Goaltending

[Flyerfan52]

Wait until July 2nd if going the UFA route. By then Bishop (if the target) knows he's not worth any team breaking the bank on a long term/big $ contract so would have to consider reasonable offers. The others not signed on frenzy day also have to lower their ask as they aren't as in demand as their agent hoped.

If it's via trade once the playoffs end teams like the Pengies & Caps have to decide which of their tandem they protect. The 1 they decide on & the ask for the other determines if it's worth assets to add 1 of the 4 possibles.

 

There are likely 30+ goalies that will be looking for a starters role with maybe 6 teams looking to sign 1. Getting caught up in a frenzy results in a Bryz situation (stupid Homer) while better goalies signed for less. Teams still have a choice in their shopping so there is no reason to extend Elliott (& give up the pick) or Johnson as there are as good or better looking to be 1 of the 60 getting NHL wages.

Pavalov doesn't want to go back to Europe so is a $1 miilion option as a hungry backup that used to be a starter & would like to be 1 again.

 

In a buyers market patience is the key. Maybe Bishop came across as wanting too much which combined with what TB wanted in compensation gave BT pause so he went cheaper in hopes Elliott was ready to be a starter like others had proved before. But why re-sign what doesn't work for even bigger $s when there are other options? Maybe Elliott does have it in him to be a starter but it's a hope only so if he wants 1 of the few places he can have the chance to prove it let him sign a "show me" contract.

 

You want the starter signed so as to look @ how much is left to upgrade the skaters but even there the costs of those upgrades have to be determined by what's left in the budget after trades before the 2 drafts. Say you budget for $8 million on a goalie tandem & sign or trade for 1 costing $6 that just means you offer the backup less. But, if a top RW or D comes available that cuts into the amount set aside you can divert funds to pay the goalie that's 85-90% as good as your main choice a tad less. There isn't that much difference in the top 5 available & being a team game having better players up front make many look better.

 

[conundrumed]

18 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

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.

Well, I don't think anyone is giving JG props for his D play and we watch him get slashed unabashedly with no retaliation. We have to get harder to play against up front, from faceoffs to puck pursuit to having at least some intimidation.

Bouma, Chiasson, Stajan, Brouwer, Versteeg, I don't think these guys are scaring anyone, just playing in a bog.

You always here the phrase, "just have to play the right way", and you combine that with the Preds saying Cody MacLeod makes the whole team play bigger.

Then you look at the Sens, when they give up goals, they come back barnstorming, as opposed to what JTech correctly called sagging.

We need more wingers that can play with consistent intensity, we just don't have that.

Look at Frolik, he can go in 1 vs 3 on a line change and still win the puck, and then he's back in our end defending like a center. I am not asking for 9 20 goal scorers, just a team of guys that battle hard consistently regardless of the score.

Anderson has given up weak goals just like Elliott, difference being HIS team forgets it right now, ours is like watching a balloon deflating.

If you're a team, bailing out your goalie is no different then him bailing you out. We don't seem to be there imho.

Goalies are a weird breed, like Anderson in Game 2, you bail him out, he becomes a wall.

[jjgallow]

 

Question for those out there much smarter than me:      Evan Cowley  (example)

 

How does the expansion draft affect College UFAs this year, specifically for goalies?

 

One of the best goalies available, certainly not the only one, as an example would be Evan Cowley.

 

Panthers drafted him in 2013, and he's coming off his fourth college season.   Can a team like the Panthers even Afford to sign a guy like that?  One of those goalie prospects that Might be amazing, and might not?   

 

Makes me wonder if opportunities might present themselves for the Flames to acquire a bit more goaltending youth that would otherwise be unobtainable.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

22 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.

Lehner is RFA. With new coach and gm, he's not guaranteed to resign. Canucks, Stars,Jets and Avs are in the same boat. They need to show their fan base next year wont be like last year, but it will be costly to try and trade off current contracts.

[jjgallow]

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

Lehner is RFA. With new coach and gm, he's not guaranteed to resign. Canucks, Stars,Jets and Avs are in the same boat. They need to show their fan base next year wont be like last year, but it will be costly to try and trade off current contracts.

 

Lehner would be an incredible pickup, I just can't imagine anyone would be crazy enough to let him go.   stranger things have happened, I guess.  

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Question for those out there much smarter than me:      Evan Cowley  (example)

 

How does the expansion draft affect College UFAs this year, specifically for goalies?

 

One of the best goalies available, certainly not the only one, as an example would be Evan Cowley.

 

Panthers drafted him in 2013, and he's coming off his fourth college season.   Can a team like the Panthers even Afford to sign a guy like that?  One of those goalie prospects that Might be amazing, and might not?   

 

Makes me wonder if opportunities might present themselves for the Flames to acquire a bit more goaltending youth that would otherwise be unobtainable.

Cowley, as a Sr, played backup to Jaillet, a Jr.

Ummm, not sure I get your question. His numbers are sparkling, but for what, 14 games as a backup against the easy wins? MM is similar size and I would rather have MM in all the comparables.

I'm not against finding ways to add G, but not guys to add right away to our depth, the guys we have now need a place to play. For all we know Schneider will be great. MM, Gillies, Parsons, no reason not to re-sign Rittich. We have good depth at a good range of ages.

To add a Sr finishing U, where do we put him? Or we have to drop someone, and I'm not down with that.

I don't have a problem drafting goalies to keep the pipeline full. They can go to U or stay in jr though, not need to join our program in the right now.

The NCAA and US program is coming on strong, but it definitely isn't there yet for the pillaging.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Cowley, as a Sr, played backup to Jaillet, a Jr.

Ummm, not sure I get your question. His numbers are sparkling, but for what, 14 games as a backup against the easy wins? MM is similar size and I would rather have MM in all the comparables.

I'm not against finding ways to add G, but not guys to add right away to our depth, the guys we have now need a place to play. For all we know Schneider will be great. MM, Gillies, Parsons, no reason not to re-sign Rittich. We have good depth at a good range of ages.

To add a Sr finishing U, where do we put him? Or we have to drop someone, and I'm not down with that.

I don't have a problem drafting goalies to keep the pipeline full. They can go to U or stay in jr though, not need to join our program in the right now.

The NCAA and US program is coming on strong, but it definitely isn't there yet for the pillaging.

 

Yeah, I don't know the story behind the backup situation, and he was only an example, I was trying to provide someone who may have great potential but may likely also be available in the near term.   It would depend on why and how.   Ie., could be an academic reason.

 

Right now I see Gillies and Parsons in the system.   Neither are bonafide at the moment, and Parsons probably has the edge of the two (but is a long way off).

 

Keep in mind that I'm a little more forward than some on here.  Riitich will be 25 next season.  He'll have had a year to adjust to NA hockey.   IMHO, one of two things should typically happen by then.  We give him a shot on the Flames as a backup, or we wish him well.   I know Kipper was there until 26, but generally we don't need to be in the habit of grooming AHL goalies approaching their 30's IMHO.  There are just too many great prospects out there.

 

So either way, that leaves us with Gillies in the AHL.   And quite frankly, the guy has struggled.    

 

Basically, I'm saying, we need another tandem for Gillies in the AHL, as he has not yet shown he can lead it on his own.   And while we hope he will, we should be developing someone else down there.   Preferably someone of the same age group.  Because, to be quite honest, guys of Gillies age with better recent performance, can be had, I think (?)...possibly for free. 

 

 

[MAC331]

14 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Well, I don't think anyone is giving JG props for his D play and we watch him get slashed unabashedly with no retaliation. We have to get harder to play against up front, from faceoffs to puck pursuit to having at least some intimidation.

Bouma, Chiasson, Stajan, Brouwer, Versteeg, I don't think these guys are scaring anyone, just playing in a bog.

You always here the phrase, "just have to play the right way", and you combine that with the Preds saying Cody MacLeod makes the whole team play bigger.

Then you look at the Sens, when they give up goals, they come back barnstorming, as opposed to what JTech correctly called sagging.

We need more wingers that can play with consistent intensity, we just don't have that.

Look at Frolik, he can go in 1 vs 3 on a line change and still win the puck, and then he's back in our end defending like a center. I am not asking for 9 20 goal scorers, just a team of guys that battle hard consistently regardless of the score.

Anderson has given up weak goals just like Elliott, difference being HIS team forgets it right now, ours is like watching a balloon deflating.

If you're a team, bailing out your goalie is no different then him bailing you out. We don't seem to be there imho.

Goalies are a weird breed, like Anderson in Game 2, you bail him out, he becomes a wall.

Couldn't agree more, in baseball it is called "picking up your teammate" when an error or mistake is made.

[MAC331]

5 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yeah, I don't know the story behind the backup situation, and he was only an example, I was trying to provide someone who may have great potential but may likely also be available in the near term.   It would depend on why and how.   Ie., could be an academic reason.

 

Right now I see Gillies and Parsons in the system.   Neither are bonafide at the moment, and Parsons probably has the edge of the two (but is a long way off).

 

Keep in mind that I'm a little more forward than some on here.  Riitich will be 25 next season.  He'll have had a year to adjust to NA hockey.   IMHO, one of two things should typically happen by then.  We give him a shot on the Flames as a backup, or we wish him well.   I know Kipper was there until 26, but generally we don't need to be in the habit of grooming AHL goalies approaching their 30's IMHO.  There are just too many great prospects out there.

 

So either way, that leaves us with Gillies in the AHL.   And quite frankly, the guy has struggled.    

 

Basically, I'm saying, we need another tandem for Gillies in the AHL, as he has not yet shown he can lead it on his own.   And while we hope he will, we should be developing someone else down there.   Preferably someone of the same age group.  Because, to be quite honest, guys of Gillies age with better recent performance, can be had, I think (?)...possibly for free. 

 

 

Maybe misguided forward thinking. These prospect are in the minors for development and split time tandems are not the answer all the time. I look at our situation and agree with you on Rittich right up to your "wish him well" part. He should compete for the back up position at 25 years old however if Johnson is resigned or another more experienced back up is signed it would be a good position to have Rittich in Stockton in case of injuries. Give Gilles the majority of starts so he develops into the starter you want him to be, if he constantly falters the organization has a decision to make.

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Maybe misguided forward thinking. These prospect are in the minors for development and split time tandems are not the answer all the time. I look at out situation and agree with you on Rittich right up to your "wish him well" part. He should compete for the back up position at 25 years old however if Johnson is resigned or another more experienced back up is signed it would be a good position to have Rittich in Stockton in case of injuries. Give Gilles the majority of starts so he develops into the starter you want him to be, if he constantly falters the organization has a decision to make.

i think depends on your definition of struggled, or what expectations are . Don't forget this was basically Gillies's first pro season .. more games and a level of play he's never been at . Had his ups and downs and for the most part showed very well. I would think he met or exceeded expectations. I hear last night he was incredible in the 2+ OT he played (dont know why Rittich came out ?  Injury maybe ?)stopped 37 of 39 shots in just 2+

Rittich tho i think is definitely the story .. we all played him off like another Reto Berra place filler but in my mind hes put himself to the top of the current depth chart. I agree that if we get a solid #1 he should be in the conversation for competing for the #2 job next year 

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

i think depends on your definition of struggled, or what expectations are . Don't forget this was basically Gillies's first pro season .. more games and a level of play he's never been at . Had his ups and downs and for the most part showed very well. I would think he met or exceeded expectations. I hear last night he was incredible in the 2+ OT he played (dont know why Rittich came out ?  Injury maybe ?)stopped 37 of 39 shots in just 2+

Rittich tho i think is definitely the story .. we all played him off like another Reto Berra place filler but in my mind hes put himself to the top of the current depth chart. I agree that if we get a solid #1 he should be in the conversation for competing for the #2 job next year 

Rittich has emerged and should definitely be part of the back up position conversation at 25 years of age and his play this season. Gilles with his hip surgery missed considerable time and has had some ups and downs with consistent performance which tells me he needs more development time to smooth this out.

[JTech780]

I am not a fan of college goalies. They just don't get enough shots and games during prime development years. Very few college goalies go on to have success at the NHL level compared to other development leagues. Their stats are inflated by playing fewer games and seeing fewer shots.

 

There are some that go on to have success but when I look at this past season only Talbot, Miller and Schneider played 50+ games for their team to varying degrees of success.

 

I also see our goaltending prospect pool as being pretty full, to the point that we might have not have room for all of our guys at the pro level. 

 

Rittich deserves a look at the NHL, but a lot of that will be determined by who we get as a starter. If we get an experienced guy that can carry the mail for 60+ games I think going with Rittich is a great plan. If we go with a less experienced starter like Grubauer, I would like a veteran backup to help him along or to step in and play some good hockey if the starter falters.

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

I am not a fan of college goalies. They just don't get enough shots and games during prime development years. Very few college goalies go on to have success at the NHL level compared to other development leagues. Their stats are inflated by playing fewer games and seeing fewer shots.

 

There are some that go on to have success but when I look at this past season only Talbot, Miller and Schneider played 50+ games for their team to varying degrees of success.

 

I also see our goaltending prospect pool as being pretty full, to the point that we might have not have room for all of our guys at the pro level. 

 

Rittich deserves a look at the NHL, but a lot of that will be determined by who we get as a starter. If we get an experienced guy that can carry the mail for 60+ games I think going with Rittich is a great plan. If we go with a less experienced starter like Grubauer, I would like a veteran backup to help him along or to step in and play some good hockey if the starter falters.

It is a smaller sample size for sure, but the % of junior goalies that dont make it is probably pretty similar

Joseph, Dryden, Belfour, Schneider, Gibson, Miller, Talbot.. and few lesser ones. all come to mind as having come from College..  while there are quite a few that dont make the transition , the ones that do sure make an impact 

[travel_dude]

7 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Keep in mind that I'm a little more forward than some on here.  Riitich will be 25 next season.  He'll have had a year to adjust to NA hockey.   IMHO, one of two things should typically happen by then.  We give him a shot on the Flames as a backup, or we wish him well.   I know Kipper was there until 26, but generally we don't need to be in the habit of grooming AHL goalies approaching their 30's IMHO.  There are just too many great prospects out there.

 

So either way, that leaves us with Gillies in the AHL.   And quite frankly, the guy has struggled.    

 

Basically, I'm saying, we need another tandem for Gillies in the AHL, as he has not yet shown he can lead it on his own.   And while we hope he will, we should be developing someone else down there.   Preferably someone of the same age group.  Because, to be quite honest, guys of Gillies age with better recent performance, can be had, I think (?)...possibly for free. 

 

I have no issue with keeping Gillies in the AHL.  He may be one of those cases where he is better suited for the NHL, but you just can't take the risk unless you have no option (injury replacement).  So, let him get a similar number of starts as Parsons, and if you are going with one guy for an extended period of time, send the other to start in the ECHL.

 

Rittich has played surprisingly well for a 1st year NA goalie.  The numbers are impressive.  He may be a good choice as a backup for the Flames, assuming that we have a true starter.  If we go the 1a/1b route, then we should keep him in the AHL, but give him first callup.

 

On that note, I have no interest in bringing CJ back.  He was a good starter for a time, then a good backup for a time, but then fell off when we needed him as a backup the most.  Can't take that risk again on a 1b goalie again.

 

 

[JTech780]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

It is a smaller sample size for sure, but the % of junior goalies that dont make it is probably pretty similar

Joseph, Dryden, Belfour, Schneider, Gibson, Miller, Talbot.. and few lesser ones. all come to mind as having come from College..  while there are quite a few that dont make the transition , the ones that do sure make an impact 

 

John Gibson didn't come from college, he played for the Kitchener Rangers.

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, JTech780 said:

 

John Gibson didn't come from college, he played for the Kitchener Rangers.

I stand corrected, I forgot about his junior stint.. before that he was the US national development team .. always get that mixed up with college

[Flyerfan52]

On 2017-05-02 at 0:39 PM, Carty said:

If something happens in a deal for Fleury or Murray going to another team, then the price for Bishop goes up, both for his rights and then to sign him...   

 

Same thing happens when Darling is signed...   Supply and demand...

Darling signed. $16.6 over 4 years.

No idea what teams would have offered July 1 (I figured around $4 depending on term) but for only the cost of his lowest of 3 picks in the 3rd I figure Francis made a good call.

[MAC331]

12 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Darling signed. $16.6 over 4 years.

No idea what teams would have offered July 1 (I figured around $4 depending on term) but for only the cost of his lowest of 3 picks in the 3rd I figure Francis made a good call.

They are making a definite commitment something we need to do with our situation wide open.

[DirtyDeeds]

I am having trouble with some points of view around here. Elliott  got us into the playoffs, yet some of you are throwing him under the bus for 4 games in post season. We would not be there without his string of wins. Please spare me the "Well he played poorly to start the season" talk... the whole team stunk it up.. It was not just him. The whole team was adjusting to a new coach and system not just Elliott. Just about everyone played poorly with exception of the Backs line.

 

No doubt Elliott will be signed at a reasonable price for a moderate short term. (thinking 2 years show me you  can do it). You guys can debate how much he will be worth because of his age at the end of that one.

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I am having trouble with some points of view around here. Elliott  got us into the playoffs, yet some of you are throwing him under the bus for 4 games in post season. We would not be there without his string of wins. Please spare me the "Well he played poorly to start the season" talk... the whole team stunk it up.. It was not just him. The whole team was adjusting to a new coach and system not just Elliott. Just about everyone played poorly with exception of the Backs line.

 

No doubt Elliott will be signed at a reasonable price for a moderate short term. (thinking 2 years show me you  can do it). You guys can debate how much he will be worth because of his age at the end of that one.

 

We stumbled into the playoffs.  The goaltending was adequate enough to win behind a team ready to play 60 minute games.  I thought we had really good stretches in those 4 games against the Ducks.  Then there were the face palms.  Would Freddie Andersen have fared any better?  Or if we had Gibson?  Perhaps.  Or maybe we can play without the puck a little better next time.  Or be able to clear the puck without spending a full shift in the D-zone.  Little things lose games, not just the guy with the mask.

[phoenix66]

17 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I am having trouble with some points of view around here. Elliott  got us into the playoffs, yet some of you are throwing him under the bus for 4 games in post season. We would not be there without his string of wins. Please spare me the "Well he played poorly to start the season" talk... the whole team stunk it up.. It was not just him. The whole team was adjusting to a new coach and system not just Elliott. Just about everyone played poorly with exception of the Backs line.

 

No doubt Elliott will be signed at a reasonable price for a moderate short term. (thinking 2 years show me you  can do it). You guys can debate how much he will be worth because of his age at the end of that one.

nobody is putting him in the same category as Ramo for example. We asked for a goaltending upgrade, we got it.. nobody disputes that , but its like when they Fired Hartley and said he's taken us as far as he can take us".. i feel this is true of Elliot.

i like the guy , I really do.. but "good enough " doesnt cut it anymore. If our goals is to simply make the playoffs and then hope "anything can happen " then Elliot is your Guy.. he showed hes capable of taking over a series 2 seasons ago, but even then he stumbled at the end 

I see 2 sides of the coin here ...Washington is losing to Pittsburgh with arguable the best goalie in the league cuz the rest of the team is not picking up the slack, ditto to Edmonton ...altho we need improvements, if we had received the same level of goaltending Edmonton and Washington are getting , we win that series.

 

This isnt a case of a player having an off year , this is asking a player at age 32  to do what he's never done.. be a true #1 and provide championship level goaltending in the playoffs . we took the chance, a very calculated one , and it was positive in many ways .. but in the end he simply to me is not the one to get us to the next level 

[DirtyDeeds]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

We stumbled into the playoffs.  The goaltending was adequate enough to win behind a team ready to play 60 minute games.  I thought we had really good stretches in those 4 games against the Ducks.  Then there were the face palms.  Would Freddie Andersen have fared any better?  Or if we had Gibson?  Perhaps.  Or maybe we can play without the puck a little better next time.  Or be able to clear the puck without spending a full shift in the D-zone.  Little things lose games, not just the guy with the mask.

I was upset with Elliott when it all came down but I am past the emotion of the losses now. I watched him play the playoffs the previous year and he was spectacular. Won games for the Blues they did not deserve. Carried that team past opponents they did not deserve to move to next level. I'll even put up money he will do much better in playoffs for us next season if the Flames give him a chance. (I think the Flames will see it like that too).

[phoenix66]

17 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We stumbled into the playoffs.  The goaltending was adequate enough to win behind a team ready to play 60 minute games.  I thought we had really good stretches in those 4 games against the Ducks.  Then there were the face palms.  Would Freddie Andersen have fared any better?  Or if we had Gibson?  Perhaps.  Or maybe we can play without the puck a little better next time.  Or be able to clear the puck without spending a full shift in the D-zone.  Little things lose games, not just the guy with the mask.

many of those "facepalms " were stoppable .. Talbot  is keeping the Oilers in a series they have no right to be in, we did enough to beat them with better tending  

With Talbot , Edmonton basically needs him to steal that series, and he still can .. we just needed a goalie to play average and stop the ones that needed to be stopped.. we didnt get that 

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I was upset with Elliott when it all came down but I am past the emotion of the losses now. I watched him play the playoffs the previous year and he was spectacular. Won games for the Blues they did not deserve. Carried that team past opponents they did not deserve to move to next level. I'll even put up money he will do much better in playoffs for us next season if the Flames give him a chance. (I think the Flames will see it like that too).

Yes, for 2 rounds.. then he was average / below average against San Jose and Voila, his team was out 

Let me ask you .. at 2-3 years , likely 3-3.5 Mill  are you still eager to make that commitment ?

[jjgallow]

41 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

I am having trouble with some points of view around here. Elliott  got us into the playoffs, yet some of you are throwing him under the bus for 4 games in post season. We would not be there without his string of wins. Please spare me the "Well he played poorly to start the season" talk... the whole team stunk it up.. It was not just him. The whole team was adjusting to a new coach and system not just Elliott. Just about everyone played poorly with exception of the Backs line.

 

No doubt Elliott will be signed at a reasonable price for a moderate short term. (thinking 2 years show me you  can do it). You guys can debate how much he will be worth because of his age at the end of that one.

 

100% agree.    Elliot is a fantastic fit here right now, one of the only smart moves I've seen this team make in the goaltending department.

 

It is embarrassing how he was blamed for what was clearly a team not ready to challenge for the cup.    

 

Yes, he struggled in the playoffs with everyone else.   If anything, this is All the more reason why he's a good fit here, he can be signed on the cheap.   We need to start developing future goalies.   Elliot at a good price is the best we could ever hope for in the transition.  Anyone thinking there's an available goalie out there who could have taken us deep into the playoffs is gravely mistaken....even including the overpriced ones.