robrob74
-
Posts
14,187 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by robrob74
-
-
What round would that equate to? We had no 2nd or 3rd this year. Is it like a round 1, 2 or 3 next year? Does this make up for any of the picks we just traded?
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
so on the one hand you say its up to the goalie to meet the system , or at very least its possible we are choosing goalies that dont meet our requirements... but on the other hand you have argued in the past that liking or disliking certain goalies in our system was incorrect and its up to the team to adapt to them ?
thats how this conversation started today . I have seen many reports , from his previous coaches who praised Smith for his ability to continuously seek to upgrade his skills .. compared to Elliot , who , just now , is getting the concept that maybe he needs to start early communication with his d-men.
That is on the goalie, and the coach.. Sigalet has been with the team long enough.. he knows what shots we give up .. what particular dmen have a tendency to do .. this should have been a conversation the day he arrived in camp
To me it sounds like an excuse on Elliott's part. I get it, you need to communicate. But that doesn't account for being cold and not being able to make a routine save, which, if your team is dominating, you better be able to do.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
Yeah, I don't think that's fair. I don't think he has done a great job, but I think the Flames have kept him around because they are a moral team.
They value hard work and personal connections over results.
Which is such a catch-22, because they'll speed up a rebuild to be ok with "just making the playoff."
i agree that they are a very moral team, to a fault sometimes, probably.
-
20 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:
IMO, Smith is an upgrade on Elliott and the cost was not outrageous.
I'd like to see the Flames sign UFA Anders Nilsson to be their backup for 2017/2018.
He had a decent .923 save % on a bad team at $1M per.
In 2018/2019, I hope to see one of Gillies or Rattich move up to NHL backup and Parsons move up to the AHL (assumes he starts 2017/2018 in the ECHL).
420,
i agree, but the price was a bit higher than it would've been to re-sign smith. We added Hickey to the price.
For me, it's too much when you account for what we paid last year as well.
i am ok with Smith, but it is the accumulation of both deals, everything we've paid for when we could've done these deals for more return in a Talbot, maybe an Anderson?
-
1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:
It seems like we paid quite a bit more to obtain a goaltender slightly better than Elliott. I suppose it is easy to criticize the deal when I don't have a clue what Treliving is dealing with. Maybe Bishop had issues with Calgary, I was never entirely sold on Darling, and maybe others were just crazy expensive. It does feel a little Sutterish firing off all of these prospects. This is a risky move for Treliving. If Smith plays poorly, ownership has to take a hard look at what we have given up for goalies who are not panning out.
I would've been ok with this deal a year ago. But it's the accumulative costs that are adding up.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Nailed it.
Flames have spent now 2 2nds, we hope, and a good young prospect to get Elliot for a year and smith for two. Irregardless of how you view smith this was exactly the type of behavior the flames needed to start avoiding and it appears Treliving won't. That's quite dissapointing.
Plus whatever we could've gotten in a Hickey trade. Maybe not much, but that's what, another 3rd rounder? All currency we could've used on a better longer term fix.
-
I am tired of spending assets on short term fixes. In an era when picks are currency, we spend freely on these goalies who last a season or two. Elliott and now Smith... I'd have preferred to trade them for possibly longer term goalies.
-
1
-
-
Just now, phoenix66 said:
Unless we have a deal worked out with LV already
I really hope we don't give up anymore picks or prospects for a goalie. We aren't too far out of a rebuild, if we are out of it that is, that we should be all-in on goalies and giving up as many assets as we have over the last few years.
-
1 minute ago, Thebrewcrew said:
Now the Flames will be looking for a backup, any chance Johnson signs back July 1, or maybe he will be mad about having his rights traded?
Makes sense for ARI to trade Smith as he doesn't fit with their current timeline. I can see them dangling their MIN 1st for any of Korpisalo, Grubauer and Raanta.
From a Flames standpoint my backup target is now Anders Nilsson.
I think the flames have to go UFA for their backup for sure now. There have already been too many assets wasted on goaltending the last few seasons.
-
2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:
So 2 years of Smith @ 4.25 for conditional 2nd, Hickey & rights to C Johnson (so Coyotes have someone to expose).
Why BT? If the idea is still to tandem a Grubauer/Raanta with a vet Mason/Elliott were there for free.
I'm not much liking what I'm seeing as the idea looks more like we'll go with Smith as the starter & a cheap b/u (UFA or promote 1 of the kids too soon).
Ya, I don't get it. I guess Smith is a better goalie than Elliott, but we gave up what we would have lost in re-signing him.
Plus, if Dallass is better this year, that makes making the playoffs harder.
-
If we re-sign Elliott, we lose another 3rd rounder, so he is basically gone.
So, if we did, that's all we give up, and then we could've had recouped that in a deal if we traded Hickey. What could we get in a deal trading just him if that happened and we were worried about losing him after his season?
-
3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
In the Big picture .. its Smith for a conditional 3rd and Ari retains salary
If we really want Johnson that badly we can still just sign him again
Hickey, to be honest .. isn't overwhelming me.. he's shaping as a 3rd pair guy .. and he's also going to his 4th year , no guarantee of signing him ..I think he was deeper down the depth chart of the guys we have . That year he made the World Juniors he did not impress me at all.
But he was a stable D during the juniors?
I think it's poor asset management. I guess at least it isn't a 1st?
If Hickey was re-drafted, would he be a 2nd rounder? So it's a, whatever Hickey is worth, plus the 3rd (maybe a 2nd), for Smith.
i was interested in seeing what Hickey could turn out to be...
-
1
-
-
To keep Hickey we could've just signed Elliott, and still gave up the 3rd rounder.
I don't know if I like this deal?
sounds like the deal Lando made with Vader in Empire, "this deal just keeps getting worse."
-
1
-
-
I don't like the idea of losing Brandon Hickey.
-
2 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:
Just for the record all arenas have tangible benefits. Not just for the city or town that builds them. The increased ridership on city transportation for events. The parking tickets alone for those who can't fathom the concept of parking places.(see the other post about 7100 tickets in Edmonton Arena area since it was built.(what is the cost of parking illegally these days, anyone?) Restaurants, bars, towing companies..lol cabs, are just a few of the outside areas that benefit from events at hockey games.
Not to mention those who work in them.
Will the saddldome still hold events?
-
9 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:
I dunno, Chayka (aka analytics dude) seems to be about as smart as Mac T. I have no problem examining quantitative data to validate or invalidate hypotheses, but other forms of information are required in order to generate the hypotheses from an overarching theory in the first place. Ice hockey is not like baseball where you can accumulate data and apply analytics (which is the same thing as statistical data analysis with a different name for some reason). Baseball is a series of relatively isolated actions that can be measured, whereas almost everything in hockey is connected to other actions. This is why we always argue about things like goalie stats. Is a particular goalie's stats a reflection of his abilities, the defence, or the forwards? Few statistics in ice hockey allow us to empirically demonstrate who is responsible for something as simple as save percentage.
I also think that hockey advanced stats are great to a point. The game changes so quickly during play that stats cannot account for that. Even high danger shots/stats can only say so much to the situation. Does it account for who flinched first?
I agree with you 100%. Stats are great, but i don't think a team can be built on stats alone.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
You assume we are the only team wanting to upgrade in nets. WPG, NYI, COL, and PHI had disappointing seasons. All hey have to do is offer a better pick or prospect. None of those teams have to protect the goalies they have. Perhaps they would prefer to lose one of their existing goalies. None of the goalies for those teams had amazing seasons.
Does that include Mason then? Some here are suggesting him and from what i remember, he has had an up and down and up and down career.
-
43 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
Im talking about the ones that need to happen before the draft ,if they are going to happen at all.. Grubauer and Raanta being the most prominent.. like I said , we are the only team with the ability to trade for them , and protect them.. or they get lost to LV
Darling already got traded, Bishop already got traded ..
outside of those 2 , and possibly some similar ones. the rest are available after the ED.. its a waste of a valuable asset in that protection spot , we can add, what other teams have to get rid of or risk losing for nothing ..
If that is the plan for that spot, nothing is going to change in 3 weeks...we're not in a bidding war ... unless, he has different plans for that spot
Lets pretend we are looking at all teams? If this were an entry draft, out of all players left u protected, who would be BPA. There are going to be goalies available, but vegas can only choose how many? Who would be more valuable than a goalie that was unprotected?
I see your logic and it makes sense. But they only choose one from each team.
I havent looked into it, but I am in a spot where I can't wait to get the off-season going so a few things happen.
-
3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:
He wasn't alone on that team and now look at PIT in the final, they have 3 stars without shots on goal let alone scoring. LOL
To use your season argument, those three stars with no points did get them to the finals though, while those other ones got them how far? :)-
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
PITTS had Murray last year and MAF the other time.
LA had Quick.
Chicago had Crawford at the top of his game.
This year the only ones left standing have had MVP calibre goalie performances for some or most of the playoffs.
Just my opinion. I want the best goalie now and for years to come.
A lot said Crawford sucked in the Hawks 2nd cup, but was good in the 3rd.
but I do want the best goalie too.
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
If you go that route, I hope you don't mind possibly ruining our two top goalie prospects. Neither has been consistent enough in the AHL to be considered as ready for starters in the NHL.
Let's say they go that route. Miss the playoffs for a few years, but not bad enough to get a good pick. Picking 14th or picking between 16 and 31. Or picking as low as 6th again. Five years from then you have a good NHL player or another marginal player.
On the other hand, you have teams like the Rangers or Candiens that compete for the cup almost every year. They are not as good as the Flames but have much better goaltending. Perhaps that's where the secret to winning the cup lies; having a good team and great goaltending.
Or a great team and average to good goaltending.
Chicago with Niemi and early Crawford. The onus is on the goalie to stop the ones they should be stopping. But I still like the idea of having a really good goalie.
is someone crazy enough to grade the last ten to twenty cup winning goalies?
-
3 hours ago, phoenix66 said:
Players are the most superstitious people on the planet , there is no way ..none.. that this is not in their heads, and will be until they break it .
I can buy a bad case of coincidence up to maybe 10 games max. The fact we keep finding different ways to do it just adds to their frustration
A better goalie is not THE answer, as you said we had the best back there and didn't get it done, but its certainly a piece of the puzzle. I virtually guarantee when we do break it, it will be because the goalie stole the game. Then the players will come around cuz it wont be a thing anymore.
If it were me , I would have started Gillies in Anaheim for his 1st start..not LA.. they had nothing to win or lose at that point.
As it was, they tried to start Johnson.. but unfortunately he got injured in 5 min.. if the intent was to give Elliot a rest in the last game, should have had a rookie backing up
Get them another teams' jerseys and wear them under ours? Our tshirts. Wear them in warm up?
-
For the argument of why a goalie isn't good against certain teams, could the team be in their heads, and the players confident in that they can beat that goalie as well?
-
57 minutes ago, MAC331 said:
You do know Reimer is signed for a number of years at 3.4M ??? I don't think we would be trading for him.
I would expect DET to hang Howard out there not Mrazek, Coreau could get picked up in the ED.
I don't think MAF or Schneider were serious considerations for us.
Wouldnt Reimer $$ be what Elliott gets?
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
I agree and he is almost like a sideways move, from Chad Johnson, someone who can back up but give you some extra starts if needed.