012 10:49 pm

sanity wrote:Schneider is still an option... perhaps even Luongo, but I think its obvious the Canucks will deal 1 of them. If I"m the Leafs, I'd deal anyone on the roster for a legit #1 goalie. Thomas I'd also like. Given the way Burke constructed this roster from the blue-line out, we need actual goaltending before we can really worry about our scoring/forwards situation.

Luongo has to much of a cap hit, for to long of a time, and that will handicap this team. Kind of like Komisarek, Lombardi,Connolly and Armstrong.

whysoserious · Post #59 » by **whysoserious** » Wed May 9, 2012 12:28 am

Drake_02 wrote:
sanity wrote:Schneider is still an option... perhaps even Luongo, but I think its obvious the Canucks will deal 1 of them. If I"m the Leafs, I'd deal anyone on the roster for a legit #1 goalie. Thomas I'd also like. Given the way Burke constructed this roster from the blue-line out, we need actual goaltending before we can really worry about our scoring/forwards situation.

Luongo has to much of a cap hit, for to long of a time, and that will handicap this team. Kind of like Komisarek, Lombardi,Connolly and Armstrong.

His cap hit is 5 million for what like 8-9 years? What you actually pay him at the end of that is practically nothing. The cap is doing nothing but going up year over year and we have no idea what the CBA will look like 9 years from now. There's a new CBA this summer, probably 5 years, maybe in the next one there's another amnesty.

The length is enough to knock down the value Vancouver gets in a trade but it's not significant enough that the Leafs should not be considering a move for him. He would easily be the best goalie we've had since Eddie.

Post #60 » by **CPT** » Wed May 9, 2012 1:16 pm

Drake_02 wrote:
sanity wrote:Schneider is still an option... perhaps even Luongo, but I think its obvious the Canucks will deal 1 of them. If I"m the Leafs, I'd deal anyone on the roster for a legit #1 goalie. Thomas I'd also like. Given the way Burke constructed this roster from the blue-line out, we need actual goaltending before we can really worry about our scoring/forwards situation.

Luongo has to much of a cap hit, for to long of a time, and that will handicap this team. Kind of like Komisarek, Lombardi,Connolly and Armstrong.

Except he has elite ability for his position, which none of those guys have.

He may never get back to his old form, but last year he was still in the top half of starters in GAA and SV%.

I'd take a shot at him if the price is right.