Flyerfan52
-
Posts
13,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
138
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Flyerfan52
-
-
6 minutes ago, MAC331 said:
Can you say he can't ?
What he said was he wanted an insurance policy rather than a career backup with the unproven 1 we hope is our future Kipper.
If Grubauer, Raanta does shoulder the load thats great. Like me he's hedging his bet by having the other goalie capable of more than relief.
-
4 hours ago, travel_dude said:
No to the deal with the Flyers. It's probably fair to both teams, but I don't know that Schenn gives us enough back for losing two centers.
Yes to the Hanifin and/or Murphy. RM would need to be protected, so that might need to hold off until the 22nd. Hard to know what the cost would be.
Schenn was drafted as a center but was converted. The fact Stajan & Backlund are both centers means little as I doubt both are still Flames next year,
Regardless Schenn is 25 & has a 5.125 x 3 contract, plays all 3 forward positions & could fill that need @ 1st line RW.@ worst he's a top 6 to replace Backlund.
It might also force Bennett into assuming that #2 C role like we've been expecting. The clock is ticking on that.
I made the deal 2 for 2 because I honestly don't see any 1 part we have that Hex would accept straight across for Manning. I could do that easy from the Jets storehouse of forwards but I went with what I saw as less costly for the Flames.
The Flames add toughness in both zones @ the cost of 2 pending UFAs while saving a few $s. That does sound unfair so let's have the Flames add a conditional draft pick if Backlund doesn't re-sign.
Carolina will likely expose & lose Murphy in the LV draft. No matter as the 1 I want is Hanifin. I'm still game to lose Gio's contract to the draft instead of waiting like we did with Iggy. If not we expose Murphy.
Part of it is without Brouwer we have 1 more space to protect a forward because Brouwer's trade value alone makes him 1 we should protect. Since the Canes have room to protect him I see this as before the draft or they might as well trade whichever D(s) are left for a better offer. (Hanifin is a LD so I imagine the Jets trying to land him after the draft. Some of those young forwards that are surplus in Wpg. would be more attractive to Carolina than Brouwer IMO but the Jets can't add D until after the 22nd.)
Like I said in the goalies thread I see some deals as time sensitive.
-
2 hours ago, MAC331 said:
???? if we are trading for Grubauer at all it will be because BT believes he can be our starter, other wise don't waste the assets.
You spend the assets now while Gruber, Raanta, Mrazek, etc. is available for fairly small assets as the other team prefers something over the nothing they get if LV picks him. After the draft the chances of landing our young, developed behind a starter that won't be unseated go down or get more costly. The teams likely losing 1 can't ask much as there are few teams bidding due to most having a goalie they want to protect. If LV lands 4 of them they'll keep the best 2 or 3 so we don't land the cream but because others will bid just to improve their backup LV has a seller's market. If say a Grubauer isn't picked by LV the Caps have no reason to trade him for less than a top end return. Or if they make 1 available the team like the Caps that lost 1 will bid because even the next goalie in most systems is a few years away & unproven.
Even if the 1 BT decides on isn't ready this year odds are he will be next year. That's why we hedge the bet with a former stater.
There will be vets that are former starters available as UFA to cushion the transition or be the starter if the 1 BT opts for isn't quite ready. Given that few teams can even offer them the chance they will be the starter prices should be low. For instance if Bernier want's 4 x 3 but Mason (a starter most years) 3.5 x 2 you tell Bernier that you'll give him a bit under what Mason asked but if he wants to take his chances we wish him good luck.
We tried 2 career backups last year. That was less than awe inspiring. To me an apt pupil stuck behind a top 5 paired with a guy used to being a starter sounds the better bet.
-
4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
Ok, so I am going to backtrack a bit.
Trade for Grubauer or Raanta.
Sign Mason in FA.
The total cost would be likely less than MAF alone.
Still looks good to me.
**********************************************************
Side note to phoenix, Mason will be UFA (@ least until after the LV draft) but you are right about Reimer.
-
1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:
Interesting article.. id be ok with almost any of these 6 pairings(aside from the fact since it was written the concept of Murray is a non starter now ). I also question the availability of Saros.. but all in all , great options
http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/05/perfect-pairings-sommeliers-guide-to.html
I don't mind any of the suggestions made. The names are pretty much what we've mentioned in this thread though & with the alternate pairings mentioned some parallel what some of us have said. He didn't mention Mason though.
A decent article.
I'm still big on Grubauer & would like him paired with 1 of Mason, Bernier, Elliott or even Reimer.
-
59 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
was he the one that Ran McDavid?
Didn't run him although a year later after an on ice comment McDavid (& his cheerleader Don Cherry) reversed his comments of a year ago about hitting a rut. Manning & Gudas actually double teamed McDavid on that hit.
That said, I think Manning is someone we could & should add. 18+ minutes but only 12 points. He's 26 which is prime time for a D but the mold is cast so don't expect him to ever become a gunner. 0.975 x 1 then UFA (but should be easy to re-sign fairly cheap.
Flyers likely protect him but would trade him after the ED to make room for yet another young D. The need there is forwards. Now that Hex has a bit of cap space I see a package deal of Manning & Schenn for Backlund & Stajan (if unclaimed) as possible. (BTW, Capfriendly shows Schenn as C/LW but he seems more @ home @ RW when he was played there.)
**************************************************************************************************
I was reading off season game plan about Carolina @ TSN. Hanifin seems available & Murphy out of favor. I'd like to scoop both as Hanifin (20 & on last year of ELC) fills our top 4 need while Murphy (24, 1 year @ 0.878 then RFA) could be a cheap reclaimation project.
There also the need is forwards. Since they have cap space maybe we can interest them in Brouwer.
-
On 2017-05-19 at 4:32 PM, The_People1 said:
It's a weak draft but the top 6 this season is still considered as good as last season's 3rd to 6th (Puljujarvi, Dubios, Joulevi, and Tkachuk). It's going to cost more than cap space to move up into the 3rd spot.
Although, I like the idea.
Is this maybe where we trade Backlund?
If we trade Backlund I wouldn't take Niemi off their hands unless they also took Brouwer. That means they fill out their forwards @ a cost of 3.75, shed Niiemi but lose that 3rd OA. That leaves Dallas 12 to fill out their D so doable.
If they insist I'd take Eakin off their hands to fill a role here as he's much better than last years stats (although I wish he had more of his dad's meanness).
-
1 minute ago, manu11 said:
Thanks for the reply!
Obviously, I suggested Postma for that o-zone oriented scenario. I like Del Zotto, but I don't think he would sign under $3m. I'd look for cheaper options like Quincey or maybe Polak. We shouldn't put too much money in our D, especially in the bottom three.
With Del Zotto I was thinking more of the 4th D but the signing cost depends on his other offers. I've seen what he can do but last season wasn't 1 or his better 1s. If we get him @ 3 we've got a bargain because I see him as top 4 but @ 3 he fits what I see as reasonable for a #5 to slide into top 4 if/when needed.
We do have 17.7 wrapped up in 4 D (Bart @ 0.6, Gio @ 1st D price of 6.75, Hamilton @ 5.75 which is also 1st pair wages & Brodie earning his 4.65) so we're limited in how much we can add.
Many won't like this but Gio's NTC includes 19 teams he can be traded to. Some obviously won't need/want him but if BT can find 1 trade partner that lessens the load so we can add say a $4 million top 3 & the same $s @ #4 for a total of 19 but a better overall D.
My ideal under a 73 million cap is 8 for goalie, 20-25 for a dang good D (Nashville spends 20 but they have 3 top 4s @ bargain price) & the remainder on forwards.
But, I see the beauty of prevented goals as @ least = to goals scored. Few do!
-
2 hours ago, manu11 said:
I didn't really want to turn that into a discussion about the Nr.4, even though I get the feeling if the likes of Stone or B.Smith isn't good enough for a 4th D you are more looking for a Nr.3 guy IMO.
I just wanted to find out what kind of player would be best to sign for the bottom three. If they only play the 4th line regardless of zone start, we probably still could use a guy like Engelland, but if our top4 takes the majority of the starts in the D-zone and our bottom pair gets mostly starts in the O-zone then we should look for more of a puck moving D-man, for example someone like Postma.
Postma is UFA so costs only a contract. But believe me you won't want him.
If going for a Jets D as a 4/5 I'd put in an offer to them (or LV) for Chiarot's RFA rights. He just keeps getting better, A late bloomer.
As UFA I'd go for Del Zotto last of the Flyers.
Trades for a #3/4 I've mentioned in a few threads.
**************************************************************************
The likelihood of the 3rd pairing getting the starts in the o-zone are slim unless we have a huge lead. That is where you try to make hay with your best players on the ice.
So to answer that ? your bottom pairing needs to be more defensive than offensive in the few minutes of ice they see.
-
12 minutes ago, manu11 said:
I have a question for you guys:
If we can add a top4 this season (whether that is Stone or someone else), what role do you expect for our bottom pair next season? Will they get a lot of offensive starts or do they get a mix of zone starts against weaker competition?
I'm hoping we add a 4th D better than Stone & then re-sign Stone as a 4/5 type for if/when needed.
Should we get a 4/5 he'll probably be partnered with Bart or a prospect (with Bart @ 28 I think what we see is what we get) for the low minutes to rest the top 4. The 4/5 might get as high as 15 minutes but his partner maybe 10. Main use comes when the other team has their 4th line on the ice.
Most coaches plat the heck out of their top 4 (more so than the top 6 forwards) & I don't think GG is any different.
3rd pairing will remain a spot for an extra probably partnered with a trainee.
In games where 7 D are dressed that spot is usually used on a "Sideshow Bob" on a precautionary dressing if a higher D has just returned from illness/injury.
-
35 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Until you are 27 you need to sign an entry level contract, irregardless of your previous experience. So maximum base you are gojng to get is around 900k with the potential to earn a little more than 3 million if you hit bonuses. To hit the full 3 million you are talking be a top producer, like Panarin, winning awards etc. In essence, good luck as a international free agent making much more than 1-1.5 million on an ELC. Good chance a lot of them already make that or more playing at home. That also assumes they actuakky make the NHL. What is far more common is they will be on the AHL making 100k or so. That's why you typically see players wait until there is a bidding war because why are they going to come over to spend time in the AHl? Might as well stay home And make more money.
Flames are always going to be at a bit of a disadvantage here too as are other smaller market clubs. You are trying to convince someone who has lived in Europe their whole life to move to Calgary, Alberta Canada. And oh I'm top of that your proabbky spend a lot of time in Stockton California. Hard sales pitch when you are competing against big markets and clubs who sometimes even have the farm team in the same place so the player just needs to buy 1 apartment.
So its a real compelx process. On top of this the player has to want to play in Na, not always the case, have to not be under contract, not easy to find out sometimes, and then they have to pick the Flames out of 30 teams. It's tough.
All true.
There is also the fact that most Euro kids dream of Olympic Gold while NA kids are about the SC. So playing closer to home, staying in your culture, being able to pull on your country's jersey trump playing NHL for all but the most competitive (though many of those made the trek to play junior in NA for the hockey & to aclimatise to the culture). But since there is no guarantee they make it the much lower $s of the AHL side of an ELC is a deterant.
There is still the odd gem to be found so if a vet Euro player still has the itch to prove he can play in the best league in the world I'm willing to give him that chance if it's low risk/low cost on the chance he is an NHLer. What is likely to cause an influx of those however is the report the KHL is going to contract by 6 teams.
I see undrafted college players as just as likely to be that raw gem & there isn't the cultural baggage. Same with the undrafted late bloomers in juniors. The biggest bidding wars seem to be on the NAs meeting that description or the collegians that spurn their drafting team to go UFA (remember we feared Gaudreau would do that?).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
They get points for figuring out McDavid was a good pick?
Nope. For finally figuring out that a decade of sucking was useless until they landed 1 worth being taken 1st.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jjgallow said:
Well, according to Darren Dreger, which is basiclaly all the info we have, he's an "offensive D-man". So I'm not sure how much of your arguement applies. You could be severely dissapointed in terms of his game transating to what you see at a D position. And those hoping for offense may also be dissapointed, because I don't see anything spectacular there.
But, between Darren Dreger and endorsement from the Oilers, what more could we ask for?
I don't know why you quoted me twice & said basically the same thing.
Yes. I could be disappointed in his game translating to the NHL but I could be disappointed in any prospect transitioning from the AHL, junior or a Euro team. I'll reiterate that I'm willing to take a chance on a cheapish 2 way contract.
As far as the Oilers I don't care about who they endorse. They've done that in a range from McDavid to Yakupov by selecting them 1st OA.
-
3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
I don't think anyone said that defensemen don't have to play defense.
Do you see big things for Rutta in the NHL next year then? Sounds like you do.
Not really. I don't see players from the Euro leagues enough to form a real opinion as the international events are a different style of play than the NHL.
But I'm willing to take a chance given I'm not really impressed by our D prospects.
A cheapish 2 way contract I'll gamble on for a grown player to see if his games translates from a Euro league.
-
40 minutes ago, jjgallow said:
20 years ago, man. game's changed.
Those are all extremely valid qualifiers to ask After a player/defenseman's performance is clearly shown, including offense.
But if you don't have the offense or the stats....not much point in looking for further qualifiers anymore.
In that case just have 5 fprwards on the ice every shift.
30+ years. This is no longer the "run & gun" 80s.
-
36 minutes ago, The_People1 said:
So,
To Flames,
Niemi
3rd overall
To Stars,
McCollum
16th overall
Sounds too good to be true if that's all it takes to move up to#3... Even though 3rd overall is found money for the Stars.
Nope.
Deal 1:
To Flames:
Niemi
3rd OA
To Dallas:
Calgary 1st round pick (probably #16 OA)
4.5 million in cap space
Deal 2:
To Calgary:
Grubauer (or a different current b/u)
To other team:
McCollum
A meh prospect or a 2nd or 3rd in 2018
-
1 hour ago, The_People1 said:
So you counter with,
To Flames,
Lehtonen
Niemi
Anaheim 1st round pick
To Stars,
Brouwer
Looks good to me. Again, we have no goalies right now. Lehtonen is slightly better than Elliott skill-wise. Niemi could bounce back since we have better D than the Stars.
I don't want Lehtonen nor Niemi & am not 1 that wants to give up on Brouwer yet.
With Dallas I'm thinking more about Nill stating that he's willing to move pick #3 OA. I'd be willing to take Niemi off their hands & expose him rather than McCollum for flipping 1st rounders & we add a neh prospect. It's a weaker draft but that gives us 1st pick of the rest after the Debbies & Flyers take the 2 main centers. Saves Dallas the buyout & dead space $s. If LV doesn't take him we have an expensive b/u for a year.
Then we use McCollum as part of the deal to land a current b/u from a team that doesn't have anyone else to expose (Caps, Rags.) or even the Pengies if BT wants MAF.
Heck, we could even use that 3rd OA as an offer for Schneider if NJ wants to fast track their rebuild.
-
1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:
Yea I didnt know that. But im wondering what talbots numbers were against playoff teams before his trade, because im assuming those games against playoff teams were also on back to backs sometimes. Im just assuming based on BTs comments that hes not looking at someone like MAF,, I think hes either going for a younger guy or sticking with our current tandem as a placeholder for our younger prospects.
I'm still liking what I saw against Canada yesterday. 50 freaking shots against & only 2 goals allowed.
Those weren't 50 low % shots either!
-
8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:
Im wondering how many are going to use the Sign and trade scenario?
for example.. to solve the MAF issue with no exposable goalies..
We get LV to sign Johnson , .. we've now lost our player
we then trade for MAF, include McCollum in the deal.. PITT now has an exposable Goalie
- LV then trades us Johnson back for the 3rd rounder we no longer have to give St Louis
What do we give Vegas to take pending UFA Johnson instead of a player? & LV can't trade a player selected back to the team he was selected from.
-
16 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Yup. UFA only counts if Vegas negotiates a deal with them prior to the draft.
What i I said above. Do the gain something for Grubaeur and then lose Orlov for nothing or just lose Grubaeur because he's a luxury they don't need to replace. You are going to lose a player for free no matter what so why not lose one at a position of the least impact?
I guess it depends on the offer. We have no goalie to protect so we could trade Stajan for him so the Caps can expose him.
The Caps could also re-sign Orlov & expose 36 year old Orpik with his 5.5 x 2 contract since they could use a bit of cap room to reload (that'd go a long way to keeping Shattenkirk &/or Oshie).
It's early & there are so many variables it's hard to say who will be exposed let alone taken. I just hope BT makes a reasonable offer to try to solve our goalie shortage.
-
7 minutes ago, cross16 said:
That isnt how it works. In order to meet the exposure requiments you either have to be under contract for next season (as in 2017-18) or an RFA who receives their qualifying offer prior the draft. UFAs are exempt from the expansion draft.
So Wideman & Engelland are exempt?
What stops the Caps from extending Copley on a 2 way minimum contract to meet exposure to garner a return rather than lose Grubauer for nothing.
-
18 minutes ago, cross16 said:
Copley isn't as of now no as he is a UFA. They'd have to sign him. I'm fairly certain you cannot sign players anymore for this current league year unless they are on your reserve list. I believe the signing deadline for UFAs has passed.
but same old thing they are going to lose someone so what are you getting from Grubauer a 2nd? Is a 2nd worth losing both Grubaeur and Orlov when you could only lose Grubauer?
Like all others Copley isn't UFA until July 1. So he meets the exposure requirement.
Grubauer needn't be exposed so might as well get something rather than expose him along with Copley unless you value less than the return & the player you expect to lose. (BTW, I'd give up a mid range 1st this year for Grubauer)
-
4 hours ago, cross16 said:
I don't think Grabauer is going to be an option for the Flames. Capitals only have he and Holtby to expose and they are not going to expose Hotlby. I'm betting Grabauer gets claimed by Vegas in the expansion draft given McPhee originally drafted him, they want at least 1 young goalie to groom, and he is easily the best piece you are going to get off Washington once they protect who they should protect.
The only downside is he is an RFA but given Vegas can likely offering him more playing time, a brighter future and maybe even more $ i can't see that being a tough negotiation. Would come down to does Vegas prefer Grabauer or Dimitry Orlov and I think Grabauer is by far the more attractive piece for them.
The problem with that arguement is that Washington could sign someone like Ray Emery in the month left to expose. That's a backup plan if Phoenix Copley doesn't meet exposure regulations (I believe he does).
The Caps pocket a fairly high draft pick or @ lest decent player/prospect (more than worth it) rather than lose Grubauer for nothing.
-
6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:
We had several chances to win games against Ahaheim, but failed to deliver. Scoring one goal in an elimination game isn't impressive. I suppose you could argue that the meltdown was all on the goalie, but what happened to the pushback after the Ducks scored to make it 4-3?
No matter who we get for next year, we better fix the lineup (or usage) so we aren't overplaying role players when we need scoring.
That's why I'm for slightly downgrading our forward talent for more heart & upping our D.
With a better D & goalies it wouldn't cause hearts up front to drop going down a goal.
When we had Kipper & an excellent D every game was viewed as winable. It was only when his backup (unproven because they were spectators) would let in a goal (soft or hard) that they were demoralized. With a proper tandem where 1 was a starter & the other believes he can be (isn't behind Holtby or Lundqvist) there shouldn't be that fall off.
Goaltending
in Flames Talk
Posted
Wondering what the Avs (or LV) would want for Pickard. I forgot during the Worlds he's b/u to Varlamov.