Goaltending

[travel_dude]

22 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I'd make that my 1st offer but re-visit it since Wpg would likely offer 4.0 if it's only 3 years term (allowing Comrie to mature in the AHL & Hellebuyck to find himself as a NHL backup.

If we're willing to pay Elliott 3.5-4.0 I'd rather take the chance on Darling.

 

I'm missing something.  You talk about him like he is Jet.  I thought he was Chicago's.

The limb is for the players.  I have no idea of the dollars that male sense.  Goalies are voodoo.   

[Flyerfan52]

46 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm missing something.  You talk about him like he is Jet.  I thought he was Chicago's.

The limb is for the players.  I have no idea of the dollars that male sense.  Goalies are voodoo.   

Darling is a Hawks asset until July 1. He appears to be the main target for the Jets so I was saying what Wpg. would likely offer (& why) as opposed to your low ball supposition.

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Darling is a Hawks asset until July 1. He appears to be the main target for the Jets so I was saying what Wpg. would likely offer (& why) as opposed to your low ball supposition.

 

Hadn't heard there was interest from the Jets.

 

4 seems high, but that's just because he's not currently a starter.  I wasn't lowballing;  just don't know the value.  If he was a signed goalie, he would fetch what Talbot and Jones fetched.  Since he isn't, LV could select him for nothing but the use of the pick.  I would trade our 1st this year if he was signed.   

[Flyerfan52]

22 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Hadn't heard there was interest from the Jets.

 

4 seems high, but that's just because he's not currently a starter.  I wasn't lowballing;  just don't know the value.  If he was a signed goalie, he would fetch what Talbot and Jones fetched.  Since he isn't, LV could select him for nothing but the use of the pick.  I would trade our 1st this year if he was signed.   

I doubt LV uses their 1 pick off the Hawks roster on a UFA. Like the other 30 teams they can just use $s.

 

I think we can now legally trade a pick for Darling's rights as neither asset will be in the playoffs. I'd give some futures (picks in 2018 or a prospect) to Chicago for 1st right of negotiation to try to shut out other teams before the bidding starts.

[Carty]

6 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I would say both goaltenders were instrumental throughout this season as they are relied upon to do so.

 

They both had stretches where the played very well...   They both also had epic meltdowns...   Oddly enough, they both balanced out at a .910 SV% for the regular season this time around, 2.55 GAA for Elliott, and 2.59 GAA for Johnson...   and that can only be described as mediocre at best...   A big part of the problem with how they arrived at their numbers this season was in the inconsistency of performance, highs where they both played shut the door hockey, and other games where both barn doors opened wide...   A huge red flag was that the bad games seemed to come in bunches too often, not just having an off game and then getting back into the zone...

 

Quote

Outside of Elliott's slow start I think both performed according to their track records.

 

That is true, considering they both have had a couple of lousy seasons previously...

 

 

 

[phoenix66]

16 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Hadn't heard there was interest from the Jets.

 

4 seems high, but that's just because he's not currently a starter.  I wasn't lowballing;  just don't know the value.  If he was a signed goalie, he would fetch what Talbot and Jones fetched.  Since he isn't, LV could select him for nothing but the use of the pick.  I would trade our 1st this year if he was signed.   

i may be mistaken , but Talbot and Jones both still had some term left when they were traded. The comparable here is Freddie Anderson--   I agree Darling is the target of "next Talbot".. expect him to get signed and paid as a Starter ..whoever signs him , will be at least 4 yrs and minimum 3, maybe even 4M /season 

 

I'll say again , this is not the road we want to go down unless you have no faith in Gillies being ready in the next or following season , and even then he starts as a backup.

And as much as his stats say he will be as advertised, it's still a gamble.

 

While Bishop is my main target , I have to agree trading for Fleury due to his known cap and 2 years remaining is the most ideal scenario  to drop into our current time frame.

It also fits right in with BT's mantra of "raising the bar "

If we're sititng here next season bemoaning the loss of a series based on goaltending , after Gambling again on on unknown entity.. heads are gonna roll..

At least with a Bishop or Fleury we can fall back on "nobody saw that coming "

[MAC331]

17 hours ago, Carty said:

 

They both had stretches where the played very well...   They both also had epic meltdowns...   Oddly enough, they both balanced out at a .910 SV% for the regular season this time around, 2.55 GAA for Elliott, and 2.59 GAA for Johnson...   and that can only be described as mediocre at best...   A big part of the problem with how they arrived at their numbers this season was in the inconsistency of performance, highs where they both played shut the door hockey, and other games where both barn doors opened wide...   A huge red flag was that the bad games seemed to come in bunches too often, not just having an off game and then getting back into the zone...

 

 

That is true, considering they both have had a couple of lousy seasons previously...

 

 

 

You know past statistics are an interesting area in a League that wants more goals is changing the measuring stick. With all the advantages being given for more offense should we still be hung up on Elite goaltending having to be 920 SAV % along with 3 goals or less allowed ? I see mental lapses and brain farts by all goaltenders on allowed goals all the time. I also watch for solid fundamentals from any goaltender and both Elliott and Johnson when on are as good as anyone. IMO it is on the coaches to monitor and know when some fatigue is settling in on their performances. I know there is no perfect formula but both player and coaches need to communicate with each other.

[DirtyDeeds]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

i may be mistaken , but Talbot and Jones both still had some term left when they were traded. The comparable here is Freddie Anderson--   I agree Darling is the target of "next Talbot".. expect him to get signed and paid as a Starter ..whoever signs him , will be at least 4 yrs and minimum 3, maybe even 4M /season 

 

I'll say again , this is not the road we want to go down unless you have no faith in Gillies being ready in the next or following season , and even then he starts as a backup.

And as much as his stats say he will be as advertised, it's still a gamble.

 

While Bishop is my main target , I have to agree trading for Fleury due to his known cap and 2 years remaining is the most ideal scenario  to drop into our current time frame.

It also fits right in with BT's mantra of "raising the bar "

If we're sititng here next season bemoaning the loss of a series based on goaltending , after Gambling again on on unknown entity.. heads are gonna roll..

At least with a Bishop or Fleury we can fall back on "nobody saw that coming "

Both have had their playoff woes especially Fleury. Also both have had multiple injuries during their careers and unable to play for lengthy periods of time.

 

There is one positive we can take from goaltending if we are searching again for a #1. The goalies have had most of this season to adjust to the 1st stage of equipment downsizing. Some have adjusted and a few have struggled this year.

[DirtyDeeds]

13 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You know past statistics are an interesting area in a League that wants more goals is changing the measuring stick. With all the advantages being given for more offense should we still be hung up on Elite goaltending having to be 920 SAV % along with 3 goals or less allowed ? I see mental lapses and brain farts by all goaltenders on allowed goals all the time. I also watch for solid fundamentals from any goaltender and both Elliott and Johnson when on are as good as anyone. IMO it is on the coaches to monitor and know when some fatigue is settling in on their performances. I know there is no perfect formula but both player and coaches need to communicate with each other.

I heard on Fan960 that most Goalie Coaches now travel with the team when on road.

 

This indicates to me that they have increased their responsibility in how the goaltenders play. That also says to me they should also share the blame when goalies play poorly.

 

I still have little confidence in our goalie coach other than the rumors he is a hard worker. All the goalies under his supervision of the Flames have had long periods of poor play and struggling to perform.

[MAC331]

Just now, DirtyDeeds said:

I heard on Fan960 that most Goalie Coaches now travel with the team when on road.

 

This indicates to me that they have increased their responsibility in how the goaltenders play. That also says to me they should also share the blame when goalies play poorly.

 

I still have little confidence in our goalie coach other than the rumors he is a hard worker. All the goalies under his supervision of the Flames have had long periods of poor play and struggling to perform.

You could be right. I will use a baseball example of monitoring performance with pitching, you can see when they are tiring and the fundamentals are not sharp. A good manager has to also see this and know when it is time to pull them, same needs to be applied to goaltenders in hockey.

[jjgallow]

I Don't get it...why we won't address the goalie coach situation :/

[cccsberg]

On 2017-04-21 at 4:29 PM, manu11 said:

I'm really curious what the Flames will do at this position in the offseason. If they think that one of Gibson and Parson is the future in goal, then I don't think they should sign Bishop as he would want a 4-5 year deal. And I don't think he is going to sign here with the intention to be traded again after 2 years!

Personally I hope we move on from Elliott! He was brought here in hopes to beeing that Nr.1 goalie and outside a 15-20 game stretch hasn't been good this season. I'd also like to not pay that additional 2018 3rd for him.

Maybe you could use that pick in a trade, I think Raanta would be a very good target. He played well, especially for the Rangers this season, when Lundqvist was injured/needed a rest. The Rangers could very well lose him to Expansion and he has a very cheap cap hit for 1 mil.

Bring in Smith from Arizona for a couple of years. Solid starter then can mentor the young guys.

[MAC331]

Just now, cccsberg said:

Bring in Smith from Arizona for a couple of years. Solid starter then can mentor the young guys.

No THX overpaid and over-rated.

[DirtyDeeds]

27 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

I Don't get it...why we won't address the goalie coach situation :/

There are a number of factors of why we won't.

 

• He is politically correct coach and fine example of what a person can do fighting a terrible disease.
• He was brought up from our ranks. Developed among our family so to speak.
• He is said to be a tireless worker.
• He is one of the coaches BT kept on after the BH departure so he is under the wing of BT.
• He is heavily involved with the community and charity in and around our community. That is a big plus and a requirement from BB.

 

I don't expect him going anywhere soon even though I don't have confidence in his work,.

[JTech780]

I really like Grubauer from Washington and he is a guy that I think is ready to make the jump from backup to starter. The problem and I can see it hindering a lot of expansion draft type trades, is that Grubauer is the only goalie that Washington is able to expose. We would have to trade them our only exposeable goalie, which would mean we would have to expose Grubauer. The other thing we could do is sign and trade Elliott or Johnson. The expansion draft is going to make things really interesting. 

 

Detroit might be the best place to look for a goalie.

[DirtyDeeds]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

I really like Grubauer from Washington and he is a guy that I think is ready to make the jump from backup to starter. The problem and I can see it hindering a lot of expansion draft type trades, is that Grubauer is the only goalie that Washington is able to expose. We would have to trade them our only exposeable goalie, which would mean we would have to expose Grubauer. The other thing we could do is sign and trade Elliott or Johnson. The expansion draft is going to make things really interesting. 

 

Detroit might be the best place to look for a goalie.

Last points first. The expansion draft has already forced teams to make some decisions or forced teams to delay decisions. it will only get more difficult for some teams as the day draws clsoer.

 

We picked up Tom McCollum for the purpose of exposure of a goalie in the expansion draft. Does it really matter who gets exposed  if we don't want to keep Elliott or Johnson? 

[travel_dude]

19 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I doubt LV uses their 1 pick off the Hawks roster on a UFA. Like the other 30 teams they can just use $s.

 

I think we can now legally trade a pick for Darling's rights as neither asset will be in the playoffs. I'd give some futures (picks in 2018 or a prospect) to Chicago for 1st right of negotiation to try to shut out other teams before the bidding starts.

 

Ok, then please start the paperwork.  We could get him signed now and actually have a goalie to protect in the draft.  Obviously, we would need to speak to his agent to gauge the interest and have some idea of the cost.  Much like we did with Bishop.

 

Many may not agree, but we should also re-sign Elliott July 1st.  I think Darling is the real deal, but he may not be ready for 60 games this coming season.  Elliott gives you usually 30+ games of quality starts.  

 

15 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

There are a number of factors of why we won't.

 

• He is politically correct coach and fine example of what a person can do fighting a terrible disease.
• He was brought up from our ranks. Developed among our family so to speak.
• He is said to be a tireless worker.
• He is one of the coaches BT kept on after the BH departure so he is under the wing of BT.
• He is heavily involved with the community and charity in and around our community. That is a big plus and a requirement from BB.

 

I don't expect him going anywhere soon even though I don't have confidence in his work,.

 

I think it may be time for them to move on, regardless of what is "right".  Maybe the team would be better served having him in the front office.  

[jjgallow]

21 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I think it may be time for them to move on, regardless of what is "right".  Maybe the team would be better served having him in the front office.  

 

Yes....office move

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

I understand that we're just throwing out ideas and seeing what may stick but with all the talk of Bishop and Fleury options I decided to look at the regular season numbers. Courtesy of hockey numbers.com.

 

Ben Bishop           age:30     GP - 39     sv% - .910    GAA - 2.54     5.95 mil/yr  

Brian Elliot            age:31     GP - 49     sv% - .910    GAA - 2.55     2.70 mil/yr

Chad Johnson      age 30     GP - 36     sv% - .910    GAA - 2.59     1.70 mil/yr

M. A. Fleury          age 32     GP - 38     sv% - .909    GAA - 3.02     5.75 mil/yr

 

Fleury and Bishop may have more playoff experience/success but both have a history of long term injuries.Plus the whole +5.5mil salaries. Numbers wise it's a wash between the 4 of them. Risk vs. reward tells me no to either Fleury or Bishop.

 

Starter options?  Elliot, Darling, Lehner,

Backup? Johnson, Dell, Grubauer, Condon, Kinkaid.

 

Unless we want to look at high level trade of some sort.

[MAC331]

1 minute ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

I understand that we're just throwing out ideas and seeing what may stick but with all the talk of Bishop and Fleury options I decided to look at the regular season numbers. Courtesy of hockey numbers.com.

 

Ben Bishop           age:30     GP - 39     sv% - .910    GAA - 2.54     5.95 mil/yr  

Brian Elliot            age:31     GP - 49     sv% - .910    GAA - 2.55     2.70 mil/yr

Chad Johnson      age 30     GP - 36     sv% - .910    GAA - 2.59     1.70 mil/yr

M. A. Fleury          age 32     GP - 38     sv% - .909    GAA - 3.02     5.75 mil/yr

 

Fleury and Bishop may have more playoff experience/success but both have a history of long term injuries.Plus the whole +5.5mil salaries. Numbers wise it's a wash between the 4 of them. Risk vs. reward tells me no to either Fleury or Bishop.

 

Starter options?  Elliot, Darling, Lehner,

Backup? Johnson, Dell, Grubauer, Condon, Kinkaid.

 

Unless we want to look at high level trade of some sort.

Great post. I like your Starter options Elliott, Darling or Lehner at 3.5M for 2 or 3 years would serve this team well. I would start using our prospects for the back up role maybe starting with Rittich while Gilles get more development time in Stockton.

[Flyerfan52]

37 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Ok, then please start the paperwork.  We could get him signed now and actually have a goalie to protect in the draft.  Obviously, we would need to speak to his agent to gauge the interest and have some idea of the cost.  Much like we did with Bishop.

 

Many may not agree, but we should also re-sign Elliott July 1st.  I think Darling is the real deal, but he may not be ready for 60 games this coming season.  Elliott gives you usually 30+ games of quality starts.  

 

 

Philly is in the same situation we are. They also have a couple of goalies in the system (Stolarz & Lyon) they are big on but aren't ready to be starters just yet. IMO Neuvirth was signed to be exposed to meet criteria.

We have Riitch & Gilles waiting in the wings with McCollum as our sacrificial goalie.

Either team can trade for Darling's rights so the 1 that moves 1st has the best odds of signing him (both cases 2-3 years would be ideal but 4 would probably be needed to keep cost down. All the UFAs know there are usually a lot of them available every year so term/stability comes into play. $4 x 4 trumps $5 x 2 & wondering if the next 2 involve backup money or AHL money.)

As I've mentione the Jets will probably pursue him as soon as they can but with Hellebuyck & Comrie viewed as the future have to wait until after the LV draft if they want to protect Helly.

 

With Elliott it depends on his ask. If it's backup $s he'd suffice but that's 1.5 per or less. I'd rather deal with Montreal or Vegas for Montoya & his 1.062 x 2. Elliot may give you 30 quality starts but is so inconsitent you can't rely on those coming when he's needed.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Philly is in the same situation we are. They also have a couple of goalies in the system (Stolarz & Lyon) they are big on but aren't ready to be starters just yet. IMO Neuvirth was signed to be exposed to meet criteria.

We have Riitch & Gilles waiting in the wings with McCollum as our sacrificial goalie.

Either team can trade for Darling's rights so the 1 that moves 1st has the best odds of signing him (both cases 2-3 years would be ideal but 4 would probably be needed to keep cost down. All the UFAs know there are usually a lot of them available every year so term/stability comes into play. $4 x 4 trumps $5 x 2 & wondering if the next 2 involve backup money or AHL money.)

As I've mentione the Jets will probably pursue him as soon as they can but with Hellebuyck & Comrie viewed as the future have to wait until after the LV draft if they want to protect Helly.

 

With Elliott it depends on his ask. If it's backup $s he'd suffice but that's 1.5 per or less. I'd rather deal with Montreal or Vegas for Montoya & his 1.062 x 2. Elliot may give you 30 quality starts but is so inconsitent you can't rely on those coming when he's needed.

 

SInce you represent those other two teams, I will have to ask you to recluse yourself from the negotiations.

 

I would give Elliott a bit more for one year.  I think he has earned at least some opportunity to play here again, playoffs aside.

[AlbertaBoy12]

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

SInce you represent those other two teams, I will have to ask you to recluse yourself from the negotiations.

 

I would give Elliott a bit more for one year.  I think he has earned at least some opportunity to play here again, playoffs aside.

I would agree completely. I dont think elliott is going to get term on the open market and he seems to want to be here so I would give him the chance to come back. I dont think this team would be making a good choice to bring in bishop or fleury, the flames have made a habit of turning over goaltenders, elliott didnt have the playoffs he wanted but his second half was very good. I dont see any reason other then the playoffs to not bring him back unless hes asking for long term security. I dont think this team would be making the right call by adding bishop( who has a history of injuries) long term or fleury long term, we need a stop gap ie elliott. I dont think these 4 games are a good example of elliotts playoff ability and I would look to him to bounce back.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

3 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Great post. I like your Starter options Elliott, Darling or Lehner at 3.5M for 2 or 3 years would serve this team well. I would start using our prospects for the back up role maybe starting with Rittich while Gilles get more development time in Stockton.

I missed the game that Rittich played. How did he look confidence wise? Gilles looked solid and seemed comfortable throughout his entire game.

[robrob74]

I am not saying we dominate all the time, but I just want a goalie who can make a save when we have carried most of the play. When Elliott got cold he couldn't make a save.