Goaltending

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

This is true. Also since there is a condition on our 2018 3rd (Elliott), we probably couldn't trade that pick either.

ok.. so we go with the conditional 1st.. pretty sure we dont trade for him unless we fully intend to sign him .. and as i said before,  we already have an inside track on what it will take having negotiated with him previously 

[AlbertaBoy12]

21 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Prior to this season Bishop had played 60+ games in the past 3 seasons. Elliott hasn't played more than 55 games and that was 7 seasons ago.

 

If we re-sign Elliott we are giving up a 3rd round pick.

 

A number 1 goalie is always tradeable. I don't think you you can try and save a spot for a future goalie. You go get the best goalie you can right now and deal with making room for the younger goalies when the earn their spot.

That wasent really my point. Bishop missed the playoffs when tampa made their run, and im not sold on the idea of paying bishop big money. I dont think bishop will be a #1 goalie much longer, and considering how goalies are complete voodoo we could end up with a starter for a few years like kipper as phoneix said or we could end up with an inconistent aging playing with a bad contract. A goalie making 7 million a year is not easy to trade, and I dont think bishop mantains his current numbers.

[The_People1]

Do we have the balls to wait until a week before camp starts to see which goalies are still unsigned and then offer a low ball PTO? 

[JTech780]

6 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

That wasent really my point. Bishop missed the playoffs when tampa made their run, and im not sold on the idea of paying bishop big money. I dont think bishop will be a #1 goalie much longer, and considering how goalies are complete voodoo we could end up with a starter for a few years like kipper as phoneix said or we could end up with an inconistent aging playing with a bad contract. A goalie making 7 million a year is not easy to trade, and I dont think bishop mantains his current numbers.

 

I don't think Bishop gets anywhere near $7m. I think he will end up under $6m. My guess is that he gets 5 years Max.

 

I just don't see Elliott as a rebound candidate, what we saw from Elliott this year is what he is. I don't see him getting better. I do see Bishop rebounding.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 minute ago, JTech780 said:

 

I don't think Bishop gets anywhere near $7m. I think he will end up under $6m. My guess is that he gets 5 years Max.

 

I just don't see Elliott as a rebound candidate, what we saw from Elliott this year is what he is. I don't see him getting better. I do see Bishop rebounding.

Its possible. The other problem like I said is that goalies are voodoo, and if we are even offering him 6m for 5 its not exaclty like he has a long history of being elite.

 

12-13 Ottawa 2.45 .922 (13 games)

13-14 TB 2.23 .924

14-15 TB  2.32 .916

15-16 TB 2.06  .926

This year  TB 2.55 .911

LA 2.49 .900 (7 games)

 

So While I can see him possibly rebounding and obviously you dont need a huge sample size to judge a goalies future worth. But for a 31 year old goalie as of november next year I want more if im offering him even 6 million a year for 5 years. Granted he does have great numbers in a couple playoff series, im just not sold. 

[phoenix66]

26 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Its possible. The other problem like I said is that goalies are voodoo, and if we are even offering him 6m for 5 its not exaclty like he has a long history of being elite.

 

12-13 Ottawa 2.45 .922 (13 games)

13-14 TB 2.23 .924

14-15 TB  2.32 .916

15-16 TB 2.06  .926

This year  TB 2.55 .911

LA 2.49 .900 (7 games)

 

So While I can see him possibly rebounding and obviously you dont need a huge sample size to judge a goalies future worth. But for a 31 year old goalie as of november next year I want more if im offering him even 6 million a year for 5 years. Granted he does have great numbers in a couple playoff series, im just not sold. 

I see this year as the anomaly..not the pattern

Think about it.. you're coming an injury, you already know your team wants to trade you .. Yzerman told him at the start of the season he was being traded at some point .. your traded and immediately play in a different system , no camp no prep at all for a team that was already playing like it had given up ..also knowing full well your new team has no intention of keeping you .. how motivated are you ?  yet he still stayed over 900

 

Same with Fleury.. he was pretty Blah all year until he got the ball in the playoffs and now hes not letting go

 

and in terms of the age.. Elliot will likely cost you close to 4M for 3-4 yrs .. he's 32 .., it makes more sense to give the extra 2M to a goalie with a track record that compares to the likes of Lundqvist, Price when both will come out around 36 yrs old when its over 

Price is about to get Max term and $ in an extension and he;s never even sniffed a Final

[JTech780]

You have to guess that the asking price for Fleury keeps going up after every game he plays in these playoffs.

[Carty]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Do we have the balls to wait until a week before camp starts to see which goalies are still unsigned and then offer a low ball PTO? 

 

It wouldn't be balls, just stupidity...    Treliving went after two bargain goalies last summer, and we all know how that turned out...   While they both had good runs, they both also  had meltdowns, and when it was all said and done for the season, the bad still outweighed the good...

 

When Bishop went to LA, I sure hope Treliving was at least trying to get him, he was in negotiations for Bishop in the summer so he was obviously interested then...   It is also possible that if Treliving was in on Bishop and the offer was similar, Yzerman might have been inclined to let Bishop go to LA because of the trade talks with the Flames going south in the summer...  If it was a case not wanting to hurt the current goalies feelings?...   Too bad, by that time they had both had extended periods of incompetence...

 

With Darling getting snapped up, the short list of potentially available goaltenders that have the best chance of being an upgrade just got even shorter...

 

Treliving has to deliver on a goaltending upgrade...   If he stays with Elliott and Johnson, or even one of them as part of a 1a/1b approach again and it doesn't work, it could cost the Flames a season, the risk is too big...   The only way he could keep one of Elliott or Johnson is to get a bonafide starter and then keep one as a backup...   and even that carries a risk...

[Carty]

From:   http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2017/05/01/the-ben-bishop-market-is-reportedly-heating-up/

The Ben Bishop market is reportedly heating up

There’s been significant goalie movement already this offseason, so no surprise suitors are now jockeying for Ben Bishop‘s services.

 

Per TSN’s Pierre LeBrun, a “couple of teams” spoke to Los Angeles about acquiring the rights to Bishop, who becomes an unrestricted free agent on July 1. Obtaining Bishop’s rights would open up a two-month negotiating window ahead of him hitting the market.

 

This news comes days after Carolina made a big splash in the goalie market — acquiring Scott Darling’s rights from Chicago — and with another potential target, Marc-Andre Fleury, showing extremely well for Pittsburgh.

 

Bishop, 30, just wrapped the last of a two-year, $11.9 million deal with a $5.95M average annual cap hit. His season was largely forgettable. Caught in a difficult situation with Tampa Bay — splitting time with goalie-of-the-future Andrei Vasilevskiy, and distracted by contract uncertainty — Bishop had just a .910 save percentage in 32 games with the Bolts, before getting flipped to L.A. at the deadline.

 

With the Kings, Bishop wasn’t much better. His save percentage dropped to .900, and the club failed in its attempt to rally for a postseason push.

 

This might’ve knocked some of the luster off Bishop, but probably not that much. He’s only one year removed from a banner ’15-16 campaign in which he was the Vezina runner-up, and finished 10th in MVP voting. He also posted three straight 35-win seasons with the Bolts, including a career-high 40 in ’14-15.

 

Still, he might not be in line for a huge payday or lengthy term. For as good as his resume is, Bishop turns 31 in November and has a history of health issues.

 

Teams believed to be interested include Calgary and Dallas, most notably.

 

[JTech780]

18 minutes ago, Carty said:

From:   http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2017/05/01/the-ben-bishop-market-is-reportedly-heating-up/

The Ben Bishop market is reportedly heating up

There’s been significant goalie movement already this offseason, so no surprise suitors are now jockeying for Ben Bishop‘s services.

 

Per TSN’s Pierre LeBrun, a “couple of teams” spoke to Los Angeles about acquiring the rights to Bishop, who becomes an unrestricted free agent on July 1. Obtaining Bishop’s rights would open up a two-month negotiating window ahead of him hitting the market.

 

This news comes days after Carolina made a big splash in the goalie market — acquiring Scott Darling’s rights from Chicago — and with another potential target, Marc-Andre Fleury, showing extremely well for Pittsburgh.

 

Bishop, 30, just wrapped the last of a two-year, $11.9 million deal with a $5.95M average annual cap hit. His season was largely forgettable. Caught in a difficult situation with Tampa Bay — splitting time with goalie-of-the-future Andrei Vasilevskiy, and distracted by contract uncertainty — Bishop had just a .910 save percentage in 32 games with the Bolts, before getting flipped to L.A. at the deadline.

 

With the Kings, Bishop wasn’t much better. His save percentage dropped to .900, and the club failed in its attempt to rally for a postseason push.

 

This might’ve knocked some of the luster off Bishop, but probably not that much. He’s only one year removed from a banner ’15-16 campaign in which he was the Vezina runner-up, and finished 10th in MVP voting. He also posted three straight 35-win seasons with the Bolts, including a career-high 40 in ’14-15.

 

Still, he might not be in line for a huge payday or lengthy term. For as good as his resume is, Bishop turns 31 in November and has a history of health issues.

 

Teams believed to be interested include Calgary and Dallas, most notably.

 

 

I like that they said the market is heating up and then listed two teams. Does two teams count as heating up?

[Carty]

40 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

I like that they said the market is heating up and then listed two teams. Does two teams count as heating up?

 

Maybe NBC Sports got the tip for the story from Bishop's agent...

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, Carty said:

 

When Bishop went to LA, I sure hope Treliving was at least trying to get him, he was in negotiations for Bishop in the summer so he was obviously interested then...   It is also possible that if Treliving was in on Bishop and the offer was similar, Yzerman might have been inclined to let Bishop go to LA because of the trade talks with the Flames going south in the summer...  If it was a case not wanting to hurt the current goalies feelings?...   Too bad, by that time they had both had extended periods of incompetence...

 

Yzerman went out of his way to say that he had "no other Offers ".. when he traded him to LA.. which I found rather odd.. most might just say "i took the best offer ".. so if there's a rub there it was with Yzerman , cuz im sure there was more on the table with the Flames in the summer . that seemed to be a bit of a shot to me.. it also makes sense that while everybody talked about LA acquiring Bishop to keep him away from us.. it could just as easily been Yzerman picking a spot that could potentially  hurt us the most 

 

then I wondered .. since the contract obviously wasn't the sticking point in the trade, it must have been Yzermans asking .. i did hear that our first rounder was requsted as part of the package..

 

Who's to say ,  tricky things happen in this league all the time ...  while he had permission to speak with his agent at the draft , its no longer tampering , you can talk about anything .. I could see BT saying to his agent " look.. Stevie's request  is too rich for us , but don't sign anything next summer without talking to us first ".. or even " hey , we got all this money coming off the books next season , we'll be in a better position to make it worth your while then "..  in the end we just want a chance to make a pitch

 

that would be an awesome insurance policy..  

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

I actually think Carolina over paid. UFA rights rarely go for more than a 3rd.

 

For a goalie with possible starter capability, a 3rd is not unreasonable for having 2 months to work a deal.  They can throw buckets of cash at Darling and give him the starter net.  They can expose both Ward and Lack if they manage to sign him.  There are not that many teams that could give him that opportunity.

 

To put it in perspective, RFA Jones was traded by BOS for a 1st and Kuraly.  He signed shortly after being traded.  

[JTech780]

5 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

For a goalie with possible starter capability, a 3rd is not unreasonable for having 2 months to work a deal.  They can throw buckets of cash at Darling and give him the starter net.  They can expose both Ward and Lack if they manage to sign him.  There are not that many teams that could give him that opportunity.

 

To put it in perspective, RFA Jones was traded by BOS for a 1st and Kuraly.  He signed shortly after being traded.  

 

Arizona paid a 5th for Goligoski's rights and Florida paid a 6th for Yandle's rights. Both players are far more proven than Darling.

[phoenix66]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

For a goalie with possible starter capability, a 3rd is not unreasonable for having 2 months to work a deal.  They can throw buckets of cash at Darling and give him the starter net.  They can expose both Ward and Lack if they manage to sign him.  There are not that many teams that could give him that opportunity.

 

To put it in perspective, RFA Jones was traded by BOS for a 1st and Kuraly.  He signed shortly after being traded.  

yup.. Talbot was 3 picks, Anderson a 1st and a 3rd.. in terms of deals for rights, we traded a 3rd and another pending free agent for Bouuwmeester

[conundrumed]

We don't have a 2nd or 3rd pick this year, for perspective.

We might be best leaving it where it is. Re-sign the 2 we can, give the Blues next yrs 3rd, whatev.

Make a plan, stick with it.

If we throw everything at Bishop, there are no guarantees...

[Cowtownguy]

I find it hard to believe that Treliving has not been working on acquiring Bishop. My guess is that he was discussing Darling too. Elliott was a great bargain last year, but I suspect that Treliving was not entirely sold on him. A contract extension could have been generated when they signed him. Elliott has had an unusual career insofar as he has had a number of solid runs and dry spells. He seems to perform better when battling for a position IMO. 

 

I agree with what a number of skeptics have said. Bishop will be expensive to acquire, and his term/annual salary will be costly. But, what is the option? Will we be able to have much success without an improvement in goal while waiting for our AHL boys to develop? Don't get me wrong, I believe that a team needs to play well in their zone and not rely too extensively on a goalie. The issue here is that Treliving likes to see continual improvement on the team. Goaltending has to be a major part of his plan. The only other option is to really beef up on defence and go with whomever appears most attractive at the moment. 

[JTech780]

8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

yup.. Talbot was 3 picks, Anderson a 1st and a 3rd.. in terms of deals for rights, we traded a 3rd and another pending free agent for Bouuwmeester

 

Talbot was under contract when he was traded. Andersen was an RFA. Not compareables.

[conundrumed]

6 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

I find it hard to believe that Treliving has not been working on acquiring Bishop. My guess is that he was discussing Darling too. Elliott was a great bargain last year, but I suspect that Treliving was not entirely sold on him. A contract extension could have been generated when they signed him. Elliott has had an unusual career insofar as he has had a number of solid runs and dry spells. He seems to perform better when battling for a position IMO. 

 

I agree with what a number of skeptics have said. Bishop will be expensive to acquire, and his term/annual salary will be costly. But, what is the option? Will we be able to have much success without an improvement in goal while waiting for our AHL boys to develop? Don't get me wrong, I believe that a team needs to play well in their zone and not rely too extensively on a goalie. The issue here is that Treliving likes to see continual improvement on the team. Goaltending has to be a major part of his plan. The only other option is to really beef up on defence and go with whomever appears most attractive at the moment. 

Imho I believe improving the F ranks would help to improve everything.

[Cowtownguy]

8 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Imho I believe improving the F ranks would help to improve everything.

Explain. I think that we need to improve in every department. I believe that we have a big hole on the top line. Brouwer was supposed to potentially add some depth on either the first or second line, and he just didn't pan out. He pulled a Wideman. Ferland was a better option although that is a band aid IMO. I don't even know what GG was thinking with Chiasson on the first line. The second line looks sharp, and the bottom two need to mature and develop with tweeks here and there. 

 

I suspect that Elliott will want much more money next year. Is it worth it to have him here on a $4 million/year contract? Why not go a little further and get Bishop? Both are risky moves. If Treliving goes with the current pair, and they perform like they did this year, Treliving looks seriously inept. If he makes a move for Bishop, and he underperforms, then Treliving will look bad (depending on salary and term), but at least it looks like he is desirous of improvement. Of course, if Bishop wants too much, or LA refuses to offer up his rights, well, then Treliving will not be able to pull the trigger.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

Buffalo - Colorado - Dallas - Philly - Vancouver - Vegas - Winnipeg. Add the Flames and you have 8 teams looking for a true #1. Some teams are handcuffed money wise, Some have more cap space to play with. Some places may seem more appealing. Alot of teams for a relatively small talent core. I betting on having the same duo in September, at approximately the same cost. And I'm fine with that.  A $6 mil Bishop doesnt provide any more gurantee of success than a $3mil Elliot.

 

 

[JTech780]

2 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

Buffalo - Colorado - Dallas - Philly - Vancouver - Vegas - Winnipeg. Add the Flames and you have 8 teams looking for a true #1. Some teams are handcuffed money wise, Some have more cap space to play with. Some places may seem more appealing. Alot of teams for a relatively small talent core. I betting on having the same duo in September, at approximately the same cost. And I'm fine with that.  A $6 mil Bishop doesnt provide any more gurantee of success than a $3mil Elliot.

 

 

 

You can take Buffalo off the list as they have Lehner, he's a number 1.

 

Vancouver will most likely bring Miller back so they can be taken off the list. Even if they don't sign Miller, they will probably look to run with Markstrom.

 

Colorado still has Varlamov under contract. I can't see them being aggressive non the market with his contract still on the books. 

 

If Treliving goes back to Elliott, he better be damn sure that Elliott's going to get the job done, because if he sinks with Elliott two seasons in a row, it might cost him his job. 

 

I personally have zero faith that Elliott can get the job done, and they way the team sagged everytime he let in a weak goal tells me they don't have much faith in him either.

[AlbertaBoy12]

8 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

If Treliving goes back to Elliott, he better be damn sure that Elliott's going to get the job done, because if he sinks with Elliott two seasons in a row, it might cost him his job. 

 

I personally have zero faith that Elliott can get the job done, and they way the team sagged everytime he let in a weak goal tells me they don't have much faith in him either.

Honestly goalies are such voodoo elliott could rebound and have a season like he did in st louis or we could get bishop and he could have a run like hiller. We really dont know what any goalie will be season to season, unless they are carey price caliber. I dont think you can expect anything unless you get your goalie from the top of the pile ie price, quick, then you have your above average goaltenders that can end up having average seasons due to consistency or average goalies have above average seasons. 

 

Im pretty sure 90% of people thought our goaltending was solved when we got elliott + johnson, and for the most part it was. After elliots slow start to the year he was pretty good, obviously he let a few stinkers in, in the playoffs. But if im BT, I bring elliott back, I dont think anyone is going to offer him big term and he seems to like calgary. I dont see it being unreasonable to get him for 2 years at 3-4 m and he should be better next year.

[phoenix66]

42 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Honestly goalies are such voodoo elliott could rebound and have a season like he did in st louis or we could get bishop and he could have a run like hiller. We really dont know what any goalie will be season to season, unless they are carey price caliber. I dont think you can expect anything unless you get your goalie from the top of the pile ie price, quick, then you have your above average goaltenders that can end up having average seasons due to consistency or average goalies have above average seasons. 

 

Im pretty sure 90% of people thought our goaltending was solved when we got elliott + johnson, and for the most part it was. After elliots slow start to the year he was pretty good, obviously he let a few stinkers in, in the playoffs. But if im BT, I bring elliott back, I dont think anyone is going to offer him big term and he seems to like calgary. I dont see it being unreasonable to get him for 2 years at 3-4 m and he should be better next year.

Agreed goalies are unpredictable .. to be honest , even Carey Price can have a bad year .

I can agree with the arguments that show reluctance in Bishop.. but history and performance speak against Elliot being a better option that Bishop.

He has never at any time in is career been a better goalie than Bishop.. why would we roll the dice on that happening now ?  for basically a 2M / year diference?

Both will likely get contracts that take them both to 35/36.. Elliot is actually 2 years older already 

I have more faith in our training staff keeping Bishop healthy , than I do in our Goalie coach helping Elliot find a consistent top level form he has never had 

 

The only reason we're not roasting Elliot over the regular season is because in the beginning Johnson saves his behind.. otherwise we're here again talking  about a season comeback that fell short.

Absolute KUDOS to Elliot for his play down the stretch. it was amazing .. and yes we all agreed with the signing at the time.. but how many times do you keep going back to a well  and hoping for a different result ? We did the same with Ramo.. if we sign him we will get the same season .. flashes of brilliance., flashes of "whats wrong " and fingers crossed tight the right one shows up for the playoffs

 

also .. Im seeing now Johnson now wont be back.. if you listen to his post interviews, read between the lines.. he wants to be a starter.. he wants to play . he definitely wants to get paid .. he states he'd love to be back "if its right "..  he's either going to be a starter , or paid like a 1B

1) hes not the guy to get the #1 reins here  and 2) we dont have the luxury of paying a backup 2.5M +..  I'm going to miss him , but now we have to take into acct , do you want Elliot in net for 60+ games ?  giving him the best benefit of the doubt, his issues likely stem from he does best when splitting 50-50. maybe the catch 22 of that 11 game win streak was we played him too much down the stretch

 

your argument against Bishop is for what "might " happen .. but with Elliot your signing up for what has already happened , hoping it wont again 

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

You can take Buffalo off the list as they have Lehner, he's a number 1.

 

Vancouver will most likely bring Miller back so they can be taken off the list. Even if they don't sign Miller, they will probably look to run with Markstrom.

 

Colorado still has Varlamov under contract. I can't see them being aggressive non the market with his contract still on the books. 

 

If Treliving goes back to Elliott, he better be damn sure that Elliott's going to get the job done, because if he sinks with Elliott two seasons in a row, it might cost him his job. 

 

I personally have zero faith that Elliott can get the job done, and they way the team sagged everytime he let in a weak goal tells me they don't have much faith in him either.

I just want to say something here in defense of Elliott and your thoughts on the team "sagging" after a soft goal. First you don't know how the rest of the team feels about Elliott or Johnson for that matter. Secondly soft goals or groaner goals are happening to all goalies not just ours. Thirdly, a mature team rises above such feelings and deals with the situations they face throughout a game, they shouldn't "sag" and quit with their effort. I don't know about you but I saw our team grow up a bit in the ANA series even though they lost. BT could go for someone like Bishop, as a GM it is his job to make every effort to improve the team season to season however if he doesn't land him he needs to have other options. I don't think either Elliott or Johnson are chopped liver and are experienced professionals more than capable of getting the job done for us. We shouldn't forget how weak our 5 on 5 play was and some focus on how to improve this aspect of our game. I guess what I am saying is I am not sure blowing the budget on 1 goalie is the way for us to go at this time.