#40's #s: 6 games, 2-3-0, 3.74 g.a.a., .852 save %.
Take the good: By all accounts Valley was a good team guy and few fans had issue with him despite several horrific appearances in the past (Toronto, Dallas). Valiquette opened his '09-10 season by shutting out Anaheim, leaving everyone to believe that he would be able to take some of the load off of Hank. Take the bad: He couldn't take the load off of Hank. Torts inexplicably started Valiquette against San Jose for his second appearance of the season and he was blown out, yanked after allowing five goals (including two ppg) on 18 shots in two periods against the Western Conference powerhouse. Torts later inexplicably started Valley against Pittsburgh and he was no match for the Pens, giving up eight goals to the Pens.
Take them both and then we have: It is possible that Tortorella was testing Valiquette with those starts and, if so, Valley failed. The eloquent, easy going goaltender couldn't handle the top flight talent thrown up against him and it cost him his NHL job.
2 comments:
Valley was a good keeper until last season. This year, I don't know, I think it was an issue that Torts used Valiquette on tougher games to give Hank a rest from tougher games (which apparently is not how Torts thinks - looking at the team through the season). Obviously, if a basic consistent player performs worse under a particular coach, then it might be the coaches fault more than the players fault.
However, going against Valiquette, was that he was unable to hold a decent record in the AHL either.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=24150
At least he found a place to play next season, over in Russia.
Post a Comment