Goaltending

[DirtyDeeds]

On 5/10/2017 at 0:40 PM, Cowtownguy said:

I guess that I am the only one on the board who thinks Miller is clearly a #1 goalie. Even at his age, I think he can be a great starter. He totally carried the load in Vancouver and did it with incredible poise IMO. I would have no problems getting him if he is available. I doubt that he will be.

 

I do not know enough about Grubauer to respond intelligently. I am intrigued though. Goalie stats are not very valid indicators IMO. I need to see the dude play to get a handle on them. I have not watched his play much.

 

I would be choked if Treliving took MAF. He is a more expensive Elliott with the same weak spots. He is just more expensive. As I have stated above, that might be bias on my part. Maybe he just rubs me the wrong way.

No he isn't and he has 2 SC Rings to prove it.

[Flyerfan52]

4 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

No he isn't and he has 2 SC Rings to prove it.

There are better goalies with 0 SC rings. Price is 1, Lundqvist another.

 

Going down that road Eric Fehr has a ring while Iggy doesn't.

[DirtyDeeds]

3 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

There are better goalies with 0 SC rings. Price is 1, Lundqvist another.

 

Going down that road Eric Fehr has a ring while Iggy doesn't.

Can he play goal????

[phoenix66]

51 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The window would be very short to do that.  Like a couple of days if PITTS goes to the final.  The list of protected players is due on the 17th.  MAF trade will come down to the wire, and like I said Buffalo would be on his list of no-go cities.  Speculation, but not exactly a team trending towards the cup.

 

To summarize:

Buffalo pays a high price for MAF in trade.

Buffalo trades rights to Lehner for no better than a 3rd.

They have upgraded their goaltending, but at what cost.

 

The logistics is the difficult part of any three team deals.  CGY would just as likely be in on MAF, so Buffalo wouldn't have any deal in place with CGY until after Buffalo closes the deal.  If MAF doesn't go, they would have to have a goalie signed to have one to protect.

 

I just don't think this is even remotely likely.  I'm no GM, but I think the risk is way higher than the reward.  Buffalo has a team a few years away from being a playoff team, so trading for MAF doesn't fit.  They would be better off sticking with what they had and developing a prospect goalie over the next 3-5 years.

 

 

 

I get what you are saying , but a couple things..

1) MAF will not be a high return, PItts is dealing from weakness and as you mentioned not enough teams to have a bidding war..I'll be surprised if its higher than a 2nd round pick at best - I expect a 3rd. 

2) talks wont start when playoffs end, they likely have already happened .. would not surprise me if the trade to wherever is sitting in Rutherford's desk drawer right now 

He will be traded within 24-48 hrs of their last game

3) If it is Buffalo, hypothetically , just saying the return will be even less than ours due to Jim helping his buddy

4) Buffalo is in perfect position to be next years Toronto .. they should have been this year , but they were badly managed

[Flyerfan52]

17 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Can he play goal????

About as well as Elliott did early in the season.

Good reflexes.

[Flyerfan52]

5 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I get what you are saying , but a couple things..

1) MAF will not be a high return, PItts is dealing from weakness and as you mentioned not enough teams to have a bidding war..I'll be surprised if its higher than a 2nd round pick at best - I expect a 3rd. 

2) talks wont start when playoffs end, they likely have already happened .. would not surprise me if the trade to wherever is sitting in Rutherford's desk drawer right now 

He will be traded within 24-48 hrs of their last game

3) If it is Buffalo, hypothetically , just saying the return will be even less than ours due to Jim helping his buddy

4) Buffalo is in perfect position to be next years Toronto .. they should have been this year , but they were badly managed

1) I expect the return to be about a 3rd due to decreased # of teams looking for a starter combined with the NTC.

2) Most likely

3) Doubtful. It's still in conference.

4) Buffalo isn't that good. Some good pieces but not enough. Ristolainen would bring them a bonanza in good parts (I could see the Jets giving up Connor, Roslovic & sending back Myers). If they could trade 1 year of E Kane for 2 years of Eberle they get closer.

 

If Okposo would waive that NMC the Flames should give up a lot for him. IMO better than Oshie & already signed @ 6 x 5 (also a year younger) . By a lot I mean Backlund & 1st in 2017 & 2nd in 2018. (If they want we can throw in Bouma @ no extra return )

[MAC331]

11 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

1) I expect the return to be about a 3rd due to decreased # of teams looking for a starter combined with the NTC.

2) Most likely

3) Doubtful. It's still in conference.

4) Buffalo isn't that good. Some good pieces but not enough. Ristolainen would bring them a bonanza in good parts (I could see the Jets giving up Connor, Roslovic & sending back Myers). If they could trade 1 year of E Kane for 2 years of Eberle they get closer.

 

If Okposo would waive that NMC the Flames should give up a lot for him. IMO better than Oshie & already signed @ 6 x 5 (also a year younger) . By a lot I mean Backlund & 1st in 2017 & 2nd in 2018. (If they want we can throw in Bouma @ no extra return )

What is Okposo's health situation or future, this could be up in the air presently.

[JTech780]

Dallas just signed Bishop to 6 years at $4.9m AAV. Not gonna lie that stings a little. Would have loved to have Bishop at that AAV.

[cross16]

Just now, JTech780 said:

Dallas just signed Bishop to 6 years at $4.9m AAV. Not gonna lie that stings a little. Would have loved to have Bishop at that AAV.

 

Yeah but boy 6 years for a goalie as injury prone as he is?

 

AAV is good but I would have passed on that term. 

[The_People1]

56 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Dallas just signed Bishop to 6 years at $4.9m AAV. Not gonna lie that stings a little. Would have loved to have Bishop at that AAV.

 

I'm surprised at the AAV.  I thought he would come in at up to $7-mil-per and that was rumored to be his ask from last summer.

[cross16]

Hard to know though if the Flames could have gotten him at that number. Adjusted for tax, he would take home over 500K more in Dallas than he would in Calgary at that AAV. I think its likely the Flames would have had to pay more. 

 

I personally get the sense the Flames dogged a bullet here. I think that is a really risky deal that Dallas is likely going to regret at some point.

 

EDIT: Bishop also got a NMC in the deal and Flames have said they will not give those out. Wonder if that has been a stumbling block all along with Bishop. 

[rocketdoctor]

20 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

The big $s doesn't apply unless he's bought out. Otherwise the 2 remaining years on his contract (5.75 in cap & real $s) apply.

****************************************************************************************

Does anyone think we should offer the Hero of France a 2 year, 2 way contract? He's 33 & I don't know much about him other than this IIHF Worlds but his play against Finland & now Canada impresses. Florian Hardy is of course the 1 I mean. Due to the short seasons in Europe he might be an off the wall pickup for backup.

Best case we get a late bloomer like Thomas. Worst case we send him to the ECHL on the cheap.

 

In last years IIHF world cup one goalie that stood out for me was Mikko Koskinen.    I know he had 4 games on on a pretty terrible NYI team but wondered if he would ever get the chance to play over here again

 

 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

Dallas just signed Bishop to 6 years at $4.9m AAV. Not gonna lie that stings a little. Would have loved to have Bishop at that AAV.

No kidding , just goes to show we should really stop trying to predict Contracts.. 

But it does prove a few things :

1. BB was telling the truth when he said that the rumors of contract is where the deal fell apart were false

2. When the LA GM said that he said he wanted to go to Dallas so thats where they traded him , it was true

 

My personal belief is that the issue was what what Stevie Y wanted in return from us , and he's the one who's bitter .

1. Bishop said more than once he does not know what happened, he thought it was basically a done deal.. so that goes back to the trade itself

2. John Shannon says we tried to get him from Tampa at the deadline, but were refused to speak to him again.. then he goes to LA and Stevie says there was "no other offers "

3. Rumor was the ask was our 1st rounder, but BT wanted Drouin in the deal to get it done, makes me believe that more 

 

I dont believe he "didnt want to come here ".. but obviously Dallas really was his first choice.. good for him , he had the option to choose and he's earned it ..we move on .

 

That being said, i dont think he will be burning us there ,  with his great records , he does struggle against some teams 

 

Calgary Flames

12

5

6

1

27

295

268

.908

2.31

1

2

702:38

10

5

0

[travel_dude]

15 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

I get what you are saying , but a couple things..

1) MAF will not be a high return, PItts is dealing from weakness and as you mentioned not enough teams to have a bidding war..I'll be surprised if its higher than a 2nd round pick at best - I expect a 3rd. 

2) talks wont start when playoffs end, they likely have already happened .. would not surprise me if the trade to wherever is sitting in Rutherford's desk drawer right now 

He will be traded within 24-48 hrs of their last game

3) If it is Buffalo, hypothetically , just saying the return will be even less than ours due to Jim helping his buddy

4) Buffalo is in perfect position to be next years Toronto .. they should have been this year , but they were badly managed

 

First bolded item - if he drags the team to another cup, then his price goes up.  I don't think his value is higher, but PITSS would believe so.  If they can't find a team on the list to take him, they will have to trade Murray.  That price would be so much higher.

 

Second bolded item - obviously, since they have at minimum 48 hours if they go to the finals and take it past 6 games.

 

Third bolded item - that's like saying Boston would trade with EDM after Chia was signed there.  Can't recall any trades there. 

 

Not picking on you, but I could only see Buffalo trading Lehner if they feel his injury history is too risky.  He's a perfect goalie for them otherwise; played well on a bad team. 

[phoenix66]

13 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

First bolded item - if he drags the team to another cup, then his price goes up.  I don't think his value is higher, but PITSS would believe so.  If they can't find a team on the list to take him, they will have to trade Murray.  That price would be so much higher.

 

Second bolded item - obviously, since they have at minimum 48 hours if they go to the finals and take it past 6 games.

 

Third bolded item - that's like saying Boston would trade with EDM after Chia was signed there.  Can't recall any trades there. 

 

Not picking on you, but I could only see Buffalo trading Lehner if they feel his injury history is too risky.  He's a perfect goalie for them otherwise; played well on a bad team. 

the part about the 24-48 hrs is part of the comment that the likelihood is the deal is already done.. if Ottawa sweeps Pitts in the next round it will still be done immediately following 

My gut prediction is Calgary has already made the deal, just waiting for Pittsburgh's playoffs to be over to announce it.. the Buffalo thing just adds a new wrinkle

I dont buy for a second people trying to say Fleury would want to go to LV..or that Pittsburgh will even consider trading Murray.

I agree with FlyerFan,  even if he wins the Conn Smythe, Pittsburgh has no choice , they have no strength and no other options... 3rd Rounder, they have no bargaining power and we have too many other options 

 

UNLESS

 

They have somehow already worked a deal with Vegas that lets them keep both goalies, that's the only true wild card as far as I'm concerned..and i cant think of a deal McPhee would agree to that takes away a shot at taking Murray from them 

 

 

and the PC thing is different -- he was fired, and one of the first things he did was indicate he was going to offer sheet Hamilton..  BT has done deals with Phoenix, Burke swung a deal with Toronto .. its a bit different when you leave on good terms

[cross16]

so here is a wrinkle in the "trade for MAF" camp.

 

Pittsburgh does not have another goalie to expose to the expansion draft. There only eligible goalies are MAF and Murray so they can't trade MAF unless they get a goalie back in return who meets the exposure requirements. Unfortuatnely, the Flames only have 1 themselves so you are in a situation where you'd have to do something like a sign and trade with Johnson (assuming Elliott not an option becuase I think he will cost more $ than Pens will want to pay).

 

another wrinkle for the "Penguins have no bargaining power" camp. What I find always gets lost in the expansion draft discussion is that every team is going to lose a player. If you are Pittsburgh and Vegas wants MAF, are you not better off letting them have him and then losing nothing else off your roster, especially when the return for MAF is only going to be a 3rd round pick (as some have suggested)? Why should the Penguins trade MAF for nothing AND then lose someone like Doumalin, Hornqvist or Schultz off their roster, why not just let Vegas take MAF, who you don't need, and call it a day.

 

Much more complicated situation than people are making it out to be and Pittsburgh has more options than most are suggesting here. 

[The_People1]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

another wrinkle for the "Penguins have no bargaining power" camp. What I find always gets lost in the expansion draft discussion is that every team is going to lose a player. If you are Pittsburgh and Vegas wants MAF, are you not better off letting them have him and then losing nothing else off your roster, especially when the return for MAF is only going to be a 3rd round pick (as some have suggested)? Why should the Penguins trade MAF for nothing AND then lose someone like Doumalin, Hornqvist or Schultz off their roster, why not just let Vegas take MAF, who you don't need, and call it a day.

 

Much more complicated situation than people are making it out to be and Pittsburgh has more options than most are suggesting here. 

 

But MAF has NMC?

[phoenix66]

25 minutes ago, cross16 said:

so here is a wrinkle in the "trade for MAF" camp.

 

Pittsburgh does not have another goalie to expose to the expansion draft. There only eligible goalies are MAF and Murray so they can't trade MAF unless they get a goalie back in return who meets the exposure requirements. Unfortuatnely, the Flames only have 1 themselves so you are in a situation where you'd have to do something like a sign and trade with Johnson (assuming Elliott not an option becuase I think he will cost more $ than Pens will want to pay).

 

another wrinkle for the "Penguins have no bargaining power" camp. What I find always gets lost in the expansion draft discussion is that every team is going to lose a player. If you are Pittsburgh and Vegas wants MAF, are you not better off letting them have him and then losing nothing else off your roster, especially when the return for MAF is only going to be a 3rd round pick (as some have suggested)? Why should the Penguins trade MAF for nothing AND then lose someone like Doumalin, Hornqvist or Schultz off their roster, why not just let Vegas take MAF, who you don't need, and call it a day.

 

Much more complicated situation than people are making it out to be and Pittsburgh has more options than most are suggesting here. 

the wrinkle for Pitts is they MUST protect MAF so long as he is on their roster (NMC), the only way he ends up in Vegas is if they trade him there , (and he agrees to it ).."letting them take him " is not an option ..  

 

Pittsburgh has 2 choices.. only 2...  Trade MAF , or Expose Murray.. so unless they do as you say , and get a goalie back in return , theyre basically hooped ..unless they trade MAF to Vegas, but again I don't see him agreeing to it 

 

PS.. just looked that that.. this actually makes the chances of Buffalo being a player even higher.

Buffalo Trades either Nilsson or Ullmark to Pittsburgh for Fleury

 

Buffalo then trades either Fleury or Lehner to Calgary 

 

the return still wouldn't be that high cuz otherwise Buffalo is in the same position as Pittsburgh is now 

 

[cross16]

11 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

But MAF has NMC?

 

10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

the wrinkle for Pitts is they MUST protect MAF so long as he is on their roster (NMC), the only way he ends up in Vegas is if they trade him there , (and he agrees to it ).."letting them take him " is not an option ..  

 

Pittsburgh has 2 choices.. only 2...  Trade MAF , or Expose Murray.. so unless they do as you say , and get a goalie back in return , theyre basically hooped ..unless they trade MAF to Vegas, but again I don't see him agreeing to it 

 

PS.. just looked that that.. this actually makes the chances of Buffalo being a player even higher.

Buffalo Trades either Nilsson or Ullmark to Pittsburgh for Fleury

 

Buffalo then trades either Fleury or Lehner to Calgary 

 

the return still wouldn't be that high cuz otherwise Buffalo is in the same position as Pittsburgh is now 

 

 

Not quite. Fleury can agree to waive his NMC and be exposed, Murray is protected, Fleury exposed, Vegas takes Fleury and story is over. 

 

A Player can agree to waive the NMC and then is eligible to be exposed in the expansion draft. 

[phoenix66]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

 

Not quite. Fleury can agree to waive his NMC and be exposed, Murray is protected, Fleury exposed, Vegas takes Fleury and story is over. 

 

A Player can agree to waive the NMC and then is eligible to be exposed in the expansion draft. 

right , but again ..why would he? If I'm him I don't..  even if he wins a cup, hes 32.. and a competitor , why would he voluntarily agree to go where he wont see a cup again in his career..maybe not even the playoffs. Its not money, he has the same contract

As a thank you to the great orgnaization who turned its back on him ?

No.. if hes going to leave , it's going to be on his terms.. they can trade him without his permission , but he gets some say in it 

[travel_dude]

7 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

right , but again ..why would he? If I'm him I don't..  even if he wins a cup, hes 32.. and a competitor , why would he voluntarily agree to go where he wont see a cup again in his career..maybe not even the playoffs. Its not money, he has the same contract

As a thank you to the great orgnaization who turned its back on him ?

No.. if hes going to leave , it's going to be on his terms.. they can trade him without his permission , but he gets some say in it 

 

What's the difference?  He can only reject the 12 teams.  He could end up in a non-contender's barn because being the only trade available.  Or he could go to a new team with the chance of getting a really decent extension.  He won't if he stays.

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

right , but again ..why would he? If I'm him I don't..  even if he wins a cup, hes 32.. and a competitor , why would he voluntarily agree to go where he wont see a cup again in his career..maybe not even the playoffs. Its not money, he has the same contract

As a thank you to the great orgnaization who turned its back on him ?

No.. if hes going to leave , it's going to be on his terms.. they can trade him without his permission , but he gets some say in it 

 

How did they turn their back on him? They've kept him and stuck by him despite the many people who said they should move him or that he wasn't good enough. Everyone said they should trade him last summer and they didn't. I think there is a lot of loyalty there both ways.

 

All reports are that Fleury wants to play. His options now if he wants to play and be the guy are dwindling. You basically have Calgary, Philly and Vegas as the teams that are searching for a number 1 guy and even then Philly is highs on Stolarz so do they want MAF?. Does he risk going somewhere where he has to compete or Vegas where he will be thee guy? Vegas is a pretty viable option IMO and I can see valid reasons why he would want to go there. If you want to assume otherwise that's fine but i'm not sure I see the value in it given we don't know what he is thinking. Point is there are more options than you are suggesting. 

[phoenix66]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

What's the difference?  He can only reject the 12 teams.  He could end up in a non-contender's barn because being the only trade available.  Or he could go to a new team with the chance of getting a really decent extension.  He won't if he stays.

thats easy.. players stack their list all the time. here's a sample list of 18 teams he can accept:

 

New Jersey Devils
Florida Panthers
Calgary Flames
Buffalo Sabres
Boston Bruins
Dallas Stars
New York Rangers
Nashville Predators
San Jose Sharks
St Louis Blues
Washington Capitals
Toronto Maple Leafs
Edmonton Oilers
Chicago Blackhawks
Montreal Canadiens
Minnesota Wild
Los Angeles Kings
Columbus Blue Jackets

 

Let's play a Game ..   which of these teams will make the trade for him and expose their current #1 to Vegas? or possibly trade them to make room for him 

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Let's play a Game ..   which of these teams will make the trade for him and expose their current #1 to Vegas? or possibly trade them to make room for him 

 

You go ahead.  You keep selling your idea here.  I'm out.

[phoenix66]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

You go ahead.  You keep selling your idea here.  I'm out.

Theres really nothing to sell, this is all speculation becasue the Flames are going to do what they are going to do.. I'm just pointing out that with a NMC and a supposedly wide open list of teams he can reject or select , he can still pretty much dictate where he ends up