travel_dude
-
Posts
52,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by travel_dude
-
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.
-
If I'm reading this correctly, Mason is above Elliott. This chart is deceptive though. It shows Jake Allen just slight above Grubauer. Wouldn't it be true that these two faced similar work as Elliott? Light and towards the middle (unchallenged/challenged)? I think to get a better picture of it, you have to superimpose win/loss, SA% and GAA to be able to draw suitable conclusions.
-
The tale of two Berniers is like the tale of two Elliotts. The Toronto Bernier or the Anaheim regular season Bernier. The win streak Elliott or the Flames playoff Elliott. Personally, I felt that Bernier played better when their defense was much more structured during the regular season. He gave up a lot against Nashville, but that's as much breakdowns as inferior play. Bottom line is that their starter could have been the difference in the series, but he was injured. Relying on a backup in the playoffs in a close series is just enough of a downgrade to decide it. I prefer that we get a solid guy to mentor the new starter. The new starter will determine how many games he can play.
-
Sure, he can play chicken with teams needing to deal. I think it's highly likely that BT has one or two goalies on his must-have list. He's got to have dialog with the GM's that have the guys he's interested in, otherwise they may panic and sell to another team for a bargain. Waiting till the summer is not a great idea. They may be a surplus of "okay" goalies available, but he probably would have to talk to Vegas about one they picked. Last summer he waited till the draft to make the deal, while he had immediate assets (2016 picks). He was trying to get Bishop and that fell through one way or the other. He ended up at the draft with his 2nd choice. Having fewer picks this year is a bit of a stumbling point. He may generate more interest in 2018 picks for teams not thrilled with this draft. I think by the time the draft roll around, BT will have his starter. The backup/fallback plan will get picked up in FA or via a minor trade. One of the two will be an experienced starter. The other will be a guy ready to be a starter. Just the way I think it's looking. Here are my guesses at combos, since I love guessing: Grubauer/Mason Raanta/Mason Other choices out there, but this is what I think it end up being and it sets us up until Gillies or Parsons proves they are NHL goalies. Not re-signing Elliott saves us a 3rd in 2018.
-
I would argue that the Pengies were a better team in front of MAF, and he still had those results. The Flames with MAF against the Ducks? Anybody's guess. We were not just bad in nets. We let them get shots away that deflected off defenders, got 2nd chances on rebounds, shots of the faceoff, etc. And our forwards could not contain any players in the D-zone.
-
Regular season: MAF 38gp (34 starts) 18 wins 10 losses 7 OTL - 3.02 GAA .909 SA% Elliott 49gp (46 starts) 26 wins 18 losses 3 OTL - 2.55 GAA .910 SA% Playoffs: MAF had the following games that were or could have been losses: At CLB (win) - 4 GA .892 SA% At CLB (loss) - 5 GA .853 SA% Vs WSH (loss) - 3 GA .909 SA% At WSH (loss) - 4 GA .875 SA% Vs WSH (loss) - 5 GA .808 SA% At OTT (loss) - 4 GA (on 9 shots) .556 Not sure how you figure that MAF had more regular season wins. For the playoff, I pointed out 6 games that he was a non-factor in winning their series. Those GA look familiar, don't they?
-
What is the definite part? His playioff record? Or his regular season record? His regular season was worse. Both would have a bounceback this year...maybe...
-
The first line said it all. They faced a mediocre team in the Sharks. Had they matched against someone else due to different seeding (CHI, STL, NSH) in the first round, we might have seen a much different result. They played well against the Ducks, which is something we can't say. Do I think the Ducks were a good playoff team? Not really. The managed to win two series on the back of iffy calls, cheating, and occasional good goaltending. They didn't give up in games, so I give them that.
-
The Oilers were not that close to a good shot at the cup. They managed to get a good opponent for the 1st round. Their goalie was on a run and got them as far as they could go. They are still a piece of time away from contending.
-
Here's a quote from The Herald.... “At end of the day, here’s where we’re at,” said Treliving, laying out the various goaltending options he’s juggling. “If you want to go long-term on anyone, you’ve got to be careful on term and dollars. We have some young guys in the pipelines, but we also don’t want to expose them and they fail. Question is, is there someone out there we want to go long-term with?” That sounds less like MAF than somebody else. Sure, he is an option. So is Mason or one of the other available UFA's. So is simply re-signing Elliott. Low risk/low reward is signing Elliott on the cheap for two years. You know what you get from him. You know he is a bridge. So, you trade assets for a young guy that could be a home run. In two years you have the home run guy and prospects battling it out. Elliott is gone. Worse case is your home run fouls out and Elliott has to carry the load. You are forced into bringing up Gillies or Rittich. Swap Elliott with Mason if you don't want to pay the 3rd. A little more tisk added. I'm not convinced that MAF could be a star here. The possible high cost to obtain might completely rule him out. You still need a 1b goalie or a backup capable of 30+ games.
-
No. Get a goalie that can stop pucks and improve the system/players around him. Elliott struggled the most when the systems broke down or weren't working. Early season. End of season. We got away from the game play that gave us wins. You could see it coming the last week of the season. Anaheim beat Elliott in the playoffs with just about every type of shot. I will give you this; if you are a team that can win the majority of draws in the D-zone, then you want a goalie that catches pucks and slows the play. If you are a team that had a controlled breakout under pressure, then you want a goalie that can handle the puck. If you have guys that can defend against the rebound shot, then you want a blocking style. None of those matched our play at most times. Whatever goalie we end up with, we want to make sure that the defense is able to make a pass and clear the zone. I don't want to see more than one forward blow the zone, and they better get back if the puck doesn't get out.
-
A line is made up of two or three complementary players, so it is different. I'm not sure what style we actually play. It can change several times in the season. Look at the Ducks from a few years ago. They couldn't score. They had to learn how to play one goal games. That changed near the end of the season. What didn't change was getting quality goaltending. That's all you need. The defensive systems can adjust a bit to make the goalie look better. And the darn forwards can stop cheating into the neutral zone and apply back pressure.
-
Whether or not he would be a fit here, we do need to upgrade the goalie coach. I have not been impressed with the starter decisions, the work done with the goalies, nor the results in the last three years. Need to go another direction if we plan to improve the position.
-
Francois Allaire fired by the AVS. I thought he was one of the better ones. Could he be a target for the Flames?
-
Your play adjusts. Bishop had success playing behind a good defensive system, plus having a team that could score its way out of a jam. He won't have that in Dallas. Being tall is nice, but it doesn't guarantee success. Hrudey etc. have their opinions. Doesn't make them true. Any goalies going to let in "soft" goals. It's a mistake to generalize how a goalie did here and project that towards what you need to win. Every year is different and the way a goalie plays causes teams to adjust, both in front of and against.
-
It worries me a bit. Both Raanta and Gru are available right now. Maybe, as you say, teams are looking at the potential loss elsewhere as a reason to expose their backups. Depends on what the team is planning on protecting. I can see NY being ok in exposing other players and not woirrying about it. I think that WASH trading Gru for picks/prospect brings back more than they lose. Holtby is going nowhere for some time. They can pick up a backup easily.
-
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.
-
Neither Raanta nor Grubauer are "big", but they are similar in size to MAF. I think either of them would be the way to go, with the fallback plan there (injuries, not ready for 40+ games).
-
Nice reporting there Cross. The decision between Mason and Elliott should come down to cap hit and cost to obtain (3rd in 2018). I think both are likely to have better seasons as Flames. But we need a longer term solution than either of those guys can provide. I don't have faith that any of the Flames prospect goalies can be ready for full time starter roles in less than 3 years. That said, you can't assume that any of them ever will. Better to get a long term solution in place and be stuck with a great vet and a great prospect chomping at the bit over a two year plan that leaves you in the same boat after two years.
-
Estimated cost to obtain, from lowest to highest: Grubauer - pending RFA with arbitration rights Raanta - one year remaining on cheap deal MAF - lost his starting job in the playoffs, and PITTS could be in a bind. They do have options, though. Saros - doesn't need to be protected, and NSH has no reason to trade him Schneider - not young anymore, but still a good goalie Mrazek - if even available, the cost would be very high The first three are likely to be a pick and prospect. Considering what PITTS wanted in the summer for MAF, the ask could still be out of reach.
-
It's a little hard to compare apples to apples here. Elliott supposedly good at MD, but not great at LD and HD. The HD numbers are possibly impacted by coverage down low, which the Flames struggled at. I can't say with any certainty that Philly's defense down low was any better. Besides, Mason had a down year compared to his historical numbers. The first chart shows what the eye test did, and that Gru is a good goalie. Maybe not 100% ready for a starter role, but has the best numbers of the 3. Better than Condon, Bernier, CJ. Put a better defense in front of Mason for 46 games and Gru for the other 46 and you could well have a great tandem. The only cost to obtain would be for Gru. Maybe there's a better 1b goalie out there than Mason, but he will rebound. Sign him to a one year term or two years at a reduced cost.
-
The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread
travel_dude replied to DirtyDeeds's topic in Flames Talk
Maybe King is part of the problem. Was given the task of concentrating on the Arena project and he has butted heads so much that he may never be able to close a deal. You get two guys like Nenshi and KK together and the egos/agendas collide. Then you get Bettman coming in and adding his comments. -
NAME GP GAA SV% ES SV% LD SV% MD SV% HD SV% RECORD ANTTI RAANTA 30 2.27 92.20 93.31 98.66 91.81 82.72 16-8-2 JOONAS KORPISALO 14 2.88 90.52 90.80 95.80 91.46 80.85 7-5-1 PHILIPP GRUBAUER 23 2.05 92.60 93.98 99.5 93.19 82.55 13-6-2 NAME GP GAA SV% ES SV% LD SV% MD SV% HD SV% RECORD MARC-ANDRE FLEURY 38 3.02 90.90 91.69 98.56 91.13 81.61 18-10-7 BRIAN ELLIOTT 49 2.55 90.97 92.12 97.92 93.32 77.74 26-18-3 CHAD JOHNSON 36 2.59 91.00 91.57 97.72 91.71 80.33 18-15-1 STEVE MASON 58 2.66 90.81 91.77 98.25 91.59 76.47 26-21-8 MICHAL NEUVIRTH 28 2.82 89.10 90.21 94.76 91.87 74.62 11-11-1 MIKE CONDON 41 2.50 91.44 91.98 97.06 90.93 82.53 19-14-6 JONATHAN BERNIER 38 2.51 91.55 92.27 97.16 92.75 80.09 21-7-4 RYAN MILLER 54 2.80 91.36 92.65 97.46 92.82 79.95 18-29-6 BEN BISHOP 39 2.52 90.96 92.45 97.97 89.56 81.62 18-15-5 MIKE SMITH 55 2.92 91.42 92.53 97.74 91.92 81.60 19-26-9 Just some stats for the goalies out there.
-
The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread
travel_dude replied to DirtyDeeds's topic in Flames Talk
Sorry, I don't see the transformation. Still homeless people living 1/2 a block away, sleeping on the sidewalk. Big buildings around, not so much entertainment. Parking is available in a muddy unpaved lot behind the arena. City is going to pay a lot in leasing for their offices now. -
The Official Calgary Flames "New Arena" thread
travel_dude replied to DirtyDeeds's topic in Flames Talk
Carty - I read this article last week and thought the exact same thing. How amazing is the atmosphere in Nashville's Arena District. Compare it to the "Ice Dirstrict" in EDM and it's like night and day. The fans had no place to gather and watch, unless they wanted to pay $80 to stand in Ford Hall and watch TV. No outdoor area. Maybe the Wintergarden will address that, but the area is still a crap area. And I fear that is how the one in Calgary will go, since the view is so short-sighted.
