Been thinking about this a bit lately when looking at goalie stats. Have you looked at goalie stats lately? They're wild, and I don't mean because of Josh Harding.
You know who the top goalie is statistically? Ben Scrivens. Okay, technically Alex Stalock (4 games) and Petr Mrazek (1 game) have better numbers. But Scrivens has played in 9 games, started 6, pitched 3 shutouts. His numbers are 1.35 and .949. That's a full goal per game better than Quick and an extra save for every 20 shots. Dude was traded for Bernier, who is giving Toronto everything they wanted (except the crack) at 2.05 and .939. Last year, Bernier was 1.88 and .922 - both sets of numbers better than Quick.
All of this to say, first - is Quick a product of LA as a team? The year they won the Cup he was incredible, but his record as an NHLer does not match what he did that year. Most years, he's closer to 2.50 and .910 than he is 1.95 and .929. He was excellent in the playoffs last year, too, though, so you have to give him that. But I wonder if he's a better example for shupe's argument about not paying goalies than Rask will be.
Second, what about Niemi for that matter? If Stalock looks better than Niemi by a fair margin in front of the same team, how much of that is picking your spots and how much is that the team makes the goalie?
Last, just for shupe, anyone ready to start questioning if Corey Crawford is Michael Leighton? His GAA is 2.55 and his s% is .905. Very similar to his 2011-12 numbers that had the Hawks questioning in their goaltending, and not his playoff performance last year. Knock on wood, but I'd rather have the goalie Boston has at what they're paying him than Crawford at what Chicago's paying him starting next year.