robrob74
-
Posts
14,137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
57
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob74
-
-
2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:
He's under contract for 4 more years so they are hoping he can remain a top goalie until he's 39-40 like Brodeur. Raanta is UFA July 1, 2018 & @ 28 will be tired of being in "The King" shadow.
Getting something for him now (the other goalies they can expose amount to little) might even help as it would force LV to take a bigger contract off their hands.
What if he decided to retire though? I guess it is a lot of money to give up.
-
27 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
A 2018 3rd rounder for Elliott. That is the known. There are arguments to be made that we wouldn't have to pay that if signed in FA, but I haven't seen anything factual about it.
To put it another way:
Elliott = 3rd rounder
Mason = cash only
Unnamed UFA goalie = cash only
I'm waiting for the bus. It's scheduled to be here sometime aftre the end of the SCF.
I forgot we might have to pay more. Too bad.
-
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:
I guess that is what is being said here, I don't see the next Talbot or Jones in the mix for us presently, do you ? I would offer Elliott a 2 year deal in order to bridge to some of our own prospects such as Gilles or Parsons if BT believes they are the real deal.
I guess that I am getting more into the Elliott bus in having all of this time away from the boards and the season. He is ok, and able to start and give quality minutes. I would maybe offer both the job again to buy time for the kids to develop.
I'd offer Elliott a 3yr and Johnson a 2yr deal. Does that create a back log for our up and coming goalies? Two years to Johnson gives a kid a year in the AHL and then a year to beat out Johnson.
Keeping Elliott also is asset management as well. We don't give up more to get another. Plus it will keep the cap hit relatively lower in net. Also, I think it was Deeds who argued he might come back stronger to prove himself? Maybe it was another poster. But if we can continue to grow our game as a team we should continue to get in.
I think when a young guy is ready to take over is when we might challenge for a cup.
I just think we need to solidify the position for a few years because the revolving door is just too much! There's. no stability.
-
On 2017-05-25 at 4:44 PM, travel_dude said:
NYR has big issues with the protected forwards. They are unlikely to lose the goalie to the draft, but that isn't going to stop them from dealing the goalie. They traded Talbot without any fear of loss to a draft. They don't have a lot to fear losing Raanta, since they have forwards that are much more appealing; Hayes, Fast, Grabner or Pirri. What they can do is get something for an asset like Raata and replace in FA. They can also deal Hayes or Fast or Pirri so they only lose the least valuable of them to LV. Sounds crazy, but they trade Hayes for an exempt prospect. They trade Raanta for picks and maybe an exempt goalie. Raanta is coming up to the starter or move on category. If they keep him, they will lose the chance to get any return at all. A pending UFA in 2018. King Henrik will not be stepping down any time soon.
Washington can direct attention anywhere they like. Expose Niskanen or Orpik to get rid of big salary. If they do that, they would lose a forward like Beagle, Connolly or Eller or their goalie Grubauer. If it was me, I would get something for the goalie over losing him. Give LV the choice of the remaining players you don't mind losing. I know there's many ways at looking at it, but TBH we have no idea of what their GM would do. I'm just looking at one possible avenue.
I know the Lundquist is one of the best in the business, but (not just asking you, asking everyone) do they have a succession plan for him? How many more years left on him? They may need to start thinking of it and he lost his role for a bit this past season. So dealing a goalie might not be in their plan.
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
It's easy to remember the bad we saw from Elliott. How many remember how good he played in his win streak. Regardless, he won't be the starter in Calgary next year. He may or may not be the 1b goalie here next year. He could get claimed by LV as a pending UFA (not likely), claimed by LV in the draft if signed by CGY and not protected, or signed by any team in FA.
Wasn't sure. I am fine with a fall back assuming we get a Grubauer or equivalent.
Bigger would be trading for a #1. Stay away from Dallas and Carolina. Don't pay big for MAF. Explore options for Schneider or Mrazek or other. Not a fan of many of the UFA options. I personally think Miller will regress due to his small size and huge pads he was so opposed to stop using.
NOTE: I doubt Mrazek is even going to be available. He's probably a better netmider to have during a re-tool or re-build. Nothing wrong with Howard, but he will be too old by the time the Wings are relevent again.
I dont think it was the easy the easy to see part. I remembered it from earlier in the year that he has a tendancy to let in bad goals on bad shots when he is cold.
-
The only part I don't like about Elliott is the fact he lets in easy goals when the Flames control the play and he gets no action. A goalie should be able to make routine saves when needed, even if cold.
He didn't let in easy saves when cold on just one occasion, that happened throughout the year.
Dueing the playoffs i even said that we are in danger because Elliott hadn't had any action, he is weak when not seeing pucks.
Fir me, that is scary because controlling a game could go for not if your goalie can't make a routine save and then change momentum. The rest is on the team to react (of course).
-
On 2017-05-19 at 2:32 PM, The_People1 said:
It's a weak draft but the top 6 this season is still considered as good as last season's 3rd to 6th (Puljujarvi, Dubios, Joulevi, and Tkachuk). It's going to cost more than cap space to move up into the 3rd spot.
Although, I like the idea.
Is this maybe where we trade Backlund?
Oh crazy idea! Backlund is a guy who is developed and plays a position of need for them. After Spezza retires, who do they have to step up? It could be a perfect trade for them if they're looking for someone in the age range their core is in, with Benn and Seguin, Backs would be a perfect 2/3 line guy for them.
Would ee we need to send more for the 3rd overall?
Would that pick step into a Dallas lineup and contribute right away as Backlund would?
-
6 minutes ago, MAC331 said:
I think they would and another to consider may be one of ANA's own UFA's Holzer another RHSD. We need to look around us not only ANA has size, talent and nastiness. Our arch-rival EDM has added size, talent and nastiness. LA has always had it. VAN and ARZ are rebuilding up tp to it. SJS has always had size, talent and nastiness. We cannot afford to be the nice kids on the block with some talent.
As we are now, I think we are close. We can play with any team in the league. When we lose Stone, that changes. Our biggest need is in net and then on D. We have to keep in mind those teams, especially since they're in our division. You can't win cups if you can't beat teams in our own division.
Youre right about bout the other team's grit factor.
-
3 minutes ago, cross16 said:
I think these things need to be looked at for what they are, lottery tickets. The vast majority of college and international free agents don't pan out so whoever you sign the likelihood is they won't be a meaningful nhler and that's tire across the board in the NHL. There isn't a team out there that does into and college FA better than another one it's a crapshoot. Bring in some depth and competition in spots you need it and you hope for the best, anything more is found money.
Ya, it is the Panarins and Zeitsev (Toronto player/spelling) that I wish we could find.
-
2 hours ago, MAC331 said:
I agree robrob in that we are not heads and shoulders above EDM's talent level with Talbot providing an advantage. This is an important offseason for us IMO to get our goal selections right and add some key defensemen. I would like to see 3 defensemen added that have some edge to them to go with the 3 we have now.
Could we get Brett Pesce from CAR for Stajan C and Mangiapane LW ? they need some young offensive threats.
Could we get Dalton Prout from NJD for Bouma LW and Shinkaruk LW ?
This would go a long way to shore up our RSD situation.
I don't really know those players but if they do the trick!
See, that one game we were up 4-1 we were one hit away from knocking a few guys out of the game. When we stopped playing, out mental toughness shown through.
GG needed to send an energy line out to change momentum. Plus I think our D needed to be tougher.
I dont one think I would re-sign Engelland unless we knew he was playing injured.
-
6 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:
Nope. For finally figuring out that a decade of sucking was useless until they landed 1 worth being taken 1st.
One thing that these playoffs and most good teams are showing us is the importance of a good or poor D. When you're developing a team, you need a good D, I mean, the Avs not developing their D, nor the Oil.
we are a tad ahead of the Oil, just cause the D is slight. They have better goaltending and our start put us behind.
We are not leaps and bounds ahead, and could be even.
But regardless, tough D is important. If we want to compete, we have to develop the d further.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
True, but doesn't that arguement get old after a while? And shouldn't it be used in the other direction? seems misplaced.
None of us have ever seen Ruttu play in the NHL. LIkely none of us have seen him play more than a few minutes. So why would that arguement be used to determine who can and who cannot talk about him?
More importantly, why would we consider a guy we know so little about in the NHL, when he has Not really stood out in a far inferior league?
Who I have seen lots of, is Cervenka, Pribyl, and Ramo. And all of them had better stats and more favourable age than Ruttu before they came here.
I saw Kiprusoff play once when he was with the sharks and I thought, we need this goalie. Scouting would be an amazing job, but one offs probably aren't enough to go by. I remember when we traded for him, I was excited.
-
4 hours ago, phoenix66 said:
There will never be a guarantee, like i said before we could get Price and he could fall on his face. We both want the same thing , It wont be the end of the world if they resign Elliot, but if they do , they better have the one behind him that can truly push him. I'm just contending that we need an upgrade at the #1, with at least history to back up why we made that decision to do so . If we get a Fleury (type) we can solidify him with Johnson and keep that path open for our system tenders to have the ability to steal the job
One playoff loss was not due to goaltending but two games were all goaltending, and one was a mix of both. So I would say you're right, but in those two games that were due to goaltending,
we really should have been at least tied 2-2 if goaltending was better.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
there would be no trade in place for Vegas to trade for Fleury outside the expansion draft. Any deal involved with Fleury would be a deal for his selection in the expansion draft.
even if Fleury doesn't want to play for Vegas here is another scenario. Pittsburgh sends Vegas a 3rd rounder to ensure they select Fleury. Vegas selects Fleury and then turns around and trades him to the Flames for a first rounder. Everyone gets what they want and vegas gets 2 assets plus can still claim various other goalies some that would fit better long term. Values could be off but this is for scenario purposes only.
There are so many different ways that things can go down and multiple scenarios in play.
Why wouldn't the pens jus trade him to the Flames for the 1st then and get more for Fleury? Is it because they don't want to lose someone else?
-
On 2017-05-12 at 10:10 AM, travel_dude said:
First bolded item - if he drags the team to another cup, then his price goes up. I don't think his value is higher, but PITSS would believe so. If they can't find a team on the list to take him, they will have to trade Murray. That price would be so much higher.
Second bolded item - obviously, since they have at minimum 48 hours if they go to the finals and take it past 6 games.
Third bolded item - that's like saying Boston would trade with EDM after Chia was signed there. Can't recall any trades there.
Not picking on you, but I could only see Buffalo trading Lehner if they feel his injury history is too risky. He's a perfect goalie for them otherwise; played well on a bad team.
People are making it sound like their roster/exposure list isn't already done. They will have that decision made already and if they really want both, maybe they trade LV another player or pick so they don't take one. I personally think the decision has been made. But that comes down to, a future goalie or a goalie for now.
-
14 hours ago, manu11 said:
He played the last 2,5 seasons in the SHL against men, which is a pretty strong league in Europe. It kind of depends how fast he adapts to the North American game. I could see him beeing ready for the 18/19 season. But that doesn't mean he couldn't surprise in the upcomig preseason.
But how close are the two leagues in comparison? Is the AHL comparable?
I dont know the European leagues very well. They probably helped Matthews a lot, playing against men. I see what you're saying.
i really would love to see some good prospects come out. Being an older Flames fan, I've seen how the scouting and development had been bad, so it would be refreshing to have players consistently stream through.
My bet bet is a year or two away, and I haven't seen him either, so I don't know.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
Get tired typng his name. Adam Ollas-Mattsson. Too many consonants.
How close do we think he is to being ready? Or are the suggestions for years down the line? or this year? Wouldn't he need a few years in the AHL?
-
3 hours ago, travel_dude said:
Monahan struggles when JH gets boxed out and can't make sublime passes. JH struggles when the line can't finish. Overall, this season it took a long time for the pair to get going. Have to think back to their early RW, but it was a blur of Brouwer, Chaisson and a couple others.
It's hard to look at the stats for the last three years and say they don't click. I never expected Monahan to be a 80 point guy. Yet, he manages to score 31, 27, and 27 goals once JH arrived. JH missed 10 games and still lead the team. First season he started tearing it up when he was played with Hudler and Monahan. Sounds like that is a pairing that works to me.
I tend to agree with your criticism (as such) of the defense, but don't think there is an easy fix. If we could swing it, I would bring in Stone and Franson. Promote AOM. Let Stone and Franson's play determine where they best fit. AOM provides a shutdown guy that is big. Or just Stone or Franson and bring in Andersson and AOM/Kulak/Healey. If they do sign Stone, it had better be for less than $4m current salary. Same for Franson; has to be close to $3.3m.
Who is AOM?
-
11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
I think you are listening too much to Vancouver media.
Miller is at best a one year placeholder. That is betting 100% on Gillies being ready in one year to go from AHL goalie or NHL backup to starter. Gillies has one year of pro experience. If BT signed him and he was Hiller quality, he would be fired.
We are done with Bishop so let's call NY and tell them how good King Henrik was, and BTW would you like something to help you out of your expansion problems?
Kreider and Raanta for 1st rounder, McDonald and Shinkaruk. Plus rights for Erixon.
That might not be a bad idea though. Have miller on a two year. He starts next year and then they play halfers the year later.
Hahahaha!
i just read the 2nd paragraph.
Awesome.
I dont see miller being that that bad and I see him as better than Elliott.
Although, having the revolving door of goalies isn't fun, so maybe we need a longer term fix on a four year deal. An old goalie doesn't really cut it and it's gambling, yet again, plus hoping a young one is ready in a year or two.
-
I will get totally shot down, but Ryan Miller if a UFA.
Maybe we can sign a 1-2year deal. He was lights out in van and kept them in most games. Although health could be an issue. He needs good rest so a quality backup would be needed. How much would he need.? I think he's better than Elliott.
-
5 hours ago, conundrumed said:
Would you rather: Engelland and Stone @ $5.5 per.
One $4.5 guy...honest question.
I was referring to the bonehead trades that were made, like the Hamilton deal.
To answer:
It depends on how much of an impact the one guy gives you. If he's a top pair, yes. Is Stone a good enough 2nd pair? We already have Giordano and Hamilton so would I want a McDonagh as a 2nd pair? He would be something we'd lack but cost too much. He also has a lot of playoff experience.
-
10 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
Anything is possible, take what you can get lol.
There are good deals to be had, some so good that they would never make our "trade suggestion" thread....they would be laughed out.
A great GM, finds those trades. i will admit....our Hamilton trade (while not that good), was close to that good.
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 ?
-
5 minutes ago, conundrumed said:
Not sure anyone will get that one, ever, lol.
Poile must have been going, "I'll believe it when he gets here", lol.
Haha! Ya. I couldn't when it came out! It hurt me inside and I am not a Caps fan.
Like, why not us??????
I would've given even more!
-
59 minutes ago, conundrumed said:
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.
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?
-
2
-
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
I didn't take it as an insult. I just forgot we might still need to give up more.
I am not keen on him, but I am ok if it happens as well.
it would be nice to create some stability in the position though.