robrob74 Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 Just now, phoenix66 said: whereever he signs, I see 3.7, 3.8 2- 3 years and please , tell me you mean as comparables, and not that you want one of Dallas's goalies?? lol DEFINITELY comparable. lol. I am thinking Elliott is at least as good or better than they, which is why he COULD be paid more than we think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 Just now, robrob74 said: DEFINITELY comparable. lol. I am thinking Elliott is at least as good or better than they, which is why he COULD be paid more than we think? Oh thank God LOL.. ya right now Dallas is a shining example of where we'd be if BT had signed Hiller and Ramo to longer terms.. Hard to say , I see Elliot being an Excellent fit in Winnipeg, as a vet to play while Hellebuyck grows more.. Vegas could actually throw some money at him as well. He could also be Dallas's answer.. if they cant shed both those contracts.. only way Dallas plays with the big names this year is they have to shed both.. nobody else comes to mind who is looking for a clear #1 with the cap space to pay more than 4 for a starter(without some juggling) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 47 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: Scoff all u want at the notion that "focussing on Anaheim " is a mistake , but somewhere it has to be addressed that until we beat Anaheim, we are going nowhere .. we can win presidents cups , and probably still lose to Anaheim if we don't address it .. it may as well play a part in the selection of who # 1 is next year You have a fixation on one team as being the issue. It's not. It's being good enough in games against them. We weren't in any but a couple this season. We got swept in the season series against EDM, but that means nothing either. The margin of victory between any teams can be so small that a single event can mean the difference. We were fortunate enough to get into the playoffs this year with the horrible start we had, but we coasted into the playoffs. If the team was good enough, we would not have lost the last weeks of the season. If the team was good enough we would have clinched much earlier. Our lineup was set from March onwards. There was little chance to change out players or tinker with lines once we got in the playoffs.. Build a team to win, coach it well enough against other teams and you don't have to worry about who you are playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 1 hour ago, phoenix66 said: I actually thought Backlund had a great series in a non scoring kind of way , but agreed the whole team needs to be better . I keep coming back to this , and people think I'm nuts , but in this day and age of CORSI, and stats on everything , I think it bears weight . Every team, every player , has a Kryptonite. Ours is Anaheim. For years it was Edmonton for us, Boston couldn't beat Montreal in the playoffs , Just ask Washington if Kryptonite is real, they win Presidents Cups and cant beat Pittsburgh. Until we learn to beat Anaheim it does not matter how good we get.. we either hope somebody else takes them out , or we learn to do it ourselves. I'm sure that played into how some players played , whether they know it , or want to admit it or not . That being said , Ive gone into depth as to why I think Elliot needs to be replaced, at no time have I said he's a bad goalie , in fact where he plays next year I hope he goes lights out .. he deserves it .. it just wont be here The biggest reason for me ? This ..combined with his career body of work .. Opponent Anaheim Ducks 12 1 7 3 37 320 283 .884 3.20 0 0 694:25 23 7 0 and if you think thats coincidence , and maybe ST Louis just had an issue with the Ducks as well, here is Jake Allen Opponent Anaheim Ducks 7 5 1 0 10 163 153 .939 1.56 1 0 385:07 3 2 0 Not only is Anaheim OUR Kryptonite..Their Elliot's too. 3 teams , and he hasnt beat them since his first year in Ottawa. This is like Superman recruiting Supergirl to fight Kryptonite..you not only have to get Anaheim out of your heads, but out of Elliot's too. If you read the Body language , you can see he doesn't have the confidence of his teammates, although they will always say the right things. The "slumping " after a goal, the deflated look.. there's no confidence that he will shake it off and slam the door.. don't know if you noticed, but they didnt do it after the goal Johnson allowed on the next shot .They actually seemed to get mad. Of the many reasons I have Bishop on the top of my list , career, playoffs , consistency of excellence .. this pushes him over the top for me Opponent Anaheim Ducks 9 7 0 2 11 240 229 .954 1.24 1 2 533:30 6 1 0 Scoff all u want at the notion that "focussing on Anaheim " is a mistake , but somewhere it has to be addressed that until we beat Anaheim, we are going nowhere .. we can win presidents cups , and probably still lose to Anaheim if we don't address it .. it may as well play a part in the selection of who # 1 is next year I don't recall anyone scoffing at the notion of focusing on the Ducks. It wasn't really brought up in this thread. I also thought Backs had a great series. Focusing on getting a goalie that has a great record against them is very shortsighted. Every goalie has teams they play well against and other teams they don't play so well against. The shortsightedness is the minute you build your team around defeating the Ducks then the Oilers will become your nemesis. The much better strategy is to build your team so all the other teams have trouble beating you.. Making you the team they can't beat. The goalie isn't the key to beating teams we have trouble with, the coach is the key. If the coach can't adapt a strategy to defeat the team you have trouble with then you are doomed for defeat. If Bob Johnson was around he could tell you how he went about this against our then the nemesis the Oilers. I have alreadygone on record of saying how GG was a big part of the reason why we fell short 4-0. He failed to adapt. He failed to mix things up. He could have tried to focus on line matching instead relying on on rotating lines and rotating defensive pairings. This strategy cost Willy his job in Vancouver and I expect it will cost GG his job here in a year or two. But this is the Goalie thread so continue on with your vision of how getting one goalie will be the ultimate answer for us. Ben Bishop wasn't the answer for LA down the stretch so I don't expect much difference if he were to come here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 22 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: Oh thank God LOL.. ya right now Dallas is a shining example of where we'd be if BT had signed Hiller and Ramo to longer terms.. Hard to say , I see Elliot being an Excellent fit in Winnipeg, as a vet to play while Hellebuyck grows more.. Vegas could actually throw some money at him as well. He could also be Dallas's answer.. if they cant shed both those contracts.. only way Dallas plays with the big names this year is they have to shed both.. nobody else comes to mind who is looking for a clear #1 with the cap space to pay more than 4 for a starter(without some juggling) I've read that on a few hockey sites. With Darling out of the picture I'm hoping 1 of Hextall, BT or Chevy goes after Holtby or Grubauer (which ever the Caps trade as they can't protect both). All 3 teams have prospects in the pipeline but none are (IMO) ready for the big time yet. If LV claims Neuvirth the Flyers will probably bring up Stolarz as b/u but looking for a starter. Jets have Hellebuyck to serve as b/u as they bring along Comrie but Helly proved he's not ready to be the main guy. The Flames are in the unique position where we have neither a starter nor b/u. There is talk here of trading for Bishop's rights to gain early negotiation time. I wouldn't give LA a dang thing as BT has a pretty good idea of what he'll ask. With Carolina out of the picture the available landing spots where a goalie can realistically expect to be a starter got smaller. With LV in the picture there are probably 5-6 spots for the proven starters/former backups ready to start but more supply than demand. If BT doesn't over react he can land a starter & b/u @ less than initial ask. LV will likely draft theirs rather than go the UFA route since @ least some of the b/us exposed will be assets. TB decided to stay with the younger goalie & Pitts is likely to do the same. Washington could go either way. There will be plenty of goalies to go around so it's a matter of $s & how long you figure you'll need him. Dallas is likely the only 1 looking to sign a long termer rather than 1 to bridge until their own prospects are ready. If Bishop is the target & wants 6-7 years but only Dallas offers that so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 3 hours ago, phoenix66 said: I think he can certainly be ready for full time back up duty by next season , but to be the bonafide #1 , that could be a bit of a rush .. but hey , his own play will dictate the pace , I just think they want him to mature properly in the system and not rush him in . It so easy to move them in too quick and ruin them . Interesting on Detroit, weirder things have happened .. I'm certainly not against going after him if they make him available , I just dont see Detroit doing that .. I think if push came to shove, Howard gets bought out if they need the cap that bad . Another I've looked into that I initially wasn't keen on but have come around on is Lehner . New GM in Buffalo could go either way , but I'm thinking they keep him . Should he come available thats a place I'd be looking too. Or they could retain for 2 years bringing his hit down to $4 million. Less $s, less cap hit & makes Howard affordable enough to return assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said: Or they could retain for 2 years bringing his hit down to $4 million. Less $s, less cap hit & makes Howard affordable enough to return assets. I hope you are not suggesting Howard as a replacement for Elliott. That seem more likely to backfire than just re-signing Elliott to a 2 year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 Just now, travel_dude said: I hope you are not suggesting Howard as a replacement for Elliott. That seem more likely to backfire than just re-signing Elliott to a 2 year deal. It could but costs being even I go with the more proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 1 hour ago, travel_dude said: I hope you are not suggesting Howard as a replacement for Elliott. That seem more likely to backfire than just re-signing Elliott to a 2 year deal. I have witnessed Howard being nothing short of spectacular. Imagine a sold out Joe Louis chant, Jim-my How-ard Jim-my How-ard. I've heard it in multiple games, most notably, playoffs v Anaheim and Chitown. Be careful not to consider Howard a downgrade, he's a very good goalie. IR stuff might be a concern, but if not, he is definitely a solid NHL goalie. Outplayed Mrazek this year but missed a lot of time on the IR. If not for the IR, I firmly believe Mrazek would have been the backup. Taking $ back, I don't hate the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 10 minutes ago, conundrumed said: I have witnessed Howard being nothing short of spectacular. Imagine a sold out Joe Louis chant, Jim-my How-ard Jim-my How-ard. I've heard it in multiple games, most notably, playoffs v Anaheim and Chitown. Be careful not to consider Howard a downgrade, he's a very good goalie. IR stuff might be a concern, but if not, he is definitely a solid NHL goalie. Outplayed Mrazek this year but missed a lot of time on the IR. If not for the IR, I firmly believe Mrazek would have been the backup. Taking $ back, I don't hate the idea. The last two years have been an IR concern. An aging goalie with IR concerns is a risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 1 minute ago, travel_dude said: The last two years have been an IR concern. An aging goalie with IR concerns is a risk. It's just a matter of due diligence health tests though. I like Elliott, but I would rank Howard higher, all things being equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 17 minutes ago, travel_dude said: The last two years have been an IR concern. An aging goalie with IR concerns is a risk. Howard @ 33 has had some injuries but when playing is good. I'll take that over a 32 year old career backup like Elliott that runs hot & cold. Especially if the price is similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 7, 2017 Report Share Posted May 7, 2017 45 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said: Howard @ 33 has had some injuries but when playing is good. I'll take that over a 32 year old career backup like Elliott that runs hot & cold. Especially if the price is similar. Howard I doubt the price would be similar. Cost to get him n trade. $4m+ even with retained salary. Reliable backup to mitigate health risk. Ellott Cost to re-sign 3rd in 2018 Salary likely less than $3m Reliable backup for a 1b situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted May 8, 2017 Report Share Posted May 8, 2017 1 hour ago, travel_dude said: Howard I doubt the price would be similar. Cost to get him n trade. $4m+ even with retained salary. Reliable backup to mitigate health risk. Ellott Cost to re-sign 3rd in 2018 Salary likely less than $3m Reliable backup for a 1b situation. I think you're way under the cost for Elliott. I don't think less than 3. I'd say somewhere mid to closer to 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 8, 2017 Report Share Posted May 8, 2017 36 minutes ago, robrob74 said: I think you're way under the cost for Elliott. I don't think less than 3. I'd say somewhere mid to closer to 4. Maybe, but his contract history hasn't been close to that. Ever. As a UFA, he would be lucky to get that, in a sellers market. It's not one and he didn;t do enough to warrant a big increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted May 8, 2017 Report Share Posted May 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, travel_dude said: Maybe, but his contract history hasn't been close to that. Ever. As a UFA, he would be lucky to get that, in a sellers market. It's not one and he didn;t do enough to warrant a big increase. I think it's hard to evaluate this one. So I will have to wait and see. I think along the same lines as you, but for some reason, I just think that even 3.5m isn't really that big of an increase, and I think he's at least deserved a bit of an increase. It's not quite bonafide starter money, but it's better than back-up. And another thing for me is just the fact it's 2017 now, thinking of inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 8, 2017 Report Share Posted May 8, 2017 22 hours ago, robrob74 said: I think it's hard to evaluate this one. So I will have to wait and see. I think along the same lines as you, but for some reason, I just think that even 3.5m isn't really that big of an increase, and I think he's at least deserved a bit of an increase. It's not quite bonafide starter money, but it's better than back-up. And another thing for me is just the fact it's 2017 now, thinking of inflation. I agree. The surplus of goalies might make getting a fair deal difficult, though. Had he had a better season end, there would be no question. I don't have a problem with him so much, but other teams look at the body of his work and ask - what's wrong with this guy's consistency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 I didnt realize until today , Antii Raanta still has one year left on a $1M deal. He's a wild card to me, I don't see enough track record to hand him a starter role, but his body of work is impressive..I'd say hes a serious threat to get picked by Vegas. I'd be all over him as backup no matter who we get as starter ..NYR would probably flip him on the cheap just to get something Although Sather will probably flip his old team a bone again and send him to Edmonton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 1 minute ago, phoenix66 said: I didnt realize until today , Antii Raanta still has one year left on a $1M deal. He's a wild card to me, I don't see enough track record to hand him a starter role, but his body of work is impressive..I'd say hes a serious threat to get picked by Vegas. I'd be all over him as backup no matter who we get as starter ..NYR would probably flip him on the cheap just to get something Although Sather will probably flip his old team a bone again and send him to Edmonton Raanta signed that deal wanting to remain in NY so I wouldn't get to excited about him ever coming here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, MAC331 said: Raanta signed that deal wanting to remain in NY so I wouldn't get to excited about him ever coming here. He signed it as UFA to go to NY.....I would suggest tho, hes not safe from Vegas .. If hes not in Vegas next year , he'll be somewhere else besides NY, they almost have to trade him . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 40 minutes ago, MAC331 said: Raanta signed that deal wanting to remain in NY so I wouldn't get to excited about him ever coming here. He's going to get traded or claimed by Vegas. He may not re-sign here if we traded for him, but he has no option other than reporting. NY is going to want to get a good deal for him, so he may get close to what Talbot brought back. Or not. Depends on the market. To keep him for sure, they have to bribe LV not to take him. If CGY is interested, perhaps they would consider a prospect goalie plus some other pieces. That way NY can concentrate on bribing LV not to take Brendan Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 Goaltending is one are that actually has depth for the expansion draft and for Rantaa isn't even in the top 5 of goalies that should be available. I don't think NY is too worried about losing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 3 hours ago, JTech780 said: Goaltending is one are that actually has depth for the expansion draft and for Rantaa isn't even in the top 5 of goalies that should be available. I don't think NY is too worried about losing him. I would think hes the perfect Vegas player . Small body of work, but a team with the luxury to find the limits on his potential could have a solid stud starter on their hands. Only ones who come to mind in the same boat who COULD be available (i think they get moved before the ED) are Korpisalo, JF Berube and Grubauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-stars/stars/2017/05/09/stars-acquire-rights-goalie-ben-bishop-can-sign-pending-ufa-july-1 well thats disappointing.. but they still have to sign him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 Bishop to Dallas for a 4th. Was asking myself today, what is LA doing with him? 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