Goaltending

[MAC331]

Definitely no to offer-sheeting him. We need those picks more than we need to offer-sheet. 

 

If they'd consider a trade of rights (say Andersen's for Colborne's) then I'm VERY interested. 

 

Actually.....that's not a bad idea. Wonder if they'd take that deal....

If they have that extra 1st BT could do a similar deal to the Hamilton one for Andersen. The best way is to pick up the phone and make a trade deal.

[DirtyDeeds]

Andersen will be an RFA, so if the Flames signed him to an offer sheet it'd probably cost a 1st and a 3rd.   (Assuming a salary between $3 - $5M)  There's a good explanation of the rules here -> http://www.silversevensens.com/2015/6/25/8773751/nhl-offer-sheet-explained-rules-guide

 

I'm not in favour of signing anyone to an offer sheet, as I believe it creates a bidding war and someone will always end up over-paying.  (Also, the compensation would have to be our first round draft pick, not Dallas')  However, the compensation guidelines could serve as a conversation starter.

I can't see the Flames would do an offersheet on any Ducks player. Burke's history with them(offer sheets and Ducks) would prevent them going that route. I am sure they could work out some other deal, if they wanted a player from them, but an offersheet would not be the way they would do it. 

[cross16]

Martin Jones was traded for a mid 1st round pick and a solid, but not elite, prospect.

Cam Talbot netted the Rangers a 2nd, 3rd and a 7th round draft picks.

 

Anderson's value is likely north of that so i think you are talking about a first plus a good prospect or roster player.

 

My question with Andreson is less the cost to acquire him and more what are you going to pay him? I think he could be looking at a multi year deal north or 5-5.5 million and he isn't worth that IMO. 3 year deal under 5 mill i'm interested but anything more i don't think he is worth both the trade and financial cost. 

[travel_dude]

Andersen will be an RFA, so if the Flames signed him to an offer sheet it'd probably cost a 1st and a 3rd.   (Assuming a salary between $3 - $5M)  There's a good explanation of the rules here -> http://www.silversevensens.com/2015/6/25/8773751/nhl-offer-sheet-explained-rules-guide

 

I'm not in favour of signing anyone to an offer sheet, as I believe it creates a bidding war and someone will always end up over-paying.  (Also, the compensation would have to be our first round draft pick, not Dallas')  However, the compensation guidelines could serve as a conversation starter.

 

Maybe I am off base, but for you to offer sheet, you have to have those picks of your own available for compensation.  You can't use ones you received in a trade.  So the 1st rounder is out, since it's currently a to 5.  Have to go the trade route or offer less in an OS.

 

If you offered $3.6m even, you would only use a 2nd.  We have that.  But would Anaheim match?  Most likely since the compensation is too low.

[DirtyDeeds]

Maybe I am off base, but for you to offer sheet, you have to have those picks of your own available for compensation.  You can't use ones you received in a trade.  So the 1st rounder is out, since it's currently a to 5.  Have to go the trade route or offer less in an OS.

 

If you offered $3.6m even, you would only use a 2nd.  We have that.  But would Anaheim match?  Most likely since the compensation is too low.

It is my understanding that you are correct. Offer sheet picks have to be your own.

[StarkRaving]

Maybe I am off base, but for you to offer sheet, you have to have those picks of your own available for compensation.  You can't use ones you received in a trade.  So the 1st rounder is out, since it's currently a to 5.  Have to go the trade route or offer less in an OS.

 

If you offered $3.6m even, you would only use a 2nd.  We have that.  But would Anaheim match?  Most likely since the compensation is too low.

Yes, I mentioned in my post that we'd have to use our draft pick, not the one we received from Dallas.

 

I also mentioned that I'm not in favour of offer-sheeting someone.  I was just pointing out that the offer sheet compensation rules are an indicator of what kind of compensation the Ducks (or any team) might be looking for.

 

Honestly, I'm curious to see how BT manages this problem.  Personally, I can't think of a goalie I want at a price the Flames can afford.

[travel_dude]

Yes, I mentioned in my post that we'd have to use our draft pick, not the one we received from Dallas.

 

I also mentioned that I'm not in favour of offer-sheeting someone.  I was just pointing out that the offer sheet compensation rules are an indicator of what kind of compensation the Ducks (or any team) might be looking for.

 

Honestly, I'm curious to see how BT manages this problem.  Personally, I can't think of a goalie I want at a price the Flames can afford.

 

To me, our 1st is off the table except for an exceptional player in return.  Not that I overvalue a 5th overall, but compensation for a OS doesn't seem to be a good use of it.

 

I missed the part of your post where you talked about our picks.

 

It all depends on the asking price and the goalie market.  If nobody is looking for a starter, then the price is lower.  Elliott and Anderson are both likely available.  Probably not as high a return as they like.

[robrob1974]

Wouldn't it be next year's 1st if you offer sheet because it will be after the draft?

I am not saying offer sheet anyone. I don't think we are in a position to because of the salary structure this team is up against this off-season.

[Flyerfan52]

There is not 1 RFA goalie worth the $s that would require an OS needing our 1st rounder.

 

As I did say earlier I'd offer it for Cory Schneider.

I'd also offer the later of our 2nds for Eddie Lack.

Lest you think I covet ex-Canuck goalies both these were trained in the old Mb. Moose system. I think Lack was another of Zinger's finds (he could be a GM but doesn't want the title).

[travel_dude]

There is not 1 RFA goalie worth the $s that would require an OS needing our 1st rounder.

 

As I did say earlier I'd offer it for Cory Schneider.

I'd also offer the later of our 2nds for Eddie Lack.

Lest you think I covet ex-Canuck goalies both these were trained in the old Mb. Moose system. I think Lack was another of Zinger's finds (he could be a GM but doesn't want the title).

 

Lack had a bad year, so I don't know if that was an anomaly or if the 2014/15 season was.  Hey, if we traded for him, we could show pictures of Eddie Lack's and Sam Bennett's dads in the stands.

[robrob1974]

Lack had a bad year, so I don't know if that was an anomaly or if the 2014/15 season was. Hey, if we traded for him, we could show pictures of Eddie Lack's and Sam Bennett's dads in the stands.

Can you show them anyway? Is there something I missed?

[jjgallow]

The biggest hole in your argument is the path you are suggesting would be a terrible pathway to develop goalies. It would be a self fulfilling prophesy.

I am not suggesting that the Flames have a great history of goaltending development. Though given the turnover at just about every position I am not sure how relevant that is. But you can't throw a bunch of young guys into the NHL over their head and expect them to develop correctly.

 

ok, so, a couple thoughts on that:

 

1.  It makes no sense

 

2.  Even if it did make sense, it's an odd way to respond to someone admitting there's a hole in their arguement.  Something I've not ever seen you do.  Clearly because...there's no holes in your arguements, right?

 

 

We could talk for pages and pages about the strategy involved with developing goaltenders.   Filling up your NHL spots with veterans...isn't going to win that arguement, and is going to take up a lot of internet real estate.   We've been through it.  It doesn't win that.   What it Does win, it it's the Lowest risk method to ensure improvement next season.  That's why it's popular, let's not pretend otherwise. 

 

So it's a matter of perspective.  It's a matter of what's most important.    Please please, don't take that temptation to say that filling our NHL spots with vets is better for development.  Not sure if I'll have time for it yet again, but 100% guarantee...it WILL come back down to the simple fact that people are looking for the lowest risk and shortest A to B for performance improvement next season.  And nothing more.

[kehatch]

ok, so, a couple thoughts on that:

1. It makes no sense

2. Even if it did make sense, it's an odd way to respond to someone admitting there's a hole in their arguement. Something I've not ever seen you do. Clearly because...there's no holes in your arguements, right?

We could talk for pages and pages about the strategy involved with developing goaltenders. Filling up your NHL spots with veterans...isn't going to win that arguement, and is going to take up a lot of internet real estate. We've been through it. It doesn't win that. What it Does win, it it's the Lowest risk method to ensure improvement next season. That's why it's popular, let's not pretend otherwise.

So it's a matter of perspective. It's a matter of what's most important. Please please, don't take that temptation to say that filling our NHL spots with vets is better for development. Not sure if I'll have time for it yet again, but 100% guarantee...it WILL come back down to the simple fact that people are looking for the lowest risk and shortest A to B for performance improvement next season. And nothing more.

Your supposed hole in your argument was just an excuse to provide another backhanded insult at the Flames inability to develop goalies. Your basically saying your right but the Flames lack the ability to implement your brilliance.

Nobody has ever said fill the team with veterans. Not once. But not liking the idea of going into next season with 40 NHL games played by goalies, the bulk by a guy who has been shaky at best, isnt someone looking for the lowest risk.

I think it's a terrible and completely impractical idea. I think it is a completely irresponsible approach to both short and long term success in net. I also think it does a complete deserving to the team in front of the goalie, many of whom are also developing. That doesn't mean I want to fill the spot with veterans or take shortcuts for success next season.

If you can't recognize why going into next season with a shakey Ortio supported by some obscure and unproven prospect is a bad idea then so be it. But the rest of us as aren't evil posters ready to sacrifice the future of the Flames because we can't resist a quick fix.

[MAC331]

Martin Jones was traded for a mid 1st round pick and a solid, but not elite, prospect.

Cam Talbot netted the Rangers a 2nd, 3rd and a 7th round draft picks.

 

Anderson's value is likely north of that so i think you are talking about a first plus a good prospect or roster player.

 

My question with Andreson is less the cost to acquire him and more what are you going to pay him? I think he could be looking at a multi year deal north or 5-5.5 million and he isn't worth that IMO. 3 year deal under 5 mill i'm interested but anything more i don't think he is worth both the trade and financial cost. 

Do you think he has logged enough games to warrant that kind of money 5.5M ? I don't and I don't think the market will either.

[travel_dude]

Can you show them anyway? Is there something I missed?

 

Backhanded reference to the Canucks-Flames playoffs last year.  Every time Eddie Lack was in net, Jim Hughson (CBC Play-by-play guy) cut to a picture of Eddie Lack's dad in the stands.  Basically every time he made a save.  Every time Sam Bennett made a good play or got a point, he called him "18 year old Sam Bennett".  The Nucks fans were furious about this.  It was a thing.      

[cross16]

Wouldn't it be next year's 1st if you offer sheet because it will be after the draft?

I am not saying offer sheet anyone. I don't think we are in a position to because of the salary structure this team is up against this off-season.

 

 

This is correct.

 

You cannot negotiate with a player that is not your own until signing period opens up so the Flames can't even talk to Anderson until after the draft. If the Flames wanted to offer sheet anyone it would be 2017 picks, not any 2016 picks, that would be part of the compensation. 

Do you think he has logged enough games to warrant that kind of money 5.5M ? I don't and I don't think the market will either.

 

to clarify I meant 5-5.5 mill somewhere in there.

 

Martin Jones with no starter experience received 3.5. Cam Talbot with very limited starter experience netted 4.2. 

 

The 2 starters who were signed in recent years I think compare the most to Anderson are Niemi and Halak and both of them got 4.5 million. I would argue Anderson is better than both and has the upside of age, so all things considering I think 5 million is a very reasonable starting point actually. 

[robrob1974]

This is correct.

You cannot negotiate with a player that is not your own until signing period opens up so the Flames can't even talk to Anderson until after the draft. If the Flames wanted to offer sheet anyone it would be 2017 picks, not any 2016 picks, that would be part of the compensation.

It sounded like other posters were afraid of losing this year's pick. Maybe they're afraid next year's 1st will be a top 5 again?

I agree with you though, better goaltending will get us higher in the standings, closer to the playoffs. They showed glimpses of good team play this year of being close but didn't sustain it, which is where I get caught up in the conversation of how close we really are.

[DirtyDeeds]

It sounded like other posters were afraid of losing this year's pick. Maybe they're afraid next year's 1st will be a top 5 again?

I agree with you though, better goaltending will get us higher in the standings, closer to the playoffs. They showed glimpses of good team play this year of being close but didn't sustain it, which is where I get caught up in the conversation of how close we really are.

For me the best play of the Flames was just after our poor start when Ramo managed to get us back to a playoff spot/contention. The games still counted, Brodie had returned and the guys played as a team.

 

That period showed me the Flames are close to being a playoff team and deserve to be in that conversation with avg or better goaltending.

[cross16]

It sounded like other posters were afraid of losing this year's pick. Maybe they're afraid next year's 1st will be a top 5 again?

I agree with you though, better goaltending will get us higher in the standings, closer to the playoffs. They showed glimpses of good team play this year of being close but didn't sustain it, which is where I get caught up in the conversation of how close we really are.

 

I read it the same way that people were concrend about losing picks this year or that picks this year were off limits. With Anderson I don't think the Flames would likely be a bottom 5 team next year they likely are knocking on the door of the playoffs. However, I still don't think the offer sheet process is necessary and if Anderson does in fact go on the block I think the Flames can work out a deal with Anaheim. If Anaheim doesn't want to deal him in the division then they will just make sure they trade him somewhere else before the Flames even get a chance to offer sheet him.

 

Long story short, I don't think offer sheeting Anderson is realistic and that's even ignoring the whole offer sheet debate that I don't want to get into. Ducks would not let it get to that, IMO.

[travel_dude]

I read it the same way that people were concrend about losing picks this year or that picks this year were off limits. With Anderson I don't think the Flames would likely be a bottom 5 team next year they likely are knocking on the door of the playoffs. However, I still don't think the offer sheet process is necessary and if Anderson does in fact go on the block I think the Flames can work out a deal with Anaheim. If Anaheim doesn't want to deal him in the division then they will just make sure they trade him somewhere else before the Flames even get a chance to offer sheet him.

 

Long story short, I don't think offer sheeting Anderson is realistic and that's even ignoring the whole offer sheet debate that I don't want to get into. Ducks would not let it get to that, IMO.

 

The last OS done by the Flames was for ROR.  I doubt they get into another one anytime soon, at least at that level a player.  Any deal is likely after the draft, so I could see a 2017 set of picks being used, in which case it is lower risk.   

[kehatch]

to clarify I meant 5-5.5 mill somewhere in there.

Martin Jones with no starter experience received 3.5. Cam Talbot with very limited starter experience netted 4.2.

The 2 starters who were signed in recent years I think compare the most to Anderson are Niemi and Halak and both of them got 4.5 million. I would argue Anderson is better than both and has the upside of age, so all things considering I think 5 million is a very reasonable starting point actually.

The only real comparable is Jones. The rest were experienced goalies with UFA status. Anderson is still pretty green and is an RFA.

I like Andersen a lot and I would love to see the Flames acquire him. But let's keep in mind he has 2 seasons as a 1B goalies and he put up pretty average numbers.

I think your looking at 4 to 4.5 on a three year deal. Which I don't mind at all.

[cross16]

The only real comparable is Jones. The rest were experienced goalies with UFA status. Anderson is still pretty green and is an RFA.

I like Andersen a lot and I would love to see the Flames acquire him. But let's keep in mind he has 2 seasons as a 1B goalies and he put up pretty average numbers.

I think your looking at 4 to 4.5 on a three year deal. Which I don't mind at all.

 

Just to be clear i'm not advocating he will or should get 5 million, i'm saying my fear is that is what it could take. I agree 4.5 on a 3 year deal is reasonable, but we are also talking about potentially the best goalie option available in the off-season which is going to drive up both his ask and the trade value.

 

4.5mill per and 3 years or less i'm interested. anything more i'm not and I fear it will take more.

[MAC331]

Just to be clear i'm not advocating he will or should get 5 million, i'm saying my fear is that is what it could take. I agree 4.5 on a 3 year deal is reasonable, but we are also talking about potentially the best goalie option available in the off-season which is going to drive up both his ask and the trade value.

 

4.5mill per and 3 years or less i'm interested. anything more i'm not and I fear it will take more.

Why only 3 years if you believe he will be that good ? Injury risks ? you see in most sports term can win the deal.

[cross16]

Why only 3 years if you believe he will be that good ? Injury risks ? you see is most sports term can win the deal.

Well one I don't think he is that good. I think he is a good starter but not great and second I don't believe in long term deals for goalies unless they are elite or upper echelon. Goalies come and go so quick that I'd rather not tie up cap space unless he is a legit top end starter. I don't believe Anderson is that.

[conundrumed]

Is it just me, or is this the worst possible timing on needing a goalie(s)?

The UFA list is pretty dusty.