cross16
-
Posts
30,211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
517
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by cross16
-
I don't think Treliving operates that way, Burke deifnetly doesn't. Treliving fired the regining Jack Adams winner and convential wisdom would tell you he needed to get another veteran coach and he didn't. Convential wisdom tells you you don't trade one of your top 6 players, Glencross, when you are in the playoff mix, he did. Convential Wisdom tells you that when your best dman goes down and you are in the a playoff race you go out and replace him anyway you can, he didn't. If anything i would argue the opposite, that Treliving will do what he feels is best for the team and NOT cater to getting a more "proven" starters just to satify his job nor will get a player that just alleviates a short term need at the price of long term future. That simply isn't how he has operated since being the GM so that is not a concern i share. I actually won't be suprised if they acquire a lesser name that we arn't discussed. Someone like a Jared Coreau who they feel is ready to take the next step but needs a chance.
-
Problem is the Penguins can only expose him to the expansion if he allows it. He has a NMC so if he doesn't want to play for an expansion team he drives the bus and the Penguins would be forced to expose Murray. At the end of the day does trading fleury make a lot of sense this offseason, of course it does. But does it have to happen? No. Their is logic on both sides but there is no reason they have to move him. For all we know they talk to fleury and he agrees to waive his NMC and be exposed in the draft and they protect Murray and then can try to move fleury after the expansion draft or if Murray is a flop then they can move him. Penguins are not backed into a corner here they have options, multiple options in fact and I agree with above and others that ther is still a lot of logic in keeping fleury too. I don't doubt they will listen but they'll need a decent return and not going to just give him away. In fact unless he goes to the Pens and asks to be moved the is a rising chance he stays in Pittsburgh.
-
That and does fleury want to be in Pittsburgh? Is he prepared to tandem with someone when he could start elsewhere? However I do agree with Jtechs point is that some think fleury is going to be giving away and I don't agree. Yes there are reasons to trade fleury but there is also the option they keep him and deal him at the deadline or prior to the expansion draft. I do think Pittsburgh trades fleury that is a given but "when" they trade him and for how much is the question. I think you have to offer up enough to get Pittsburgh to move him now as opposed to having them wait. If people are thinking that's a 3rd rounder, then no doubt in my mind they'll keep him and trade him next season because I think they get at least that if not more and they also get a chance to make sure Murray is for real. It's a bit more risky but it's a worthwhile risk. I think he gets dealt and I actually think the odds of him being a flame are pretty high but I'm betting the price is going to be at least a 2nd and maybe a small add on.
-
That is not what I said or meant and had you looked at the whole paragraph and not cherry picked half a sentences feel like you would understand that. I'll give you this what I meant to say is the argument that we should not acquire CERTAIN goalies based on the idea that they won't perform here doesn't hold weight when you look at the stats. Thanks for posting that because turns out all my numbers were accurate.
-
A poor team, like the flames, will give up about 11 high danger scoring chances against per game in average. A good team in the 8s. If you look at goals against across the league the flames the worst at 3.13 and good teams low 2s. So using that math a team converts a high danger scoring chance to a goal probably less than 25% of the time. Because those numbers are 5 on 5 and th GAA numbers are all situations the math is less. So I don't agree that a high danger scoring chance has a high likelihood of being a goal. Again I am not saying whatsoever it is not a team game. It is and I want to see the flames team defence improve and I believe they can with a new coach and a modern system. What I am saying is that good goalies, namely good starters, are good goalies regardless of their team and this belief that a very good goalies will come here and be barely avg or below is ridiculous. Sure goalie stats can change from team to team but not drastically, not for startes. The big swing you see in goalies is basically always backups that people think are starters and they are not and that I think has nor to do with quality of opposition. Backups that put up great stats typically pad them, but it's basically impossible to pad your starts as a starter. Law of averages says thing will balance out if you are playing 50 plus games.
-
I think people really overrate how much impact a team can make on a goalie. I've sid this before, but when you read this board you'd swear the Flames defence is literally the worst defence the league has ever seen and apparently no goalie is every going to play well in from it and quite frankily, its the silliest argument that floats around here. Unfortunately we lost what was a fantastic resource in War on ice that tracked scoring chances so I have to go by memory here but I looked at it so much I'm pretty confident this data is right. If someone has another website they use to track scoring chances please let me know. I think people don't realize how much parity there is in the league and how small the different is between the best teams and the worst teams. The different in shots against per game between the best team in the league and the worst is 6. The different between the best team in the league and the worst team in terms of scoring chances against 5 on 5 was something like 4 maybe 5. The different between the best and the worst team in terms of high danger scoring chances against per game is right around 3. I also think the difference between the Penguins and the Flames in those categories was very small. People act like the Penguins are some great defensive team and they are not. Sullivan turned them into one, but they weren't very good until that and Fleury's stats were still great. Also food for thought, last year the Flames were 16 in the NHL in save percentage and as everyone knows this eyar they were 30th. However, the Flames actually gave up less shots, had more puck possession and had fewer scoring chances against and fewer high danger scoring chances against this season than they did last year. Like Kehatch said I don't mind if peole don't like MAF and by no means am I advocating the Flames have to acquire him or he would be my number 1 target. I just think this argument that we shouldn't acquire goalies because the defence is so bad their stats will plummet is just ridiculous, and not supported by any data. Do the Flames need to play better defensively, absolutely without question they do. NO one, Flames included has ever said that a goalie is a cure all it is just one piece to the puzzle. I happen to believe there is enough talent here to be a good defensive club but they played the wrong type of defensive system last year.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Kessel went exactly where he needed to go, a market where he didn't need to be a leader and he could just be Phil. I think Kessel is at best when he isn't the guy, isn't a leader and he can be strategically utilized to maximize offence. That wouldn't have happened here, he needed the right fit and got it. Let's remember he was terrible for a good chunk of the regular season too so it's not like this is the slam dunk you are making it out to be. Not to mention be likely cost the flames Bennett. Problem with the flames is they don't have a prospect near the calibre of Kapanen so to match the leafs deal they likely need to include him. That and/or a top 10 pick because IMO having Kessel wouldn't have changed much last year nor do I agree they make the playoffs with him. Not unless he is a goalie in his spare time. For me Kessel winning a cup doesn't change anything I said. He was and is still not someone the flames should have targeted. Good target and good move for pens but not for flames.
-
Fair question and in sure if you ask Rutherford he'd keep both but between cap and the expansion draft I don't think he can. Also the other question is would fleury stay in Pittsburgh? I think it's almost a given that he would rather move on then be a backup or a tandem.
-
At the end of the day we are still talking about about a goalie who has performed at a top 10 level for a good 3-4 seasons or more. Cap situation or not teams will still want that.
-
I got the same vibe. They seem to like him only as a 20-30 game max type of guy and anything more they'd likely be shopping for 2 goalies. I can't say I disagree either.
-
I can't see that trade working. I don't think Penguins would have to trade him for equal salary and I think Wideman is a really poor fit for how the Penguins play. Nice to dream but it's unrealistic IMO. That's a much better trade for the flames than the Pens
-
If the Penguins get more then a 2nd, and not a high one, and a so/so prospect I'll be surprised. I don't see a lot of teams being able to fit his salary, allow him to play and lastly be able to protect him in the expansion draft and not cost them a better goalie. I think only 2-3 teams at best will be interested and that's going to lower the price. To get more I think they will need to retain salary
-
Well Gilles has to play in the AHL so yes we do. McDonald you have some choice and options but I don't think sending him back to junior is a a very attractive one. You are incorrect on the contract issue but I'm won't go through this anymore. It's a depth signing that fills a need that I like irregardless of whether he ever plays in the NHL or not and I don't think it's necessary that he play on the NHL or be an NHL calibre goalie to make it successful. Best case wth depth is to create options. With an NHL deal this gives the flames the most amount of options with the lowest cost/ lowest acquiring cost. When it comes to goalies have options is really important IMO. And to be clear I am not saying norr have I said that I think he doesn't have NHL potential. All I am saying is that at the end of the day that may not be the most important thing here b
-
So would you rather have McDonald in that role playing sparingly behind Gilles? If you would fine but I don't. I want Gilles and McDonald playing the most that they can so IMO that means both can't be in the NHL so j don't agree at all that by signing someone to play in the AHL it takes away from a prospect. The opposite In fact. Yes I do believe yo can't waste contract space but as I've said twice in this thread now he fits a need. What o am against is taking a bunch of flyers on your 50 contracts on players that you are hoping pan out. This is 1 contract that fills a need so I don't view it as a waste but he's other players I wojld. If they signed a center bound for the AHL with minimal or no NHL upside I would call that a waste. Also yk clarify I am not saying he doesn't have NHL upside because I don't know if he does. What I am saying is that if this guy gives them dept for a year and allows Gilles and Macdonald to get playing time they need and they release him next year then IMO it's a solid move. It's unrealistic that all 50 players under contract are going yk play in the NHL it become nhlers. Reality is the majority of every teams reserve list won't play in the NHL but te depth they provide is important.
-
I don't think there needs to be NHL upside. I think the flames needed a goalie who could play on the A to backup Gilles, be ok with long stretches on the bench while Gilles plays, be ok to call up to the NHL and sit on the bench if an injury strikes and ideally be waiver exempt. The market out there is really thin on guys in NA that can fill that roll and most require waivers. The flames picked up a piece they needed and that checked all the boxes for free. I'm sure they like him but I don't think he needs to have NHL upside to make this move good or worthwhile. They needed the depth and options with that depth piece.
-
Reimer is fine so long as you can get him on shorter term. If it requires a 4 year deal or 5 mill or more I don't agree he is a better option than fleury. Remember Reimer's career high in Games played is 36. Acquiring him and paying him at a starter level I would argue is significantly more risky than acquiring fleury.
-
I don't understand flames fan who are going to "knock" Fleury for his playoff record. Flames have made the playoffs once in the last 7 seasons. His has 3 years left on his deal and if he can get yo there every year and give you a chance to win even just a round it's a huge win.
-
https://twitter.com/generalfanager/status/740551728488173569Can't link the tweet properly but it is In there. Acquiring team has the choice but basically in every situation the player agrees to waive only if they will honour the clause. The other reason I think the price will be low is there arnt a lot of teams that need goalies and not a lot of teams that can take his cap hit too. I thing here are only going to be 2 or maybe 3 real serious fleury suitors.
-
Yes it depends on Fleury. Once you waive a NMC or NTC the acquiring team is no longer bound by it. However, player and agent can negotiate with the acquiring team to have the clause carry over which they almost always do and is usually a condition of them agreeing to the trade in the first place. So short answer, it's possible but unlikely. I still think fleury gets traded with or without expansion but with expansion j think he is cheap. I'd be surprised if the pens could get a 2nd straight up for fleury. Not going to be many teams that can acquire his salary or his contract for the expansion draft. A goalie in a better age range is ideal but fleury is a great option IMO especially with the cost. Would allow the flames to be competitive right now and allow young goalies to develop.
-
I sure hope not. That's a terrible deal IMO. Way too mich for a guy who is not a proven starter.
-
Agreed. I don't mind it but it's worth remembering that the vast majority of these moves don't work out.
-
He fits a need. I think they needede someone in the AHL that they would be ok with having to call up and sit on a bench if they got into a long term injury situation. Right now Gilles is probably in that role and I you want Gilles to play as much as he cant, not sit. I get stats dont' tell the whole picture, but Marek Schwartz is not a very good goalie and this guy isn't out performing him so my expectations are very low. I think this is just a bridge and gives them a guy that can give them that depth and then the following year I think you want Gilles challengign for an NHL job and Mason McDonald challenging for the starters job in the AHL.
-
Correct so you would lose him for nothing. However you can still negotiate with him as a UFA
-
Russell is going to be a very interesting case this offseason becuase it will be pretty clear whatever time signs him either doesnt' have analytics departement or doesn't put a lot of vaue in it becuase Russell's analytics are cringeworthy when you are talking about even 3 million long term let alone 4 or more. I dont' think Dallas signs him personally, he wasn't very good for them and took a lot of heat Dallas Stars fan i've read. I get fans don't make the decision but I think you can get a general pulse from what they say. I actually wonder if Russell will get paid at all. Part of what we heard prior to the trade was Russell was a good defencemen and maybe getting him out of Hartley's system would help, well it didn't. so does that make a team pause and wonder if he is in fact worth a long term deal for decent money? I think Russell might be this year's Franson. Expect a long term deal and have to settle for a 1 or 2 years
-
Stockton Heat Updates [2016-2017]
cross16 replied to travel_dude's topic in Calgary Wranglers and Flames Prospects
His rights revert back to Sweden and then whatever club drafts him needs approval from the Swedish club to move him where they want. however, typically for first rounders the NHL club has been able to put them whereever they want. I think it would be pretty unlikely that Nylander's club would loan him to the OHL and then block him going to the AHL/OHL the following year.