MAC331 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, cross16 said: I woudln't agree there. The goalie market is flooded this offesason and with Elliott basically confirming this season he isn't a number 1 I can't see a team opening up the wallet for him. Here is a list of available or potentially available goalies this offseason: Ryan Miller Ben Bishop Steve Mason MAF Saros Korpisollo Phillip Grubauer Howard/Mzarek/Coreau - one of them likely to get moved Varlamov/PIckard Halak Scott Darling MIke Condon (althought apparantly Sens want to extend) that's a long list. Teams that would be looking for a number 1: Dallas ( would need to clear one of their goalies out which is tough) Flames Jets Vegas Teams that would look for a number 2 or a B type goalie situation: Hurricanes (but they are already paying 6 million for 2 guys that likely arn't moveable) Philly would want a backup/B type Canucks -more of a B type as Markstrom still under contract Lightning - I could see them wanting Johnson/Elliot as a backup but can they afford to pay him? Vasilevsky makes 3.5 and they have cap issues I think the Flames are in the driver seat when it comes to Elliott. Not really, Elliott can go where ever he wants. If you are thinking the Flames are in the driver's seat with respect to price control, this is another big maybe. BT can go a few different ways with our goaltending this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickross Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 I could see the Flames acquiring a true #1 goalie after the debacle that will be the expansion draft, I can also see them offering Elliot an extension as the Flames do have leverage right now when it comes to negotiations. Elliot is better suited as a 1B option and we need to find that dependable workhouse soon. I can't even count how many games Kipper won for the Flames on his own, you'd hope our D doesn't become complacent if we do find that goalie but I do believe Vegas will present opportunities as good as any to acquire top goalie talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, rickross said: I could see the Flames acquiring a true #1 goalie after the debacle that will be the expansion draft, I can also see them offering Elliot an extension as the Flames do have leverage right now when it comes to negotiations. Elliot is better suited as a 1B option and we need to find that dependable workhouse soon. I can't even count how many games Kipper won for the Flames on his own, you'd hope our D doesn't become complacent if we do find that goalie but I do believe Vegas will present opportunities as good as any to acquire top goalie talent. I wouldn't have any problem signing back both Elliott and Johnson on 2 year deals but any increase in salary will depend on where either of them takes us this year. I would like to see BT target Mrazek from DET if he is available. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertaBoy12 Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, MAC331 said: I wouldn't have any problem signing back both Elliott and Johnson on 2 year deals but any increase in salary will depend on where either of them takes us this year. I would like to see BT target Mrazek from DET if he is available. I would be ok with BT signing elliot or johnson to a 2 year deal, that would be perfect length. I wonder if we could get mrazek for our 1st in this years draft, im not 100% sold we need to acquire a #1 goalie, I feel like we may be playing the wait and see game with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 2 hours ago, MAC331 said: Not really, Elliott can go where ever he wants. If you are thinking the Flames are in the driver's seat with respect to price control, this is another big maybe. BT can go a few different ways with our goaltending this offseason. Not unless he wants to take a below market deal or didn't want to play as much. His options are limited, especially if he wants another shot at starting or being the guy. Only so many of those jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrippinVdUb Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 12 minutes ago, cross16 said: Not unless he wants to take a below market deal or didn't want to play as much. His options are limited, especially if he wants another shot at starting or being the guy. Only so many of those jobs. With the amount of movement expected this offseason in regaurds to goalies, I think wr can get Elliot locked up to a very reasonable contract. His awful statt to the season could be a blessing in disguise, keeping his cap hit under the $4mill mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 2 hours ago, cross16 said: Not unless he wants to take a below market deal or didn't want to play as much. His options are limited, especially if he wants another shot at starting or being the guy. Only so many of those jobs. He's not going to get a huge raise unless he takes us to the Conference finals. A strong finish to the season, and I want him re-signed. We have to have someone to not expose; currently we have none. A good backup/1B would be better left for the summer or post expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 I think what Elliott does to end the season but more importantly what he does in the playoffs will determine whether he is re-signed. The other thing in play here is what goalies become available to Calgary before the expansion draft. If a goalie like Grubauer or Mrazek become available I am trading for one of them and protecting them in the expansion draft and then looking at Elliott to re-sign after the draft. My only issue with re-signing Elliott is that he isn't a number 1, he is a 1A/1B guy, you need to have another strong goalie to be part of a tandem with Elliott. And since he isn't a clear cut number 1 I wouldn't sign to anything more than $4m. An Elliott/Mrazek tandem or an Elliott/Grubauer tandem would be alright going into next year. At least then you are hopefully grooming one of the young guys to take the mantel. An Elliott/Johnson tandem again would be just more patchwork and not really an answer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 2 hours ago, JTech780 said: I think what Elliott does to end the season but more importantly what he does in the playoffs will determine whether he is re-signed. The other thing in play here is what goalies become available to Calgary before the expansion draft. If a goalie like Grubauer or Mrazek become available I am trading for one of them and protecting them in the expansion draft and then looking at Elliott to re-sign after the draft. My only issue with re-signing Elliott is that he isn't a number 1, he is a 1A/1B guy, you need to have another strong goalie to be part of a tandem with Elliott. And since he isn't a clear cut number 1 I wouldn't sign to anything more than $4m. An Elliott/Mrazek tandem or an Elliott/Grubauer tandem would be alright going into next year. At least then you are hopefully grooming one of the young guys to take the mantel. An Elliott/Johnson tandem again would be just more patchwork and not really an answer. I was talking about the size of the offer if he was great in the playoffs. Elliott wasn't a #1 because they were always going with a younger guy. Talbot was always #2 in NY until he was traded. Jones was a backup until he wasn't. There are only a few #1's in the league. Everyone else is playing less than 60 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 15 hours ago, cross16 said: Not unless he wants to take a below market deal or didn't want to play as much. His options are limited, especially if he wants another shot at starting or being the guy. Only so many of those jobs. You seem to be missing my point, he is a UFA and can go where ever he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 5 hours ago, travel_dude said: I was talking about the size of the offer if he was great in the playoffs. Elliott wasn't a #1 because they were always going with a younger guy. Talbot was always #2 in NY until he was traded. Jones was a backup until he wasn't. There are only a few #1's in the league. Everyone else is playing less than 60 games. I just get the sense that with Elliott if you want to get gas best from him, you need to have a goalie that can push him for playing time and I just don't see being a goalie that can handle more than 40ish games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertaBoy12 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 1 minute ago, MAC331 said: You seem to be missing my point, he is a UFA and can go where ever he wants. Yes he can, the possiblity is there. That doesnt mean the opportunity is there for him to go wherever. I think I agree there is probably very few teams looking for his services, and ever fewer who will be looking to give him an extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 7 hours ago, JTech780 said: I think what Elliott does to end the season but more importantly what he does in the playoffs will determine whether he is re-signed. The other thing in play here is what goalies become available to Calgary before the expansion draft. If a goalie like Grubauer or Mrazek become available I am trading for one of them and protecting them in the expansion draft and then looking at Elliott to re-sign after the draft. My only issue with re-signing Elliott is that he isn't a number 1, he is a 1A/1B guy, you need to have another strong goalie to be part of a tandem with Elliott. And since he isn't a clear cut number 1 I wouldn't sign to anything more than $4m. An Elliott/Mrazek tandem or an Elliott/Grubauer tandem would be alright going into next year. At least then you are hopefully grooming one of the young guys to take the mantel. An Elliott/Johnson tandem again would be just more patchwork and not really an answer. If last night didn't show you good goalies are good goalies. The battle between Elliott and Mzarek displayed both goalies abilities when playing well. There is only ever a few goalies heads and shoulders above the rest like Price, Lundquist and Holtby. Mzarek as an option takes you to a younger and if resigned better situation, whether he evolves as a true elite goaltender remains to be scene. If the plan is to progress the goalies in our pipeline I would bring Elliott back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said: Yes he can, the possiblity is there. That doesnt mean the opportunity is there for him to go wherever. I think I agree there is probably very few teams looking for his services, and ever fewer who will be looking to give him an extension. You don't know and I don't know, Elliott has the experience level that a lot of teams look for it is why we signed him. I would say right now and where he takes this team this season will speak volumes for his next contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 What I find interesting is that Friedman was saying that Calgary had a deal in place with an extension for Bishop at the draft last year. The extension is thought to have been around 6x$6m. I wonder if that price comes down a bit now that he has a bit of an off year this year. Can we get him at 4x$5m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, JTech780 said: What I find interesting is that Friedman was saying that Calgary had a deal in place with an extension for Bishop at the draft last year. The extension is thought to have been around 6x$6m. I wonder if that price comes down a bit now that he has a bit of an off year this year. Can we get him at 4x$5m? First off Elliott says a lot of things so he comes off looking important so rumors are rumors. Just my thoughts but with the higher talented players we have obtained lately BT is going to have to be careful with where he puts the money. Bishop scares me as an injury case. I would rather get someone like Mrazek who you may be able to give a 3 year extension to at 4.5M. If Elliott shows well down the stretch I would look for BT to make him an offer for 2 years at 3.5M. I like that our options are open going into the offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 The Flyers signed Neuvirth to meet the need to expose a goalie to LV since the only 1 they had under contract was Stolarz who they want to retain. If Neuvirth gets claimed that's great but if not he's a good enough backup. It sounds like they want Mason back but with the # of 'tenders looking for work it'll be a buyers market unless 2 GMs get into a bidding war. Why offer a contract of something like $5 x 4 now when the same player or equal might be available July 2 or 3 when the big offers aren't coming in. The Flames have the exposure need covered so I'd be fine with BT kicking tires & signing the 2 goalies that give the best bang for the buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 15 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said: The Flyers signed Neuvirth to meet the need to expose a goalie to LV since the only 1 they had under contract was Stolarz who they want to retain. If Neuvirth gets claimed that's great but if not he's a good enough backup. It sounds like they want Mason back but with the # of 'tenders looking for work it'll be a buyers market unless 2 GMs get into a bidding war. Why offer a contract of something like $5 x 4 now when the same player or equal might be available July 2 or 3 when the big offers aren't coming in. The Flames have the exposure need covered so I'd be fine with BT kicking tires & signing the 2 goalies that give the best bang for the buck. I agree FF, as a GM you want to give yourself options and this offseason will have a number of them for Goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 As good as Elliott has been on this run, he is now finally just reaching CJ’s game starts. Elliott has lower SA% and higher GAA, but identical W’s and L’s. Got to be happy with what this tandem has done thus far. It’s some nice knowing both are capable of getting us wins. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 47 minutes ago, CheersMan said: As good as Elliott has been on this run, he is now finally just reaching CJ’s game starts. Elliott has lower SA% and higher GAA, but identical W’s and L’s. Got to be happy with what this tandem has done thus far. It’s some nice knowing both are capable of getting us wins. So why would some posters on this forums want to tarde or not renew our goalies and get Petr Mrazek from Detroit who has worse stats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouCifer Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 I don't think Elliott would sign with us again if we grab another starter. He's been in a tandem situation for so long in his career, and his goal is to be a true #1 starter. I was talking to his dad earlier this season and he was saying how Elliott's always been underestimated and he's learned to fight for everything he gets. His fight is looking fantastic right now, and pretty much what we wanted at the start of the season. Now, a GMs due diligence is to look at the goalie market for options (Mrazek is an interesting consideration if available), however, I'd be happy if we re-signed both Elliott and Johnson. Johnson's game tails off when he starts too many games in a row, but man is he lights-out when he sits on the bench a few games and goes in a little cold. That's what you want from a backup, the ability to win some games! Not to mention that he does have the capacity to run with it for a few games if our other goalie is faltering. With the backups we've had over the years, I'm holding onto Johnson, and I don't think he'll be all that expensive to retain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 22 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: So why would some posters on this forums want to tarde or not renew our goalies and get Petr Mrazek from Detroit who has worse stats? I'm not touching that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 How much are we willing to pay a tandem to start? Bishop wanted over 6m. How much would we sign Elliott and Johnson for for about 2-3 years? Elliott for 3 years Johnson for 2 years thoughts? By then, our young goalies would be ready to push for spots. Who knows how long it will take for them to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Elliott: 4M/yr x 3yrs? Johnson: 2M/yr x 2 years? That would be starter money between the two and keep the tending $$ down for a bit while we transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 4 hours ago, CheersMan said: As good as Elliott has been on this run, he is now finally just reaching CJ’s game starts. Elliott has lower SA% and higher GAA, but identical W’s and L’s. Got to be happy with what this tandem has done thus far. It’s some nice knowing both are capable of getting us wins. Pretty hard to bump up his SA% withe the poor start to the season. His last five starts were .943, .946, .966, .971 and .920. CJ has had a rougher time. His last 5 starts have two above .900, which were his only wins. I think CJ plays better now as a backup. He lost the starter net, but can play well cold off the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now