kehatch
-
Posts
10,467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by kehatch
-
I wonder how interested Treliving really was in Fleury and Bishop vs him creating leverage to lower the cost on Elliott. It sounds like it was almost a done deal for Bishop pending contract talks, but reports were the Flames never even contacted Bishop.
-
Hutton is another. Though I would prefer to go for a younger guy like Kuemper who has a chance to mature into a starter.
-
One of the media types (can't remember who) was suggesting that if the Flames got a workhorse like Bishop Ortio would stay. But if the got a guy like Elliott or Reimer then the Flames would be looking for a backup. I kind of agree with that, but I won't be upset if Ortio gets the shot.
-
The best thing I can say about the Elliot trade (and the Tkachuk pick) is it feels right. You can discuss these things to death before they happen, but some just seem to fit. I do winder is this is the end of Ortio though. Elliot hasn't carried a heavy workload so the Flames may go out and get someone they are more comfortable playing 30 games or so. I don't know if they trust Ortio that much. I wouldn't be surprised to see us pick up someone like Kuemper tomorrow or tonight.
-
Who is available to sign to a 1 year deal that will be a competent starter? Fleury is ideal in my opinion. Good contract and the term aligns with the Flames system. If Pittsburgh wants the moon that changes things, but right now he is my top pick based on his contract. That said, all three are solid options (as is Reimer) at the right price and contract.
-
I don't think Pittsburgh wants to start the season with a 5.5 million dollar back up. Fleury doesn't want to spend his prime years on the bench and thst is a distraction they don't need. They could use the cap space. Plus, the longer they wait the higher the risk they can't move Fleury and that costs them Murray. Tampa is in real cap trouble and have a cheap alternative to Bishop. Plus Bishop is a UFA. They might lose Stamkos for nothing and he missed the playoffs. Do they want to do the same thing with Bishop? Sure neither needs to make a trade now. But in both cases there is a real chance they want to make the trade this summer. Preferably this weekend before Calgary finds an alternative.
-
If the Flames are targeting Reimer then they move on from Ortio. I could see something like Reimer and Kuemper as a tandem. But I think the Flames still try for Varlamov, Fleury, or someone like that.
-
Agreed. Andersen was attractive based on his age and the potential of being a long term solution. But guys like Varlamov or Fleury might be better options for the Flames. The term is inline with the development of Gilles, the cost is lower, and they are more proven as NHL starters. Yup. It puts the contract of Fleury and others in perspective. I budgeted 6 million for a starter. People told me I was nuts, but that is what it's going to cost.
-
Agreed. Anaheim was only trading in the division for a premium or if there weren't any other buyers.
-
Andersen traded to Toronto for a 30th and 2017 second. Not all that expensive. Next to come Fleury to Calgary.
-
I agree they don't have to trade him and I agree that gives them more leverage in a trade. I estimated it would cost us two seconds and a B prospect to acquire him and I still stand by that. But I do think trading him makes sense. It's tough to pay your backup 5.5 million and the longer they hold onto Fleury the more his value will go down (especially if he is playing backup.) A deadline deal makes little sense. Teams don't trade for term at the deadline and teams will have their starter. Plus Pittsburgh will be a contender and trading Fleury in the season is a change / distraction they don't need. Do they really want to risk a narrow window between the season ending and the expansion draft? Plus, they run the risk of not being able to trade him. He will be a 5.5 million dollar backup next season and teams like Calgary are going to move to another option if he isn't available this summer. He could get hurt. He may be more likely to refuse to waivers is NMC since he isn't facing a year as a backup (Pittsburgh would be forced to move Murray freeing the starter position up.) It would be a shame for Pittsburgh if they lost Murray because they are forced to protect Fleury.
-
It's Francis, but he sums up the benefits of Fleury nicely here: http://m.calgarysun.com/2016/06/15/eric-francis-calgary-flames-goaltending-answer-is-evident--marc-andre-fleury
-
I doubt it on Fleury. Pittsburgh can't afford to take back salary. Maybe with the Flames taking salary, but I think a low cost salary dump is the most likely scenario. On Andersen, I don't think you can worry about Gilles yet. An established goalie won't prevent Gilles from getting his start. My concerns about Andersen are the price to acquire, the price to sign him, and his talent level in general. Looking at just the stat sheet he looks like a decent enough goalie. But watching him play and looking at the number of starts he gets I have to wonder how good of a starter he will be. Don't get me wrong. I like Andersen and would be happy if the Flames got him for the right price. But if you are talking about big assets to acquire him and a 5+ million contract with term to sign him I start to get a little worried. Fleury should be cheap to acquire and only has 3-years under contract and we know he can carry a starter load.
-
Andersen is another very reasonable target for the Flames. One has to wonder though if the Flames acquiring Andersen would mean the end of Ortio. The vibe from one of the Treliving interviews was that they would be okay with Ortio if paid with an experienced starter, but not in a tandem. Andersen has never carried a heavy workload.
-
There is no question the Flames need to upgrade at more then just goal. Coaching will be changed. Hopefully we see some roster changes as well. But our top 3D is strong, we have good centre depth, and we have some strong defensive wingers. Goaltending was a problem all on its own last season. It wasn't the only problem, but it was a big one. We had two underperforming veterans and a disappointing rookie that led to one of the worst performances in modern NHL history. Meanwhile none of those guys are under contract and goalies should be available due to the expansion draft. Of course Treliving is going to take advantage of the market and address goaltending. Thst should set the stage to stabilize the net, improve confidence in the players, and create an environment that young goalies can enter into and be successful.
-
Not to mention that the last Matt Murray became Matt Murray playing with Fleury.
-
I was with you in being interested. That said, we just finished bottom 5 while Pittsburgh won the cup. Kessel doesn't bridge that gap for us. It is very possible that if we did make the trade someone else would be reviving this thread to tell the three of us how wrong we were.
-
The bottom line is the Flames just had the fourth worst goaltending season in NHL history. Your suggestion to solve that is either to: a) Go with a combination of the same three guys from last season or, Put Ortio together with another unproven player Neither is a fix. Not even close. The rest is drama and hyperbole. Every trade ever made is a cast off. The basic fact is the Flames need to get better in net and to do that they need to acquire a goalie. A soap box speech doesn't change that. Fleury won't be expensive to acquire so there isn't any need for dramatics about trading away our future. He was the starter in Pittsburgh when Murray developed so there shouldn't be any dramatics about this blocking our young guys future. Edit: You may be able to look back one day and justify why you were against us trading for Fleury. But in absence of a practical alternative that certainly won't make you right.
-
Your fighting a losing battle because you refuse to be reasonable. Suggesting you don't like Fleury is fine. But you are suggesting that he is terrible because he had a 920 save percentage and that despite his 60+ games a season he isn't a starter. (I guess Price isn't a starter because he lost out to Halak in the playoffs one season?) Your big beef has been to find a long term starter via the system. Well the Penguins just found Murray with Fleury as their starter. There is nothing wrong with the Flames using Fleury as a stop gap for Gilles or another.
-
Fleury is a legitimate NHL starter in our price range. He is probably the best legitimate starter available in a reasonable price. Tough to find too many reasons to dislike the player. Good starter and clearly he doesn't block the prospects given what just happened with Murray.
-
I agree it makes a lot of sense. We were talking about that a bit earlier. Take it for what it is, but Eklund has jumped on this and is rating Fleury to Calgary ad E4.
-
It's a one year deal and we aren't in danger of running out of contracts. You will probably see more NHL deals thrown out by the Flames to get talent on the AHL team. I am not saying the Flames aren't curious about his upside. But getting a good (not great) player in a secondary league doesn't scream future NHL upside.
-
As I said, i haven't discounted Reimer. But I don't think you can fairly say the risk is the same when you are comparing a proven starter with consistently great performance against a career back-up who has been up and down. I get that Pittsburgh is a better team but there are plenty of good goalies on bad teams (and vise versa). No they don't. Elliot is a free agent at the end of the season. They aren't going to get a tonne for him in trade if expansion happens. There is zero incentive for them to trade their best goalie until Allen takes the reins.
-
I think people are overrating Reimer. He has six seasons in the NHL and yet wasn't able to get the starter reins despite playing on a Toronto team that was desperate for a starter goalie. He was good this season for sure. But other players on the list have been consistently good and are proven to be able to carry a starter load. With Reimer you are talking about taking the same kind of risks we took when relying on Ramo to be the starter last season. Maybe he is good? Good chance he isn't. This isn't a kid likely to become the next great starter in the NHL. I am not sure why we would want to take that risk if we don't have to. The upside doesn't exist. I am not saying we should discount him entirely. But if expansion goes through much better options will be available.
-
I like Elliot and I agree with your list. My problem with Elliot is that I don't think the Blues need to trade him. Elliot was their guy in the playoffs and with another year under contract it makes more sense for them to keep both. I also don't like that he has one more year under contract because I think that is going to put the Flames in a tough spot in 1-season when it is time to sign him, especially since he will be 32.