Goaltending

[cccsberg]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

According to Vegas today , Edmonton is now the favourite to win the Cup.. aside from 1 obvious player , I really don't think they have a better team than us . I said before the 1st round, we get past Anaheim the finals are a real possibility. Would we be classified as instant contender ? No.. but whats wrong with going into the playoffs each year knowing we have a legitimate shot. Yes this team is still evolving , but with better goaltending suddenly we are in Edmonton's spot.

Your goal every year should be to win the cup ..  in a rebuild its ok to be proud of the progress you made , but once making the playoffs is no longer a goal but an expectation ,   then the cup is your goal.. accepting less because "youre rebuilding " is unacceptable

 

I think I've been pretty Clear .. Ben Bishop.. if you could convince me Rask were available i might change my opinion . And its not just a gut reaction , its based on hard facts .

 

Last 10 years , 20 games or more of playoffs experience:

 

1	Braden Holtby	G	54	54	26	28			1687	1575	112	.934	1.98	3396:13	4	0	2	2	6
2	Craig Anderson	G	35	35	18	16			1189	1107	82	.931	2.28	2155:06	4	0	1	1	0
3	Tuukka Rask	G	53	53	30	23			1705	1583	122	.928	2.12	3450:02	5	0	2	2	2
4	Ben Bishop	G	36	36	21	13			966	895	71	.927	2.09	2041:24	5	0	3	3	4

 

19

Brian Elliott

G

41

39

15

22

1084

984

100

.908

2.60

2305:16

1

0

0

0

4

 

Last 10 years ; 200 or more regular season starts

1	Tuukka Rask	G	395	377	204	123	0	48	10927	10083	844	.923	2.24	22601:18	38	0	9	9	16
2	Cory Schneider	G	330	314	144	124	0	46	9182	8464	718	.922	2.28	18861:07	23	0	8	8	4
3	Braden Holtby	G	307	299	191	73	0	31	8658	7980	678	.922	2.31	17610:57	32	0	8	8	17
4	Carey Price	G	509	500	270	175	0	55	15058	13855	1203	.920	2.40	30053:57	39	0	12	12	43
5	Sergei Bobrovsky	G	330	321	181	107	0	30	9614	8843	771	.920	2.45	18903:43	19	0	7	7	18
6	Henrik Lundqvist	G	689	682	375	237	0	67	19507	17938	1569	.920	2.32	40516:17	59	0	20	20	16
7	Roberto Luongo	G	625	617	338	197	0	75	17886	16440	1446	.919	2.38	36431:10	46	0	13	13	34
8	Ben Bishop	G	270	258	148	80	0	25	7314	6721	593	.919	2.32	15318:41	19	0	7	7	26

 

21

Brian Elliott

G

372

339

191

117

0

35

9570

8741

829

.913

2.42

20551:51

36

0

6

6

6

 

 

Bishop Lifetime Records against Critical opponents

Anaheim Ducks

9

7

0

2

11

240

229

.954

1.24

1

2

533:30

6

1

0

Edmonton Oilers

8

5

1

1

13

214

201

.939

1.82

1

0

427:52

5

3

1

Chicago Blackhawks

6

4

1

1

14

185

171

.924

2.45

1

0

343:20

11

3

0

 

Brian Elliot against those same teams

Anaheim Ducks

12

1

7

3

37

320

283

.884

3.20

0

0

694:25

23

7

0

Edmonton Oilers

16

9

6

1

40

391

351

.898

2.59

1

0

927:46

18

8

0

Chicago Blackhawks

18

7

8

1

41

455

414

.910

2.50

0

0

984:28

25

6

3

 

 

 

so like I said I'm not just going after the popular sexy pick...  I'd gladly take Rask but I don't see him going anywhere .. I give Schneider a free pass on the Playoff stats for obvious reasons , but the cost of Holtby , Schneider and Rask  I feel would be too high when Bishop is a good fit and all we have to do is pay him.

I have it on good authority the main reason we moved to Elliot from Bishop last year was the acquisition cost .. our 1st rounder was in the request , and we also didnt have the ability to risk a high cap hit at that time..now we do .. and the cost last year was looking in the high 5's..not the 6x7 everyone seemed to think was floating around 

 

Note that I bolded the win / loss for Playoffs Holtby vs Bishop.. BH may have the better save %, but Bishop has hands down the better win %

 

Bishop wins. regular season and playoffs..  and he also beats the 3 teams we will likely have to keep facing to have any shot at getting out of the conference 

 

Excellent analysis.  Bishop also did well at the end of the year with LAK, it was their lack of scoring that kind of tanked his record. Get hime signed, Johnson #2 or perhaps Rittich and give Gillies another year as starter in the AHL.  The year after, bring him in as the backup and give Parsons the starter's job in the AHL.  3-4 years down the road, if all continue to develop you're solid, if not we always have Bishop.

[DirtyDeeds]

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I absolutely agree that Mony can be Toews.   I just don't see Toews in that same light, as being generational or being one of the best of our generation.  It's a grey area for sure, he's definitely a star, probably a superstar.    

 

One thing's for sure, Mony isn't McDavid.  Mony Probably isn't Draisaitl.  It's probably not too early to say that much.

 

So, on one hand, I feel you are correct, and we as fans just have to have the right perspective.

 

On the other hand, maybe our willingness to pay to watch them be middle of the pack for decades on end is ... exactly why that's what we have.  For another thread.

 

 

We should also plan to be building a team that can compete with McJeesus. He is the drive on that team and should be for foreseeable future. Direct division competition needs to be addressed. Last year Bennett was able to rein him in. We had no answer this season.

[jjgallow]

23 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

We should also plan to be building a team that can compete with McJeesus. He is the drive on that team and should be for foreseeable future. Direct division competition needs to be addressed. Last year Bennett was able to rein him in. We had no answer this season.

 

Sigh.  History repeats itself.   The Oilers basically Stole Gretzky, and the Flames spent a decade trying to be competitive with his team.

 

Now, they've basically stolen McDavid (as far as I'm concerned it was shady), and the Flames are once again playing catchup there.

 

The good news:   NHL parity is such now that the Oilers may very well be torn apart by their own salary cap.    So things could end differently this time.

 

Also:  To be totally honest, Flames ownership/management has rarely delivered on providing a cup-contender to this city.   The only times they have, is when they were threatened by the city having more Oilers fans than Flames fans.   They should feel threatened right about now.  Their own fault too.  Hopefully they respond.

[phoenix66]

57 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

We should also plan to be building a team that can compete with McJeesus. He is the drive on that team and should be for foreseeable future. Direct division competition needs to be addressed. Last year Bennett was able to rein him in. We had no answer this season.

I think we are on our way ..  remember by the time we started playing good hockey , we were done playing them for the year .

Obviously we don't have a McDavid,  but you're right . We have a Bennett to shadow him . Their top pairing might be as good as our 3rd pairing .. They have a line that gets paid $18M and they are doing basically nothing in the playoffs 

Anaheim and San jose are showing that if your focus is shutting Down McDavid , the rest will kill you.. especially if you're tying up your own best offensive players to do it

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

I wonder if last year's rumours of coming here doesn't leave Bishop bitter.

That might be something to consider.

The stories that leached out claim Bishop thought he was coming here until he heard we traded for Elliott on draft day, and his re-sign figure was <$6mil.

I can't speak to the legitimacy of that.

If true, does that leave Bishop hesitant to come here?

good point but wouldn't think so ..  its not like they balked at his demands, or insulted him in anyway.. if anything it shows both sides have legitimate interest in the other .

 

Can't say one way or the other, but unless you believe Yzerman when he said LA was the only offer ,  the rumors were that LA's main reason in getting him was to keep him away from Calgary while the playoffs were still a possibility 

[conundrumed]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

good point but wouldn't think so ..  its not like they balked at his demands, or insulted him in anyway.. if anything it shows both sides have legitimate interest in the other .

 

Can't say one way or the other, but unless you believe Yzerman when he said LA was the only offer ,  the rumors were that LA's main reason in getting him was to keep him away from Calgary while the playoffs were still a possibility 

Hard to say, but fun to discuss.

[MAC331]

2 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

We should also plan to be building a team that can compete with McJeesus. He is the drive on that team and should be for foreseeable future. Direct division competition needs to be addressed. Last year Bennett was able to rein him in. We had no answer this season.

I agree that McDavid up north will be a force we have to deal with for year to come. This year we were playing our worst hockey while learning our systems, we should be better prepared next season.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Hard to say, but fun to discuss.

Sooner or later it comes down to money rather than where. Their agent are there to get them the best deal possible in UFA. I have always tried to be a component of keeping contracts marketable whenever possible because you should be able to trade them any time. Would I like Bishop sure on the right deal.

[JTech780]

 

Calgary could acquire his rights and still protect him prior to the expansion draft.

 

Bishop is very high on my list still. I think he is more likely to bounce back than Elliott.

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Calgary could acquire his rights and still protect him prior to the expansion draft.

 

Bishop is very high on my list still. I think he is more likely to bounce back than Elliott.

 

So, we aquire his rights and are unable (or unwilling) to sign him.  Waste of the trade asset.  He's a good goalie and worth a look, but if he is looking for $$ and term, then we would be wise to move on.    

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, we aquire his rights and are unable (or unwilling) to sign him.  Waste of the trade asset.  He's a good goalie and worth a look, but if he is looking for $$ and term, then we would be wise to move on.    

its called a conditional pick.. we dont sign him you toss LA a 6th.. we do sign him then its worth something .

Right now we have no goalie that needs protecting , so we only protect him if we sign him 

 

or you ask to talk to him first and the trade is conditional on signing him 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, we aquire his rights and are unable (or unwilling) to sign him.  Waste of the trade asset.  He's a good goalie and worth a look, but if he is looking for $$ and term, then we would be wise to move on.    

 

Do we even have a GM right now?

[phoenix66]

15 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Do we even have a GM right now?

LOL.. good point ..     one way or the other, if we don't it reverts to Burke and I think even he is smart enough to do this 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

its called a conditional pick.. we dont sign him you toss LA a 6th.. we do sign him then its worth something .

Right now we have no goalie that needs protecting , so we only protect him if we sign him 

 

or you ask to talk to him first and the trade is conditional on signing him 

 

Can you confirm that Darling was traded for a conditional pick?  Don't think so.

LA gave up an assest (however small) for his rights until July 1st.  You don't think they would demand at least the same or more from a division foe?  I doubt they would even trade with us, as they may have made the trade to keep him away from us.

[phoenix66]

43 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Can you confirm that Darling was traded for a conditional pick?  Don't think so.

LA gave up an assest (however small) for his rights until July 1st.  You don't think they would demand at least the same or more from a division foe?  I doubt they would even trade with us, as they may have made the trade to keep him away from us.

I didnt say Darling was, im saying if BT is that concerned about it he can do a conditional pick.. with as weak as this draft is?. seriously , if we sign him he can have our first .. if its a hard pick, give em the 3rd we wont be giving St Louis now ..  if anything we already know what the cost range is hes looking for,  we already started negotiating with him once 

 

But the other thing to consider here, is he may very well wait to july 1 no matter what .. unless he has a team in mind.. but i seriously think he wants to be here .. if he gets traded somewhere else, he will wait to see if we come calling 

[AlbertaBoy12]

I dont see the obsession with bishop, he has a history of injuries while he does have decent numbers our bets that elliot could rebound are far more worth the cap space then trading assets for negotiating rights or for signing bishop to a long term deal. A long term deal to bishop could get us in trouble especially with what we have in the pipeline.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

I didnt say Darling was, im saying if BT is that concerned about it he can do a conditional pick.. with as weak as this draft is?. seriously , if we sign him he can have our first .. if its a hard pick, give em the 3rd we wont be giving St Louis now ..  if anything we already know what the cost range is hes looking for,  we already started negotiating with him once 

 

But the other thing to consider here, is he may very well wait to july 1 no matter what .. unless he has a team in mind.. but i seriously think he wants to be here .. if he gets traded somewhere else, he will wait to see if we come calling 

 

I'm talking about cost to obtain.  Darling's rights were an underpay.  I would say that Bishop's rights may be as costly or more, considering LA s the one that holds it.  They traded Jones to BOS just to keep him away from SJS, but that backfired.  DO you think they want to give the Flames opportunity to improve?  Doubty it.  At least not cheap.

 

BT may well wait till July 1st, after LA trades his rights to another team or he signs with LV, saving LA one of their exposed players.  If your target is Bishop, you probably have to meet LA's price.  

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I dont see the obsession with bishop, he has a history of injuries while he does have decent numbers our bets that elliot could rebound are far more worth the cap space then trading assets for negotiating rights or for signing bishop to a long term deal. A long term deal to bishop could get us in trouble especially with what we have in the pipeline.

Whether we trade our 3rd to LA to sign Bishop , or sign Elliot and give it to St Louis , its pretty much the same .  You'll have  to see my post earlier as to Why i breakdown the fit for Bishop.

See and I dont put a whole lot of stock into the injury thing ..if we were talking about Price, Lundqvist, etc.. nobody would be playing the injury card .and both have missed substantial time with injury.. its the job of your trainers to make sure the players train the right way to avoid the unnecessary 

 

and lets be serious.. youre not getting Elliot back at 2.5 again . he wants to be a starter.. somebody will pay him likely in the 4 range low end., 3-4 years.  youre talking approx 2M more for an Elite Goaltender . the likes we havent had since Kipper 

[JTech780]

6 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I dont see the obsession with bishop, he has a history of injuries while he does have decent numbers our bets that elliot could rebound are far more worth the cap space then trading assets for negotiating rights or for signing bishop to a long term deal. A long term deal to bishop could get us in trouble especially with what we have in the pipeline.

 

Prior to this season Bishop had played 60+ games in the past 3 seasons. Elliott hasn't played more than 55 games and that was 7 seasons ago.

 

If we re-sign Elliott we are giving up a 3rd round pick.

 

A number 1 goalie is always tradeable. I don't think you you can try and save a spot for a future goalie. You go get the best goalie you can right now and deal with making room for the younger goalies when the earn their spot.

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm talking about cost to obtain.  Darling's rights were an underpay.  I would say that Bishop's rights may be as costly or more, considering LA s the one that holds it.  They traded Jones to BOS just to keep him away from SJS, but that backfired.  DO you think they want to give the Flames opportunity to improve?  Doubty it.  At least not cheap.

 

BT may well wait till July 1st, after LA trades his rights to another team or he signs with LV, saving LA one of their exposed players.  If your target is Bishop, you probably have to meet LA's price.  

if he signs with LV LA still loses a player ..

and i agree that could very well have been the plan .. hence why it would be in LA's interest to trade us conditionally .. 3rd rounder just for the blind rights.. 1st rounder if we can sign him .. its worth it to try and get it done before Dallas gets a crack at him .. or Buffalo

[JTech780]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm talking about cost to obtain.  Darling's rights were an underpay.  I would say that Bishop's rights may be as costly or more, considering LA s the one that holds it.  They traded Jones to BOS just to keep him away from SJS, but that backfired.  DO you think they want to give the Flames opportunity to improve?  Doubty it.  At least not cheap.

 

BT may well wait till July 1st, after LA trades his rights to another team or he signs with LV, saving LA one of their exposed players.  If your target is Bishop, you probably have to meet LA's price.  

 

I actually think Carolina over paid. UFA rights rarely go for more than a 3rd.

[conundrumed]

Not to be a stick in the mud, but we traded our 2017 3rd for Stone.

[JTech780]

1 minute ago, phoenix66 said:

if he signs with LV LA still loses a player ..

and i agree that could very well have been the plan .. hence why it would be in LA's interest to trade us conditionally .. 3rd rounder just for the blind rights.. 1st rounder if we can sign him .. its worth it to try and get it done before Dallas gets a crack at him .. or Buffalo

 

Vegas has a two day window to sign pending UFA's before the expansion draft. If they sign a UFA in that window the team that loses that UFA (IE. Bishop, LA) doesn't lose another player in the expansion draft.

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Not to be a stick in the mud, but we traded our 2017 3rd for Stone.

oh right , it was a 2018 3rd rounder conditional on Elliot 

[JTech780]

2 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Not to be a stick in the mud, but we traded our 2017 3rd for Stone.

 

This is true. Also since there is a condition on our 2018 3rd (Elliott), we probably couldn't trade that pick either.