Value of: A Legitimate Starting Goalie to Edmonton, Who's Available?

[bernmeister]

How about if we cut out all the extra stuff, and give the Rangers Quick for a 5th? It's likely a bit of an overpayment for an aging goalie, but I'd be happy bringing Quick in as a backup for the rest of the year. He doesn't help the starting goalie problem at this stage in his career.

How about NO, no need to accept a lowball offer from Oil or anyone else to help out or you anyone else, and stop w/bs that yeah, he is an aged G but atm he is playing at a high level

your characterization of a an overpayment is called out for the nonsense it is -- actually a lowball tender

come up w/something good or continue status quo

 

[Ignatius]

Jarry for McDavid E5

Two players that really need a change of scenery

 

[bernmeister]

Your response is devoid of reality. Let's go back there shall we?

1) Reality Check 1: the "market" for Quick has a DIRECT COMPARABLE, when he was traded two years ago as a (i) highly regarded, (ii) aging, (iii) now back up, with a (iv) sub 900 SPCT and a (v) long history of strong playoff performance. Considering all of (i) to (v) he was worth a journeyman back up and a 7th. What's changed? None of (i) to (v) except that he's now two years older.

2) Reality Check 2: Allaire is WIDELY credited for his work popularizing the "blocking style" of butterfly goaltending, that benefits big, tactical goalies..., Quick is small, agile and plays a hybrid, pro-fly style... Allaire isn't going to be teaching this old dog any new tricks.

3) Reality Check 3: The last time Quick turned in a "high quality, Vezina" type season he was 32 years old. He's now 39. Trust this 49 year old goalie when I say... these things are not the same.

4) Reality Check 4: You got the supply/demand equation backwards. There are plenty of goalies better than Quick that are available (Binnington, Gibson, Vejmelka, etc) and the rumors are that there are really only two buyers (Edmonton & Carolina) among contenders.

I'm actually a huge Quick fan, but if he moves, he's not getting more than a mid-round pick. There is no set of facts that suggests he's worth more.

here's da bottom line:
eye test says Quick better last 2 yrs w/Rangers than in recent prior history
including of note presetly
THAT DOMINATES AND OVERRIDES ALL SHADE/BUZZ etc

As to supply/demand, all those other guys have pluses + minuses factored into cost. Are you getting term? Did you want term b'c it is good value? Or not?

quick is a great this season only rental option
you want something else fine, that's -- something else fine

but he wants here and we are not asking/moving him if it is not enuf - i.e. cheap

 

[Thechozen1]

Based on McDavid’s comments I could see them target Billington. I don’t care if it’s him or Gibson. Just go get someone already. Fire Schwartz while at it.

Craig Billington​

Goalie -- shoots R
Born Sep 11 1966 -- London, ONT
[58 yrs. ago]
Height 5.10 -- Weight 170[178 cm/77 kg]


Don’t you think he might be a little too old? What’s McDavid thinking?????

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Just trade for Gibson ffs, can’t believe this is still being discussed even

 

[Hookslide]

So Gibson is well know as a possibility, others have mentioned maybe Vejmelka as a possibility if Utah can't sign him, Are there any other decent starting goalies that might be available?

I know if it was up to me, Swayman, would be on his way and when the Bruins fans read this, I will receive the hate posts, but that ok

 

[ManofSteel55]

How about NO, no need to accept a lowball offer from Oil or anyone else to help out or you anyone else, and stop w/bs that yeah, he is an aged G but atm he is playing at a high level

your characterization of a an overpayment is called out for the nonsense it is -- actually a lowball tender

come up w/something good or continue status quo

I don't think its really a low ball offer. Backups don't have much value, especially aging ones. He's not the answer to our starting goalie issues, so his value to us is no more than that of any other backup in the league. A late pick. Not all of your assets are gold Bern.

here's da bottom line:
eye test says Quick better last 2 yrs w/Rangers than in recent prior history
including of note presetly
THAT DOMINATES AND OVERRIDES ALL SHADE/BUZZ etc

As to supply/demand, all those other guys have pluses + minuses factored into cost. Are you getting term? Did you want term b'c it is good value? Or not?

quick is a great this season only rental option
you want something else fine, that's -- something else fine

but he wants here and we are not asking/moving him if it is not enuf - i.e. cheap

You can't just ignore the negatives with a player, especially age with a goalie. He is too old to rely on to be a starter come playoff time, so he's going to be valued as a backup. You admit he's a rental. Old goalie rentals aren't worth much. If you'd rather keep him, fine, he doesn't fit our target needs anyway.

 

[bernmeister]

I don't think its really a low ball offer. Backups don't have much value, especially aging ones. He's not the answer to our starting goalie issues, so his value to us is no more than that of any other backup in the league. A late pick. Not all of your assets are gold Bern.

You can't just ignore the negatives with a player, especially age with a goalie. He is too old to rely on to be a starter come playoff time, so he's going to be valued as a backup. You admit he's a rental. Old goalie rentals aren't worth much. If you'd rather keep him, fine, he doesn't fit our target needs anyway.

fine no prob
suppl + demand
live w/the bed you made
mid-ish pick not enuf
this is not just a guy w/a pulse
this is a cup champ, formerly elite, still high end
do better or forget it

 

[bucks_oil]

here's da bottom line:
eye test says Quick better last 2 yrs w/Rangers than in recent prior history
including of note presetly
THAT DOMINATES AND OVERRIDES ALL SHADE/BUZZ etc

As to supply/demand, all those other guys have pluses + minuses factored into cost. Are you getting term? Did you want term b'c it is good value? Or not?

quick is a great this season only rental option
you want something else fine, that's -- something else fine

but he wants here and we are not asking/moving him if it is not enuf - i.e. cheap

The only thing accurate and of substance in this response is: Quick is happy in NY and unlikely to move.

As to your earlier proposal, and your arguments "supporting" value, they fall flat. Aging back up goalies, even ones with a legendary history behind them, DO NOT command 1st round picks in return. I'm sorry, but you cannot rationalize the irrational with "eye test says he's better".

If I were still reasonably sold on Skinner I'd easily do Quick for a mid-round pick... I'm not sure too many other teams would offer more... and to be honest, like other Oiler fans, I'm coming around to the idea that Quick isn't enough, because Skinner is not really part of the solution. We need a legit 1A starter, with Skinner in 1B position (or traded).

 

[Beauterham]

Our 5 most valuable trade chips are in order:

1. Matt Savoie (dominant player in the AHL as a rookie)
2a. 2016 1st round pick
2b. Sam O'Reilly (based on past training camp a near lock for an NHL future, passed every test the coaching staff threw at him with flying colors, just lacked NHL level strength, question marks on his offensive ceiling)
4. Beau Akey (fits the style of new era d-men, mobile, good in transition, offensive catalyst)
5. STL 2015 2nd round pick

Not interested in Puljujärvi, but I guess I wouldn't mind Vince Dunn back...

 

[Esq]

Mrazek seems like a good candidate

 

[miscs75]

Our 5 most valuable trade chips are in order:

1. Matt Savoie (dominant player in the AHL as a rookie)
2a. 2016 1st round pick
2b. Sam O'Reilly (based on past training camp a near lock for an NHL future, passed every test the coaching staff threw at him with flying colors, just lacked NHL level strength, question marks on his offensive ceiling)
4. Beau Akey (fits the style of new era d-men, mobile, good in transition, offensive catalyst)
5. STL 2015 2nd round pick

I thought someone said Savoie was off the table. Ideally a rebuilding team with a quality starter that’s available could be interested in him as part of a top 6 option in the near future. I also assume you mean 2026 1st and STL 2015 2nd because we both know who the 2015 1st was traded to and the return that Edmonton got for it.

 

[ManofSteel55]

fine no prob
suppl + demand
live w/the bed you made
mid-ish pick not enuf
this is not just a guy w/a pulse
this is a cup champ, formerly elite, still high end
do better or forget it

I don't think you will find there is much demand for a 39 year old goalie, regardless of his pedigree. Supply and demand would only work in your favour if you had an asset that more than 1 team was lining up for. As of today, zero teams are pining for Jonathan Quick. Even us, in our desperation, do not want him.

As per the "Live with the bed you made" - the bed our management has made would not be improved by adding Quick as Skinner's backup.

A mid round pick may not be enough. That's good, because I consider a 5th to be a late pick, and I wouldn't offer any more.

This is a good backup. Yes, he's a former cup champion. So is Mark Messier, we aren't thinking about asking him to come in to help us out either. He's a backup. Nothing more. He's playing well as a backup perhaps, but he's still a backup at this stage of his career. Father Time remains undefeated.

As per the "do better or forget it", I'll forget it. You're the one who came here to offer Quick to the Oilers, and we've told you how we value him. You aren't going to get a high pick for a guy who is one step away from the retirement home.

You don't have to be offended when someone doesn't want a player you are offering. It's okay, none of us are GM's here.

I thought someone said Savoie was off the table. Ideally a rebuilding team with a quality starter that’s available could be interested in him as part of a top 6 option in the near future. I also assume you mean 2026 1st and STL 2015 2nd because we both know who the 2015 1st was traded to and the return that Edmonton got for it.

There's split opinions on that. There are rumours that they called him up to showcase him. If that's true, he's available. If he immediately starts scoring buckets of goals for us, he'll likely be technically available, but really hard to get. Others suspect he really isn't available at all, but we don't really know.

 

[bernmeister]

The only thing accurate and of substance in this response is: Quick is happy in NY and unlikely to move.

As to your earlier proposal, and your arguments "supporting" value, they fall flat. Aging back up goalies, even ones with a legendary history behind them, DO NOT command 1st round picks in return. I'm sorry, but you cannot rationalize the irrational with "eye test says he's better".

If I were still reasonably sold on Skinner I'd easily do Quick for a mid-round pick... I'm not sure too many other teams would offer more... and to be honest, like other Oiler fans, I'm coming around to the idea that Quick isn't enough, because Skinner is not really part of the solution. We need a legit 1A starter, with Skinner in 1B position (or traded).

agree to disagree then

I don't think you will find there is much demand for a 39 year old goalie, regardless of his pedigree. Supply and demand would only work in your favour if you had an asset that more than 1 team was lining up for. As of today, zero teams are pining for Jonathan Quick. Even us, in our desperation, do not want him.

As per the "Live with the bed you made" - the bed our management has made would not be improved by adding Quick as Skinner's backup.

A mid round pick may not be enough. That's good, because I consider a 5th to be a late pick, and I wouldn't offer any more.

This is a good backup. Yes, he's a former cup champion. So is Mark Messier, we aren't thinking about asking him to come in to help us out either. He's a backup. Nothing more. He's playing well as a backup perhaps, but he's still a backup at this stage of his career. Father Time remains undefeated.

As per the "do better or forget it", I'll forget it. You're the one who came here to offer Quick to the Oilers, and we've told you how we value him. You aren't going to get a high pick for a guy who is one step away from the retirement home.

You don't have to be offended when someone doesn't want a player you are offering. It's okay, none of us are GM's here.
....

not offended, just being straight about it

 

[Coach Parker]

The question was answered by the HF gods:

 

[Lunatik]

I cannot stand either franchise... but the earlier suggestion of Mrazek makes sense to me, Hawks get an asset for their future and can bring in a younger goalie in teh summer.... Oilers get a solid but relatively cheap goaltender and can use their bigger assets to try and upgrade their blueline too.

 

[tfwnogf]

But but but skinner's good at mario kart and he's a hometown kid, surely that counts for something!

 

[Crow]

I cannot stand either franchise... but the earlier suggestion of Mrazek makes sense to me, Hawks get an asset for their future and can bring in a younger goalie in teh summer.... Oilers get a solid but relatively cheap goaltender and can use their bigger assets to try and upgrade their blueline too.

He looks like shit a lot lately. If I’m Edmonton, I try to find someone else.

He was great last year so he is capable. Wouldn’t be my #1 target if I’m them though.

 

[bruins4thecup65]

Korpasalo f0r a2nd