Jack Todd embarrasses himself

[Wamsley01]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Pric...2484/story.html

I was one of the first to believe that Price could attain the level of a Plante, a Dryden, a Roy. Turns out I was right all along. It just took longer than anyone expected.

So he spends the greater part of a year destroying him and now he is selling that he knew first.

I covered Price's first NHL game, in Pittsburgh, and I thought I was seeing a young Ken Dryden. Perhaps that was true, but Price did not develop as quickly as Dryden or Patrick Roy. For many reasons. Maybe Price let the early adulation go to his head. Certainly it took a while for him to understand what you have to do to succeed at this level.

He does realize that Dryden's first professional game came when he was just under 24 years old.

What a clown.

[sakiqc]

That's insane. There is really no accountability out there.

[BTH]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Pric...2484/story.html

So he spends the greater part of a year destroying him and now he is selling that he knew first.

He does realize that Dryden's first professional game came when he was just under 24 years old.

What a clown.

This is exactly the situation I was referring to in my Media & Accountability thread. Price succeeds and now Todd flips sides just like that, says he was always on this side and then everyone moves on. Saying that he always thought Price would be great is not only revisionist history, it's a blatant lie.

I don't even read his articles anymore. The more people talk about him, the less likely the chance that he ever loses his job.

[Wamsley01]

This is exactly the situation I was referring to in my Media & Accountability thread. Price succeeds and now Todd flips sides just like that, says he was always on this side and then everyone moves on. Saying that he always thought Price would be great is not only revisionist history, it's a blatant lie.

I don't even read his articles anymore. The more people talk about him, the less likely the chance that he ever loses his job.

My problem is he has no problem with the approach that it is ok to just follow rumours and on ice results

to make his opinion and has no sense of forecasting, sensitivity or understanding of what a player struggles

with to achieve stardom in the NHL.

Anybody can take yesterdays results and analyze them.

[TruthMonger]

This is exactly the situation I was referring to in my Media & Accountability thread. Price succeeds and now Todd flips sides just like that, says he was always on this side and then everyone moves on. Saying that he always thought Price would be great is not only revisionist history, it's a blatant lie.

I don't even read his articles anymore. The more people talk about him, the less likely the chance that he ever loses his job.

To be fair, he does spend much of the article calling himself out for trashing Price recently. And it is true that he used to talk up Price as being a saviour. A quick google search found this nugget from 2007:

"What the Canadiens need, then, is a three- to five-year plan. Build around goaltender Carey Price, who may turn out to have been the most brilliant draft choice of Gainey's career. If Price is the goalie he appeared to be during the world juniors, he could conceivably be another Martin Brodeur or Patrick Roy, a guy who gives you a chance to win it all every year, even when he's backstopping mediocre teams."

http://www2.canada.com/topics/sports/hocke...4338&page=2

That being said, I do find Todd to be a vacillating blowhard with limited writing skills.

[BTH]

My problem is he has no problem with the approach that it is ok to just follow rumours and on ice results

to make his opinion and has no sense of forecasting, sensitivity or understanding of what a player struggles

with to achieve stardom in the NHL.

Anybody can take yesterdays results and analyze them.

Even though I predicted hearing this from him, I'm still surprised that he went about this in such a shameless way:

"I was one of the first to believe that Price could attain the level of a Plante, a Dryden, a Roy. Turns out I was right all along." Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that had Price failed and gone to Europe, Todd would have responded to the situation by saying, "I was one of the ones saying all along that Gauthier should have kept Halak. Turns out I was right all along"? In no other profession can you get away with being so shamelessly bad. Okay, maybe he could pass as a fortune teller, weather man or guy doing the horoscopes.

[JoeLassister]

Even though I predicted hearing this from him, I'm still surprised that he went about this in such a shameless way:

"I was one of the first to believe that Price could attain the level of a Plante, a Dryden, a Roy. Turns out I was right all along." Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that had Price failed and gone to Europe, Todd would have responded to the situation by saying, "I was one of the ones saying all along that Gauthier should have kept Halak. Turns out I was right all along"? In no other profession can you get away with being so shamelessly bad. Okay, maybe he could pass as a fortune teller, weather man or guy doing the horoscopes.

[Wamsley01]

To be fair, he does spend much of the article calling himself out for trashing Price recently. And it is true that he used to talk up Price as being a saviour. A quick google search found this nugget from 2007:

"What the Canadiens need, then, is a three- to five-year plan. Build around goaltender Carey Price, who may turn out to have been the most brilliant draft choice of Gainey's career. If Price is the goalie he appeared to be during the world juniors, he could conceivably be another Martin Brodeur or Patrick Roy, a guy who gives you a chance to win it all every year, even when he's backstopping mediocre teams."

http://www2.canada.com/topics/sports/hocke...4338&page=2

That being said, I do find Todd to be a vacillating blowhard with limited writing skills.

If you trumpet a guy and then not just jump off that bandwagon but destroy it by dropping 3 atom bombs

on it, don't write something ridiculous like he did today.

"I was wrong, but" is not an admission of guilt. It is essentially his way of saying he wouldn't change anything

about his shameless attacks on Price because all of the info he had at the time lead him to these viewpoints.

If he was really such a defender and he knew it first, he should have looked to history to support why Price

may take awhile to mature. Instead he rips him for being immature when somebody who saw his greatness

would have had the insight to understand that EVERY goaltender struggles in season 2 and 3 at that young age.

It is reactionary hack journalism.

[BTH]

To be fair, he does spend much of the article calling himself out for trashing Price recently.

Good. But his acknowledging that he trashed Price is nullified by him then praising himself for having been right about Price all along.

And it is true that he used to talk up Price as being a saviour. A quick google search found this nugget from 2007:

"What the Canadiens need, then, is a three- to five-year plan. Build around goaltender Carey Price, who may turn out to have been the most brilliant draft choice of Gainey's career. If Price is the goalie he appeared to be during the world juniors, he could conceivably be another Martin Brodeur or Patrick Roy, a guy who gives you a chance to win it all every year, even when he's backstopping mediocre teams."

http://www2.canada.com/topics/sports/hocke...4338&page=2

That being said, I do find Todd to be a vacillating blowhard with limited writing skills.

I don't see this as a defense. It just proves that Todd has no foresight and always forms his opinions based on what's happening at that moment.

Price is playing well - he's the greatest draft choice Gainey made.

Price is playing so-so - he's immature, a bad draft pick, worse than Halak, average, etc...

Price is playing great again on a better team - he's now in the category of Plante, Roy and Dryden.

Just watch, if Price hits a slump, Todd will be back on him again.

[TruthMonger]

I don't see this as a defense. It just proves that Todd has no foresight and always forms his opinions based on what's happening at that moment.

I absolutely agree with this point. I've always disliked his reactionary style and his lack of subtlety or context. I was just making the point that him saying that he thought Price would be a star at the beginning was not an outright lie.

I make no apologies for his flip-flopping or self-congratulation. I really don't like the guy's writing.

[Wamsley01]

I absolutely agree with this point. I've always disliked his reactionary style and his lack of subtlety or context. I was just making the point that him saying that he thought Price would be a star at the beginning was not an outright lie.

I make no apologies for his flip-flopping or self-congratulation. I really don't like the guy's writing.

The most pathetic thing is, this is EXACTLY the type of article that we all knew he would write for his mea culpa.

An article that says I was wrong, but touts why he wasn't really wrong. Allowing him now to write about Price

in a positive manner for as long as Price plays well.

[JoeLassister]

You guys should write an article à la Todd right now for when Price will be in a slump. Make sure to date it and then post the link everywhere when it will happen.

[brobin]

All media do this. They roll with the flow. Every year the predictions are based on last year, rarely taking into account changes in the teams, etc.

As for Price, while he has played great for 20 games or so, the entire defensive system has played great too. I have seen him play this well for 20 games, then blow up and suck. The true measure of Price is two fold. How does he react to a slump and how does he do in the playoffs. That is still to be seen, but things are definitely looking up and I will enjoy the ride while hoping it will last.

To be fair to Todd, many people felt that Price had potential, but his ability to reach it in Montreal was hardly a sure thing. The Price boosters (some of who are in this thread) were once calling him the next Roy in his first season. Many of us felt he was rushed and it would take time for him to fully develop, but that there was a very good chance he would turn into that great goalie his potential indicated. Still, any suggestion that Price wasn't already ROY and we were called "Price bashers". Even last year, we were told through detailed stats why Price was so good and Halak had it easy. Funny thing is, even Price admitted he was not up to par last year. That his concentration and work effort sucked. That he didn't work his way out of the slump. That he learned a ton watching from the bench. Yet calling a spade a spade last year was deemed to be bashing.

I hope Price continues his outstanding play, as well as the rest of the team. I hope people don't jump all over him if he has a 5 game slump, but I won't be surprised to see it, it happens all the time to all players. From goat to hero, to goat, to evil incarnate... I will settle for some consistency.

[BCHabnut]

The problem with most media is :"the flavor of the day!" They usually steal research from each other and then run with what's popular. The Kovalchuk crap all summer was an example. How about Stamkos 50 in 50? 21 games in and every show is talking about 50 in 50. When the chips are down instead of looking at the reason why, they beat on a scapegoat. Few writers or tv analysts were willing to say that for whatever reason, the team was winning with Halak, and he was doing well, but who can fault Price when 3/4 of his losses his team scored 1 goal or less.

So far I am still with the media on the Halak trade. It's too early to tell that the return won't be awesome, but the timing of the trade was odd. If he waited another month and exhausted all possible options I would have been more content to say. OK, I guess a descent prospect is all we are getting for him.

[Wamsley01]

All media do this. They roll with the flow. Every year the predictions are based on last year, rarely taking into account changes in the teams, etc.

As for Price, while he has played great for 20 games or so, the entire defensive system has played great too. I have seen him play this well for 20 games, then blow up and suck. The true measure of Price is two fold. How does he react to a slump and how does he do in the playoffs. That is still to be seen, but things are definitely looking up and I will enjoy the ride while hoping it will last.

To be fair to Todd, many people felt that Price had potential, but his ability to reach it in Montreal was hardly a sure thing. The Price boosters (some of who are in this thread) were once calling him the next Roy in his first season. Many of us felt he was rushed and it would take time for him to fully develop, but that there was a very good chance he would turn into that great goalie his potential indicated. Still, any suggestion that Price wasn't already ROY and we were called "Price bashers". Even last year, we were told through detailed stats why Price was so good and Halak had it easy. Funny thing is, even Price admitted he was not up to par last year. That his concentration and work effort sucked. That he didn't work his way out of the slump. That he learned a ton watching from the bench. Yet calling a spade a spade last year was deemed to be bashing.

I hope Price continues his outstanding play, as well as the rest of the team. I hope people don't jump all over him if he has a 5 game slump, but I won't be surprised to see it, it happens all the time to all players. From goat to hero, to goat, to evil incarnate... I will settle for some consistency.

Yes Brobin. YOU saw all of this just the way it happened and were much maligned by us Pro-Price supporters.

The way he is playing right now kind of proves he wasn't rushed, yet you toss in little caveats like "I have seen him play well for 20 games before, let's see if he can keep it up and how he does in the playoffs" let's hope he can. These statements allow you to

a. tell us you were behind him if he keeps this up for 40-60 games and

b. allows you to say "i told you so" if he struggles.

It is an open ended statement and you have been saying shit like that for 3 years even though you had a pro Huet/Halak stance.

You said don't trade Huet. Then Price tears off a 40 game stretch where he loses 7 of 40 starts and you justify your don't trade Huet argument by saying Huet would have been insurance against the Flyers in the playoffs. You know, the Huet who lost to the same Flyers in the first round that year and is now out of the league. The guy you wanted to give $5M per year to and trade him if necessary, how did that contract work out for the Hawks? Should we assess the Halak situation if the Habs had re-signed Huet if they had followed what you wanted? Because he would never have seen Montreal if Huet had a $5M per year deal with the Habs.

You essentially called out Price for costing the Habs in the playoffs because he had no backup (his backup, a 22 year old Halak). His playoffs a failure because he melted down. His first round playoff victory where he had a .925 SV% with 2 shutouts rendered moot. Why? Because he lost in 5 games to the Flyers in 2008 facing 29 shots per game an registering an .856 SV%. Halak who had an .883 SV% facing a meagre 25 shots per game against the Flyers in 2010 is given a pass because of the work in the previous rounds. Is that calling a spade a spade? Sounds like a little bit of bias to me.

You proclaimed that Halak had a great Olympics proving that he is a legitimate "big game" goaltender when his stats nose dived with each successive round and he finished 8th out of 14 goalies with a .910 SV%. Once again, you ignore the second half of his performance and accentuate his earlier work, something you do not afford Price. Is a .910 SV% strong? Because in your estimation Price's .912 last season was accrued through a work effort and concentration level that sucked.

Acting like the Pro-Price crowds "detailed" stats is irrelevant is ridiculous. Goaltenders facing Washington in 2010 had a .880SV%, goaltenders facing the Leafs had a .920 so I guess playing the Leafs 4 times and the Caps zero wouldn't affect the stats in any way. Add in the Panthers 4 times (.913), the Isles 4 times (.914), Ottawa 4 times (.910) etc, all teams who struggled to score and it wouldn't have bridged the statistical gap at all right? The difference wasn't as large as it seemed, that was the point and it was the point in regards to why a surface level decision to trade Price based on the .12 difference and wins was a big mistake.

I guess you are just calling a spade a spade though.

BTW, I would love to see the interview where Price said his concentration and work effort "sucked", what I recall is him saying he could have worked harder and that he felt snake bitten and that he needed a kick in the ass that Markov provided (you know because he sucked so bad with that .915 SV% at the time of the Blues loss).

You are essentially pulling the same crap that Todd just did.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Wamsley01

[fromage]

Price wasn't rushed...

He dominated every league(WHL, WJC, AHL) he has ever played in and collected tons of accolades.

He dominated while backing up Huet. Leading to the Huet trade. Yes he did blow up by the playoffs that year, that was bad. I doubt that has anything to do with him being rushed though. He probably wouldn't learn much more playing in the AHL anyways.

He dominated the 1st half of the centennial season up until the allstar game. that was bad. thats where the maturity rumours started happening, which is entirely plausible, but the fact remains that he shouldn't have ever been considered for a demotion to the AHL.

he's dominating now.

Edited December 7, 2010 by fromage

[Wamsley01]

Price wasn't rushed...

He dominated every league(WHL, WJC, AHL) he has ever played in and collected tons of accolades.

He dominated while backing up Huet. Leading to the Huet trade. Yes he did blow up by the playoffs that year, that was bad. I doubt that has anything to do with him being rushed though. He probably wouldn't learn much more playing in the AHL anyways.

He dominated the 1st half of the centennial season up until the allstar game. that was bad. thats where the maturity rumours started happening, which is entirely plausible, but the fact remains that he shouldn't have ever been considered for a demotion to the AHL.

he's dominating now.

Why is it that Price "imploded" in the 2008 playoffs, but Halak didn't implode in the 2010 playoffs?

Because Halak won an extra round? Because the perception is that Halak did all the work himself in the first 2 rounds?

[saskhab]

Why is it that Price "imploded" in the 2008 playoffs, but Halak didn't implode in the 2010 playoffs?

Because Halak won an extra round? Because the perception is that Halak did all the work himself in the first 2 rounds?

Don't forget, Halak got a full game in the 2010 second round vs. Philly, too, and it didn't change a thing.

[thib46]

Don't forget, Halak got a full game in the 2010 second round vs. Philly, too, and it didn't change a thing.

The closest thing to Todd in the US Media is Keith Oberman, I do not listen or read anything from either of them.

[huzer]

What I find most amusing is that the entire debate really ended with just the title of the thread. Todd's been embarrassing himself for years. No explanation needed.

[saskhab]

Don't forget, Halak got a full game in the 2008 second round vs. Philly, too, and it didn't change a thing.

Er, made a typo there.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I'm not gonna argue statistics with Wamsley - God forbid - but I would like to say, impressionistically, that to my recollection the difference between the Philly series of 2008 and 2010 is that in the former the Habs were arguably the better team, getting better chances especially in the early going, but lost in significant measure because Price was a seive and Biron was excellent. In 2010 the Flyers were clearly the better team from the get-go, completely shutting down the Habs' offence and overpowering a tired, banged-up and Markov-less defence. True, Halak did NOT play great against Philly. But when you lose to what is clearly the better team it's hard to talk about the goalie 'melting down.' If we'd had strong (not spectacular) netminding against Philly in 2008, we'd have had a solid chance to win that series or at least take it to 6 or 7 games. So the melt-down label applies more accurately to Price in 2008 than to Halak in 2010; Price to some significant degree cost us the series, whereas Halak merely failed to win it.

I was one of those who felt trading Huet was a mistake, and to this day I wish we'd had Huet to fall back on; he had not yet been exposed, as the laughable Chicago contract amply demonstrated. Not saying he would have won the series, but at least he might have been stronger than Price. I hope that doesn't make me a Price-basher. I never pretended absolute knowledge about how Price would work out, one way or the other.

Indeed, I'm not sure why we're even going on about it...except to say that what happened two years ago isn't terribly relevant to where we are NOW. So far this season, Price has played as well as any goalie can possibly be expected to play; he has been phenomenally consistent. It's also true that he has yet to turn in a compelling performance in the NHL playoffs, although the first round against Boston in 2008 was a fine performance. Like Luongo and anyone else, though, until Price goes on a good, extended playoff run, that will remain a question mark - as it should.

Halak showed he could come up incredibly big when it counts most. That is a point his favour. Doesn't mean he's the second coming of Roy. Personally, I suspect that Curtis Joseph is the most likely analogy for him - a guy who can turn a series but isn't necessarily the stopper to take you the distance. Price looks more like that type right now. Que sera sera.

Edited December 8, 2010 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[fromage]

Why is it that Price "imploded" in the 2008 playoffs, but Halak didn't implode in the 2010 playoffs?

Because Price played something like 100 games that year? last season of WHL, WJC(won gold + MVP), season of AHL + playoffs(won Calder cup), and a season with Montreal + playoffs. That's a lot of hockey for a goaltender, and he was what, 21 or 22 years old?

[BTH]

Because Price played something like 100 games that year? last season of WHL, WJC(won gold + MVP), season of AHL + playoffs(won Calder cup), and a season with Montreal + playoffs. That's a lot of hockey for a goaltender, and he was what, 21 or 22 years old?

I think he meant "why is that people say that Price imploded in'08 but Halak didn't implode in '10?"

[Wamsley01]

I'm not gonna argue statistics with Wamsley - God forbid - but I would like to say, impressionistically, that to my recollection the difference between the Philly series of 2008 and 2010 is that in the former the Habs were arguably the better team, getting better chances especially in the early going, but lost in significant measure because Price was a seive and Biron was excellent. In 2010 the Flyers were clearly the better team from the get-go, completely shutting down the Habs' offence and overpowering a tired, banged-up and Markov-less defence. True, Halak did NOT play great against Philly. But when you lose to what is clearly the better team it's hard to talk about the goalie 'melting down.' If we'd had strong (not spectacular) netminding against Philly in 2008, we'd have had a solid chance to win that series or at least take it to 6 or 7 games. So the melt-down label applies more accurately to Price in 2008 than to Halak in 2010; Price to some significant degree cost us the series, whereas Halak merely failed to win it.

I was one of those who felt trading Huet was a mistake, and to this day I wish we'd had Huet to fall back on; he had not yet been exposed, as the laughable Chicago contract amply demonstrated. Not saying he would have won the series, but at least he might have been stronger than Price. I hope that doesn't make me a Price-basher. I never pretended absolute knowledge about how Price would work out, one way or the other.

Indeed, I'm not sure why we're even going on about it...except to say that what happened two years ago isn't terribly relevant to where we are NOW. So far this season, Price has played as well as any goalie can possibly be expected to play; he has been phenomenally consistent. It's also true that he has yet to turn in a compelling performance in the NHL playoffs, although the first round against Boston in 2008 was a fine performance. Like Luongo and anyone else, though, until Price goes on a good, extended playoff run, that will remain a question mark - as it should.

Halak showed he could come up incredibly big when it counts most. That is a point his favour. Doesn't mean he's the second coming of Roy. Personally, I suspect that Curtis Joseph is the most likely analogy for him - a guy who can turn a series but isn't necessarily the stopper to take you the distance. Price looks more like that type right now. Que sera sera.

A lot of these points are perceptions on your part.

"Halak showed he could come up incredibly big when it counts." This is a statement that cannot be quantified.

Is coming up big in the first round "when it counts"? Or is coming up big in the third round "when it counts"? Is coming up big

in the Olympic elimination round "when it counts"? Or is coming up big in the medal round "when it counts"?

If I decide that my perception is anti-Halak bias, then I can say he DIDN'T come up big when it counted. You have shifted your argument

all through here based on perception. If Halak can dominate superior teams in Washington and Pittsburgh, why not Philadelphia?

The Pens were the defending champs, the Caps had the 1st seed and Philly finished ahead of the Habs by 1 point.

Price cost the Habs in 2008 because they played an inferior team, but the Habs scored 2 goals or less in three

of the 5 games against the "inferior" team. Halak did no better in Game 4 when the Habs struggled again to score.

Ultimately my point was that nobody is right about everything. I made minor errors in evaluation and expectation over the last 3 seasons.

One thing I was 100% consistent about was that "HE WAS NOT RUSHED" and that his inconsistency was based on age and experience.

This was based on research in regards to the development arc of every 20-25 year old goaltender.

All of the things in between are petty little arguments to undermine the main message and that is that Gainey was right to bring

him up and hand him the keys when he did and Gauthier/Martin were right when they Subbaned him in favour of Halak.

Price was not ruined and their treatment of him actually accelerated his development.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Wamsley01