Goaltending

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Theres really nothing to sell, this is all speculation becasue the Flames are going to do what they are going to do.. I'm just pointing out that with a NMC and a supposedly wide open list of teams he can reject or select , he can still pretty much dictate where he ends up 

 

Depends on what he wants. If he wants to start and be the guy then he has very little say in where he goes because there aren't many of those jobs available. Based on what i've read, he wants to play. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

Not quite. Fleury can agree to waive his NMC and be exposed, Murray is protected, Fleury exposed, Vegas takes Fleury and story is over. 

 

A Player can agree to waive the NMC and then is eligible to be exposed in the expansion draft. 

 

Any chance the Pens stay with MAF and trade Murray like the Kings did with Quick and Jones?

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

Depends on what he wants. If he wants to start and be the guy then he has very little say in where he goes because there aren't many of those jobs available. Based on what i've read, he wants to play. 

right .. so if you use the Mock list as an example,  its pretty much Calgary  or Vegas , and I might be bias, but I'd choose the team that's going to be in the playoffs.

If they have to get around the goalie available thing , that can be done.. if we're just noticing it now I'm sure JR has known that for a long time. If BT wants him, he's already discussed the solution .. there is a Myriad of solutions to that . for example, I have felt all along that Engelland will sign with LV to end his career.. in which case, our pick is used.. you trade Mccollum and a pick for Fleury

My only point in this entire conversation , is that Fleury holds his own cards..the only thing he can't decide for himself is whether he stays in Pittsburgh or not

[cross16]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Any chance the Pens stay with MAF and trade Murray like the Kings did with Quick and Jones?

 

Pretty minute one IMO. I think the only way they do that is if you run into a situation like Vancouver did with Luongo/Schneider and someone gives you huge value for Murray. I shudder a bit to think what the Flames would have to give up to convince Pens to part with Murray over Fleury. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Any chance the Pens stay with MAF and trade Murray like the Kings did with Quick and Jones?

There is always a chance , in which case we throw the farm to get him.. id even include Gillies in the deal

But there are so many reasons not to .. age, cap hit, .. etc

[Flyerfan52]

2 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:

 

In last years IIHF world cup one goalie that stood out for me was Mikko Koskinen.    I know he had 4 games on on a pretty terrible NYI team but wondered if he would ever get the chance to play over here again

 

 

With a short 2 way contract I figure it's worth the gamble. (On either).

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. For Koskinen the NHL was 9-10 years ago when he was a child but @ close to 30 with a good record in the more "run & gun" KHL  likely worth taking a chance on.

 

I'm suggesting either as a backup but if he adjusts fast to the NA game @ least a 1B. They are both mature & around the age some hit their prime.

[Flyerfan52]

3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

There is always a chance , in which case we throw the farm to get him.. id even include Gillies in the deal

But there are so many reasons not to .. age, cap hit, .. etc

Murray is 22 & proven. Gilles is 23, unproven & could become what Murray already is.

[travel_dude]

10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Theres really nothing to sell, this is all speculation becasue the Flames are going to do what they are going to do.. I'm just pointing out that with a NMC and a supposedly wide open list of teams he can reject or select , he can still pretty much dictate where he ends up 

 

I'm not sure I agree that the list is wide open.  You did a reasonable job of speculating where he would agree to.  Of that list, which teams would want him?  Of that smaller list, which teams could take him on and not be in the same boat at PITTS?

Calgary, and that is assuming he would accept a trade here.

 

The thing you may be ignoring is that whatever team he is traded to possibly still has a high-priced goalie and backup under contract.  So then they protect MAF but still get stuck with a Luongo or Miller.  So really, it's Calgary or Vegas.

[phoenix66]

6 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Murray is 22 & proven. Gilles is 23, unproven & could become what Murray already is.

oh I'm with you .. I meant many reasons for Pittsburgh not to trade Murray instead of Fleury.. the only upside is a better return,   but the cons outweigh the pros. I'd put Gillies in that deal without thinking twice.. and still have Parsons

[The_People1]

39 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Pretty minute one IMO. I think the only way they do that is if you run into a situation like Vancouver did with Luongo/Schneider and someone gives you huge value for Murray. I shudder a bit to think what the Flames would have to give up to convince Pens to part with Murray over Fleury. 

 

38 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

There is always a chance , in which case we throw the farm to get him.. id even include Gillies in the deal

But there are so many reasons not to .. age, cap hit, .. etc

 

32 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Murray is 22 & proven. Gilles is 23, unproven & could become what Murray already is.

 

29 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

oh I'm with you .. I meant many reasons for Pittsburgh not to trade Murray instead of Fleury.. the only upside is a better return,   but the cons outweigh the pros. I'd put Gillies in that deal without thinking twice.. and still have Parsons

 

Murray, Gibson, and Vasilevskiy are the next wave... All young and on their way to a Vezina or two down the road.  

 

I say Sam Bennett + Gillies for Murray... We still have Parsons in system for insurance.  I think the Pens would love the idea of adding Bennett to Crosby and Malkin.   Gillies gives them hope to replace MAF after MAF contract is done.

 

The Flames turn around and extend Backlund long term.

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

 

 

Murray, Gibson, and Vasilevskiy are the next wave... All young and on their way to a Vezina or two down the road.  

 

I say Sam Bennett + Gillies for Murray... We still have Parsons in system for insurance.  I think the Pens would love the idea of adding Bennett to Crosby and Malkin.   Gillies gives them hope to replace MAF after MAF contract is done.

 

The Flames turn around and extend Backlund long term.

If I'm tossing in Bennett, I want the Rights to Justin Schultz too..id add our 2017 1st rounder to make it all happen

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Murray, Gibson, and Vasilevskiy are the next wave... All young and on their way to a Vezina or two down the road.  

 

I say Sam Bennett + Gillies for Murray... We still have Parsons in system for insurance.  I think the Pens would love the idea of adding Bennett to Crosby and Malkin.   Gillies gives them hope to replace MAF after MAF contract is done.

 

The Flames turn around and extend Backlund long term.

 

See and my fear is it would take more than that. 

 

And for me i'm not a fan of trading Bennett for Murray but I know you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one. 

 

 

[The_People1]

19 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

See and my fear is it would take more than that. 

 

Like, such as?

[cross16]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Like, such as?

 

Adding in their First and or a prospect like Jankowski/Kylington/Andersson

[travel_dude]

49 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

 

 

Murray, Gibson, and Vasilevskiy are the next wave... All young and on their way to a Vezina or two down the road.  

 

I say Sam Bennett + Gillies for Murray... We still have Parsons in system for insurance.  I think the Pens would love the idea of adding Bennett to Crosby and Malkin.   Gillies gives them hope to replace MAF after MAF contract is done.

 

The Flames turn around and extend Backlund long term.

 

Why not just ask Montreal for Price.  Send them Backlund and our 1st.  Add Gillies.  Then they can turn around and trade a 3rd for MAF.  

[The_People1]

12 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Adding in their First and or a prospect like Jankowski/Kylington/Andersson

 

A heavy price but I think we should do it.  None of those prospects top out as first line or first pair... None are future core.

 

 

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Why not just ask Montreal for Price.  Send them Backlund and our 1st.  Add Gillies.  Then they can turn around and trade a 3rd for MAF.  

 

There's almost no way we get price unless Gaudreau is going the other way.  Backlund isn't going to get it done.

[phoenix66]

20 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Adding in their First and or a prospect like Jankowski/Kylington/Andersson

no to Janko, but Id be open to talking about the other 2

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

A heavy price but I think we should do it.  None of those prospects top out as first line or first pair... None are future core.

 

8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

no to Janko, but Id be open to talking about the other 2

 

All fair but I just don't believe in overpaying for goalies. Without debating the merits of individuals prospects, I think you can win and contend without elite goaltending but you cannot contend with a mediocre roster. I really worry about the Flames roster if you start taking guys like Bennett and Janko out of the mix, Murray wouldn't cover that up.

 

Goaltending got the attention in the Anaheim series but not enough attention was paid to the fact the Flames only scored 2 EV goals and were in the bottom 3rd in both regular season and playoffs for their ability to create scoring chances. Getting better in that area, IMO, is more important than getting better in the net so to weaken that area pretty significantly to get better in net is not a formula i'm a fan of. 

[The_People1]

22 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

All fair but I just don't believe in overpaying for goalies. Without debating the merits of individuals prospects, I think you can win and contend without elite goaltending but you cannot contend with a mediocre roster. I really worry about the Flames roster if you start taking guys like Bennett and Janko out of the mix, Murray wouldn't cover that up.

 

Goaltending got the attention in the Anaheim series but not enough attention was paid to the fact the Flames only scored 2 EV goals and were in the bottom 3rd in both regular season and playoffs for their ability to create scoring chances. Getting better in that area, IMO, is more important than getting better in the net so to weaken that area pretty significantly to get better in net is not a formula i'm a fan of. 

 

It's a fair trade in my opinion.  No overpayment at all.

 

We're talking a handful of complementary players for a future Vezina winner.  Bennett, Gillies, and Janko may never pan out.  Murray has become a sure thing.

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

It's a fair trade in my opinion.  No overpayment at all.

 

We're talking a handful of complementary players for a future Vezina winner.  Bennett, Gillies, and Janko may never pan out.  Murray has become a sure thing.

 

See and that's where we differ, I think it is a massive over payment but like I said earlier we will disagree because we disagree on Bennett. I still think Bennett is going to be a very good player in this league and I think Jankowski will too. I have no doubts that they will pan out. 

 

It looks like we also differ on the construction of a roster. Part of the reason I think its a massive over payment is because you are giving up alot for 1 position and 1 position where the drop off from someone like say Murray, to someone like a Mrzaek, Steve Mason, MAF, even Brian Elliott, is not that large. So when I say massive over payment its also because I think you can keep Bennett/Janko, give up less to get someone who is not a large downgrade from Murray, and have a better team overall

 

so to be fair to you, you are right that maybe from a pure talent level its not an over payment, but I think from an asset management perspective its an over payment. Not to mention if you look at the history of goalie trades it sure looks like a massive over payment to me. 

[MAC331]

14 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

See and that's where we differ, I think it is a massive over payment but like I said earlier we will disagree because we disagree on Bennett. I still think Bennett is going to be a very good player in this league and I think Jankowski will too. I have no doubts that they will pan out. 

 

It looks like we also differ on the construction of a roster. Part of the reason I think its a massive over payment is because you are giving up alot for 1 position and 1 position where the drop off from someone like say Murray, to someone like a Mrzaek, Steve Mason, MAF, even Brian Elliott, is not that large. So when I say massive over payment its also because I think you can keep Bennett/Janko, give up less to get someone who is not a large downgrade from Murray, and have a better team overall

 

so to be fair to you, you are right that maybe from a pure talent level its not an over payment, but I think from an asset management perspective its an over payment. Not to mention if you look at the history of goalie trades it sure looks like a massive over payment to me. 

Getting a wee crazy around this goalie situation. LOL

[The_People1]

22 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

See and that's where we differ, I think it is a massive over payment but like I said earlier we will disagree because we disagree on Bennett.

 

I still think Bennett is going to be a very good player in this league and I think Jankowski will too. I have no doubts that they will pan out. 

 

Still, we already have a #1 and #2 Center.

 

We have no goalie.

[The_People1]

30 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

It looks like we also differ on the construction of a roster. 

 

Assuming they want Janko, we are trading from a position of strength for a position of weakness.  

 

We have LHS C up the ying yang.  We have so many C, we have to start moving some to LW.  We don't have goalies.  I think Ramus Andersson would be a tougher loss than Janko but still...tops out as a future 3/4 RHS RD.

[MAC331]

Just now, The_People1 said:

 

Still, we already have a #1 and #2 Center.

 

We have no goalie.

Do you know why all teams should want to be strong down the middle with talented Centers ? because they have a lot of overall ice responsibilities which if strong in their game helps goalies tremendously. The Flames have been waiting for years to have this strength and I wouldn't be giving it up so easily. We can have solid goaltending without trading the farm.