travel_dude
-
Posts
52,010 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by travel_dude
-
Sure, they don't have to do anything. They can take the chance with MAF, giving him the starter reins again and not trade him. They can sit with $73m in existing cap hit for 13F, 6D and 2G, and hope that they can be compliant by day 1 of the season. They can let Lovejoy and Jultz walk. They can buy out Kunitz and save $2.3m or some other move. Neither Toronto nor Calgary have to deal with them. If either teams signs or trades for a different goalie, then the Pengies can keep him through the expansion. I'm sure that they would prefer to improve the team.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Two problems with holding onto MAF. 1) Too much tied up in cap space you intend on trading anyway 2) Risk. He could be injured during the season and not be available at TDL due to LTIR (really just teams not wanting a injured goalie). Or, teams could simply not need a goalie at TDL. Then they are stuck. They are likely to get less value at TDL, because the number of teams wanting a goalie is less than now. Pittburg may not like the Flames offer, but I think there are a few balls in play. A couple of targets that could get the same or slightly higher offer. Who blinks first? The Pengies are not exactly in the driver's seat.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Agreed. (Insert good goalie here) would be an upgrade and stabilize the defensive systems. Having a defensive system would also help.
-
I doubt you ever see the perfect storm of defensive struggling you saw last season. The lack of any real defensive system, the overuse of the stretch pass (ask San Jose how that worked), the pitiful PK, several vets struggling, Russell at his worst early on.... Look at teams that gave up a lot of scoring chances, and you either see an average goalie or an outstanding one. The good ones let you make the playoffs.
-
Look at the circumstances surrounding his "benching". Concussion April 2nd. Cleared to backup Murray May 2nd. Murray play until getting pulled for a period on May 20th. Fleury gets one game and craps the bed. Murray goes on a 3 game winning streak, including eliminating the Bolts. Fleury Prior to that 35-17-6. Season end March 11 - March 31 8 wins 1 loss. Murray: Season end March 6 - April 9 7 wins 0 losses Fleury's starts alone are enough to equal the Flames season total, in 58 games. I get that you don't want a goalie with proven numbers because he is not young enough to win 5 years from now when we are "contenders". I get the impression that you don't even want Andersen or Elliott or Bishop, because they are too old. You want the next Murray or Vasilevskiy, whoever that is. Considering how badly the Flames are at scouting talent or developing goalies, I'm not sure we would end up with anything better than Rittich. I suspect that an Andersen, Elliott, or even Bishop would allow us to take a known quantity and make a season of it.
-
I think the logic is $5.25m(one year, expansion exempt) + 2nd for $5.75m (3 years, needs protection).
-
I think they have been looking and hoping for a successor for MAF. His numbers in the regular season are outstanding; he won 7 in a row to finish the season. He had a 15-6 record in the playoffs. I would say they are safe in going with him as a starter.
-
I need to explain. When I said high 2nd, I meant Dallas or FLA 2nd, not #35. I tend to use low to mean better. Whatever.
-
High 2nd. Or a prospect forward and a 3rd. No idea really, just wouldn't pay more as they are in deep kaka.
-
Maybe that's what they want, but it's not realistic. He's a RFA. He's due to make over $3m and they can't afford to give him the raise he deserves (internal and salary cap). It's a buyers market. Expansion is days away from being announced. There are a few teams that have too many goalies to protect. Anyway, it's speculation, but Burke talked about using the 2nd round pick(s) to solve the goalie problem. MAF would not require a 2nd. Elliott, would at least. Bishop about the same or more.
-
I think the MAF talk is Eklund trying to just generate traffic. It's a logical assumption, nothing more. There is some belief that Anaheim would move Andersen for a 2nd. That makes sense because it doesn't bring back salary. It's not the same as last year where a goalie gets you a 1st in the next year's draft. Boston got a 29th overall for Jones, but it was a sellers market. Andersen may not be the best available goalie, but he has the most years ahead of him. CGY needs at minimum a goalie that can play 3-4 great years, and that might be too little. Gillies (or MacDonald) may be ready before that, but you can't be certain either will be a starter. You need that great goalie through the prime years. If we have a few options, then I hope we get the best one money (and smart asset management) can buy.
-
The backup in Stockton, yes. We are getting a new starter, maybe a new NHL backup. Ortio has not been re-signed yet, so I wonder if they are only thinking about him as a fallback plan. Qualify him June 30th if you haven;t signed a backup.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Either way, it's a cheap option.
-
Unless it's another 2-way deal, I can't see it being for less. I'm just guessing but it's about $70k per year in the AHL, right? I think Poulin was earning about $275k. Sure there are a myriad of goalies they could have signed to play backup in the AHL. Maybe Irving or Dave Taylor is available. Or one of a number of older AHL backups with no upside. Or an aging NHL backup. They must have seen something they like to sign him. Or they have no idea what they are doing.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Just a couple of points. Murray isn't going anywhere. That leaves us with some limited options in trade or FA. Or it means paying a tidy sum in trade on a guy that could become the next Talbot/Jones. I think I have been pretty consistent on my first choices. Anderson and Elliott. I'm at least willing to look beyond the obvious stats to see how a goalie does in some situations. Vasilevskiy has trouble with low and medium danger chances. Fine. Doubt he would be available, but you don't know. But I am posting opinions on the goalies presented, so if you think my list is very long, then you are mistaken. The 2-way deal is what deal is available to a player in Rittich's situation. It's no more or less than you can offer. MacDonald needs a large workload to get better. It's either him or Gillies in the ECHL. Both need to be starters. Rittich as a backup is not a bad use for a goalie coming from overseas.
-
^^^^ JJ, you constantly throw out names of goalies you want us to take a chance on, but are unwilling to give any credence to a player the Flames have scouted. Understood that you have other goalies ranked higher, but this is the guy they think may have NHL upside. I would rather take a look at a someone they believe in over Poulin. MacDonald is going to be in the ECHL so he can get 40+ starts, while Gillies takes the majority in Stockton. If you have scouted this guy, and have a poor opinion, then fine. If you have scouted all the others you have listed as better, then I tip my hat to you.
-
Anaheim is a team that has an internal cap. They have to make choices. Lindholm, Valanen, Rakkel, Pirri, Andersen....They still have to find replacements (or re-sign) for Horcoff, Stewart, Perron, and McGinn. They have Tokarski as a potential backup if they decide not to re-sign Khudobin. We can all say that Anaheim doesn't deal within the conference, but the reality is that is where the need is. Edmonton wants a defender. Calgary wants a goalie. They have to make moves. They had a mediocre start to the season and got punted in the first round. As far as STL goes, it's hard to tell with them. Elliott got them into the 3rd round, but they have a history of moving goalies after a certain point. Allen is their goalie of the future. Can they keep both? Probably for this year.
-
In an expansion situation, they have to make a choice. Elliott is worth more as a proven player. Allen is their starter-in-waiting. He will be cheaper for them to re-sign. He has a longer career ahead of him. STL is going to need some longer term cost-cutting. They have a few prospects that could take on the backup role, or just go with a cheap backup. They have a defensive team that can mitigate the loss of Elliott. Not sure what the asking price would be, but perhaps we could take Rattie off their hands with Elliott. Offer a combo of a 2nd, forward prospect, Bollig and a 3rd. Bollig is the only salary they take back, but would even drop that.
-
Regular season results show him to be a good to great goalie. No problem with that. I was tempering that with playoff results as they tend to show a trend. Unable to perform when needed. Whether that was due to the team letting him down or he has traits that get exposed during a series; who knows. Would he be an upgrade? Absolutely. Seeing where Elliott fit in, I would tend to rate the top 3 available in trade (without seeing Bishop's) as: Elliott MAF Andersen Best option for a FA signing: Reimer
-
^^^^^ Where does Elliott fit in that chart? You can also see why Vasilevskiy is a concern. Great high-danger, but not good elsewhere. While MAF shines overall, I still worry about being stuck protecting him in any expansion draft. Maybe we find out that the next one won't be until 2019/20, in which case it won't matter. The other thing is his less than stellar playoff record. Other than the last two seasons, he has dropped the puck.
-
I have questions about Vasilevskiy's game. I liked most of what I saw in the playoffs, but I was looking at his regular season results. Not exactly impressive. He played against a lot of non-playoff teams, and had about 9 wins against them. Not as impressive against playoff teams in the regular season. That may be due to being rusty, but it's worrysome.
-
The Penguins are in a very precarious situation with MAF. He controls the list of trade options. If expansion is announced, then he could block a trade to a team needing a goalie. The possible way out would be to buy out the contract next summer. 4 years of $2m in dead cap space, but you keep the goalie you want to protect. If they traded him to the Flames, is it an option not to carry over the NMC? I have heard differing opinions on that. If that was the case, then it presents no issues to us protecting Fleury. If it carries forward, we would have the option to buyout as well, no matter how ugly that is. If we are trading for a goalie, I want to be in the best possible situation come expansion. I'm not willing to protect a goalie unless he has years ahead of him as a starter. Andersen, Bishop, Elliott....Otherwise, throw the net out there and sign a FA for a short term, and not worry about losing him.
-
Too funny. They made all the right decisions, but the goalies didn't do their part. Do you think coaching may have lead to their demise as much as questionable choices? The most recent goalie we had with any value was Kipper. Wasn't that Dutter and his goalie coach at the time Marcoux? Since then we had 3 years of Malarchuk and 2 years of Sigalet. In all that time, the only goalie besides Kipper to enjoy any improvement was Ramo. And it seemed that he only got better this year after he changed his style a bit.
-
I don't know how much scouting you do of European goalies, but I suspect the Flames actively do. That's not a shot. He was likely seen as much as any of the other unsigned talent in the other Euro leagues. Pribyl had been scouted for the last year, so I suspect they do their job similarly with goalies.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Let's hope that unlike Ramo he is unfloppable.
