Flyerfan52
-
Posts
13,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
138
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Flyerfan52
-
-
3 hours ago, MAC331 said:
I think you are being to picky about losing a 3rd round pick for Elliott to stay. I don't like this attitude settling in of "well that didn't work" so let's try something else. Elliott was a part of why we got as far as we did this season and bringing him back also provides some familiarity for the rest of the team. I would also be for bringing in someone like Grubauer as part of the challenger mix we now have and see where this goes.
How often do we repeat what didn't work? Sometimes you just wash your hands & try something new.
-
2 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
I wouldn't even know where to begin in describing how horrible this move would be. It would make our Oli Jokinen acquisition look brilliant.
Good thing it's not real.
Which of the 2? SBNation's or mine.
-
DGB shared a link to SBNation with an arguement the Flames should trade for Cory Schneider @ a cost of #16OA, Gilles & 1 of Andersson, Hickey or Kylington.
@ 31 with $6 x 5 left on his contract that's a little rich for my blood. Probably worth it for the 1st 2/3 years but since goalies are voodoo that'd be a hard contract to move @ 33/34. He plays a lot but you still need a good b/u for the remaing 20ish games or in case of injury.
Since we don't have a 2nd or 3rd I wonder if the Caps would accept 1 of the 3 D prospects for Grubauer's rights as Shattenkirk & Alzner are probably gone.
-
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:
Does it appear our choices are narrowing down to a choice of Elliott or Mason to go along with Raanta, Grubauer or Korpisalo ?
You could add Bernier & Miller but those 2 seem the most popular. Pavalec is available as UFA too. That's barring a trade & overpaying for Schneider or taking on Halak or another passed over in the ED.
The idea seems to be trade for that almost ready b/u but don't spend additional assets for the insurance policy to tandem with him.
Unless the Caps decide to trade Holtby & keep Grubauer the almost ready combined with a guy that has been a starter feels like the way to go.
-
17 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:
Never did hear the conversation, but was listening to the fan yesterday afternoon and they mentioned they had Burke on last week and one of the topics they discussed was expansion. Steinburg said he left the conversation with the impression that CGY will be waiting until after expansion until they decide which way they address the goaltending. If that is the case then likely a move will be made at the draft in CHI.
The interview with BT on the TSN site gave me the impression the Flames are waiting to deal with Vegas.
I hope not as McPhee will corner the market on the almost ready backups & trade the 1s they like least a @ a premium. If we act now the trading team gains a pick (or other exempt asset) while increasing the chance of losing a skater that doesn't fit their plans & we are in the rather unique situation of being able to protect said goalie. After the draft other teams wanting to upgrade @ backup enter the bidding.
-
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:
I posted a quote from a hockey site, not the rulebook. No point in taking the literal interpretation of it.
Another site I looked through stated that CGY had to sign (or trade for) a NHL goalie prior to providing the protection list. Neither Rittich nor Gillies meet the rquirements. It's pretty vague, but I don't think you simply can choose not to protect a goalie.
Worst case we protect Johnson (you can protect a UFA) & then just don't offer him a contract.
Personaly I'd like to have a goalie worth protecting under contract before the draft as we are 1 of the few that can trade for rights & sign a Grubauer or Raanta knowing we can protect him.
-
Just now, cross16 said:
Sounds like they were sending guys in order to maximize the LTIR credit. If you can become cap complaint with the player that is better but it's not required.
I'll repeat. HAD to send down. Until LTIR was finalized they couldn't ice a full squad.
-
21 minutes ago, cross16 said:
It depends on the situation the team is in. If you are under the cap with the LTIR player then you are better to wait and put him on LTIR once the season starts. But if you are over the cap and that will get you under you can do it before the season. Don't know the flyers well enough to know what theirs was but you have options when it comes to LTIR.
The Flyers had to send players down to be compliant. Game day they could call them up.
That only works if you have waiver exempts.
-
1 hour ago, cross16 said:
in a situation like Franzens where the player is not going to play or report to camp you can put him on LTIR before the season and be cap compliant day 1. You do not need to be cap complaint with Franzen.
So Franzen does effectively give them 10 mill in cap space because his LTIR credit is in effect right away before the season opens. They had to do the same thing last year as they were over the cap before training camp
It didn't work with Pronger. Not even after he was officially on the Flyers roster but also employed by the NHL.
-
3 minutes ago, cross16 said:
That includes Franzen, who probably will never play again, so that's another 4 mill in cap space. 10 mill in cap space with really only Tatar to sign (who won't be that pricey) is not a cap issue in my mind.
The problem with Mrzaek is your selling low. So if you are Detroit do you sell low on him or do you bank on him coming back next year and being the goalie of the future he was looking like 2 years ago. I'm thinking Detroit does the later
Nope. That's 4 mill in LTIR but limits signings as he counts against the cap until the season starts & he can go on LTIR. That limits signings until after since the team can exceed the cap during the summer but must be compliant by the opener.
-
2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
What if he decided to retire though? I guess it is a lot of money to give up.
After his playoffs (& WC Gold) this year he'll play @ least 1 more. By then Raanta will have moved on.
The Rags best bet is to ask for a good, exempt goalie prospect as partial return.
-
48 minutes ago, robrob74 said:
I know the Lundquist is one of the best in the business, but (not just asking you, asking everyone) do they have a succession plan for him? How many more years left on him? They may need to start thinking of it and he lost his role for a bit this past season. So dealing a goalie might not be in their plan.
He's under contract for 4 more years so they are hoping he can remain a top goalie until he's 39-40 like Brodeur. Raanta is UFA July 1, 2018 & @ 28 will be tired of being in "The King" shadow.
Getting something for him now (the other goalies they can expose amount to little) might even help as it would force LV to take a bigger contract off their hands.
-
On 2017-05-28 at 3:07 PM, cross16 said:
Cap space isn't an issue for them so yes I could see them doing that. I think they'd rather pay the 10 mill and give Mrzaek a chance to bounce back and prove what he was a few seasons ago rather than give up on him now.
Huh? Detroit has under $6 million in cap space with a roster of 18, Tatar to re-sign & a roster of 18.
They could expose Howard (likely to no avail as a 33 year old with 5.3 x 2 on his contract isn't a need between the pipes for LV) but end up with that same $10 spent in net . They'll like lose what they can least afford with an empty pipeline in a young skater.
Since it'll be a while until they are competitive again they might as well get something for Mrazek before they have to qualify him @ over $4 million just to retain his rights after the season. Next years cap doesn't look much better as only Green & a batch of RFAs come off the payroll.
-
5 hours ago, MAC331 said:
When was Mason an AS I don't ever recall him being very good but what do I know. I would still like to see us get a goalie the team could grow with and become part of the core.
2nd AS Team 2009.
OHL Goaltender of the Year 2007.
-
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:
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.
As good a guess as any.
I expect to see big salaries exposed if they don't have/would waive a NMC. Even if they prefer to stay put they are likely safe with a big $ contract for declining performance.
If I was a GM I expose what can be replaced easiest after trading the 1s of value that aren't in the long term future. (Wild & Duckies don't have that option unless they trade all the young, good players they can't protect).
-
1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:
yup..like I mentioned before , what would have happened if Anaheim didnt jump the gun and trade Anderson last year .. or even for that matter, what about if St Louis had kept Elliot one more year ...both those series could have been affected
That one does still baffle me to a degree.. St Louis had the perfect situation.. 2 studs in a tandem, one goes RFA one UFA same time.. protect Allen, trade Elliots rights this year.. im sure the return wouldn't have been much different than the 2nd and Cond 3rd they got from us
The Blues still had Shattenkirk (who would have helped if kept for the playoffs), were really tight to the cap & needed to re-sign Schwartz & some lesser lights before the season started.
I'm sure ideally they would have kept Elliott & Brouwer but that pesky cap means descisions.
Elliott's UFA rights would carry no value. We gave up what we did for a year of a goalie. If BT offered his rights he'd get strange looks from the other GMs.
-
11 hours ago, travel_dude said:
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 agree with the bolded. That's dang near all of it.
I like those combos but have a gut feeling Hex is just waiting for the ED to be over to re-sign Mason (if LV doesn't take him). I've read scuttlebutt about that on Flyers sites.
In that case I'm starting to lean towards signing Bernier as that fallback plan. Like Mason & Elliott when he's hot he's red hot but when he's cold he can stink the place out. I'd rather have Mason but Bernier would be my 2nd choice as of now if we go the UFA route (& I believe we will).
-
4 hours ago, cross16 said:
No i'm saying for what I would be willing to pay for Grubauer the Capitals would be better off leaving him for the expansion draft or probably just keeping him for depth.
Cory Schneider had 32 more games & was 3 years older NJ when traded the 9th OA (Bo Havat) for him.
I'm not saying trade our 16th OA for him but I'd start the offer with next years 2nd & a good prospect.
-
15 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
No argument that our defense still needs to get better .. My point is that every goalie has strengths and weaknesses.
some have 5 hole issues, Kipper was brutal in Shootouts, apparently Holtby has a "tell" in regards to his glove hand etc..every goalie has one
Elliot, has an issue apparently with ice level shots when hes being screened .. which our team gives up, ..bad combo
HIs style, is not conducive to the possession system we will be playing ..its not his fault, in a different system he can be lights out..one where traffic is diverted to the outside perimeter most of the time .
Ironically , under Hartley's system where the defense was taught "block first ask questions later " ..he likely would have been a brick wall
We can't change the whole team to fit the goalie (Rinne would probably not do well with our D) but it's BT's job to find a goalie that suits what he will face in Calgary. I'm not into the extended #s tracking where shots come from so will leave it to the Flames #s guy to make suggestions. I just use the eye test. But I do believe in adding defense (preferably on defense) to give him a fighting chance. There is room for a few pure gunners (like P Kane in Chicago) but you can't have most of the forwards likely to get top minutes be spectators when the other team is hauling (.) toward your 'keeper. I'll give up a little skill for heart.
& you are right about the systems. Under Hartley there would be less pressure/rubber faced on the goalie. Same with Sutter. Now we need 1 that stops easy 1s & prays we score more than what gets past him.
*************************************************************************
I remember an interview with Monahan on him watching game film on every center to catch tendencies so he could beat them. He's improving a tad every year but that is only 1 facet of his job as a center.
Scheifele takes about 1 week off & then is back to working with Adam Oates & Gary Roberts to be the best he can be by catching what he sees as weaknesses (he watches a lot of game film) & coming back even better the next year . Hawerchuk saw that in junior & mentioned it to the Jets (big reason they took him when Couts was available).
I'm not scoffing @ Monahan or Bennett's work ethic but if they had that same drive they could be greats as they do have the tools. I guess it comes down to wanting to be the best (Scheifele wants to be the best in the league).
-
14 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
more fire fuel to suggest we're targeting MAF
Hope not.
-
6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Francois Allaire fired by the AVS. I thought he was one of the better ones. Could he be a target for the Flames?
I certainly hope so. He seems to be the "goali whisperer".
He also has history with Burke from the Ducks & Leafs.
-
We can pursue players on teams no longer playing. I'm a bit surprised to see that neither the Flyers nor Flames have traded for the rights to Grubauer, Raanta, etc. yet (Jets can't as it means exposing Hellebuyck).
After the draft it means dealing with Vegas.
Just a thought but I wonder if @ least 1 team isn't willing to expose their ready for prime time b/u knowing they'll lose him because it means they don't lose a skater. As long as they value that skater more than the 2nd/3rd pick they'd recieve it would be the way to go.
The teams with the most to lose (Wild & Ducks) can't do that but Nashville could sacrifice Mazanek knowing they have Saros in the pipe & even @ 8-1 protect all their D but unlikely to lose a forward.
-
4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
If they ate half his salary I might risk him in the #2 spot.. low risk/ high reward for 2.95M
True but I'm kind of saving that spot for a starter to back up Grubauer.
-
2 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
I wondered about that too, but the state they're in I can see them protecting him and trying to unload Varlamov. 2 hip surgeries, he'll likely get passed over by LV. Depending how much you want to gamble , that's 2 years at 5.9.. he may be 100% or never the same again .
True 'nough. I've heard they were trying to unload Varlamov.
I'm not ready to take that risk on Varlamov.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
With Smith still carrying a $5.67 cap hit for 2 years it's expensive for a bridge goalie. Especially when you add the assets lost in the cost of acquisition.
I'm all for a Grubauer or Raanta tandemed with a former starter like Mason. If we did that with MAF we run into the Pittsburgh situation with 2 probable starters wanting 50ish games but not enough starts for either. Besides, I'm counting on paying Grubauer or Raanta (after next season @ 1.0) in the range of 3.5-4.0 so MAF & Smith cost more than I think we should pay for the other 1/2 of the tandem. Either of the young guys will cost assets in trade but vets like Mason in UFA cost only the contract. If we get Smith/MAF we'd be better off $s wise to just sign a cheap UFA b/u for 1.0-1.5.
Gotta balance the cost to get them & total $s rather than just go for names.