Value of: Quick to Calgary

[redcard]

Care to explain how every other goalie they’ve played this year has a better save percentage this year then?

Its been like this for years. Jones, Scrivens, Budaj, Keumper, Enroth, Campbell, Petersen, et. all. The team plays noticeably different when they've got back-ups behind them vs when Quick's in net. Quick has terrific lateral movement, he can go post to post as well as any goalie in the league. His defenders know this, so they're more aggressive in pursuing pucks in the defensive end because if they make a mistake and leave a player open Quick can bail them out. With the back-ups in net the defense plays more reserved, parks in front of the goal and tries to limit the high quality chances. This leads to higher volume of lower quality shots that inflates the SV %.

Its clear as day to those watching these goalies that the SV% is a terrible metric to compare them.

 

[tomd]

Its been like this for years. Jones, Scrivens, Budaj, Keumper, Enroth, Campbell, Petersen, et. all. The team plays noticeably different when they've got back-ups behind them vs when Quick's in net. Quick has terrific lateral movement, he can go post to post as well as any goalie in the league. His defenders know this, so they're more aggressive in pursuing pucks in the defensive end because if they make a mistake and leave a player open Quick can bail them out. With the back-ups in net the defense plays more reserved, parks in front of the goal and tries to limit the high quality chances. This leads to higher volume of lower quality shots that inflates the SV %.

Its clear as day to those watching these goalies that the SV% is a terrible metric to compare them.

I generally agree. If I was a GM, however, it is the very things that have made Quick great in the past that would concern me in the future. He relies on athleticism and reflexes...those are not going to improve as he gets older. The way he plays will also likely lead to more injuries of a serious (for a goalie) nature. If I'm acquiring a 33 year-old goalie for the next four years, I'd much rather have one who relies on technique and positioning.

 

[AlphaBravo]

First of all, we are not trading Quick to a division rival. We could be pushing for the playoffs in 2 years, and I don’t want to face Quick and miss out on points.

Second, there is zero point in arguing with flames fans regarding how good Quick is. The comments in this thread show that they have not watched any of the games he has played. The guy stands on his head day in and out. If there was any weakness in his game, we would have threads on the Kings board regarding if Campbell or Peterson should sub in for Quick because they are better. No Kings fan says that.

Third, the comments regarding Quicks term are fair. He had on big injury 2 years ago, and this year was a minor injury. I personally don’t think he has recurring issues but the comments about injury are fair. But saying he sucks now or is in decline are without merit and based on comments by people who don’t see him play.

 

[AlphaBravo]

Its been like this for years. Jones, Scrivens, Budaj, Keumper, Enroth, Campbell, Petersen, et. all. The team plays noticeably different when they've got back-ups behind them vs when Quick's in net. Quick has terrific lateral movement, he can go post to post as well as any goalie in the league. His defenders know this, so they're more aggressive in pursuing pucks in the defensive end because if they make a mistake and leave a player open Quick can bail them out. With the back-ups in net the defense plays more reserved, parks in front of the goal and tries to limit the high quality chances. This leads to higher volume of lower quality shots that inflates the SV %.

Its clear as day to those watching these goalies that the SV% is a terrible metric to compare them.

Remember how conservative the Kings played with Budaj in net? Budaj looked like a god. When the Kings play in front of Quick they leave him out to dry because they know Quick will bail them out.

 

[redcard]

I generally agree. If I was a GM, however, it is the very things that have made Quick great in the past that would concern me in the future. He relies on athleticism and reflexes...those are not going to improve as he gets older. The way he plays will also likely lead to more injuries of a serious (for a goalie) nature. If I'm acquiring a 33 year-old goalie for the next four years, I'd much rather have one who relies on technique and positioning.

Sure, I'd be wary of acquiring him for those reasons as well. I'm just arguing against SV% as a metric. Truthfully, I'm not really interested in trading him away anyway.

I'll gladly cash out on Jack Campbell's good numbers if anybody were interested.

 

[tomd]

Sure, I'd be wary of acquiring him for those reasons as well. I'm just arguing against SV% as a metric. Truthfully, I'm not really interested in trading him away anyway.

I'll gladly cash out on Jack Campbell's good numbers if anybody were interested.

Agree with you on SV%. Quick has played well this year since coming back from his injury but i will say (IMO) that he doesn't look "in control" a lot of the time. He is relying a LOT of his athleticism which may make sense with the team in front of him this year (although they are playing much better lately).

As for Campbell, I don't think any GM sees him as a starter in this league over the long term. If they can get a 3rd for him they should do it and let Peterson be the backup. He ain't going to return much more than that.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Assets could be spent in MUCH better ways than this.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, we’re overreacting to a game where Rittich gave up two horrendous goals, and followed it up with one bad one against Vancouver. Sure, maybe he cost us 2 points against the Sharks, and arguably two against the Canucks (though if the Flames could have buried on their endless chances it would be a moot point).

Rittich has been good all year,it’s time to show faith in player for once and not overreact to an unproven player struggling a bit.

If Rittich realizes he’s not Smith and shouldn’t play the puck like him, he’ll be just fine. From the top of my head, a big chunk of his goal that we’ve collectively shaken our heads at come from his turnovers.

We’ve gone from labelling him as the next Kipper to wanting to go out and make a move for an aging goalie that would probably handcuff is in the matter of a couple months - both reactions were far too extreme for the reality of the situation.

 

[Blake456]

Not this again! What is the 4th or 5th thread of Quick to Calgary? LA is never trading in division without overpayment, and Calgary fans just look at hockey dB, or only watch Quick when he plays Calgary, so have no real idea how good he is. Best comparison is me suggesting Kipper was junk from 08 until he retired. Team was junk, and Kipper was on reason they were respectful. That’s fine my team is admittingly not that good, but don’t come crying when the penalties dry up in the playoffs and Fluery stands on his head and LV prevents Calgary from passing the second round for the 30th straight year

 

[rajinikanthfan1]

There’s been lots of talk that Calgary could use another top 9, even a top 6 winger. I don’t deny this and I’d love to add 1 more impact forward up front. Some think we should add a depth piece on the backend, as long as it’s cheap I can also see this.

But to be completely honest, Calgary’s goaltending is a massive question mark and hands down our biggest need. I simply do not trust it and I don’t think the Flames can be considered legit contenders without getting a bonafide stud in goal.

I think Quick fit our needs perfectly. I like that he’s signed longer than this and next season. He’s an elite goalie and he would make Calgary a total power house.

So what would be the cost be: Smith, Mangiapane and a 1st?

david rittich is a wonderful Goalie i feel like he can break Kippersouffs records in wins and hes very young too!!! Quick is 6 years older than Rittch

 

[ScoreZeGoals]

I wish the rest of the Kings roster was as "bad" as Quick

 

[bleedblue94]

People saying quicks cap hit is "huge" are out to lunch. It's 5.8 per. He's making .33 mil more than smith this year for a cap hit. It's also a back diving deal: 7 next year, then 3.5, 3 and 2.5 in the final year. That is not an anchor contract and if he is the guy that pairs with DR in the regular season for the next couple years and leads I'm the playoffs until DR is ready than that's not a bad thing.

 

[tomd]

People saying quicks cap hit is "huge" are out to lunch. It's 5.8 per. He's making .33 mil more than smith this year for a cap hit. It's also a back diving deal: 7 next year, then 3.5, 3 and 2.5 in the final year. That is not an anchor contract and if he is the guy that pairs with DR in the regular season for the next couple years and leads I'm the playoffs until DR is ready than that's not a bad thing.

For the third time, how do you fit his cap hit into Calgary's salary structure starting next year while also giving Tkachuk and Bennett the significant raises they'll demand?

 

[bleedblue94]

For the third time, how do you fit his cap hit into Calgary's salary structure starting next year while also giving Tkachuk and Bennett the significant raises they'll demand?

do you expect the flames to roll with DR and a backup making 1mil next year? Do you think that was the plan prior to this season, or do you think they planned to ride out smith and then look for their next goalie after how ill prepared DR looked last season when given #1 duties? I'm seriously asking you, not being a jerk.

I'm sure the king's could/would retain 1.5 mil or so on quick which makes his cap hit even more manageable.

My point is simply that people are acting like this is the price contract, when it's actually a very good contract for a player like quick. A dumpster fire trendy like jake allen makes less than 1.5mil less than quick. unless the flames plan to roll with DR as their #1 next year with a 1-1.5mil backup they are going to pay for a goalie by next year.

And i dont think Bennett is going to break the bank, MT is a different story obviously

 

[Lunatik]

Can someone tell me how Calgary can fit Quick's salary into their cap next year while giving significant raises to Tkachuk and Bennett?

They will have to move Frolik and with his strong two-way play and the fact his salary will be 1.3m lower than his cap hit, he should be quite easy to move.

 

[Lunatik]

Smith is a given if Quick is acquired. Frolik will be tough to move at $4.3 million and Stone will not be easy either. But let's assume they are able to move all three. That clears about $12 million. Quick is at almost $6 million which leaves $6 million for raises to Tkachuk and Bennett...that's not enough. Plus you have to find a replacement for Stone and resign Hathaway plus a couple of others. I just don't see it unless they can move Neal as well which is going to be very tough.

Flames have about $16.75m in space next year (based on the speculated cap of $83m), shedding Frolik's contract, will up that to over $22m to re-sign Tkachuk, Bennett, Rittich, Hathaway and add another goaltender.

Also, moving Frolik will not be difficult as he is a good two way player that has consistently produced 0.5 points through the majority of his career (the exceptions being in Chicago and last season when he had his face broken by a puck) and he would have greater value to budget teams as his salary is 1.3m lower than his cap hit.

 

[Lunatik]

Assets could be spent in MUCH better ways than this.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, we’re overreacting to a game where Rittich gave up two horrendous goals, and followed it up with one bad one against Vancouver. Sure, maybe he cost us 2 points against the Sharks, and arguably two against the Canucks (though if the Flames could have buried on their endless chances it would be a moot point).

Rittich has been good all year,it’s time to show faith in player for once and not overreact to an unproven player struggling a bit.

If Rittich realizes he’s not Smith and shouldn’t play the puck like him, he’ll be just fine. From the top of my head, a big chunk of his goal that we’ve collectively shaken our heads at come from his turnovers.

We’ve gone from labelling him as the next Kipper to wanting to go out and make a move for an aging goalie that would probably handcuff is in the matter of a couple months - both reactions were far too extreme for the reality of the situation.

This is not a reaction to just two games. Rittich has been getting increasingly worse since Christmas, after collapsing last year down the stretch. There is legitimate reason for concern.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

This is not a reaction to just two games. Rittich has been getting increasingly worse since Christmas, after collapsing last year down the stretch. There is legitimate reason for concern.

The only way you can get the impression he has been getting “increasingly worse” since Christmas, is if you put a lot of weight into the last two games.

.880, .667, .919, .943, .917, .846, .889, .914, .914, .941 are his last 10 games. What about that says that he’s been getting “increasingly worse”?

It doesn’t look like it has any sort of downward trend to me, unless of course you only count his last 4 games. In which case it is absolutely a knee-jerk reaction based mostly on two games.

 

[Lunatik]

The only way you can get the impression he has been getting “increasingly worse” since Christmas, is if you put a lot of weight into the last two games.

.880, .667, .919, .943, .917, .846, .889, .914, .914, .941 are his last 10 games. What about that says that he’s been getting “increasingly worse”?

It doesn’t look like it has any sort of downward trend to me, unless of course you only count his last 4 games. In which case it is absolutely a knee-jerk reaction based mostly on two games.

You can't just look at save percentage, look at how many goals he's allowing and how many are bad goals. He's giving the puck away more and more. He's allowed 3 or more goals in 8 of those games and allowed 2 in 6 shots in the one Thursday. The only game he allowed fewer than 2 was the one immediately after Christmas in Winnipeg.

 

[YP44]

Well, he's actually not having a really bad year although everything else you say is probably true. My question is how would they fit him under the cap next year when they have to give big raises to Tkachuk and Bennett?

This. Since coming back from Surgery Quick has been very good.

 

[KingsHockey24]

Feels good not having goaltending problems and everyone we develop turns out to be a quality NHL'er.

Quick, Jones, Bernier, Scrivens, Enroth, Budaj, Campbell, Peterson, etc.

 

[YP44]

The problem with Big Save Dave is that the Small Saves seem hard.

I am not a flames fan but living in Calgary pay attention and have a routing interest.

If they were able to get Quick it would be a huge addition. He is not paid like a top 10 goalie as far as cap hit but still plays like it. I get the concerns over the length of the contract but for the next 2-3 years he would be a great starter for the flames. That said the cap concern should be real and I do not think Tree should do something like this in season before Tkachuk is re-signed. Also I think LA would be better off waiting till the offseason as well. There are a few team I could already see being in on Quick this summer. Carolina, Calgary, Columbus and Florida Immediately come to mind. Could see others as well depending on other movement.

 

[bert]

Quick at 33 is a just band aide for Mike Smith.

They arent even close to the same level of goaltender. Quick was great last season, he is coming off an injury on a terrible team he is a very talented goaltender and think he would be a perfect fit to put the flames over the top.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

You can't just look at save percentage, look at how many goals he's allowing and how many are bad goals. He's giving the puck away more and more. He's allowed 3 or more goals in 8 of those games and allowed 2 in 6 shots in the one Thursday.The only game he allowed fewer than 2 was the one immediately after Christmas in Winnipeg.

Man, fewer than two goals is a cherry picked cutoff if I’ve ever seen one. Like, why not 2 or fewer? Why not 3 or fewer? The reality is with our roster if he lets in three or less that gives us a chance to win.

Even if we just go to two or less (that pretty much guarantees us a win) he’s met that criteria 4 out of 13 games since Christmas (not including the one against SJ where he got yanked).

Again, it’s one thing to say that he has been less effective than before Christmas, but anyone with a brain knew his numbers would come down from the .930+ sv% and 2.15 GAA or whatever it was. But getting “increasingly worse” implies a whole lot of things that are easily disproven, and I don’t think you want to jump down that rabbit hole.

 

[Lunatik]

Man, fewer than two goals is a cherry picked cutoff if I’ve ever seen one. Like, why not 2 or fewer? Why not 3 or fewer? The reality is with our roster if he lets in three or less that gives us a chance to win.

Even if we just go to two or less (that pretty much guarantees us a win) he’s met that criteria 4 out of 13 games since Christmas (not including the one against SJ where he got yanked).

Again, it’s one thing to say that he has been less effective than before Christmas, but anyone with a brain knew his numbers would come down from the .930+ sv% and 2.15 GAA or whatever it was. But getting “increasingly worse” implies a whole lot of things that are easily disproven, and I don’t think you want to jump down that rabbit hole.

You new exactly what I meant since I've brought it up before. Rittich is barely an average goaltender since Christmas. He choked down the stretch last year and is trending the same way now. I do not trust him as a starter , neither does Hox, and we've both been up front about that for quite some time, so you knew based on it being me and him it wasn't as knee jerk reaction from the jump

 

[MonyontheMoney]

You new exactly what I meant since I've brought it up before. Rittich is barely an average goaltender since Christmas. He choked down the stretch last year and is trending the same way now. I do not trust him as a starter , neither does Hox, and we've both been up front about that for quite some time, so you knew based on it being me and him it wasn't as knee jerk reaction from the jump

I may have had an inclination to what you meant, but what may be an obvious hyperbole to me, may not be obvious to all the non-Flames fans reading this. You’ve never had any faith in Rittich (iirc, you didn’t even like him as a prospect).

Seems like a classic case of confirmation bias to me.

Regardless, we just have very different opinions on Rittich. I still think all we need is a solid backup (not Mike Smith) that Rittich can trust and will relieve some of the pressure on him.