Goaltending

[nevermissashift]

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.

nevermissashift likes this

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.

Who wants 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.

 I like what you say except for this status quo definition. The phrase sounds like it means 'stagnant quo' to me here. A team needs to keep a forward flow.

[nevermissashift]

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.

I hope that is hitting it on the head. That would be good.

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 agree sixth overall trumps Hickey.

[nevermissashift]

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.

nevermissashift likes this

[jjgallow]

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.

 

Yeah, I don't think we can afford to trade our D prospects. 

 

Unless, we pulled off another Hamilton type deal.  But until then, we need all three.  To give us the odds we need.

[nevermissashift]

Yeah, I don't think we can afford to trade our D prospects. 

 

Unless, we pulled off another Hamilton type deal.  But until then, we need all three.  To give us the odds we need.

nevermissashift likes this

[robrob1974]

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.

 

Definitely the forward prospects. But the three D I don't want to trade just yet, not until we know what we have. The forward guys, I am okay with. 

[robrob1974]

nevermissashift likes this

Who wants to stay status quo?

 I like what you say except for this status quo definition. The phrase sounds like it means 'stagnant quo' to me here. A team needs to keep a forward flow.

 

 

I see what you mean, but I meant keeping the status quo in the rebuild, which I actually mean is, continuing with the plan that they've set forth. If we start trading off a bunch of the prospects, and it only helps minimally, and the prospects turn out longer term, then we've done injustice to our rebuild. I think we can trade of a Wotherspoon and Kulak, but I wouldn't touch Hickey, Kylington and Andersson. 

 

I think we have an access of forward prospects that aren't higher end, but might make the NHL. 

[Dmac1103]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/duhatschek-fleury-potential-transitional-guy-flames/

I really hope not, I don't like the cap hit and I think his stats are helped a little bit more by the team in front of him. I still would rather have a younger guy that can grow with the team and if Gilles is the future then when he is ready the other guy can be used as trade bait or vise versa.

[cross16]

Pittsburgh really has never been that great a defensive team and are middle of the pack at best. I would argue that opposite that if it wasn't for Fleury the Penguins would have been in a lot more trouble the last couple years. He is a top 10 goalie in the league and I really don't think there should be a question about that quite frankly.

Is he the best option no. I do agre it would be better to get someone in a better age range but I also don't think fleury is going to be very expensive. If you can get a legit starter for someone like a 2nd rounder or less I think you have to strongly consider that. I don't think 5 mill for what fleury can do for you is a bad contact at all and a 3 year terms for me is perfect. That gives Gilles plenty of time to continue to grow.

[Dmac1103]

While they maybe middle of the pack defensive team, they are one of the better offensive teams. As a goalie you know you can take chances when you either have a great defensive or offence in front of you. Fleury has that luxury of knowing if he lets in a bad goal then more than likely the offence will make up for it. With Calgary he won't have that luxury. As for his cap hit, Calgary has $24.964 million in cap room, add Fleury and that brings the cap room to 19.214 with Gaudreau and Monahan still to be signed. After they sign the Flames will then have under 10 million to sign a back up goalie and round out their roster with a number of other RFA's to be signed also. If Calgary has explored every other option and are able to move out a contract like Wideman or Smid and have to look at older starters in the league that maybe available then Fleury would be the best option. But that IMO would be the last resort.

[travel_dude]

While they maybe middle of the pack defensive team, they are one of the better offensive teams. As a goalie you know you can take chances when you either have a great defensive or offence in front of you. Fleury has that luxury of knowing if he lets in a bad goal then more than likely the offence will make up for it. With Calgary he won't have that luxury. As for his cap hit, Calgary has $24.964 million in cap room, add Fleury and that brings the cap room to 19.214 with Gaudreau and Monahan still to be signed. After they sign the Flames will then have under 10 million to sign a back up goalie and round out their roster with a number of other RFA's to be signed also. If Calgary has explored every other option and are able to move out a contract like Wideman or Smid and have to look at older starters in the league that maybe available then Fleury would be the best option. But that IMO would be the last resort.

 

IF you can't afford $5.7m for a goalie, then you have a problem in this league.  MAF may not be the best goalie that we could deal for, but he may be the cheapest in trade.  Reimer is not going to cost as much, but I can't tell you if he is any answer.  Huge risk. At least with MAF, you are getting a brand name, not yellow label.  If you need to trade him, you get something back.  Reimer would be worth next to nothing if you needed to trade him.

[Redslinger]

Based on the current trajectory and age of the teamI think that the next goalie the Flames get will be the "caretaker" goalie until the real #1 emerges and is expected to carry this team in the playoffs.  It could be that the "caretaker" goalie ends up running away with the job (ala Kiprusoff) but that would be a pleasant surprise.

 

The core players are still developing and likely to hit their peak in the next 2-5 seasons.  If the Flames want to make a run at the Cup you want a goalie at his peak in that timeframe.  That may be Gillies or possibly even Macdonald.  It may be a guy like Fleury, Murray, Anderson, Bishop, Gibson, Reimer, etc.  But most of those guys, especially the older ones, will likely not be at their peak in 5 years, although Murray, Gibson and Bishop very well may be.

 

So, if the Flames get a goalie to tend the fort for the next few years before getting "the guy" to make a run with, they likely shouldn't be paying that caretaker top dollar.  If they're spending more than $5 million on a goalie for the next few seasons I think it may be a mistake.

[JTech780]

While they maybe middle of the pack defensive team, they are one of the better offensive teams. As a goalie you know you can take chances when you either have a great defensive or offence in front of you. Fleury has that luxury of knowing if he lets in a bad goal then more than likely the offence will make up for it. With Calgary he won't have that luxury. As for his cap hit, Calgary has $24.964 million in cap room, add Fleury and that brings the cap room to 19.214 with Gaudreau and Monahan still to be signed. After they sign the Flames will then have under 10 million to sign a back up goalie and round out their roster with a number of other RFA's to be signed also. If Calgary has explored every other option and are able to move out a contract like Wideman or Smid and have to look at older starters in the league that maybe available then Fleury would be the best option. But that IMO would be the last resort.

Pittsburgh averaged 2.94 goals/game, Calgary averaged 2.79 goals/game, not that much of a difference. You aren't giving Fleury enough credit for how good he is.

Yes ideally we could get someone younger, like Gibson, Andersen, Vasilevskiy, but teams are either not going to trade them or they will be expensive to acquire.

Option A:

Gibson

Andersen

Vasilevskiy

Murray

Option B:

Bishop

Fleury

Varlamov

Option C:

Reimer

Ramo

[travel_dude]

Based on the current trajectory and age of the teamI think that the next goalie the Flames get will be the "caretaker" goalie until the real #1 emerges and is expected to carry this team in the playoffs.  It could be that the "caretaker" goalie ends up running away with the job (ala Kiprusoff) but that would be a pleasant surprise.

 

The core players are still developing and likely to hit their peak in the next 2-5 seasons.  If the Flames want to make a run at the Cup you want a goalie at his peak in that timeframe.  That may be Gillies or possibly even Macdonald.  It may be a guy like Fleury, Murray, Anderson, Bishop, Gibson, Reimer, etc.  But most of those guys, especially the older ones, will likely not be at their peak in 5 years, although Murray, Gibson and Bishop very well may be.

 

So, if the Flames get a goalie to tend the fort for the next few years before getting "the guy" to make a run with, they likely shouldn't be paying that caretaker top dollar.  If they're spending more than $5 million on a goalie for the next few seasons I think it may be a mistake.

 

I think that, while it would be nice just to get a guy for 3 years until Gillies or MacDonald are ready, you have to look longer term than that.  If the scouts/goalie coach/BT think that Reimer could be that gut, then sign him for 3 and extend after that.  If they think MAF can be the guy for 3-5 years, then go after him.

 

Vasilevskiy is risky, since his body of work is small.  He looks good now, but can he take the reins for 3 years minimum?  Not sure.

Bishop looks like he could be the guy for years to come.  Same goes for Andersen.  Others, I am not sure about.

 

I have no problem if we are spending $7m on a goalie for years to come.  That would mean he is a league leader.  It pushes Gillies to 5 years to be the next starter, which is reasonable.  If he peaks sooner, then we have a top goalie as a trade chip.

[jjgallow]

IF you can't afford $5.7m for a goalie, then you have a problem in this league.  MAF may not be the best goalie that we could deal for, but he may be the cheapest in trade.  Reimer is not going to cost as much, but I can't tell you if he is any answer.  Huge risk. At least with MAF, you are getting a brand name, not yellow label.  If you need to trade him, you get something back.  Reimer would be worth next to nothing if you needed to trade him.

 

Sigh, lol.

[jjgallow]

With regards to those who feel Ortio, Gillies are not part of the discussion:

 

Let's keep in mind that the title of this topic is "Goaltending"

 

 

Sometimes I think some on here need to start a thread like "what's the fastest and surest way to get back to the middle of the pack for 2017".

 

Frankly, I just...couldn't care less.   No offense to those who do.  Especially if you've bought season tickets.  I get it.

 

I'm not invested in a specific year, sorry.  I just love the City and cheer for the team.  Always have, always will.

 

I want the best.   And, specifically, I want the best goaltender.  In the league.   I MIGHT settle for top 5.   I don't care if it happens this year, next year, or 2020.  But I want them for a 10 year stretch or more.  With regards to that, 90% of the goalies discussed on here are of little or no interest to me.  That includes Ramo, Hiller, Backstrom, MAF, and a load of others.

 

Gillies is definitely part of that discussion, although it would require Very good development, and luck.   Ortio is part of that conversation too, but he would have to have a comeback year within the next 2 years.   No, neither of them are the Fastest and surest way to succeed next year.  Although, they could surprise us.    It's just that.... I don't care.  And even if I did...I wouldn't care enough to Sacrifice our cap, or our future, over it.

[MAC331]

I think that, while it would be nice just to get a guy for 3 years until Gillies or MacDonald are ready, you have to look longer term than that.  If the scouts/goalie coach/BT think that Reimer could be that gut, then sign him for 3 and extend after that.  If they think MAF can be the guy for 3-5 years, then go after him.

 

Vasilevskiy is risky, since his body of work is small.  He looks good now, but can he take the reins for 3 years minimum?  Not sure.

Bishop looks like he could be the guy for years to come.  Same goes for Andersen.  Others, I am not sure about.

 

I have no problem if we are spending $7m on a goalie for years to come.  That would mean he is a league leader.  It pushes Gillies to 5 years to be the next starter, which is reasonable.  If he peaks sooner, then we have a top goalie as a trade chip.

They are all risky so that is kind of a cop out, you do your due diligence on the targets you want.

 

Based on the current trajectory and age of the teamI think that the next goalie the Flames get will be the "caretaker" goalie until the real #1 emerges and is expected to carry this team in the playoffs.  It could be that the "caretaker" goalie ends up running away with the job (ala Kiprusoff) but that would be a pleasant surprise.

 

The core players are still developing and likely to hit their peak in the next 2-5 seasons.  If the Flames want to make a run at the Cup you want a goalie at his peak in that timeframe.  That may be Gillies or possibly even Macdonald.  It may be a guy like Fleury, Murray, Anderson, Bishop, Gibson, Reimer, etc.  But most of those guys, especially the older ones, will likely not be at their peak in 5 years, although Murray, Gibson and Bishop very well may be.

 

So, if the Flames get a goalie to tend the fort for the next few years before getting "the guy" to make a run with, they likely shouldn't be paying that caretaker top dollar.  If they're spending more than $5 million on a goalie for the next few seasons I think it may be a mistake.

I am warming up to Reimer as a UFA offer him 3 years at 2.5M per season. Good Alberta kid that has been through the mistreatment in TO, treat him good and just maybe he stands on his head for us.

[travel_dude]

With regards to those who feel Ortio, Gillies are not part of the discussion:

 

Let's keep in mind that the title of this topic is "Goaltending"

 

 

Sometimes I think some on here need to start a thread like "what's the fastest and surest way to get back to the middle of the pack for 2017".

 

Frankly, I just...couldn't care less.   No offense to those who do.  Especially if you've bought season tickets.  I get it.

 

I'm not invested in a specific year, sorry.  I just love the City and cheer for the team.  Always have, always will.

 

I want the best.   And, specifically, I want the best goaltender.  In the league.   I MIGHT settle for top 5.   I don't care if it happens this year, next year, or 2020.  But I want them for a 10 year stretch or more.  With regards to that, 90% of the goalies discussed on here are of little or no interest to me.  That includes Ramo, Hiller, Backstrom, MAF, and a load of others.

 

Gillies is definitely part of that discussion, although it would require Very good development, and luck.   Ortio is part of that conversation too, but he would have to have a comeback year within the next 2 years.   No, neither of them are the Fastest and surest way to succeed next year.  Although, they could surprise us.    It's just that.... I don't care.  And even if I did...I wouldn't care enough to Sacrifice our cap, or our future, over it.

 

 

So, are you willing to wait until Johnny and Monahan are in the latter stages of their "prime" for a goalie?  Suppose Ortio and Gillies are not ready after 3 years.  By that, I mean they aren't good enough yet to play in the NHL.

 

I don't hear any solutions coming from you in the above.  How do you propose getting the best?  Who are you talking about?  Do we have the assets to get it in trade?  Or are you talking about finding the best drafted player and developing them?  

 

That's great.  In 3-5 years we may have that player.  Or maybe we are still drafting to fill that need.  What about now?  Are you advocating using Ortio as the starter or just picking up a random starter just to fill the position, good, bad or ugly.

[LouCifer]

I am warming up to Reimer as a UFA offer him 3 years at 2.5M per season. Good Alberta kid that has been through the mistreatment in TO, treat him good and just maybe he stands on his head for us.

 

I'm seeing it similarly myself. I mean, my preference would be Andersen or Murray hands down, pending if they're even available to us and at what cost... so more realistically I see it as a 2 horse race between Reimer or Fleury. Both have concussion history which irks me for sure, but here's how I see it:

 

Fleury

- You know what you're getting if he stays healthy

- Regular season and Playoff performer

- Relatively young

- 3 year contract @ $5million+ (good term for us, high-ish dollar value but not overpriced for what you're getting)

- I can see Fleury mentoring our up and coming goalies

 

Reimer

- Having watched him play a lot, he was really a good goalie on a crappy team

- He hasn't played more than 40 games over the past 5-6 seasons (somewhat injury prone)

- Real high compete level night in night out, small playoff performance sample size

- I expect he will be a cheaper option than Fleury

- He's more of a gamble, but has high reward potential

 

I think I lean more towards Fleury, but depending on the ask from Pittsburgh, Reimer is a solid alternative option that would only cost us money.

[kehatch]

With regards to those who feel Ortio, Gillies are not part of the discussion:

Let's keep in mind that the title of this topic is "Goaltending"

Sometimes I think some on here need to start a thread like "what's the fastest and surest way to get back to the middle of the pack for 2017".

Frankly, I just...couldn't care less. No offense to those who do. Especially if you've bought season tickets. I get it.

I'm not invested in a specific year, sorry. I just love the City and cheer for the team. Always have, always will.

I want the best. And, specifically, I want the best goaltender. In the league. I MIGHT settle for top 5. I don't care if it happens this year, next year, or 2020. But I want them for a 10 year stretch or more. With regards to that, 90% of the goalies discussed on here are of little or no interest to me. That includes Ramo, Hiller, Backstrom, MAF, and a load of others.

Gillies is definitely part of that discussion, although it would require Very good development, and luck. Ortio is part of that conversation too, but he would have to have a comeback year within the next 2 years. No, neither of them are the Fastest and surest way to succeed next year. Although, they could surprise us. It's just that.... I don't care. And even if I did...I wouldn't care enough to Sacrifice our cap, or our future, over it.

I think most people understand your point. Develop a goalie internally to save assets, salary, and build a long term assett better then anything you can get in trade. Play the long game and commit to the possibility of some short term pain.

The problem is it is totally impractical. Ortio has not played well enough to convince anyone that he is ready for the reigns. Gilles and MacDonald are good prospects but are most likely a long ways off.

You are trying to phrase the argument as risk averse posters focused on the short term vs risk tolerant posters focused on the long term. But that isn't the case.

Bringing on another goalie doesn't exclude the goalies already in the system. Having effective goaltending is a benefit to developing the entire team. Throwing goalies in over their head isn't the right way to develop them. Your plan doesn't improve our long term outcome, short term outcome, and certainly doesn't give us a good chance of getting a top 5 goalie.  

[MAC331]

I'm seeing it similarly myself. I mean, my preference would be Andersen or Murray hands down, pending if they're even available to us and at what cost... so more realistically I see it as a 2 horse race between Reimer or Fleury. Both have concussion history which irks me for sure, but here's how I see it:

 

Fleury

- You know what you're getting if he stays healthy

- Regular season and Playoff performer

- Relatively young

- 3 year contract @ $5million+ (good term for us, high-ish dollar value but not overpriced for what you're getting)

- I can see Fleury mentoring our up and coming goalies

 

Reimer

- Having watched him play a lot, he was really a good goalie on a crappy team

- He hasn't played more than 40 games over the past 5-6 seasons (somewhat injury prone)

- Real high compete level night in night out, small playoff performance sample size

- I expect he will be a cheaper option than Fleury

- He's more of a gamble, but has high reward potential

 

I think I lean more towards Fleury, but depending on the ask from Pittsburgh, Reimer is a solid alternative option that would only cost us money.

Never been a fan of Fleury, I just don't think he is that good. I would pass unless they went even up and took Wideman off our hands.

[Flyerfan52]

I'm seeing it similarly myself. I mean, my preference would be Andersen or Murray hands down, pending if they're even available to us and at what cost... so more realistically I see it as a 2 horse race between Reimer or Fleury. Both have concussion history which irks me for sure, but here's how I see it:

 

Fleury

- You know what you're getting if he stays healthy

- Regular season and Playoff performer

- Relatively young

- 3 year contract @ $5million+ (good term for us, high-ish dollar value but not overpriced for what you're getting)

- I can see Fleury mentoring our up and coming goalies

 

Reimer

- Having watched him play a lot, he was really a good goalie on a crappy team

- He hasn't played more than 40 games over the past 5-6 seasons (somewhat injury prone)

- Real high compete level night in night out, small playoff performance sample size

- I expect he will be a cheaper option than Fleury

- He's more of a gamble, but has high reward potential

 

I think I lean more towards Fleury, but depending on the ask from Pittsburgh, Reimer is a solid alternative option that would only cost us money.

Having seen more of MAF than I care to watching eastern games I dispute the playoff performer part. There's a reason (lack of good Canadian born goalies) he got named to the Canadian Olympic team as worst case scenario insurance but was designated popcorn eater.

Re: bolded, there are many retired goalies to serve as goalie coach & be better mentors.

[cross16]

I still don't and never will understand how brining in a proven starter blocks someone from developing. Did Fleury block Murray? Did Luongo block Schneider? Did Halak block Price?

I think it's a ridiculous concept to think that brining in a proven starter means the flames can't develop someone else. Makes zero sense. Flames need someone who can start and if Ortio turns out to be better then him fantastic what a great "problem" the flames have.

Plan A would be to get someone in th right age range but if you can pick up someone like fleury for as little as a late 2nd it's a no brainer for me. He gives you better than average starting goaltending right away and IMO should for the duration of his contract. Allows the flames to start focussing on winning and not having to worry about crappy goaltending.

[robrob1974]

I haven't been a fan of Fleury either. He had a bounce back year, but how many years has he fudged up in the playoffs. Someone said that Pitsburgh didn't necessarily have a good D all those years, but right now, at the end of the season, we were last in D. I think we have good offensive D, but until I see team defense, I am not sold on getting a guy like Fleury who's excuse to some on here is that he didn't have a strong defensive team.

Plus, I don't want a goalie to hide flaws like Kipper hid them when he played. Or how Price hides them in Montreal. Sure you can win a round in the playoffs, maybe even two, with a goalie who hides weaknesses, but I think we should get a decent stop gap until that really good goalie comes along and we become contenders.

[travel_dude]

I haven't been a fan of Fleury either. He had a bounce back year, but how many years has he fudged up in the playoffs. Someone said that Pitsburgh didn't necessarily have a good D all those years, but right now, at the end of the season, we were last in D. I think we have good offensive D, but until I see team defense, I am not sold on getting a guy like Fleury who's excuse to some on here is that he didn't have a strong defensive team.

Plus, I don't want a goalie to hide flaws like Kipper hid them when he played. Or how Price hides them in Montreal. Sure you can win a round in the playoffs, maybe even two, with a goalie who hides weaknesses, but I think we should get a decent stop gap until that really good goalie comes along and we become contenders.

 

We lacked a goalie to make the saves we needed when we needed them.  With just average goaltending in 2014/15, we made the playoffs.  Do you want a goalie that exposes every thing wrong with your team, or do you want one that can help you win when you experience some problems?

 

We have a good offensive team.  We had some hiccups on defense, but have a good base there.  Secondary scoring dried up a lot, but that is fixable.  

 

It's not like the Kipper years where we knew we lacked much of a team.  Monahan is the best center we had since the Iggy trade.

Our biggest problems are goaltending and special teams.  The first one helps improve the PK.  Better special team coaching will improve the PP and PK.