Should Carey Price’s number be retired?

[Bombshell11]

As much as I love Subban - he has legit HOF talent - he wasn’t here long enough and didn’t put up a HOF career. He should’ve been a Hab for life.

7 years is pretty decent, this is your opinion but i think Subban has a stronger case to get Retired in a few years than Price does.

Koivu just didn’t have a good enough career.

Well like your arguments for Price, playing for bad teams, bad gms, bad coaches, bad managements, these all apply to Koivu too, he was a PPG player playing with scrubs who also suffered from:

-Big Injury early on in his career
-Cancer / Did Chemo...
-Serious eye injury

He gave it all on the ice and was the uncontested heart and soul of the team

He's #1 in my list

 

[nhlfan9191]

When others mention Koivu, that's not an agenda. When I mention Koivu to make a generalized response that no non-cup-winner should get their numbers retired, you claim that's a bad faith argument and then refuse to stop bringing it up even after I withdraw it. I find that in bad faith but you knew that already.

The point doesn't stand. Holtby, Lundqvist, Quick, and others were right up there with Price. Thomas clearly out performed Price. Price was never the best player in the NHL (an argument made in this thread) and he was never peerless as a goalie in the NHL and you can't prove otherwise because it's just a fact. If you had any authentic and validated evidence or stats you would've showed that by now.

Even with a filter of 300gp, over the span YOU chose, Price was not peerless. It seems to me Lundqvist outperforms him -- he's below Price by two thousandths in Sv% and two thousandths in GAA but faced over 600 more shots and had more games and wins. Holtby is right up there too.

Now: We LOVED Price and we KNEW Price was underrated because of the mediocre team he had but he never had the weakest team and he never had the worst defence and so on. There is really no context that makes Price peerless, so I think that argument is void.

What's left is Price-for-the-Habs and not Price-in-the-NHL and at that point, it's subjective. For the Habs you want to lower the standards for retirement so to include him and I don't because I don't think there's any need to do so. No need to smear me for it.

By your logic, Hasek was never peerless because guys like Roy and Brodeur were around. There’s competition in every era. I don’t care how close those other guys were in save percentage, which is one statistic, Price was still at the top of the list. Like I said, Thomas played a whopping 3 seasons, and one of them he wasn’t even the starter for the entire season.

 

[ReHabs]

By your logic, Hasek was never peerless because guys like Roy and Brodeur were around. There’s competition in every era. I don’t care how close those other guys were in save percentage, which is one statistic, Price was still at the top of the list. Like I said, Thomas played a whopping 3 seasons, and one of them he wasn’t even the starter for the entire season.

Hasek won SIX Vezina trophies.

You don't think thousandths of a percent are within the margin we should consider if we're going to declare OUR goalie as peerless among NHLers?

 

[nhlfan9191]

Hasek won SIX Vezina trophies.

You don't think thousandths of a percent are within the margin we should consider if we're going to declare OUR goalie as peerless among NHLers?

Brodeur won 4, Roy won 3. What’s your point? Not even Hasek was peerless. And even so, Hasek is widely regarded as the best goalie of all time. Nobody here is debating Price is the best goalie in NHL history. The debate is he was the best of his era. Luongo never won a single Vezina but you’d be hard pressed to find people who think guys like Bobrovsky who won two were better then him. The problem with people like you is you look at numbers and you don’t use context.

 

[ReHabs]

Brodeur won 4, Roy won 3. What’s your point? Not even Hasek was peerless. And even so, Hasek is widely regarded as the best goalie of all time.

If Hasek wasn't peerless in his era how the heck could Price be peerless in his era?

Nobody here is debating Price is the best goalie in NHL history. The debate is he was the best of his era.

Given that even the GOAT Hasek was not peerless and given Price and his competitors' stats, Price was certainly not peerless.

Luongo never won a single Vezina but you’d be hard pressed to find people who think guys like Bobrovsky who won two were better then him.

That's a debate for others, but it's not as clear cut as you imply.

The problem with people like you is you look at numbers and you don’t use context.

Which is the problem, that I look at the real numbers and not the fake ones you put up or that I look at the context and consider the few thousandths of a percent to not be a differentiating factor when evaluating his era?

 

[BehindTheTimes]

By your logic, Hasek was never peerless because guys like Roy and Brodeur were around. There’s competition in every era. I don’t care how close those other guys were in save percentage, which is one statistic, Price was still at the top of the list. Like I said, Thomas played a whopping 3 seasons, and one of them he wasn’t even the starter for the entire season.

Your arguments don't make sense. Hasek was leading in SV % and winning the Vezina every year. Yes, he was peerless, the numbers show that. When it comes to Price, none of that happened, only in make believe land where we give credit for things that never happened and divorce him from the bad things that did happen.

It takes mental gymnastics to make the claims that get made over and over in these Price threads.

Hasek, pretty much was peerless though. 95-96 he loses his only vezina in a 6 year stretch, but still lead the league in SV% and it wasn't to Roy or Brodeur. These arguments are getting more and more absurd. Lost one other time in an 8 year span, but once again lead the league in SV%. He did all that even though his team stunk.

 

[Bombshell11]

It takes mental gymnastics to make the claims that get made over and over in these Price threads.

Well said

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

7 years is pretty decent, this is your opinion but i think Subban has a stronger case to get Retired in a few years than Price does.



Well like your arguments for Price, playing for bad teams, bad gms, bad coaches, bad managements, these all apply to Koivu too, he was a PPG player playing with scrubs who also suffered from:

-Big Injury early on in his career
-Cancer / Did Chemo...
-Serious eye injury

He gave it all on the ice and was the uncontested heart and soul of the team

He's #1 in my list

Neither have the resume to get in. And I love Subban too. I thought he was a HOF lock before his health went down hill. He had legit HOF talent.

I think if you induct them, then a whole slew of guys should get in. That’s not the case with Price. He spent his whole career here and put up a HOF resume.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Your arguments don't make sense. Hasek was leading in SV % and winning the Vezina every year. Yes, he was peerless, the numbers show that. When it comes to Price, none of that happened, only in make believe land where we give credit for things that never happened and divorce him from the bad things that did happen.

It takes mental gymnastics to make the claims that get made over and over in these Price threads.

Hasek, pretty much was peerless though. 95-96 he loses his only vezina in a 6 year stretch, but still lead the league in SV% and it wasn't to Roy or Brodeur. These arguments are getting more and more absurd. Lost one other time in an 8 year span, but once again lead the league in SV%. He did all that even though his team stunk.

Who gives a shit? Was Serge Savrd peerless? Was Larry Robinson or Patrick Roy? No. Even Rocket Richard wasn’t peerless.

Price was the best goalie in the league over a seven year stretch and the best of the 2010s. It doesn’t matter if some guys were close or not. He’s a legit HOFer and there’s no reason not to admit him apart from the cup argument.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

If Hasek wasn't peerless in his era how the heck could Price be peerless in his era?

So how far above everyone does he have to be? Again, if you apply this across the board, nobody gets in. Richard wasn’t as good as Gordie Howe so he doesn’t qualify? Roy wasn’t as good as Hasek so we don’t retire him either?

Price was the best goalie in hockey for a long stretch of time. Others weren’t far off? Okay, even then who cares?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

By your logic, Hasek was never peerless because guys like Roy and Brodeur were around. There’s competition in every era. I don’t care how close those other guys were in save percentage, which is one statistic, Price was still at the top of the list. Like I said, Thomas played a whopping 3 seasons, and one of them he wasn’t even the starter for the entire season.

“Peerless” depends on how sticky you want to be on it. Price is the best goalie over that stretch for sure. Nobody has his save percentage let alone his Hart placements- 4 times in the top 20, including twice in the top ten.

That doesn’t mean some players weren’t close. However they had the advantage of better teams and health. The health portion we can discard because it is what it is. But you can’t throw out the team differences.

There’s a huge difference between putting up say… a .920 percentage on the Habs vs the Bruins or Kings. And Price was five points better than Quick despite this difference.

As I said earlier, hitting 40 at Coors vs 40 in Oakland is not the same thing. The fact that Price is right there with Rask at the end of the 2010s - including those brutal post 2017 teams - is amazing.

So peerless? Don’t want to use that word? Cool. Best? Absolutely.

And again, even if you want to say he wasn’t the best it still wouldn’t matter. Richard wasn’t better than Howe. Lafleur wasn’t better than Gretzky. Roy wasn’t better than Hasek. Does anyone care? Of course not. So why are people trying to dig in so hard with Price?

The resume is there. It’s indisputable. They Hart and Vezina finishes put him there or above several players we’ve already retired. The rest is spin.

The only legit argument I’ve seen is he hasn’t won a cup and we shouldn’t induct those who didn’t. As I said, I disagree but at least I understand the logic. If people want to disqualify him for that… cool. Agree to disagree. The rest is noise.

 

[nhlfan9191]

As I said earlier, a big difference between hitting 40 at Coors vs 40 in Oakland. The fact that Price is right there with Rask at the end of the 2010s - including those brutal post 2017 teams - is amazing.

So peerless? Don’t want to use that word? Cool. Best? Absolutely.

If there’s one thing I might agree with ReHabs on, it’s that Hasek did have a case for being “peerless.” But he’s the only goalie in history I can think of that you can make that argument for just because he was so dominant in the mid/late 90’s. But this isn’t basketball. Even the Mcdavid’s of the world can’t win the Hart/Lindsay every year. 7 years of dominance as a goalie is significant for me. Consistency is one of the hardest things to find in goalies, especially in this new age and the only way to evaluate it is threw large sample sizes. Price’s play didn’t decline until his body broke down and Bergevin blew the team up.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

There’s a huge difference between putting up say… a .920 percentage on the Habs vs the Bruins or Kings. And Price was five points better than Quick despite this difference.

If there’s one thing I might agree with ReHabs on, it’s that Hasek did have a case for being “peerless.” But he’s the only goalie in history I can think of that you can make that argument for just because he was so dominant in the mid/late 90’s. But this isn’t basketball. Even the Mcdavid’s of the world can’t win the Hart/Lindsay every year. 7 years of dominance as a goalie is significant for me. Consistency is one of the hardest things to find in goalies, especially in this new age and the only way to evaluate it is through large sample sizes. Price’s play didn’t decline until his body broke down and Bergevin blew the team up.

Hey, I’m fine if being peerless is the requirement. But if it is, then nobody gets retired. Maybe Doug Harvey.

You have to be consistent. Either you apply it to all players or none. That’s why the only legit argument I’ve seen is the cup.

 

[nhlfan9191]

Your arguments don't make sense. Hasek was leading in SV % and winning the Vezina every year. Yes, he was peerless, the numbers show that. When it comes to Price, none of that happened, only in make believe land where we give credit for things that never happened and divorce him from the bad things that did happen.

It takes mental gymnastics to make the claims that get made over and over in these Price threads.

Hasek, pretty much was peerless though. 95-96 he loses his only vezina in a 6 year stretch, but still lead the league in SV% and it wasn't to Roy or Brodeur. These arguments are getting more and more absurd. Lost one other time in an 8 year span, but once again lead the league in SV%. He did all that even though his team stunk.

This is a discussion for a jersey retirement, not label as best goalie who ever played. Nobody here once disputed that Price was Hasek. You shouldn’t have to be a top 3, arguably best to get your jersey retired in Montreal.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

This is a discussion for a jersey retirement, not label as best goalie who ever played. Nobody here once disputed that Price was Hasek. You shouldn’t have to be a top 3, arguably best to get their jersey retired in Montreal.

No, but you brought up Hasek as if to say zprice had a similar resume. He doesn’t and it is not even close.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No, but you brought up Hasek as if to say zprice had a similar resume. He doesn’t and it is not even close.

Carey Price wasn’t Hasek. Cool. Neither was anyone else.

He was still the best goalie of his era. He still had the best numbers in his prime over goalies who were on better teams. They were close? Fine. Who cares? Moreover, even if there was someone better it still wouldn’t matter.

Still has a resume that’s comparable or better than players we’ve already retired.

 

[nhlfan9191]

No, but you brought up Hasek as if to say zprice had a similar resume. He doesn’t and it is not even close.

I never once said that. I brought up Hasek to display every goalie, no matter how good they were, had competition for title of the best of their era which is what the poster I was replying said was a prerequisite for gaining that kind of label. I also retracted my statement down the page saying Hasek may be the one rare case. In no way did I say Price was Dominik Hasek. That would be a completely different conversation.

 

[Lshap]

Yes that's the summary. The Habs immortalize winners. The Habs have a lot of winners and will hopefully have more winners to come. Now we see some commentators smear former winners and dynasty members to magnify Price's achievements, which is absurd. Winners deserve to be immortalized for leading the Cup parade in Montreal.

This conversation goes nowhere without accepting the reality: Price's achievements for the Habs fall short of rafters standards. If you want to lower the standards you have to state that outright. Many of us would resist and disagree for obvious reasons.

Curious what you think of this take:

The entire notion that you need a Cup for your number to hang in the rafters is false. The players whose numbers are retired earned that honour by being great, beloved, or legendary – that's the standard for player banners for every team in almost every sport. Yes, in the case of the Habs our retired numbers also have Cup rings, but that's because back then every Canadiens player who stuck around long enough won at least one Cup. Being a Cup-winner was never a requirement to get your name on a banner, it was simply happenstance when you play for an organization that won multiple Cups every decade.

If you insist on a standard for immortalizing nothing less than Stanley Cups, you got your wish: The team banners. The exclusive winners-only club still exists with the long row of 24 Cup banners. I don't think any Habs fan would argue with you on that score.

For the players, it's more than numbers and trophies. Carbonneau won two Cups. He's in the Hall of Fame. Yet even with all the credentials, his number's not retired because he wasn't beloved or legendary like some of the names from the 1940s and 50s. Same with Lemaire. The question about retiring Price's number isn't whether or not he has a Cup, it's whether he's great, beloved, or legendary enough.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I don’t think a cup is necessarily a requirement, but you’d have to be pretty damn exceptional to get there without one and imo Price wasn’t.

 

[Chili]

Anybody have the number of Molson Cups Price won? He's probably ahead of everyone by a fair margin.

Was listening to an exhibition game on the radio once on 690 and Price was playing. Rick Moffatt was calling the game and Scott Gomez stopped by the broadcast booth for a few minutes. The conversation went something like this:

Moffatt: Great save Carey Price!
Gomez: That hit the post
Moffatt: He he he
Gomez: Now I know how they pick the three stars

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I don’t think a cup is necessarily a requirement, but you’d have to be pretty damn exceptional to get there without one and imo Price wasn’t.

Resume is as good or better than many already retired.

 

[Bombshell11]

Resume is as good or better than many already retired.

"In my opinion"

This is your subjective point of view.

You have to respect everyone's point of view by not presenting your arguments as facts.

It's a bit tyiring. You believe what you want but please man, look at the votes.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

"In my opinion"

This is your subjective point of view.

You have to respect everyone's point of view by not presenting your arguments as facts.

It's a bit tyiring. You believe what you want but please man, look at the votes.

Objectively speaking, he has an equal or better resume than those already in. That’s just a fact.

He has better Vezina and Hart finishes than others have at their respective positions. He was considered one of the absolute best players in the league (this is from respected analysts including Bob Mackenzie), won every individual award a goalie can win, has terrific playoff numbers and numerous playoff upsets. It’s not opinion to say that his resume is in the same class as those already retired. It’s a fact.

As a very clear cut example: It’s not opinion to say Gretzky’s a better player than Tie Domi. Some things transcend opinion. By pretty much every objective measure Gretzky is a better player than Domi is. Domi was a better fighter. That’s it. So unless you’re only judging face punching…

Carey Price is demonstrably as good as many already retired. The only thing missing is a cup - a team award.

I’ll ask you for the 40th time, if you don’t think so, tell us why. And please don’t come back with “but 2010…”

 

[ReHabs]

Curious what you think of this take:

The entire notion that you need a Cup for your number to hang in the rafters is false. The players whose numbers are retired earned that honour by being great, beloved, or legendary – that's the standard for player banners for every team in almost every sport. Yes, in the case of the Habs our retired numbers also have Cup rings, but that's because back then every Canadiens player who stuck around long enough won at least one Cup. Being a Cup-winner was never a requirement to get your name on a banner, it was simply happenstance when you play for an organization that won multiple Cups every decade.

If you insist on a standard for immortalizing nothing less than Stanley Cups, you got your wish: The team banners. The exclusive winners-only club still exists with the long row of 24 Cup banners. I don't think any Habs fan would argue with you on that score.

For the players, it's more than numbers and trophies. Carbonneau won two Cups. He's in the Hall of Fame. Yet even with all the credentials, his number's not retired because he wasn't beloved or legendary like some of the names from the 1940s and 50s. Same with Lemaire. The question about retiring Price's number isn't whether or not he has a Cup, it's whether he's great, beloved, or legendary enough.

With Cups it's not a pre-requisite necessarily so the standard I see isn't "did they happen to win a Cup" but rather "did they bring a Cup to Montreal?".

With that aside, it's about impact/legend as you say: Carbo was my favourite player and he contributed about as much as Price did in terms of impacting how the game was played. Whilst he was no Lemaire, his defensive acumen was specifically noteworthy and remembered across the NHL. Price's technical impact might live on too. Neither of them redefined the sport (incredibly rare to do) or were uniquely qualified in their position as the singular example of greatness in that position... so even putting Cups and Leadership aside, I don't see how either is worth immortalizing.

The underlying notion is immortalization. So that no one ever wears their number again and (excuse me for getting metaphysical here) never tempts the fates by evoking a certain legendary player's image or identity. It's gauche to wear 99 because you'll never replace Gretzky and it's gauche to wear 9 in Montreal because you'll never live up to the impact Richard had, same as with 19, 4, etc. Some of the retirements are a bit weaker but they all brought something that felt irreplaceable or unrepeatable either as part of a Dynasty that redefined the sport or as great individual performances that brought the ultimate prize to Montreal.

Our exercise showed that 1) Price did not have a period of unrepeatable success for the Habs or in the NHL, 2) Price did not have an irreplaceable or unrepeatable impact on the NHL, the Habs or for Montreal, and 3) (it goes without saying) Price did not bring the Cup to Montreal.

His performance peak was undeniable but also coincided with the peaks of Lundqvist and others. His performance in the Habs net was incredible but we've had many incredible goalie performances and I'm willing to bet you that in our next cup victory we will have an incredible goalie performance then too. Ultimately what's left is how beloved he is... I'll bet you when we start winning, and start making new playoff memories and making new playoff heros, those chaps will be just as beloved or even more.

 

[Scintillating10]

How do you retire Price but not say... Durnan (even though Plante is retired)?

Dude played 7 years... won the Vezina 6 times, first team all-star 6 times, won the cup 2 times, and a Hall of Famer.

If he didn't have multiple mental breakdowns, he would have been even better too.

Quite different eras though.