Did Carey Price live up to his 8 year, $84M contract?

[Lafleurs Guy]

If the standard for "was the series an upset?" whether or not the team won, then there are no upsets.

You can't go back and gerrymander results to say "well the prognosticators got it wrong for these obvious reasons that I surely would have caught" because that's behavioral economics 101. Confirmation bias, specifically.

Okay… but I felt it was going to be a tight series before it began. And I had good reason to. The Avalanche had the two best scorers in the league not in Pittsburgh and added Lemieux and Roy. I don’t understand why they were considered such underdogs. The only thing I can think is that it was the standings. And that’s fair enough to favour Detroit but for it to be a lopsided win? I certainly didn’t think so. And Colorado won with Sakic dominating.

 

[Duffy13]

Curious what his next contract will look like

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Career wise? No.

Wait I am confused, I might have misunderstood your point then

Apologies, it happens.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Okay… but I felt it was going to be a tight series before it began. And I had good reason to. The Avalanche had the two best scorers in the league not in Pittsburgh and added Lemieux and Roy. I don’t understand why they were considered such underdogs. The only thing I can think is that it was the standings. And that’s fair enough to favour Detroit but for it to be a lopsided win? I certainly didn’t think so. And Colorado won with Sakic dominating.

Yes, what you’re describing is exactly confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes, what you’re describing is exactly confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don’t understand the basis for their opinion. You have a series where you’ve got a team with Sakic, Lemieux and Forsberg all coming off awesome years and they’ve added Roy. And Colorado won.

I don’t get why they thought Detroit would blow them out. All we have is the odds, not their rationale.

 

[ottawa]

He had some pretty elite stats in the games he played, easy yes from me considering he was LTIR'd after and passed on some cap savings to the team.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I don’t understand the basis for their opinion. You have a series where you’ve got a team with Sakic, Lemieux and Forsberg all coming off awesome years and they’ve added Roy. And Colorado won.

I don’t get why they thought Detroit would blow them out.

You keep saying that the series was expected to be close because Colorado had the top two forwards (plus Claude Lemieux, because I guess having the 45th highest scoring player in the league was going to make a big difference). Three responses:

First, everything you're saying now was known to the bettors at the time. They already knew that Colorado had Sakic, Forsberg and Roy - and they still bet decisively in favour of Detroit.

Second, I'm not sure that I agree with your premise. Was Forsberg even considered better than Fedorov, as of 1996? I'm not sure if that was the case. Fedorov finished higher in Hart trophy voting. I doubt I'd trade Forsberg's 18 extra assists (and zero votes for the Selke) for Fedorov's 9 extra goals and his Selke trophy win.

Third, the outcome of a series depends on more than which team has the best two forwards. The difference in the quality of both teams' bluelines was enormous (this, obviously, was also know to the voters at the time). The Red Wings had three Hall of Fame defensemen, and Colorado had none. (Granted, Fetisov wasn't close to being at his peak by this point - but Konstantinov was runner-up for the Norris trophy - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Detroit had all three of the best defensemen in this series). Detroit had the better coach. They had the better penalty kill by a wide margin (they could put Lidstrom, Konstantinov and future Selke winner Kris Draper on the same PK unit, and had by far the best PK% in the NHL). And they still had two more HOF forwards upfront (beyond their top two centres) - Colorado didn't have any. My point is - you keep highlighting one of Colorado's advantages (the Sakic/Forsberg duo), while downplaying all of the areas in which Detroit was superior.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You keep saying that the series was expected to be close because Colorado had the top two forwards (plus Claude Lemieux, because I guess having the 45th highest scoring player in the league was going to make a big difference). Three responses:

First, everything you're saying now was known to the bettors at the time. They already knew that Colorado had Sakic, Forsberg and Roy - and they still bet decisively in favour of Detroit.

Right.

And I don’t get why.

Forget the results - why did they dismiss this or not weight it more heavily?

We don’t know.

Second, I'm not sure that I agree with your premise. Was Forsberg even considered better than Fedorov, as of 1996? I'm not sure if that was the case. Fedorov finished higher in Hart trophy voting. I doubt I'd trade Forsberg's 18 extra assists for Fedorov's 9 extra goals and his Selke trophy.

I said Sakic and Forsberg were the two highest scorers not on Pittsburgh that year. And that’s true.

I said Sakic was the 2nd best player in the league that year - which can be disputed.

Third, the outcome of a series depends on more than which team has the best two forwards. The difference in the quality of both teams' bluelines was enormous (this, obviously, was also know to the voters at the time). The Red Wings had three Hall of Fame defensemen, and Colorado had none. (Granted, Fetisov wasn't close to being at his peak by this point - but Konstantinov was runner-up for the Norris trophy - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Detroit had all three of the best defensemen in this series). Detroit had the better coach. They had the better penalty kill by a wide margin (they could put Lidstrom, Konstantinov and future Selke winner Kris Draper on the the same PK unit). And they still had two more HOF forwards upfront (beyond their top two centres) - Colorado didn't have any. My point is - you keep highlighting one of Colorado's advantages (the Sakic/Forsberg duo), while downplaying all of the areas in which Detroit was superior.

Sure. Like I said, I get taking Detroit. Better D, better in the standings. I personally see it as pretty even but okay. Lidstrom wasn’t the name we know of today. He was still establishing himself and hadn’t reached superstardom. Still considered very good but the oddsmakers had no idea he’d be what he became.

I don’t get having Colorado as a huge underdog. Not with their roster and top scorers. I’d have made it a pretty even series.

Anyways…. This is way off topic. I already said I’d concede the point. I just find this to be an interesting side topic.

 

[Zalos]

Having watched him play his whole career, he had his ups and downs, but he definitely was a major reason for many of the Habs' deep playoffs runs.

Seeing people compare him to Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, etc. I'd say he was a tier below those guys (although Brodeur is questionable because he played on stacked teams all the time). I will definitely laugh at the person who said Belfour was better than him, though.

As for his final contract, injuries definitely stopped him from fulfilling his full potential. He should be playing still if he didn't f*** up his knees. Still, he got us to the Finals for the first time in ages, so if you asked me if I'd pay that type of money to a goaltender if I was guaranteed to at least make the final round of the playoffs, I'd say yes. His salary didn't hurt us and nowadays it's as if it's not even there.

Thank you, Carey!

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Apparently Kovalev read hfboards and decided to partake in the discussion:

Igor Shesterkin is better than Carey Price was, according to Alex Kovalev

Alex Kovalev certainly speaks his mind. Just two weeks ago, he criticized Ivan Demidov for how little he was used by his coach. His opinion was contrary to that of most fans who see no other option but to wait for the year to end.

www.yardbarker.com

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Links to Price refusing to learn French awhile living in a French first language city?

I don't need a link, Larry Robinson, Bob Gainey, Ken Dryden, Kirk Muller and others all learned french at some point, which is the normal thing to do.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

The 1996 Avalanche were heavy underdogs against the Red Wings. If Detroit’s goalies were as flexible as your logic, they’d have won in four.

Nice quip, too bad its backed with zero substance like the rest of the hollow statements you have made throughout this thread. The avalanche were built for the playoffs and matched up well against the wings that year. We see these types of matchups every year. Also the wings should have lost to the blues in the series before that, it took a miracle final goal with hockey's GOAT uncharacteristically out of position to get past them.

I think its easy to look back purely at the stats and draw a new narrative, but anybody who watched those playoffs know you are twisting the narrative to fit your weak argument.

Having watched him play his whole career, he had his ups and downs, but he definitely was a major reason for many of the Habs' deep playoffs runs.

Seeing people compare him to Roy, Brodeur, Hasek, etc. I'd say he was a tier below those guys (although Brodeur is questionable because he played on stacked teams all the time). I will definitely laugh at the person who said Belfour was better than him, though.

As for his final contract, injuries definitely stopped him from fulfilling his full potential. He should be playing still if he didn't f*** up his knees. Still, he got us to the Finals for the first time in ages, so if you asked me if I'd pay that type of money to a goaltender if I was guaranteed to at least make the final round of the playoffs, I'd say yes. His salary didn't hurt us and nowadays it's as if it's not even there.

Thank you, Carey!

Belfour was better than him, and if you are going based purely on talent you could even argue him above Roy, although Roy had a far better career.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I think its easy to look back purely at the stats and draw a new narrative, but anybody who watched those playoffs know you are twisting the narrative to fit your weak argument.

I’m looking at the published odds prior to the series.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

You keep saying that the series was expected to be close because Colorado had the top two forwards (plus Claude Lemieux, because I guess having the 45th highest scoring player in the league was going to make a big difference). Three responses:

First, everything you're saying now was known to the bettors at the time. They already knew that Colorado had Sakic, Forsberg and Roy - and they still bet decisively in favour of Detroit.

Second, I'm not sure that I agree with your premise. Was Forsberg even considered better than Fedorov, as of 1996? I'm not sure if that was the case. Fedorov finished higher in Hart trophy voting. I doubt I'd trade Forsberg's 18 extra assists (and zero votes for the Selke) for Fedorov's 9 extra goals and his Selke trophy win.

Third, the outcome of a series depends on more than which team has the best two forwards. The difference in the quality of both teams' bluelines was enormous (this, obviously, was also know to the voters at the time). The Red Wings had three Hall of Fame defensemen, and Colorado had none. (Granted, Fetisov wasn't close to being at his peak by this point - but Konstantinov was runner-up for the Norris trophy - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Detroit had all three of the best defensemen in this series). Detroit had the better coach. They had the better penalty kill by a wide margin (they could put Lidstrom, Konstantinov and future Selke winner Kris Draper on the same PK unit, and had by far the best PK% in the NHL). And they still had two more HOF forwards upfront (beyond their top two centres) - Colorado didn't have any. My point is - you keep highlighting one of Colorado's advantages (the Sakic/Forsberg duo), while downplaying all of the areas in which Detroit was superior.

You seem to be extracting far too much on pre-series odds, which is a rare bet for a bettor. The odds swung heavily after game 1. It was expected to be a close series because Colorado always plays Detroit hard, and Detroit struggled mightily against the Blues the round prior and there was more than a few question marks after that series. Detroit is lucky they made it that far to be honest.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

I’m looking at the published odds prior to the series.

Great, but that doesn't measure probability of winning, and is actually influenced by a variety of factors. Gambling lines in 1996 came during a time when the majority of hockey experts didn't gamble and certainly don't mirror the landscape that we have today. I remember that series very clearly and most people were very weary of the Red Wings after they showed so many holes against St. Louis(and probably should have lost that series).

 

[DrMartinVanNostrand]

To the OP's question, Price was never able to fully earn his contract, due to injuries. You could understand why he got the deal – he had been one of the most dominant goalies in the league for 7/8 years. Unfortunately, by the time he signed it he was missing more and more games.

He still remained dominant in the playoffs until the end, and you could argue those results made everything else worthwhile. Plus, he was on LTR.

I might argue that he earned that contract before he got it. I know it doesn't entirely work that way, but Price was a top goalie in the first half of the 2010s before he got paid huge, it's only fair to him that he did essentially get compensation for his more "underpaid" years.

 

[PainForShane]

Great, but that doesn't measure probability of winning, and is actually influenced by a variety of factors. Gambling lines in 1996 came during a time when the majority of hockey experts didn't gamble and certainly don't mirror the landscape that we have today. I remember that series very clearly and most people were very weary of the Red Wings after they showed so many holes against St. Louis(and probably should have lost that series).

We're getting off track here but yes, I also remember that series well, it was generally expected to be close. Wings had won 62 reg season games that year (NHL record at the time) but were generally regarded as soft, when Avs picked up Claude Lemieux they created an advantage there, and when they traded for Roy that was a massive upgrade in net. The entire hockey world assumed the two teams would meet in the WCF and that series would be the "real" Stanley Cup Finals. Which it ended up being after the Avs later rolled over the Panthers team along with all those plastic rats their fans kept throwing on the ice.

I wouldn't be surprised if going in Detroit was favored slightly (just based on regular season) but yeah, everyone expected that series to be close. Both those teams were stacked.

 

[Oilslick941611]

He also smoked. LOL Anywho to the best of my knowledge he did have an addiction to pain killers due to his injuries like A LOT of other pro athletes.

As for the French thing I've heard that most long term Habs players have learned French. Heck Saku Koivu was known to carry on conversations in French in private but would never agree to interviews in la langue de Moliere. He had been advised to avoid them so as not to misunderstand questions or offend with a misconstrued answer. Nick Suzuki is also said to study it but I also believe he will avoid those interviews for the same reasons.

This is probably right.

I live in Ottawa and spent some time in Gatineau/Hull. I speak some french but with an franglais accent. Quebecers will never be happy with people speaking french that arent french. They will make fun of you, pick on your accent or word use. Its not worth it. The effort isn't enough. I dont blame these guys for not speaking french in the media, on top of that of the general populace being weird towards non native french speakers, the media is just ruthless there and its best not to give them any bullets to use against you.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Apparently Kovalev read hfboards and decided to partake in the discussion:

Igor Shesterkin is better than Carey Price was, according to Alex Kovalev

Alex Kovalev certainly speaks his mind. Just two weeks ago, he criticized Ivan Demidov for how little he was used by his coach. His opinion was contrary to that of most fans who see no other option but to wait for the year to end.

www.yardbarker.com

Kovalev is obviously an idiot.

 

[Habssince89]

Yes.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Yes.

He was probably worth more. Certainly to MB who's GM career was 6 years too long thanks to Price keeping his team relevant.