travel_dude
-
Posts
52,010 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by travel_dude
-
-
There's a big difference between signing an aging goalie (Hiller, Smith, etc) vs signing a great goalie still in his prime (Bishop, Andersen, Allen, Elliott, lesser extent MAF). Those kinds of signings give the team the best chance to be a contender, for now and likely the next 5 years. If they still ended up being a middle of the pack team, then goaltending is not the issue. I'm not sure why you keep harping on goalie development on the Flames. Ortio has never shown consistent numbers in the AHL. His absolute best year was a .926 in 2013/14. He got 8 starts with the Flames. IIRC, he was only sent to the Aces because of a slow start in the AHL. Maybe it was having Berra and Ramo and McDonald. What I am getting at is that he wasn't good enough before that to project as a top goalie. How is that the Flames fault? He just turned 25. At 22 he came off a good AHL season and posted middling results. He got the call to the Flames on a emergency basis and was returned when that was over.
-
Yes, there is a huge difference between Ramo and Quick. The obvious things are wins, SA% and GAA. You need to also look beyond the obvious stats. 5v5 SA%, 5v4 SA%. High-danger, low-danger, etc. I think we agree that a great goalie is one of the biggest needs of any team.
-
My point was that outstanding goaltending is absolutely required in the NHL. The Kipper years were mostly average teams. We have a lot now that Kipper teams didn't, so I'm not worried about the goalie masking the problem.
-
We lacked a goalie to make the saves we needed when we needed them. With just average goaltending in 2014/15, we made the playoffs. Do you want a goalie that exposes every thing wrong with your team, or do you want one that can help you win when you experience some problems? We have a good offensive team. We had some hiccups on defense, but have a good base there. Secondary scoring dried up a lot, but that is fixable. It's not like the Kipper years where we knew we lacked much of a team. Monahan is the best center we had since the Iggy trade. Our biggest problems are goaltending and special teams. The first one helps improve the PK. Better special team coaching will improve the PP and PK.
-
So, are you willing to wait until Johnny and Monahan are in the latter stages of their "prime" for a goalie? Suppose Ortio and Gillies are not ready after 3 years. By that, I mean they aren't good enough yet to play in the NHL. I don't hear any solutions coming from you in the above. How do you propose getting the best? Who are you talking about? Do we have the assets to get it in trade? Or are you talking about finding the best drafted player and developing them? That's great. In 3-5 years we may have that player. Or maybe we are still drafting to fill that need. What about now? Are you advocating using Ortio as the starter or just picking up a random starter just to fill the position, good, bad or ugly.
-
I think that, while it would be nice just to get a guy for 3 years until Gillies or MacDonald are ready, you have to look longer term than that. If the scouts/goalie coach/BT think that Reimer could be that gut, then sign him for 3 and extend after that. If they think MAF can be the guy for 3-5 years, then go after him. Vasilevskiy is risky, since his body of work is small. He looks good now, but can he take the reins for 3 years minimum? Not sure. Bishop looks like he could be the guy for years to come. Same goes for Andersen. Others, I am not sure about. I have no problem if we are spending $7m on a goalie for years to come. That would mean he is a league leader. It pushes Gillies to 5 years to be the next starter, which is reasonable. If he peaks sooner, then we have a top goalie as a trade chip.
-
IF you can't afford $5.7m for a goalie, then you have a problem in this league. MAF may not be the best goalie that we could deal for, but he may be the cheapest in trade. Reimer is not going to cost as much, but I can't tell you if he is any answer. Huge risk. At least with MAF, you are getting a brand name, not yellow label. If you need to trade him, you get something back. Reimer would be worth next to nothing if you needed to trade him.
-
I think adding two teams at the same time would increase the cap by too much. Also, if you add two, one is going to be from the East and one from the West, so you are unbalanced anyway. If Quebec City is announced, you are going to have to move a team back to the Western Conference.
-
He has 2 more years in college available to him. Like any other NCAA player, he would have until August 15th of his senior year to sign, or his last year in college. I meant his ceiling as a NHL player, not his projected ceiling. Kylington has already shown elite skating. Perhaps I haven't had as much opportunity to see Hickey play. What I saw in WJC was not something I was that happy with. I was a bit more impressed with Kylington in limited NHL exposure. Andersson is anyone's guess at this moment. His biggest knock is defense, followed by skating. Those are coachable.
-
It's a little hard to predict ceilings for any of the three D prospects. One had a good 2nd season in the OHL, and is one of the more offensively minded prospects we have. His defense is said to be average right now. Another came out of the Euro leagues and had a rough start in a pro league as a 18 year old. Another had a rough 2nd season in the NCAA. Obviously, my preference is to hang onto all three and see who shakes out. But if it came down to 6th overall or Hickey, I would lean towards giving up Hickey.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Depends how many games he has in the playoffs. He looks good, but not a world beater. I suggest Hickey because I think he has been passed by Andersson and Kylington. Also, I just don't want to give up the 6th overall. If he could be had excluding any of those, perfect.
-
The + depends on what they want/need. I would add Hickey, if that's what they wanted. Or a forward prospect not named Shinkaruk or Poirier or Janko. The 6th overall is not on the table, not for just a goalie.
-
Just throwing it out there.... Would there be any interest at all in trading MacDonald + for Vasilevskiy? This is, of course, assuming an expansion draft in 2017. Bishop has to be protected (NMC), so they can't also protect Vasilevskiy. MacDonald may not be in the same class (or even close), but he does get them something exempt from the draft. The + would have to be something interesting, but there is not a lot of teams that need a starter this season.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
We will get something that makes us better. You can't just assume that all will be fine with Ortio and Gillies. There is a possibility that neither will make it. I hope they both do, but you have to manage the risk.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Chimera and Beagle are two players that can bring it. They are infinitely better than Bollig. I'm not sure how long Chimera can play at that level. 37 and still productive? Fiddler's value is in his faceoff ability. If you picked up Chimera, Fiddler, and Beagle, you would need to jetison Stajan, Bouma and Bollig.
-
I don't think there is any chance that we don't get a 2-3 year "answer" this year. If the expansion is announced, I think they protect the new goalie. It's going to cost us something. I think there is still some doubt about Gillies being subject to being claimed. Two years experience? I don't know that 7 games qualifies as a year. It's hard to justify that interpretation if you have to expose 25% of your roster money and protect NMC. I think the GM's will seek to alter those rules a bit.
-
That's all I am doing. Numbers no better than Ramo don't suggest a better goalie, regardless of his playoff performance. He may be, but barring a buy-out/cheap signing as a backup, I don't see him being the answer.
-
I think you have to look at the body of work over the regular season, not just the playoffs. Lettin-it-in had a worse SV% over the last two seasons. At age 32, he could be on a permanent slide, while Ramo could actually improve a bit. Ramo adjusted his style after he cam back from Stockton. He improved a whole lot. No, I am not suggesting Ramo. Too risky for CGY as the starter or even a 1-b. I would prefer we get someone with recent .915+ stats at a minimum.
-
The NHL is full of productive guys approaching 30. In fact, that is the tail end of the prime years. There was no reason for BT to think Raymond couldn't come in and score 20 goals. Sometimes players just don't fit. Hartley's system does not fit all players. Perhaps we are even giving him too much credit for what Johnny and Monahan accomplished. How long did it take to put Johnny and Monahan together? About half a season. If a suitable replacement for Hudler could have been found earlier, then this year could have been a top 2 season for Johnny. Anyway, I digress. BT gets a lot of flack for a few roster decisions, goaltending, and firing BH. The timing makes people question it. I look back to last season during a bad losing streak. He supported the coach then. The team rallied and managed to make the playoffs in spite of some of the curious coaching decisions. BT had two years of Hartley's decision making to evaluate. I think he had seen enough.
-
Any trade involving Rinne would need to include retained salary. Or sending back a huge contract. Wideman and a pick/prospect would be a huge win for CGY. Maybe unrealistic, but at least a starting point for discussion. Nashville is a little light on D after the top 3. Ekholm is an up-and-comer. Jackman has little offense. Great shutdown guy, but adds little. Nashville is a tale of two teams. The older guys like Fisher. The newer guys like Jossi and RJ. What could they possibly want that we can afford?
-
You don't?
-
Playing 1b for your home team at same money vs being traded to a Canadian team (CDN taxes) or some other team not a contender. Generally speaking, he would lose net salary coming to Canada. I can't speak to the player's mindset, but a new team with less salary sounds like a reason to stay put. If he values money versus opportunity that is.
-
The NMC could limit the teams they can talk to. He could make it virtuously impossible to trade by eliminating teams "in the market" for a goalie. I think he has to submit a list of 12 teams (or is it 8) that he wouldn't go to at the start of a season.
-
Pitts is going to have an issue if the expansion occurs. MAF is on a NMC, so he is protected. Makes it a bit harder to protect their "core".
