Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Anything less then Forsburg or Salic was a terrible trade. The original offer that got Savard fired was Roy for Fiset/Nolan. Nolan was a 30 goal power forward at the time and Montreal wasted a ton of first round picks chasing a player like Owen Nolan. It still would have turned out to be a bad deal but having Nolan in our top six would have saved some bad draft choices. It's good to remember that Montreal was trying to trade Roy at his lowest value. Colorado was not offering Forsberg or Sakic for him. You never try trading a player when their value is low if you can help it. In 95-96 Montreal's forward corps was looking better than even 93 (Turgeon, Damphousse, Recchi, rookie Koivu and Bure) and it was their defence that was getting thin. Had they kept Roy that season they would have easily beat the Rangers (Rangers picked apart Montreal's defence by game three and turned around a 2-0 deficit and won the next four straight. Roy wouldn't have allowed that) and with Boston bounced in the first round by Florida, they never would have had to deal with another "Roy can't beat Boston" playoff scenario. As sixth seed they would have played Philadelphia which completely stumbled against a weaker Florida Panthers team which was another series they could have won. Then it would have been down to Pittsburgh or Florida and who knows there. Even if they get bounced, Roy looks "back in form". Then you could have moved him at the 96 Draft which while being one of the weakest drafts in NHL history, Montreal would have been in a much stronger position of negotiation. They wanted players back for Roy? That's when you get players back for him. It's all hindsight and such but even back then, everyone knew firing Demers and trading Roy was a bad idea. The year played out for it too. Montreal's goaltending was too young and not strong enough to support a mediocre defence that was once the youngest, brightest D core in the league. What did Houle get back for Roy? Not one defenceman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 First of all, You can't compare trading Roy for the Avs spare parts to trying and moving price for the #1 or 2 pick in a damn good draft. I doubt if the Roy trade would have even worked on a computer game. Secondly, Roy won Vezina , 2 cups, 2 conn smythe's and should have one his 3rd conn smythe in his first year in colarado. Price has potential for greatness, Roy was already a legend in his own time. Anything less then Forsburg or Salic was a terrible trade. not trying to compare just suggesting caution is a good option. If and I say if Carey reaches his potential and we have no replacement we would look pretty stupid, especially if that can't miss .... misses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 The original offer that got Savard fired was Roy for Fiset/Nolan. Nolan was a 30 goal power forward at the time and Montreal wasted a ton of first round picks chasing a player like Owen Nolan. It still would have turned out to be a bad deal but having Nolan in our top six would have saved some bad draft choices. It's good to remember that Montreal was trying to trade Roy at his lowest value. Colorado was not offering Forsberg or Sakic for him. You never try trading a player when their value is low if you can help it. In 95-96 Montreal's forward corps was looking better than even 93 (Turgeon, Damphousse, Recchi, rookie Koivu and Bure) and it was their defence that was getting thin. Had they kept Roy that season they would have easily beat the Rangers (Rangers picked apart Montreal's defence by game three and turned around a 2-0 deficit and won the next four straight. Roy wouldn't have allowed that) and with Boston bounced in the first round by Florida, they never would have had to deal with another "Roy can't beat Boston" playoff scenario. As sixth seed they would have played Philadelphia which completely stumbled against a weaker Florida Panthers team which was another series they could have won. Then it would have been down to Pittsburgh or Florida and who knows there. Even if they get bounced, Roy looks "back in form". Then you could have moved him at the 96 Draft which while being one of the weakest drafts in NHL history, Montreal would have been in a much stronger position of negotiation. They wanted players back for Roy? That's when you get players back for him. It's all hindsight and such but even back then, everyone knew firing Demers and trading Roy was a bad idea. The year played out for it too. Montreal's goaltending was too young and not strong enough to support a mediocre defence that was once the youngest, brightest D core in the league. What did Houle get back for Roy? Not one defenceman. yeah that pretty much sums it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Price isn't a medicore goaltender, though. Where Neech is correct is to say that "It's much easier to pick up comparable goaltending than to pick up an elite forward." This is the real disappointment of Price's career (and contract) so far. He was not supposed to be one of a number of very fine NHL goalies - he was supposed to be on another plane from the rest of them. And because he isn't on such a plane, he is therefore replaceable; which means trading him for the 1st-overall pick (or one of Edmonton's young studs) would be a sound idea. The last ten years have seen a major change in how teams treat goalies in the draft. Guys like Thomas, Lundqvist and Kiprusoff emerged from obscurity and outperformed top picks like DiPietro, Fleury and Luongo. Goalies have a later peak, and using a first round pick on one leads to more salary being tied up in one. If Price had taken the Halak or Howard route and not been anointed immediately on draft day he certainly wouldn't be making 6+ million. I think Price is better than mediocre, but his performance this year wasn't. He can still rebound and become a top 10 guy in the league again. What remains to be seen is if he can become a playoff performer - so far, he's not been good. Sometimes I get the feeling that he would rather get traded to a smaller market out west and rediscover his enjoyment of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 ok he had a bad finish to the year but in all fairness his teammates let him down and they know it. Price is a great goalie and go back and check playoff stats he has had some impressive years but when you lose, it's the goalies fault, believe me I have lived with that. After Emelin went down it was like the air went out of the habs defence. Anybody who is shitting on Price want to defend Gorges, or Markov, Boullion? OK want to defend any defenceman on the Habs.? Other than Subban and he forked up and caused some goals. They weren't that good and he got hung out to dry a lot. Did he play well NO but it takes a while to realize that the guys you counted on all season to their jobs just shit the bed and you are all alone. Your goalie can't score goals but he can do his best to keep them out when you fork up. Remember that goals happen because 6 people on the ice forked up. The goalie pays the PRICE. Lets see what was the score in the last game? Nobody wants to kill Budaj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalhabs Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 With Theodore in the net against the Bruins in 2002 I felt totally secure. He WOULD stop all pucks no matter what. Ive never had the same feeling with Price. Had that feeling some of the games with Halak. Im not suggesting getting Theo back though but Id love to have that secure faith in our goalie again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Price's playoff stats are poor, here are his save% for each year. '08 : .901 (had a good first round and saved us against the Bruins in some games, fell apart against Philly and should have been pulled in favour of Halak sooner) '09 : .878 (he sucked, but so did the whole team in that disaster year) '10 : .890 (we all remember his role in our run to the conference finals) '11 : .934 (very good showing, we lose to the eventual cup champs in the first round) '13 : .894 (lets in easy goals at crucial times) overall average: .905 This is a pretty concerning set of numbers, luckily we have 2011 to hold onto to give us a glimmer of what he can be when he's playing well. The league average save percentage in the playoffs the last two years has been .921. Can Price be at least that good over 3-4 series? He's never strung more that one good round together, and his bad rounds have outnumbered his good (by my count, 3-2, not counting 2010). It's hard to have anything but blind hope at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yep. It's a legitimate concern. I fear that Price was mishandled, either through overcoaching or by being exposed to way too much pressure (or way too many rewards) too early in his career in Montreal. Had he experienced a bit of losing in Hamilton it might, ironically, have done him some good. That the Gainey regime's single greatest failing was in player development reinforces the possibility that Price was screwed up by poor managerial decisions. But again, to my mind the issue is less that Price sucks (he doesn't) than that we've sunk $6.5 mil in cap space into a goalie who has not shown himself to be reliably any better than a handful of other goalies in the regular season and quite a few playoff goalies. That we all have a strong gut feeling he could dominate outside of the Montreal pressure-cooker, though, does tell us something. He does have the tools - he's big, he has great lateral movement, his technique seems strong, he hungers to win - to be 'that guy' we all want him to be. The great challenge seems to be to get Price in the right kind of head space while he's still wearing the red white and blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yep. It's a legitimate concern. I fear that Price was mishandled, either through overcoaching or by being exposed to way too much pressure (or way too many rewards) too early in his career in Montreal. Had he experienced a bit of losing in Hamilton it might, ironically, have done him some good. That the Gainey regime's single greatest failing was in player development reinforces the possibility that Price was screwed up by poor managerial decisions. But again, to my mind the issue is less that Price sucks (he doesn't) than that we've sunk $6.5 mil in cap space into a goalie who has not shown himself to be reliably any better than a handful of other goalies in the regular season and quite a few playoff goalies. That we all have a strong gut feeling he could dominate outside of the Montreal pressure-cooker, though, does tell us something. He does have the tools - he's big, he has great lateral movement, his technique seems strong, he hungers to win - to be 'that guy' we all want him to be. The great challenge seems to be to get Price in the right kind of head space while he's still wearing the red white and blue. I think you make a sound argument. I would say trading him now would be a mistake. In March he was being touted for the Vezina and was a virtual shoo-in for the olympics, now we are trading him? If we get the right return of course, anyone can be traded. But it would take a lot for me to agree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 With Theodore in the net against the Bruins in 2002 I felt totally secure. He WOULD stop all pucks no matter what. Ive never had the same feeling with Price. Had that feeling some of the games with Halak. Im not suggesting getting Theo back though but Id love to have that secure faith in our goalie again. TheOdore was more worried about the way his hair looked than turning himself into a star goalie in Montreal. I think price is just in need of some fine tuning. He needs to play his style, not someone else's. Word is that he was trying some new techniques during this past season. May have been the reason for the shakey nights, not really sure though. The one thing I do know, when this kids on his game, there is no pucks touching that twine. Montreal has been know to jump the gun on guys and send them packing. He is still without a doubt a work in progress. If this kid can get some confidence back in his game. Look out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Theodore in 2002 was inhuman. One of the most dominant goaltending performances in the history of the league. Theodore in 2004 was no better than Price. Theodore after the lockout has been pretty much Price at his worst when it comes to the post-season. Halak had one post-season. That's it. During the season he has always been shaky. I always remember that January road swing where the team ended up scoring double the amount of goals they ususally would just to ensure Halak would win a game or two because he was atrocious. He is likely to be shipped out of St. Louis while Lars Eller put up enough points to be second in Blues scoring. Funny how that trade has flipped. Consistency in the NHL for any player is difficult. Look at Alex Ovechkin. Hart trophy winner, not career consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I think you make a sound argument. I would say trading him now would be a mistake. In March he was being touted for the Vezina and was a virtual shoo-in for the olympics, now we are trading him? If we get the right return of course, anyone can be traded. But it would take a lot for me to agree with it. I'm not saying we should trade Price for the sake of trading him. I'm looking at it from the prospective of if there is an oppertunity to get a guy like McKinnon and the price is Price, we should explore the oppertunity. Not sure what Roy's feeling is toward Price, but i'm sure he puts a lot of importance on goaltending. They are stacked at centre. IMO, they lack depth in goal and defense. They can draft Jones and wait 3 years minimum before he is an impact, or trade for a goalie coming into his prime and a couple of dmen. On our side, I don't care if we don't have organizational depth at goal, because, we can easily get a pretty decent goalie - maybe not someone with Price's ceiling, but someone who could put up better numbers then Price did in the 2nd half and overall this year. A young core of Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Eller, MaxPac, Subban, Emelin, Tinordi with Beileau, Kristo in the wings excites me more then Price in goal. Unless you are talking about a generational goalie, goalie's are repacable and how many of the dominent vezina winners were top ten picks in the past 30 years? Maybe one - Barrasso? which is why i hated using the #5 overall on Price when Kopitar was a big centre that had a lot of scouts drooling. I just don't believe in using anything higher then a late 1st rounder on a goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tebo64 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Trading Price, now that would be an attention getter by Bergervin and if the trade was with Colorado it would bring the discussion to a level rarely if ever seen before. I would love reading all the reactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 It's going to be MB's first "full" season as gm. I just really can't see him touching price. I don't think that's the type of move you make being so early in your career at the gm position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 You don't trade Price because you don't trade Price. Nobody is offering a top three pick for him. It's really just a silly hypothetical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 It's really just a silly hypothetical. That's the point of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 That's the point of this thread. Is it? Should we post for three pages on if we'd trade David Desharnais for Evander Kane? I mean, it's as believable as a team trading their top three pick for a goalie in a time where Miller, Luongo and Halak are all available for much, much less. I like trade proposals that at least have some reality in them. What's the reality in Colorado trading their first overall for Price? Not much. Varlamov isn't what they thought he'd be but their bigger problem was their actual defence. And they can draft Seth Jones if you're not offering them a solution to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) Is it? Should we post for three pages on if we'd trade David Desharnais for Evander Kane? I mean, it's as believable as a team trading their top three pick for a goalie in a time where Miller, Luongo and Halak are all available for much, much less. I like trade proposals that at least have some reality in them. What's the reality in Colorado trading their first overall for Price? Not much. Varlamov isn't what they thought he'd be but their bigger problem was their actual defence. And they can draft Seth Jones if you're not offering them a solution to that. True enough. This thread would be pointless though if we weren't putting some of our ideas out there. Edited June 7, 2013 by Stogey24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Is it? Should we post for three pages on if we'd trade David Desharnais for Evander Kane? I mean, it's as believable as a team trading their top three pick for a goalie in a time where Miller, Luongo and Halak are all available for much, much less. I like trade proposals that at least have some reality in them. What's the reality in Colorado trading their first overall for Price? Not much. Varlamov isn't what they thought he'd be but their bigger problem was their actual defence. And they can draft Seth Jones if you're not offering them a solution to that. I think Price for the 1st overall pick has a lot of reality to it. It's certainly the best suggestion for getting an early first than most trade proposals, and I love reading the discussion around whether this team can do better with Price and without another franchise forward or vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 I think Price for the 1st overall pick has a lot of reality to it. It's certainly the best suggestion for getting an early first than most trade proposals, and I love reading the discussion around whether this team can do better with Price and without another franchise forward or vice versa. Oh, I don't mind the with or without Price discussion. It's just that Price for first overall is not realistic at all. One just has to think back to the last time a first overall was traded. Or the last time a top five pick was traded when the teams knew who was selecting where. I'm pretty sure it's 1999, which was a terrible draft. Otherwise it really doesn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Oh, I don't mind the with or without Price discussion. It's just that Price for first overall is not realistic at all. One just has to think back to the last time a first overall was traded. Or the last time a top five pick was traded when the teams knew who was selecting where. I'm pretty sure it's 1999, which was a terrible draft. Otherwise it really doesn't happen. Which means we're due Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 1st overall was moved in 2002 and 2003, but in both years the team traded down to 3rd overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share Posted June 8, 2013 I feel I should note here that just two years ago, Colorado paid through the teeth for Semyon Varlamov. I'm not sure they'll be looking to deal two first rounders for goalies in a three year span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Well, my own gut feeling is that Price for Colorado's 1st overall pick is NOT beyond the pale of what Colorado would contemplate. Patrick Roy will not feel bound by the stupid decisions of his predecessors vis-a-vis Varlamov. He quite likely has the same sense we all have, that Price would absolutely dominate in the more relaxed confines of a non-insane market (and in his beloved west to boot). He knows better than anyone alive the effect a superb goalie can have on a team; and it wouldn't be beyond Roy's capacious ego to fancy that, taken under his wing, Price would flourish to Cup-worthy heights. More to the point, in terms of wider organizational and fan-base culture, the Avs have a bit of a long-standing fetish for Montreal/Quebec talent, and the defining moment in the history of the franchise involved trading to acquire a Montreal goalie. So the organizational DNA is primed for a move of this kind (just as Montreal's organizational DNA primed us all for the idea that Price would come in as a rookie and lead us to glory; a notion that probably resonated in part because of Montreal's history of stellar netminders, often coming from nowhere). So I think it really depends on whether Roy thinks the Avs need a longer-term rebuild (in which case you retain the #1 pick) or whether he thinks they'd be immediately competitive if they can fix the back end, starting with the nets. If the latter, then Habs29's idea might actually have some traction if MB is interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tebo64 Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 (edited) Sometimes a team has to correct its mistakes, If Valarmov was a mistake then the new management team may decide to cut their loses. Would they consider a buyout for Varlamov if they thought it was the best for the team? I really do not want to see Price traded but I do like the discussion and the thinking being expressed in the posts. Love it. Edited June 8, 2013 by tebo64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.