Confirmed with Link: Scrivens Traded to Edmonton for a 3rd

[kingsboy11]

carcillo resigning,

could be wrong, but I thought it was the number of games he played in IIRC.

 

[Quattro]

The negative remarks about players who leave never ceases to amaze me. Scrivezina played PHENOMENALLY well when Quick went down. I can't believe how soon people forget.

Great deal by Lombardi but it still is a bit sad to see him go. He was a hilarious guy. I hope he does well in the future. I wish him the best.

 

[HYORI 1963]

The negative remarks about players who leave never ceases to amaze me. Scrivezina played PHENOMENALLY well when Quick went down. I can't believe how soon people forget.

I don't think the fans really care unfortunately. It's always about, what have you done for me lately.

Great deal by Lombardi but it still is a bit sad to see him go. He was a hilarious guy. I hope he does well in the future. I wish him the best.

I liked him as well and wish him the very best.

You should start a Scrivens Appreciation Thread. I would, except I've already started a couple of threads.

 

[Reclamation Project]

The negative remarks about players who leave never ceases to amaze me. Scrivezina played PHENOMENALLY well when Quick went down. I can't believe how soon people forget.

Great deal by Lombardi but it still is a bit sad to see him go. He was a hilarious guy. I hope he does well in the future. I wish him the best.

That's why it surprised me. Everyone blew his miscues out of proportion. He was fantastic.

 

[scryan]

The negative remarks about players who leave never ceases to amaze me. Scrivezina played PHENOMENALLY well when Quick went down. I can't believe how soon people forget.

Great deal by Lombardi but it still is a bit sad to see him go. He was a hilarious guy. I hope he does well in the future. I wish him the best.

There was more then one person saying he wasn't as good as his stats while he was playing...

I never wanted to talk bad about the guy, he seemed like a good guy, was entertaining and ultimate got fantastic results.

But I don't think he was that skilled, hell King's goaltending coaches were fairly critical of his basics when he got benched, and it showed in his game... even if not the score sheet.

I think a lot of people saw this, and were a bit more vocal about it because so many seemed to just be basing their opinion of his play off goals and wins. Sorta the opposite side of "what have you done for me lately"...

But again, his time here went well... He never had the bad games he could have, he was entertaining and cheap... So no hate, and I wish him well.

 

[Basilisk]

Is it a 2014 pick or a 2015 pick? That's what I want to know. I've been saying for years that 2015 will be LOT like 2003.

 

[kingsfan]

Some teams have to worry about the cap floor.

Not Nashville. They actually shed a bit of cap space on this deal and are still only about $4 million away from the ceiling.

1) Scrivens lost his job to our AHL goalie...he wasn't that good.

Come on Ror, really? A .931 save percentage, 1.97 GAA and still tied for 3rd in the league in shutouts wasn't all that good? Like or hate his style, the dude got results.

could be wrong, but I thought it was the number of games he played in IIRC.

I think that was the condition on the deal that sent Carcillo TO LA.

Is it a 2014 pick or a 2015 pick? That's what I want to know. I've been saying for years that 2015 will be LOT like 2003.

Come the 3rd round it ain't going to matter, all drafts are the same. The 2003 3rd round had 12 players reach the NHL, six of which played more than 164 games (IE, two full seasons). Those are Colin Fraser, Daniel Carcillo, Clarke MacArthur, Ryan O'Bryne, Alexandre Picard (the defenseman) and Zach Stortini. Really, only MacArthur is worth a 3rd today.

Don't get hung up on a draft year, typically outside of the top 10 picks or so they are all the same. Yes, you have great drafts like 2003, but for every 10 that scouts say is a 'great year', about one pans out to be an actual great year. And come round three, it's all the same anyways pretty much. The worst draft (arguably) in the last 30 years was 1996 and in that third round 11 players made the NHL and seven played at least 164 games, including Zdeno Chara and Tom Poti.

Past the first round, it gets more and more like a crapshoot.

 

[santiclaws]

Not Nashville. They actually shed a bit of cap space on this deal and are still only about $4 million away from the ceiling.

I was talking about Edmonton.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Scrivens was an adequate backup but the guy sure gave up some back breaking goals that cost the team points. I can think of two games off the top of my head where he just did not come through with a save in the dying moments of the game. Jones is ready to play at this level and is more than capable of serving as a backup who can be trusted to play 20+ games in support of Quick.

I'm sorry but this is just an example how unrealistic a fan can be. I guess you mean those two last minute goals vs Calgary. A save would have been nice yes, but to say he was responsible for 0 points ? Kings played against one of the worst teams in the league. This whole team didnt take them seriously and couldnt bury a goal and than its Scrivens' fault that it was still an even game, no even worse, its Scrivens fault he didnt stop the puck. A goalie with a SV .931 and 1.97 GAA in 19 games for us. What about those other 15 games or so.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

The negative remarks about players who leave never ceases to amaze me. Scrivezina played PHENOMENALLY well when Quick went down. I can't believe how soon people forget.

Great deal by Lombardi but it still is a bit sad to see him go. He was a hilarious guy. I hope he does well in the future. I wish him the best.

This.

I was halfway this topic. I thought I was the only one.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Scrivens gets the start tonight for the Oilers.

 

[Habstract]

I like the fact that Jones now has the backup job in LA...

And as for the pick, it is a 3rd pick in the 2014 entry draft.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm sorry but this is just an example how unrealistic a fan can be. I guess you mean those two last minute goals vs Calgary. A save would have been nice yes, but to say he was responsible for 0 points ? Kings played against one of the worst teams in the league. This whole team didnt take them seriously and couldnt bury a goal and than its Scrivens' fault that it was still an even game, no even worse, its Scrivens fault he didnt stop the puck. A goalie with a SV .931 and 1.97 GAA in 19 games for us. What about those other 15 games or so.

He was wildly inconsistent in his performances and was good to allow a questionable goal. While some of you are fixated at his numbers, look at what he was doing after his hot start (and how his struggles opened the door for Martin Jones).

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/scrivbe01/gamelog/2014/

Coming in relief for Jones, Scrivens had a terrible showing against the Blues. He only had 2 wins in his previous 9 appearances after winning four games in a row. Now I didn't expect him to set the world on fire and take over as a starter, but it was his play that made us realize that Jones was the better option.

Here's how Scrivens performed in his last start for the Kings:


And his performance when he came in relief for Jones against the Blues:


The Kings got enough use out of him. At the end of the day, he'll be another long forgotten backup goalie who donned a Kings uniform, with the exception being that he actually put up some good numbers thanks to a hot start. But hey, at some point Jason LaBarbera had decent numbers as well, but anyone who doesn't have impaired vision could see that he's just a backup goalie (though some around these parts did actually believe that he could be a starter).

 

[cyclones22]

This.

I was halfway this topic. I thought I was the only one.

What? There are people here bashing Scrivens? I haven't read much of the thread, but the dude was great in his short stint here when his number was called unexpectedly. I wish the guy well and hope he can become a #1 elsewhere. A high 3rd round pick for a backup goaltender who was likely going to be allowed to walk as an UFA in the offseason anyway is a pretty good return.

 

[Trolfoli]

Scrivens is a good guy. Sucks when he got his shot (probably playing his best hockey ever) Jones came up and was red hot. Value's fine. Didn't see Scrivens signing next year anyways.

As far as Edm.... I think Quick or Lundqvist would get destroyed behind that D

 

[Frolov 6'3]

He was wildly inconsistent in his performances and was good to allow a questionable goal. While some of you are fixated at his numbers, look at what he was doing after his hot start (and how his struggles opened the door for Martin Jones).

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/scrivbe01/gamelog/2014/

Coming in relief for Jones, Scrivens had a terrible showing against the Blues. He only had 2 wins in his previous 9 appearances after winning four games in a row. Now I didn't expect him to set the world on fire and take over as a starter, but it was his play that made us realize that Jones was the better option.

Here's how Scrivens performed in his last start for the Kings:


And his performance when he came in relief for Jones against the Blues:


The Kings got enough use out of him. At the end of the day, he'll be another long forgotten backup goalie who donned a Kings uniform, with the exception being that he actually put up some good numbers thanks to a hot start. But hey, at some point Jason LaBarbera had decent numbers as well, but anyone who doesn't have impaired vision could see that he's just a backup goalie (though some around these parts did actually believe that he could be a starter).

Nobody is denying he had bad games, like any goalie. Now you also show clips of the Kings and Scrivens when they were really struggling. I can also show YT clips of goals from Trevor Lewis, as one of the finest snipers in this league. I think that's such a bull.

This is something else too. You blamed him for not stopping the puck in the last final minutes vs the worst teams in the league. It didnt matter if it was stoppable or not. Than you are already not very objective IMO. The Kings should have had the lead with 5-1 already in those particular games. Scrivens did more than well, more than we ever expected. He gets traded and suddenly he was fragile.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Scrivens is a good guy. Sucks when he got his shot (probably playing his best hockey ever) Jones came up and was red hot. Value's fine. Didn't see Scrivens signing next year anyways.

As far as Edm.... I think Quick or Lundqvist would get destroyed behind that D

Maybe, but it's hard to tell. Scrivens was solid in TO, just inconsistent. I made that argument in a Miller vs. Quick thread. You can't just take one goaltender and plop them on a different team and assume things will be difference. Hell, Vokoun was all-world on Florida for a few years; he went to some good teams and looked average at best. I think Quick would be fantastic as he'd see a lot of work. Remember how good he was when we were routinely outplayed?

Not trying to harp on that point, sorry, I just have echoes of the "Miller is great on the worst team in the league, Quick is ok on one of the best" crap stuck in my head

 

[tigermask48]

Maybe, but it's hard to tell. Scrivens was solid in TO, just inconsistent. I made that argument in a Miller vs. Quick thread. You can't just take one goaltender and plop them on a different team and assume things will be difference. Hell, Vokoun was all-world on Florida for a few years; he went to some good teams and looked average at best. I think Quick would be fantastic as he'd see a lot of work. Remember how good he was when we were routinely outplayed?

Not trying to harp on that point, sorry, I just have echoes of the "Miller is great on the worst team in the league, Quick is ok on one of the best" crap stuck in my head

But at their very worst the Kings still clear rebounds and collapse to the net to rebound scoring chances. Quick would be hung out to dry in Edmonton, Philly, or Pittsburgh. Look at what some of the guys that went through those teams have done previous to and after leaving those teams. There are teams that are just awful for goalies and there are teams that are great for goalies. The Kings even when being outplayed badly are still a solid defensive team. It's simply not as black and white as people try to make it often. Would Quick make Edmonton better? Sure. Would he make them one of the top teams in the league? Not even close. They'd likely be a Columbus or Nashville at best. Struggle to make the playoffs and a first round exit with Quick or Lundqvist

 

[CNS]

So wait....

Was I right saying Jones was NHL ready?



Incoming hate cause I'm cocky.

 

[tsanuri]

So wait....

Was I right saying Jones was NHL ready?



Incoming hate cause I'm cocky.

I help you down just a little.
You also said Vey wouldn't be called up for quite sometime because of what happened.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

So wait....

Was I right saying Jones was NHL ready?



Incoming hate cause I'm cocky.

 

[kingsfan28]

Maybe, but it's hard to tell. Scrivens was solid in TO, just inconsistent. I made that argument in a Miller vs. Quick thread. You can't just take one goaltender and plop them on a different team and assume things will be difference. Hell, Vokoun was all-world on Florida for a few years; he went to some good teams and looked average at best. I think Quick would be fantastic as he'd see a lot of work. Remember how good he was when we were routinely outplayed?

Not trying to harp on that point, sorry, I just have echoes of the "Miller is great on the worst team in the league, Quick is ok on one of the best" crap stuck in my head

Yeah, that seem to be the primary argument between the two on the main board thread.

 

[kingsfan]

I was talking about Edmonton.

Who also don't need to add salary to stay above the salary floor.... Oh-for-two.

I'm sorry but this is just an example how unrealistic a fan can be. I guess you mean those two last minute goals vs Calgary. A save would have been nice yes, but to say he was responsible for 0 points ? Kings played against one of the worst teams in the league. This whole team didnt take them seriously and couldnt bury a goal and than its Scrivens' fault that it was still an even game, no even worse, its Scrivens fault he didnt stop the puck. A goalie with a SV .931 and 1.97 GAA in 19 games for us. What about those other 15 games or so.

Wasn't one of those late goals against Calgary actually by Quick?

So wait....

Was I right saying Jones was NHL ready?



Incoming hate cause I'm cocky.

To be fair you say a lot of things. Some ***** bound to stick.

 

[kingsfan]

He was wildly inconsistent in his performances and was good to allow a questionable goal. While some of you are fixated at his numbers, look at what he was doing after his hot start (and how his struggles opened the door for Martin Jones).

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/scrivbe01/gamelog/2014/

Coming in relief for Jones, Scrivens had a terrible showing against the Blues. He only had 2 wins in his previous 9 appearances after winning four games in a row. Now I didn't expect him to set the world on fire and take over as a starter, but it was his play that made us realize that Jones was the better option.

Ok, so lets us your own reference (the link you posted above). Of his 19 games, 15 were starts. Of those 15, he posted a save percentage of less than .900 once. Yet nine times his save percentage was .920 or higher (including three shutouts). In those last nine appearances you mention, one was when he came in off the bench (IE, cold). Of the other eight games (all starters), four times he has a save percentage of .920 or higher, including two losses where he posted a .970 save percentage (loss to Colorado 1-0) and a .950 save percentage (loss to SJ 2-0). In his
last eight starts he was 2-4-2 but allowed just 18 goals, or a 2.25 GAA (actually it is lower than this as some games went to OT/SO). In his four regulation losses during that stretch, LA scored six goals.

Btw, using the ST.L game clip as proof that Quick is the better option is kind of dumb, since the reason Scrivens came in that game was because Jones got pulled. The whole team played like crap that game.

Jones may be the better options, but you give him to much credit, or Scrivens not enough. If Scrivens was good for one weak goal a game as you claim, then he must have been lights out after that since he average just 1.97 GAA during his gtime in LA and had a .931 save percentage. Not sure how that's 'wildly incnsistent.'

I think the reason people don't like Scrivens is his style is weird. I understand that, but I worry about the results and they speak for themselves. I still think he's a potential starter in this league (not with LA, but in the NHL) and has a Dwayne Roloson type of upside. So not a stud number one, but a good one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You are definitely right about his style, that's one reason why I had no confidence in him as he usually looked to be in a vulnerable position if there's a second chance. He did one too many snow angels in the crease and it made me nervous when he looked to be flopping on his stomach, unaware of where the puck is.

It was also well documented how the Kings' weren't satisfied with Scrivens' technique, though to his credit he tried hard to work on it, but once again, those bad habits kept coming back.