Goaltending

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Honestly goalies are such voodoo elliott could rebound and have a season like he did in st louis or we could get bishop and he could have a run like hiller. We really dont know what any goalie will be season to season, unless they are carey price caliber. I dont think you can expect anything unless you get your goalie from the top of the pile ie price, quick, then you have your above average goaltenders that can end up having average seasons due to consistency or average goalies have above average seasons. 

 

Im pretty sure 90% of people thought our goaltending was solved when we got elliott + johnson, and for the most part it was. After elliots slow start to the year he was pretty good, obviously he let a few stinkers in, in the playoffs. But if im BT, I bring elliott back, I dont think anyone is going to offer him big term and he seems to like calgary. I dont see it being unreasonable to get him for 2 years at 3-4 m and he should be better next year.

 

I know what you mean.  I have an uneasy feeling about Bishop at term.  I'd rather do a 2 year deal and pay $7.5-per.  That way if it's a disaster, it won't burden the payroll too long and we should know by then what we have in Gillies.

[The_People1]

13 hours ago, Carty said:

 

It wouldn't be balls, just stupidity...    Treliving went after two bargain goalies last summer, and we all know how that turned out...   While they both had good runs, they both also  had meltdowns, and when it was all said and done for the season, the bad still outweighed the good...

 

When Bishop went to LA, I sure hope Treliving was at least trying to get him, he was in negotiations for Bishop in the summer so he was obviously interested then...   It is also possible that if Treliving was in on Bishop and the offer was similar, Yzerman might have been inclined to let Bishop go to LA because of the trade talks with the Flames going south in the summer...  If it was a case not wanting to hurt the current goalies feelings?...   Too bad, by that time they had both had extended periods of incompetence...

 

With Darling getting snapped up, the short list of potentially available goaltenders that have the best chance of being an upgrade just got even shorter...

 

Treliving has to deliver on a goaltending upgrade...   If he stays with Elliott and Johnson, or even one of them as part of a 1a/1b approach again and it doesn't work, it could cost the Flames a season, the risk is too big...   The only way he could keep one of Elliott or Johnson is to get a bonafide starter and then keep one as a backup...   and even that carries a risk...

 

I just don't want to get into a bidding war for Bishop.  He's not worth it.

[Carty]

15 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Do we have the balls to wait until a week before camp starts to see which goalies are still unsigned and then offer a low ball PTO? 

 

Can't see the best goalies still being available that late...    The longer Treliving waits, the bigger the stakes get for the gamble to get a starter...

 

Treliving already missed the boat on Darling, and he will soon run out of boats...   No boat, and drowning is a distinct possibility...

 

45 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I just don't want to get into a bidding war for Bishop.  He's not worth it.

 

Trade for his rights, and it might not cost as much as you think to get him signed...    Bishop already said regarding his contract ask when the deal to the Flames fell apart last summer that it wouldn't be as high as many had thought...   and you still save the high cost to acquire him last summer (rumored 1st round pick)...

 

Rather have Fleury or Murray?...   It is unknown what Pittsburgh and/or Vegas will do...   It's another gamble...   and any goalie that comes available that is worth getting will present the same risk for a bidding war...

 

As it stands now, LA might do everything they can to keep Bishop from going to the Flames...   Even though Treliving already knew the shortcomings of Elliott and Johnson by the time Bishop was traded to LA, it sounds like he didn't consider the possibility of that happening...

[phoenix66]

46 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

Can't see the best goalies still being available that late...    The longer Treliving waits, the bigger the stakes get for the gamble to get a starter...

 

Treliving already missed the boat on Darling, and he will soon run out of boats...   No boat, and drowning is a distinct possibility...

 

 

Trade for his rights, and it might not cost as much as you think to get him signed...    Bishop already said regarding his contract ask when the deal to the Flames fell apart last summer that it wouldn't be as high as many had thought...   and you still save the high cost to acquire him last summer (rumored 1st round pick)...

 

Rather have Fleury or Murray?...   It is unknown what Pittsburgh and/or Vegas will do...   It's another gamble...   and any goalie that comes available that is worth getting will present the same risk for a bidding war...

 

As it stands now, LA might do everything they can to keep Bishop from going to the Flames...   Even though Treliving already knew the shortcomings of Elliott and Johnson by the time Bishop was traded to LA, it sounds like he didn't consider the possibility of that happening...

could be an awesome place to nab a cheap quality backup ..but im certainly not looking there for my starter

 

I will admit , the LA angle is a wrinkle I dont think anybody saw coming .. keeping him from us is a definite play... but I have faith in BT.. also in the fact Bishops agent is a smart guy.. trade or not , i dont think he signs anywhere until we get a chance to talk .. or we make it obvious we aren't going that way

 

Again ..BT is smart .. we dont know the conversation he and the agent had at the draft,, but look at what we do know..

BT and BB were on the same page contract wise..both had interest in the other

he signed a goalie with potential who just happened to also have one year left

he signed a backup with proven experience to carry the ball if the starter could not 

no efforts were made to extend either goalie

 

This was , to me, calculated.. take a chance on a possible win , Elliot goes lights out , we resign him .. he busts , you circle back to Bishop

Bishops agent KNOWS we will make an offer of some kind.. its his job to get Ben the best deal.. I think he tells his client to wait to July 1

 

just reading on another board , cant find the source but the writer seems fairly matter of fact about it.. the deal on the table was Bishop and Drouin for our 1st rounder.. it was Yzerman that backed out of the deal.. but id take that with a grain of salt "insiders" are everywhere LOL

 

[The_People1]

5 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

 

just reading on another board , cant find the source but the writer seems fairly matter of fact about it.. the deal on the table was Bishop and Drouin for our 1st rounder.. it was Yzerman that backed out of the deal.. but id take that with a grain of salt "insiders" are everywhere LOL

 

 

When was the deal on the table?  Last summer? 

 

[travel_dude]

56 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

Can't see the best goalies still being available that late...    The longer Treliving waits, the bigger the stakes get for the gamble to get a starter...

 

Treliving already missed the boat on Darling, and he will soon run out of boats...   No boat, and drowning is a distinct possibility...

 

 

Trade for his rights, and it might not cost as much as you think to get him signed...    Bishop already said regarding his contract ask when the deal to the Flames fell apart last summer that it wouldn't be as high as many had thought...   and you still save the high cost to acquire him last summer (rumored 1st round pick)...

 

Rather have Fleury or Murray?...   It is unknown what Pittsburgh and/or Vegas will do...   It's another gamble...   and any goalie that comes available that is worth getting will present the same risk for a bidding war...

 

As it stands now, LA might do everything they can to keep Bishop from going to the Flames...   Even though Treliving already knew the shortcomings of Elliott and Johnson by the time Bishop was traded to LA, it sounds like he didn't consider the possibility of that happening...

 

The dilemma with Bishop is that LA owns his rights.  Another team could walk in and give them an offer that they are okay with.  They would probably do a marginal deal just to prevent CGY from trying to sign him as a UFA.  They have no reason to deal him to CGY now, unless we overpay.  I could be out to lunch there since Lombardi is gone, but the fact remains that it would be a intra-division trade.

 

I get the feeling that MAF will be a difficult situation, one that goes on till the last possible moment, and ultimately will screw some team.  He controls his rights, so he can chose to waive for all teams, waive for a short list or not waive at all.  PITTS may use this as the chance to try to get big assets for Murray, then turn around and make a side deal for LV not to take either.  If we go down that road, then we could lose out and be left with nothing.

 

What we could do is contruct a deal with a 3rd team for Bishop, if we want that player (Jones type deal).  Keeps the price down and maybe puts some other pieces that could help us and Team C.  Bishop may not be any better than Elliott, but the cost to obtain his rights may end up being no more than Elliott's conditional 3rd.  Have to have an idea of what he will sign for, now, not last summer's expectations.  Hard to do that legally.     

[phoenix66]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The dilemma with Bishop is that LA owns his rights.  Another team could walk in and give them an offer that they are okay with.  They would probably do a marginal deal just to prevent CGY from trying to sign him as a UFA.  They have no reason to deal him to CGY now, unless we overpay.  I could be out to lunch there since Lombardi is gone, but the fact remains that it would be a intra-division trade.

 

 

ya true, but my point here is So what if LA trades him somewhere ? thats no guarantee that team will sign him .. and when they cant , theat team will likely take a lesser pick just to trade him again .. or we just wait til July 1

if it happens he does sign? then obviously he didnt want to come here and we move on to Fleury /Murray

 

I mean , we're not insiders here and WE know Calgary is Goalie hunting this year.. they all have to know it too.. his agent is smart and tells him to wait for July 1

[The_People1]

4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

 

ya true, but my point here is So what if LA trades him somewhere ? thats no guarantee that team will sign him .. and when they cant , theat team will likely take a lesser pick just to trade him again .. or we just wait til July 1

if it happens he does sign? then obviously he didnt want to come here and we move on to Fleury /Murray

 

I mean , we're not insiders here and WE know Calgary is Goalie hunting this year.. they all have to know it too.. his agent is smart and tells him to wait for July 1

 

But the Fleury/Murray problem will be dealt with by June 21 and we will have missed the boat on them if we wait till July 1st.

 

I don't mind Fleury because as stated before, 2 more years on his current deal and gives us time to see what Gillies is.  

 

Obviously, Murray would be better considering age and he will enter a nice bridge contract.  Any word on the ask price for Murray?  

 

How about Brodie + 1st 2017 + Lazar?  I think the Pens can protect Brodie, Letang, and Maata in the draft.

[phoenix66]

10 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

But the Fleury/Murray problem will be dealt with by June 21 and we will have missed the boat on them if we wait till July 1st.

 

I don't mind Fleury because as stated before, 2 more years on his current deal and gives us time to see what Gillies is.  

 

Obviously, Murray would be better considering age and he will enter a nice bridge contract.  Any word on the ask price for Murray?  

 

How about Brodie + 1st 2017 + Lazar?  I think the Pens can protect Brodie, Letang, and Maata in the draft.

 

 

Good point .. we should know by then what BTs intentions are.. without trading for his rights we cant talk before July 1 even if he wasn't traded somewhere .. if we make no deal there he's obviously all in on Bishop

 

and dont kid yourself.. people on the inside talk..regardless of the "rules"...  do you think it was just coincidence Brent Sutter resigned from the Devils then resurfaces working for his brother ?  we will know what our options are ..

 

I'm sure Ben's agent is the agent for somebody on the Flames.. wouldn't be hard to say " i may have to goalie shopping in the summer.. in your opinion how much money should i set aside for that ?"   no tampering , no names.. no rules broken 

 

Could always work a deal with LV too.. they get to talk to him before the draft.. you sign him to X.. ship him to us and we make it worth your while..

 

I think Brodie is a bit steep.. but ya, Murray will definitely have a price tag 

[MAC331]

17 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

But the Fleury/Murray problem will be dealt with by June 21 and we will have missed the boat on them if we wait till July 1st.

 

I don't mind Fleury because as stated before, 2 more years on his current deal and gives us time to see what Gillies is.  

 

Obviously, Murray would be better considering age and he will enter a nice bridge contract.  Any word on the ask price for Murray?  

 

How about Brodie + 1st 2017 + Lazar?  I think the Pens can protect Brodie, Letang, and Maata in the draft.

You are reaching now.

[Carty]

If something happens in a deal for Fleury or Murray going to another team, then the price for Bishop goes up, both for his rights and then to sign him...   

 

Same thing happens when Darling is signed...   Supply and demand...

[JTech780]

The dark horse team here is Detroit. They have 3 goalies and probably will be looking to move one of them. I think they would like to move Howard I just don't see too many takers on Howard. They really like Coreau. So I wonder if that means they might look to move Mrazek.

 

If they do we should take a long look at him. He had a rough year this season, but he has put up solid numbers every year prior and he is just entering into his prime. His deal is just about perfect as he has one more year at $4m then he is an RFA. So no term and not a big cap hit.

[phoenix66]

I should also add, I believe Murray wont be available.  Elliot Friedman mentioned something the oher day on 960 so i did some digging 

Fleury's contract isn't as hindering as we have believed , its a bit different. 

He has a NMC that only keeps him off waivers (or being involved in the Expansion draft ).. so if hes still on the team he must be protected, BUT he also has a modified NTC. in his case he has to submit a list of 18 teams he will accept a trade to .. so if Pitt wants to trade him they will and there is nothing he can do about  (except for 13 teams he wont go to).. that changes the game in Pittsburgh.. Fleury will be traded before the expansion draft and 18 teams can come calling ..Murray not going anywhere 

 

Also yes, Dallas may be looking ..but they have to pull some real magic to afford either Fleury or Bishop .. They're paying 2 goalies , that I don't think anybody else including LV wants , close to 11M..they realistically have to move Lehtonen at 5.9M just to fit a new starter of that caliber in .. it can be done , but i cant think of who would take either of those guys , without Dallas eating the Max 50% , and even that just defeats the purpose

[redfire11]

I have been a strong advocate for dumping Elliott after his playoff meltdown.

Since then I have counted to 100 NO 100 thousand before considering a change of heart.

I would like to see Fleury/Bishop etc in net next year but their cost would inhibit us affording to improve in other areas that need also addressing. If we brought both Elliott and Johnson back under the same 1 year terms we could afford to upgrade in other areas.

I am not confident we have a team even with above average goal tending to go farther than we did this year.

So really the options are stay the course with the current goalie tandem and add a couple important pieces to the rest of the team or spend the big bucks on a top goalie and stay the course with the rest of the team.

I am leaning on giving Elliott a chance FOR 1 YEAR and building a better team around him.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

I should also add, I believe Murray wont be available.

 

Me either.  I think Murray, Gibson, and Vasilevskiy are the 3 best young goalies in the NHL today.  No way those teams trade them.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

Good point .. we should know by then what BTs intentions are.. without trading for his rights we cant talk before July 1 even if he wasn't traded somewhere .. if we make no deal there he's obviously all in on Bishop

 

Nitpicking here, but teams have the week leading up to July 1st to contact the UFA players.  That's why the deals happen so quick on July 1st.

 

54 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

He has a NMC that only keeps him off waivers (or being involved in the Expansion draft ).. so if hes still on the team he must be protected, BUT he also has a modified NTC. in his case he has to submit a list of 18 teams he will accept a trade to .. so if Pitt wants to trade him they will and there is nothing he can do about  (except for 13 teams he wont go to).. that changes the game in Pittsburgh.. Fleury will be traded before the expansion draft and 18 teams can come calling ..Murray not going anywhere

 

I think you have the process backwards.  I believe that every year he must submit a list of the 12 teams he will not accept a trade to. If (a big if) the PENS decide to trade MAF, it has to be one of the teams not on his 12 team list. It gets a little hazy with the expansion, as to whether he listed them on the no-trade list or whether they can't be included. 

[Carty]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

Fleury will be traded before the expansion draft

 

Have to wonder if the Pens don't try and work a deal to keep both...   It's not Murray that's been getting the starts...

 

Take Fleury's last 5 games, 1 he was soft and had a .853 SV%...   They stayed with him and he came back with a .961 SV% in 51 shots to eliminate the BJ's...   Next 2 games he went .943 and .944...   Last night he only had a .909, but I'd still be surprised if he doesn't get the next start...

 

That said, I don't see the Pens trading away Murray either...   If they have to choose, Fleury will probably be the one to go on the block...

 

 

[phoenix66]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think you have the process backwards.  I believe that every year he must submit a list of the 12 teams he will not accept a trade to. If (a big if) the PENS decide to trade MAF, it has to be one of the teams not on his 12 team list. It gets a little hazy with the expansion, as to whether he listed them on the no-trade list or whether they can't be included. 

The expansion is classified as waivers, this is why NMC bar them from being exposed.. NTC can be protected or exposed ..        but it was prev believed he had a full NMC which would prohibit them from trading him if he didnt want to go .. meaning he could force them to expose Murray.. but now , its that they have to trade him prior to the ED or he gets protected automatically.. exposing Murray 

 

and nope, in his case Its 18  he will accept.. pretty easy 

 

 

[phoenix66]

33 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Nitpicking here, but teams have the week leading up to July 1st to contact the UFA players.  That's why the deals happen so quick on July 1st.

 

i should have been clearer , we cant talk to them until the day after the draft (but no later than June 25)  but by then Fleury will have his new home

[phoenix66]

52 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

I have been a strong advocate for dumping Elliott after his playoff meltdown.

Since then I have counted to 100 NO 100 thousand before considering a change of heart.

I would like to see Fleury/Bishop etc in net next year but their cost would inhibit us affording to improve in other areas that need also addressing. If we brought both Elliott and Johnson back under the same 1 year terms we could afford to upgrade in other areas.

I am not confident we have a team even with above average goal tending to go farther than we did this year.

So really the options are stay the course with the current goalie tandem and add a couple important pieces to the rest of the team or spend the big bucks on a top goalie and stay the course with the rest of the team.

I am leaning on giving Elliott a chance FOR 1 YEAR and building a better team around him.

i do get what you are saying , but there's a couple issues here 

1) neither Johnson or Elliot are signing 1 year deals again .. both want to be starters both will want to be paid. they both will get a term of some kind and raises regardless of who does it 

2) why do you say we are so bad?  Do you truly believe the oilers are THAT much better team than us?..they're not 

3) we got close to 23 Mill to spend..  no big names other than Sam and Ferland who both are getting Bridge deals - so lets say 18 Mill remains , for a goalie, a #4 d and 5-6 spare parts.. and thats assuming both Stajan and Bouma stay on the team.. we have the money to pay a goalie $5-6M

[Carty]

4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

neither Johnson or Elliot are signing 1 year deals again .. both want to be starters both will want to be paid. they both will get a term of some kind and raises regardless of who does it 

 

and Beaker wants to be a master electrician...   Just don't that happening either...

 

          

• 

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

and Beaker wants to be a master electrician...   Just don't that happening either...

 

          

• 

mark my words.. Elliot will get a 3 year deal .. approx 3-4 M   Johnson at least a 2 yr .. minimum 2.5M

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

and nope, in his case Its 18  he will accept.. pretty easy

 

I'm glad you are certain of this.  Would you stake your job on it?    

I have seen it listed either way, much like Kessel's 8 team list.

[Carty]

53 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

mark my words.. Elliot will get a 3 year deal .. approx 3-4 M   Johnson at least a 2 yr .. minimum 2.5M

 

I'm not saying that is not possible, but I am saying neither has earned it, and it's not a good idea...   There have been worse contracts, even with the Flames...

 

There is too great a chance for another meltdown, from both of them...   and we're not just talking a bad game here or there...

 

Even if one of them ends up getting another contract with the Flames due to lack of feasible options, it should only be as a backup on a 1 year show-me, and no NTC or NMC...   That way the door for a trade or demotion to the Heat would remain open...   If Elliott/Johnson says no to that, then that says something about their confidence to have a comeback season and earn a better contract...

[travel_dude]

42 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

I'm not saying that is not possible, but I am saying neither has earned it, and it's not a good idea...   There have been worse contracts, even with the Flames...

 

There is too great a chance for another meltdown, from both of them...   and we're not just talking a bad game here or there...

 

Even if one of them ends up getting another contract with the Flames due to lack of feasible options, it should only be as a backup on a 1 year show-me, and no NTC or NMC...   That way the door for a trade or demotion to the Heat would remain open...   If Elliott/Johnson says no to that, then that says something about their confidence to have a comeback season and earn a better contract...

 

This year is a unique one for goalies.  The trade market before July 1st is different.  Goalies looking for new deals have to compete for starter jobs against guys that were backups.  Gaolies in a contract year had to show a strong finish to prove their worth for a new contract.  That's not even mentioning the expansion draft, the entry draft or the period leading up to FA.

 

Look at Anaheim.  Five goalies that they hold the rights to until July 1st.  Gibson is the one they will protect.  Only one of the other 4 meet the exposure rules (Tokarski).  Sounds like Enroth and Bernier will be looking for work too.  And good ole Matt Hackett.