Three's a crowd

Robin Brownlee
October 22 2008 10:23AM

"I can't think of too many teams who've had better goaltending than Mathieu's given us. We're going to manage it so the No. 1 gets 50 to 60 games and the other guys will pick up the remaining games."

Pardon?

Correct me if I'm over-reacting here, but do you find this quote from Oilers coach Craig MacTavish in today's Journal as jarring as I do? Mathieu Garon could play as few as 50 games as MacTavish's starter this season? Fifty?

After two straight seasons out of the playoffs, how many potential points is MacTavish leaving on the table—how many can he afford to leave on the table—if he means what he says?

So Garon, who is 3–0 and has a .941 saves percentage as the Oilers face Chicago tonight, could be manning the gate or sitting in the press box for as many as 32 games while either Dwayne Roloson, who'll probably start against the Blackhawks, or Jeff Drouin-Deslauriers work the crease?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me—NONE, actually—unless you don't see the same drop-off from Garon to Roloson or Drouin-Deslauriers as I do. I've never seen a situation with three goaltenders work. I've never liked it. And I like it even less today if MacTavish means what he says.

Doesn't add up

The bottom line for me is that Garon gives the Oilers the best chance to win. It's as simple as that. He's MacTavish's best goaltender, and by a fair margin—unless I'm a sucker for statistics.

Garon, 30, played 47 games for the Oilers last season and would have played a minimum of 55 had he not missed 11 games with an ankle sprain. He went 26-18-1 with a 2.66 goals-against average and a saves-percentage of .913. He was 10–0 in shootouts.

Roloson, 39, did a fine job filling in at the end of the season when Garon was hurt and finished with decent numbers: he played in 43 games and went 15-17-5 with a 3.05 GAA and .901 saves percentage. Like I said, decent numbers, but not Garon's numbers.

Drouin-Deslauriers, 24, has exactly one NHL start on his resume—a 4–3 win over the Calgary Flames last Friday. He's the stopper of the future. At least the Oilers hope he is.

Gimme ten

I get it that until the Oilers can find a way to jettison Roloson and his contract, they want to reward him for being a good pro and keeping his mouth shut while Garon carries the mail.

I get it that if Drouin-Deslauriers is going to be get a crack at being number one down the road, he's got to play some this season. He can't sit on the bench or in the press box every night.

The way I see it, though, is that playing Garon in anything less than 60 games is not only under-utilizing him, but leaving points on the table. I think he could and should, if he's healthy, play as many as 70.

Garon's NHL high for appearances is 63, with Los Angeles in 2005–06, but I have no doubt whatsoever, given that he's one of the fittest players on Edmonton's roster, that he could play 70 games if asked to. Somewhere around 65 sounds about right.

As it stands, I like the projections MacTavish made today for games played even less than I like having three goaltenders around.

—Listen to Robin Brownlee every Thursday from 4 to 6pm on Just A Game with Jason Gregor on Team 1260.

Aceb4a1816f5fa09879a023b07d1a9b4
A sports writer since 1983, including stints at The Edmonton Journal and The Sun 1989-2007, I happily co-host the Jason Gregor Show on TSN 1260 twice a week and write when so inclined. Have the best damn lawn on the internet. Most important, I am Sam's dad. Follow me on Twitter at Robin_Brownlee. Or don't.
Avatar
#1 swany
October 22 2008, 10:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Agreed, play him till you see a drop off in his game until then letter roll. By the way Robin I need 3 tickets for the Dec 19 th game as close to the Oilers bench as possible, can you help me on this as trying to get tickets is impossible, I deal alot with Ron Hodgson and they used to take me and One of my boys to the skybox, needless to say they don't have one and this year was my youngest sons turn now I am scrambling for tickets.

Avatar
#2 Jason
October 22 2008, 10:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Yes, and Robin I require a case of Faberge eggs delivered to my bedside. Can you hook a guy up?

Avatar
#3 Ender
October 22 2008, 10:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Patrick Roy never played more than 68 games in a season. If Garon is a goalie who plays better with rest, give him rest. After all, there's no sense being SJ and destroying the regular season and being tanked in the playoffs.

The thing you seem to be ignoring is that if they try to play him 50 games and the backup(s) clean up the rest, they'll be fine with that. If the backup(s) don't, he'll play more. Simple as that.

Avatar
#4 swany
October 22 2008, 10:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jason, I was just asking if you guys NEW of anyone that would part with tickets. Sorry if this was not the place to ask.

Avatar
#5 Ales in Chains
October 22 2008, 10:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Swany, you only need 3 tickets? That's pretty resonable. Jarret, I only need 3 weeks with Rachel. As close to Hawaii as possible. I deal a lot with Rod Stewart, but he doesn't have that box anymore. Needless to say I'm scrambling.

Avatar
#6 iceberg
October 22 2008, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Oh this is the place to ask....I once asked for a deal on some Tim's coffee over on the TH forum and you know what...

Avatar
#7 DJ Spyn Cycle
October 22 2008, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Come on, you guys, it was an innocent if poorly-phrased question. Lay off, would you?

Avatar
#8 Jon
October 22 2008, 11:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

There's no way MacT only plays Garon 50 games. At one point last year, MacT played Garon 11 games in a row...in this stretch, Garon had 3 consecutive games where he put up sub 900 save percentage, and the Oilers allowed 4,5,and 5 goals. Roloson still did not get a game. MacTavish, if anything, is a coach that relies on his best players (at least when it comes to goaltenders) to a fault. We've seen it when Roloson was starter, and he had Jussi as a backup. We've seen it when Garon was starter, and we had Roloson as a backup. Now that we have 2 backups, you think it's going to change MacT's tendencies? I personally doubt it, I think it was just said because former starting goaltenders probably dont like hearing that at best they're going to split 20 games max with another backup.

Avatar
#9 Fiveandagame
October 22 2008, 11:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin-

You're arguing he should play 65 games and MAC T said he'll play 50 - 60.

Do the Math ROBIN. Roli will not find a home unless he can get in some games and prove to another team he is valuable. So what is that 10 games? 12 games? 15?

JDD needs the games to prove we can let go of Roli and not be committing netminder suicide and that will be what? 10-12-15 games?

By my math that leaves us between 50 and 60 games for Garon.

I agree a three goalie approach is not ideal, but what would you do Robin to remedy this right now? Give up JDD or throw Roli away?

Mac-T was spot on with his estimation because it is what is best for the hockey club.

To be arguing this is retarded, unless you have some secret solution to this three goalie quagmire that Lowe and Tambellini just haven't thought of, Mac T was right on the money.

Avatar
#10 Jonathan Willis
October 22 2008, 11:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin: Are we talking about the same Mathieu Garon who has only once ever played more than 53 games in a season? The Mathieu Garon, who despite being an elite-level junior goaltender (ask Roberto Luongo, circa 1997-98) had his backups play 26 games in his best season?

Looking at Garon's track record, it seems relatively clear that he isn't the kind of goalie who can handle a Nabokov-style workload. And even if he does, do the Oilers want him fried for when the playoffs start? Minnesota's been employing a tandem for years and it hasn't hurt them much; you could make the argument that it's in a team's best interest to have two usable goaltenders.

Avatar
#11 Jonathan Willis
October 22 2008, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

And for the record, my preferred solution is to waive JDD; if he makes the minors great, if not, no big deal, and then play Roloson 25 games as the backup.

Avatar
#12 Greg MC
October 22 2008, 11:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Words are cheap. MacT will change goalies in a heartbeat if their play drops off.

Avatar
#13 Antony Ta
October 22 2008, 11:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

If Garon gets rest interspersed with periods of game action, it means this:

a) it will remove the doubt about whether he can carry a heavy workload because he won't have to b) he will be rested come the playoffs c) evaluation time for both backups so we can decide who #2a and #2b is d) Roloson and Deslauriers are capable goalies too, Roli is a proud guy and needs to play some games before we move him or make a decision on deslauriers, who despite a so-so showing in his debut, did earn 2 points off the so-called table e) sends a challenge to Garon, while letting the backups know "this is your chance to PROVE SOMETHING!"

Plus, teams were complaining that we won too many games in shootouts last year. Garon and Gagner were the poster-children for that little scenario. By changing up our crease guard we change up the look of our team.

All goalies have different strengths and weaknesses and having a 3 goalies system isn't a problem with good goalies as opposed to questionable ones. I wouldn't say that the Markkanen-Conklin-Morrison trio was anywhere in the same ballpark as the Garon-Roloson-DesLauriers trio, 2 of which are legitimate #1 goalies and one of which is a future starter. Plus, having a 3 goalie system will at least mean good things in the NW division since we play the most games against them and they won't know what to expect.

Avatar
#14 Chaz
October 22 2008, 11:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jonthan: Waive JDD? At only a 600,000 cap hit, it seems to me he'd be picked up and we'd lose him outright. Doesn't that seem like a waste after the time they've invested in him? He's also looked pretty good his last few games, with the exception of the two 'iffies' he let in against Calgary. He's also tall and French, two very important qualities to have as a goalie. (Haha)

If he did get picked up, what would the plan be for next year? Re-sign Rollie as the backup? Free agent Signing? Fred Whitney?

Joking aside, I say keep juggling the three until JDD proves himself worthy as a backup, then try and deal Rollie. If JDD doesn't step up, then they'll have to consider other options. I don't see this as a big issue right now, and I personally think Mac T is on the right track with this.

Avatar
#15 Moony
October 22 2008, 11:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Jonathan: Why would you waive JDD and keep Roloson. If JDD gets waived he will definitely get picked up by some team at $625k per year and the Oilers will have just given away a cheap young goalie who is huge and has tons of upside. I would rather ride this situation for a few more months and hope that another team has goaltending issues that need to be addressed and then ship Roli their way.

Avatar
#16 Kent
October 22 2008, 11:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

JDD won't be picked on waivers. I have no idea why the Oilers think he will. Teams have back-ups and goalie prospects coming out of every orifice...and it's not like JDD is Carey Price or anything. Im guessing half the league hasn't even heard of the guy.

Who was the last goalie claimed on waivers? Bryzgalov?

Avatar
#17 Ender the Dragon
October 22 2008, 11:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I was thinking the same thing as Jon and Fiveandagame; for starters, MacT had to say what he did to keep Roli and JDD from showing up to the rink with a bad attitude every day. The statement 'Roli and JDD, you each get 6 games this year. I know; that's almost one a month, but I think you guys can handle the workload.' is going slightly less popular than Bertuzzi.

On a related note, I beleive the plan is probably to unload Roli at some point this season. Maybe 3 months in, Christmas break-ish? With the pace described by giving Garon 70 starts, that would leave JDD with three games to judge his NHL readiness, assuming you're using the other 2 or 3 backup starts to showcase to teams why they want to buy a 3.5 million dollar 39-yr old.

Let's be realistic. Some games are going to be required for JDD to make sure that it's even feasible to move Roli, and some more games are going to be required to allow Roli to shine so you're able to move his salary. Any way you slice it, the 50-60 games that MacT discussed is looking pretty realistic.

Avatar
#18 RobinB
October 22 2008, 11:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Fiveandgame: Do the math? To argue this is retarded? Uh, no it's not.

What's "best for the club" is making the playoffs. What makes making the playoffs most likely is playing your best goaltender as often as you can.

I'm guessing Drouin-Deslauriers will happily take an NHL pay cheque and play when he's asked at this point in his career.

Roloson, at 39, has to "prove" he can be valuable? What about Roloson as a goaltender at this point don't you understand?

And yes, MacTavish's upward number is 60 games and I said 65 sounds about right. Why am I arguing about five games?

If there's even a one-point difference between Garon and Roloson or Deslauriers -- it's fair to argue that if you want -- then you understand that's one point too many unless you haven't been paying attention to the difference between seventh or eighth place and ninth and 10th in the Western Conference in recent years.

Jonathan: Looking at Garon’s track record, it seems relatively clear that he isn’t the kind of goalie who can handle a Nabokov-style workload.

No, looking at Garon's track record, it seems relatively clear he hasn't been given the opportunity to handle a Nabokov-style workload. Granted, Garon didn't prove it as a rookie with the Canadiens, but once Jose Theodore played well, became a media darling and signed for big money, that chance was gone. He plays 63 games with a lousy LA team in 2005-06, goes 31-26-3, but sees his coach get blown out. Marc Crawford comes in and says Dan Cloutier is my guy, thanks for coming.

So, no, it doesn't seem relatively clear to me Garon can't play 65 games. It's been more a case of lack of opportunity than lack of ability.

Avatar
#19 pinto_99_19
October 22 2008, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Ottawa is the first team I can think of that needs a goalie that might be able to afford one. We might have to package a prospect with him. We could also send him down and let someone take him for half the price. 1.5 mil is not a bad price for Roli

Avatar
#20 Tyler
October 22 2008, 12:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I don't see how Roli can find anywhere else to play unless someone gets hurt. Even then, with the way he looked last year and his price tag, I think a lot of teams would look internally or look somewhere else for something cheaper before making the move for him. I don't see how it will make a difference in December or January or whatever - sure, the Oilers have paid a lot of his price by then but by then teams will have fewer games left in which they expect their backup to play. The per-game price for him, which is probably what's relevant, isn't going to move much unless someone desperately needs a starter and thinks that he's the guy.

Otherwise, I completely agree with Robin. I'm queasy at the thought of giving Deslauriers games over Roloson. If the Oilers are really a bottom end WC contender (and I don't think that they are really; I figure they end up 5-8 points out of the playoffs), they're foolish to be giving games to a guy who hasn't shown he's NHL quality over a guy's who's probably still a decent backup in Roloson.

I don't get where JDD's tons of upside comes from either. I don't know of too many goalies at his age who come out of the AHL with his record and suddenly become the kind of guy who you'd kick yourself for letting slip away.

Avatar
#21 Watch TV - not Live Blogs
October 22 2008, 12:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

MacT is obviously on crack.

Avatar
#22 Ender the Dragon
October 22 2008, 12:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

It comes down to this; the Oilers asked themselves where they were going to come up with their goalie-for-the-future. They could have decided to trade for one or buy a free agent when the time came, but I surmise they instead decided to grow their own and bring one up through their system. Whether you or I agree with that or not is irrelevant; that probably was THE PLAN and if it had some flaws, it also brought some benefits.

At the start of this season, the Oilers finally decided to tie the knot and commit to THE PLAN, to the tune of $600,000. In their minds, JDD was their guy for the future. That brings us to today. The only way JDD goes on waivers now is if someone admits they may have made a $0.6M mistake. That's kind of a bad day at work for most of us. So if JDD doesn't go on waivers and we're sticking with THE PLAN, then he needs to play.

Roli is an inconvenience at this point (sorry, Roli, I love what you've done for us but your character has been killed off in episode three of THE PLAN) and in order to move him out of Edmonton at minimum cost to the organization, he's going to need to play some games. This was all covered in THE PLAN.

Let's be clear here; THE PLAN probably isn't perfect, and the people who drafted it (Kay-z? KLowe? Tambo?) knew it wasn't without risk. But it was the best they could come up with and they're not going to abandon it until it clearly isn't viable anymore. THE PLAN is what it is, so let's not argue about why we should be doing something else until we understand how it changes the machanics of everything else that management is trying to achieve in the backgraound.

Avatar
#23 Dave
October 22 2008, 12:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Well, based on MacT's track record with goalies I actually don't mind his new approach. He's played many goalies over the years into the ground, including Garon last year. If you recall, Salo would always fatigue on us in the playoffs.

As well, I think management would be eager to get JDD into as many games as possible because, lets face it, there's a chance he might be the STARTER next year if we can't get Garon a contract extension.

Avatar
#24 jdrevenge
October 22 2008, 12:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I think Mac might be playing the politics of the situation a little. Garon will play as much as he can given that he's successful. This has been Mac's track record with players and I don't see why that would stop this year. I think he's trying to appease Roli and get JDD some games but when it comes down to crunch time I'm sure that Garon will get the starts over the other two even if he's played fifty with 15 to go.

Avatar
#25 Fiveandagame
October 22 2008, 01:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin-

Yes Roli has to PROVE he is valuable at this stage in his career and that can be dependable for a team looking for a strong back up heading into the playoffs.

AND JDD needs games to PROVE he can play in the NHL.

So Robin what would you do then? Put JDD on waivers? Send Roli off for a 6th round pick?

"If there’s even a one-point difference between Garon and Roloson or Deslauriers — it’s fair to argue that if you want — then you understand that’s one point too many unless you haven’t been paying attention to the difference between seventh or eighth place and ninth and 10th in the Western Conference in recent years."

I agree with you here and I think had the Oilers played Garon earlier instead of waiting for Roli to get out of his early slump we would have won two more games and made the playoffs.

BUT

If the Oilers are trying to squeak in to the playoffs this year with one point? Goaltending will be the least of our teams worries. If we can't win with JDD or Roli in net we need to know that early and that means getting them games. and not just once a month giving them 6 each. They need to see pucks on a more regular basis.

Mac-T spot on

Brownlee off his rocker

Avatar
#26 Jonathan Willis
October 22 2008, 01:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I like Deslauriers. I really do. I think he has an NHL career ahead of him. Here's the rub: I think he's going to be a backup for a long-time, eventually a 1B or maybe a 1A. Either way, we're talking a few years down the road, and we aren't talking anything irreplaceable. I don't think it's worth jeopardizing a playoff spot to develop JDD.

I think Roloson is a perfect backup at this juncture; he's probably about NHL-average, he seems professional and willing to keep his mouth shut, and if anyone's anxious about putting all the eggs in the Garon basket (btw, I'm just a little worried about rolling the dice like that), he gives the team some positive redundancy.

That said, Ender's comment above pretty much explains the situation: Garon's #1, JDD will be developed in the NHL, and Dubnyk will develop in the AHL. That's just the way it's going to be.

Avatar
#27 Doogie2K
October 22 2008, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

What makes making the playoffs most likely is playing your best goaltender as often as you can.

No, what makes making the playoffs most likely is playing your best goaltender as often as he's comfortable with. Ender pointed to SJ, and I'll point to NJ, as teams that have had poor playoff performances in recent years after playing their starter 70+ games per year. If Garon can only handle 55 starts per year, then only give him 55.

Avatar
#28 RobinB
October 22 2008, 02:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Fiveandagame: The last line reinforces what I suspected about you, given your comment history here.

Right. The premise of my post is so bizarre, so out there, so without any merit whatsoever, I must be off my rocker.

Don't waste my time pretending to be interested in debate when your bottom line is really about taking shots at me and pissing me off.

Avatar
#29 RobinB
October 22 2008, 02:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Doogie 2K: You're right. By as often as you can I meant, essentially, what you're saying. Play Garon for as many games as he's sharp and healthy without using him up and burning him out.

I asked Mathieu last season about the 63 games he played in Los Angeles in terms of how much of an adjustment it was after never playing more than 53 as a pro. He said at that time he felt fine, was comfortable with it and it wasn't an issue in terms of fatigue.

I haven't asked him about it since then, but I might re-visit it to see if he sees a ceiling in terms of number of games he feels he can play.

Avatar
#30 Antony Ta
October 22 2008, 03:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin: I think Garon probably gave you a safe answer, the "I'll do what the coach tells me to do" answer that MacIntyre was also giving earlier today.

In truth, every goalie loves to play. But you don't want to pull a Maxime Oullette and have him worn out for when the games really, really matter.

And say, theoretically, Garon needs to take some time off or gets injured in the playoffs (knock on wood). Wouldn't you want a decisive idea about who would take over the reigns at that junction? I know I would.

That would require evaluation of both "backup" goalies, though Roloson is really more of a 1b playing a backup role of 2a.

Avatar
#31 RobinB
October 22 2008, 03:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Anthony: I don't think Garon was giving me a safe answer, as players often do, because the conversation took place in the first month of last season before he'd even taken the starting job from Roloson. We were basically just shooting the breeze -- it wasn't an interview.

I'm just taking MacTavish at face value for what he said and what he said was 50-60 games. I see 50 as too low. I think it should be based on how Garon handles the workload and performs. Ride him as long as he's sharp and isn't showing signs of wearing down. You don't have to take Garon's word for it -- his performance will dictate.

If the Oilers had lots of margin to work with in the sense that they could maybe give up some points because they saw it in their long-term interest to get Drouin-Deslauriers as many games as possible as soon as possible, I might feel differently. But they aren't a 105-point team with that luxury.

Avatar
#32 DJ Spyn Cycle
October 22 2008, 03:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Fiveandagame: There are better ways to get your point across than acting like a jack-hole and resorting to petty cheap shots to a guy you don't even know. Stow that shit or I'll delete all your subsequent comments.

It's fairly telling that all the other commenters engaged in real debate, and you just acted the fool. Pull your head out of your ass.

And this goes for everyone: we don't take kindly to trolls around here. You're welcome to disagree 'til your head explodes but keep it constructive or don't bother coming back.

Avatar
#33 Rick
October 22 2008, 03:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Is it possible that MacT was picturing his team as being comfortably in the top 8 all year when he was thinking through his plan?

If you look at it from that perspective then having Garon only play 50-60 games heading into the playoffs is a decent plan.

You look at guys like Kipper that get rode hard down the stretch and then look burnt out when the post season starts.

Obviously the perspective changes if the Oilers are trying to climb their way into the playoffs down the stretch like they normally find themselves but it isn't like MacT hasn't shown the willingness to change strategy's part way through if he feels it will give him a better chance. Rollie giving way to Garon as the #1 last year being a decent example.

Avatar
#34 RobinB
October 22 2008, 03:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Rick: Good points.

While Garon played just 47 games last season, he could've easily hit the 60-game mark for the second time in three years. Based on performance, he deserved more games in the first half of the season, but MacT gave Roloson every chance -- too many, in my opinion -- to hold on to the No. 1 job even though Garon was clearly better. Then, Garon was knocked out of commission by the ankle sprain in the last 11 games.

I'm not saying Garon is 70-plus game guy, because that's a rare bird, but he's darn sure more than a 50-game guy. Again, let performance dictate.

Avatar
#35 swany
October 22 2008, 04:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

If they keep his work load down, but he still has great results could this keep his upcomming contract down? 50 game guy= 3.5-4 mil as compared to 70 game guy 5.5-6 mil a year

Avatar
#36 Antony Ta
October 22 2008, 04:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Performance in the regular season doesn't indicate "burnouts" in the playoffs. Happens every year. Not playing enough doesn't prove that you'll be ready, either.

Roloson rarely played and he was great in 2005-06. Same with Cam Ward. Tommy Salo played a heckload of games with amazing stats for a mid-range team from 99-02 but that translated into little or no playoff success.

Perforance dicates whether a goalie should play, yes, because he would have earned it. I also think Garon could play 60 games or more, and it would be great for me since he's in my pool. :-D

But the thing is, if MacT has decided it's better for the team to get Garon 50-60 games instead of 60+ there must be a valid reason, as suggested:

a) involving the other 2 goalies (and considerations regarding whether Roloson is being eyeballed by other teams' scouts) b) involving Garon's workload and ability or inability to handle it (and the implications on whether this translates to playoff success or lack thereof)

Again, Tommy Salo did play 73 of 82 games in 2000-01. Should he have? Garon can play 60+ games in 2008-09, but she he do it?

Avatar
#37 Antony Ta
October 22 2008, 04:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

TYPO ALERT:

for some reason "should he do it" turned into "she he do it?"

Apologies.

Avatar
#38 Mark-Ryan
October 22 2008, 05:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Mountain out of a molehill. If MacTavish gets capable goaltending from Delauriers and/or Roloson, he'll likely give them games. I see no problem with it if it benefits the team.

If he doesn't, he'll ride Garon. He's the type to go with the hot hand.

Avatar
#39 RobinB
October 22 2008, 09:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Mark-Ryan: Mountain out of a molehill my eye. If MacT wanted to go with the hot hand tonight against Chicago, I'd think 3-0 with a .941 saves-percentage would qualify. I'm not sure Garon wins that game, either, given the Oilers feeble effort offensively, but this "need" to play Roloson or Drouin-Deslauriers, particularly this early in the season when fatigue isn't a factor, doesn't wash with me.

Avatar
#40 jdrevenge
October 23 2008, 08:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin: The flip side of that is hes posturing for later in the year. Preventative measures so that Garon isn't tired.

I really don't think the Oilers will be able to afford to only play Garon 50 games this year and we'll see that down the stretch. Mac's been afforded the luxury that the club won the first four so he can say whatever he wants. Now that we've lost one with Roli in nets maybe his tune changes. You're right, Garon is the goalie and he should get hte majority of games. No feeling out process this year.

The Gm meetings are this weekend right? Maybe they'll flip Roli back to Minny for Gabs......please?!

Avatar
#41 RobinB
October 23 2008, 10:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

jd: roli and ..... Cogliano and .....Penner?

Avatar
#42 Ender the Dragon
October 23 2008, 10:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

outKast Says: October 21st, 2008 at 9:44 pm ST PAUL, MN - Marian Gaborik’s days as a member of the Minnesota Wild could be ending sooner rather than later.

An unnamed NHL team executive told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune this week that Wild general manager Doug Risebrough has been actively shopping the star forward around the league and offered Gaborik to his team in a trade over the weekend.

According to the paper, the executive said he was not interested. “When you have guys like Erik Cole and Dustin Penner, you really don’t have a need for a 40 goal speedster anymore.”

Gaborik, who has a history of abdominal and leg injuries, has missed the past two games because of a lower body injury. The executive responded, “Oh, we have a lot of experience with injuries. But yeah, stop asking. We’re not interested. We have Penner.”

The young forward, who makes $7.5 million this season, could be tough to move this early in the campaign. “I mean, if they really insist, perhaps we could trade them Penner, Roloson, Schremp, Chorney, 1st round pick, but i i’m just throwing it out there. We’re still completely uninterested.”

Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Ender the Dragon Says: outKast, don't be a screw-up. If you're going to quote a legitimate news story, then quote it; don't stick in your own comments and make it look like it's something that it's not.

If you want to add additional comments afterward, please feel free to do so, but have the decency to identify your own thoughts.

Avatar
#43 RobinB
October 23 2008, 11:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

outkast: What kind of BS is this? You edit a news report and add made-up quotes?

What, exactly, was the point?

Avatar
#44 Fiveandagame
October 24 2008, 12:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Robin-

I apologize if my comment in any way was viewed as anything more than playful poking (as it was intended)

A troll I am not and nor do I condone troll like activities.

In future I will leave the sarcasm and tomfoolery for Wayne's posts.

back to the topic of your blog.

The three goalie situation is not good. But each goalie has to get some games. If a goalie is to be moved either to the minors or to another team they'll need games.

I think you'll see a larger portion of games divided between JDD and Roli early in the year so that Lowe and company can make a decision sooner rather than later as to the fates of both Roli, JDD and even Garon who is in a contract year.

Avatar
#45 Esperanza Fulton
January 09 2009, 01:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

hi 838l6gjwe78wvguk good luck

Comments are closed for this article.