Still doesn’t address that Cam Ward has better credentials vs. Giguere by the same criteria you use to justify Giguere over Fleury.

Posted by steve on 12/27/09 at 02:45 PM ET

Cam Ward does not have better credentials.  He has a .896 saves percentage so far this season.  That is worse than Giguere (who is admittedly not at the top of his game so far).  That is worse than Ward’s teammate Manny Legace.  Ward has played himself out of a potential Team Canada spot this year.

Ward may have a Conn Smythe, but he was poor choice.  He was given the Smythe because he was the winning goalie.  When in doubt, that is often the way voters turn.  Ward had a .915 saves percentage in the playoffs, which is solid but hardly impressive.  Giguere beat it in both his finals runs (and significantly in 2003). 

Ward’s best career saves percentage was the .916 he put up last year.  JS Giguere has beaten that four times in his career.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 02:58 PM ET

You make sense with most of your arguments, but the fact is Giggy has not been clutch this year when it’s mattered. He’s not standing on his head in overtime for the Ducks, which is when goalies need to shine.

Yzerman isn’t going to pick a goalie that he hopes finds his rhythm by the time the tourney rolls around; he’s going to go with someone that made some huge saves in clinching the Cup last year, and has played decently this year.

But as you wrote, barring a disastrous series of injuries, the third-stringer isn’t going to see a minutes’ playing time, so it’s a relatively moot point.

Posted by shazam88 from SoCal on 12/27/09 at 03:08 PM ET

Sorry, you can’t argue that Fleury’s better numbers this year can be thrown out because his team’s better than Giguere’s then disqualify Ward because his numbers are worse on a still weaker team.

Similarly, you can’t point to two of Giguere’s playoff save percentages as better than anything Ward has done without acknowledging that the numbers in his other two post-seasons are far, far, far worse than anything Ward ever posted.

Nor can you note that Ward’s numbers aren’t as good as Legace’s and ignore that Giguere’s are worse than Hiller’s.

I also fail to see what linking to an old post of yours from 2006 that states Cam Ward shouldn’t be a conn smythe candidate and admitting you can’t really make that case (while commentor after commentor questions your sanity) is supposed to prove.

All of this, plus Ward’s proven track record in international competition (Giguere’s numbers outside the NHL are not good, to put it gently).

Sorry, the ‘justifications’ you provided for picking Giguere over Fleury lead inexorably to the conclusion that you should pick Ward over Giguere.

Posted by steve on 12/27/09 at 04:23 PM ET

Wow. What a piece of garbage article. Anaheim’s so-so goaltender should be the third goalie over Fleury, who’s second in wins and is coming off a Stanley Cup? Probably the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long, long time.

Also, your numbers are misleading. Fleury has started twice the number of games as Gigeure. I can’t fathom the stupidity of this article.

Posted by cs6687 on 12/27/09 at 05:23 PM ET

I just don’t see that one happening.  Giguere has been unpredictable over the last couple of years since his father died.  Not gonna happen.

Posted by Hippy Dave from Portland by way of Detroit on 12/27/09 at 05:34 PM ET

You are a total idiot.  JS Giguere?  Come on, really? 

The #3 goalie should be down to only two people: Fleury and Ward.  Fleury and Ward are well above the rest of the competition. 

Just because Fleury’s statistics in save percentage and GAA may not be what you consider to be up to par, if you’ve ever watched the teams with these goaltenders in contention, you’d see that the way the Devils play they limit the high percentage scoring chances against Brodeur.  If you see the way the Pens play, you often see Fleury making several big saves a game because his team is playing an attacking style game compared to a counter-attacking style played by the Devils.

You lost any credibility when mentioning Giguere.  Maybe 2 or 3 years ago.  You would’ve had more credibility if you said Osgood.

Posted by TSN from Toronto on 12/27/09 at 05:44 PM ET

I can’t believe I just wasted my time and read the majority of that crap heap. The same arguments he uses for Giguere he uses against Fleury. Specifically taking his team to a cup finals (7 years ago mind you) and backstopping his team to a championship (3 years ago mind you) and let’s not kid ourselves that 07 Ducks team was a monster of a team. Especially with a yet to decline in a major way Niedermayer and Pronger on the back-end.

Whoever wrote this article obviously hasn’t taken any journalism, debate, nor English classes in his lifetime. If they had it wouldn’t be filled with conflicting evidence used to argue for at one point and against at another. That’s not even mentioning the arbitrary argument of goalies who are comparable to Broduer, Luongo, and Fleury. Just a terrible article.

Posted by Pavel Bure from The Frozen North on 12/27/09 at 05:58 PM ET

One forgotten point is the fact that a goalie like Fleury must be given big tournament experience for Canada’s future.

Brodeur will not be around for any more major international tournaments and Giguere at 32 will hardly figure into Canada’s future goaltending roles. A young goalie like Fleury must be groomed to assume that role in the coming years.

It doesn’t matter if Giguere is the better goalie now (which, quite frankly, I don’t think he is) as there is a bigger picture to consider. What happens in Russia 2014 if Luongo can’t go? We take 36 year-old Giguere as the starter?

Good luck with that.

No, Yzerman et all have a much larger landscape to consider than what is discussed here. They’ll make the correct decision and take Fleury along for the ride.

Posted by Downtown on 12/27/09 at 06:20 PM ET

Fleury isnt the goalie of the future.  Bringing him along to sit on the bench and assume it somehow makes him the goalie of the future is pretty pointless.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 06:23 PM ET

I deleted a post by mistake from ME.  Here his post and sorry for deleting it. 

Why don’t you just go away Puckstopshere. You make bloggers look bad. No offense to you Paul, your great along with some others the post here, but PuckStopsHere is terrible

PSH is entitled to his opinion folks.  Debate with him if you don’t agree with what he writes.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/27/09 at 06:24 PM ET

This is the worst argument I think I’ve ever read on and probably the one that makes the least sense.  Sooo lets pick a goalie who really isnt even the Number 1 on his team and hasn’t been the last year or so because Fleury would just be waste to just be sitting out the whole time.

It’s not even a lock that he wont be the 3rd goalie of the group, Team Canada may view him as the backup, as he has been more battle tested the last couple years in playoff runs.

Clearly you actually dont watch hockey and just look at stats, in the most pressure packed games during the playoffs Fleury stood on his head and was the difference in the Penguins winning the cup, not just being fortunate to be playing there.

The only real blip on Fleury is that WJC game against the USA a few years back other then that he has shown nothing but to be a top performer.

Save percentage sure can tell most of the story, but it doesnt show the quality of the shots or chances he’s seeing, a big reason to watch the games and not watch the boxscores and not make terrible arguments like this.

Posted by mike on 12/27/09 at 06:38 PM ET

No? Then who is?

I’m sorry to say as it obviously wounds your pride to be mistaken, but Fleury almost certainly will figure in the future goaltending plans of Team Canada, even if it’s not a starting position.

Giguere, on the other hand, will not. End of story.

Posted by Downtown on 12/27/09 at 06:50 PM ET

By the way, I did not suggest Fleury would be a goalie of the future simply by being the third keeper on this team. That’s simply a conclusion arrived at by faulty logic.

Posted by Downtown on 12/27/09 at 06:53 PM ET

I agree with the commenters in discrediting PSH’s argument.  My biggest issue with PSH’s argument is this comment he made:

“Fleury isnt the goalie of the future.  Bringing him along to sit on the bench and assume it somehow makes him the goalie of the future is pretty pointless.”

Why do you not believe he is the goalie of Canada’s future… He has the pedigree being a 1st overall pick, played for Canada in the WJC, has been to two cups and won 1.  All of that and he is only 25 years old.  Who else would you suggest is the goalie of Canada’s future…and don’t even try to suggest Jesus Price.

Also, bringing him along is not pointless by any means.  Being part of Team Canada, being in the locker room, working with coaches and personnel is all invaluable to the netminder.  Seeing how veterans Brodeur and Luongo prepare for the games is invaluable.

I really can’t even see how your argument used any logic.

Posted by Macworthy on 12/27/09 at 08:11 PM ET

I’m sorry to say as it obviously wounds your pride to be mistaken, but Fleury almost certainly will figure in the future goaltending plans of Team Canada, even if it’s not a starting position.

This comment aligns completely with a discussion had on another blog last week.  The humble, respectful, and correct response would be along the lines of ....“Good point.  While I believe that Ward, Price, and Luongo may be Canada’s best goalies in 4 years, Fluery will likely be in the mix also, and will benefit from the experience”.

This is another case of PSH having an answer, then trying to find evidence to support his claim. I don’t want to be a hater, but to dismiss Fleury the way you do calls your motives into question.

Posted by dip on 12/27/09 at 08:56 PM ET

I have no idea who will be Canada’s goalie of the future.  There is no clear contender.  Lots of things can happen in four years.  It is unlikely to be Fleury.  He is a mid-level starter who has never had a serious run at the Vezina Trophy and has become the likely third pick due to his good team and a lack of a legitimate option.  Do you really think that he is close to 50% likely to be on the team in 2014 (should NHL teams go to the Olympics)?  Luongo is still in the mix.  Price, Ward, Mason are all candidates.  People we never really considered are also candidates.  For example in 2006, nobody was picking Tim Thomas and Ryan Miller as the US goalies of the future.  They didn’t even put them on the team.  I don’t see any way how that hurt their development.

The idea that an NHL player who has won the Stanley Cup (and made two finals appearances) needs to sit on the bench and not play in the Olympics to develop is laughable.  Fleury has been in a big game situation.  He didn’t steal the show, but he performed OK.  Sitting on the bench isn’t going to teach him much.

It is a very poor argument that you pick a player as goalie of the future (when most likely he won’t be on the team in four years), so that is why he should make the team to ride the bench.  Riding the bench does nothing for him and he isn’t likely the goalie of the future anyway.  Pick the best guy available,  If you think its Fleury then pick him.  If you don’t think its Fleury pick another guy.

Worst thing is to keep picking a guy who never deserved his spot - but gained experience as the player of the future.  It got Eric Brewer into two Olympiads and he hasn’t turned out to be a NHL All Star - let alone a candidate for this year’s team.

You pick for today and do not delude yourself that a veteran NHL player needs the experience of sitting on the bench for the future - especially when it is quite likely he isn’t the man of the future in the first place.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 09:25 PM ET

are you serious?  come the heck on.  “fleury is not the goalie of the future, luongo, price ward and mason are all candidates.”

i thought that post about the Habs ducking the call up rule was nuts, but this one takes the cake.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/27/09 at 09:31 PM ET

Do you really think that he is close to 50% likely to be on the team in 2014 (should NHL teams go to the Olympics)?

yes.  50%?  yes.  very much so.  MAF is more than 50% likely to be on the 2014 team.  he’s 24 for crying out loud.  24. 

i’ve read this post and thread twice and can’t see what your criteria is for fleury not being good is.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/27/09 at 09:36 PM ET

In 2014 if NHLers go to the Olympics, Fleury _COULD_ be on the team.  That said he isn’t the goalie of the future.  If I had to guess, I would pick Luongo as the starter in 2014.

Any number of candidates also exist.  Fleury is one.  Prince, Mason, Ward are examples of candidates with approximately equal shots.  It is quite likely some other candidates we haven’t seriously considered will emerge.

One thing is certain.  Should Fleury be the number one goalie and should he be playing about as well as he is now, at least five other teams should be starting better goalies than Canada is.  So caling him the goalie of the future is downright wrong.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 09:37 PM ET

Boo

Simply put, Fleury isn’t that good because he is not and has never been a serious Vezina candidate.  A top goalie on a top team in the Olympics has to be on that level and Fleury isn’t.  Fleury received a whopping zero votes in the 2009 Vezina race.  That’s not the typical resume for a goalie who is elite.  If he isn’t elite, he isn’t on the level of Canadian Olympic goalies of the past.

For the record Fleury is 25 and not 24 as you claim.  Though that changes little.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 09:41 PM ET

ya sorry i got his age wrong, my brain was fried from reading this.

just for reference, how many votes did mason get?

since you’re basing MAF’s inferiority on vezina votes, from last year, i’l be interested to see how his vezina votes from 2008 play into the 2014 team, and also how many votes he gets this year, in 2011, 2012, and 2013 when he’ll be less than 30 years old. 

which is why he should be on the team this year, even if he’s barely getting the nod over price, and ward. 

NOT JS FRIGGIN GIGUERE who will be in a retirement home in 2014 and even on fleury’s worst day he’s as good as if not better than him. 

if you said Cam Ward instead of Jiggy, I probably would say, not this year, but ok.  but JS Giguere.  wow.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/27/09 at 09:52 PM ET

Have you forgotten about Jose Theodore? He won the league MVP. That trumps even Brodeur and Luongo. He should be the number 1 in Vancouver.
Is the Vezina vote really your primary justification? Mason had 1 good year . Does he deserve that much credit? Price is the Tony Romo of the NHL…just being the Habs young goalie is all the credentials he needs.
On any team of mine, I want winners first and foremost. So far, Fleury meets that criteria.

Posted by Dip on 12/27/09 at 09:58 PM ET

OK Dip.  If you like Theodore so much defend why you want him on the Olympic Team.  If you had watched him play lately, you might have noticed he is far below the level where he was when he won the Hart Trophy and there is little reason to expect he might come back to that level.

In the Giguere case, I think it is quite likely he will return to his past level, as he has been playing at it much more recently than Theodore has.

I like the best possible players.  Often they play on winning teams and sometimes they do not.  I do not see Fleury as the best possible player.  I see him as an average NHL starter (and his recent saves percentages back that up) who is a winner largely due to the team he plays upon.

But in the end, it was you who put forth the name Jose Theodore.  Defend his selection.  How can you watch hockey in the past five years and think he is a top NHL goalie anymore?

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 10:04 PM ET

first of all, Fleury does his fair share of stealing games for the pens including a handful in their last two playoff runs. 

second of all, you could say that “he’s good because he plays on a good team” about any goaltender on any team ever.  including brodeur.  when he was at peak form, those NJ teams had the league on lockdown.  roy played for a sick colorado team with a bunch of future HOF’ers.  so that argument is about as lazy and baseless as anything you’ve ever written.  this includes Jiggy.

id also like that because YOU “THINK” that Jiggy will return to form is not a good argument since you have zero ways to back that one up. 

also, dip is wondering why, based one your criteria, as to why you failed to include JT.  might be putting words in his mouth but, im wondering why you didnt either since awards seem to be your criteria for olympic goalies. 

do you realize that you’re saying JT isnt playing at the same level he was 5 years ago and cant return to that level, but that is also why you’re saying Jiggy should get the call?  because he was good a few years ago and might return to his former level? 

when will you learn to argue?  if you’re in high school i’ll let you slide.  which you might be.  no fault of your own.  just say you are and we’ll, or atleast i will back off.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/27/09 at 10:20 PM ET

On any team of mine, I want winners first and foremost. So far, Fleury meets that criteria.

Posted by Dip on 12/27/09 at 09:58 PM ET

Sorry Dude.  but I think your argument is shot already.  Hasn’t Gigeure played in more playoff games than almost anybody since the lockout?  He’s won as many cups as Fleury and has a Conn Smythe to boot.  I’d call him a winner if you ask me.  Just having a bad year.  He can really kill you in the playoffs and the Olympics is like a short playoffs.

The big question is if Brodeur and Luongo weren’t able to play, would you seriously not even consider Giguere on your list?  That would be ridiculous.

I’d honestly take either one of them…especially as a third string.  While I can’t stand Giguere (only because I’m a Sharks fan), he’s been bashed like crazy on here.  Sounds familiar… like Fleury getting bashed on blogs a couple years ago for his play.  If Luongo and Brodeur are both healthy, Giguere or Fleury would be a third string and these arguments for who should sit on the bench in the Olympics are blown way out of proportion.

Way to stir the pot, PSH.  keep it coming

Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 12/27/09 at 11:06 PM ET

Mason finished ahead of Luongo in Vezina voting last year, and Giguere got none.

Giguere had only 1 second and 8 third place votes in ‘08.  Huet even got some votes that year.

In ‘07, Giguere got all of 2 third place votes.

Vezina voting is a worthless credential to cite, and it shows your argument as nothing more than either (i) Fleury hate, or (ii) running your mouth in order to stir up sh*t.  Or both.

The guy won the Cup, and looked great doing so.  He’s a winner in big games.  Case closed.

Posted by docciavelli from baltimore on 12/27/09 at 11:10 PM ET

Vezina voting is not at all a perfect metric to find top goalies, but when your alleged top goalie cannot get any votes, it shows he isn’t as goodf as you think he is.

<i>The guy won the Cup, and looked great doing so.<i>

Pittsburgh won the cup and Fleury posted the worst playoff saves percentage of any cup winning goalie since the lockout.  That is not the clear case you think it is.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 11:14 PM ET

Sarcasm.  Its a wonderful thing.  Did you really think I was advocating for Theodore to even make the team, let alone be #1?  If so, that doesn’t speak well for your perceptibility.
Save percentage does not singularly substantiate goaltending ability.  It does not take into account quality. Statistics in a sport like hockey don’t tell the whole story.  Sure, they’re fun to recite, and for some they are the only way they can comprehend and categorize.  But to categorically state that a .920 save percentage means a goalie is better and more valuable to a team than one with a .912 save percentage is incorrect and does not take into account a whole bunch of other variables.
Funny thing is, I don’t know if MAF should or shouldn’t be the 3rd goalie.  I think his recent body of work and success supports his inclusion in the discussion. I also think his age, success, athleticism and ability for extended concentration indicate his potential and lead to a high probability that he will be one of the premier goalies in 4 years. Certainly you would agree that the probability is greater with him than with some unknown junior goalie.  What’s comical to me is that you would make what you know is a controversial statement, then act like every differing opinion is ill informed or downright wrong.  You state that MAF is not the goalie of the future with the most complete confidence, as though you are some goaltending idiot savant.  How are you so sure of this?  Could you…..possibly…...be wrong?

Posted by dip on 12/27/09 at 11:26 PM ET

while i completely buy into sabremetrics in baseball, i really don’t think goalies stats are impressive in anything other than award races.  which are in and of themselves useless in almost every sport in terms of winning. 

fleury’s save percentages tell nothing of his key saves.  same for any goalie.  its not quite the same.  while a high save percentage over the course of the season means nothing if you can’t make the one save in a 1-0 game.  or in an 8-7 game.

/hockey stats bashing

this is why you think JS Giguere should be the 3rd goalie:

JS Giguere won some crap a few years ago and might be able to play at that level again if he is the 3rd goalie on team canada.

think about this for a minute.

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/27/09 at 11:36 PM ET

On any team of mine, I want winners first and foremost. So far, Fleury meets that criteria.

Posted by Dip on 12/27/09 at 09:58 PM ET

Sorry Dude.  but I think your argument is shot already.  Hasn’t Gigeure played in more playoff games than almost anybody since the lockout?  He’s won as many cups as Fleury and has a Conn Smythe to boot.  I’d call him a winner if you ask me.  Just having a bad year.  He can really kill you in the playoffs and the Olympics is like a short playoffs.
Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 12/27/09 at 11:06 PM ET

Don’t confuse me arguing that MAF deserves to be included in the debate with me stating that JSG isn’t a winner.  He has been clutch in the past, though most would argue that he has not been up to his own standards recently, and that has to be taken into account.  My statement was aimed more at PSH’s apparent distain for MAF, and his endless recounting of statistics over wins, of which he has 31 of in the past two playoff years.

Posted by dip on 12/27/09 at 11:43 PM ET

Your argument is completely inane and reeks of a person who only reads the stat pages and doesn’t factor in a single additional criteria.  You harp on the Vezina vote and save percentage from the playoff run for the Pens last year.  Did you watch any of those games?  Do you watch Pens games on a regular basis?  From your arguments above I would have to say no and no.

First off, as to the Vezina voting, it is an almost completely stat driven award.  Save %, GAA, and shutouts = Vezina votes pure and simple.  I’m not saying that is a bad thing by any means, but it is also a ridiculous gauge of a goaltenders worth and ability.  If Team A plays the trap, limits shots, and has strong special teams, their goaltender is going to sport pretty gaudy numbers.  Team B plays an offensive game, is susceptible to odd man rushes, and has middling to bottom of the league special teams, their goaltender’s stats are going to suffer.  Is goaltender A better than goaltender B?  Not necessarily. 

The Pens play this attacking style of game, give up odd man rushes, and their special teams are middling at best.  Are MAF’s numbers sparkling?  No.  Does he play at an elite level, rack up wins, and keep his team in games most nights?  Yes. 
Watch some Pens games and don’t use the boxscore as gospel and this would be clear.

I’m shouldn’t have to mention that the Pens played the Flyers (Biron), Caps (Varlamov), Canes (Ward), and Red Wings (Osgood) in their playoff run last year.  All of them being at the top or near the top in the league in scoring last year.  MAF beat all of them.  Not to mention beating Emery, Lundqvist, and Biron 2 years ago while singlehandedly sending the finals to a 6th game against the Red Wings that year.

I’m not bashing Giguere, but to say he’s even in the conversation ahead of Fleury is ludicrous.  Saying Fleury might not be in Canada’s plans for 2014 in favor of Price (what has he done besides wear a Habs sweater?) and Mason (One good year and never seen the playoffs) is laughable.  Could things change?  Of course, but to even hint he won’t be in the running or should be left off of this team is absurd.

If you respond, please cite something besides Vezina votes which is asinine or his
save percentage last year in the playoffs which is like saying a Super Bowl winning QB is terrible because he threw 2 picks against a top defense.

Posted by disturbtheworld from Erie, PA on 12/27/09 at 11:52 PM ET

Dip

Your Jose Theodore argument was an idiotic attempt at a strawman and thus a pretty poor attempt to argue anything.

Boo Kershaw

Giguere has accomplished much more than Fleury ever has.  He has a solid explanation for recent troubles and yet has had a saves percentage around the level of Fleury’s most of the season, while facing higher quality shots.  I am confident Giguere is a better goalie than Fleury.  That is why I make the selection that I do.  The fact that it comes down to a choice between an average goalie on a strong team or a stronger goalie who has had recent struggles shows that Canada is weak in its third goalie position (not that it matters much as it is highly unlikely no third goalie plays at all).

I am confidently telling you that Fleury is not Canada’s goalie of the future because that is a safe bet.  Assuming NHLers play in the 2014 Olympics, the only goalie I would give anything near a 50% chance of being part of the team is Roberto Luongo (who is well above 50% likely to be there).  Fleury may be there, but it is a far better bet that he will not.  If a player is not likely to make future teams, it is pretty opbvious that he is a ridiculous choice for the goalie of the future.  It is wishful thinking that Fleury is the goalie of the future and that sitting on a bench will sopmehow cement him into that position.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/27/09 at 11:59 PM ET

Oh, so you were too smart to pick up on the saracasm then, huh? You really are an ass.

Posted by dip on 12/28/09 at 12:03 AM ET

And don’t bother pointing out my typo.  You’re better than that.

Posted by dip on 12/28/09 at 12:03 AM ET

Kukla,

I’m surprised you even let this kind of blogging go on at your site.  I really used to enjoy coming to your site and thought a lot of the writers were pretty good.  This just destroys your site’s credibility and makes it look amateurish.

I’d be surprised if any of the GMs in the NHL felt the way PSH feels about Fleury.  The guy kept them in Game 5 in 2008 single handedly with over 60 saves I believe, many of them being amazing.  He also won Game 6 and Game 7 in 2009 in a SCF 2-1 over the reigning champs, including making “The Save” at the end of Game 7.

To see PSH write such rubbish about Fleury, not giving him any credit, and blindly suggesting Giguere and others are a better selection for Canada at this point is borderline insanity.

I’m sorry Kukla but this looks really poor on your site.  You really should have some quality control set in place for this kind of stuff.  This is something I wouldn’t even expect to see on HockeyBuzz.

Posted by TSN from Toronto on 12/28/09 at 12:20 AM ET

so who is the goalie of the future?

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/28/09 at 01:08 AM ET

so who is the goalie of the future?

There is no clear obvious answer to that question. 

I think the best answer is I don’t know.  If you pick any one particular player as your answer, your answer is likely wrong.

That isn’t a bad thing.  USA looks to have the best goaltending in 2010 - and in 2006 nobody would have picked either Tim Thomas or Ryan Miller as the goalie of the future.  The most plausible choice at that time was Rick DiPietro.

Hockey is often too unpredictable to reliably pick out the player of the future with any certainty when the future is 4 or more years away.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/28/09 at 02:22 AM ET

Simply put, Fleury isn’t that good because he is not

In the Giguere case, I think it is quite likely he will return to his past level

I am confidently telling you that Fleury is not Canada’s goalie of the future because that is a safe bet. 

How does one debate this kind of thing?

Posted by steve on 12/28/09 at 02:23 AM ET

He didn’t steal the show, but he performed OK.

Guess someone didn’t watch game 5 in 2008 SCF or game 7 in 2009 SCF.

Posted by steve on 12/28/09 at 02:26 AM ET

so if you cant say for sure who the best goalie for team canada will be in 2014, how do you know its not fleury?

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/28/09 at 02:38 AM ET

Hockey is often too unpredictable to reliably pick out the player of the future with any certainty when the future is 4 or more years away.

but remember folks, you can predict who WON’T be good in the future!

Posted by Boo Kershaw from k on 12/28/09 at 03:05 AM ET

Fleury has always reminded me of Price. If his team is playing a good game, Fleury and Price are there to stop pucks.

When the team is having a hard time, they both struggled mightily to keep the puck out of their net.

In the SCF i would argue that Fleury caught on. He learned to elevate his play when his team was strubggling, BUT the Penguins played pretty good in both finals. Yes I saw game 5 and 6 and 7 and he did make some huge saves. But the team in front of him did make some huge saves as well (Notably Scuderi)

I don’t believe the Pens won the cup because of Fleury’s play. He made great saves, but did not steal a game singlehandedly.

This season he has had some great games, plenty of saves, but for example, in the game agaisnt ottowa, he made a lot of saves (3 or 4 great saves) but 80% of the Ottowa shots were stupid. He did a great job of covering the puck and controlling rebounds, but despite the high number of shots I did not see him win the game. Ottowa lost the game because of the penalties they took, and because Pitsburgh’s PP finally clicked like it oughta.

Jiggy on tjhe other hand is currently playing at the same level fleury is playing at. With less starts, less opportunity to get in a rhytm, less chance to get into a game-mentality-focus-thingie. So I do see where PSH is coming from.

Then again, it’s what did you do for me lately business. Not a “how good where you a couple of years ago” or “is that just a funk you’re going through?”.

Price on the other had still is shaky. He looks tooooo relaxed out there…

Posted by fish on 12/28/09 at 05:08 AM ET

Kukla,

I’m surprised you even let this kind of blogging go on at your site.  I really used to enjoy coming to your site and thought a lot of the writers were pretty good.  This just destroys your site’s credibility and makes it look amateurish…

Posted by TSN from Toronto on 12/28/09 at 12:20 AM

You should have emailed me or left your email address so I could contact you, that would have been the credible thing to do instead of posting a comment here.

PSH has his opinion, what is so wrong with that?

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/28/09 at 08:18 AM ET

so if you cant say for sure who the best goalie for team canada will be in 2014, how do you know its not fleury?

I don’t have to know for sure what the answer is.  I just have to know that it is most likely not Fleury.  Most likely Fleury won’t be on the 2014 team.  acting as though he is the goalie of ther future, when he probably isn’t amounts to blind wishful thinking and nothing more.

In the same way, I do not know who will win the Stanley Cup in 2014.  I cannot say for sure it wont be (for example) the Washington Capitals, but I will not make decisions today under the assumption that they are going to be the top team in 2014.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 12/28/09 at 10:56 AM ET

Honestly I still don’t get it after reading this whole argument.  JS Giguere is not even the Number 1 goalie on his own team and I’m sure they’d love to dump his contract if it wasnt for his no movement clause.  So we’re going to put a goalie on our team that cant beat out Hiller. (who if he is better then Giguere must be the greatest goalie prospect ever!!)

Its completely crazy to argue this and actually take this seriously.  So Fleury had the highest Save % and tied with Osgood for most wins in the playoffs and had the 2nd lowest GAA in the playoffs that year but the Penguins lost the finals that year. And shockingly on apparently what was such a terrible playoff run last year the Penguins somehow managed to win the Stanley Cup with their stopgap 24 year old goalie who will fizzle out in less then 4 years. 

So what’s the difference between the two years???  The style of then Penguins!!!!  07-08 they played a more conservative defensive approach under Therien and it blew up in their face against Detroit.  08-09 they play a hard hitting, attacking style which gives up more chances but creates more and they win but barely because of how poorly Fleury played.

You need to consider those things when looking at a goalie, and go figure if you look at the stats of any top goalie this year or basically any year they ALWAYS play on primarily defensive structured teams.  (Brodeur, Miller, Thomas etc)

Not to say those goalies arent good because they are but if you put them in for the Penguins, Capitals or more uptempo teams like that their numbers would shrink.  Goalies dont look at Save % they look at Wins and Fleury has 30 playoff wins the last two years and besides Osgood no one is close.  I think he’ll take the Stanley Cup trophy over the Vezina or Jennings.

Another thing you hit on that was completely wrong was saying the USA team has the best goaltending???  Have I been asleep for this one? Ryan Miller and Tim Thomas, I will give you Ryan Miller a good goalie has a decent track record but when did he become Brodeur, Roy or Luongo?  Tim Thomas benefitted from Boston’s system and right now is in the Giguere situtation where a younger goalie is outplaying him on his own team.  This would never happen to Brodeur or Luongo. And really I’m not the biggest Luongo supporter in the world either but I think you’d be hardpressed to find any GM, scout or hockeyfan with half a brain that would take Miller or Thomas over Brodeur or Luongo in a short tournament.

Posted by Mike on 12/28/09 at 11:44 AM ET

You should have emailed me or left your email address so I could contact you, that would have been the credible thing to do instead of posting a comment here.

PSH has his opinion, what is so wrong with that?

Paul,

By your same logic, I have an opinion as well.  If he can post his opinion then I guess I can post mine.

Posted by TSN from Toronto on 12/28/09 at 12:52 PM ET

People on here should really watch some hockey before they go spouting off on something they clearly how no clue about.

Fleury has the ability to completely steal a game…ask Flyers fans.  He might not be lights out every night, but he has the uncanny ability to make the HUGE saves when you need them. (see Jeff Carter last year in the playoffs)  He’s improved so much over the last 3 seasons and keeps getting better and better.

He hasn’t had the rock solid d in front of him that other goalies (Roy, Brodeur, Giguere) had the luxury of.  No, instead he had role players like Mark Eaton, Scuderi, and the defensively soft Gonchar, and Letang.  He didn’t have the Scott Stevens, Prongers, Neidermayers, and the great Habs D or Jersey defensive systems that only allowed 18-23 shots a game.

He’s not perfect, but he’s the EASY choice over Giguere.  If there’s something you should be arguing about, it’s who the starter should be.

I don’t see Brodeur stealing games anymore…but I do see Luongo and even Fleury stealing games today.  Let’s remember the 06 Olympic, how Brodeur actually saw some tough games, and we all know how that turned out.  Brodeur has always played on elite defensive teams.  When his team wasn’t at it’s best, Marty seemed to be average at best. I think Luongo has a leg up on him in this area as he can steal games with the best of them.

Posted by Shinoix on 12/28/09 at 01:56 PM ET

Just for clarification PSH and Kukla it’s not so much that people are stirred up because of the opinion. It’s the grade school logic and defense of the opinion. If someone wants to have an opinion that’s fine, however when writing for a well known site or publication those opinions should be backed up by solid facts. PSH’s “article” is full of faulty logic and twisted “facts.” He has a very elementary grasp of how to argue a point and support his thoughts. That’s what really stuck out to me. The opinion is his, the support of said opinion is terrible. An editor would help in these instances.

Posted by Pavel Bure from The Great White North on 12/28/09 at 03:17 PM ET

LOL @ this article. Sorry I’m not wasting my time with a big reply. Fleury is clearly an elite goaltender and if you’ve watched the playoffs the last 2 years and the Penguins this season and are looking at more than just statistics, you would know that.

Pathetic argument. Giguere sucks. If not for Brodeur, Fleury should START for Team Canada, not be a 3rd goalie. Luongo has never played in the 3rd round of the playoffs, has he? When it comes down to it, Fleury has won and Luongo has not. Period. That’s for another day though. Saying Fleury shouldn’t play in favor of Giguere is absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by LGP8771 on 12/28/09 at 03:32 PM ET

And just to add one thing, Fleury has been proving people wrong for the last 3 years now. The Penguins will never have Vezina candidates because they simply don’t play defense consistently during the regular season. They are a run and gun team and have always been. Of course that’s a fact that Mr. Puck Stops Here AKA the most retarded hockey blogger on Earth seems to be ignoring.

And Fleury absolutely is an elite goaltender in this league. He makes the big saves when he has to. He has arguably 3 of the top 10 goaltending performances of the past 2 years in the biggest games of his career - Game 5 of the 2008 Finals and Games 6 and 7 of the 2009 Finals.

He longer has obvious flaws in his game like he did when he came into the league 5 years ago. He longer goes down too early, no longer flops around the crease and he no longer gives up big rebounds often.

As I said, regular season statistics are not that meaningful. That’s what gets you votes for the Vezina. And if we want to go by Vezina voting, then Steve Mason should start for Team Canada, and Thomas would be considered a better goalie than Fleury. What a ridiculous argument.

The Penguins have had a ton of injuries and struggles during the past 2 seasons, and that has affected Fleury’s stats. And as I said, the Pens have always been an offensive team. It’s hard to win a Vezina when you play in Pittsburgh. But make no mistake, with 7 series wins the past 2 years and a whole bunch of clutch performances both in the playoffs and in the stretch run of the regular season, Fleury is an elite goalie in the NHL and should absolutely be chosen ahead of a bum like Giguere, who at this point is a has-been.

By the way, Fleury’s stats this season are a lot better than Giguere’s, so this makes your argument even worse. Fleury’s GAA is 2.4 while Giguere’s is 2.9, Fleury’s save percentage is .909 to Giguere’s .904, and Giguere has 4 wins in 17 games! He’s not even the #1 goalie on his team! With the same GAA, Johas Hiller has a much better record and his save percentage is .912, while having played more games.

Are you on crack? Just retire from blogging completely. This is not for you. Hockey is too complex for you. You actually think Giguere is more TALENTED than Fleury. Hahahaha! Wow! Shows how much Penguins hockey you’ve watched and how much attention you’ve shown to the Stanley Cup Finals the last 2 years.

Fleury may not be the best, but Fleury is THE most athletic goaltender in the NHL. His reflexes are amazing and his ability to go from post to post to make a huge save on a 2 on 1 or a point-blank chance are better than any goalie’s out there. Especially in big games, he is money and he is a huge reason why the Penguins beat the Flyers and Red Wings last year in the playoffs. They wouldn’t have done it without him.

Posted by LGP8771 on 12/28/09 at 03:51 PM ET

Most likely Fleury won’t be on the 2014 team.  acting as though he is the goalie of ther future, when he probably isn’t amounts to blind wishful thinking and nothing more.

Giguere is too talented and likely too young (32 years old) to be completely beyond his prime.

This is another thing that’s really bizarre about this argument. Why is Giguere thought to still be in his prime at 32 and Fleury thought to be over-the-hill by the time he’s 28? This argument makes no sense and is predicated only on whim and goal-post shifting.

Posted by steve on 12/28/09 at 09:31 PM ET

Fleury has been in a big game situation.  He didn’t steal the show, but he performed OK.

Game 5 of the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals and Games 6 and 7 of the 2009 Stanley Cup Finals called.

They said you’re full of sh*t.

Since you’re Mr. Statistics…

Fleury’s 2008 playoffs looked a little like this - 1.97 GAA, .933 Save%, 3 Shutouts.

2009 wasn’t quite as good (2.61 GAA, .908 Save%), but you know what?  He had 16 wins.  You know what that means…HE WON A FREAKIN’ CUP.  At age 24.

I mean, seriously…J.S. Giguere?  3 or 4 years ago, sure.  Not now.  He isn’t even the starter on his own team.

And Steve Mason?  Once he wins a playoff series, (or, hell, puts together a string of solid seasons) then come talk to me.  Until then, how can you be sure he wasn’t just a flash in the pan?  Teams have film on him now…and he hasn’t had a very good 2nd year, has he?

The answer to that question is:  no, no he hasn’t (3.27 GAA, .892 Save%).

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Milford, CT on 12/29/09 at 11:38 AM ET

you’re an idiot.  do you even know the game of hockey?  different teams have different styles.  no goalie would have outstanding stats on an offensive minded team like the
Pens.  total garbage.

Posted by b on 12/29/09 at 04:20 PM ET