Goaltending

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

If we got MAF I would be less concerned about the back up as there will be a few good ones available.

 

Here's a quiote from Fransic about the cost of MAF; take it with a grain of salt, since he's also the one that reported the ask from Stevie Y was Tkachuk (#6).

 

However, whatever wheeling and dealing might get done if the Flames are to get Fleury from Pittsburgh or via Vegas, the asking price would include several top prospects and/or a significant young roster player.

 

In what world would that deal ever get made?  

[phoenix66]

22 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Here's a quiote from Fransic about the cost of MAF; take it with a grain of salt, since he's also the one that reported the ask from Stevie Y was Tkachuk (#6).

 

However, whatever wheeling and dealing might get done if the Flames are to get Fleury from Pittsburgh or via Vegas, the asking price would include several top prospects and/or a significant young roster player.

 

In what world would that deal ever get made?  

ya.. I dont buy into his rumors..  especially when he starts quoting cost of things .

mark my words.. based on history alone.. when MAF gets traded ..whereever that may be .. the main comment will be "that's it??"

 

remember all the talk of what we thought we'd have to give up for Anderson last year ?. he went for nowhere near that ..  and thats just an example of many 

[cross16]

Ya Francis is not a rumor guy, nor is he usually very plugged in with trade values so I would take that with a grain of salt. Heck I take everything he says with a grain of salt. 

 

There is not goalie trade in the last 10 years I can think of that cost several top prospects and/or a significant young player. It's highly unlikely that Fleury is going to set a new bar in terms of goalie trade values.

 

Other than Luongo is there any goalie trade that ook place and didn't involve only draft picks? I can only think of Luongo being traded for actual players and not draft picks and that was as much a salary thing as anything else. 

[Flyerfan52]

3 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

Starting?  thats been a thing since last summer

 

It won't take that much.. if it does happen , remember Pittsburgh is dealing from a weakness. Not only does every team in the league know they have to move him , theres next to No real destinatinations. Without getting into the" will he-wont he-maybe-they-trade-Murray" discussion, there are really only 2 places that they can trade with .. and thats Calgary and Vegas.

Backlund would be a Major overpayment -- when it goes down , I'll be surprised if its more than a 3rd round pick

 

Now.. if they wanted to turn it into something Bigger?.. like MAF, rights to Schultz, Nick Bonino.. now we could be getting into 1st rounder and Backlund territory

True enough. The other 2 possibilities would be Winnipeg but Chevy again said the Jets are protecting Hellebuyck so it wouldn't be until after the draft which is too late & Philly where the Pens would ask much more so Hex would tell them to stuff it. I'd actually take Vegas out as well as unless Pitts is willing to lose both the 1 LV selects & MAF there is little incentive as Vegas also knows they are in a bind. McPhee could also risk MAF not waiving & Mario wanting to avoid the bad PR of buying out a lifelong Pen that's carried them to the ECF this playoffs (& Lemieux could well step in) so wait for Murray.

Whatever the Pengies finally decide they have only the time between when their season ends & June 21 to decide & sign a different goalie to expose. If MAF is the 1 to go  a 3rd looks pretty good if it's the only offer.

 

As far as Backlund I'd save him for a different trade. I still want another D regardless of what goalie we add so still look @ Columbus as our best bet (other conference is a reason for us & the other team giving the D) with NYI a tad behind.

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Whatever the Pengies finally decide they have only the time between when their season ends & June 21 to decide & sign a different goalie to expose. If MAF is the 1 to go  a 3rd looks pretty good if it's the only offer.

 

The expansion list are due by the 17th.  LV has between the 17th and the end of the 20th to make thier picks.  The 20th is the day that the picks are made public, though I think you may hear the names prior to the release date.  

[rickross]

As much as I like MAF, he's a great goalie with all the accolades but I still think there are option that make more sense for the Flames. MAF won't come cheap and we'll need room to resign Backlund, Tkachuk to name a few in the next couple of years. We also can't guarantee that at his price we'll get the the performance of a #1 goalie, MAF may never fully gel with his defencemen or defensive scheme, let alone the Western Conference if he comes here. Let's not forget he did lose his job to Murray for some time so we could be investing in a player trending out of his prime. Obviously there's always a risk but I think there are other options that can minimize that risk and price. Elliot and CJ might very well be the best bang for your buck tandem on the table and they've already been acclimated here so that helps. 

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, rickross said:

As much as I like MAF, he's a great goalie with all the accolades but I still think there are option that make more sense for the Flames. MAF won't come cheap and we'll need room to resign Backlund, Tkachuk to name a few in the next couple of years. We also can't guarantee that at his price we'll get the the performance of a #1 goalie, MAF may never fully gel with his defencemen or defensive scheme, let alone the Western Conference if he comes here. Let's not forget he did lose his job to Murray for some time so we could be investing in a player trending out of his prime. Obviously there's always a risk but I think there are other options that can minimize that risk and price. Elliot and CJ might very well be the best bang for your buck tandem on the table and they've already been acclimated here so that helps. 

As many have expressed if PIT decide to protect Murray they are better to get something vs nothing for MAF, don't you think ? I don't think that equates as expensive from our side. MAF is 5.8M for two years that allows for our own prospects to show their worth. Tkachuk's pay day comes after this period and who knows if BT even signs Backlund. can you guarantee he won't give you #1 performance or guarantee someone else will ? he has a good track record and is still only 32.

[rickross]

9 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

As many have expressed if PIT decide to protect Murray they are better to get something vs nothing for MAF, don't you think ? I don't think that equates as expensive from our side. MAF is 5.8M for two years that allows for our own prospects to show their worth. Tkachuk's pay day comes after this period and who knows if BT even signs Backlund. can you guarantee he won't give you #1 performance or guarantee someone else will ? he has a good track record and is still only 32.

Of course you can't fault the Penguins for seeking a return if they don't protect MAF. We just don't know what that's going to cost..we could take on his salary AND lose a pick/prospect. Fiscally we could very likely get both Elliot and Cj for the same price as MAF's contract, the 2 yr term is fine but if the Flames prospects aren't ready for starting roles by then the Flames are back to square one. I wouldn't be against us acquiring MAF, I think he'd be a good goalie I'm just saying he's not the only option available. Ideally I'd just like the Flames to find some form of stability in net, we've been a revolving door for goalies the last number of years. I've been saying the rebuild isn't over until we've found our goalie so the search continues, I do think this draft and summer will present more opportunities than usual so hopefully we solve our #1 problem sooner than later.

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, rickross said:

Of course you can't fault the Penguins for seeking a return if they don't protect MAF. We just don't know what that's going to cost..we could take on his salary AND lose a pick/prospect. Fiscally we could very likely get both Elliot and Cj for the same price as MAF's contract, the 2 yr term is fine but if the Flames prospects aren't ready for starting roles by then the Flames are back to square one. I wouldn't be against us acquiring MAF, I think he'd be a good goalie I'm just saying he's not the only option available. Ideally I'd just like the Flames to find some form of stability in net, we've been a revolving door for goalies the last number of years. I've been saying the rebuild isn't over until we've found our goalie so the search continues, I do think this draft and summer will present more opportunities than usual so hopefully we solve our #1 problem sooner than later.

 

I don't think the current tandem is a viable option.  One or the other.  I think BT has more faith that Elliott could be one of the guys next year, but I don't think CJ has as much trust.  He had his time in November/December and lost the faith in January-March.  

 

Elliott will cost you a 3rd in 2018.  That is certain.  MAF will be in the realm of what we got Elliott for originally.  A 2nd and a conditional 3rd.  Substitute a roster player or prospect if you like.  A 1st for helping them out?  No way.  They only have so many options.  MAF may not even have the Flames on his list.   

[MAC331]

12 minutes ago, rickross said:

Of course you can't fault the Penguins for seeking a return if they don't protect MAF. We just don't know what that's going to cost..we could take on his salary AND lose a pick/prospect. Fiscally we could very likely get both Elliot and Cj for the same price as MAF's contract, the 2 yr term is fine but if the Flames prospects aren't ready for starting roles by then the Flames are back to square one. I wouldn't be against us acquiring MAF, I think he'd be a good goalie I'm just saying he's not the only option available. Ideally I'd just like the Flames to find some form of stability in net, we've been a revolving door for goalies the last number of years. I've been saying the rebuild isn't over until we've found our goalie so the search continues, I do think this draft and summer will present more opportunities than usual so hopefully we solve our #1 problem sooner than later.

You are another one of these posters that thinks there is a perfect solution to our goaltending situation, well there isn't. Every goalie is a risk and you lessen the risk by knowing the track record of each available candidate. MAF has had his ups and downs but he is still a good goaltender, his experience will not hurt us.

[rickross]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't think the current tandem is a viable option.  One or the other.  I think BT has more faith that Elliott could be one of the guys next year, but I don't think CJ has as much trust.  He had his time in November/December and lost the faith in January-March.  

 

Elliott will cost you a 3rd in 2018.  That is certain.  MAF will be in the realm of what we got Elliott for originally.  A 2nd and a conditional 3rd.  Substitute a roster player or prospect if you like.  A 1st for helping them out?  No way.  They only have so many options.  MAF may not even have the Flames on his list.   

Yeah i'm not looking at Elliot or CJ as saviours in any way...they're just one option that settles both goalie positions at a reasonable cost. If they happen to both come back i'm not thrilled but its not the end of the world. You bring up a good point though regarding if MAF wants to even play for the Flames...we could be debating a tender that has no intention of even coming here.

[rickross]

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You are another one of these posters that thinks there is a perfect solution to our goaltending situation, well there isn't. Every goalie is a risk and you lessen the risk by knowing the track record of each available candidate. MAF has had his ups and downs but he is still a good goaltender, his experience will not hurt us.

No i'm not "one of these posters that thinks there is a perfect solution to our goaltending situation". Ideally everyone wants the "perfect" solution thats normal, but i'm not even asking for the 'perfect solution', just a solution. I like MAF, I never said he wasn't a good goalie or not worth acquiring...I just don't have tunnel vision for him. 

[Flyerfan52]

3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You are another one of these posters that thinks there is a perfect solution to our goaltending situation, well there isn't. Every goalie is a risk and you lessen the risk by knowing the track record of each available candidate. MAF has had his ups and downs but he is still a good goaltender, his experience will not hurt us.

Yes but you also weight the cost of the risk. MAF @ 5.75 x 2 & acqisition cost is betting heavy that he has more ups than downs & that his backup can cover the downs better than say Mason, Elliott or 1 of the current backups stuck behind a Holtby or Lundqvist would @ $4 while leaving more $s for a better backup.

I'm not willing to give up much to take that chance. If the Pengies are ready to retain even a million I'd be more willing to give up something. If not I'd rather go with someone else rather than over paying for a name goalie that will be 33 shortly after the season starts. His stats are barely average but his salary is far above.

[MAC331]

18 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Yes but you also weight the cost of the risk. MAF @ 5.75 x 2 & acqisition cost is betting heavy that he has more ups than downs & that his backup can cover the downs better than say Mason, Elliott or 1 of the current backups stuck behind a Holtby or Lundqvist would @ $4 while leaving more $s for a better backup.

I'm not willing to give up much to take that chance. If the Pengies are ready to retain even a million I'd be more willing to give up something. If not I'd rather go with someone else rather than over paying for a name goalie that will be 33 shortly after the season starts. His stats are barely average but his salary is far above.

You have a point with the buydown of salary as a consideration.

[cross16]

I'm fine if people don't like the acquisition cost, that is a sound argument and I can't say I disagree. But i'll never understand the lack of respect Fleury seems to get. Take a look at where he ranks among starters (min 40 games played)

 

15-16th - 9th in save %, 11th in Quality starts, 6th in shutout 64 games played. 

14-15 - 13th in Save %. 10th in quality starts and 1st in shutouts. 64 Games played

13-14 - 15th in Save % 11th in Quality Starts and 9th in shutouts. 58 Games Played

 

The fact that he can do that while played 50 plus games alone makes him above average, and i didn't even factor in Wins where he's been top 5 for every year but 1. The fact that he can do it and do it this well, makes him good. 

[Flyerfan52]

10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I'm fine if people don't like the acquisition cost, that is a sound argument and I can't say I disagree. But i'll never understand the lack of respect Fleury seems to get. Take a look at where he ranks amongst starters (min 40 games played)

 

15-16th - 9th in save %, 11th in Quality starts, 6th in shutout 64 games played. 

14-15 - 13th in Save %. 10th in quality starts and 1st in shutouts. 64 Games played

13-14 - 15th in Save % 11th in Quality Starts and 9th in shutouts. 58 Games Played

 

The fact that he can do that while played 50 plus games alone makes him above average. The fact that he can do it and do it this well, makes him good. 

Where does he rank those years in the playoffs?

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Where does he rank those years in the playoffs?

 

2017 - 5th best save % and 6th best in Qualify Starts

2016 - started 1 game. Wasn't good but too small a sample size. 

2015 - 7th best in Save %. 3rd highest quality start %

2014 - 11th best Save % 19th best Qualify start %

 

I would also consider 2 things. He is 13th best all time for Wins in the playoffs by a goalie and his 40th best all time in Save %. Whopping 4% below Carey Price. has he had some bad playoffs, no questions but he gets you there every year and for the most part is good when he gets there. I would also challenge you to fine me goalies who have gotten their team into the playoffs like he has over the past 9 years.  

 

 

 

[travel_dude]

50 minutes ago, cross16 said:

But i'll never understand the lack of respect Fleury seems to get.

 

For myself, it's more of a question of longevity and fit.  We thought we had traded for one of the more consistent goalies over the past few years.  He comes here and starts off with a pathetic record.  Has a strong 2017, but then drops again.  The risk is real that MAF could come here and experience the same thing.  

 

Without looking at individual games this year, their stats are somewhat similar.  

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

For myself, it's more of a question of longevity and fit.  We thought we had traded for one of the more consistent goalies over the past few years.  He comes here and starts off with a pathetic record.  Has a strong 2017, but then drops again.  The risk is real that MAF could come here and experience the same thing.  

 

Without looking at individual games this year, their stats are somewhat similar.  

 

Not sure that is fair. The common critique when the flames acquired Elliott was stats look great but he had never played 50 games. So the question was could he handle a starters role that he has never had to in the past so I'm not sure I agree it's the same. Elliott came with some risk and I think we all acknowledged that. 

Fleury has put to those numbers while handling a workload of 50-60 games a year. Of course you have risk with any trade and I don't mean to suggest Fleury Is the answer to anything just that he is a pretty good goalie and the lack of reapect he gets is puzzling to me. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I'm fine if people don't like the acquisition cost, that is a sound argument and I can't say I disagree. But i'll never understand the lack of respect Fleury seems to get. 

 

Early in his career, the Pens would lose every playoffs because he let in softies at the worst time.  We're talking guys banking pucks in off him from the side of the net and stuff.  Like Team Canada World Junior type stuff where he scored on himself.  I think those images of him still live on to this day.

 

[JTech780]

19 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Early in his career, the Pens would lose every playoffs because he let in softies at the worst time.  We're talking guys banking pucks in off him from the side of the net and stuff.  Like Team Canada World Junior type stuff where he scored on himself.  I think those images of him still live on to this day.

 

 

Even that was after he took the Pens to back to back Cup Finals winning on the 2nd try.

[Cowtownguy]

I cannot seem to locate the Francis/Calgary Herald article referred to above. I believe it was noted in the article that Fleury does not have the greatest GAA in the regular season. He was over 3 goals a game, although his save % was okay. I know that numbers are not always indicative of play, but I am not sure that I want to pay much in the way of picks and salary for a 32-year-old goalie who was displaced from his current position.

[Flyerfan52]

38 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Not sure that is fair. The common critique when the flames acquired Elliott was stats look great but he had never played 50 games. So the question was could he handle a starters role that he has never had to in the past so I'm not sure I agree it's the same. Elliott came with some risk and I think we all acknowledged that. 

Fleury has put to those numbers while handling a workload of 50-60 games a year. Of course you have risk with any trade and I don't mean to suggest Fleury Is the answer to anything just that he is a pretty good goalie and the lack of reapect he gets is puzzling to me. 

Elliott cost 2.5 x 1 with a 2nd (& a conditional 3rd where I hope the conditions aren't met).

Fleury will cost 5.75 x 2 & acquision price (even if another 2nd or 3rd) over twice the $s & double the term.

I wouldn't do that kind of double down @ a casino as I view it as a sucker's bet. I'm talking small money when I bet & it affects only me. BT is betting big $s & it affects the makeup of a $75 million team.

[JTech780]

29 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

I cannot seem to locate the Francis/Calgary Herald article referred to above. I believe it was noted in the article that Fleury does not have the greatest GAA in the regular season. He was over 3 goals a game, although his save % was okay. I know that numbers are not always indicative of play, but I am not sure that I want to pay much in the way of picks and salary for a 32-year-old goalie who was displaced from his current position.

 

He his starting job due performance, it was due to injury, Murray rode in and never gave the net back, till he himself was injured.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Not sure that is fair. The common critique when the flames acquired Elliott was stats look great but he had never played 50 games. So the question was could he handle a starters role that he has never had to in the past so I'm not sure I agree it's the same. Elliott came with some risk and I think we all acknowledged that. 

Fleury has put to those numbers while handling a workload of 50-60 games a year. Of course you have risk with any trade and I don't mean to suggest Fleury Is the answer to anything just that he is a pretty good goalie and the lack of reapect he gets is puzzling to me. 

 

This past year is where I compare the recent performance.  I think MAF had 36 games to Elliott's 49.  The longevity is whether he is going to be good for another two years.

The fit is for systems and comfort with the D.  Elliott didn;t seem to mesh early on.  Yes. he's a proven starter, but what if the same thing happens as with Elliott.  Over 60 games, that might not matter so much, but we also don;t want to be in the same position as last year.