A Defining Season for Carey Price's Career

[dlbalr]

Price let the team down with a poor end to the season and a poor playoff. Its on his shoulders to play better. Habs would have taken the sens out in 6 last year if Price was decent, so is this make or break? Maybe, maybe not, but it will be interesting to see how he performs to start the year.

Would Budaj have taken them to that victory? Don't forget that Price legitimately was injured in Game 4 (and that Budaj took that loss and the Game 5 one). Price lost two games that series, one of those was a game where the Habs only scored once. So if he could've pulled off the shutout there or won his other loss (in which he could have only allowed 1 goal)...they still probably would have lost the series given that Budaj/Mayer was the tandem moving forward, not to mention the litany of injuries that struck.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The Kings won the Cup winning every game 2-1.

Of course we need better offense in the playoffs. We also need better goaltending. No team will get very far without either.

11 of the Kings 16 wins had more than two goals scored by the Kings. Also Quicks G.AA was 1.11 which is one of the best of all time.

The season after with Crawford, Chicago was nearly dumped by Detroit after losing 4-1, 3-1 and 2-0 consecutively. Their back to back losses against the Bruins came at 2-1 OT and a 2-0 shutout. If the Blackhawks would have lost either series it would have been blamed in the media on Crawford but the scores make it pretty clear that as long as the Blackhawks can score more than two goals, they can win in the playoffs. In 2012, you know how they got dumped by the Coyotes? Losing three games by a score of 3-2 before being shut out 4-0.

In the often praised 2010 playoff run with Halak, were we winning every game 2-1? It only felt that way because people remember the Washington series with early blowouts with Price more than the later games with Halak. Montreal won seven of their nine games by three goals or more.

[JoeLassister]

11 of the Kings 16 wins had more than two goals scored by the Kings. Also Quicks G.AA was 1.11 which is one of the best of all time.

The season after with Crawford, Chicago was nearly dumped by Detroit after losing 4-1, 3-1 and 2-0 consecutively. Their back to back losses against the Bruins came at 2-1 OT and a 2-0 shutout. If the Blackhawks would have lost either series it would have been blamed in the media on Crawford but the scores make it pretty clear that as long as the Blackhawks can score more than two goals, they can win in the playoffs. In 2012, you know how they got dumped by the Coyotes? Losing three games by a score of 3-2 before being shut out 4-0.

In the often praised 2010 playoff run with Halak, were we winning every game 2-1? It only felt that way because people remember the Washington series with early blowouts with Price more than the later games with Halak. Montreal won seven of their nine games by three goals or more.

+ L.A. Kings had their #1 dman in the lineup.

[Neech]

11 of the Kings 16 wins had more than two goals scored by the Kings. Also Quicks G.AA was 1.11 which is one of the best of all time.

I was exaggerating when I said 'every game,' but they won FIVE games where they scored only one or two goals (there's also the question of empty net goals, which I don't think you took into account). Quick was good enough that their mediocre offense could eek out wins on nights when they probably didn't deserve to.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not quite clear on the point. Is it that both goaltending and offense have to show up for a team to be successful? There we agree. Where we differ seems to be whether or not most of Price's playoff performances constitute 'showing up.' Having two out of four good games, for instance, isn't good enough in my book.

[Colin]

So here's another question: if Price wins the Olympics and the Cup, then is he considered elite?

Or, as is entirely too typical in Montreal, is it considered a one-off and next season becomes his defining one, as in can he follow up a great season by being consistently excellent a second season.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It is Montreal, after all.

[Neech]

So here's another question: if Price wins the Olympics and the Cup, then is he considered elite?

Or, as is entirely too typical in Montreal, is it considered a one-off and next season becomes his defining one, as in can he follow up a great season by being consistently excellent a second season.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It is Montreal, after all.

You seem to be arguing against the most extreme and irrational part of Montreal's fanbase, not anyone in this thread. If Price wins the Cup, he'll get a long leash from me and Cucumber and most fans. That's why we consider it ridiculous that MoLG keeps comparing Quick's regular season stats to Price's; one guy had one of the best playoff runs of all time and followed that up with another very strong showing, while Price hasn't had a playoff run at all. If Price shows up in the big time, I will be able to believe he'll come through in the clutch the next time around and actually base it on something. Of course, there will always be idiots in this fanbase with contrary opinions, but we have the option to ignore them.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Well said, Neech.

This "Price is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" stuff is indeed true of a certain faction of Habs fans, but that's not what this thread is about. What we're saying is "Price is damned if he doesn't prove he can deliver commanding playoff performances" - which he generally hasn't done. Quite the contrary.

This idea that if Price lets in 3 goals per game and have a save % of .890, that's perfectly OK because the Habs just have to score 4 goals per game to compensate - it's absurd. The scenario being described is the exact opposite of quality playoff goaltending. The same goes for the idea that if Price is wildly inconsistent from game to game in the playoffs, that's OK because he's always been inconsistent. These all seem emanate from that same place of infinite forgiveness for Price, no matter how he actually performs...which I suspect comes from an unwillingness to face up to the consequences of the dire possibility that Price may turn out to be a playoff mediocrity.

Now what if Price does step up in the Olympics with a commanding (not superhuman) performance? That will be huge to my mind, proving that he can indeed deliver under big-time pressure. (I say the same thing to Luongo-haters all the time; he proved he can win in 2010). Pleae remember, I'm not saying Price has been shown conclusively to be a playoff bust. I'm saying he is in danger of having this become his career pattern. To my mind, that is the stance of a realist, not a hater.

[Colin]

Yes, I'm arguing against the histrionics displayed in the original poster's link to the article indicating the essentially all-or-nothing outcome that this season must surely present. And particularly the bizarre idea that *this season* will be the one to cement with finality his "vastly overrated" label. Despite and the hee-ing and haw-ing and the if/then qualifiers, it seems some - on these very boards - are ready to agree with said histrionics.

(As much as we aspire to be better than the average Hab fan - and we succeed a lot of the time - we slip into those old habits now and again; I'm no exception. *coughRibeirocough*)

I.e., if he proves to be inconsistent in the playoffs, then yes, he's a disastrous cap signing. I emphatically disagree with that statement.

Does anyone here honestly believe this to be a true Cup contender? I do not. Our elite players are still too young, IMO, and we still have some to learn. Now, that's not to say it's out of the realm of possibility, but this continues to be a club being rebuilt. If MB felt it was truly on the cusp, I suspect he'd pull the trigger on a deal or two to bulk up our top two lines. But no, he's staying the course, signing our core for *long-term" thus allowing them to mature together. Boiled down, this is still a growth project with an outside shot at the title. Gain a little more experience and learn to take another step up when it is most necessary - target goals.

I have trouble with this notion that Every. Single. Year. is a defining year and should therefore come with a career-stamping label. Every single year <insert exhaustion>. When Price had the successful post-season a little while back, everyone was calling him saviour and world-beater and hero, etc. The expectation was that he'd Brodeur the rest of the league and put us in contention regularly. The fact he was 24 (!) seemed essentially forgotten.

This isn't about mollycoddling (and kudos to Cuke for using that word on hockey boards; I laughed out loud - totally awesome!) a player, it's about realistic expectations and understanding growth and maturity.

You know, there's a lot of talk about Roy and how he came in and won and then backed it all up and was Montreal's saviour and should be sainted etc, etc etc barf. What people conveniently forget is that, post first Cup, he was atrocious at times, and fans called for him to be run out of Montreal endlessly. He was immeasureably more inconsistent than is Price; his inconsistency was game to game, shot to shot. At least Price is more streaky. In fact, Roy's next playoff was atrocious. Then he was stronger for a couple of years, and then he was poor again. In fact, if you remember his play, or at least look at his stats if you're too young to remember, you can see he only started being consistently great in the playoffs at around 28.

Whaaaaaaa?

Yes, 28. A full two years before most other goalies find their consistency.

And as far as the contract goes? Right or wrong, it's the price of business in today's NHL. If Montreal didn't pay it, someone else would have. So why not keep the kid and give him every opportunity to fulfill his destiny and take the place at his fath....

You get what I mean. ;-)

[dlbalr]

The TSN top-50 player rankings, voted on by coaches and GM's, were revealed yesterday. Price was voted #51 (I guess he got special mention since he was one shy of cracking the list). Four goalies were rated ahead of him. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=432765

[Neech]

Now what if Price does step up in the Olympics with a commanding (not superhuman) performance? That will be huge to my mind, proving that he can indeed deliver under big-time pressure. (I say the same thing to Luongo-haters all the time; he proved he can win in 2010). Pleae remember, I'm not saying Price has been shown conclusively to be a playoff bust. I'm saying he is in danger of having this become his career pattern. To my mind, that is the stance of a realist, not a hater.

I would rate Luongo's 2010 performance as a bit less than commanding. It was good enough for a juggernaut to hold serve at home. I'd say Crawford this year was more commanding behind a very strong team. If we ever get a team that good I hope Price or whoever is not a liability.

I agree that Price coming through for Canada would be huge for the team, the fans, and himself. It would the freshest clutch situation in everyone's memory, and it would make me feel a lot better heading into the postseason.

Does anyone here honestly believe this to be a true Cup contender? I do not. Our elite players are still too young, IMO, and we still have some to learn. Now, that's not to say it's out of the realm of possibility, but this continues to be a club being rebuilt. If MB felt it was truly on the cusp, I suspect he'd pull the trigger on a deal or two to bulk up our top two lines. But no, he's staying the course, signing our core for *long-term" thus allowing them to mature together. Boiled down, this is still a growth project with an outside shot at the title. Gain a little more experience and learn to take another step up when it is most necessary - target goals.

I agree that we don't have the roster yet to be a true Cup contender, but we also don't have the goaltending. I don't see either as an excuse for the other. Our current roster can't move forward very far if they can't rely on Price.

The Roy example is frequently brought up, despite his early Cup rendering any comparison with Price invalid. Looking at Roy's numbers, he had a few terrible years, but some excellent ones as well. Maybe Fleury is a good comparable with Roy - how long is the leash in Pittsburgh?

The TSN top-50 player rankings, voted on by coaches and GM's, were revealed yesterday. Price was voted #51 (I guess he got special mention since he was one shy of cracking the list). Four goalies were rated ahead of him. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=432765

What's crazier is PK rated 27th.

[Colin]

I agree that we don't have the roster yet to be a true Cup contender, but we also don't have the goaltending. I don't see either as an excuse for the other. Our current roster can't move forward very far if they can't rely on Price.

See, that just doesn't work for me. Crawford won the Cup last year. Fleury has won the Cup. Osgood, winner. None of those teams could rely on those goaltenders; they were inconsistent, at best. Trying to pin our hopes solely or even largely on Price is a false argument. Does it help when the goalie is strong? Of course, but put Price on any of those teams, and he'd have a Cup as well.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

You seem to be arguing against the most extreme and irrational part of Montreal's fanbase, not anyone in this thread. If Price wins the Cup, he'll get a long leash from me and Cucumber and most fans.

Long leashes in Montreal do not exist. Roy won the Cup in 93 with a Conn Smythe, Montreal got dumped by the Bruins in 94 (despite being sick), missed the playoffs in 95 and he was traded before 1996. How long did it take for Theodore's Hart trophy season to be forgotten? At least that one was a good move.

This idea that if Price lets in 3 goals per game and have a save % of .890, that's perfectly OK because the Habs just have to score 4 goals per game to compensate - it's absurd.

It's score three or more if you want to win. That's the point. Scoring only one or two and winning is nice but it's unrealistic expectations for the goaltender. In the games he played against Ottawa:

Game 1: 4-2 loss. Nobody is saying Montreal should have scored five but scoring two isn't enough.

Game 2: 3-1 win. Price held them to just one goal. We would have won if he allowed another. We scored three goals. Good performance.

Game 3: 6-1 loss. Too many goals allowed for sure but Montreal didn't score four goals. They scored one. That isn't enough.

Game 4: 3-2 OT loss. Montreal scored two. Ottawa scored two (dubious) goals. Price got hurt. Price honestly only allowed two goals here and that's what would be expected of him.

In 2008, Price posted two shutouts against Boston. In four of the seven games Montreal scored three goals or more. In the series against Philadelphia, Montreal scored only two goals in all of the losses except game five while winning 4-3 OT in game one. You consider that year a failure.

In 2009 when Montreal was swept by the Bruins, not a single game did Montreal score more than two goals but you consider that series a failure for Price.

In 2010 Price bombed hard and there's no question there. That said, remember the Philly series? Where the narrative was Halak just couldn't carry the team anymore? Montreal was shut out three times. It wasn't about Halak unable to carry but Cammalleri and Gionta going dry since nobody else was really scoring that year.

In 2011 you consider that series Price looking strong. Montreal was able to score more than two goals in three of seven games.

It's not about being perfectly okay for Price to put up Fleury stats. It's about the fact that you consider Price to have just one good playoff series when there's far more proof that Price would have had to display unfair expectations for Montreal to even win because the team wasn't scoring. Yes, you should be able to expect your starting goalie to sometimes win a game for you by allowing no goals or one goal when the players up front can't find the twine. But expecting it in the majority of games and just saying "better luck next year with this squad" while calling Price a failure is why I consider these discussions an eye roll.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

For the nth time, I never blamed Price for our playoff losses. I said his personal playoff performances have by and large been mediocre and that he is in danger of this becoming a defining career characteristic. Which claim I stand by.

Now, teams can with the Cup with average goaltending. The Habs did in 1979 when Dryden was lost in space, Detroit with Osgood, Pitts with Fleury, etc.. Usually, however, the goalie is an absolute lynchpin.

Regardless, this is not the preferred model. It requires your team to be that much better than any other team that does have commanding goaltending. Hell, it's quite possible that Detroit and Pittsburgh would have won MORE Cups had their goaltending actually been good. Fleury has single-handedly cost the Pens a couple of series, including one against us.

I find it an astonishing "defence" of Price to say that other team have won with mediocre netminding, so therefore playoff mediocrity is acceptable from him. If this is right - if mediocrity is acceptable - then we should dump his massive contract and hire some average-calibre netminder like Jose Theodore, in order to reinvest that money in the kind of juggernaut we'll need to win in spite of our substandard goaltending,

[Colin]

I find it an astonishing "defence" of Price to say that other team have won with mediocre netminding, so therefore playoff mediocrity is acceptable from him. If this is right - if mediocrity is acceptable - then we should dump his massive contract and hire some average-calibre netminder like Jose Theodore, in order to reinvest that money in the kind of juggernaut we'll need to win in spite of our substandard goaltending,

Not a defence, a counter-point to the statement of it being a requirement relying on Price. Surely we aren't going to fall to the level of taking every statement out of context or in a vacuum. We might as well be HFBoards, then.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

For the nth time, I never blamed Price for our playoff losses.

Yet you said:

Nor do I buy this "the team in front of him has sucked" stuff. That's not an explanation for a career playoff save % well below his regular season norms. What, did the team suddenly suck worse in the playoffs, every single playoff year?

So Price wasn't to blame for the losses... but don't say it was the players up front. Okay.

[Neech]

Of course, but put Price on any of those teams, and he'd have a Cup as well.

Except you're making that up out of thin air, seeing as he hasn't put up more than one consecutive strong series. And as Cucumber pointed out, then we should dump him and get Reimer or Bernier or anyone ordinary (or better) who comes at half the price.

Long leashes in Montreal do not exist. Roy won the Cup in 93 with a Conn Smythe, Montreal got dumped by the Bruins in 94 (despite being sick), missed the playoffs in 95 and he was traded before 1996. How long did it take for Theodore's Hart trophy season to be forgotten? At least that one was a good move.

If Price wins a Cup, then he will get a longer leash from sensible fans. There are always fools who are ready to throw away yesterday's heroes. Everyone regrets the Roy fiasco.

[JoeLassister]

Regardless, this is not the preferred model. It requires your team to be that much better than any other team that does have commanding goaltending. Hell, it's quite possible that Detroit and Pittsburgh would have won MORE Cups had their goaltending actually been good. Fleury has single-handedly cost the Pens a couple of series, including one against us.

I think that you allow too much importance to the goaltending.

Why Fleury is the one who cost the Pens the series against us ? Why not talk about Cammy and Gomez who where everywhere in offense ? Why take away the fact that Plekanec totally shut Crosby down ?

Why does it have to always be the goalie ?

[Neech]

In 2008, Price posted two shutouts against Boston. In four of the seven games Montreal scored three goals or more. In the series against Philadelphia, Montreal scored only two goals in all of the losses except game five while winning 4-3 OT in game one. You consider that year a failure.

In 2009 when Montreal was swept by the Bruins, not a single game did Montreal score more than two goals but you consider that series a failure for Price.

In 2010 Price bombed hard and there's no question there. That said, remember the Philly series? Where the narrative was Halak just couldn't carry the team anymore? Montreal was shut out three times. It wasn't about Halak unable to carry but Cammalleri and Gionta going dry since nobody else was really scoring that year.

I'd dispute some of these interpretations. In 2008, he was stellar against Boston but still had a couple blowups, which luckily came when we were already up 3-1. That was one of his good series. The series against Philly he should have been pulled for Halak in game 2, and was a sieve which was probably demoralizing and contributed to the poor overall team showing (along with other problems with that roster, not trying to lay it all on Price).

In 2009 he stunk, but the whole team stunk just as bad or worse, so he doesn't shoulder much blame there. He still wasn't good enough to win, though.

In 2010, yes Halak and the team ran out of gas, and that team immensely overacheived for a side with 88 points on the year.

I think that you allow too much importance to the goaltending.

Why Fleury is the one who cost the Pens the series against us ? Why not talk about Cammy and Gomez who where everywhere in offense ? Why take away the fact that Plekanec totally shut Crosby down ?

Why does it have to always be the goalie ?

I don't think anyone thinks it was ONLY the goalie, but if Fleury was Crawford or Osgood (i.e. good enough to backstop a juggernaut) the Pens wouldn't have had much trouble with us. Every series, there are many factors which will influence the outcome, and Fleury's suckiness was undeniably a key then.

[huzer]

Goalie topics definitely generate discussion. In this case I have nothing constructive to add, other than the sophomoric "It's not Price's fault". Last year, heck, who would've figured Emelin's injury would throw the D into apparent utter chaos. How can Price make up for the ineffective offense after Eller and Gionta went down? Lack of team depth doesn't fall into the responsibilities of a goaltender. Simply put, Price needed to be absolutely impeccably stellar for the Habs to advance, and he wasn't. He couldn't compensate by elevating his play to make up for the deficiencies that plagued the team.

In my mind, no other goalie, past or present, could have lifted the Habs into a Stanley cup over the past few years that Price has had the reigns. That, however, is just my own opinion.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

At bottom, to my mind, it's a simple question. Has Price excelled in the playoffs? By and large, no. Quite the opposite.

That's a problem. And the longer it goes on, the larger it will (or should) loom in our assessment of Carey Price as a goalie. The end.