travel_dude
-
Posts
51,567 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by travel_dude
-
The difference between Tampa and Chicago is the young core they have, mostly on ELC's and cheap contracts. Vasilevskiy is affordable now and into the future, but will likely be the one that they protect. If they can afford both this season, they will keep both and try to trade Bishop or just let him be selected/walk. If Vasilevskiy was available, it would cost similar to what Murray would (a 1st plus other pieces). I don't know that for a fact, but suspect it to be the case. And to make that clear, Murray is not going anywhere.
-
True. The idea term for Bishop would be 3 years. Gives us the chance to get Gillies (or MacDonald or whoever) up to speed, ready to be the #1. Elliott, in my mind, is the better choice of the two. He will get paid, but not as much. I actually think Elliott will be available. He is not their goalie of the future. If they protect a goalie next year, it will be Allen.
-
Like I said, protection of Bishop is not the issue. Vegas can select him and then sign him to a monster deal. Or he goes UFA, which Tampa loses him to anyway. Lose-lose situation. If Bishop wanted $7m over 5 years, we could do that. We were over $8m this past season. Sure, we didn't have Monay, Johnny and Bennett making big bucks. It just means that we don't have any overpriced scrubs on the roster. A 3rd line center can't be earning $3.5m. A 4th line player can't be earning over $2m. A 3rd pairing defenseman can't be earning over $1.5m.
- 13,115 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
As a long-term plan, they either have to commit to their young players (Vasilevskiy, Killorn, Miller, Namestnikov, Kucherov, Paquette, and Nesterov) or to an aging, though elite, goalie. His next deal will be as bad or worse. Without Stamkos they could afford Bishop this year, possibly. But after this year? Tampa has big problems. This year and next year.
- 13,115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
Sure, they can leave him unprotected. What does that do for them? Vegas would snap up that quality a goalie in a heartbeat. Tampa's cap issues run deeper than just Stamkos. They have the following RFA that need deals; Killorn, Miller, Namestnikov, Kucherov, Paquette, and Nesterov. Some of those are gonna cost. Clearing Bishop's salary helps cover the overage for Stamkos, but that's all it does. They still have challenges this year and next year even moreso. They can't afford Bishop today, let alone earning a raise next year.
- 13,115 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
He hasn't played a "professional season" yet; 10 games in the AHL for someone 20 or older. He played 7. By the end of this year, he will have played 1 pro season. Since you have no desire to talk about your preferences, other than vague references, I will let you be. Criticize everyone else's preferences or predictions.
-
Nicely put. We have the Murray part of the equation. Just need the other, equally essential part. Unfortunately, all you are doing is creating a debate about what you say you said. You don't want to discuss them, that's fine. If you don't want to take the time to go through 300 pages of posts to prove you are right, I get that. Maybe there in another thread. All I am am saying is that I can't find any of these mystery people you refer to. I gave you a list of who you have named. All except Ortio, who I think is too obvious to mention. It's a Goaltending thread. People bring up goalies and others debate them. What else is there to talk about in this thread when we don't have any signed to the NHL?
-
Again, I wasn't implying we could get Murray for a 6th++. I was saying that would be the cost. I only saw two other suggestions from you; Saros (Nashville) and the guy that NYI drafted. Since you devote enough time to say that you provided names, why not just provide the names? You keep saying that you have given them, but I just don't see it. Are you talking about the joke names like Steven Harper or Hextall's son (said in jest)? Other than that, do you agree with the rest of my post about Pitts having MAF as their #1 guy while Murray was still developing? Sounds like a good strategy to me. We are missing the MAF or Bishop or Elliott piece of that puzzle right now.
-
Who said salary, I was talking about picks. Thought you were going on about that too, since you mentioned the 6th overall. I must be mistaken then. You suggested those goalies back in May... There is nothing wrong with taking risks on goalies. Tampa and Pitts both found gems in the draft. They both had bonafide starters on their team to give them the time to develop. Neither team went and threw caution to the wind to give their backups 40+ games in a season. If you want to suggest getting the next Murray or Vasilevskiy, I am all for it. Use him as a backup for now until he wins the job and they trade him like they are with Bishop and MAF. Isn't that what we are trying to do with Gillies? Turn him into the next Murray? Get a starter that can win until he is ready to be a backup, then eventually be the starter? Murray, Kuemper, and Gibson are all candidates, but ONLY for the right price, and we can basically rule Murray out of that now. So, as risky as everyone makes young goalies out to be on here, I can't have been that far off based off these playoffs. Otherwise, take a risk on lesser names. Murray and Kuemper were both cheap a season ago. This season, other prospective goalies will be cheap. My proposal is to think long term, and take Inexpensive risks, rather than Overpay and wreck our future to "manage risk". But, if none of those big young names are affordable (Murray, Kuemper, Gibson): Someone like Juuse Saros. (or someone else in that boat)
-
Murray would cost you #6++. Vasilevskiy would be similar in cost, not quite as much. Hutch was re-signed. There's loads of goalie, but how many are available and for what cost. In a year, would we be looking at the results and thinking we blew it? Of your suggested goalies (Keumper, Gibson, Murray, Vasilevskiy), only Keumper is possibly available. He may get re-signed by Minny. Is he another Murray or more like an Ortio,
-
BT was in on the Andersen deal, but did not get the trade done. That's not a slight to him. Hard to compete with a 30th overall if you don't have anything better to offer. Most people see this as being a shallow draft, so maybe Anaheim sees a player that wouldn't fall to 35. Talbot's trade got a 57th, a 79th and a 184th overall. Jones trade got a 2016 first rounder (29th overall) and Sean Kuraly. We didn't miss out on those really. Instead we got Hamilton, Andersson and Kylington, plus we have a 6th overall this year. Last June we had Ortio and Hiller signed for the 2015/16 season. Chillax. We have until June 30th to trade for a goalie before free agency, then another 2.5 months before camp starts.
-
What is the beef? He isn't getting it done according to your timeframes? Andersen was not missed out on; he was dealt out of the conference for a 1st round pick this year and a 2nd next year. I will judge him on his results, not the process. Did he sign Gio to $8m because it didn't require any negotiations or did he take the time to get it right? Same for Brodie. Bouma was a misstep, but that's just a few of is that feel that. It was an overpayment in term and dollars. He's not going to announce what the contract status is until the big guys are signed. Right now there is no signed contract.
-
I wasn't trying to muddy the waters. Tampa is not just looking for picks. They would want at least one roster player back. Maybe the combo of prospects and picks is enough, but I suspect they want at least a role player. Bouma gives them some size. They have a few smaller players. Wideman provides scoring from the backend. Hedman and Stralman represent the bulk of the D scoring. They need some more.
-
That was my point about Ortio. Both players improved at the end of the season, but mostly when we were already out. Ortio was solid in nets most of the time. He wasn't really any better than Ramo before his injury. Unfortunately, until we get a goalie, Twitter will be full of fake tweets from insiders. The Bishop one is suspect, but the sourtce is real and not a rumor monger. The other ones out there are a hoot. Bennett + 6th overal for Bishop. Brodie + 6th for MAF.
-
Ortio didn't do well enough this season to warrant getting a lot more games. Win one, lose one is not a recipe for success. A lot of the wins came at the end of the season against non-playoff teams in semi-tank mode. There were a few really good games against the Pengies and Nashville, while the rest were against the Pacific losers and Winnipeg. Maybe. Elliott has received the short end of the stick in STL. He should be playing more than 43 games. They are trending towards giving Allen more starts, while Elliott put up superior numbers.
-
Reimer is similar to Bernier. Don't really know if he is anything more than a backup. Would be a shame to fix the rest of the roster holes and still have a big one in net. He is really only the last option. You trade for quality. UFA's can ruin a club.
-
Buffalo doesn't really have any holes in nets. Lehner is fine as a 1a/1b goalie on a rebuilding team. They also have Ulmark who played 20 games last year with a 0.913 SA%. Add Chad Johnson who played 45 games with a 0.920 SA%. He's a UFA, but a good option for a backup. I see no need for Buffalo to go against their recent trend of being a young team bringing in quality young players. No team in their right mind takes either of Dallas' two goalies. All they offer is possibly returning to form at a bargain price of $4.5m or $5.9m for two years. Vasilevskiy has 40 NHL games under his belt, plus 7 starts in the playoffs over two years. He's young for a goalie. He has all of 36 games in the KHL and 37 games in the AHL. Not exactly a big body of work. I'm in no way trashing the goalie, just pointing out his limited experience.
-
He has one year left on his contract. Didn't answer the question because it all depends on what kind of season he has in CGY. A playoff appearance gets him $4m+. A middling season gets him a bridge contract. As an aside, reports are out there we are working on a deal for Bishop. Hope one of the pieces going back is Wideman or Bouma or Stajan or Engelland, to help with the cap impact.
-
I would be hesitant to offer #6 for Murray as well. In other words no. Pound sand. He has one year left, so different circumstances. He's not a starter right now, either. It still going to be an expensive deal because of his potential and age. He offers a lot more risk/reward than the bonafide starters potentially available. Elliott and Bishop, contract aside, are my first choices. Both teams have the same issues with two good to very good goalies. I think Elliott may be on the block due to Allen's age and lower cost to re-sign.
-
Dallas doesn't get any return calls from Pittsburg if they are looking to trade one of their goalies for MAF. How do you propose that Dallas clears their two goalies if they are trading picks? For one thing, there are not that many teams looking for a meh goalie on a bad contract. Buffalo already traded for Lehner last year. The other side of the coin is that MAF would never waive his NMC to go to Dallas as a 1a/1b goalie.
-
Oh, sure that is possible. If he was claimed, they lose MAF for nothing. The other thing is that why would MAF agree to waive his NMC to possibly get stuck in Vegas? Very few expansion teams come in as anything more than a rebuilding team. Would not be a contender for quite some time
-
At least it Takes Toronto out of the market now. That leaves it open for MAF, Elliott, Bishop and Vasilevskiy without any really serious other offers. Should be interesting to see who from that list is available. Toronto's 1st from this year beat anything we could have offered, other than #6 overall.
-
Toronto gets Andersen for a 30th. Grrrr.
-
43 regular season last year. 54 the year before. Gibson played in 40 and 23 respectively. Neither has a lengthy NHL career.
-
I read where talks with Andersen are going nowhere. They need him to sign for less than $3m, but no way does he do that. They can't pay him his value, so they may be forced to trade him. They still need to re-sign Lindholm, Rakkel and Pirri. Lindholm isn't going to be cheap, though he may be a bridge deal to help financially.
