conundrumed
-
Posts
16,269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
372
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by conundrumed
-
-
6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
I get the goalie argument, but gotta remember we were a tire fire last year. We had way more issues than just our goaltending . They would never say this out loud but I dont think in their wildest dreams they thought we'd be in the running for league title with a week to go in the season . Our upgraded goaltending was a large reason for that . I, and I'm also sure they , dont see goaltending as a problem anymore, so much as our goaltending has plateau'd and now we need the next level.
If we went into the next season with the same tandem , it wouldn't be doom.. but It would also cause backlash if it ended with the same result .
BT put himself behind a target by using the "raise the bar " comment
You're echoing my sentiment.
Do we EVER plan on linemates for Bennett?
A 1st line Rwer?
A 4th line?
A 4D?
But let's drop $6mil x 6 on a goalie because that will solve everything...
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:
It is not a terrible idea assuming we also have Elliott. I just wonder if perceptions will make this unlikely. That is, if the duo do not work out, then it makes Treliving look terrible. People will say "I told you so!" By contrast, if he signs a bigger name and they don't work out, then he can blame the team/coach for poor performance. It is a risky move for Treliving.
It allows dollars in other areas to get better though.
My argument is that we're blaming G every year, that might not be the case. Use the money on roster.
-
1 minute ago, The_People1 said:
No, I think Bishop genuinely doesn't want to be in Calgary unless all other options are exhausted first, and/or the Flames over pay. In other words if the Flames and Stars both offer the same money, he will sign with the Stars. They Flames may have to overpay at least 25% to tilt his scale.
It's like looking for work in Calgary's oil and gas market right now. You know where you'd like to work but they aren't hiring so you'll just take the next best thing and see whoever pays more.
I'm an industry whore, but I don't want that in my goalie.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, The_People1 said:
I think it's becoming obvious the Flames are Bishop's plan B, in which case, we should look elsewhere. Why sign a guy to big money long term when they don't really want to be here.
I'm kinda relieved myself. We'd be pretty messed up if it made zero difference. And I suspect that. We have to make a team, buying one rarely works out.
Having Lehtonen AND Elliott around Gillies, I'd love that. Maybe Gillies gets some looks from the IR?
Sounds perfect to me.
-
Just now, phoenix66 said:
he's ok but wildly inconsistent.. at best I see him as a sideways move from Elliot
Matches having a bunch of zeroes on D man. They spend what, maybe $9mil on D? They suck on D.
It's not sideways, he'd be the starter, the backup (Elliott) has a bigger contract. Lehtonen earning more money compliments of Dallas.
-
Just now, phoenix66 said:
i seriously dont want either of their goalies anywhere near us.. while yes , a bad defense affects a goalie, it also exposes them .. Take Robin Lehner, also behind a bad defense, didnt get the wins but his stats are great
Lehtonen's also going to be 34 in November.. whoever we get needs to be solid for us for likely 3-4 years
I don't want Niemi anywhere near us.
If Lehtonen is bought out, we sign him for a mil?
You're pretending he isn't a very good goalie.
He is. He's 34, oh no. He was drafted by Atlanta, I get it.
I'd be lying if I said Lehtonen didn't win games by himself last year.
He ALWAYS does. Dallas' finishes aren't because of Lehtonen. It's because they have zero investment in D men...
-
1 minute ago, phoenix66 said:
one of the benefits of a Home Office job
and the 4th becomes a 3rd if they sign him .. ive been wrong before, but I dont see him signing before June 1 unless we play our hand elsewhere
They buried Niemi last yr. They can buyout Lehtonen.
We can sign Lehtonen cheap and sign Elliott.
Don't let Dallas' porous D fool you.
Lehtonen has been a very good goalie for a very long time.
Blame him, but there likely isn't a worse D roster in the entire league.
-
I'm glad. Bishop isn't enough for us. We keep pretending it's goaltending with us, and we keep seeing it's not.
5 x $5.5 maybe? We need a better roster.
Huge risk for us to grab Bishop. It may solve nothing.
Then we're strapped to do the right kind of changes, which I believe is roster.
We blame G every year.
The mark of every great G is playing behind a very good roster...
-
Just now, phoenix66 said:
well thats disappointing.. but they still have to sign him
Phoenix Phast Phingers.....again?
-
Bishop to Dallas for a 4th. Was asking myself today, what is LA doing with him?
-
5 hours ago, robrob74 said:
Its kind of like the Ryan McDonagh trade. Giving up a lot too early.
i thought I would bring it back to a D thread ?
Would you rather: Engelland and Stone @ $5.5 per.
One $4.5 guy...honest question.
-
Unfortunately I think every trade ends up being, "in hindsight".
So those trades are kind of there, but they're also "we're not sure" trades.
Both sides assume the risk, and it's easy to go back and say, wow did we burn you/get burned.
Forsberg is pretty much the high end of misreading value/risk.
-
7 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
This is is why I don't get how the Caps could trade Forsberg for Erat. WTF!!!!
Could we have had Forberg for Glencross? Plus?
Not sure anyone will get that one, ever, lol.
Poile must have been going, "I'll believe it when he gets here", lol.
-
52 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
Maybe.
We could always throw in Wideman
They get "face of the franchise" they lack, we get large D and RW boost.
AFTER the expansion draft though, lol.
I am in no way desperate to make this trade, so if I have to add, I laugh it off and move along.
Gaudreau's marketability alone means I don't have to trade him.
I'm not bargaining on JG, here's what I want, period.
I have no reason to trade him, so it better be very beneficial to my side.
A solid top 2D potential, top 2 potential RW in the right age range, or don't even bother calling.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
Hanifan...that's worth a conversation. He would be an extremely valuable piece for this team and I don't think it can be understated how badly they need someone of his calibre and age on the blue line.
I am not sure that our 2017 pick would get it done though...it might take a 2018 pick (much stronger draft...defence-laden actually, but past the ideal age range of this rebuild). Or, something more near and dear to us. Gaudreau comes to mind. I'm not talking about 1 for 1...but it would take something like that.
And I would do it.
Hanifin AND Lindholm?
-
4 hours ago, robrob74 said:
What would Polak cost? Wouldn't it be a bit more than Engelland?
Zing.
You're right on the money, so to speak.
Who would you rather? Is it really very close?
-
1 minute ago, travel_dude said:
The last two years have been an IR concern. An aging goalie with IR concerns is a risk.
It's just a matter of due diligence health tests though.
I like Elliott, but I would rank Howard higher, all things being equal.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
I hope you are not suggesting Howard as a replacement for Elliott. That seem more likely to backfire than just re-signing Elliott to a 2 year deal.
I have witnessed Howard being nothing short of spectacular. Imagine a sold out Joe Louis chant, Jim-my How-ard Jim-my How-ard.
I've heard it in multiple games, most notably, playoffs v Anaheim and Chitown.
Be careful not to consider Howard a downgrade, he's a very good goalie. IR stuff might be a concern, but if not, he is definitely a solid NHL goalie.
Outplayed Mrazek this year but missed a lot of time on the IR. If not for the IR, I firmly believe Mrazek would have been the backup.
Taking $ back, I don't hate the idea.
-
8 hours ago, MAC331 said:
I would be surprised if there is an hurry for any of these prospect goalies to be in the NHL next season. Rittich at the AHL level could be a call up if injuries occur but he just came over and could use more time in Stockton. MacDonald will get more time where he is ECHL ad Schneider likely. They won't keep McCollum around. Parson returns to Junior. here is what I see for us at the NHL level, they go after Bishop, if they don't get him they move to Elliott, either way CJ is back as our back up.
IMHO, MacDonald and Gillies should be the A goalies.
If MacDonald is in the E next year I'd let him know his window is getting close to zero.
Start working with Schneider and Parsons.
-
2 hours ago, jjgallow said:
They were never the best, that's the part I just never got, why people saw that. They were both statistically quite average in the leagues they came from. Ramo was actually famous for getting scored on from the opposite side of the ice. And quite frankly, they were old balls too.
Clearly if you're switching to North American ice you want to groom a young promising goalie. IMHO, we have never done that properly.
I suppose, if we wanted a young up and coming goalie from a respectable league like the SHL, who has great playoff performance, we could try that?
http://www.quanthockey.com/shl/en/seasons/2016-17-shl-goalies-playoff-stats.html
Rk Age Name GP GAA SV% W L SO TIME G A P PIM 1 25 
Joni Ortio 7 2.12 0.933 3 4 1 368 0 0 0 0 2 31 
David Rautio 11 2.01 0.928 5 5 3 658 0 0 0 0 3 20 Linus Söderström 16 2.11 0.922 12 4 0 993 0 0 0 0 4 26 Joacim Eriksson 5 2.36 0.918 2 3 1 305 0 0 0 0 5 22 Marcus Högberg 6 2.47 0.915 2 4 0 340 0 0 0 0 6 23 Stefan Steen 6 2.97 0.904 2 4 0 364 0 0 0 0 7 24 Johan Gustafsson 14 2.54 0.904 7 7 2 804 0 1 1 2 8 29 Oscar Ahlsenfelt 9 2.65 0.902 5 4 0 566 0 0 0 0 9 19 Felix Sandström 13 2.83 0.901 6 4 2 595 0 1 1 0 10 32 Cristopher Nihlstorp 4 3.16 0.875 2 2 0 247 0 0 0 0 Please tell me you mean Soderstrom lol.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
I think it would be fair to say that Rittich earned a new deal.
Also fair to say that MacDonald did nothing to further his cause.
Schneider had a good win/loss record but not a great SV%.
I think BT will sign one big name NHL goalie (Elliott, Bishop, trade for MAF, Raanta, etc.), which will allow the backup position to be filled by Rittich or Gillies; I lean towards using Rittich at this point.
Parsons would be better served (IMHO) being in the AHL, and pushing Gillies for the starter role.
MacDonald or Schneider will be fighting for an ECHL job, probably with McCollum. Somebody is going to get cut.
I agree all over the place. It'll come down to Parsons in camp, it is a huge jump. He may be in the E to start is my thought, just to help him grow into it.
Rittich was a really good add by Tre imho.
Schneider wasn't on a very good Hat team, but the truth is his SV% has never been great. Yet his NHL camp play earned him an ELC so you just never really know.
CJ is with Team Canada at the IIHF tourney, so that'll be interesting to see, other goalies are Pickard and Eric Comrie. Tourney starts tomorrow so tune in!
-
Here's how we are this offseason:
Gillies - RFA
Rittich - RFA
Goalies on ELC's next year
McDonald
Schneider
Parsons
I would think there's a few scenario's
Don't sign Rittich
Sign both, one becomes the NHL backup
Parsons goes back to Jr
Someone is traded
Tre's got a bit of untangling to do, not a lot, but it's pretty convoluted right now.
-
45 minutes ago, zima said:
how did Dube do in his first pro game Im glad thay gave him the nod
He didn't see much ice from what I could tell. Deciding game in a series it's understandable that you don't throw rookies at it just because. Would've been nice to take down SJ to give Dube more time to get in for the next series. So it goes...
Rittich was fantastic in the first, but didn't return. Word is that he was ill and couldn't carry on after the 1st. Makes you wonder if it was nerves/stress in a big game, but that is conjecture. Gillies made some unreal saves in relief. We had our chances in this one, no doubt. ALMOST took down the top team in the Pacific, man, oh man that would have been nice...soooo close.
Amazed they called SJ shots 52, I believe. The commentators called it 52 at the start of OT, so should have made it around 58. Guess it depends on who is counting.
They outshot us pretty much 2-1, but dammit, we had them.
-
Reading around a bit was painful, with too many saying "Kostka pulled a Wideman", just retarded. Vey's pass to him was so dumb, 2 'cudas forwards moving forward and Kostka is the only defender back. Vey sends him a total wobbler when he should have seen the 2 forwards pressuring the point. Huge risk by Vey when you're 3-on-2 down low. Throw it down low. Huge risk by Vey led to the goal. Waay to casual, or he just panicked himself and threw the panic at the only dman who can get back.
Vey's guy sniped the winner. Vey was nowhere to be seen.
Are we doomed to lose on constant "one bonehead play"?
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
Not without pretending we'll win now. We have to buy a couple of years is all, imho.
I want us to be realistic. What do you sign Oshie for? He'll be needing term, we can't get caught up in that.