Sanford on waivers

by James Mirtle on Jan 14, 2009 11:31 AM CST Comment 19 comments

This isn't a huge surprise given the team picked up Jason LaBarbera recently and Roberto Luongo's set to return.

That said, Curtis Sanford was a good soldier for the Canucks, and helped the team hang in the Western Conference race without Luongo. His numbers in Vancouver are better than LaBarbera's this season, and it's probably a tossup who's the better netminder.

My guess is Sanford finds a home very soon. The Islanders need a goaltender now that it looks like Rick DiPietro's season is over, so there's a start.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Curtis Sanford was also a good soldier for the Blues in the years wrapped around the lockout…it’s too bad that he didn’t take that contract extension St. Louis offered him right after the first post-lockout season…I’m sure someone will snap him up pretty soon.

by tbell61 on Jan 14, 2009 12:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That was one fateful decision, wasn’t it? I admired the self-confidence it showed, but boy, even at the time I thought, “Take the money now!”

Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Jan 14, 2009 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I get the allure of LaBarbera

his style is similar to Luongo, so maybe it’s easier for the team in front to adjust when Lou goes down.
But Sanford seemed to be a great teammate and really played his heart out.

by Karina on Jan 14, 2009 12:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The Islanders are in full-on tank mode. I doubt they’re interested in somebody who might win a game or two.

Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.

by Down Goes Brown on Jan 14, 2009 12:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

But they need a body. If Dubie plays hardball — his agent claims three teams are kicking the tires — I bet they’d take Sanford. Sanford’s at $650k and a UFA? Wouldn’t hurt.

Lighthouse Hockey: an SB Nation New York Islanders blog with hip issues.

by Dominik on Jan 14, 2009 12:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1) Not an Isles fan, but hardly a hater either. Its unfair to say they are ‘tanking it" right now. They played a team last night (Rangers) almost dead even on the road with their 3rd string goalie, and a lot of quality ice time to guys under 22 more than pulling their weight(Doug didn’t play by the way) ; )
2) They are close to the league leaders in games lost to injury. How many teams out side of jersey could stay in it with their #1 goalie out all season?

by Fauxrumors on Jan 14, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to disagree with your point concerning the Islanders (I think they deserve a much better fate than what they’re getting), but to answer your question, Vancouver, Montreal, Boston are all teams that can live without their #1 for extended periods of time, though it’s never an ideal situation.

by Habs on Jan 14, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bah. The Leafs could lose their #1 goalie and probably improve.

Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.

by Down Goes Brown on Jan 14, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Too true.

by James Mirtle on Jan 14, 2009 3:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably?

They WOULD improve greatly with Pogge in net, don’t you think?
If you agree that that’s true, then who’s tanking it better than Mr. Wilson/Mr. Burke?
Where are you John T? The Leafs want you.

by BJLB on Jan 14, 2009 5:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Is there a contest to design Sanford’s goalie mask with a waiver theme?

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Jan 14, 2009 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In the short term, it's pretty moot...

Assuming Luongo’s groin holds up (heh), he’s going to play 85% – 90% of the remaining games for the Canucks, particularly if they don’t improve their record much. So, neither Sanford nor Labarbera would be playing many games in a backup role.

by dbarefoot on Jan 14, 2009 4:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Backup goaltending is a whole lot more important than a ton of teams make it out to be … starters get injured or play inconsistent all the time. Who would have thought Craig Anderson or Clemmensen, Conklin, Fernandez, etc., would play many games?

by James Mirtle on Jan 14, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Backup goaltending is a whole lot more important than a ton of teams make it out to be …

Seriously. People do realize that Nikolai Khabibulin is the last NHL netminder to win 16 games in a postseason, right?

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Jan 14, 2009 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sanford may have better numbers

but Labarbera is probably the better goalie. Even the numbers were skewed by a 3:29 stint when he gave up 2 goals on 6 shots. The problem with Sanford is that every shooter knows his weakness (top corner), and he can’t do much about it (he’s just not tall enough). Not to mention the fact that he is not very good at recovery after making difficult shots. It was very scary to see him make a good save and then struggle to get back up while the play goes on.

by SJKel on Jan 14, 2009 5:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know, it wasn’t that he gave up 2 goals, he looked like an amateur in doing so. Sanford did well enough after a screw-up in playing for the puck against NJ. That was only one game, though. Perhaps, overall, it’d be a wash in who’d the Canucks would waive.

I’m confident Sanford will be picked up because he can play at this level and in some capacity as a backup. I’m not sure who could use him, though.

Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!

by John Fischer on Jan 14, 2009 9:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I didn’t watch the NJ game, so our opinion is different. I watched the first 4 games that Labarbera played and most if not all of the games that Sanford played. From that, I conclude that Sanford is helpless against forwards that can shoot hit with some accuracy, and he gives up those goals even if the shooting angle is poor. To no default of his own, his shoulders are just too low to be a good goalie in the NHL today. A short skater can make up his lack of size by speed and puck skills; a short goalie is rarely able to make up his lack of size. We don’t see any top goalie that is under 6" anymore (maybe Tim Thomas, but he (5’11") is still an inch taller than Sanford, which apparently makes a big difference to today’s shooters, not to mention Thomas probably has better skills overall).

by SJKel on Jan 15, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Correction: shoot HIGH (not hit)

by SJKel on Jan 15, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, he could try staying upright on high shots instead of going down into the butterfly, so he only has to raise his shoulder a couple of inches to cover the bar, but it seems that that’s crazy talk in NHL goalie circles.

by Doogie2K on Jan 15, 2009 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs