So basically if 12 of 20 goalie contracts suck it means a 60% failure rate. I would be curious what the stats are for other positions. My guess is around 20-30%.

Think it's unfair to categorize Demko here, He's only played 15 games into the contract with half of the 15 he was clearly struggling with a nagging injury, the Petersen and Campbell deals looked bad from day 1, Markstrom has also been fine at his cap hit till this year but Calgary in general has been pretty bad think it's still to early to have him as a bad contract

Demko has literally played 15 games this season....

For the purpose of this exercise he has to be included. He could bounce back, but this year it's not great value.

That just showcases part of the problem with goalies. They are more injury prone than other positions.

I think you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here.

I agree that there is a problem all in all, but it also takes common sense to handle exceptions. Quite a few of these guys are quite obviously not bad/unmovable contracts but are just not in great situations.
Secondary, its hard to find a balance because it's quite obvious by the Canuck's crease this year that playing any random guy won't work. It's rare that you find yourself in a Vejmelka situation where someone exceeds expectations consistently. Term is often a testament of consistency, especially in goal.

While his positioning could use some work as it always has, in the past 2 years Elvis has had to play with a bottom 3 defense and his metaphorical brother was killed in front of him. I don't think his career is all but gone just yet, but he's certainly dropped a bit from being the rookie that had 5 shutouts in 8 games.

Now put your theory against past cup champions, and also a general thought on gms either passing the blame onto their players or players surviving longer than gms around the league. General consensus of next guys problem seems to be common on a lot of teams

Unfortunately, goalies like to get paid too.

Quicks not a good guy to have on this list as he's a 2 time cup champ so he earned his deal and he's at the end of his career now so it's fine

imo at least for right now i think there are five legit difference-makers in goal (shesterkin, sorokin, vasilevskiy, hellebuyck, saros), maybe six if you want to include oettinger, and everyone else is a dice roll. i think the colorado strategy of not spending in net and just trying to find the cheapest option that'll bring you results that won't tank your season is decent. obviously having one of the elite guys is nice, but if you don't, probably better just to spend the money on the skaters and hope for the best.

To add to this: Quick is making 2.5M this year, 3M last year, and 3.5M the year before that.

It's not that simple. You should have a limit to spending on an individual goaltender, but you must always have a solid starter even if that means going over budget.
You can't simply let your starter go if they are looking for more money/term than you are comfortable with unless you already have a succession plan or are not planning to contend.
There are also differences from other positions you have to take into account. (Using rough numbers to make a point.)

If all spending is equal, teams are splitting their budget roughly 60% forwards, 30% defense, 10% goaltending.
For goaltending, that's roughly $8.25M with the current cap. That's roughly where you want to limit your goaltending budget.
That's fine internally.

The top 10 forwards represent 4% of players at that position
For defense, that's 8%. For goaltending, it's 24%.
So for every goaltender making $7M, there should be 3D and 6F at that mark.
The league currently sits at 57F, 25D, 3G under that criteria.
Forwards and Defense are close enough at a 2:1 ratio.
Goaltending is actually out of line with only 3 current contracts over $7M, which is about 36% of the 8(ish) you'd expect.
So NHL teams have already seemed to get the message and are not spending as much on goaltending at the top end of the scale, with Price and Bobrovsky providing cautionary tales.

If you have 2 goaltenders below that $8.25M mark, the money spent is justified, it just may be spent on the wrong individuals.
Obviously everything isn't quite that neat and tidy, as there are a lot of other factors to consider, but that is enough to serve as a baseline.

Goaltenders are justified to seek contracts in that area and of course they are going to want term like any other player. They most often take longer in their career to even begin earning substantial money, and are going to want to maximize their earning potential.

The real issue is that the position is a lot different than that of a skater and not enough is considered to account for that.
Team performance strongly influences individual results, they don't play every game, and they are more susceptible to injury due to the nature of the position and how central they are to the action with players and pucks flying at them continuously.
All of that makes the position significantly more of a risk and susceptible to fluctuations in performance and injury.

Contractually, they are under the same umbrella as players at other positions, but their job and elements associated with it, are very different.
It would level the playing field and allow for more flexibility if they were treated differently.
Maybe they don't count completely against the cap and can therefore earn more on shorter terms while still having a similar earning potential as skaters.
Maybe they use a different Injury Relief system and/or have better coverage for long term injuries which affect their performance but not their ability to play.
Maybe they can have contracts with more performance bonuses and/or cap not applying to those bonuses.

There's nothing inherently wrong with most goaltending contracts, but they do have a lot more risk of ending up as bad deals simply because they need a lot to go right on a consistent basis in order to have a chance to perform well. Injuries and poor defense are beyond their control. If they aren't making big saves, the first question is "why were they in a position where they needed to make a big save?". You can't just judge them on stats, you have to look at their actual performance and abilities.

I'm all for spending the money on the skaters. I agree with your list too. I'm not sure how much I would pay for one of those 6, but I wouldn't move a first for almost any other goalie. Seems like a lot of goalies have a great year or two, but they are outliers. Better to invest in skaters.

If anything it shows how hard it is to fill the position and the demand, which is why you pay them when you get a chance to if you think 1 is a difference maker.

Most goalie careers; 1 or 2 good seasons, sprinkled between average and mediocre

There are few goalies, at any point in the league, that string together multiple top level seasons-- and the ones that do, often get paid in their contract year and never replicate, or fall off a cliff halfway into the deal.
Drop off in play/speed/reaction time for a goalie is more noticeable than any other position-- that's why structure and position are so critical.
Goalies that get paid ahead of their prime, and earn the entirety of the contracts are rare.
Teams often have to roll the dice on a goalie, or have a revolving door (see Colorado) until someone fits their teams defensive structure.

1 injury doesn’t make him injury prone…