conundrumed Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 39 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said: It is not a terrible idea assuming we also have Elliott. I just wonder if perceptions will make this unlikely. That is, if the duo do not work out, then it makes Treliving look terrible. People will say "I told you so!" By contrast, if he signs a bigger name and they don't work out, then he can blame the team/coach for poor performance. It is a risky move for Treliving. It allows dollars in other areas to get better though. My argument is that we're blaming G every year, that might not be the case. Use the money on roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, The_People1 said: You are very bad at conspiracy theories... Not that that's a bad thing of course. LOL.. i just like to analyze and play Psychologist ..haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, conundrumed said: It allows dollars in other areas to get better though. My argument is that we're blaming G every year, that might not be the case. Use the money on roster. I get the goalie argument, but gotta remember we were a tire fire last year. We had way more issues than just our goaltending . They would never say this out loud but I dont think in their wildest dreams they thought we'd be in the running for league title with a week to go in the season . Our upgraded goaltending was a large reason for that . I, and I'm also sure they , dont see goaltending as a problem anymore, so much as our goaltending has plateau'd and now we need the next level. If we went into the next season with the same tandem , it wouldn't be doom.. but It would also cause backlash if it ended with the same result . BT put himself behind a target by using the "raise the bar " comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: I get the goalie argument, but gotta remember we were a tire fire last year. We had way more issues than just our goaltending . They would never say this out loud but I dont think in their wildest dreams they thought we'd be in the running for league title with a week to go in the season . Our upgraded goaltending was a large reason for that . I, and I'm also sure they , dont see goaltending as a problem anymore, so much as our goaltending has plateau'd and now we need the next level. If we went into the next season with the same tandem , it wouldn't be doom.. but It would also cause backlash if it ended with the same result . BT put himself behind a target by using the "raise the bar " comment You're echoing my sentiment. Do we EVER plan on linemates for Bennett? A 1st line Rwer? A 4th line? A 4D? But let's drop $6mil x 6 on a goalie because that will solve everything... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebrewcrew Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 Now with Bishop and Darling off the board, I'd like to see Mrazek or Grubauer land in Calgary. If Fleury is acquired great, he has renewed confidence and has shown this playoffs he can play at a high level, which could be great because then the young goalies continue to develop. However my one fear with acquiring a Fleury is, what if none of the goalies in the pipeline pan out? I would rather go after a young guy that can mature with this team, as I think MAF will not be around when this team is ready to win anyway. An ideal scenario would be the Mrazek or Grubauer you acquire solidifies himself as a #1 and Gillies and Parsons continue to develop as projected, giving you extra trade chips. However I fully acknowledge especially with Grubauer there is a chance he doesn't pan out and he can't handle the workload. I know it's a risk I would just prefer a G who fits in he age group of the core here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, conundrumed said: You're echoing my sentiment. Do we EVER plan on linemates for Bennett? A 1st line Rwer? A 4th line? A 4D? But let's drop $6mil x 6 on a goalie because that will solve everything... ohh no .. nobody is saying change the goalie and nothing else.. but man , we got 22M to spend...not including if we can somehow move Stajan and Bouma, which is part of what else needs to be changed we could get the 4D, and Oshie for that matter and still afford a 6x6 goalie if thats the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: ohh no .. nobody is saying change the goalie and nothing else.. but man , we got 22M to spend...not including if we can somehow move Stajan and Bouma, which is part of what else needs to be changed we could get the 4D, and Oshie for that matter and still afford a 6x6 goalie if thats the case Not without pretending we'll win now. We have to buy a couple of years is all, imho. I want us to be realistic. What do you sign Oshie for? He'll be needing term, we can't get caught up in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 1 minute ago, conundrumed said: Not without pretending we'll win now. We have to buy a couple of years is all, imho. I want us to be realistic. What do you sign Oshie for? He'll be needing term, we can't get caught up in that. hes 30.. still producing , but have to take into acct a lamp post could produce next to Ovie.. id say likely 3-4 years at 4.4-5. if he goes surprisingly 2-3 years , Id go 5 and its not pretending , we have a foundation that can make some noise .. it just improves from here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said: Now with Bishop and Darling off the board, I'd like to see Mrazek or Grubauer land in Calgary. If Fleury is acquired great, he has renewed confidence and has shown this playoffs he can play at a high level, which could be great because then the young goalies continue to develop. However my one fear with acquiring a Fleury is, what if none of the goalies in the pipeline pan out? I would rather go after a young guy that can mature with this team, as I think MAF will not be around when this team is ready to win anyway. An ideal scenario would be the Mrazek or Grubauer you acquire solidifies himself as a #1 and Gillies and Parsons continue to develop as projected, giving you extra trade chips. However I fully acknowledge especially with Grubauer there is a chance he doesn't pan out and he can't handle the workload. I know it's a risk I would just prefer a G who fits in he age group of the core here. he's not off the board yet ... With the exception of maybe McDonald, none of our prospects have given any reason to think they aren't developing, to negate one now sends the wrong message .. also if you're trading for one of those, you're likely giving up one in return ..neither of those make me want to give up on Gillies or Parsons. If I'm stunting the growth of one of our prospects, I want a Murray, maybe Korpisalo.. but in all reality , only Murray makes me willing to take that chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: hes 30.. still producing , but have to take into acct a lamp post could produce next to Ovie.. id say likely 3-4 years at 4.4-5. if he goes surprisingly 2-3 years , Id go 5 and its not pretending , we have a foundation that can make some noise .. it just improves from here Oshie is going to get 6x$6m minimum on the market, especially now with the cap going up as much as $5m next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 Just now, JTech780 said: Oshie is going to get 6x$6m minimum on the market, especially now with the cap going up as much as $5m next year. ya I'll let somebody else bite that bullet if it goes there .. they are actually saying its unlikely the NHLPA invokes their elevator, due to the prospect of losing more in escrow (SP?);.. but that certainly would help us do something if they do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted May 9, 2017 Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 23 minutes ago, conundrumed said: You're echoing my sentiment. Do we EVER plan on linemates for Bennett? A 1st line Rwer? A 4th line? A 4D? But let's drop $6mil x 6 on a goalie because that will solve everything... I agree on the need to get solid players to work with Bennett. He has too much speed to waste. He used to do some crazy moves once upon a time and now he is playing in a one dimensional manner. I think that is because of his line mates. I am always leery of acquiring older players like Oshie. We have been burnt by Wideman and Brouwer. It seems you rarely get someone like Lanny McDonald or John Tonelli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 27 minutes ago, conundrumed said: You're echoing my sentiment. Do we EVER plan on linemates for Bennett? A 1st line Rwer? A 4th line? A 4D? But let's drop $6mil x 6 on a goalie because that will solve everything... A true number 1 goalie won't solve everything, but it sure makes your team a hell of a lot better. For me you build down the middle, we have a pretty good core of centers, our defense needs a bit more depth and we need a number 1 goalie. A goalie is more important than a winger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said: ya I'll let somebody else bite that bullet if it goes there .. they are actually saying its unlikely the NHLPA invokes their elevator, due to the prospect of losing more in escrow (SP?);.. but that certainly would help us do something if they do Ren Lavoie was on 960 yesterday and saying that it sounds like the players will be using their escalator, just maybe not the full 5%, they might negotiate a 2% increase which would bring the cap up to around $75m. If they do use the whole 5% it will go up to $77-78m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 1 minute ago, JTech780 said: Ren Lavoie was on 960 yesterday and saying that it sounds like the players will be using their escalator, just maybe not the full 5%, they might negotiate a 2% increase which would bring the cap up to around $75m. If they do use the whole 5% it will go up to $77-78m. that would sweet..BT can go shopping for sure if they do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 1 hour ago, phoenix66 said: also .. why much does not make sense, and I'll believe it when he signs.. If you're Ben Bishop.. 1) you just came out of a platoon experience you were clearly not happy about .. Dallas likely will have a backup that made almost as much as you last year 2)You're 30 years old and have come close to a cup.. Dallas is far away from being a contender 3)You're less than 60 days away from UFA for the 1st time in your career, and your value has never been higher 4) you KNOW you will receive multiple offers and, yes, can be the center of a mini bidding war 5) I don't fully buy the No Trade list thing, because even with the list , a team will always ask the player if there's a chance they'd reconsider if the offer is good.. this would mean he actually declined again now to waive it ..which is even more puzzling given his comments to the media earlier.. this year .. it would make more sense for LA to say that as a way of not admitting they were simply playing keep away with Calgary even if i do have some desire to play in Dallas (dont know why , he was born in Colorado).. I wait to see what July 1 holds ... but ..we will see I will agree with one thing. There is zero reason for Bishop to sign prior to July 1st. The other side of that is that his NTC list ends that day. Whether or not CGY was on the list, the bigger question is why LA would deal his right to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 1 minute ago, travel_dude said: I will agree with one thing. There is zero reason for Bishop to sign prior to July 1st. The other side of that is that his NTC list ends that day. Whether or not CGY was on the list, the bigger question is why LA would deal his right to us. exactly my point.. I'll believe he's off the list when he signs.. It's not denial, just logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 39 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said: Now with Bishop and Darling off the board, I'd like to see Mrazek or Grubauer land in Calgary. If Fleury is acquired great, he has renewed confidence and has shown this playoffs he can play at a high level, which could be great because then the young goalies continue to develop. However my one fear with acquiring a Fleury is, what if none of the goalies in the pipeline pan out? I would rather go after a young guy that can mature with this team, as I think MAF will not be around when this team is ready to win anyway. An ideal scenario would be the Mrazek or Grubauer you acquire solidifies himself as a #1 and Gillies and Parsons continue to develop as projected, giving you extra trade chips. However I fully acknowledge especially with Grubauer there is a chance he doesn't pan out and he can't handle the workload. I know it's a risk I would just prefer a G who fits in he age group of the core here. By the look of things, we can start talks with NYR tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 Just now, travel_dude said: By the look of things, we can start talks with NYR tomorrow. Lundqvist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 I will get totally shot down, but Ryan Miller if a UFA. Maybe we can sign a 1-2year deal. He was lights out in van and kept them in most games. Although health could be an issue. He needs good rest so a quality backup would be needed. How much would he need.? I think he's better than Elliott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 1 hour ago, JTech780 said: Lundqvist? I like the way you think .. hit em while theyre emotional ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, robrob74 said: I will get totally shot down, but Ryan Miller if a UFA. Maybe we can sign a 1-2year deal. He was lights out in van and kept them in most games. Although health could be an issue. He needs good rest so a quality backup would be needed. How much would he need.? I think he's better than Elliott. not so silly an idea.. he was the only reason they didn't finish worse than Colorado.. i suspect you can get him on a cap friendly deal.. work in a good backup , then worst case hes trade deadline material.. but i do think hes an upgrade Bening has indicated he'd like Miller Back, in which Case Markstrom isnt a bad pickup .. not sure id be comfy with him as #1 tho , but he has potential to be one for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 On 5/8/2017 at 5:41 PM, travel_dude said: 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? There will be no such thing as a surplus of goalies. The only goalies worth going after are going quick already. Think "you snooze you loose. When Caps beat Pens then if we want to go after Fleury then we better make it happen right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, robrob74 said: I will get totally shot down, but Ryan Miller if a UFA. Maybe we can sign a 1-2year deal. He was lights out in van and kept them in most games. Although health could be an issue. He needs good rest so a quality backup would be needed. How much would he need.? I think he's better than Elliott. I think you are listening too much to Vancouver media. Miller is at best a one year placeholder. That is betting 100% on Gillies being ready in one year to go from AHL goalie or NHL backup to starter. Gillies has one year of pro experience. If BT signed him and he was Hiller quality, he would be fired. We are done with Bishop so let's call NY and tell them how good King Henrik was, and BTW would you like something to help you out of your expansion problems? Kreider and Raanta for 1st rounder, McDonald and Shinkaruk. Plus rights for Erixon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 10, 2017 Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said: There will be no such thing as a surplus of goalies. The only goalies worth going after are going quick already. Think "you snooze you loose. When Caps beat Pens then if we want to go after Fleury then we better make it happen right away. What I am saying is that not that many teams are in the market. Many teams have goalies that could get claimed unless they are traded. LV s probably only going to select 2 goalies at most, but a team exposing a good goalie is ripe. I would like to be in on Raanta now, Grubauer when WASH is done, but am not limited to those. 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