Re: The fate of Tim Thomas
posted at 4/12/2010 2:07 PM EDT
@ pbergeron37 and @jwb413, you are both obviously entitled to your opinion of Thomas. But, by the same argument, isn't Rask putting up good numbers for the same reason (solid team defense)? There is the factor of salary, and maybe your argument is "Why spend money on goalies when the team defense takes care of it all anyway?" I don't have a problem with paying 2 quality goalies a combined $6.25M, but I understand the desire to free up TT's salary if he's not going to start at least 1/2 the games in a season.
Let's not give Rask a throne just yet. I, too, think he's the real deal, but one year means NOTHING. Remember how well Carey Price was playing in his first year after Huet was traded at the deadline? He was absolutely dominant, and, like Rask, is (was?) mechanically sound. I'm not saying the two are the same, but it's not a guarantee that Rask repeats next year.
Finally, yes, Rask has been much better than Thomas. BUT, that doesn't mean Thomas has been atrocious. Yes, he's let him some ugly goals this year and has gotten chased more than a few times, but the guy is still sporting 2.56 GAA and 91.0 save %. Thomas is a GOOD (not great) goalie who is capable of playing well above his capabilities when the situation seems dire. I think plenty of teams will be interested in trading for him, and I don't have a problem in downgrading Thomas for someone more suited to a backup role.
But, regardless, the Bruins need a solid backup for Rask as security. Other teams will respect the value of Thomas, and if the right offer comes along, trade him and get a better bargain for Rask security. If not, the B's should ride the Rask/TT tandem for all it's worth next year.