Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bar

Habs Fans Re: Price

Recommended Posts

We're talking about the playoffs here...the team played way differently in the playoffs than the regular season. What you're you're saying has nothing to do with the argument. You think Halak would have been fine facing the shots that Gorges and Gill blocked? The poor guy needed a rest like 2 times in the playoffs as it was.

Also, you never answered my question, do you think the result would have been the same without the copious amount of shot blocking?

Edited by bar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're talking about the playoffs here...the team played way differently in the playoffs than the regular season. What you're you're saying has nothing to do with the argument. You think Halak would have been fine facing the shots that Gorges and Gill blocked? The poor guy needed a rest like 2 times in the playoffs as it was.

Also, you never answered my question, do you think the result would have been the same without the copious amount of shot blocking?

I am talking about the playoffs. HOw many wins did Price get when poor Halak needed a rest???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He only started one game and did not get a win, but that does not prove anything? The FACT Price had to start should lend weight that Halak was not a rock...having to be replaced for a start is not a playoff hero. Whatever though, the point people are trying to make is not that Halak sucks, but he was over rated, and wasn't the sole reason for their success, to suggest otherwise is a huge slap in the face to the rest of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not selective memory when the people talking about Halak not being the main reason for the wins now are the SAME people who brought them up when it happened. I claim that the playoff run was a house of cards...without one of the main factors it'd all come down: Halaks play, the overall team D, Cammy lighting it up, the PK.

You can argue that Halak was the sole reason for the habs success, I am tired of people making this remark...because WE HAVE argued it. This is a discussion board, not a comment, if you can't argue your point that Halak didn't keep the team in the playoffs, actually make counter points, you acting like this is a well known fact when it isn't doesn't bring anything to the table.

Not to be a jerk, but did you at least read what I wrote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how what you wrote related to my post? The post above was in response to ForumGhost making a sweeping statement that "Saying that Halak didn't keep that team in the playoffs is like saying water isn't wet. It's just something you can't argue. "

The part you bolded was directly in response to his post, but on second thought it's terrible grammar, I apologize heh.

In your post you talked about the goalie being pulled and you felt it was no big deal, but the crux of the whole thing is...there is no value to the phrase "Playoff hero" it means something different to everyone, me personally, if you had to be replaced numerious times, then no you are not a playoff hero. I also believe, of the three factors in beating Pitts/Wash: team D, PK and Halaks play, I personally feel we'd need them all, but Halak would be easier replaced with another goalie and things could have turned out similar, I feel without the team D and penalty kill, we lose bad to Washington.

Your definition of playoff hero differs, and I can respect people with differing opinions, but I see too many sweeping statements that don't leave any other possibility, like FGs post above saying you just can't argue about it. I take great offense to these types of posts, because they do not engage discussion, they attempt to end them. I'm not trying to demean Halak to make Price look better, I'm giving my honest opinion of Halak, like I did at the time, my opinion hasn't changed since he was traded.

Edited by bar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how what you wrote related to my post? The post above was in response to ForumGhost making a sweeping statement that "Saying that Halak didn't keep that team in the playoffs is like saying water isn't wet. It's just something you can't argue. "

The part you bolded was directly in response to his post, but on second thought it's terrible grammar, I apologize heh.

In your post you talked about the goalie being pulled and you felt it was no big deal, but the crux of the whole thing is...there is no value to the phrase "Playoff hero" it means something different to everyone, me personally, if you had to be replaced numerious times, then no you are not a playoff hero. I also believe, of the three factors in beating Pitts/Wash: team D, PK and Halaks play, I personally feel we'd need them all, but Halak would be easier replaced with another goalie and things could have turned out similar, I feel without the team D and penalty kill, we lose bad to Washington.

Your definition of playoff hero differs, and I can respect people with differing opinions, but I see too many sweeping statements that don't leave any other possibility, like FGs post above saying you just can't argue about it. I take great offense to these types of posts, because they do not engage discussion, they attempt to end them. I'm not trying to demean Halak to make Price look better, I'm giving my honest opinion of Halak, like I did at the time, my opinion hasn't changed since he was traded.

To me having the goalie or replaced is no big deal. having a goalie replaced is not always a reflection of the goalie, but a reflection of how the the team is playing in front of him. Hey in 1993 even Roy was replaced and he was replaced by a guy with a nickname of "red light" - not exactly confidence inspiring. Does the fact that Dryden was not pulled in 1971, mean he didn't have a poor game? not at all, its a reflection of the time and the mentality of the coach, when it comes with switching up goalies. When the Rangers won the cup, Leetch got the Conn Smythe, some thought it could have gone to Messier or Richter. Does the fact that Leetch got the MVP, mean Richter and Messier weren't playoff hereos??? Richter was replaced twice by Healy, glen friggin Healy for crying out loud, does that lesson his impact on the rangers success???. When Colorado first won the cup with Roy, he was replaced by Fiset. When he won again with avs a second time and got another smythe, he was replaced by David friggin abiescher.

If you want to talk about definition of heroes, you also have to consider how heroic or improbable the victories were. To me the greatest habs cup victory was in 1971. They not only knocked off the big bad bruins with Orr and Esposito, but also knocked off the Hull and Mikita Hawks. In 1986, the habs did not have to face the top 4 teams in the Wales conference (old Eastern conference), as they were knocked off by lessor clubs. They also didn't have to face the top team in the Campbell conference, the defending champs the oilers, as they were done in by Steve Smith and the flames. Similarily, in 1992-1993 the habs didn't have to face the top two teams in the East (Wales) the penguins or the Bruins. In the cup final they didn't have to face the top FIVE teams in the West. So in both of Roy's cup victories, the road to the cup was easier then Dryden's road to the cup in 1970-1971. Does that make Roy's acheivements any less heroic??? Bottom line is that Halak was the centerpiece to the habs success on knocking off two of the top three teams in the East. Against Philly, the habs lack of size and inablility to generate any offense whatsoever (with the exception of game 3). You don't get shut out 3 times and then hang that on the goalie as has been suggested by some on this site. The most ridicilous comment by someone here was that the team quit on halak becuase he raced out against Richards instead of having faith in Hamrlik - which is the biggest crock of shit I've heard in my life.

Let's face it in 1986 and 1993 the habs had teams with a lot of depth, excellent defence and had help from other teams to face teams that they were able to match up against. This year of the Bruins hadn't imploded, I think we could have been in the finals. BUt the habs smallish forwards couldn't generate anything against the bigger, more physical Flyers three years ago and they couldn't do it again this year. The loss wasn't on Halak. They would have faced the same issue against the Hawks, whose defence was clearly superior to the habs offense.

The only REAL upset IMO was the 1970-1971 season when the habs faced two clearly superior teams and only one team inferior to them (North Stars) on the road to the cup. For the team we had and the compitition we faced, Halak's efforts were heroic, as were, Cammy's, Gill's. Gorges, and Pleks (yes Pleks - he was a main cog for shutting down the pens and caps big guns). Despite the arguements on the quality of the shots, Halak made some HUGE saves to get us by the caps and Pens, which the Price supporters can't seem to acknowledge.

IMO, I would have liked to have Price and Halak in the nets for the habs this year and then move one at the trade deadline. I'm not sold on either long-term but would have preferred the habs give both a good hard look unless they got an offer that just blow them away. IMO, the deal for Eller didn't achieve that. This could have been accomplished by moving Hamrlik and another player (as a incentive) to one of the teams that need to reach the cap floor for a mid-low level draft pick, which is what other crafty GM's like the devils's Lamoriello have done. Unfortunatlely, the habs biggest weakness has been in the GM's that aren't crafty enough to use and adapt to the new CBA and have only are relying on the buy-out provision to get rid of bad contracts, which steal eats away at precious cap space. Anyway, I've gone on a tangent and the post has been much longer then intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Halak being compared to Roy, or Dryden? Playoff "heroes" who actually won the cup in the years being discussed.

The most irritating thing about this type of argument is that we are comparing a goalie who was pulled in 3 games and missed a start in another...we're talking over 3 series. He's being compared to two HOF goalies who enter the argument for being the best goalie in league history.

The Habs didn't make the finals let alone win the cup. But Halak is considered a hero and gets comparisons to Dryden and Roy.

If being a Habs fan now means lowering the standards of our "heroes" and lowering expectations to winning 2 rounds of hockey then it's a sad day in Montreal.

Halak's performance doesn't even come CLOSE to what Dryden and Roy.

Everyone seems to think that people are attacking Halak as being a poor goalie. I've never read that, nor said it myself. No one has ever said he wasn't a big part of the playoffs and regular season.

What IS being said is that some posters here, and some fans in general, are OFF THEIR ROCKER comparing Halak to Dryden or Roy. Hey, I hope Halak has a great career...he's a starting NHL caliber goalie. He has a ways to go before I compare him to to HOF goalies. His playoff didn't result in a cup win. They lost the conference finals in 5 games...it wasn't even close. He was pulled in 3 games overall and didn't start in another. Look to the rafters at the retired numbers. Look to guys that had LONG careers in a Habs jersey. THOSE are heroes. Halak had a few good games and a few bad games. A true playoff hero takes his team to the final...

Edited by Zowpeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Halak have a strong playoff run? Without question. If Price was in goal, would they have done as well? Probably not in my opinion. Did Halak do it alone? Absolutely not, give some credit to the team for blocked shots and scoring some timely goals. Thus, was his run heroic, one for the ages? Not really. Did he have a memorable game or two that can be compared to some of the greats? Sure, he had some really good games that he deserves a lot of credit for. Does that mean they made the wrong call dealing Halak over Price? I don't think so.

It comes to the question of which is more likely - Halak to play closer to the level in the 3rd round where he did struggle, or Price to continue struggling (and his numbers, wins aside weren't that bad). The safer bet is that given Price's pedigree, he'll likely rebound, while Halak may very well have played his best hockey. Even if Halak repeats his play, as long as Price comes around, the trade is still a win, just for both teams.

Price rebounds, Halak struggles = Habs win

Price rebounds, Halak does well = both teams win

Price stays bad, Halak does well = Habs likely lose unless Eller/Schultz become impact players (not unrealistic)

As the saying goes, 2 outta 3 ain't bad. :) On the flip side, if Price moves...

Halak stays strong, Price struggles = Habs win

Halak stays strong, Price rebounds = both teams win

Halak regresses, Price rebounds = Habs likely lose unless the Price return (likely lower since they'd have been selling low - and I don't buy the Ryan report for a second - they'd have got lesser players in return).

Still 2 out of 3, but more risk in the 3rd option. That's not even factoring in the cap savings from the trade. We can debate the deal until the cows come home but we won't know who won the deal probably for a good 5 years. Rather than discredit Price, why not root for the guy? I honestly get the sense some want him to fail to prove their opinion correct that Halak was the guy to keep despite the negative impact it'd have on the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did Halak have a strong playoff run? Without question. If Price was in goal, would they have done as well? Probably not in my opinion. Did Halak do it alone? Absolutely not, give some credit to the team for blocked shots and scoring some timely goals. Thus, was his run heroic, one for the ages? Not really. Did he have a memorable game or two that can be compared to some of the greats? Sure, he had some really good games that he deserves a lot of credit for. Does that mean they made the wrong call dealing Halak over Price? I don't think so.

It comes to the question of which is more likely - Halak to play closer to the level in the 3rd round where he did struggle, or Price to continue struggling (and his numbers, wins aside weren't that bad). The safer bet is that given Price's pedigree, he'll likely rebound, while Halak may very well have played his best hockey. Even if Halak repeats his play, as long as Price comes around, the trade is still a win, just for both teams.

Price rebounds, Halak struggles = Habs win

Price rebounds, Halak does well = both teams win

Price stays bad, Halak does well = Habs likely lose unless Eller/Schultz become impact players (not unrealistic)

As the saying goes, 2 outta 3 ain't bad. :) On the flip side, if Price moves...

Halak stays strong, Price struggles = Habs win

Halak stays strong, Price rebounds = both teams win

Halak regresses, Price rebounds = Habs likely lose unless the Price return (likely lower since they'd have been selling low - and I don't buy the Ryan report for a second - they'd have got lesser players in return).

Still 2 out of 3, but more risk in the 3rd option. That's not even factoring in the cap savings from the trade. We can debate the deal until the cows come home but we won't know who won the deal probably for a good 5 years. Rather than discredit Price, why not root for the guy? I honestly get the sense some want him to fail to prove their opinion correct that Halak was the guy to keep despite the negative impact it'd have on the team.

I'm sure Halak will look good in St.Louis next season, but all new goalies in the league look good for the first year (Halak's first in the west). After that the players know the tendencies and weakness.

The real Halak will be evident in year 2 with St.Louis, good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to see how the goalie gear change affects ALL the goalies, I suspect Halak might suffer a little if only because he's so strong down low and his pads are going to shrink by an inch I believe was reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Halak's name should not be uttered in the same breathe as Roy and Dryden because he won 9 games. That is halfway to the Cup.

This performance was not in the same area as Steve Penney's because that was done under the strict defensive system of Jacques Lemaire

who had replaced Berry late in the season. It was a 4th place Adams division team, but it was lead by the core of a 4 time Stanley Cup champion

that had produced 107,103,109,98 before the 75 point season and 94 and a Stanley Cup in the two seasons following.

Penney's performance is extremely overrated, especially with the hindsight of his career dying out in two seasons and Lemaire creating monster

goaltending performances every step of his career.

It is selective memory to ignore the performance that it most resembled and that was Theodore in 2002. Badly outshot by the Bruins and

on the verge of being up 3-1 on the Canes before the Habs collapsed with a much inferior team in front of them than the 2010 Habs.

Theo won 6 games with Bulis, Zednik, Koivu and Gilmour on his last legs. The D core had a young Markov, but was lead by Souray and Rivet. How would

Theo have fared had he the roster in front of him that Halak did?

It is likely ignored because of the way Theo's career played out and the fact that he was gone from Montreal 150 games later. Was he a playoff hero?

He left a game in which he was torched for 5 goals in a period to a standing ovation. Try finding a Montreal crowd who has done that before. I was at the

game when Halak was mediocre and the Habs went down 3-1 to the Flyers, there was no standing ovation for Halak, the Habs were booed off the ice.

In 2004 with the Habs trailing the Bruins 3-1 he allowed 3 goals in 100 shots for a .970 SV%. A goaltender who had PROVEN that he could steal

a playoff series.

Everything has to be processed through the hyperbole machine in Montreal.

IT DOESN'T MATTER what Price does. Montreal fans wanted Laracque to replace Dryden in 79 after 5 Cups in 7 years, they wanted Racicot to replace Roy

in 93 after a Stanley Cup, Conn Smythe and 3 Vezina trophies. They booed Theo out of town after he had a Halak type run and a Vezina and MVP and one year

removed from a 3-1 series comeback and a .940 SV% against the 2nd seeded Bruins.

Halak was going to get raked through the coals at some point in his career in Montreal, he just got moved before it happened. If the Habs had kept both

and Halak struggled then the fans would be calling for Price and deifying him. This story plays out OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

Stanley Cups don't buy you immunity. Vezina's do not buy you immunity. All-Star appearances do not buy you immunity.

If the Habs are good and Price is average and Price has a .918 SV% and the Blues struggle and Halak is magnificent but has a .913 SV% the fanbase will

remain happy. If the Habs are terrible and Price is fantastic and has a .914 SV% and Halak rides a Tim Thomas year with a strong defensive Blues team

the fanbase will scream bloody murder.

The fanbase are basically simpletons. They are the equivalent of individuals trying to offer their perspective on a law case because they have seen To Kill a Mockingbird.

It is what it is. If the Habs win Price will be fine. If the Habs are losing, Price will be blamed. It has nothing to do with how well he plays.

Edited by Wamsley01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha...ouch Wammy...thats cold and harsh....but very truthful, us habs fans are kind of brutal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Halak's name should not be uttered in the same breathe as Roy and Dryden because he won 9 games. That is halfway to the Cup.

This performance was not in the same area as Steve Penney's because that was done under the strict defensive system of Jacques Lemaire

who had replaced Berry late in the season. It was a 4th place Adams division team, but it was lead by the core of a 4 time Stanley Cup champion

that had produced 107,103,109,98 before the 75 point season and 94 and a Stanley Cup in the two seasons following.

Penney's performance is extremely overrated, especially with the hindsight of his career dying out in two seasons and Lemaire creating monster

goaltending performances every step of his career.

It is selective memory to ignore the performance that it most resembled and that was Theodore in 2002. Badly outshot by the Bruins and

on the verge of being up 3-1 on the Canes before the Habs collapsed with a much inferior team in front of them than the 2010 Habs.

Theo won 6 games with Bulis, Zednik, Koivu and Gilmour on his last legs. The D core had a young Markov, but was lead by Souray and Rivet. How would

Theo have fared had he the roster in front of him that Halak did?

It is likely ignored because of the way Theo's career played out and the fact that he was gone from Montreal 150 games later. Was he a playoff hero?

He left a game in which he was torched for 5 goals in a period to a standing ovation. Try finding a Montreal crowd who has done that before. I was at the

game when Halak was mediocre and the Habs went down 3-1 to the Flyers, there was no standing ovation for Halak, the Habs were booed off the ice.

In 2004 with the Habs trailing the Bruins 3-1 he allowed 3 goals in 100 shots for a .970 SV%. A goaltender who had PROVEN that he could steal

a playoff series.

Everything has to be processed through the hyperbole machine in Montreal.

IT DOESN'T MATTER what Price does. Montreal fans wanted Laracque to replace Dryden in 79 after 5 Cups in 7 years, they wanted Racicot to replace Roy

in 93 after a Stanley Cup, Conn Smythe and 3 Vezina trophies. They booed Theo out of town after he had a Halak type run and a Vezina and MVP and one year

removed from a 3-1 series comeback and a .940 SV% against the 2nd seeded Bruins.

Halak was going to get raked through the coals at some point in his career in Montreal, he just got moved before it happened. If the Habs had kept both

and Halak struggled then the fans would be calling for Price and deifying him. This story plays out OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

Stanley Cups don't buy you immunity. Vezina's do not buy you immunity. All-Star appearances do not buy you immunity.

If the Habs are good and Price is average and Price has a .918 SV% and the Blues struggle and Halak is magnificent but has a .913 SV% the fanbase will

remain happy. If the Habs are terrible and Price is fantastic and has a .914 SV% and Halak rides a Tim Thomas year with a strong defensive Blues team

the fanbase will scream bloody murder.

The fanbase are basically simpletons. They are the equivalent of individuals trying to offer their perspective on a law case because they have seen To Kill a Mockingbird.

It is what it is. If the Habs win Price will be fine. If the Habs are losing, Price will be blamed. It has nothing to do with how well he plays.

THat was pretty nasty. And nice. We should spend more time considering what totalitarian indifferent creeps we tend to be. ! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Halak's name should not be uttered in the same breathe as Roy and Dryden because he won 9 games. That is halfway to the Cup.

This performance was not in the same area as Steve Penney's because that was done under the strict defensive system of Jacques Lemaire

who had replaced Berry late in the season. It was a 4th place Adams division team, but it was lead by the core of a 4 time Stanley Cup champion

that had produced 107,103,109,98 before the 75 point season and 94 and a Stanley Cup in the two seasons following.

Penney's performance is extremely overrated, especially with the hindsight of his career dying out in two seasons and Lemaire creating monster

goaltending performances every step of his career.

It is selective memory to ignore the performance that it most resembled and that was Theodore in 2002. Badly outshot by the Bruins and

on the verge of being up 3-1 on the Canes before the Habs collapsed with a much inferior team in front of them than the 2010 Habs.

Theo won 6 games with Bulis, Zednik, Koivu and Gilmour on his last legs. The D core had a young Markov, but was lead by Souray and Rivet. How would

Theo have fared had he the roster in front of him that Halak did?

It is likely ignored because of the way Theo's career played out and the fact that he was gone from Montreal 150 games later. Was he a playoff hero?

He left a game in which he was torched for 5 goals in a period to a standing ovation. Try finding a Montreal crowd who has done that before. I was at the

game when Halak was mediocre and the Habs went down 3-1 to the Flyers, there was no standing ovation for Halak, the Habs were booed off the ice.

In 2004 with the Habs trailing the Bruins 3-1 he allowed 3 goals in 100 shots for a .970 SV%. A goaltender who had PROVEN that he could steal

a playoff series.

Everything has to be processed through the hyperbole machine in Montreal.

IT DOESN'T MATTER what Price does. Montreal fans wanted Laracque to replace Dryden in 79 after 5 Cups in 7 years, they wanted Racicot to replace Roy

in 93 after a Stanley Cup, Conn Smythe and 3 Vezina trophies. They booed Theo out of town after he had a Halak type run and a Vezina and MVP and one year

removed from a 3-1 series comeback and a .940 SV% against the 2nd seeded Bruins.

Halak was going to get raked through the coals at some point in his career in Montreal, he just got moved before it happened. If the Habs had kept both

and Halak struggled then the fans would be calling for Price and deifying him. This story plays out OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

Stanley Cups don't buy you immunity. Vezina's do not buy you immunity. All-Star appearances do not buy you immunity.

If the Habs are good and Price is average and Price has a .918 SV% and the Blues struggle and Halak is magnificent but has a .913 SV% the fanbase will

remain happy. If the Habs are terrible and Price is fantastic and has a .914 SV% and Halak rides a Tim Thomas year with a strong defensive Blues team

the fanbase will scream bloody murder.

The fanbase are basically simpletons. They are the equivalent of individuals trying to offer their perspective on a law case because they have seen To Kill a Mockingbird.

It is what it is. If the Habs win Price will be fine. If the Habs are losing, Price will be blamed. It has nothing to do with how well he plays.

I couldn't agree more about the idiocy of the fan base montreal has now. If you really want to know if they did the right thing, watch for the fans reactions. If 80% hate it, it was a great move. The higher it goes the better off the move was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but by the same token, I am tired of hearing Price compared to Roy, etc. At least Halak put up a fantastic series of wins against top offensive teams (with help from the team in front, but that goes for Roy too), Price was being compared to those guys before he even put on the sweater!

I would compare Halak to some great series performances, like the Theo stuffing of Boston. I don't think we should utter either of their names in the same breath as Roy or Dryden until they earn it. For the record, winning the cup doesn't mean much if your team won despite you (see Niemi). I reserve Dryden / Roy / Brodeur comparisons for goalies that win the cup against the odds, winning the conn smythe, and doing it more then once. There are very few goalies in the league who can be compared to those guys.

We were truely spoiled with Dryden and Roy. NJ has build teams around the solid performance of Brodeur. Edmonton, Chicago, Detroit used great teams in front of okay goaltending to win their cups.

Halak's name should not be uttered in the same breathe as Roy and Dryden because he won 9 games. That is halfway to the Cup.

This performance was not in the same area as Steve Penney's because that was done under the strict defensive system of Jacques Lemaire

who had replaced Berry late in the season. It was a 4th place Adams division team, but it was lead by the core of a 4 time Stanley Cup champion

that had produced 107,103,109,98 before the 75 point season and 94 and a Stanley Cup in the two seasons following.

Penney's performance is extremely overrated, especially with the hindsight of his career dying out in two seasons and Lemaire creating monster

goaltending performances every step of his career.

It is selective memory to ignore the performance that it most resembled and that was Theodore in 2002. Badly outshot by the Bruins and

on the verge of being up 3-1 on the Canes before the Habs collapsed with a much inferior team in front of them than the 2010 Habs.

Theo won 6 games with Bulis, Zednik, Koivu and Gilmour on his last legs. The D core had a young Markov, but was lead by Souray and Rivet. How would

Theo have fared had he the roster in front of him that Halak did?

It is likely ignored because of the way Theo's career played out and the fact that he was gone from Montreal 150 games later. Was he a playoff hero?

He left a game in which he was torched for 5 goals in a period to a standing ovation. Try finding a Montreal crowd who has done that before. I was at the

game when Halak was mediocre and the Habs went down 3-1 to the Flyers, there was no standing ovation for Halak, the Habs were booed off the ice.

In 2004 with the Habs trailing the Bruins 3-1 he allowed 3 goals in 100 shots for a .970 SV%. A goaltender who had PROVEN that he could steal

a playoff series.

Everything has to be processed through the hyperbole machine in Montreal.

IT DOESN'T MATTER what Price does. Montreal fans wanted Laracque to replace Dryden in 79 after 5 Cups in 7 years, they wanted Racicot to replace Roy

in 93 after a Stanley Cup, Conn Smythe and 3 Vezina trophies. They booed Theo out of town after he had a Halak type run and a Vezina and MVP and one year

removed from a 3-1 series comeback and a .940 SV% against the 2nd seeded Bruins.

Halak was going to get raked through the coals at some point in his career in Montreal, he just got moved before it happened. If the Habs had kept both

and Halak struggled then the fans would be calling for Price and deifying him. This story plays out OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

Stanley Cups don't buy you immunity. Vezina's do not buy you immunity. All-Star appearances do not buy you immunity.

If the Habs are good and Price is average and Price has a .918 SV% and the Blues struggle and Halak is magnificent but has a .913 SV% the fanbase will

remain happy. If the Habs are terrible and Price is fantastic and has a .914 SV% and Halak rides a Tim Thomas year with a strong defensive Blues team

the fanbase will scream bloody murder.

The fanbase are basically simpletons. They are the equivalent of individuals trying to offer their perspective on a law case because they have seen To Kill a Mockingbird.

It is what it is. If the Habs win Price will be fine. If the Habs are losing, Price will be blamed. It has nothing to do with how well he plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but by the same token, I am tired of hearing Price compared to Roy, etc. At least Halak put up a fantastic series of wins against top offensive teams (with help from the team in front, but that goes for Roy too), Price was being compared to those guys before he even put on the sweater!

I would compare Halak to some great series performances, like the Theo stuffing of Boston. I don't think we should utter either of their names in the same breath as Roy or Dryden until they earn it. For the record, winning the cup doesn't mean much if your team won despite you (see Niemi). I reserve Dryden / Roy / Brodeur comparisons for goalies that win the cup against the odds, winning the conn smythe, and doing it more then once. There are very few goalies in the league who can be compared to those guys.

We were truely spoiled with Dryden and Roy. NJ has build teams around the solid performance of Brodeur. Edmonton, Chicago, Detroit used great teams in front of okay goaltending to win their cups.

The Price comparable made sense on the basis that he won the Calder Cup as a 19 year old call-up just like Roy did in 1985. Both goaltenders had done something so eerily similar that it was impossible to avoid the comparison. The problem is that the media runs with these things and encourage the fanbase to build up the players to biblical proportions and then begin the rumour mongering and ear whispering that begins the destruction of their pedestal.

When Price came up every highlight of him was followed with Dryden stoning Pappin in 1971 and Roy being peppered against the Rangers in 1986. Once he failed to take the Habs past the second round in 2008 the comparison no longer maintained it's relevance.

Halak's performance was NEVER compared to Theodore during the playoffs for some reason, even though he was sitting in the other crease. The parallel was right there but it did not fit the narrative of the story they wanted to tell.

With Theo's fall so fresh in the minds of the Canadiens fanbase it would have brought the negative aspect of Theodore's fall from grace to the forefront. So they ran with Dryden and Roy with a small sprinkling of Penney. Even though Penney flamed out, it was over 25 years ago and only those approaching 40 years old would actually remember the Penney era.

You need to win a Cup before you enter the rarified air of those legends. Even then you may not reach that level as Rogie Vachon could attest. Hyperbole is the name of the game today, and the Pierre McGuire's of the world are happy

to line their pockets by handing it to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just goalies either.. I am tired of every prospect being the next Lafleur. :)

I tend to take a conservative approach with all rookies. The rarely live up to the hype, other then some top picks. Once you are down in the 2nd round of the draft, its a crapshoot as to which ones will rise to the top. I prefer to wait to see who delivers before I get too nuts. (PK might be the exception, but I have been pretty cautious on him too, but his playoff performance validates some of the hype). Its funny but if you go back to the Belleville Bulls, PK was a long shot and pasted all the best D prospects they drafted. Mike Murphy did the same as a goalie, rising from a low end goalie prospect to the top OHL goalie. Oddly enough, my son was at the Bulls camp yesterday and the first video was Mike Murphy at the Bulls prospect camp.. he looked brutal and the goalie coach said that few saw any hope for him even making the team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Price comparable made sense on the basis that he won the Calder Cup as a 19 year old call-up just like Roy did in 1985. Both goaltenders had done something so eerily similar that it was impossible to avoid the comparison. The problem is that the media runs with these things and encourage the fanbase to build up the players to biblical proportions and then begin the rumour mongering and ear whispering that begins the destruction of their pedestal.

When Price came up every highlight of him was followed with Dryden stoning Pappin in 1971 and Roy being peppered against the Rangers in 1986. Once he failed to take the Habs past the second round in 2008 the comparison no longer maintained it's relevance.

Halak's performance was NEVER compared to Theodore during the playoffs for some reason, even though he was sitting in the other crease. The parallel was right there but it did not fit the narrative of the story they wanted to tell.

With Theo's fall so fresh in the minds of the Canadiens fanbase it would have brought the negative aspect of Theodore's fall from grace to the forefront. So they ran with Dryden and Roy with a small sprinkling of Penney. Even though Penney flamed out, it was over 25 years ago and only those approaching 40 years old would actually remember the Penney era.

You need to win a Cup before you enter the rarified air of those legends. Even then you may not reach that level as Rogie Vachon could attest. Hyperbole is the name of the game today, and the Pierre McGuire's of the world are happy

to line their pockets by handing it to us.

remember the penny's from heaven sign on the jumbotron? then the pennies falling down? He was amazing that series. Then Roy shows up. I was mad. What happened to Penny? He's the best. Who's this shakey headed guy? He looks like he has epilepsy or something. Oh... he's good. He's really good...Steve who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Halak's performance was NEVER compared to Theodore during the playoffs for some reason, even though he was sitting in the other crease. The parallel was right there but it did not fit the narrative of the story they wanted to tell.

Hey, wait a sec, I did read that comparison somewhere...

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...