Goaltending

[Cowtownguy]

On 2019-03-12 at 9:01 AM, travel_dude said:

 

Brossoit....

Don't remind me.  One of the bad trades we made.

I don't care what the logic was for getting Smid, but giving up a young goalie without really even waiting to see what he is, just sucks.

MacDonald had a rough start this year.

I don't think you bail on him if there is places to play him and see if he can start to fly.

 

Who did that BTW? I never understood dealing Brossoit either. Was that a Feaster deal?

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

Who did that BTW? I never understood dealing Brossoit either. Was that a Feaster deal?

 

Broissoit would have been moved anyway. Up until this season our D play hasn’t been great. We can hoard the Corsi and possession stats all we want but the types of giveaways still haunt us from time to time, but up until this year we haven’t been able to out score those mistakes that end up in the back of the net. He’d have had the same success here as he did in Edmonton until probably this year. I think we’d have traded him or not extended him.

 

we love to talk about Edmonton but until this last season we’ve only been mildly better. The good thing about that is in Calgary there has been a clear plan and it’s starting to come to fruition. Just because I say we’ve only been mildly better doesn’t mean we’ve not been run well. It’s just the process and time it takes. But Broissoit wouldn’t have lasted this long here.

 

it was Feaster.

[CheersMan]

On ‎2019‎-‎03‎-‎12 at 9:01 AM, travel_dude said:

 

Brossoit....

Don't remind me.  One of the bad trades we made.

I don't care what the logic was for getting Smid, but giving up a young goalie without really even waiting to see what he is, just sucks.

MacDonald had a rough start this year.

I don't think you bail on him if there is places to play him and see if he can start to fly.

 

I didn't mind the trade at the time. Brossoit was at the bottom of the depth chart behind Ortio, Gillies and Berra. Smid was a 26 yr old former 1st round pic (9th OA) and was a solid defensive dman. Unfortunately Smid (and his injuries) did not live up to his end of the bargain. I would do that trade every time.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, CheersMan said:

I didn't mind the trade at the time. Brossoit was at the bottom of the depth chart behind Ortio, Gillies and Berra. Smid was a 26 yr old former 1st round pic (9th OA) and was a solid defensive dman. Unfortunately Smid (and his injuries) did not live up to his end of the bargain. I would do that trade every time.

 

Depth behind an unsigned drafted player in college, and the one prospect we had that could become a NHL player.  Oh, and that world beater Berra.  So good we got rid of him at the TDL.  We were supposedly rebuilding and we shipped out 2 prospects for a 27 (turning 28) D-man that was injured in every season he played in.  That and the eyetest that he wasn't close to be a top 2 defender.  He had heart but few skills.

 

Trade fail.  Every day. 

[Thebrewcrew]

With Smith ill today and missing practice I wonder if it’s not Rittich Friday and Smith Saturday 

[travel_dude]

20 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

With Smith ill today and missing practice I wonder if it’s not Rittich Friday and Smith Saturday 

 

If Smith is not 100%, it could be Ritter for both.

I would prefer to see Smith against the Rags, assuming he is better.

[stubblejumper1]

On 2019-03-12 at 9:01 AM, travel_dude said:

 

Brossoit....

Don't remind me.  One of the bad trades we made.

I don't care what the logic was for getting Smid, but giving up a young goalie without really even waiting to see what he is, just sucks.

MacDonald had a rough start this year.

I don't think you bail on him if there is places to play him and see if he can start to fly.

 

 

I thought that was a bad trade from day 1.  Not because they lost Broissoit, but because they brought in Smid.  He was a second or third pairing dman that played up the depth chart in Edmonton because they had a week d core.  

 

Broissoit turned out to be a descent goalie.  Smid turned out to be a high paid, slower skating, stay at home dman with not much offensive upside.  

 

Not a Gilmour for Leeman level trade, by any means, but the Flames got taken for a ride by Craig McTavish.  Ouch.  

[Thebrewcrew]

1 minute ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

I thought that was a bad trade from day 1.  Not because they lost Broissoit, but because they brought in Smid.  He was a second or third pairing dman that played up the depth chart in Edmonton because they had a week d core.  

 

Broissoit turned out to be a descent goalie.  Smid turned out to be a high paid, slower skating, stay at home dman with not much offensive upside.  

 

Not a Gilmour for Leeman level trade, by any means, but the Flames got taken for a ride by Craig McTavish.  Ouch.  

It turned out to be a nothing trade

 

Smid didn’t turn out here and Brossoit was a backup that never played and when he did was below average in EDM and ended up being a non-tendered RFA last season. No one came out ahead 

[stubblejumper1]

Just now, Thebrewcrew said:

It turned out to be a nothing trade

 

Smid didn’t turn out here and Brossoit was a backup that never played and when he did was below average in EDM and ended up being a non-tendered RFA last season. No one came out ahead 

 

I don't want to dump on Smid because he was an honest player, but I don't think it is fair to say he didn't pan out in Calgary.   He came as advertised - a shot blocking hard nosed dman.  No more, no less. 

 

Unfortunately, the Flames traded a future NHL calibre backup goaltender for a replacement level stay at home defenseman in the midst of a five year playoff drought.  

 

Broissoit may never have developed in Calgary, but like almost all of the Flames prospects of that era, he was never given a real chance.   The Smid trade was one in a long line of veteran acquisitions that stunted development of almost all of the Flames' prospects for close to a decade.  

 

 

 

 

[Thebrewcrew]

4 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

 

I don't want to dump on Smid because he was an honest player, but I don't think it is fair to say he didn't pan out in Calgary.   He came as advertised - a shot blocking hard nosed dman.  No more, no less. 

 

Unfortunately, the Flames traded a future NHL calibre backup goaltender for a replacement level stay at home defenseman in the midst of a five year playoff drought.  

 

Broissoit may never have developed in Calgary, but like almost all of the Flames prospects of that era, he was never given a real chance.   The Smid trade was one in a long line of veteran acquisitions that stunted development of almost all of the Flames' prospects for close to a decade.  

 

 

 

 

I didn’t like the trade at all either at the time as I was a Brossoit fan but it could have been worse. At least he figured out how to be an effective NHLer in Winnipeg and not in Edmonton haha

 

Looking back though I don’t mind the trade. It’s the ones like Bollig for a 3rd rounder that will always confuse me

[cross16]

I know he was on the radar for some but I think we can cross Howard off the list of potential Flame targets

 

 

[phoenix66]

On 3/14/2019 at 8:42 PM, stubblejumper1 said:

 

I don't want to dump on Smid because he was an honest player, but I don't think it is fair to say he didn't pan out in Calgary.   He came as advertised - a shot blocking hard nosed dman.  No more, no less. 

 

Unfortunately, the Flames traded a future NHL calibre backup goaltender for a replacement level stay at home defenseman in the midst of a five year playoff drought.  

 

Broissoit may never have developed in Calgary, but like almost all of the Flames prospects of that era, he was never given a real chance.   The Smid trade was one in a long line of veteran acquisitions that stunted development of almost all of the Flames' prospects for close to a decade.  

 

 

 

 

and this isn't just Calgary , its the NHL. Its not very common for starting goaltenders to come through one organization . they really don't historically hit their prime years until 25-26, which is long past what most teams will spend developing them . Look around the league , with few exceptions the #1 did not start with that team or organization 

At the time, Brossoit was buried in Alaska , we got what we needed at the time .

 

I've agreed all along teams need to set up seperate scouting and development paths for goaltenders .. goalie specific scouts , goalie directed development .

Flames were the first NHL team to employ a goalie coach .. id  like to see us be the first to do this as well

[Cubicon]

4 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

and this isn't just Calgary , its the NHL. Its not very common for starting goaltenders to come through one organization . they really don't historically hit their prime years until 25-26, which is long past what most teams will spend developing them . Look around the league , with few exceptions the #1 did not start with that team or organization 

At the time, Brossoit was buried in Alaska , we got what we needed at the time .

 

I've agreed all along teams need to set up seperate scouting and development paths for goaltenders .. goalie specific scouts , goalie directed development .

Flames were the first NHL team to employ a goalie coach .. id  like to see us be the first to do this as well

 

Current starting goalies that are playing with the team that drafted them:

Connor Hellebuyck

Braden Holtby

Carey Price

John Gibson

Jimmy Howard

Henrik Lundqvist

Andrei Vasilevsky

Pekka Rinne

Matt Murray

Jonathan Quick

Jake Allen

 

Then add Tukka Rask to the list, whose rights were only held by Toronto for a year and has played his entire career with Boston. I'd say he had "come through one organization." That's over a third of the league with home-grown keepers.

 

I agree that goalies take a while to develop and that predicting their performance from year to year is pure divination, but I wouldn't call developing your own goalies an uncommon thing.

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, Cubicon said:

 

Current starting goalies that are playing with the team that drafted them:

Connor Hellebuyck

Braden Holtby

Carey Price

John Gibson

Jimmy Howard

Henrik Lundqvist

Andrei Vasilevsky

Pekka Rinne

Matt Murray

Jonathan Quick

Jake Allen

 

Then add Tukka Rask to the list, whose rights were only held by Toronto for a year and has played his entire career with Boston. I'd say he had "come through one organization." That's over a third of the league with home-grown keepers.

 

I agree that goalies take a while to develop and that predicting their performance from year to year is pure divination, but I wouldn't call developing your own goalies an uncommon thing.

Nope , Toronto still traded a prospect for a veteran , he's the perfect example ,   but if you take vegas out of the equation for obvious reasons , thats 2/3 that are using a goalie that didn't start with them 

Id have to do further research but id be wiling to bet every team(except Vegas) has given up on a goalie that became an NHL regular somewhere else 

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

I know he was on the radar for some but I think we can cross Howard off the list of potential Flame targets

 

 

Yeah at TDL I was interested, but the closer it got the more it became apparent that he didn't want to be moved.

This is a good deal for Detroit. And Howard will just play out his career in the big D.

The fans adore him.

Such a classy org with a long list of players that stay with one org for their entire careers.

The return of Datsyuk rumours persist.

[Cubicon]

27 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Nope , Toronto still traded a prospect for a veteran , he's the perfect example ,   but if you take vegas out of the equation for obvious reasons , thats 2/3 that are using a goalie that didn't start with them 

Id have to do further research but id be wiling to bet every team(except Vegas) has given up on a goalie that became an NHL regular somewhere else 

 

Yeah, but that's my point. You can't say that developing your own goaltenders is uncommon when 1/3 of the league is doing it successfully. And of the remaining 2/3 who have been trying to trade for a starting goaltender, how many have even been successful?

 

Here's my quick list of teams that don't have an undisputed starting goaltender:

Buffalo

Calgary

Carolina

Edmonton

Florida

NY Islanders

New Jersey

Philadelphia

 

So that leaves you with 9 teams that have traded for their starter:

 

Arizona (Darcy Kuemper)

Columbus (Sergei Bobrovsky)

Colorado (Semyon Varlamov)

Dallas (Ben Bishop)

Minnesota (Devan Dubnyk)

Ottawa (Craig Anderson)

San Jose (Martin Jones)

Toronto (Frederik Andersen)

Vancouver (Jacob Markstrom)

 

And these are just starters on their respective teams. It doesn't mean these are bona fide #1 goalies.

 

All I'm trying to say is that trading for a starting goalie is by no means the usual thing to do. I think the Flames are stuck with a lot of other teams that are trying to get this strategy to work without much success while a third of the league has figured out how to draft and develop goaltenders properly. Yes the Flames need to do this, but it's by no mean revolutionary.

 

(PS: add Corey Crawford to the list of #1's playing with the team that drafted them. It may be a bad year, but he's been a legit #1 for them in years past.)

[phoenix66]

49 minutes ago, Cubicon said:

 

Yeah, but that's my point. You can't say that developing your own goaltenders is uncommon when 1/3 of the league is doing it successfully. And of the remaining 2/3 who have been trying to trade for a starting goaltender, how many have even been successful?

 

Here's my quick list of teams that don't have an undisputed starting goaltender:

Buffalo

Calgary

Carolina

Edmonton

Florida

NY Islanders

New Jersey

Philadelphia

 

So that leaves you with 9 teams that have traded for their starter:

 

Arizona (Darcy Kuemper)

Columbus (Sergei Bobrovsky)

Colorado (Semyon Varlamov)

Dallas (Ben Bishop)

Minnesota (Devan Dubnyk)

Ottawa (Craig Anderson)

San Jose (Martin Jones)

Toronto (Frederik Andersen)

Vancouver (Jacob Markstrom)

 

And these are just starters on their respective teams. It doesn't mean these are bona fide #1 goalies.

 

All I'm trying to say is that trading for a starting goalie is by no means the usual thing to do. I think the Flames are stuck with a lot of other teams that are trying to get this strategy to work without much success while a third of the league has figured out how to draft and develop goaltenders properly. Yes the Flames need to do this, but it's by no mean revolutionary.

 

(PS: add Corey Crawford to the list of #1's playing with the team that drafted them. It may be a bad year, but he's been a legit #1 for them in years past.)

we're splitting hairs here now , you don't need to be a star to be a starter (EG Koskinen in Edm is the starter .. maybe not a star , but hes the #1 right now ).. basically the gist is that the majority of teams goalies did not start there 

Compare that to top 4 d-men and Centers and top wingers .. most of those are homegrown because the goal is to get them in to the lineup in 1-3 years .. goalies , more like 7-8

 

The majority of teams (2/3 is a majority.. actually a pretty high one ..67%) don't take the time to develop goalies 

[conundrumed]

What's amusing is trying to find a common thread in the goalies you've listed as the 3rd of teams that developed their own

Some you just expect will be elite NHLers, Price, Vasilevsky, Gibson as top 50 picks.

Quick a top 75 pick.

Holtby a top 100.

Then it disintegrates.

Helly 5th rd, Rinne I think was the 2nd or 3rd last pick in his draft class. 258th oa, wow, nice pick.

Murray, undrafted.

 

It never ceases to amaze me, in this day and age, the old adage is still thrown around like candy:

Goalies are Voodoo.

I might be one of the few that doesn't agree.

It's no different than players, you base it and grade it on a package of skills.

Streaming Stockton games watching Gillies and Rittich, it was clear to me Rittich is far more developed.

Just like our scout Derek MacKinnon saw in Europe. He went to watch Pribyl and got addicted to Rittich.

Price, Vasilevsky, in their draft years. It was undeniable these are exceptional goalies.

And they are exceptional goalies.

I recall a thread on this board about "which rookie this year will have the best career".

I went with Rinne, who wasn't even a poll choice.

So again, why is this voodoo?

Little-known players surprise people all of the time, It's a "good story".

Tim Thomas does it, it's "voodoo".

What is voodoo, is scouting imho.

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

What's amusing is trying to find a common thread in the goalies you've listed as the 3rd of teams that developed their own

Some you just expect will be elite NHLers, Price, Vasilevsky, Gibson as top 50 picks.

Quick a top 75 pick.

Holtby a top 100.

Then it disintegrates.

Helly 5th rd, Rinne I think was the 2nd or 3rd last pick in his draft class. 258th oa, wow, nice pick.

Murray, undrafted.

 

It never ceases to amaze me, in this day and age, the old adage is still thrown around like candy:

Goalies are Voodoo.

I might be one of the few that doesn't agree.

It's no different than players, you base it and grade it on a package of skills.

Streaming Stockton games watching Gillies and Rittich, it was clear to me Rittich is far more developed.

Just like our scout Derek MacKinnon saw in Europe. He went to watch Pribyl and got addicted to Rittich.

Price, Vasilevsky, in their draft years. It was undeniable these are exceptional goalies.

And they are exceptional goalies.

I recall a thread on this board about "which rookie this year will have the best career".

I went with Rinne, who wasn't even a poll choice.

So again, why is this voodoo?

Little-known players surprise people all of the time, It's a "good story".

Tim Thomas does it, it's "voodoo".

What is voodoo, is scouting imho.

My point exactly .. just like goalies require their own coaches, they should be scouted separately as well

[conundrumed]

10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

we're splitting hairs here now , you don't need to be a star to be a starter (EG Koskinen in Edm is the starter .. maybe not a star , but hes the #1 right now ).. basically the gist is that the majority of teams goalies did not start there 

Compare that to top 4 d-men and Centers and top wingers .. most of those are homegrown because the goal is to get them in to the lineup in 1-3 years .. goalies , more like 7-8

 

The majority of teams (2/3 is a majority.. actually a pretty high one ..67%) don't take the time to develop goalies 

Let me say this as nicely as possible. 1 in 3 of the teams developed their own starter.

Cubicon was just pointing out it's not "rare".

He's right. Why is this a pissing match?

Excellent conversation between you 2, so thanx both.

Don't let it disintegrate into semantics.

I honestly don't care, you're having an excellent conversation and you're both obviously educated hockey guys.

 

[phoenix66]

31 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Let me say this as nicely as possible. 1 in 3 of the teams developed their own starter.

Cubicon was just pointing out it's not "rare".

He's right. Why is this a pissing match?

Excellent conversation between you 2, so thanx both.

Don't let it disintegrate into semantics.

I honestly don't care, you're having an excellent conversation and you're both obviously educated hockey guys.

 

Sorry didnt mean it to sound like that , just to me 1/ 3 is Rare . When you consider nearly every teams Top Dmen, and Forwards were drafted there .

Problem is , Dmen can play up 7 spots in the lineup .. forwards 4 or more .. but there is only 1 net.. so the majority of teams don't have that patience. BUT it starts with scouting .

Somebody thought Mason McDonald was a better prospect than Thatcher Demko.. and we weren't alone. just as one example .. scary thing is , they may still be right 

There has been more 1st Round Goalie pick Duds than studs. They are different , so you need to scout them differently.. then develop them differently  

[sak22]

16 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Somebody thought Mason McDonald was a better prospect than Thatcher Demko.. and we weren't alone. just as one example .. scary thing is , they may still be right 

There has been more 1st Round Goalie pick Duds than studs. They are different , so you need to scout them differently.. then develop them differently  

I don't know if anybody has mastered that aspect either.  SJ in the '90s had a nice run with Nabokov, Kiprusoff, Toskala, and Hedberg.  Since then it's been a whole lot of nothing.  Anaheim's been pretty good over the last 20 years, but outside that it has been hit or miss with almost every team and in many cases its been misses.  I don't know what is harder to scout a good starting goalie or a franchise quarterback in football, I'd lean more to the goalie.

[conundrumed]

13 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Sorry didnt mean it to sound like that , just to me 1/ 3 is Rare . When you consider nearly every teams Top Dmen, and Forwards were drafted there .

Problem is , Dmen can play up 7 spots in the lineup .. forwards 4 or more .. but there is only 1 net.. so the majority of teams don't have that patience. BUT it starts with scouting .

Somebody thought Mason McDonald was a better prospect than Thatcher Demko.. and we weren't alone. just as one example .. scary thing is , they may still be right 

There has been more 1st Round Goalie pick Duds than studs. They are different , so you need to scout them differently.. then develop them differently  

Yeah I know. I often wonder how scouts list attiributes for goalies. For me, it would be:

1. Do you know where you are in relation to the net? I'd use Luongo as an example of a guy that gets lost when he leaves the crease.

2. Lateral movement. Quite simply, leg strength, push left, right, forward.

3. Vision. Can you track a puck? Whether you see it or not, can you get up on it?

4. Athleticism. Which is reactionary.

For the 1st 3, imo goalies have to have that, early. When you reach pro age, these should not be things to work on, that's automatic in the bag of tricks stuff.

Working on increasing speed and reaction time, puck-handling, I get that.

Rittich is my example of that. He came from excellent development imho.

With Smith, 1 through 3 are suspicious imho.

And those are the 3 things a goalie should be able to control, he seems to rely on 4. That's not good enough. And my least favourite part, is that he's forever looking to keep the puck in play, juicy rebounds and scrambles.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

What's amusing is trying to find a common thread in the goalies you've listed as the 3rd of teams that developed their own

Some you just expect will be elite NHLers, Price, Vasilevsky, Gibson as top 50 picks.

Quick a top 75 pick.

Holtby a top 100.

Then it disintegrates.

Helly 5th rd, Rinne I think was the 2nd or 3rd last pick in his draft class. 258th oa, wow, nice pick.

Murray, undrafted.

 

It never ceases to amaze me, in this day and age, the old adage is still thrown around like candy:

Goalies are Voodoo.

I might be one of the few that doesn't agree.

It's no different than players, you base it and grade it on a package of skills.

Streaming Stockton games watching Gillies and Rittich, it was clear to me Rittich is far more developed.

Just like our scout Derek MacKinnon saw in Europe. He went to watch Pribyl and got addicted to Rittich.

Price, Vasilevsky, in their draft years. It was undeniable these are exceptional goalies.

And they are exceptional goalies.

I recall a thread on this board about "which rookie this year will have the best career".

I went with Rinne, who wasn't even a poll choice.

So again, why is this voodoo?

Little-known players surprise people all of the time, It's a "good story".

Tim Thomas does it, it's "voodoo".

What is voodoo, is scouting imho.

 

The thing is, Rinne was told by his draft year coach that he was a sleeper, but was stuck behind another goalie who also ended up a starter in the NHL. 

 

Some teams have better luck than others. Tampa drafted Vasilevsky after having Bishop which might have been on his third team.

 

i think it’s a silly argument because it could be that some teams draft goalies better. Rinne and Saros? Plus if a team already has a starter they’d walk away from someone who could possibly be one. 

 

Goalies are hard to develop. They need games. 

[robrob74]

5 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Yeah I know. I often wonder how scouts list attiributes for goalies. For me, it would be:

1. Do you know where you are in relation to the net? I'd use Luongo as an example of a guy that gets lost when he leaves the crease.

2. Lateral movement. Quite simply, leg strength, push left, right, forward.

3. Vision. Can you track a puck? Whether you see it or not, can you get up on it?

4. Athleticism. Which is reactionary.

For the 1st 3, imo goalies have to have that, early. When you reach pro age, these should not be things to work on, that's automatic in the bag of tricks stuff.

Working on increasing speed and reaction time, puck-handling, I get that.

Rittich is my example of that. He came from excellent development imho.

With Smith, 1 through 3 are suspicious imho.

And those are the 3 things a goalie should be able to control, he seems to rely on 4. That's not good enough. And my least favourite part, is that he's forever looking to keep the puck in play, juicy rebounds and scrambles.

 

Its possible smith had the other attributes before. I am no pro goalie scout so I rely on eye test and how comfortable I feel just by their play. Smith seemed to have game in the first 30 games last year. Just a number I threw out, but after the injury he doesn’t seem to have it. I think something is hindering him that’s made him lose his confidence. I don’t know if it is just me but I think I can actually see him think out there. 

 

Rittich isnt always on, but he has been on more throughout games. His play feels better and it makes me comfortable when he’s in.