Comments on: Quick’s deal is a steal

By: jewelsfromthecrown

jewelsfromthecrown — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:03:00 +0000

Yup, it’s me. I can’t figure out how to log in the other ways.

You should read LAT though! I’ve never seen Helene Elliott so positive about any offseason moves by the Kings. For the Quick contract she’s practically waving flags and throwing confetti. It’s self evidently great to have Quick for a decade, self evidently great to go chase high profile free agents, too.

On blogs, we’re talking about how it’s a tradeable contract. In other outlets, they discuss the risk of long term goalie contracts. To me the contrast is interesting.

By: Bob Knob

Bob Knob — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:04:00 +0000

My point is, I think GM’s are more willing to pay for that bet rather than take a larger risk.

By: Bob Knob

Bob Knob — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:03:00 +0000

I think what also needs to be considered, and possibly analyzed (I’m unaware if it’s out there already), is what is the expected future performance of a hot/marquee/”big name” goalie like Quick, vs the backup/no-name/cheap goaltender crowd. If you look at it this way, sure, you may have some disappointments, but on average I’d expect it to be a safer bet that more frequently pays off and on average pays off better (ie gives you solid goaltending more often).

He’s a young goalie in his prime, he’s a great athlete with a strong work ethic, he has shown steady improvement, and even when he wasn’t posting fantastic stats, it was pretty evident he had the tools to get there eventually (the last part is imo).

By: Garrett79

Garrett79 — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:06:00 +0000

You’re absolutely right. But either way, I think it’s a wise move. Actually, as a UFA Quick would have gotten even more money, I imagine.

By: Garrett79

Garrett79 — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:04:00 +0000

There are risks inherent in signing any contract, whether in professional sports or the real world. If Lombardi had signed him to a 5-year deal for 40-mil and traded Bernier this summer and then Quick suffered a concussion on opening night and never returned, that would have left the Kings in worse shape than having a solid Quick for (hopefully) 6-7 years under this contract, followed by him being overpaid for a few years while they groom a new goalie. But I stand by my initial statement that plenty of goalies play well into their mid-30s, so I think the term of this deal is perfect because it keeps Quick with a very reasonable cap hit until what will likely be the end of his career. If he’s putting up the kind of numbers 6 years from now that he did this season he’s a HOFer worth double what he’s getting paid.

By: Quisp

Quisp — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:51:00 +0000

I assume this is Niesy.

You’re always reading things I’m not reading. I personally haven’t read anything in the media except the original tweets and JftC. But of course it’s risky. My point, I guess, is that the risk comes with winning the cup and having to pay accordingly. Going with Bernier while dealing Quick to New Jersey or wherever would have been risky also.

By: Quisp

Quisp — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:46:00 +0000

Quick would have been UFA next summer, not RFA. But I obviously agree with you that Lombardi did good here.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:50:00 +0000

Love, love, love this contract. I was expecting something more like 52.5 – 56 million over 7 years to be his going rate. Look at Brodeur, he’s still playing great in to his 40s and he is a physical goaltender with a wacky style.

By: jewelsfromthecrown

jewelsfromthecrown — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:42:00 +0000

“A lot of great goalies are playing well into their mid-to-late 30s.”

The ones still around in their late 30s are still around because they are very good; but not many are still starters at that age. http://www.coppernblue.com/2012/4/30/2987615/impact-age-goaltender-performance-save-percentage

By: Garrett79

Garrett79 — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:23:00 +0000

I am of the opinion that this contract is a brilliant move by Dean Lombardi. If Quick wanted to wait and look at offer sheets next summer, he could have gotten offers in the $8-10 million/per year range, whether short term or long. While offer sheets are obviously rare, so is the frequency of a young goalie of Quick’s ability coming available as an RFA one year removed from a Conn Smythe and Stanley Cup. He has clearly separated himself into the upper strata of NHL goalies with solid regular seasons and now the single greatest playoff in the modern era. Nevertheless, he accepted a contract that will pay him less per year and only slightly more overall than Pekka Rinne makes in Nashville. Hell, former Kings goalie Cristobal Huet gets paid $5.625 million per season by the Blackhawks and he’s not even in the NHL anymore. The cap hit is considerably less than goalies like Cam Ward, Nik Backstrom, Ryan Miller, and Henrik Lundqvist.

As for the term, I have no problem with it. A lot of great goalies are playing well into their mid-to-late 30s. In the last two seasons, Tim Thomas and Martin Brodeur have backstopped Eastern Conference teams to the Stanley Cup Finals at 37 and 40 years of age, respectively. He’ll only be 37 when the contract expires, and maybe his best years will be behind him, but he doesn’t have to be the starter anymore by then, and with the cap hit actually being pretty manageable, if another goalie comes up through the system in five years and starts to blow Quick away, it’s a very tradeable contract (assuming there isn’t a no-trade clause).

I was expecting Lombardi to pay a contract at least in the $8 million/year range, so the fact that it’s such a bargain is great, in my opinion. After the way he played this season, did anyone really think Quick was still going to be only the third highest paid player on the team, based on cap hit, and only $50,000 ahead of Mike Richards? He could easily have demanded to be the best-paid, and I think it’s awesome that he is enough of a team guy to know the franchise needs flexibility to improve over time.

kingsinhockeywood.blogspot.com