|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 29, 2002 16:19:51 GMT -5
I wanted to settle our argument about Garon's value and asked over at HF.... Go and check it out, it'll all be gone by 6PM probably ! Hurry ! Overall the more a poster is knowledgeable, the less value he thinks Garon has..... Garon having to go on waivers next season and creeping up on becoming a UFA if he doesn't get a certain number of games within a season or two makes him tough to deal, and he's not elite-level at the AHL level, so no one will assume he'll work out. Would you deal a 2nd for a player who might leave within a season (UFA/waivers) and might never contribute ? Didn't think so.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 29, 2002 19:32:53 GMT -5
Considering what seems to be a never ending crop of quality goalies and goalie prospects, I agree that Garon has very little value, if any at all. IMO, the only goalies that carry trade value right now are those clearly among the top 5-8 of the league or low price/low maintenance proven backup Bobs. The rest of them kinda float into a blurry salmigundi of rather highly paid vets or promising yet inconsistent youngsters.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 29, 2002 22:16:26 GMT -5
Only caught a few of the posts.
The trouble with Hockey's Future is that the people there are just smart enough to think they know more than anyone else, but not smart enough to realize that maybe, perhaps, concievably, they just don't know it all.
The result is that they take a position and refuse to be swayed by anything. Trouble is, most of them are artists at the art of sophistry - that is they can debate and argue with the best of them. Doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong, the debate is the thing. Or more accurately, the putting down of other posters is the thing. When, if ever, have you seen a post on Hockey's Future where one poster said "you know, you're right. I'm gonna change my mind or opinion?" Never, right? Because they are just good enough writers and debaters to make logical and accurate points, but they aren't man enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, the other guy has a point too.
Remember Lanny's "Valeri Bure will NEVER be traded for Rob Niedermeyer" post? It was great post, full of insults, witticisms, logical arguments, stats and what have you. Made complete sense. Course it was wrong. Ditto Darth and his "Connolly will never be traded for Peca" tirade. He was right - it took Connolly AND Pyatt to land Peca.
So generally while the posters there make good and accurate points, its a futile exercise trying to reason with them, because there is no reasoning to be done. They pick a point - generally all Hab fans are stupid, the Habs are a bottom 5 team and no Hab player could every bring back anything in a trade, ever - and then they back it up with artful, colorful and literate arguments. Not necessarily accurate arguments, but as any politician will tell you, its not what you say, its how you say it.
Again, have you ever seen anyone say "yep, you're right?" Unless of course a deal has gone down and everybody has been proven wrong of course...
Maybe I'm jaded, but I just don't see Hockey's Future as being an accurate or reliable source of information any more, no matter how "reputable" the poster may be. Everybody's got their turf over their and they will defend it to the death...
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 29, 2002 22:29:30 GMT -5
I think you're being a tad harsh.... I think it works out to everyone being homers, along with a couple of highly critical posters who can put forward a convincing case (and facts be damned).
If you have hours to waste you can make your point, but through all the babble needed to get there you've lost most of the readers, and you have to start over a week later.
Anyhow, I just went over there to ask a question, and that tends to work out relatively well.
Still, it showed me that taking 15 minutes on my own will get me just as thorough an analysis as 50 HF posts....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 29, 2002 22:47:56 GMT -5
PTH, I posted there 3 times and it was no more useful then spiting on my hands to wash my face. I know you frequent that jungle, but it is not for those of thin skin. I remember when I asked a question one time, the only decent answer to a question that was simple and straight forward was 15 posts of one line drivel. OTHER THEN YOURS. Then again you spent an entire sentence defending them. Hmmm? Old loves dies slowly.  Why am I writng about HF (ahrut..spit). HabsRus is where you find the wise and slightly drunk but always informative and entertaining masters of the diatribe.  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 29, 2002 22:58:38 GMT -5
Having said that...
Here is why I think Garon still commands good trade value.
This argument that there is no market for Garon is totally bunk - there are lots of teams who would be looking for a young, cheap, backup with unknown upside:
Start with Atlanta. They have Milan Hnlica, the injury riddled Damian Rhodes, 26 year old Pasi Nurminen (who failed the team physical in October) and Norm Maracle, who actually refused to take the team physical because he knew he wouldn't pass.
Carolina has J.M Pelletier, but even though he is the same age, his stats are worse than Garon's.
Calgary has Roman Turek, who is into his UFA years, Mike Vernon who is about to retire, and Brent Krahn, who actually has worse stats in junior than Garon does in the AHL. Concievably, within a year, Krahn could be Calgary's #1 goalie.
In Chicago Jocylne Thibault is being backed up by Steve Passmore, with the great Mike Leighton waiting in the wings.
Edmonton has Tommi Salo (turns 31 in a few days), backed up by Ty Conklin and Jussi Markkannen. According to Hockey's Future their next highest rated goalie is only 18th on their prospect depth chart.
Pittsbugh has J.S Aubin, who is statistically worse than Garon, and nothing else.
Phoenix has Patrick Desrochiers, but he hasn't had a save percentage over .900 since, well, ever. His highest save percentage was exactly .900. Otherwise, NHL, AHL, junior - all under .900.
Toronto has that Tellqvist kid, but he has been a flop in the AHL and has actually talked about going back home to Sweden.
Washington has Craig Billington and Corey Hirsh after Oleg Kolzig, and nobody else. Their highest rated goaltending prospect is listed at #15, Ratislav Stana. Any wonder why Kolzig plays so much?
Vancouver? Peter Skudra, Alfie Michaud and Alex Auld.
So there is a potential market for Garon. Remember, teams aren't necessarily looking at him being a #1 - they just want him to play 20-25 games, and maybe in two, or three years become a #1. The question these teams have to ask themselves is this - if I draft a player in the high 2nd round, or even the late 1st round, will he be ready in 2 or 3 years? For the most part the answer is no. Will Garon be ready in 2 or 3 years? Unknown. But he will be "more" ready than a 21 or 22 year old.
Will a goaltender drafted in the 2nd round, say 30-45, have better odds of making an impact than Garon? I say no. The difference is of course, you have to wait another 5-7 years before you know that. With Garon, you will know in another 2 years whether you have your man or not.
If I was a GM looking for a young, cheap backup, I know I would gladly sacrifice a low second for a guy like Garon, or Pelletier, or Giguere. Throw that into a package, and who knows? Look at what Giguere, Cloutier and Pelletier helped bring back. I'd be ecstatic with any one of those returns. (Aucoin and a 2nd, Leopold, Primeau). Granted, they came in packages, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2002 1:23:55 GMT -5
Would you deal a 2nd for a player who might leave within a season (UFA/waivers) and might never contribute ? Didn't think so. I'm not aware of the rules that would force Garon to clear waivers, or grant him UFA status. Could you please clarify? While Garon's market value may be low, I think it's far too early to give up on him. I don't think Hackett will be in the picture for much longer. His departure will provide an opportunity to see what Garon can do. I don't count Garon's games this year as a legitimate opportunity to prove himself (being thrown into the number one role as the team left town for a lengthy road trip). He did have confidence problems, but from what I've seen and read, Garon has loads of talent. If he works hard, under the proper guidance, he could be a dominant NHL goaltender. Granted, I don't know what the rule is regarding his waiver / ufa status. Perhaps my view will change when I find out. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 30, 2002 10:16:53 GMT -5
BadCo - I don't disagree, but at the same time, Garon isn't close to being proven, and is close to being waiver-eligible and closing in on UFA-dom, so he's a tough guy to trade - teams that get him have to be sure that he can contribute big-time right now. They can't send him down one more year and wait to see when he'll be ready - it's now or never. And a player who's at that point and isn't proven won't have all that much value.
Maybe a conditionnal deal is needed - a 3d for Garon, and a 2nd if he actually survives till the end of next season or something like that. If he's going to be decent a lot of teams will be willing to give up quite a bit for him, but the risk of his flopping or just being lost for nothing is too high to warrant much value.
That's what's tough about being a goalie - you can't just get put into the lineup in a minor role until you work it all out... :`(
Still, you do make a good point - a lot of teams that appear to have no goalie problems might not have 100% faith in the kids they have in place, and a couple of them should be interested in Garon. "should" being the operative word - GMs will always tend to want to see their own projects work out, and will give them several chances before looking elsewhere. Like the HF thread proved, there really isn't all that much of a history of goalies in Garon's position being dealt, so it's a tough read. :-\
-
HabsAddict - I think I've just seen too many Habs-only sites lose touch with the outside world, and a lot of Bertuzzi-Hackett or Doan-Garon rumours basically come out of people's wishful thinking. For all of HF's (numerous) faults, at least you get fans from all over arguing, and it gives some balance... but their Habs room is filled with 15 year olds with wayyyyyy too much spare time. I just hope they don't migrate over here.
-
Andrew - As I understand it, once Garon has played just 1 pro game next season, he's waiver-eligible. In other words, once the season starts, he can't be sent down anymore. He'll be starting his 5th pro season, that's getting to be a lot of AHL experience, I've never seen anyone get so much without being lost to the team that had him.....
Call him up as an injury replacement, and you can't send him down even if he doesn't play a single minute. In other words, it's now or never.
As to UFA, that's a bit further on I think, but players who haven't gotten XXX many NHL games by the time they're 25 or 26 can become UFAs. I've forgotten what XXX is, though.
A while back, when NJ had Dunham creeping up on UFA-dom, NJ would pull Brodeur for 2 minutes and put in Dunham just to get him into games, just so as to not lose him as a UFA. They lost him to expansion instead, I think...
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 30, 2002 10:17:22 GMT -5
I wanted to settle our argument about Garon's value and asked over at HF.... Go and check it out, it'll all be gone by 6PM probably ! Hurry ! Overall the more a poster is knowledgeable, the less value he thinks Garon has..... Garon having to go on waivers next season and creeping up on becoming a UFA if he doesn't get a certain number of games within a season or two makes him tough to deal, and he's not elite-level at the AHL level, so no one will assume he'll work out. Would you deal a 2nd for a player who might leave within a season (UFA/waivers) and might never contribute ? Didn't think so. IF you went to the HF Habs board,you went to wrong place.So many idiots(aside from a few guys like Habsolutely,etc).They really know nothing. I still think Garon has a great amount of value.What he needs is NHL experience.He needs a new challenge,he has been in the AHL for 4 years now.He needs to play against men now. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Jan 30, 2002 10:27:34 GMT -5
Having said that... Here is why I think Garon still commands good trade value. This argument that there is no market for Garon is totally bunk - there are lots of teams who would be looking for a young, cheap, backup with unknown upside: Start with Atlanta. They have Milan Hnlica, the injury riddled Damian Rhodes, 26 year old Pasi Nurminen (who failed the team physical in October) and Norm Maracle, who actually refused to take the team physical because he knew he wouldn't pass. Carolina has J.M Pelletier, but even though he is the same age, his stats are worse than Garon's. Calgary has Roman Turek, who is into his UFA years, Mike Vernon who is about to retire, and Brent Krahn, who actually has worse stats in junior than Garon does in the AHL. Concievably, within a year, Krahn could be Calgary's #1 goalie. In Chicago Jocylne Thibault is being backed up by Steve Passmore, with the great Mike Leighton waiting in the wings. Edmonton has Tommi Salo (turns 31 in a few days), backed up by Ty Conklin and Jussi Markkannen. According to Hockey's Future their next highest rated goalie is only 18th on their prospect depth chart. Pittsbugh has J.S Aubin, who is statistically worse than Garon, and nothing else. Phoenix has Patrick Desrochiers, but he hasn't had a save percentage over .900 since, well, ever. His highest save percentage was exactly .900. Otherwise, NHL, AHL, junior - all under .900. Toronto has that Tellqvist kid, but he has been a flop in the AHL and has actually talked about going back home to Sweden. Washington has Craig Billington and Corey Hirsh after Oleg Kolzig, and nobody else. Their highest rated goaltending prospect is listed at #15, Ratislav Stana. Any wonder why Kolzig plays so much? Vancouver? Peter Skudra, Alfie Michaud and Alex Auld. So there is a potential market for Garon. Remember, teams aren't necessarily looking at him being a #1 - they just want him to play 20-25 games, and maybe in two, or three years become a #1. The question these teams have to ask themselves is this - if I draft a player in the high 2nd round, or even the late 1st round, will he be ready in 2 or 3 years? For the most part the answer is no. Will Garon be ready in 2 or 3 years? Unknown. But he will be "more" ready than a 21 or 22 year old. Will a goaltender drafted in the 2nd round, say 30-45, have better odds of making an impact than Garon? I say no. The difference is of course, you have to wait another 5-7 years before you know that. With Garon, you will know in another 2 years whether you have your man or not. If I was a GM looking for a young, cheap backup, I know I would gladly sacrifice a low second for a guy like Garon, or Pelletier, or Giguere. Throw that into a package, and who knows? Look at what Giguere, Cloutier and Pelletier helped bring back. I'd be ecstatic with any one of those returns. (Aucoin and a 2nd, Leopold, Primeau). Granted, they came in packages, but still... ATL,would be a logical choice.IMO,Hnilicka is the only decent goalie on that list. Carolina also has Rob Zepp,so I doubt they would want Garon now. Galgary signed Turek long-term earlier this year.So forget about them.They have Krahn and fatso Medvedev for the future. Chicago really needs more of a decent backup than a young kid like Garon.Thibeault plays like 70-75 games per year for them. Edmonton is another strong posibility.Markkanen is nothing more than a backup and Conklin is not an elite prospect.Salo still has 2 years left on his deal after this year though. Pitt is another possibility.Hmm,wouldn't Milan Kraft look good in a Habs uniform? ;D 8) Phoenix is another possibility.Especially if Desrochers continues to dissapoint. Toronto,Vancouver and Washington all need a backup more than a Garon. By the way,I don't think Giguere was traded for Leopold.I seem to remember the Giguere deal as Giguere to Anaheim for a 2nd rounder.The 2nd rounder was then dealt to Washington for Mikko Elomo(yes,the 1st round bust).The 2nd rounder turned out to be Matt Pettinger.So Calgary got the short end there.But,Calgary traded Andrei Nazarov and something else(maybe a draft pick or bum player) to get Leopold at the start of last year.That was a steal by Button. To conclude,I doubt Savard would deal an asset like Garon for nothing. |
|
