|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 10, 2006 16:41:48 GMT -5
After all the early hooplah, I thought it would now be fun to mention that Garon and the Kings are in free fall while Huet is greatly helping the HABS to climb out of the hole. Since January 7, Kings lot 12, won 3 while Garon was an horrible .852 for that time frame. Garon (who cleared waivers BTW in 2002-2003) came with the reputation of being highly inconsistent not to mention a complete choker in pressure situation.
I'm not happy about Theodore flunking this year but I sure am happy that our backup is Huet and not Garon right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2006 16:48:03 GMT -5
After all the early hooplah, I thought it would now be fun to mention that Garon and the Kings are in free fall while Huet is greatly helping the HABS to climb out of the hole. Since January 7, Kings lot 12, won 3 while Garon was an horrible .852 for that time frame. Garon (who cleared waivers BTW in 2002-2003) came with the reputation of being highly inconsistent not to mention a complete choker in pressure situation. I'm not happy about Theodore flunking this year but I sure am happy that our backup is Huet and not Garon right now. Ouch. LA is in 8th; 4 points ahead of Anaheim (who has FOUR games in hand). Garon is steadily collapsing while Huet is becoming a local hero. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 10, 2006 17:08:32 GMT -5
This proves to me again that you can 't judge a trade by a few months of play. It sometimes takes an entire season or longer.
I knew Garon would come back to earth but I didn't think it would be with such a thud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Feb 10, 2006 17:39:40 GMT -5
After all the early hooplah, I thought it would now be fun to mention that Garon and the Kings are in free fall while Huet is greatly helping the HABS to climb out of the hole. Since January 7, Kings lot 12, won 3 while Garon was an horrible .852 for that time frame. It's just a slump. Players, especially goalies, go through it all the time. I'm confident that Garon, and the Kings, will bounce back. Nice to see all the Garon bashers jump out of the woodwork at the first sign of him faltering... in February. Where were you in October, November, December and January?  Aside from the waiver part, sounds to me a lot like Theodore. I like Huet, but isn't it a little premature to say that he's better than Garon? Huet has only played 16 NHL games this year. Garon has played 41. Garon, and the Kings, are in slump right now. Garon's numbers (during his recent slump) are pretty bad, but IMO, he is still a good goalie and a capable NHL starter. Huet has never handled #1 duties like he is right now. This is all uncharted waters for him. For all we know, he might crash and burn soon too. He's been playing well, but I'm not ready to annoint him sainthood just yet. I find it funny for posters, who never saw Garon as a #1, to be the first ones on the Huet bandwagon. One of the main arguments against Garon was that he was inexperienced in the NHL. Well, Huet is also inexperienced, yet all of a sudden, that's no problem. Also, it was a great mystery to people as to why Garon was so old, but had never been an NHL starter. Well, Huet should have the same questions about him too, no? What has Huet done that is so different from what Garon did for the Habs? Last season, Garon rescued the Habs out of a funk in the same way that Huet is doing now. The same posters who gave Garon no respect, are giving heaps of it to Huet. Makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Feb 10, 2006 17:45:29 GMT -5
Also, just to point out... the debate was always Garon vs. Theo. Now, strangely, it's turned into Garon vs. Huet. Soon it'll probably be Garon vs. Danis. Seems like, on this board, Garon gets less respect than the late, great Rodney Dangerfield. Anyways... even with Garon's recent slump, his numbers (wins, GAA and SP) are still better than Theo's. The heart of the Garon vs. Theo debates was that Garon could provide the Habs the same, or better, goaltending at a fraction of the cost. That debate, all year, has been in Garon's favour. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 10, 2006 18:43:03 GMT -5
I think we're just giddy because we've won one in a row and haven't lost two in a row this month (good thing January had 31 days). I think we'd be in the same position if Garon were here that we are now. And if Theo had gone and not Garon . . . same. Theo may have been a sieve, but goals weren't being scored either, and no matter how good the man in net is, if the guns are shooting blanks you ain't gonna win. Ask the Sens and Lalime. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Feb 11, 2006 0:59:01 GMT -5
Overall, I think Garon could've given us pretty close to what Theo gave us over the season (I think Theo was better in general, but Garon hasn't had a complete meltdown), but we would still have needed a good backup, since Garon has shown he's just as human as Theo.
Still, I can't regret trading Garon all that much, simply because he couldn't have done a better job than Huet has done. And as much as we can go through cyber-trees here about how we'd have kept Garon rather than Theo, there aren't that many examples of teams rushing to deal their multiple-award winning goalies, in their prime, when not forced to do it. And even fewer examples of teams doing well in trades of that kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 11, 2006 8:29:41 GMT -5
After all the early hooplah, I thought it would now be fun to mention that Garon and the Kings are in free fall while Huet is greatly helping the HABS to climb out of the hole. Since January 7, Kings lot 12, won 3 while Garon was an horrible .852 for that time frame. It's just a slump. Players, especially goalies, go through it all the time. I'm confident that Garon, and the Kings, will bounce back. Nice to see all the Garon bashers jump out of the woodwork at the first sign of him faltering... in February. Where were you in October, November, December and January? The bashers were in the same place that his supporters may be now. People overreacted at the point in the season when he was playing well. I have always maintained that players can't be judged over the course of a few months. It takes at least a season or more to judge a trade. You have to let both sides have their argument. If the people that hated the trade can get their posts in during October etc, you have the let the other side voice their opinion now. The whole story won't be told for quite a while. P.S. The problem I have with these types of posts is that they are not updates in the true sense of the word. This post was started by a Kings fan to say "thank you" for Garon at a time when he was playing well. These posts become a vehicle for one side or the other to post when it suits their point of view. A true update would occur at a regular interval without regard to his play at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 11, 2006 8:37:36 GMT -5
And as much as we can go through cyber-trees here about how we'd have kept Garon rather than Theo, there aren't that many examples of teams rushing to deal their multiple-award winning goalies, in their prime, when not forced to do it. And even fewer examples of teams doing well in trades of that kind. Good point. I have been trying to think of an example of a trade of that type. The closest I can think of was in 93, when Fuhr was traded by Toronto to Buffalo and the leafs went with Potvin. ANybody else have any examples. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2006 13:48:56 GMT -5
Garon has been hit-and-miss when it comes to pressure scenarios. Sometimes he steps up big, other times he completely folds. Then again, the same could be said for Theodore. In pressure situations, you never know if he's there to play until after the first few shots against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 13, 2006 6:54:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 13, 2006 12:16:27 GMT -5
Nice to see all the Garon bashers jump out of the woodwork at the first sign of him faltering... in February. Where were you in October, November, December and January? Well, I found it funny that this thread was getting regular updates about how wonderful Garon was until Garon was not so wonderful... I guess it's less fun rubbin' it in when the tides turns, hey? I like Huet, but isn't it a little premature to say that he's better than Garon? He's been playing well, but I'm not ready to annoint him sainthood just yet. Again, it goes both way: Wasn't it premature to anoint Garon as a sure shot starter and second coming of Roggy Vachon? Garon still has everything to prove at the NHL level. I like what Huet did for us so far and acknowledging it is no Sainthood anointment. Many were calling Gainey a complete goof for letting go of Garon the superstar and getting nothing in return but as it turns out, we got a guy who could be key to us getting in the playoffs. I find it funny for posters, who never saw Garon as a #1, to be the first ones on the Huet bandwagon. One of the main arguments against Garon was that he was inexperienced in the NHL. Well, Huet is also inexperienced, yet all of a sudden, that's no problem. Also, it was a great mystery to people as to why Garon was so old, but had never been an NHL starter. Well, Huet should have the same questions about him too, no? No. Huet is a steady capable veteran backup. That's all. Garon was not that. He was a nice prospect with enough trade value to help us patch in key area. Also, there was no mystery why Garon at his age was still not an NHL starter. He was simply not that highly touted. As I said before, he cleared waivers in 2002-2003. Garon needed a team to invest time on him, go through his growing pains and see what he can do over a long period of time. He's getting this with the Kings, good for him and good for us to salvage a little something in return. The same posters who gave Garon no respect, are giving heaps of it to Huet. Makes no sense to me. What makes no sense to me is how those who were ready to lynch Gainey for that trade can't come out today and admit that just maybe both teams, Kings and HABS, got the deal they wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Feb 13, 2006 13:25:04 GMT -5
Well, I found it funny that this thread was getting regular updates about how wonderful Garon was until Garon was not so wonderful... I guess it's less fun rubbin' it in when the tides turns, hey? No regular updates were given on Garon's good play. Piston opened the thread and all the posts that followed it were in response to the original post by Piston. After that it seemed as though the thread was dead but you re-opened it (more than a month later) just to post on how Garon is struggling. Nobody annointed him the second coming of anybody. Garon does have much more to prove in the NHL. But, again, the debate was that Theo was not all that and that Garon could provide the Habs with adequate goaltending. Although he is slumping, he is still a capable NHL #1 netminder. That was the original debate and those who were in favour of Theo last season seem to keep forgetting that. Nobody said that Gainey was a goof for picking up Huet. Huet was a throw-in to the deal. The main deal was Bonk for Garon. It was said that Gainey was foolish to deal for Bonk. A player who has provided the Habs with nothing this season. Really?? A "steady capable veteran backup"? Is that what you call goalies who (prior to this season) had played a grand total of two NHL seasons and 53 NHL games? That same point keeps being regurgitated even though it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yes he cleared waivers in 2002/03 but I have a good feeling that he wouldn't clear waivers in 2005/06. Not true. If the Habs got the deal they wanted, we would have Huet backing up Theo and Bonk being a solid, third line center. Habs end up benefitting by fluke. Theo plays poorly and Huet gets throw into the fire and succeeds. I'm happy for that and I'm happy that the Habs are getting wins, but let's not think that Huet being the #1 man was planned by Gainey. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 13, 2006 15:22:09 GMT -5
No regular updates were given on Garon's good play. ...Seems like none could be given how his play crumbled beyond that point. But anyway I hope you didn't think this trade was never going to get revisited did you ? Nobody annointed him the second coming of anybody. See here: Garon is singlehandedly stealing games for us and getting better each and every night. There is no doubt he is the team MVP and he has won the confidence of the coaches, players and fans. In fact, if this continues, he is quickly gaining a reputation as the best goaltender the club has had since another Montreal import, Rogie Vachon. he is still a capable NHL #1 netminder. Nope. He is still an unproven NHL starter. He started out pretty iffy and lost his starter job to Laberbera, then he posted a string of solid starts and now is back with subpar performances. That was the original debate and those who were in favour of Theo last season seem to keep forgetting that. Debate what you will FG. My point is Garon is not the hot goalie that some made him out to be and at this point I am happy that we have Huet to keep things straight and not Garon. Huet was a throw-in to the deal.... ...Habs end up benefitting by fluke... That's your opinion. I would bet that some people actually had a pretty good idea of what they were getting. Huet actually did for the Kings what he's doing for us this year and that is pickup the ball where a starter failed. The main deal was Bonk for Garon. I agree. HABS needed a big shut-off centermen and used a redundant asset to get it. It was said that Gainey was foolish to deal for Bonk. A player who has provided the Habs with nothing this season. Garon has the right to have "a slump" but not Bonk (who had to battle injuries) ? Seems like double standards to me. I bet you that some Kings fans are getting worried the Garon experiment isn't turning out as planned too... Really?? A "steady capable veteran backup"? Is that what you call goalies who (prior to this season) had played a grand total of two NHL seasons and 53 NHL games? No. That's what I call a 30 years old player with loads of experience. That same point keeps being regurgitated even though it means nothing in the grand scheme of things. What grand scheme of things? Garon was passed by every NHL GM, scouts and what have you as not even worthy of being picked for nothing, the season before that trade so maybe, just maybe, it explains why so many people don't see Garon as a sureshot NHL starter but instead as a nice project to work on. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Feb 13, 2006 15:46:04 GMT -5
But anyway I hope you didn't think this trade was never going to get revisited did you ? No I didn't think that. And I'm fine with it being revisited because I know that if Garon picks up his game it will probably be revisited again. True. But if he is an unproven starter, than so is Huet. So I don't know why people are quick to criticize Garon and at the same time, praise Huet. The debate was that he can provide the same, or better, level of goaltending than Theo. It's not my debate. It's one that many us here took part in. I'm not opening up a new debate. It seems as though you started a new one involving Garon and Huet. Okay, so if Huet did such a great job with the Kings, why did the Kings go out and trade for Garon? They obviously saw Garon as being an upgrade on Huet. No double standard at all. You seem to not know the difference between a bad season and a slump. A slump is when a player, who has done well for most of the season, goes through a stretch of games where he isn't playing well. Garon is slumping. Bonk is having a really bad season. Bonk has two goals all season and is a minus player. Don't tell me you think that he's going through just a slump. Maybe. But the season's not over yet. What loads of experience? Two seasons and 53 games is loads of experience to you? Is he experienced just because of his age? Then Mark Streit must also be very experienced, no? The grand scheme of things, as in how he is right now. Is he a #1 goalie right now? Yes. Why are you stuck on what happened three years ago? Is that one moment going to judge Garon his whole career? Martin St. Louis went undrafted. 30 GMs didn't see him worthy of a draft pick. Let's judge him on that one moment rather than on what he did after that.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 13, 2006 15:54:54 GMT -5
What grand scheme of things? Garon was passed by every NHL GM, scouts and what have you as not even worthy of being picked for nothing, the season before that trade so maybe, just maybe, it explains why so many people don't see Garon as a sureshot NHL starter but instead as a nice project to work on. A wake-up call to those who continue to call for BG's head regarding Hainsey and others who bounced up and down but were never taken until, it seems, we needed them. Just think if our D corps had stood tall this year . . . we'd be ignoring him, and even happy that an unneeded salary had been shed. Perspective is interesting . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 13, 2006 16:54:11 GMT -5
You seem to not know the difference between a bad season and a slump. A slump is when a player, who has done well for most of the season, goes through a stretch of games where he isn't playing well. Garon's stats by months: October: .865 November: .921 December: .919 January: .868 February: .883 One could certainly argue that Garon is in no slump but that in 3 months out of 5 he was actually pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Feb 13, 2006 18:17:34 GMT -5
Garon's stats by months: October: .865 November: .921 December: .919 January: .868 February: .883 One could certainly argue that Garon is in no slump but that in 3 months out of 5 he was actually pretty bad. His stats aren't great, but they're still better than Theodore's. Judging by your posts on this debate last season, you probably never thought that that could be possible. Besides, you said that Bonk is in a slump. So if Garon is having a bad season, then how would you describe Bonk's season? And I guess there really is no point in arguing this because we're just going to go in circles and you're probably never going to give Garon any credit anyway. The Garon vs. Theo debate didn't turn out in your favour, so you decide to pick on Garon in another way and you pick on him when it's convenient for you to do so. I guess he'll never be good enough in your books. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2006 18:27:14 GMT -5
Okay, so if Huet did such a great job with the Kings, why did the Kings go out and trade for Garon? They obviously saw Garon as being an upgrade on Huet. The trade was not Garon for Huet, it was Garon for Bonk and Huet. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Feb 13, 2006 18:36:46 GMT -5
Okay, so if Huet did such a great job with the Kings, why did the Kings go out and trade for Garon? They obviously saw Garon as being an upgrade on Huet. The trade was not Garon for Huet, it was Garon for Bonk and Huet. I know it was. My point about the Kings upgrading on Huet by trading for Garon was in response to what Doc wrote. (see above) The deal essentially worked out to Bonk for Garon and Huet for a 3rd pick. Contrary to what Doc said, it's not just "my opinion" that Huet was a throw-in to the deal. The essential deal was Garon for Bonk. I'll say it again, Habs end up benefitting on this deal by fluke. The deal did not work out in the way Gainey envisioned it. Since Theodore is having such a bad season, Huet has been given the chance to shine. How many of us would have predicted Huet to be the Habs' #1 goalie this season? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 14, 2006 8:10:02 GMT -5
The Garon vs. Theo debate didn't turn out in your favour, so you decide to pick on Garon in another way and you pick on him when it's convenient for you to do so. I guess he'll never be good enough in your books. This particular thread is not about Theo vs Garon. It's about Garon's performance which some were happy to boost in the few weeks they were ok but would rather have everyone forget when they're bad. I'm pretty certain that the minute his performance climb a little, Garon fans will gloat about it again. As for my view of Garon, you are right it did not change. He's a project that may or may not pan out, I don't really care. But my view of the trade certainly evolved under the light of Huet's very solid performances. Whoever felt it was a good idea to include Huet in that trade did a pretty good call, wether you care to admit it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 14, 2006 8:43:05 GMT -5
I think the Kings felt they needed a change in goal because their pervious starter was Roman Cechmanek. They just couldn't go another season with him in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Feb 14, 2006 10:01:34 GMT -5
I think the Kings felt they needed a change in goal because their pervious starter was Roman Cechmanek. They just couldn't go another season with him in there. Sorry but what does it have to do with trading Huet? |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Feb 14, 2006 10:02:15 GMT -5
This particular thread is not about Theo vs Garon. It's about Garon's performance which some were happy to boost in the few weeks they were ok but would rather have everyone forget when they're bad. I'm pretty certain that the minute his performance climb a little, Garon fans will gloat about it again. Is there really a point to keep a constant update on Garon? All the posts (prior to you re-opening this thread) were in response to Piston's original post. I'm okay with revisiting this thread throughout the year but I don't really see the point, seeing how it's just going to be mud-slinging back and forth. And if we're doing it for Garon, why not do it for other players who's talents are debated on this board? Let's start a "Ribeiro update" thread. I think that it was a no-brainer for the Habs to have a backup goalie included in the Bonk deal. I hardly think that it was as bright an idea as you're making it out to be. It's the same thing if the Habs trade away Theo right now. Many of the proposals discussed on this board have a goalie coming back to Montreal just so that the Habs can have a backup. In the Garon trade, the Habs needed someone to fill Garon's skates because they wanted Danis to gain experience in Hamilton. Enter Huet. I like Huet and I like what he's doing for the Habs, but how many of us saw him as the Habs' #1 goalie this year? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 14, 2006 10:04:59 GMT -5
I think the Kings felt they needed a change in goal because their pervious starter was Roman Cechmanek. They just couldn't go another season with him in there. Sorry but what does it have to do with trading Huet? It has to do with acquiring Garon as a potential starter. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 14, 2006 10:08:02 GMT -5
I think the Kings felt they needed a change in goal because their pervious starter was Roman Cechmanek. They just couldn't go another season with him in there. And they did not have much depth there. Adding a young prospect goalie, that needed to play in the NHL and that they could groom was a better idea IMO than trying to add another doubtful starter a la Cechmanek, Potvin, Lalime, etc... Montreal had Theodore who at the time was seen by most as a top 10 goalie and Danis who was climbing fast. Garon was the odd men out and unlike for other prospects, we managed to get something we needed in return. As I keep saying this is a trade that could have helped both teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 14, 2006 10:10:54 GMT -5
And if we're doing it for Garon, why not do it for other players who's talents are debated on this board? Let's start a "Ribeiro update" thread. I personally don't think we're missing Ribeiro threads which at some points were a plenty, but if you feel you have something to say about him, go for it. but how many of us saw him as the Habs' #1 goalie this year? Why is this so important for you? Obviously Theo is the #1 goalie for this team but Huet was the planned backup goalie and he's picking up the ball because our starter is having problem. From a personal standpoint I am grateful that we've acquired a backup goalie that could do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 14, 2006 10:36:45 GMT -5
And if we're doing it for Garon, why not do it for other players who's talents are debated on this board? Let's start a "Ribeiro update" thread. I personally don't think we're missing Ribeiro threads which at some points were a plenty, but if you feel you have something to say about him, go for it. but how many of us saw him as the Habs' #1 goalie this year? Why is this so important for you? Obviously Theo is the #1 goalie for this team but Huet was the planned backup goalie and he's picking up the ball because our starter is having problem. From a personal standpoint I am grateful that we've acquired a backup goalie that could do that. I was never a Garon fan...I aways thought he was a Backup and that he'd never make it as a starter. I was very happy that we traded him away for Bonk and Huet...Bonk may have been a little disappointing, but Huet has surpassed my expectations. He is a great "backup" and seems to be able to jump in when Theo is struggling.....I found Garon struggled with that from time to time. I really don't like this thread and I don't really like following x-habs around the league. Maybe we should start a Darcy Tucker update thread? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 14, 2006 10:44:23 GMT -5
I personally don't think we're missing Ribeiro threads which at some points were a plenty, but if you feel you have something to say about him, go for it. Why is this so important for you? Obviously Theo is the #1 goalie for this team but Huet was the planned backup goalie and he's picking up the ball because our starter is having problem. From a personal standpoint I am grateful that we've acquired a backup goalie that could do that. I really don't like this thread and I don't really like following x-habs around the league. Maybe we should start a Darcy Tucker update thread? LOL. You're right. We tend to beat ourselves up about guys that are no longer in Montreal. The power of hindsight I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Feb 15, 2006 0:20:07 GMT -5
Like all guys, I've often enjoyed hindsight.
|
|
