Goaltending

[kehatch]

I agree with Cross. We have three solid D prospects in Kylington, Anderson, and Hickey. You can order them however you want, but realistically our hope is one of them develops into a top 4 NHL D. If more then one do that will be a great problem to have. But I would trade a forward or one of our picks before trading one of them. We just don't have the depth to give up one of them.

[conundrumed]

I think maybe we should consider that Vasilevsky wasn't just a 1st rd pick, but a viable first rd pick in most drafts for a goalie. We won't get him for a 2nd. You actually have to give up something for him, but no one seems ready to give up anything we have to improve other positions. So if we aren't ready to part with anyone that has potential, we should be ready to stay status quo.

[robrob1974]

Hickey feels like a Brodie type guy in the sense that it took him a few years in pro and NHL to realize his potential. Hickey has the tools, but he hasn't realized or utilized all of them yet.

I think all three are intriguing. I am afraid to trade any of them off until we figure out their full value, and, eventually all three D prospects could be our best prospects and could be already.

I think they're in hand you need to sit on and see through to reap the rewards. Keep them or trade them at the height of their value, and that's not known yet.

[robrob1974]

So if we aren't ready to part with anyone that has potential, we should be ready to stay status quo.

Being in the middle of a rebuild, status quo is the way to go. Even though we have a good core started, if we trade away good prospects now, we could regret it in the future.

Could Vasilevsky be worth two 2nds this draft, instead of just one? If he is that good, is he worth a next year's 1st? I would feel somewhat safe to trade next year's 1st especially since we'd think there's going to be improvement, and would he improve the goaltending enough to stabilize and allow our guys to do their thing in front of him.

[cccsberg]

I don't agree Hickey has been passed. I would trade Kylington and Andersson before Hickey in a heartbeat. His upside is greater than those 2.  I wouldn't be quick to part with any of the 3 though because I don't think the Flames are in a position to deal from depth on D. Looks good on paper, but logistically probably 1 of those 3 will turn out to be a solid NHLer. Don't reduce your odds at this point. You can get good goaltending by giving up picks/lesser prospects. I really don't think the prices are going to get as high as some think. I think plenty of goalies are going to be available and the Flames are 1 of 3 that will be heavily shopping for a starter. That gives them a lot of control over what they want to pay.

I agree we should try and not trade a D at this point, unless Kulak... Not sure logistics has much to do with their success, though I guess if there is no spot even a great player may not make it, and Yes, I think that is a general Flames issue that needs addressing.

 

As for goalies, nothing is going to happen till we get clarification on the expansion draft because that changes everything.  Till then its all idle speculation.  

[cccsberg]

I think maybe we should consider that Vasilevsky wasn't just a 1st rd pick, but a viable first rd pick in most drafts for a goalie. We won't get him for a 2nd. You actually have to give up something for him, but no one seems ready to give up anything we have to improve other positions. So if we aren't ready to part with anyone that has potential, we should be ready to stay status quo.

That's so true, however with the tendency of bloggers/fans to oversell other team's players and undersell our own (grass is greener syndrome) its hard to work out what really is fair value.  Classic case in point, the recent Russell trade.  Most people here seem to believe we robbed Dallas blind in that trade, even with the 2nd, but probably its much closer to a reasonable trade for both sides and the cost of doing business.  That along with we tend to get tunnel vision and focus in on how a player performed for us recently in a very particular situation rather than a broader, more realistic evaluation of the guy's overall talents.

 

As I've said elsewhere on Vasilevsky, he hasn't won anything yet.  Like last night he played great early, but still lost.  Whereas Murray played average, at best early but in the end won.  One game doesn't mean anything, but you get the point.  The Flames have multiple options, including going with Ramo/Ortio and a new, more D-focused coaching scheme so I'm not overly concerned at this point with focusing in too much on one guy.  The expansion issue is another huge reason.  Because of that I'm not willing to part with what appears at this point to be very valuable prospect chips whose full potential we really don't know.  

[Cowtownguy]

That's so true, however with the tendency of bloggers/fans to oversell other team's players and undersell our own (grass is greener syndrome) its hard to work out what really is fair value.  Classic case in point, the recent Russell trade.  Most people here seem to believe we robbed Dallas blind in that trade, even with the 2nd, but probably its much closer to a reasonable trade for both sides and the cost of doing business.  That along with we tend to get tunnel vision and focus in on how a player performed for us recently in a very particular situation rather than a broader, more realistic evaluation of the guy's overall talents.

 

As I've said elsewhere on Vasilevsky, he hasn't won anything yet.  Like last night he played great early, but still lost.  Whereas Murray played average, at best early but in the end won.  One game doesn't mean anything, but you get the point.  The Flames have multiple options, including going with Ramo/Ortio and a new, more D-focused coaching scheme so I'm not overly concerned at this point with focusing in too much on one guy.  The expansion issue is another huge reason.  Because of that I'm not willing to part with what appears at this point to be very valuable prospect chips whose full potential we really don't know.  

That was a well written post.

 

I think we will not truly know how well our goalies play until we address the defensive aspects of our game. I am not a big Ramo fan, but I believe he did play well at times last year. If we can clear the front of our net more effectively, the goals against should drop considerably. IMO, that was one of the biggest problems all year long. When I say that, I am not only blaming the defence. The entire team should take responsibility for this problem.

 

As an aside, I think our team was simply outworked by a lot of teams as well. Dallas and Minny clearly wanted to win more than we did. If I am correct, we have a real problem on our hands because you cannot teach motivation especially when these guys are earning bank. If a coach needs to motivate you when you are at that pay scale...

[MAC331]

Hickey feels like a Brodie type guy in the sense that it took him a few years in pro and NHL to realize his potential. Hickey has the tools, but he hasn't realized or utilized all of them yet.

I think all three are intriguing. I am afraid to trade any of them off until we figure out their full value, and, eventually all three D prospects could be our best prospects and could be already.

I think they're in hand you need to sit on and see through to reap the rewards. Keep them or trade them at the height of their value, and that's not known yet.

I think our excess prospect pool is 2nd or 3rd line LWers and perhaps some combination of pick(s) and prospect(s) could land us the goalies BT wants here.

[cross16]

I think maybe we should consider that Vasilevsky wasn't just a 1st rd pick, but a viable first rd pick in most drafts for a goalie. We won't get him for a 2nd. You actually have to give up something for him, but no one seems ready to give up anything we have to improve other positions. So if we aren't ready to part with anyone that has potential, we should be ready to stay status quo.

 

I don't think anyone is saying a 2nd round straight up is going to get Vasilevsky and of course you will have to give up something just don't give up D prospects with high upside.

 

does Vasilevsky have to be the guy? I don't think he does. I see Vasilevsky as being a good, but not great, starting goalie in the future. I don't think you are talking about him as a top 5-8 goalies in the NHL so am I prepared to pay big for that? No. Not when I think there are going to be many other goalies to pick from who I think can be just as good or at least in the ballpark. 

[MAC331]

I don't think anyone is saying a 2nd round straight up is going to get Vasilevsky and of course you will have to give up something just don't give up D prospects with high upside.

 

does Vasilevsky have to be the guy? I don't think he does. I see Vasilevsky as being a good, but not great, starting goalie in the future. I don't think you are talking about him as a top 5-8 goalies in the NHL so am I prepared to pay big for that? No. Not when I think there are going to be many other goalies to pick from who I think can be just as good or at least in the ballpark. 

Even BT has said the net will be cast far and wide to solve the goaltending situation. In the end all we can hope for is BT bringing in some quality options to advance the plans.

[Flyerfan52]

 

 

As I've said elsewhere on Vasilevsky, he hasn't won anything yet.  Like last night he played great early, but still lost.  Whereas Murray played average, at best early but in the end won. 

Murray hasn't won anything yet either.

Last night Vasilevsky faced 41 shots for a 0.928 SV%. Murray faced 21 for 0.905.

 

With the shot differential the loss was more on the Lightning skaters.

[travel_dude]

I don't agree Hickey has been passed. I would trade Kylington and Andersson before Hickey in a heartbeat. His upside is greater than those 2.  I wouldn't be quick to part with any of the 3 though because I don't think the Flames are in a position to deal from depth on D. Looks good on paper, but logistically probably 1 of those 3 will turn out to be a solid NHLer. Don't reduce your odds at this point. You can get good goaltending by giving up picks/lesser prospects. I really don't think the prices are going to get as high as some think. I think plenty of goalies are going to be available and the Flames are 1 of 3 that will be heavily shopping for a starter. That gives them a lot of control over what they want to pay.

 

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.

[conundrumed]

I don't think anyone is saying a 2nd round straight up is going to get Vasilevsky and of course you will have to give up something just don't give up D prospects with high upside.

 

does Vasilevsky have to be the guy? I don't think he does. I see Vasilevsky as being a good, but not great, starting goalie in the future. I don't think you are talking about him as a top 5-8 goalies in the NHL so am I prepared to pay big for that? No. Not when I think there are going to be many other goalies to pick from who I think can be just as good or at least in the ballpark. 

I don't disagree cross, but the conversation seemed to be that Hickey, Andersson and Kylington are virtually untouchable.

I'm just wondering who is touchable than, and do they have value?

It doesn't have to be Vasilevsky, but I wouldn't dispel him either. He's still just 21 so you can't really project his ceiling atm.

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.

I don't believe our 6th is in play at all for goaltending, even Schneider garnered a 9th oa, not a 6th. And the market's better for buyer's imo.

[cross16]

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.

 

I don't really think its difficult to project ceilings. its tougher to know who will actually reach their ceiling but not to project it. Hickey is, IMO, the best skater of the 3 and has the best hockey sense, that's why I say he has the highest ceiling. All Hickey needs to do is become more comfortable taking some risks offensively and then the sky is the limit. I don't think Anderson will ever have the skating of defensive awarness to be anything more than average defensively, and while raw I dont' think Kylington will ever have the size/grit to be a top guy either.  That's why I say Hickey has the highest ceiling, agree its had to say who will get there but based on their talent/traits I don't agree you can't project a ceiling.

 

Of course but the Flames should not have deal 6 overal to get a goalie or get Vasilevsky. If that was the price for Vasilevsky, you move on. 

 

I don't disagree cross, but the conversation seemed to be that Hickey, Andersson and Kylington are virtually untouchable.

I'm just wondering who is touchable than, and do they have value?

It doesn't have to be Vasilevsky, but I wouldn't dispel him either. He's still just 21 so you can't really project his ceiling atm.

I don't believe our 6th is in play at all for goaltending, even Schneider garnered a 9th oa, not a 6th. And the market's better for buyer's imo.

 

I'm not sure its that they are untouchable is what you getting in return? do you HAVE to give them up for a goalie?

 

I really think the prices are not going to be that high to get a good to very solid goalie this summer. Expansion draft will go through IMO and its going to create a very active market with lots of options with few buyers. Its not that I think Hickey/Andersson/Kylington are necessarily untouchable, its that I don't think you have to move them for a goalie. I'd move guys like Shinkaruk, Porier or some of their other wingers before I moved D. I'm all about building depth on D because I think you need that to win, you can get by with lesser wingers. 

 

I think Draft picks are their best currency especially with 4 2nd rounders over the next 2 drafts. I agree the 6th isn't an option and as I just said I don't think you will need to deal 6 to get a goalie. 

 

If the Flames are starting conversation offering up 2 2nd round picks for a goalie they are going to get conversations going. Maybe its a 2nd and a 3rd but when you start offering mutliple top 60 picks you will get teams listening. Especially this summer I think. 

[StarkRaving]

In the case of Hickey, he's not really a tangible asset at this point.  The Flames own his rights, but he's not under contract.  I believe he has two (maybe one) years remaining in college and then he could re-enter the draft if he was so inclined.

[robrob1974]

In the case of Hickey, he's not really a tangible asset at this point. The Flames own his rights, but he's not under contract. I believe he has two (maybe one) years remaining in college and then he could re-enter the draft if he was so inclined.

I think he can become a free agent and doesn't have to go draft again.

[cross16]

I think he can become a free agent and doesn't have to go draft again.

 

Correct. 2 more years of College and if he choose not to sign he would be a UFA. 

[travel_dude]

In the case of Hickey, he's not really a tangible asset at this point.  The Flames own his rights, but he's not under contract.  I believe he has two (maybe one) years remaining in college and then he could re-enter the draft if he was so inclined.

 

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 don't really think its difficult to project ceilings. its tougher to know who will actually reach their ceiling but not to project it. Hickey is, IMO, the best skater of the 3 and has the best hockey sense, that's why I say he has the highest ceiling. All Hickey needs to do is become more comfortable taking some risks offensively and then the sky is the limit. I don't think Anderson will ever have the skating of defensive awarness to be anything more than average defensively, and while raw I dont' think Kylington will ever have the size/grit to be a top guy either.  That's why I say Hickey has the highest ceiling, agree its had to say who will get there but based on their talent/traits I don't agree you can't project a ceiling.

 

Of course but the Flames should not have deal 6 overal to get a goalie or get Vasilevsky. If that was the price for Vasilevsky, you move on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Redslinger]

Because of the expansion draft this is a great year for teams like the Flames looking for goalies.  I think there's a very real opportunity for a steal of a deal that could result in a step-change for the team.

[conundrumed]

Because of the expansion draft this is a great year for teams like the Flames looking for goalies.  I think there's a very real opportunity for a steal of a deal that could result in a step-change for the team.

As long as it is actually announced, and 1 team or 2. If expansion goes, at 1 team (Las Vegas), I believe they should hold out for 2, the Conferences have to be balanced, don't leave one with an extra team, and don't do 1 now and 1 later.

[travel_dude]

As long as it is actually announced, and 1 team or 2. If expansion goes, at 1 team (Las Vegas), I believe they should hold out for 2, the Conferences have to be balanced, don't leave one with an extra team, and don't do 1 now and 1 later.

 

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.  

[robrob1974]

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.

Last week on the radio, It sounded like only one team for now. Quebec doesn't have to support it expected due to the dollar being lower. Seattle doesn't have a stadium, and Vegas is ready. It has to be one team right now. I think Quebec will be a year or two away, once they get their finances in order and hopefully a dollar value rise.

Seattle would've been good, but the city just voted against the building recently. It had something to do with zoning and the swing vote was expected to vote yes, voted no to it. It's the fact the NBA hasn't given a guarantee that they'd relocate a team to Seattle, and a team would have to wait for an arena built. Chicken or the egg, anyone?

Zoning, the land use and giving it up for an arena is a big deal... The NHL is a no go until there is an NBA team in Seattle.

[conundrumed]

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.  

LV would be a west team no?

[Flyerfan52]

LV would be a west team no?

Of course.

Now you have 31 teams with 15 instead of 14 in the west while 16 remain in the east.

If QC were added @ the same time & a team move to the west there would be balanced conferences.

 

Best case scenario is add LV & QC @ the same time & find a western buyer for a money loser in the east.

[MAC331]

Could the Flames put enough on the table for ANA to trade us Andersen G and Rackell RW ?