Value of: Quick to Calgary

Discussion in 'Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk' started by Johnny Hoxville, Feb 10, 2019.

  1. blankall

    blankall Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,899
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    139
    So what? The Flames should spend big assets to bring in a 32 year old goaltender playing badly this year with a multi-year contract? I'd rather have Howard for 1-2 years.
     
  2. Raccoon Jesus

    Raccoon Jesus #CONFUSE4HUGHES

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    38,723
    Likes Received:
    10,612
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    I.E.
    Since coming back from injury on Nov. 29th, Quick is sporting a .911 which sounds low but is pretty par for the course this year, he's 8th overall in that time period.

    Never mind that he's on a literal last place team, he's passing the eye test, dude has been great, so anyone citing "full season save percentage" as a measure of Quick's abilities is just being disingenuous because you're not bringing him aboard to be a regular season monster, you're bringing him aboard because you don't trust the guy who hasn't shown much consistency at ANY level to get you through the playoffs any more than you trusted Hiller, Ramo, Elliott, Johnson, Ortio.

    There are fair reasons to NOT want the trade--i.e. health worries, term on contract, giving up prospects/youth--but raw ability? Give me a ****ing break. Quick on Calgary would be monstrous, you should pick up him just to trigger the Sharks alone.

    I don't think anyone watching Calgary is scared facing David Rittich in the playoffs. Sorry.
     
  3. Sparky93

    Sparky93 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Quick has the 2nd worse save percentage, by a fair margin, than any of the bottom 3 teams, for the last 3 years. Being on a poor team just isn’t an excuse for a goalie having dismal numbers. Since the new year Quick is still a sub .900 goaltender, despite only playing 6 games against playoff teams. In fact, the difference between Smith and Quick, since January 1st, is less than 1 extra save, every 3 games, from our backup goalie. Maybe Quick bounce back, maybe he doesn’t. If he doesn’t the Kings are stuck with the contract or paying someone to take it on. Why would we give up assets or take on a long term, $6 million contract for a guy that’s currently playing at a level that would be a very moderate upgrade on our backup goaltender. He’s 2 years younger and has played 40 less games than when Kipper retired.
     
  4. blankall

    blankall Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,899
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    139
    The Flames have had a carousel of struggling veteran goalies. Now the answer is to bring in the one with the longest contract yet? And they should give up their first for that privilege?

    Rittich is fine. The Flames need a 1B/backup to help him carry the load. If the 1st is being moved its for a guy who is about 26 years old and part of the long-term picture.
     
  5. Raccoon Jesus

    Raccoon Jesus #CONFUSE4HUGHES

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    38,723
    Likes Received:
    10,612
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    I.E.
    Like I said, term is a fair concern.

    Rittich is fine. So was Ortio. And Johnson. And Elliott. And....
     
    bleedblue94 and go4hockey like this.
  6. blankall

    blankall Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,899
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    139
    And what guarantees that Quick will be better? Quick's current year has a lot more in common with any of those goalies you've listed than Rittich. Whoever the Flames bring in will be a gamble. Bringing in a guy signed for multiple years adds exponentially to the severity of the potential negative consequences of that gamble.

    At the end of the day, the Flames don't have the cap space for even one year of Quick. They'll probably have to move Stone and Frolik, just to keep who they already have. This is all a moot point. Quick just isn't a possibility for the Flames. The Kings' fans dream of fleecing the Flames, who they see as an easy target due to Smith's horrendous play, of their 1st, needs to end.
     
  7. tony d

    tony d Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    70,743
    Likes Received:
    2,266
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Office Worker
    Location:
    Behind A Tree
    Quick would be a nice pickup for Calgary and help solve their goalie issues.
     
  8. Raccoon Jesus

    Raccoon Jesus #CONFUSE4HUGHES

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    38,723
    Likes Received:
    10,612
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    I.E.

    The fact that he's done it for years, and just came off a massive playoffs last year as well? The guy just put up a .947 in a losing series.

    There are no guarantees in any trade, but the likelihood of Quick being much more stable and better than the carousel of Calgary goalies--particularly in the playoffs--is really damn high.

    I'm not trying to fleece anyone here, I'm just talking Quick's value. Like I said, there are legitimate reasons not to do it--term, injury worry, etc.--but raw ability is bunk. As a guy whose seen better teams than this year's Calgary fall to uneven goaltending (StL especially) while having to deal against Quick at the other end, you might just have to take my word for it. Going in with the relative unknown is just praying.
     
    Johnny Hoxville and go4hockey like this.
  9. blankall

    blankall Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,899
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Quick is 32, and the rules changed substantially for goalies this year. There are a plethora of veteran goalies who are having "off years". The game just favors quicker and younger goalies right now.
     
  10. Raccoon Jesus

    Raccoon Jesus #CONFUSE4HUGHES

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    38,723
    Likes Received:
    10,612
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    I.E.
    Quicker than Quick? :laugh:

    here's the list of goalies that have outperformed Quick since his return from injury: Lehner, Price, Rask, Vas, Bishop, Markstrom, Hellebuyck. Not seeing much of a trend, frankly. Keeping in mind that Quick is on a basement team and typically not a regular season performer anyway.
     
  11. blankall

    blankall Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,899
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Just looked this up. Quick only played four games before his surgery.

    Even excluding those four games, Quick is most certainly not in the top 10. Neither are most of the vets you've listed.
     
  12. Sparky93

    Sparky93 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    94
    What’s even more impressive is that outside of an extremely hot December, Quick’s numbers are actually worse than Smith’s. A .886 verses a .889.
     
  13. YP44

    YP44 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    18,179
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    For Quick his numbers from December on wards are more typical than what he put up beforehand.
     
  14. Raccoon Jesus

    Raccoon Jesus #CONFUSE4HUGHES

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    38,723
    Likes Received:
    10,612
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    I.E.
    Running from November 2..8? 9? When he returned until now, and filtering out frivilous games played, yeah, Quick is up there. Unless you want to disingenuously count goalies who have played like 10 games and less in that span. I used whatever nhl.com defaulted to, somewhere in the teens.

    Regardless--again--no one is trading for Quick because they think he'll win them a regular season consistency award. CGY doesn't need that, clearly. They could use a playoff-tested warrior. Go ahead and flip the coin on Rittich and keep finding ways to discount Quick if it makes you feel better, but I guarantee you no one outside of Calgary would take the former over the latter for a playoff run.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
    YP44 likes this.
  15. blankall

    blankall Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,899
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Calgary isn't acquiring another aging goaltender. Quick comes with a longterm contract too, which makes him even less appealing. Quick has been equally all over the place with his playoff appearances too. He was good last year (but only played 4 games), but horrible in 2015/16. Before that his last appearance was in 2013, which was 5 years ago.

    We aren't trading for the all-star mid to late 20s version of Quick. We'd be getting the 32+ version, who's very inconsistent. His past playoff performance is a factor to consider, but how do we are now he can repeat at this age. The risk with his contract is too great. There are other vets that have expiring contracts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  16. Raccoon Jesus

    Raccoon Jesus #CONFUSE4HUGHES

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    38,723
    Likes Received:
    10,612
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    I.E.
    So the more recent performance vs. a Cup Finalist doesn't count because it was only 4 games, but you're putting a lot of stock into 5 games vs. a Cup Finalist
    the year before? And no, the previous appearance was 2013-2014...when he won a Cup. I feel like I need to link his highlight reel from that run but I'm getting the feeling it doesn't matter since you're going out of your way to latch on to any reason to NOT do it while ignoring all the evidence of how he could help.

    Legitimate reasons that you've listed include term and injury history. But you can't seriously on one hand question Quick's playoff resume and on the other be comfortable with David Rittich. Saying you'd be more comfortable minimizing risk by going with another rental? I get that. I just will never understand people going "lol look at Quick's regular season save percentage" in their deliberate attempts to ignore what he actually brings.
     
    Reaper45 and YP44 like this.
  17. WolvesAndWings

    WolvesAndWings Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    74
    There's no Quick trade to be made right now. If he turns it around next season and plays similar to a Jimmy Howard this year, then he becomes tradable again, as the 3 years remaining wouldn't be as rough, and LA would be able to get a return decent enough just to make trading him worth it at all.
     
  18. Raccoon Jesus

    Raccoon Jesus #CONFUSE4HUGHES

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    38,723
    Likes Received:
    10,612
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    I.E.
    He's playing better than Jimmy Howard since coming back from his injury. Quick is .911, Howard .905.

    Man this forum loves running with their memes without fact checking.

    Like yet again, I have zero problem with concerns about his term, health, even consistency in regular season...but this stuff about his ability is garbage and the facts are right there to prove it, even though again "regular season save percentage" is just not what you're looking for with Quick anyway.

    Anyway, I'm done here, I think I've made my point.
     
    bleedblue94 and Reaper45 like this.
  19. YP44

    YP44 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    18,179
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    I have been saying that a quick deal makes the most sense in the offseason, however i disagree that he is not tradeable right now.
     
  20. LT Dan

    LT Dan Undocumented User

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    49
    Hells yeah
     
  21. YP44

    YP44 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    18,179
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Should I point out that quick is actually 33....
     
  22. Fifth Marauder

    Fifth Marauder Unidentified User

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    27,796
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Non-Yah
    Pass. No to division rivals.
     
  23. Johnny Hoxville

    Johnny Hoxville The Return of a Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    33,591
    Likes Received:
    4,231
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    Calgary
    What most of my fellow Flames posters are failing to realize is that Quick is an elite goalie and has been for sometime. Elliott was a borderline starter, Hiller was a starter but was never elite and always had consistency issues. Ramo was maybe the best of bunch and he’s not in the NHL so that’s saying something. Smith has been an excellent goalie for stretches, but never reached the levels Quick has. Quite frankly, Quick would be the closest thing to Kipper we’ve had since he departed.
     
    Raccoon Jesus likes this.
  24. WolvesAndWings

    WolvesAndWings Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2017
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    74
    Yeah i was talking season-long. Keep assuming the worst in people if you'd like though, I don't mind.

    Anyway I'm done here, I think I've made my point.
     
  25. Sparky93

    Sparky93 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    328
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Ya Hox, we must be the ones missing it. Another 6 goals tonight, rocking a .891 sv%, since New Years. Are you talking the closest thing to Kipper, if he were to come out of retirement? In all honesty, Quick was elite. He’s shown brief flashes of being able to preform at that level, this year but he’s locked into a significant contract, for 4 more years and he just can’t be trusted to consistently preform at that level anymore. I expect it to come out that the surgery didn’t hold or that he’s sustained another injury, shortly. Either way, giving up assets for him and that contract, is a terrible idea.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"