As one of the initiators of this debate on the value of Carey Price, I am truly surprised that there are so many who have doubt that our goalie is a superstar. And here I thought I was in the microscopic minority!
Someone wrote that we should be glad to have Price although he will never be a Dryden or Roy-> that we should be happy that he is above average and therefore deserves the raise that awaits him. This tortures me to no end. Perhaps I've been spoiled by being a witness of many Stanley Cup victories but to me, an "above average" goalie does not leave me satisfied. In the era of parity, an above average goalie gives you nary an advantage and does not deserve the salary consensus that is emerging in this thread.
Many hockey fans can recognize bad goaltending. It's not only giving up goals that could be saved, but the timing of those goals, the body language with which that goalie mocks his own team, the mental ineptitude to allow goals in key moments of a game. We booed Roy in that famous Detroit game because although the team was playing bad, Roy's attitude was poor and one could see that he had given up. Body language. We booed Red Light Racicot because if you ever saw him play, you could feel that he had no idea what he was doing and simply tried to square himself to puck location - possibly the worst goalie I ever saw. These side examples come to mind now in my discussing Price ... I just realized that what I don't like about him is this sense that he is not as mentally even keeled as had been posited from his draft onwards. I've seen him exhibit his emotions subtly and not so subtly but consistently. This of course is a separate topic altogether.
I will stick to my thesis that Price does not merit superstar status, that we should trade him while his perceived value is high or barring that to offer him a salary at a reasonable rate for RFA years alone. I submit that if one wants to use metrics, not to use GAA, save % and the like. Instead, look at body language and try to quantify that. Or try to quantify performance under "stress" i.e. with a one goal lead, with a two goal lead, at a one goal deficit, in shootouts where one's team is at advantage and disadvantage. Like I said before, statistics cannot tell the whole story not because the math is inexact but because we are not measuring the right things or simply cannot. Hence the feeling of a truth.
I still think trading him would be crazy. We have no replacement for him and we'd just be creating one hole to fill another.
Not a superstar? Okay. But I don't know if there really is a superstar goalie in this league anymore. The ones who can consistently put up the numbers and games that Price does though are few and far between. If we deal him I think we'd really regret it.
As one of the initiators of this debate on the value of Carey Price, I am truly surprised that there are so many who have doubt that our goalie is a superstar. And here I thought I was in the microscopic minority!
Someone wrote that we should be glad to have Price although he will never be a Dryden or Roy-> that we should be happy that he is above average and therefore deserves the raise that awaits him. This tortures me to no end. Perhaps I've been spoiled by being a witness of many Stanley Cup victories but to me, an "above average" goalie does not leave me satisfied. In the era of parity, an above average goalie gives you nary an advantage and does not deserve the salary consensus that is emerging in this thread.
Many hockey fans can recognize bad goaltending. It's not only giving up goals that could be saved, but the timing of those goals, the body language with which that goalie mocks his own team, the mental ineptitude to allow goals in key moments of a game. We booed Roy in that famous Detroit game because although the team was playing bad, Roy's attitude was poor and one could see that he had given up. Body language. We booed Red Light Racicot because if you ever saw him play, you could feel that he had no idea what he was doing and simply tried to square himself to puck location - possibly the worst goalie I ever saw. These side examples come to mind now in my discussing Price ... I just realized that what I don't like about him is this sense that he is not as mentally even keeled as had been posited from his draft onwards. I've seen him exhibit his emotions subtly and not so subtly but consistently. This of course is a separate topic altogether.
I will stick to my thesis that Price does not merit superstar status, that we should trade him while his perceived value is high or barring that to offer him a salary at a reasonable rate for RFA years alone. I submit that if one wants to use metrics, not to use GAA, save % and the like. Instead, look at body language and try to quantify that. Or try to quantify performance under "stress" i.e. with a one goal lead, with a two goal lead, at a one goal deficit, in shootouts where one's team is at advantage and disadvantage. Like I said before, statistics cannot tell the whole story not because the math is inexact but because we are not measuring the right things or simply cannot. Hence the feeling of a truth.
Trade him to be replaced by who? What about after the RFA years? What can we fall back on if we are forced to downgrade at the goalie position by greedily throwing our young starting goaltender away? We don't have a shining offense to make up for the loss. We also don't have a stellar defense to make up for it. One thing we do have is solid goaltending. I don't think anyone in their right mind would let that go away, not in his RFA years at least.
What if everything you say about him is true? Why would anyone give us anything for Price?
With all the second round picks they got this year, they should draft a goalie.
I hate the idea of using high draft picks on goalies, but even I have at least 4 goalies on my "top prospects" list(s) this year as potential "high" draft picks. I agree, if a good pick is going to be burned on the chance to find a good goalie who might eventually succeed Price, this might be the year/draft to do it.
Off that topic, and back to the "worth" of Carey Price, there's no sense in even exploring the trade avenue, imo. At one point they had two goalies playing equally well with bright futures ahead of each of them. That was the one time when there was the luxury of a choice, and the Habs probably made the safe choice (not necessarily the "best", as has been explored on both sides quite extensively to this point). There's no choice anymore - Price was it, and with everyone else who could have been an eventual "contender" (Sanford, Desjardins) shown the door, he's still it. There hasn't been enough time to develop a strong/promising enough backup yet, so best to stick with the best we've got (as long as he's not too expensive), because he is too damn good to trade and hope the return works out better for the Habs in the long run.
Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 03-06-2012 at 07:53 PM.
I really love Carey but man am I starting to wonder if goalies are overrated in general. You put together a team like STL and you can have Budaj starting 60 games and do well.
If Price's demands are outlandish, ie. over 5.5M/yr then I would look to deal him for another decent young goalie and a forward.
That statement really pissed me off,it's really a insult to the amazing work both Halak and Elliot did this season.Next time,watch some games when the blues play instead of magically thinking that the Blues D stops everything and that they don't need a goalie.
That statement really pissed me off,it's really a insult to the amazing work both Halak and Elliot did this season.Next time,watch some games when the blues play instead of magically thinking that the Blues D stops everything and that they don't need a goalie.
The difference in Halak's SV% pre and post hitchcock is pretty stunning, even going back to last year. There's no doubt Halak is good and Elliott is pretty good too but both guys have their stats dramatically inflated.
I cant believe people here are for trading Price the kid is 24 I believe and has already done a lot more then what other top goalies have done by their age most goalies hit their prime around 26-27 and we have seen Price play well for the last 2 years who knows how much better he can be. We are talking about a goalie who can play 70ish games and play well it would be crazy to trade him and I think his value is in the 5M range
That statement really pissed me off,it's really a insult to the amazing work both Halak and Elliot did this season.Next time,watch some games when the blues play instead of magically thinking that the Blues D stops everything and that they don't need a goalie.
Halak's numbers are night and day since Hitch took over. That's not to say he doesn't deserve credit but you can't dismiss the Hitchcock effect.
Halak's numbers are night and day since Hitch took over. That's not to say he doesn't deserve credit but you can't dismiss the Hitchcock effect.
Halak has certainly benefited from Hitchcock's defensive structure, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in Jaro's October stats. He had a TERRIBLE start to the season -- far below anything he's ever done at any level -- and has since been one of the best in the NHL.
Maybe his overall stats wouldn't be quite as impressive without the coaching change, but I have absolutely no doubt his numbers would have been trending significantly upwards. To believe otherwise would mean you think he's one of the worst goalies in the league (which he was for the first six games) but I don't think anyone could make that claim.
I still think Halak is the better goalie, but I'm not completely convinced at this point. I just think people are giving far too much weight to a six-game stretch and overlooking what has otherwise been a fantastic season.
Halak's numbers are night and day since Hitch took over. That's not to say he doesn't deserve credit but you can't dismiss the Hitchcock effect.
I think that even whitout Hitchcock Jaro could probably have the same amount of success he's having right now.With that being said,I understand where people are coming from and can't deny that Hitchcock's system is helping Jaroslav a bit but to say that Budaj could do the same job is unfair to the amazing work that both Jaro and Elliot are doing for St-louis.
The difference in Halak's SV% pre and post hitchcock is pretty stunning, even going back to last year. There's no doubt Halak is good and Elliott is pretty good too but both guys have their stats dramatically inflated.
His GAA has been positively affected by the coaching/system change that took place, that's for sure. His SV% is almost exactly what it was the year we traded him, though. Over the long haul, he has proven to be at least as good as advertised when St.Louis picked him up. The extra shutouts have certainly helped the ol' SV%, but at least give him credit for successfully posting those shutouts, and let's also recognize the 7 losses he got posting a SV% of 0.920 or better in the game. Used to read a lot of QQ's when that was happening to Price so often.
The funniest part about all of this, is that I was told at the time that Montreal was a better team than St.Louis, and that playing for them against the big, tough Western conference was going to be the end of Halak. Focus enough on building the right team, and who technically has the better goalie between you and your opponent can easily become academic.
His GAA has been positively affected by the coaching/system change that took place, that's for sure. His SV% is almost exactly what it was the year we traded him, though. Over the long haul, he has proven to be at least as good as advertised when St.Louis picked him up. The extra shutouts have certainly helped the ol' SV%, but at least give him credit for successfully posting those shutouts, and let's also recognize the 7 losses he got posting a SV% of 0.920 or better in the game. Used to read a lot of QQ's when that was happening to Price so often.
The funniest part about all of this, is that I was told at the time that Montreal was a better team than St.Louis, and that playing for them against the big, tough Western conference was going to be the end of Halak. Focus enough on building the right team, and who technically has the better goalie between you and your opponent can easily become academic.
His save percentage last season was .910. And he was horrible this year until Hitch showed up. Again, I think he would've turned it around anyway but there's no doubt that Hitch has been a huge help.
Halak has certainly benefited from Hitchcock's defensive structure, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in Jaro's October stats. He had a TERRIBLE start to the season -- far below anything he's ever done at any level -- and has since been one of the best in the NHL.
Maybe his overall stats wouldn't be quite as impressive without the coaching change, but I have absolutely no doubt his numbers would have been trending significantly upwards. To believe otherwise would mean you think he's one of the worst goalies in the league (which he was for the first six games) but I don't think anyone could make that claim.
I still think Halak is the better goalie, but I'm not completely convinced at this point. I just think people are giving far too much weight to a six-game stretch and overlooking what has otherwise been a fantastic season.
I think he would've turned around too. But he'd be nowhere near as good as his numbers are now. Both he and Elliott's numbers are absolutely ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the
I think that even whitout Hitchcock Jaro could probably have the same amount of success he's having right now.With that being said,I understand where people are coming from and can't deny that Hitchcock's system is helping Jaroslav a bit but to say that Budaj could do the same job is unfair to the amazing work that both Jaro and Elliot are doing for St-louis.
Better? Sure. As good as they are now? No way. Hitch does this wherever he goes. He's a goaltender's dream.
His save percentage last season was .910. And he was horrible this year until Hitch showed up. Again, I think he would've turned it around anyway but there's no doubt that Hitch has been a huge help.
The whole team, particularly the defense (especially on special teams), was playing horribly until Hitch showed up, if we're honest. Halak also had a really good game in the 2-1 loss to the Wild before Payne was fired, and really only had 3 "bad" games in the other 7 he started at the beginning of the season (pulled once). Also, dunno how much of a part it played, but they also had back-to-back 4 game road trips to start the year. Made for a tough first 13 games for Davis Payne and the Blues.
His GAA has been positively affected by the coaching/system change that took place, that's for sure. His SV% is almost exactly what it was the year we traded him, though. Over the long haul, he has proven to be at least as good as advertised when St.Louis picked him up. The extra shutouts have certainly helped the ol' SV%, but at least give him credit for successfully posting those shutouts, and let's also recognize the 7 losses he got posting a SV% of 0.920 or better in the game. Used to read a lot of QQ's when that was happening to Price so often.
The funniest part about all of this, is that I was told at the time that Montreal was a better team than St.Louis, and that playing for them against the big, tough Western conference was going to be the end of Halak. Focus enough on building the right team, and who technically has the better goalie between you and your opponent can easily become academic.
You realize his sv % was under .900 before hitchcock and was a whopping .910 (which is below avg on some scales people use on this board to judge other goalies) last year after that great start right? The blues became the big tough team in the west. There is a reason they give up less than 2 goals a game and I am curious what the number is just under hitchcock.
Hell in half the games he plays they have to jazz up routine saves to get him in the highlights on sportscenter.
Build a team the right way is correct but saying halak hasnt immensely benefited from the hitchcock system is a touch ridiculous.
That statement really pissed me off,it's really a insult to the amazing work both Halak and Elliot did this season.Next time,watch some games when the blues play instead of magically thinking that the Blues D stops everything and that they don't need a goalie.
So they magically became amazing the minute Hitchcock was hired? Elliott is the same guy Ottawa ran out of town last year because he was brutal. Halak was very mediocre last year. It's quite a coincidence that both are suddenly "amazing".
You realize his sv % was under .900 before hitchcock and was a whopping .910 (which is below avg on some scales people use on this board to judge other goalies) last year after that great start right? The blues became the big tough team in the west. There is a reason they give up less than 2 goals a game and I am curious what the number is just under hitchcock.
Hell in half the games he plays they have to jazz up routine saves to get him in the highlights on sportscenter.
Build a team the right way is correct but saying halak hasnt immensely benefited from the hitchcock system is a touch ridiculous.
First bolded point: it was 6 games.
Second bolded point: That is both selling Halak short, and having no appreciation for goalies who make things look easy.
You can't find me anywhere on here saying that the entire team isn't benefiting from the coaching change. In fact, you'll find me directly suggesting otherwise. But realize that the bulk of how Hitchcock's system affects Halak is through reducing the number of quality chances (even at their "worst", the Blues weren't giving up lots of shots, just lots of ridiculously high quality chances), not some kind of administered skill/performance-enhancing serum.
Halak is still doing what he did best here (and better than Price, I submit), and that's stop the first shot. Tidying up after those is affected by an improved system and more motivated work from the players, and the Blues are doing a better job of that among other things, but it also a secondary concern to your goalie being able to make the first save.
Second bolded point: That is both selling Halak short, and having no appreciation for goalies who make things look easy.
You can't find me anywhere on here saying that the entire team isn't benefiting from the coaching change. In fact, you'll find me directly suggesting otherwise. But realize that the bulk of how Hitchcock's system affects Halak is through reducing the number of quality chances (even at their "worst", the Blues weren't giving up lots of shots, just lots of ridiculously high quality chances), not some kind of administered skill/performance-enhancing serum.
Halak is still doing what he did best here (and better than Price, I submit), and that's stop the first shot. Tidying up after those is affected by an improved system and more motivated work from the players, and the Blues are doing a better job of that among other things, but it also a secondary concern to your goalie being able to make the first save.
Halak is just more mentally strong... And ever will be.
