Why does Roy only have 3 Vezinas?

[vadim sharifijanov]

this roy at the olympics discussion is weird to me. i don’t know what it proves either way, but it ignores several thimgs.

we know that by all objective evidence roy would have been given the starting job to start the tournament. he had the stats, the pedigree, he was the oldest guy so it was his to lose, and he was the best canadian goalie in the nhl both at that moment and was coming off a conn smythe.

but really, who cares? in the real 02 olympics, cujo started, brodeur finished. in 2010 brodeur started, luongo finished. in 14, luongo started price finished. that’s the part we don’t know: whether he wouldhave kept the starting job through the tournament. i think we know beyond a reasonable doubt he would have started had he wanted to.

as for the original eight, yes the official word out of team canada was they didn’t want to name a goalie bc they wanted to see how everyone was playing closer to the tournament. but the truth is the team canada crony braintrust was holding a spot open for cujo, who was lowe and quinn's boy. if you name roy, at which nobody wiuld have batted an eyelash, and brodeur is playing out of his mind, and one of belfour or burke or a young guy (say, theodore) forces the issue, then you can’t put cujo on the team. can’t take that chance.

and before you accuse me of conspiracy theories, eric brewer was on that team. ryan smyth made it over luc robitaille, who even in 2002 easily was the better in tight scorer. bill ranford started on how many team canadas?

 

[Staniowski]

There's a pretty broad range of options between appearing out of nowhere (he didn't) and being the same goaltender in the 1980s that he was in the 1990s (he wasn't). Based on equipment weight alone, I don't know that he could be the same goaltender. But he was a good one, albeit one that didn't capitalize on every opportunity. Re-writing it as though the opportunities did not exist or trying to re-appropriate others' status while ignoring the effects Mitch Korn had on his career is where I think you're misrepresenting history (though not intentionally).

He was substantially the same goalie in the late '80s as he was in the '90s. Nobody is exactly the same from year to year. I'm sure he did improve every year, as just about everyone does. But he was a superstar goalie in the Czech Republic in the '80s and he could have easily been a top goalie in the NHL.

Again, I'm saying that if Chicago had given him proper opportunity, they would have had the best goalie in the world. I'm not misrepresenting anything - I'm merely saying that Chicago made a big mistake, and this is obvious.

 

[JackSlater]

this roy at the olympics discussion is weird to me. i don’t know what it proves either way, but it ignores several thimgs.

we know that by all objective evidence roy would have been given the starting job to start the tournament. he had the stats, the pedigree, he was the oldest guy so it was his to lose, and he was the best canadian goalie in the nhl both at that moment and was coming off a conn smythe.

but really, who cares? in the real 02 olympics, cujo started, brodeur finished. in 2010 brodeur started, luongo finished. in 14, luongo started price finished. that’s the part we don’t know: whether he wouldhave kept the starting job through the tournament. i think we know beyond a reasonable doubt he would have started had he wanted to.

as for the original eight, yes the official word out of team canada was they didn’t want to name a goalie bc they wanted to see how everyone was playing closer to the tournament. but the truth is the team canada crony braintrust was holding a spot open for cujo, who was lowe and quinn's boy. if you name roy, at which nobody wiuld have batted an eyelash, and brodeur is playing out of his mind, and one of belfour or burke or a young guy (say, theodore) forces the issue, then you can’t put cujo on the team. can’t take that chance.

and before you accuse me of conspiracy theories, eric brewer was on that team. ryan smyth made it over luc robitaille, who even in 2002 easily was the better in tight scorer. bill ranford started on how many team canadas?

Price started in 2014, Luongo was only given a token start in the second game against Austria. But yes in 2002 Roy was clearly the starter to be. It wasn't like there would even be a camp before the games started where he could lose the job. He was the incumbent, he still had the best reputation and he was playing the best that year.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Price started in 2014, Luongo was only given a token start in the second game against Austria. But yes in 2002 Roy was clearly the starter to be. It wasn't like there would even be a camp before the games started where he could lose the job. He was the incumbent, he still had the best reputation and he was playing the best that year.

oh that’s right. there was the pre-olympic game btw the habs and canucks where price made more than 40 saves.

 

[quoipourquoi]

He was substantially the same goalie in the late '80s as he was in the '90s. Nobody is exactly the same from year to year. I'm sure he did improve every year, as just about everyone does. But he was a superstar goalie in the Czech Republic in the '80s and he could have easily been a top goalie in the NHL.

Again, I'm saying that if Chicago had given him proper opportunity, they would have had the best goalie in the world. I'm not misrepresenting anything - I'm merely saying that Chicago made a big mistake, and this is obvious.

Saying that it wasn't a proper opportunity when the $120,000 goalie earned the spot over the $200,000 goalie is the misrepresentation.

And who is to say Dominik Hasek becomes Dominik Hasek without Mitch Korn's influence?

But before Hasek became one of the NHL’s all-time greats, he was “really all over the place,” Korn said.

As a 27-year-old entering his first full NHL season, Hasek’s on-ice instincts hadn’t caught up to his intelligence. He had to learn to be patient and manage his information.

Certainly Patrick Roy doesn't become Patrick Roy without Francois Allaire. Raw talent is there, but it needs to be shaped.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Saying that it wasn't a proper opportunity when the $120,000 goalie earned the spot over the $200,000 goalie is the misrepresentation.

And who is to say Dominik Hasek becomes Dominik Hasek without Mitch Korn's influence?



Certainly Patrick Roy doesn't become Patrick Roy without Francois Allaire. Raw talent is there, but it needs to be shaped.

Also has to be properly prepared and integrated into the level of hockey being played - this case the NHL.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't know if he would have been the #1 goalie or not, and neither do you.

All I'm saying is, he didn't make the team, and there is no evidence that the team wanted him to be the starting goalie.

In all honesty, I am not terribly upset because with Brodeur we did just fine and he turned out to be a damn fine player for Team Canada. However.............there is no way Roy turns down the chance to play for Canada if he is named the starter. We all know this, let's face it. This is a rare mistake - if you want to call it that - in which Gretzky made in 2002 with roster selections. 2002 is a lot like 2010, there was basically a perfect team picked. But yeah, of all the goalies in the NHL you pick Roy as Canada's starter, no doubt. What is it with Roy and immediately after he wins the Cup where he doesn't get the recognition for Team Canada? (1996 is another one)

 

[Staniowski]

In all honesty, I am not terribly upset because with Brodeur we did just fine and he turned out to be a damn fine player for Team Canada. However.............there is no way Roy turns down the chance to play for Canada if he is named the starter. We all know this, let's face it. This is a rare mistake - if you want to call it that - in which Gretzky made in 2002 with roster selections. 2002 is a lot like 2010, there was basically a perfect team picked. But yeah, of all the goalies in the NHL you pick Roy as Canada's starter, no doubt. What is it with Roy and immediately after he wins the Cup where he doesn't get the recognition for Team Canada? (1996 is another one)

At the time of the selections, I thought Brodeur would be the starter, and I was surprised he wasn't one of the 8 guys named the previous year. Even though Roy, Joseph, Belfour were all very good, my impression was that Brodeur had kind of established himself as the top Canadian goalie (in most people's eyes) over several years. Brodeur finished ahead of Roy in Vezina voting in each of the previous 7 years.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

At the time of the selections, I thought Brodeur would be the starter, and I was surprised he wasn't one of the 8 guys named the previous year. Even though Roy, Joseph, Belfour were all very good, my impression was that Brodeur had kind of established himself as the top Canadian goalie (in most people's eyes) over several years. Brodeur finished ahead of Roy in Vezina voting in each of the previous 7 years.

I'm not Canadian, so I wasn't privy to the consensus opinion up there, but my impression was that, prior to him declining a spot on the Olympic team, Roy was the odds-on favorite to be named the starter; he was playing at a much higher level at that time than Brodeur and had outplayed him (vastly) in the SCF the previous spring. Additionally, I remember reading in a couple publications that Joseph was better suited than Brodeur to be starter due to playing style. (Larger ice surface or something to that effect.)

 

[Staniowski]

I'm not Canadian, so I wasn't privy to the consensus opinion up there, but my impression was that, prior to him declining a spot on the Olympic team, Roy was the odds-on favorite to be named the starter; he was playing at a much higher level at that time than Brodeur and had outplayed him (vastly) in the SCF the previous spring. Additionally, I remember reading in a couple publications that Joseph was better suited than Brodeur to be starter due to playing style. (Larger ice surface or something to that effect.)

What you're saying may be correct - Roy may have been the favourite. It was my personal impression that Brodeur was the most likely starter. But he wasn't, as they started with Curtis Joseph. Who knows what would have happened if Roy hadn't removed himself from consideration. My thinking was that Brodeur had been considered the top Canadian goalie more often than anybody else over the previous several seasons. Plus he had won 2 Cups fairly recently, and also was a good age - 29 - in his physical prime.

All 4 of these goaltenders were very good. Any of them could have been the # 1 guy, I think.

 

[Doctor No]

Yes, Roy was the favorite up until he pulled his name from consideration.

Here's a period article:
Roy out of Olympics | CBC Sports

"and considered the top candidate to start in goal"

I'm sure that you will find contrarian articles written at the time. However, my memory was that Roy was the favorite, and the first five articles I found just now confirmed that memory.

 

[Big Phil]

At the time of the selections, I thought Brodeur would be the starter, and I was surprised he wasn't one of the 8 guys named the previous year. Even though Roy, Joseph, Belfour were all very good, my impression was that Brodeur had kind of established himself as the top Canadian goalie (in most people's eyes) over several years. Brodeur finished ahead of Roy in Vezina voting in each of the previous 7 years.

I know I thought Roy was the favourite. It wasn't unanimous, but it was a general consensus that it was his to lose.