Goaltending

[MAC331]

Murray   >> Ortio.    

 

Murray has Always been >> Ortio.  Since before the draft.    

 

That's all fine.  But it does NOT mean:

 

-Developing Ortio, Gillies, and other prospects is a waste of time

-Murray will always be >> Ortio   (even if it is appearing highly likely now)

-Giving young goalies opportunities is an unacceptable risk for an NHL team to take.

I'm not sure what you keep going on about, nobody has even suggested on giving up on any of Ortio, Gilles, McDonald or any other goalie in our system. Bringing in a few more goalies breeds competition to bring out the best in each one to win the day and keep their jobs. We could bring in Vasilevskiy and he may fall flat on his face which places the importance of continued development for our other goalies as quality depth.

I think Ortio put himself in the backup role discussion but it does hurt to add another so there isn't any dependency on Gilles to be called up prematurely.

[kehatch]

The reason I only have one example should be pretty intuitive: Only one team wins the Stanley cup.

I'm not actually trying to incite you, I'm just saying that you're wrong. Because you are. About this one specific thing. I realize nobody takes that well. But it's just the truth, and we're all wrong sometimes.

You've been pretty vocal that a goalie with less than 40 NHL games CANNOT be a starter. That it was an unacceptable level of risk which NO NHL team would consider, now matter how well that goalie performed.

Murray had 37 games, going into these playoffs.

Case closed, move on.

I seriously hope your trolling. For your sake.

[travel_dude]

 

...

 

In what universe are those goalies in their prime (maybe Andersen?), and in what universe would they make us contenders?  That's the issue.  If they could make us contenders, I'd be all for it.   But the numbers don't add up.

 

...

 

 

Because we haven't developed one, Ever (in modern times).  In a sentence.

 

...

 

 

Then....What have the Flames been doing for the last 3 years?   If you're saying Ortio was done at 22, what were the Flames doing?  Fostering a backup?    I am of the opinion that he was not given opportunities.  Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.   But at the end of the day, you either give them an opportunity, or give someone else that opportunity.   You don't sit on your hands for years at a time.  Or a decade.  It's not like this was unforseen.  Kipper is 39 years old.   We've had 10 years now for this to be a pressing issue. 

 

 

If you can't see a goalie 28-34 being in their prime, then I don't know what to say.  Very few are at that stage when they are 22-24.

Bishop, Andersen, Elliott, etc. are the types of goalies that turn an average team into a contender.  Think for a minute what the 2nd round of the playoffs might have been with something other than a washed up goalie and a average goalie.  I digress.

 

Is lack of development on the Flames or was it bad choices?

Irving

Ortio

Brossoit

 

Of those, Ortio is the only one with more than 10 games.  That is the number of goalies we have drafted in 10 years.  No, I haven't included Gillies and MacDonald, since they are in the early stages.

 

What has Ortio been doing in the last three years to prove he is a NHL goalie?  

Playing just ok in the AHL. Check.

Playing good or bad in NHL games. Check.

 

I don't see how he earned a backup job on middling results at the NHL level and similar results in the AHL.

[jjgallow]

If you can't see a goalie 28-34 being in their prime, then I don't know what to say.  Very few are at that stage when they are 22-24.

Bishop, Andersen, Elliott, etc. are the types of goalies that turn an average team into a contender.  Think for a minute what the 2nd round of the playoffs might have been with something other than a washed up goalie and a average goalie.  I digress.

 

 

I can't tell if you're saying that Ramo and Hiller are in their prime.....

 

Or...that Tampa and St Louis are average teams,,,

 

Or that Ottawa is a contender.

 

But, I also digress.

[travel_dude]

I can't tell if you're saying that Ramo and Hiller are in their prime.....

 

Or...that Tampa and St Louis are average teams,,,

 

Or that Ottawa is a contender.

 

But, I also digress.

 

Ramo and Hiller are examples of ok goalies.  Hiller never returned to his previous level of goaltending after the vertigo.

By age, Ramo should have some of his best years left.  Hiller declined so quickly, it may be 100% mental.

 

Without stellar goaltending, Tampa and STL are middle pack teams.  Probably good enough to make the playoffs with average goaltending.  

 

Ottawa?  When did I mention them?  Since you speak of them, they finished at 85 points with average goaltending.  They had 9 players that scored 10 or more goals.  They had 5 players that scored more than 50 points.  

[420since1974]

Looking at the team's needs down the road (5 years?), would anyone draft a goalie in the 2nd round this year?

 

I might be tempted to use the Dallas pick on Tyler Parsons from the London Knights.

 

At 6'1", 184 lbs., he plays a Brodeur style stand-up game.

 

In his 2nd OHL season, he played 49 games, posting a 2.33 GAA and .921 SV%.

 

From The Hockey Writers Joseph Aleong:

Strengths:

• Elite athleticism
• Strong glove hand
• Technically sound
• Puckhandling ability

Under Construction (Improvements to Make):

• Can over-commit to initial shots
• Prone to “soft” goals
• Rebound control

[jjgallow]

Ramo and Hiller are examples of ok goalies.  Hiller never returned to his previous level of goaltending after the vertigo.

By age, Ramo should have some of his best years left.  Hiller declined so quickly, it may be 100% mental.

 

Without stellar goaltending, Tampa and STL are middle pack teams.  Probably good enough to make the playoffs with average goaltending.  

 

Ottawa?  When did I mention them?  Since you speak of them, they finished at 85 points with average goaltending.  They had 9 players that scored 10 or more goals.  They had 5 players that scored more than 50 points.  

 

Hmmmm...some of this I can see as just difference of opinion.

 

Not sure how Ramo and Hiller get lumped together, other than both being Flames goalies, and peaking at 28.

 

Ramo was never fantastic, and likely peaked at the age of 28 (still barely good enough to justify the NHL).   We'll have to find out.

 

Hiller peaked at 28 as a Vezina candidate.   Vertigo is a tough explanation for his drop this year.

 

 

Goaltending is hard on the body and mind.  Call it injury, call it vertigo, call it age.   MOST (not all) decline after 30, often significantly.   Some get better.   But finding them is Just as much of a risk as finding young goaltenders in hopes that they enter their prime early.

 

Don't Agree on Tampa/STL.  But ok.  

 

Anderson is 26.  Kind of my point, so wasn't sure where you were taking that.  I thought maybe you meant Craig Anderson?  Thus Ottawa.  IMHO, he also peaked at 28.

[cross16]

Looking at the team's needs down the road (5 years?), would anyone draft a goalie in the 2nd round this year?

I might be tempted to use the Dallas pick on Tyler Parsons from the London Knights.

At 6'1", 184 lbs., he plays a Brodeur style stand-up game.

In his 2nd OHL season, he played 49 games, posting a 2.33 GAA and .921 SV%.

From The Hockey Writers Joseph Aleong:

Strengths:

• Elite athleticism
• Strong glove hand
• Technically sound
• Puckhandling ability

Under Construction (Improvements to Make):

• Can over-commit to initial shots
• Prone to “soft” goals
• Rebound control

Personally I don't think there is a goalie I would like in the 2nd round. Filip Gustavsson is my favorite goalie in this year's draft and even I have a hard time liking him in the 2nd round. I don't think its a strong year for goalies and you are rolling the dice on all of them and I don't like the idea of rolling the dice in the first two rounds on a goalie. Not enough upside for me for the goalies this year.

4th round or later I would like it. I do like Parsons and its hard not too. Such a competitor and a guy who battles all the time but I'm not sure he is a starter in the NHL. Dylan Well is a guy I really like in the 4th. He's a gamble, but there could be a payoff there if he can figure it out.

For 4-5 years down the line though they've got Gilles/MacDonald and I don't think there is a goalie in this year's draft I would say was better than them at the same age.

[420since1974]

I think that Gustavsson is ranked near the end of the 1st round, Parsons near the end of the 2nd.

 

I don't pretend to understand much about goalies, just seeing holes in the organization now and in the future (NHL & AHL rosters).

[MAC331]

 

Looking at the team's needs down the road (5 years?), would anyone draft a goalie in the 2nd round this year?

 

I might be tempted to use the Dallas pick on Tyler Parsons from the London Knights.

 

At 6'1", 184 lbs., he plays a Brodeur style stand-up game.

 

In his 2nd OHL season, he played 49 games, posting a 2.33 GAA and .921 SV%.

 

From The Hockey Writers Joseph Aleong:

Strengths:

• Elite athleticism
• Strong glove hand
• Technically sound
• Puckhandling ability

Under Construction (Improvements to Make):

• Can over-commit to initial shots
• Prone to “soft” goals
• Rebound control

 

Have to watch him in the Memorial Cup this weekend

[Dmac1103]

IMO I would rather have a goalie that is in the 24-28 year range that we can possibly have long term on a lower salary in case Gilles or McDonald do not develop the way we think they should. In a perfect world we could get MAF and our forward prospects would be able to develop in contributors right away and in 3 years Gilles would be ready for the #1. But we all know life is not perfect so getting a younger goalie to go along with Gilles, Ortio and McDonald is ideal because there is a better chance one of them will develop in the next few years to be our #1, then who ever is left can battle for the #2 or be trade bait.

[jjgallow]

IMO I would rather have a goalie that is in the 24-28 year range that we can possibly have long term on a lower salary in case Gilles or McDonald do not develop the way we think they should. In a perfect world we could get MAF and our forward prospects would be able to develop in contributors right away and in 3 years Gilles would be ready for the #1. But we all know life is not perfect so getting a younger goalie to go along with Gilles, Ortio and McDonald is ideal because there is a better chance one of them will develop in the next few years to be our #1, then who ever is left can battle for the #2 or be trade bait.

 

Yeah, that's more or less my thinking too, although my age range would be 22-26.

 

Of our core "rebuild" players, Brodie, Gaudreau and Monahan may be entering their prime as early as next season.  

 

BUT:  Bennett, Hamilton, and whomever we draft this summer, are 2-3 seasons away from their prime.  (maybe more, for our draft pick).

 

 

Our peak Stanley cup years are when all 6 of those players are in their prime.   As well, any "surprises" we get (ie., Kylington, or Mangiapane, or Andersson etc) are also in that rage of 2-3 seasons from now.

 

 

Some people talk about "risk" in terms of next season.  IMHO, that's almost completely irrelevant (just me).

 

I think of risk, in terms of 2-3 years from now, when all 6, or 7, or 8, of our top young players are in their prime.  And we'll have a window from there of 2-5 years.

 

 

So, basically, 2018-2023.

 

I want us to have a TOP calibre  goalie by 2018.  As in, Best in the league.  Or at very least, top 5.

 

If we're playing the odds, that puts them at 28 years old, or younger, in 2018.

 

 

That makes them 26 years old, or younger, now.

 

That's essentially how I come up with 22-26 years of age.  I believe in developing a team around its goatender.  Around how they handle the puck (or lack thereoff, with Kipper), around their rebound control (or lack thereof, with Ortio)....Every goaltender is different.  It affects your defence strategy, it affects your breakouts,  it affects the role players required, it affects your coaching.

 

In terms of risk management, I care a LOT more about our window, and a LOT less about next season.  Sorry.  Especially if you're a ticket holder.  But that's how I feel.  It doesn't mean I want to tank, at all. It means, that outside of our window, I'm willing to accept short term risk, in order to minimize long term risk.

 

So, that's my reasoning.  And ....supposedly, yes, it carries more risk in terms of next year.  But even that, I highly question (ie., Matt Murray).

[MAC331]

Yeah, that's more or less my thinking too, although my age range would be 22-26.

 

Of our core "rebuild" players, Brodie, Gaudreau and Monahan may be entering their prime as early as next season.  

 

BUT:  Bennett, Hamilton, and whomever we draft this summer, are 2-3 seasons away from their prime.  (maybe more, for our draft pick).

 

 

Our peak Stanley cup years are when all 6 of those players are in their prime.   As well, any "surprises" we get (ie., Kylington, or Mangiapane, or Andersson etc) are also in that rage of 2-3 seasons from now.

 

 

Some people talk about "risk" in terms of next season.  IMHO, that's almost completely irrelevant (just me).

 

I think of risk, in terms of 2-3 years from now, when all 6, or 7, or 8, of our top young players are in their prime.  And we'll have a window from there of 2-5 years.

 

 

So, basically, 2018-2023.

 

I want us to have a TOP calibre  goalie by 2018.  As in, Best in the league.  Or at very least, top 5.

 

If we're playing the odds, that puts them at 28 years old, or younger, in 2018.

 

 

That makes them 26 years old, or younger, now.

 

That's essentially how I come up with 22-26 years of age.  I believe in developing a team around its goatender.  Around how they handle the puck (or lack thereoff, with Kipper), around their rebound control (or lack thereof, with Ortio)....Every goaltender is different.  It affects your defence strategy, it affects your breakouts,  it affects the roles players required, it affects your coaching.

 

In terms of risk management, I care a LOT more about our window, and a LOT less about next season.  Sorry.  Especially if you're a ticket holder.  But that's how I feel.

 

So, that's my reasoning.  And ....supposedly, yes, it carries more risk in terms of next year.  But even that, I highly question (ie., Matt Murray).

Should you get the right goalie today perhaps the future will look after itself. It may not as well so I would suggest not being set in the idealistic mindset.

[jjgallow]

Should you get the right goalie today perhaps the future will look after itself. It may not as well so I would suggest not being set in the idealistic mindset.

 

So the question is....who's being idealistic?

 

And....is the goalie with the Least amount of risk (in terms of now), necessarily, even the right goalie to invest in into our window (2018-2023)?  Or, just the one that makes us feel better at the moment?

 

The goalie with the least amount of risk in terms of right now, can probably get us to the middle of the pack.    But they are not necessarily the least amount of risk in terms of our window.   It amazes me that the same people who talk about "risk management" are only considering next year (outside of our window), and are not considering the risk management of our Cup window, being completely ok with riding the whole thing on Gillies.  Is the goalie they envision...even better for us...Next Year?  Let alone our window?  Or simply, lower risk for the short term?

 

But a goalie, with a more average amount of risk (and younger age, and greater potential, and substatntially cheaper), could potentially take us further next year.  While Further mitigating our risk for our Cup window.  And ....if they don't...I'd personally rather know about it sooner than later.  Because what I care about, in terms of risk, is 2018-2023.

[MAC331]

So the question is....who's being idealistic?

 

And....is the goalie with the Least amount of risk (in terms of now), necessarily, even the right goalie to invest in into our window (2018-2023)?  Or, just the one that makes us feel better at the moment?

 

The goalie with the least amount of risk in terms of right now, can probably get us to the middle of the pack.    But they are not necessarily the least amount of risk in terms of our window.   It amazes me that the same people who talk about "risk management" are only considering next year (outside of our window), and are not considering the risk management of our Cup window, being completely ok with riding the whole thing on Gillies.  Is the goalie they envision...even better for us...Next Year?  Let alone our window?  Or simply, lower risk for the short term?

 

But a goalie, with a more average amount of risk (and younger age, and greater potential, and substatntially cheaper), could potentially take us further next year.  While Further mitigating our risk for our Cup window.  And ....if they don't...I'd personally rather know about it sooner than later.  Because what I care about, in terms of risk, is 2018-2023.

I believe I said earlier, they are all going to be a risk, there are no sure things that you can ride to our Cup window. Make the best choice you can out of what options are there. We don't know at this stage if Gilles will ever wear the team jersey so plan for today and let the future look after itself. There is no proven formula here, look how long it took Carey Price to gain the experience to have his talents rise to the top and the bango out for a year with injury. You need a quality pipeline you can put some faith in.

[conundrumed]

Certainly no saying MM might be our best goalie in 3-4 yrs. He's big and athletic, the rest is just positioning and reactions. He has the tools, I'd like to see him play with more edge though, he seems really mellow.

atm, I believe we aren't going to "solve" the issue, but buy a couple more years ala Hiller.

I'd actually consider (don't laugh too hard) an Enroth/Nilsson tandem.

I have some concerns about choosing between Ward/Reimer/Andersson on bigger, longer term deals.

My concern is that the "appearance" of having a better goalie doesn't necessarily translate.

I'd rather someone "win" the job, I'm not entirely comfortable with "giving" it to anyone currently available.

[Flyerfan52]

 

Looking at the team's needs down the road (5 years?), would anyone draft a goalie in the 2nd round this year?

 

I might be tempted to use the Dallas pick on Tyler Parsons from the London Knights.

 

At 6'1", 184 lbs., he plays a Brodeur style stand-up game.

 

In his 2nd OHL season, he played 49 games, posting a 2.33 GAA and .921 SV%.

 

From The Hockey Writers Joseph Aleong:

Strengths:

• Elite athleticism
• Strong glove hand
• Technically sound
• Puckhandling ability

Under Construction (Improvements to Make):

• Can over-commit to initial shots
• Prone to “soft” goals
• Rebound control

 

I'd be looking @ Filip Gustavsson with 1 of our picks in the 2nd.

[conundrumed]

I'd let teams pick out on goalies and I'd be thinking I'll take Joseph Raaymakers where he lands, might go as far as 6th rder.

SSM sucks, so if you hunt his numbers they aren't great, but he's a stable and smart goalie that will take the helm next yr.

Another Chatham product, like T.J.

Goalies are hard to call, but he's the guy I'd target. Goalies on decent and excellent teams can be over-rated.

I like guys inundated with workload and "get better" at this age. He was solid for a team like SSM as a backup, and will take over next yr.

He entered the O as a 16yo goalie, which is unusual.

 

Hard to read goalies. I'm really interested in Parsons from the Knights and how he does this Memorial Cup.

He's a dick, let's get that straight, but I like goalies with attitude.

He was great in the OHL playoffs but I'm still not quite sold.

[jjgallow]

I'd let teams pick out on goalies and I'd be thinking I'll take Joseph Raaymakers where he lands, might go as far as 6th rder.

SSM sucks, so if you hunt his numbers they aren't great, but he's a stable and smart goalie that will take the helm next yr.

Another Chatham product, like T.J.

Goalies are hard to call, but he's the guy I'd target. Goalies on decent and excellent teams can be over-rated.

I like guys inundated with workload and "get better" at this age. He was solid for a team like SSM as a backup, and will take over next yr.

He entered the O as a 16yo goalie, which is unusual.

 

Hard to read goalies. I'm really interested in Parsons from the Knights and how he does this Memorial Cup.

He's a dick, let's get that straight, but I like goalies with attitude.

He was great in the OHL playoffs but I'm still not quite sold.

 

Well .....   I LOVE the age range, lol

 

Ok...maybe a little young...even for me, although if they are the BPA in the draft, go for it.

 

I have a lack of faith of Canadian goaltenders, I am ashamed to say.   Parsons is good...the whole "dick" thing...if true...wories me.  I would devalue him considerably for that.

[conundrumed]

Well .....   I LOVE the age range, lol

 

Ok...maybe a little young...even for me, although if they are the BPA in the draft, go for it.

 

I have a lack of faith of Canadian goaltenders, I am ashamed to say.   Parsons is good...the whole "dick" thing...if true...wories me.  I would devalue him considerably for that.

You actually shouldn't consider a bad thing. I think it's better than a goalie too shy to speak his mind. And I'm talking about on the ice.

As it relates to hockey, not as a guy, lol.

[420since1974]

I'd be looking @ Filip Gustavsson with 1 of our picks in the 2nd.

 

 

I would too, if he drops far enough.

 

I'm not sure if I'd use #35, but at #53 or #55, I'd go for it.

 

I found these draft rankings on Gustavsson:

 

28th - THN

29th - Sportsnet

29th - Draft Site

43rd - Bob McKenzie

46th - Craig Button

49th - LWS

[cross16]

I think ether Gustavsson or Conor Hart will sneak into the first round. Someone always needs a goalie and I don't think either or those two are terrible late first rounders.

I wouldn't be too upset with a goalie in the 2nd but I also wouldn't be a huge fan either. I don't think it's good value to use 2 2nds in 3 years on goalies unless the value is too good to pass up and I don't think it is this year. It's a down year for goalies IMO.

[jjgallow]

I think ether Gustavsson or Conor Hart will sneak into the first round. Someone always needs a goalie and I don't think either or those two are terrible late first rounders.

I wouldn't be too upset with a goalie in the 2nd but I also wouldn't be a huge fan either. I don't think it's good value to use 2 2nds in 3 years on goalies unless the value is too good to pass up and I don't think it is this year. It's a down year for goalies IMO.

 

Yeah,

 

Looking at the top goaltenders in the game right now, the sweet spot is probably round 3 (or below).

 

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&report=goaliesummary&season=20152016&gameType=2&sort=savePctg&aggregate=0&filter=timeOnIce,gte,440&pos=G

 

Yes, a first or 2nd round pick goaltender will have a higher chance of succeeding, but even in that case, the difference is not signficant.

 

If this draft had a Carey Price (which it doesn't), then we'd have a bit of a discussion.   But even then, it took Price 3 years, I believe, from the time he was drafted.   

 

Basically, unless the goaltender is not only talented enough, but mature enough to play professionally, I would agree that it's usually a poor use of 1st and 2nd round picks.   And, it would also be very Jankowski-like  (to use the draft to fill an immediate position, with no awareness of the development time and the inevitable team changes that will occur in that time).

[cross16]

Yeah,

 

Looking at the top goaltenders in the game right now, the sweet spot is probably round 3 (or below).

 

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&report=goaliesummary&season=20152016&gameType=2&sort=savePctg&aggregate=0&filter=timeOnIce,gte,440&pos=G

 

Yes, a first or 2nd round pick goaltender will have a high chance of succeeding, but even in that case, the difference is not signficant.

 

If this draft had a Carey Price (which it doesn't), then we'd have a bit of a discussion.   But even then, it took Price 3 years, I believe, from the time he was drafted.   

 

Basically, unless the goaltender is not only talented enough, but mature enough to play professionally, I would agree that it's usually a poor use of 1st and 2nd round picks.   And, it would also be very Jankowski-like  (to use the draft to fill an immediate position, with no awareness of the development time and the inevitable team changes that will occur in that time).

Agreed. Unless the person is someone special ala Price I'm pretty against using first rounders for goalies. Bit more open about he 2nd round but it's got to be for the right goalie but generally I don't like using top 60 picks. With the increased pressure on drafting and players bring ready sooner then later I think it's going to get tougher to be patient with top 60 picks and you need to be patient with goalies. Plus there is always talent available in later rounds you can be patient with.

[phoenix66]

I know the instant comparisons to Ramo are gonna start flowing when i say this, but The Finnish Goalie Koskinen would look great in the system.

 Does anybody know , do we have to trade for his rights from NYI , or can we just sign him ?

I see the Wild already snapped up Vey