Goaltending

[robrob1974]

I understand it is all logical. But Crosby may want Fleury there, if he has any say. We know players don't have a say, but that's not always true when it comes to franchise players.

I am just looking at things the other way. I am not a MAF fan. I hope we don't get him.

I don't like him in games that matter.

But those quoting his numbers in these playoff games have to remember he just came off injury which gave Murray the chance to play. So he was cold.

[s4xon]

I agree it makes a lot of sense. We were talking about that a bit earlier.

Take it for what it is, but Eklund has jumped on this and is rating Fleury to Calgary ad E4.

 

E4 is practically a done deal.

[jjgallow]

What if Pitt still wants MAF? Are they fully sold on Murray?

 

 

They are Fully sold on Murray and they would have been even if they lost the cup.

 

And even if that was untrue, we could Never afford him.  Not now.

[jjgallow]

MAF would be a Massive mistake, imho.

 

He was .921 on what was, at the end of the day, the Best team in the league.  And we all witnessed the defensive competency there which is simply not present here.

 

MAF's .921 puts him 16th in the league, yes.       But if it drops to .918, he's 30th.   And on the Flames, it would drop more than that.

 

Putting us back to the worst save percentage in the league.

 

What would Ramo, or Hiller, have posted with the Pens this year?   Probably not that far off from .921.   Not good enough.   But not as bad as we think.

 

 

I surely hope we are not dragged into yet another adventure in futility here.  

[AlbertaBoy12]

MAF would be a Massive mistake, imho.

 

He was .921 on what was, at the end of the day, the Best team in the league.  And we all witnessed the defensive competency there which is simply not present here.

 

MAF's .921 puts him 16th in the league, yes.       But if it drops to .918, he's 30th.   And on the Flames, it would drop more than that.

 

Putting us back to the worst save percentage in the league.

 

What would Ramo, or Hiller, have posted with the Pens this year?   Probably not that far off from .921.   Not good enough.   But not as bad as we think.

 

 

I surely hope we are not dragged into yet another adventure in futility here.  

You might be exaggerating a little bit. The flames of next year could be a different team with a new coach, and to be honest I wouldnt be suprised to see them improve defensively in a new system. 

 

He was also .921 on a team was horrendous through the first through months. Im not saying he is going to be the next coming of Roy, but he would still be a competent number #1.

[JTech780]

MAF would be a Massive mistake, imho.

 

He was .921 on what was, at the end of the day, the Best team in the league.  And we all witnessed the defensive competency there which is simply not present here.

 

MAF's .921 puts him 16th in the league, yes.       But if it drops to .918, he's 30th.   And on the Flames, it would drop more than that.

 

Putting us back to the worst save percentage in the league.

 

What would Ramo, or Hiller, have posted with the Pens this year?   Probably not that far off from .921.   Not good enough.   But not as bad as we think.

 

 

I surely hope we are not dragged into yet another adventure in futility here.  

 

Actually his .921 save percentage puts him 9th in the league amongst starters (goalies who started 30 or more  games and I was pretty generous calling goalies who started in 30 games a starter). He faced an average of 28.7 shots per game, just for reference Karri Ramo faced an average of 27.9 shots per game.

 

MAF will be just fine here and a massive upgrade over any goalie we have had since Kipper.

[jjgallow]

Actually his .921 save percentage puts him 9th in the league amongst starters (goalies who started 30 or more  games and I was pretty generous calling goalies who started in 30 games a starter). He faced an average of 28.7 shots per game, just for reference Karri Ramo faced an average of 27.9 shots per game.

 

MAF will be just fine here and a massive upgrade over any goalie we have had since Kipper.

 

Ok, well I get 10th using your criteria, but keep in mind that either way, it's turning a blind eye to some of the best goalies in the league, including the likes of Carey Price and Matt Murray.   I would question the relevance of it.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&report=goaliesummary&season=20152016&gameType=2&sort=savePctg&aggregate=0&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,30&pos=G

 

Either way, if it drops from .921 to .918, we're in Playoff-missing territory (using your criteria too).

 

Shots per game is probably Not a good measurement either.  What matters is quality shots per game.   And, also, keep in mind that much of last season was spent with the other team protecting their lead against us (and playing their backup goaltender).  Yes, I agree MAF might be an upgrade, but by how much?   Because as soon as we show any kind of improvement, we are going to face Better goaltenders, and More shots against.

 

I'm just saying, there may be more to this than meets the eye, and more improvement required than calculated on these threads.....even to be average.   And blowing that kind of CAP space (and assets) to get MAF....may do the opposite.

[AlbertaBoy12]

Ok, well I get 10th using your criteria, but keep in mind that either way, it's turning a blind eye to some of the best goalies in the league, including the likes of Carey Price and Matt Murray.   I would question the relevance of it.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&report=goaliesummary&season=20152016&gameType=2&sort=savePctg&aggregate=0&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,30&pos=G

 

Either way, if it drops from .921 to .918, we're in Playoff-missing territory (using your criteria too).

 

Shots per game is probably Not a good measurement either.  What matters is quality shots per game.   And, also, keep in mind that much of last season was spent with the other team protecting their lead against us (and playing their backup goaltender).  Yes, I agree MAF might be an upgrade, but by how much?   Because as soon as we show any kind of improvement, we are going to face Better goaltenders, and More shots against.

 

I'm just saying, there may be more to this than meets the eye, and more improvement required than calculated on these threads.....even to be average.   And blowing that kind of CAP space (and assets) to get MAF....may do the opposite.

What season were you watching? We didnt face that many backups, maybe the odd one here and there on back to backs. Also you may be right about quality shots per game, as calgary was bad at that, but that will change under a new coach, and if it doesnt we will have a huge problem. 

 

I dont think we will blow that many assets on MAF, the only suggestion ive seen about blowing assets was for beau bennett. The rest of the trades have been about getting rid of wideman, raymond etc but maybe a 2nd.

[kehatch]

Fleury is a legitimate NHL starter in our price range. He is probably the best legitimate starter available in a reasonable price.

Tough to find too many reasons to dislike the player. Good starter and clearly he doesn't block the prospects given what just happened with Murray.

[jjgallow]

What season were you watching? We didnt face that many backups, maybe the odd one here and there on back to backs. Also you may be right about quality shots per game, as calgary was bad at that, but that will change under a new coach, and if it doesnt we will have a huge problem. 

 

I dont think we will blow that many assets on MAF, the only suggestion ive seen about blowing assets was for beau bennett. The rest of the trades have been about getting rid of wideman, raymond etc but maybe a 2nd.

 

Your trade suggestions honestly Don't look bad, but I'll believe it when I see it and I still won't be able to handle the cap.

 

With regards to backups....couldn't be bothered to do the stats but 99% sure we faced a highly disproportionate amount.   If anyone cares to put the effort in I'd applaud them for proving otherwise (cause...yeah...it's nice outside...and that's a lot of work lol)

http://flames.nhl.com/club/gamelog.htm

[jjgallow]

Fleury is a legitimate NHL starter in our price range. He is probably the best legitimate starter available in a reasonable price.

Tough to find too many reasons to dislike the player. Good starter and clearly he doesn't block the prospects given what just happened with Murray.

 

Actually...he's Not a legitimate starter, as he was benched for all of the post-season.   Also don't see how that's in our price range.

 

Legitimate starters Don't get benched for the entire post-season.   Or, have sub-900 career post-season save percentage averages dating back 9 years.

 

Anyway, I'm fighting a losing battle.   I am fully aware that Treliving will go for  a big name like this, or ...worse.

 

And I'm sure that the goalie he brings in will help, with regular season ticket sales.

[kehatch]

Actually...he's Not a legitimate starter, as he was benched for all of the post-season. Also don't see how that's in our price range.

Legitimate starters Don't get benched for the entire post-season. Or, have sub-900 career post-season save percentage averages dating back 9 years.

Anyway, I'm fighting a losing battle. I am fully aware that Treliving will go for a big name like this, or ...worse.

And I'm sure that the goalie he brings in will help, with regular season ticket sales.

Your fighting a losing battle because you refuse to be reasonable. Suggesting you don't like Fleury is fine. But you are suggesting that he is terrible because he had a 920 save percentage and that despite his 60+ games a season he isn't a starter. (I guess Price isn't a starter because he lost out to Halak in the playoffs one season?)

Your big beef has been to find a long term starter via the system. Well the Penguins just found Murray with Fleury as their starter. There is nothing wrong with the Flames using Fleury as a stop gap for Gilles or another.

[jjgallow]

Your fighting a losing battle because you refuse to be reasonable. 

 

Actually, because I refuse to suck.   

 

Have you ever stopped to think how embarrassing it is for us to be scrounging around, looking for scraps, that other contenders Legitimately have no need for, because you're content with middle of the pack?  And you're willing to kill the cap and give up future assets to get there?

 

That what exemplifies excellence in the sport, what symbolizes greatness and achievement, Doesn't want, you'll take, because you'll settle for their mistakes and leftovers?

 

And you make up some kind of arguement, about how, if we take the parts they Rejected, maybe that'll help us find a starter like they did?

 

Um....

 

WHAT THE?

 

Are you serious?

 

It's like, as if it wasn't already embarrasing enough, how you went on about the necessity of a goalie with 40+ games, now you've found some new kind of logic where if we find the parts that DIDN'T WORK for the contenders, maybe that was the key all along?   Like...MAF made Murray?  Is that your new gig?

 

Look...I am sure, that in your head, this all makes sense to you.  And no matter what I say, you'll keep believing it.  But....it's getting a bit much when your thoughts are typed out.

[jjgallow]

I am not sure how to rationally respond to that.

The bottom line is you have yet to offer up a reasonable alternative. Hyperbole about how your interested in winning long term doesn't mean anything. Impractical suggestions about rolling the dice with a bunch of unknown guys (that we don't even have) or putting forward crappy veterans to force us to roll the dice with our prospects don't count.

Pittsburgh just won another cup. They just found their goalie of the future. Why are you so against the Flames following the same path with Fleury and Gilles? Dont response with a wall of soap box hyperbole about being winners and blah blah blah. Don't make up crap about a 920 being dreadful of Fleury not even being an NHL starter. Put forward a reasonable argument.

 

 

I am not sure how to rationally respond either.   I'm aware that my comments may be unnecessarily and unfairly insulting.   With age, I've learned that this is the time to stop.   In my past, I would often keep adding fuel.

 

It is, in fact, amazing, when I look back, that I've not been permanently banned, given how much further I took these arguements in younger days, when I didn't have the empathy to understand what I was doing...that there was more to it than who was right.

 

But one of the reasons I'm still around, is that in my most heated exchanges, they've almost Always, in hindsight, favoured my arguement.  Coupled with a good apology, Nearly all of my "ramblings"...eventually, became popular opinion.

 

I probably don't have the poise and eloquence to convince you where I'm coming from.  I really wish I did.

 

But I do have the track record.

 

If the Flames acquire MAF without the Pens absorbing the CAP, or if any significant future assets are lost....

 

It WILL be the undoing of Brad Treliving (if not Burke).      

 

That is an absolute, guaranteed 100% promise that I have no problems staking claim to.   It will be horrendously bad.   And there is no question about it.   

 

I'll never say "I told you so", because I know where that road ends too.   It ends with me wishing I was wrong, because of the negative reaction.   But there is Zero doubt in my mind of the sequence of events that would follow such an acquisition.

 

There is no need for insults in either direction, so I'll apologize on my behalf and quit while I'm ahead.   It's just a game, and not worth an arguement.   But I'll stand by this as I've stood by many other "unreasonable" statements in the past that sounded a whole lot less crazy over the course of time.   With any luck, they won't go this route, and neither of us will ever have to know.

[kehatch]

The bottom line is the Flames just had the fourth worst goaltending season in NHL history. Your suggestion to solve that is either to:

a) Go with a combination of the same three guys from last season or,

Put Ortio together with another unproven player

Neither is a fix. Not even close.

The rest is drama and hyperbole. Every trade ever made is a cast off. The basic fact is the Flames need to get better in net and to do that they need to acquire a goalie. A soap box speech doesn't change that.

Fleury won't be expensive to acquire so there isn't any need for dramatics about trading away our future. He was the starter in Pittsburgh when Murray developed so there shouldn't be any dramatics about this blocking our young guys future.

Edit: You may be able to look back one day and justify why you were against us trading for Fleury. But in absence of a practical alternative that certainly won't make you right.

[The_People1]

If the Flames acquire MAF without the Pens absorbing the CAP, or if any significant future assets are lost....

 

It WILL be the undoing of Brad Treliving (if not Burke).  

 

In other words, let's get MAF without giving up futures and with the Pens absorbing cap hit.  Done and done.  I'm on board with that.

 

I do subscribe to the stop gap philosophy.  We just need someone to get us to Jon Gillies and that stop gap better be easy to move once Gillies establishes himself in the NHL.  Luckily two things,

 

1. There is an expansion draft where, if Gillies plays in the NHL next season and is lights out, then we can purposely expose MAF.  I think MAF would be an attractive draft piece.

2. MAF's contract expires after 3 more seasons, so conservatively speaking (not politics, just being conservative with estimates), it should take Gillies 3 years to really establish himself at the NHL level.  Timing might be perfect.

[jjgallow]

The bottom line is the Flames just had the fourth worst goaltending season in NHL history.

 

Ever consider that....it's almost impossible Not to improve on that?   Soap box or not, I'd rather be honest than pretend the fingers shouldn't point past the coach.  If acquring a 30 something NHL vet was the solution, we wouldn't be here right now, would we?

 

But oh well.   I'm off the soapbox now.

[cccsberg]

I am not sure how to rationally respond either.   I'm aware that my comments may be unnecessarily and unfairly insulting.   With age, I've learned that this is the time to stop.   In my past, I would often keep adding fuel.

 

It is, in fact, amazing, when I look back, that I've not been permanently banned, given how much further I took these arguements in younger days, when I didn't have the empathy to understand what I was doing...that there was more to it than who was right.

 

But one of the reasons I'm still around, is that in my most heated exchanges, they've almost Always, in hindsight, favoured my arguement.  Coupled with a good apology, Nearly all of my "ramblings"...eventually, became popular opinion.

 

I probably don't have the poise and eloquence to convince you where I'm coming from.  I really wish I did.

 

But I do have the track record.

 

If the Flames acquire MAF without the Pens absorbing the CAP, or if any significant future assets are lost....

 

It WILL be the undoing of Brad Treliving (if not Burke).      

 

That is an absolute, guaranteed 100% promise that I have no problems staking claim to.   It will be horrendously bad.   And there is no question about it.   

 

I'll never say "I told you so", because I know where that road ends too.   It ends with me wishing I was wrong, because of the negative reaction.   But there is Zero doubt in my mind of the sequence of events that would follow such an acquisition.

 

There is no need for insults in either direction, so I'll apologize on my behalf and quit while I'm ahead.   It's just a game, and not worth an arguement.   But I'll stand by this as I've stood by many other "unreasonable" statements in the past that sounded a whole lot less crazy over the course of time.   With any luck, they won't go this route, and neither of us will ever have to know.

Although I'm not a great MAF fan, I believe he would be a very big upgrade over what we just went through.  Considering the likelihood that he would be a reasonable cost, versus say an Anderson who would likely be way more expensive (and a UFA after 1 year) he is certainly at the or near the top of goalie targets for the Flames, all things considered.  

 

JJ, just curious, but could you please name the 2-3 goalies you believe are, or should be our top targets?  Might as well discuss actual goalies rather than a bunch of blog bickering....

[travel_dude]

Actually...he's Not a legitimate starter, as he was benched for all of the post-season.   Also don't see how that's in our price range.

 

Legitimate starters Don't get benched for the entire post-season.   Or, have sub-900 career post-season save percentage averages dating back 9 years.

 

Anyway, I'm fighting a losing battle.   I am fully aware that Treliving will go for  a big name like this, or ...worse.

 

And I'm sure that the goalie he brings in will help, with regular season ticket sales.

 

Look at the circumstances surrounding his "benching".  Concussion April 2nd.  Cleared to backup Murray May 2nd. Murray play until getting pulled for a period on May 20th.  Fleury gets one game and craps the bed.  Murray goes on a 3 game winning streak, including eliminating the Bolts.

 

Fleury

Prior to that 35-17-6.

Season end March 11 - March 31  8 wins 1 loss.

 

Murray:

Season end March 6 - April 9  7 wins 0 losses

 

Fleury's starts alone are enough to equal the Flames season total, in 58 games.  I get that you don't want a goalie with proven numbers because he is not young enough to win 5 years from now when we are "contenders".  I get the impression that you don't even want Andersen or Elliott or Bishop, because they are too old.

 

You want the next Murray or Vasilevskiy, whoever that is.  Considering how badly the Flames are at scouting talent or developing goalies, I'm not sure we would end up with anything better than Rittich.  I suspect that an Andersen, Elliott, or even Bishop would allow us to take a known quantity and make a season of it.

[kehatch]

Look at the circumstances surrounding his "benching". Concussion April 2nd. Cleared to backup Murray May 2nd. Murray play until getting pulled for a period on May 20th. Fleury gets one game and craps the bed. Murray goes on a 3 game winning streak, including eliminating the Bolts.

Fleury

Prior to that 35-17-6.

Season end March 11 - March 31 8 wins 1 loss.

Murray:

Season end March 6 - April 9 7 wins 0 losses

Fleury's starts alone are enough to equal the Flames season total, in 58 games. I get that you don't want a goalie with proven numbers because he is not young enough to win 5 years from now when we are "contenders". I get the impression that you don't even want Andersen or Elliott or Bishop, because they are too old.

You want the next Murray or Vasilevskiy, whoever that is. Considering how badly the Flames are at scouting talent or developing goalies, I'm not sure we would end up with anything better than Rittich. I suspect that an Andersen, Elliott, or even Bishop would allow us to take a known quantity and make a season of it.

Not to mention that the last Matt Murray became Matt Murray playing with Fleury.

[robrob1974]

I get the goaltending was bad, it truly was. But so was our Defense! Leaving your goalie out to dry so often isn't going to make the new goalie's life easy. Our goaltending numbers may improve a bit, but the team play isn't getting us into the playoffs. 

[travel_dude]

I get the goaltending was bad, it truly was. But so was our Defense! Leaving your goalie out to dry so often isn't going to make the new goalie's life easy. Our goaltending numbers may improve a bit, but the team play isn't getting us into the playoffs. 

 

I doubt you ever see the perfect storm of defensive struggling you saw last season.  The lack of any real defensive system, the overuse of the stretch pass (ask San Jose how that worked), the pitiful PK, several vets struggling, Russell at his worst early on....

 

Look at teams that gave up a lot of scoring chances, and you either see an average goalie or an outstanding one.  The good ones let you make the playoffs.

[robrob1974]

But we've seen that two years in a row and so far we have the same bodies returning. Albeit, they're going to be a year older. Was it the system that garnered our horrible possession #s or both? I think both?

Right now I don't see it changing. We are small and easy to play against.

[MAC331]

But we've seen that two years in a row and so far we have the same bodies returning. Albeit, they're going to be a year older. Was it the system that garnered our horrible possession #s or both? I think both?

Right now I don't see it changing. We are small and easy to play against.

At the end of the day you want stability in your net, stability that the other players believe in and I think we lacked here. Fleury has the ability to restore some faith in our goaltending situation given his experience and abilities. I was hesitant with Fleury's name coming up as an option at first but now warming up to what he could bring to the room and the ice.

[travel_dude]

At the end of the day you want stability in your net, stability that the other players believe in and I think we lacked here. Fleury has the ability to restore some faith in our goaltending situation given his experience and abilities. I was hesitant with Fleury's name coming up as an option at first but now warming up to what he could bring to the room and the ice.

 

Agreed.  (Insert good goalie here) would be an upgrade and stabilize the defensive systems.  Having a defensive system would also help.