Goaltending

[cross16]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

but for all this to happen, MAF has to agree to be exposed.. at which point they can just take him anyway , they don't need to make the deal with Vegas then 

 

Correct. For that scenarios to take play it would have to be a station where Fleury wants to leave and start elsewhere but not play for. Vegas. 

[conundrumed]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Why wouldn't the pens jus trade him to the Flames for the 1st then and get more for Fleury? Is it because they don't want to lose someone else?

 

Pittsburgh HAS to expose one goalie for the expansion draft.

The only 2 they have that meet the requirements are MAF and Matt Murray.

They HAVE to expose one of them.

I think maybe we're losing sight of this a bit. They HAVE to expose 1 or the other.

Like ff so wittily acknowledged, trade Fleury before the expansion draft, then they HAVE to expose Murray.

THIS is why there is credence to JR having an agreement with McPhee re Fleury. But for all we know it may involve trading Fleury back to the Pens or not taking a goalie from the Pens, I don't know the regulations on that though.

As for who is screwing who over with MAF and the Pens, old school guys like JR don't operate that way, we just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Rutherford isn't going to screw anyone. He's a heckuva guy. MAF and MM may well be the Pens tandem next yr, really hard to say.

The Flames acquired Tommy McCollum simply to have a goalie to expose. BT is always thinking!

[travel_dude]

51 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Pittsburgh HAS to expose one goalie for the expansion draft.

The only 2 they have that meet the requirements are MAF and Matt Murray.

They HAVE to expose one of them.

I think maybe we're losing sight of this a bit. They HAVE to expose 1 or the other.

Like ff so wittily acknowledged, trade Fleury before the expansion draft, then they HAVE to expose Murray.

THIS is why there is credence to JR having an agreement with McPhee re Fleury. But for all we know it may involve trading Fleury back to the Pens or not taking a goalie from the Pens, I don't know the regulations on that though.

As for who is screwing who over with MAF and the Pens, old school guys like JR don't operate that way, we just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Rutherford isn't going to screw anyone. He's a heckuva guy. MAF and MM may well be the Pens tandem next yr, really hard to say.

The Flames acquired Tommy McCollum simply to have a goalie to expose. BT is always thinking!

 

If the Flames were big on MAF, they could offer the rights to CJ or Elliott in exchange.  JR would need to sign him, but that gets worked out as part of the deal.  Flames need to sweeten the pot, but how much more would we really need to go?  PITTS issues are fixed in one fowl swoop.  

 

We should play hardball with PITTS.  They needn't get a 1st for him.  Not if we are one of the few options they have.  I think they end up paying more to have Vegas not take Murray.     

[conundrumed]

7 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If the Flames were big on MAF, they could offer the rights to CJ or Elliott in exchange.  JR would need to sign him, but that gets worked out as part of the deal.  Flames need to sweeten the pot, but how much more would we really need to go?  PITTS issues are fixed in one fowl swoop.  

 

We should play hardball with PITTS.  They needn't get a 1st for him.  Not if we are one of the few options they have.  I think they end up paying more to have Vegas not take Murray.     

Agreed. But I don't know the expansion rules well enough regarding the extent of pre-draft duplicity allowance.

That was a mouthful, lol.

Is LV on the market now? Or not until their draft?

Can we expect a "LV sends their 2017 1st rd pick to Van for the Sedins" announcement in the morn?

Can they do that right now, I guess is what I'm asking? Can they make trades? Or just sign KHL guys not affiliated with the NHL?

[Flyerfan52]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Correct. They don't want to lose someone else via expansion. Is gaining a first worth losing someone like Doumalin or Hornqvist? I would say no if I was the Pens but that's part of the decision they need to make. 

 

And maybe that's the way it plays out. I don't believe it will but that is another potential scenario that could play out. 

 

The counter point to that that is the Pen could then trade him to a place he doesn't not want to go to as he only has a limited no trade. They'd have to acquire an exposable goalie but that likely isn't tough.  So I think it's the best interest if all parties to just work together but maybe I'm misguided on that being possible.  

 

But again lots of scenarios. Will be interesting. 

But every team he put as allowable (18 btw) is/was to him an acceptable landing point.

 

The gist is MAF can not be traded without agreeing to waive. He could be asked to go to a top 4 team in the playoffs, say no, be bought out pocketing 2 x 4 million & sign any where for 4-4.5 gaining a raise as he does so.

 

I don't know Fleury's mindset but since he's the guy with SC rings I assume he's as adverse to being told "do this because we told you to" without feeling  resentment. In my case I'd say that I gain nothing so make it worth my while. The only way Pitts can do that is to force the buyout. In that case he s, pockets the $s & laughs whenever his new team beats the Pens.

Agreeing to waive isn't "taking 1 for the team" as he wouldn't be part of that team anymore. Especially if they ask him to undergo another rebuild as he waited out the Pens well planned dive to the bottom for Crosby & Malkin (could have been OV but the balls didn't fall in that order that year).

[Flyerfan52]

45 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Agreed. But I don't know the expansion rules well enough regarding the extent of pre-draft duplicity allowance.

That was a mouthful, lol.

Is LV on the market now? Or not until their draft?

Can we expect a "LV sends their 2017 1st rd pick to Van for the Sedins" announcement in the morn?

Can they do that right now, I guess is what I'm asking? Can they make trades? Or just sign KHL guys not affiliated with the NHL?

LV (or any other team) can make trades for players now. Even the playoff teams can but the player(s) obtained can't play this season.

Darling or Bishop were only UFA rights as their teams were already eliminated but the contracts are in place until July 1. Had they been traded to a contender they would be on the payroll (cap doesn't matter in the playoffs) but couldn't play.

So LV could trade anything Benning accepts for the Sedin clones if they waive.

[phoenix66]

In terms of Fleury , here is what we know as fact..everything else is speculation and fun discussion ..

1. Working a deal with LV to either trade MAF to Vegas, or even an agreement to take somebody else, is JR's easiest option..but MAF has to either agree to be traded there , or agree to waive to be exposed 

2. To trade him anywhere else , has to involve an exposable goalie back in return..and again , it has to be agreeable to MAF

Bottom line, MAF holds the key to his future ..we wont know what he's thinking until it goes down ..all we do know is CGY is likely plan B for JR..  If MAF doesn't want to be in Vegas, he wont be going there ,period.. there's no way to force it..  that's the only way he comes to CGY (or anywhere else)

 

Let's say its likely he's NOT coming to Calgary.. at that point , you have to think Elliot / Johnson resigned is our next best plan. They did get us there, this isn't a Ramo/ Hiller replay . In terms of other names likely available that we have heard -- Raanta, Condon, Bernier Mason etc..  none of them scream "upgrade"..and lest we forget , when those 2 were good.. they were very , very good, .. if you can upgrade then absolutely , but to move sideways on a gamble I think will set us back.

 

That being said, what if one or the other doesn't WANT to come back?  it's possible..they both said the right things at exit, but what player has ever said"it was fun but I'm outta here " ?

Elliot took a rightful beating in the public after the season.. hes possibly looking at getting heckled every bad goal he lets in now. He may want to look at options..personally i think he's a fighter and that will motivate him to make us forget 

 

Johnson , I got the vibe CJ saw this season as a "show me". and wants to play and definitely wants a raise.. he may price himself out of backup /1b  pricing for us

 

If MAF doesn't  come here , which is looking more likely by the day .. now we're back to option 3.. but the likely scenario is replacing Johnson 

 

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

1. Working a deal with LV to either trade MAF to Vegas, or even an agreement to take somebody else, is JR's easiest option..but MAF has to either agree to be traded there , or agree to waive to be exposed 

2. To trade him anywhere else , has to involve an exposable goalie back in return..and again , it has to be agreeable to MAF

 

Neither of these are facts.  

1) You can't trade him to LV.  He either waives his NMC or he doesn't go there.  Dealing with Vegas to have them take someone else will be costly.  Vegas has several options of players to pick from on PITTS.

2) The trade need not include an exposable goalie, as they can sign anyone that fits the bill (or a minor trade).

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Neither of these are facts.  

1) You can't trade him to LV.  He either waives his NMC or he doesn't go there.  Dealing with Vegas to have them take someone else will be costly.  Vegas has several options of players to pick from on PITTS.

2) The trade need not include an exposable goalie, as they can sign anyone that fits the bill (or a minor trade).

his no move has nothing to do with trades.. he can be traded there .. but you are right in the sense that if hes agreeable to be traded there , he's agreeable to just waive his NMC for the draft. but They could work a deal that says we'll send you a X pick, and you take MAF.. then do the draft selection for technicality sakes

 

again technicality, but why trade an asset to get the goalie covered , its more likely than not that will have to come back in the deal

 

bottom line, if he wants to go to Vegas, that's where hes going.. if he doesn't, he forces JR into Plan B

[cross16]

14 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

But every team he put as allowable (18 btw) is/was to him an acceptable landing point.

 

The gist is MAF can not be traded without agreeing to waive. He could be asked to go to a top 4 team in the playoffs, say no, be bought out pocketing 2 x 4 million & sign any where for 4-4.5 gaining a raise as he does so.

 

 

 

That is right and it wasn't the best choice of words on my part. Obviously yes he "agreed' to go to certain teams but what I meant was he lkikely has a ranking of certain teams he would prefer to go to. This comes down to "What does Fleury want" and because we can't answer that this discussion can't be solved, but alot of what i've read said that he wants to play and he wants to be the guy, not a backup or a tandem. My point was that the Penguins could move him to a less than ideal situation based on the fact they have 18 teams they could move him too without him giving the final ok. 

 

Only point being that both sides can get a bit nasty if they want and for the reason I fully expect everyone to "play nice" for lack of a better term. 

 

37 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

 

 

That being said, what if one or the other doesn't WANT to come back?  it's possible..they both said the right things at exit, but what player has ever said"it was fun but I'm outta here " ?

Elliot took a rightful beating in the public after the season.. hes possibly looking at getting heckled every bad goal he lets in now. He may want to look at options..personally i think he's a fighter and that will motivate him to make us forget 

 

 

I'm honestly not sure that either Elliott or CJ will be or want to be back. Elliott looked really beat down after the playoffs and while he put on a brave face you could tell he was pissed at the quick hook. He came here to be a starter and I could easily see how he would feel that maybe he wasn't support in the way that he thought (I would disagree with him but I could see how he would feel that way) and he was publicly questioned multiple times this year. If they money/opportunity is the same elsewhere I could see Elliott's preference to be moving on. I think Elliott will be high on the list of teams that have some young goalies but want that veteran presence in a tandem. He'd be a great fit in Vancouver, Philly and WPG so I expect he will have suitors. 

I think CJ will come down to what the Flames do as their number 1. If they acquire someone like a Mrzaek or MAF I think he'd say Peace Out. I think he wants to be in a situation where he can do what he did last year and steal the net for periods of a time and the Flames may not be able to offer him that next year. he was also pretty candid that while he is interested in coming back, there are challenges that go with playing in your home town.

 

[phoenix66]

12 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm honestly not sure that either Elliott or CJ will be or want to be back. Elliott looked really beat down after the playoffs and while he put on a brave face you could tell he was pissed at the quick hook. He came here to be a starter and I could easily see how he would feel that maybe he wasn't support in the way that he thought (I would disagree with him but I could see how he would feel that way) and he was publicly questioned multiple times this year. If they money/opportunity is the same elsewhere I could see Elliott's preference to be moving on. 

I think CJ will come down to what the Flames do as their number 1. If they acquire someone like a Mrzaek or MAF I think he'd say Peace Out. I think he wants to be in a situation where he can do what he did last year and steal the net for periods of a time and the Flames may not be able to offer him that next year. he was also pretty candid that while he is interested in coming back, there are challenges that go with playing in your home town.

 

Exactly .. CJ. also  used his words carefully but could tell he was more than a bit upset that the fingers were being pointed at the goaltending. That being said, there's a reason BT says he likes to take a few weeks to get the emotion out of the decisions.. I'm sure that goes for players too

 

Its easy for us ands all to say "ok just bring back Elliot and Johnson".. but the fact is we forget they have to want  to

sad to think after all the volume of choices we were supposed to have , we may have to experiment once again ..obviously good points , but my gut says if we want Elliot he will be back . Only wildcard I think is that he's not stupid.. he knows we were wanting Bishop.. he knows we're in on Fleury.. what does knowing they tried to replace you, and failed and you're just plan C do his choice?

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

Exactly .. CJ. also  used his words carefully but could tell he was more than a bit upset that the fingers were being pointed at the goaltending. That being said, there's a reason BT says he likes to take a few weeks to get the emotion out of the decisions.. I'm sure that goes for players too

 

Its easy for us ands all to say "ok just bring back Elliot and Johnson".. but the fact is we forget they have to want  to

sad to think after all the volume of choices we were supposed to have , we may have to experiment once again ..obviously good points , but my gut says if we want Elliot he will be back . Only wildcard I think is that he's not stupid.. he knows we were wanting Bishop.. he knows we're in on Fleury.. what does knowing they tried to replace you, and failed and you're just plan C do his choice?

A lot of guessing going on here

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

his no move has nothing to do with trades.. he can be traded there .. but you are right in the sense that if hes agreeable to be traded there , he's agreeable to just waive his NMC for the draft. but They could work a deal that says we'll send you a X pick, and you take MAF.. then do the draft selection for technicality sakes

 

LV's not on the list of places he would accept, so he can't be traded there against his will.  He can agree to waive his NMC or he could agree to a trade to LV, but what is in it for him to do either?  He can stick to his list of teams and call it a day.  The bolded makes no sense unless he waives.  If that is true, then sure LV can deal to take MAF over one of their other players.

 

6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Only wildcard I think is that he's not stupid.. he knows we were wanting Bishop.. he knows we're in on Fleury.. what does knowing they tried to replace you, and failed and you're just plan C do his choice?

 

Depends if there are other offers in FA.  Teams will either contact him in the negotiations period (so would the Flames if interested), so he should get some idea of the interest and the fit (starter/1a/1b/backup).  He's going to accept whatever is the best offer or best fit.  Hurt feelings only weigh in so much if you have other offers.

[phoenix66]

Just now, MAC331 said:

A lot of guessing going on here

absolutely ..that's what we do here

But we do seem to go on the opinion that failing all esle we just re- sign Elliot and Johnson .. what if that's not an option either?

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

absolutely ..that's what we do here

But we do seem to go on the opinion that failing all esle we just re- sign Elliot and Johnson .. what if that's not an option either?

It very well could not be an option, they are both UFA's and it is their choice to go or stay but I don't think a few situational feelings will be the swaying factor. Both are good experienced goalies however a GM should always be trying to upgrade, all players know and understand this. In the end they all end up with work making millions, what is to be upset about. LOL

[cross16]

25 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

absolutely ..that's what we do here

But we do seem to go on the opinion that failing all esle we just re- sign Elliot and Johnson .. what if that's not an option either?

 

I'm not too upset if it's not personally.

 

Elliott is the type of goalie that can get on a hot streak and when he does you ride him because he's great but you do it knowing full well he is eventually going to implode, that's happened basically all throughout his career. While guys like Steven Mason (Free agent), Mike smith ( probably cheap in trade) and Ryan Miller (Free agent) maybe don't have the same upside as Elliott when he is on, I think over the course of a season you are getting pretty similar goaltending.

 

There are plenty of backup options too if CJ didn't want to come back so that part i'm not concerned about at all. MIke Condon would lead my list of backup options, in terms of Free agents. 

[travel_dude]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

While guys like Steven Mason (Free agent), Mike smith ( probably cheap in trade) and Ryan Miller (Free agent) maybe don't have the same upside as Elliott when he is on, I think over the course of a season you are getting pretty similar goaltending.

 

Elliott played his best when he was effecively replaced as starter and was trying to win the job back.  Once CJ was no longer a viable option, his play started to degrade a bit.  Having no option other than Elliott in the playoffs was a death blow.  Put Elliott back in a position where he has to fight for the job and you would have a better result.

 

Raanta/Grubauer and Elliott would be a reasonable response.  Doesn't mean Elliott goes for it, but he does get an opportunity to increase his value.  In the current market, it's relatively low.

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Elliott played his best when he was effecively replaced as starter and was trying to win the job back.  Once CJ was no longer a viable option, his play started to degrade a bit.  Having no option other than Elliott in the playoffs was a death blow.  Put Elliott back in a position where he has to fight for the job and you would have a better result.

 

Raanta/Grubauer and Elliott would be a reasonable response.  Doesn't mean Elliott goes for it, but he does get an opportunity to increase his value.  In the current market, it's relatively low.

 

If that is what it takes then the Flames shouldn't want Elliott back at any price. You will go nowhere as a team if your best goalie has that attitude. 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

 

 

 

I'm honestly not sure that either Elliott or CJ will be or want to be back. Elliott looked really beat down after the playoffs and while he put on a brave face you could tell he was pissed at the quick hook. He came here to be a starter and I could easily see how he would feel that maybe he wasn't support in the way that he thought (I would disagree with him but I could see how he would feel that way) and he was publicly questioned multiple times this year. If they money/opportunity is the same elsewhere I could see Elliott's preference to be moving on. I think Elliott will be high on the list of teams that have some young goalies but want that veteran presence in a tandem. He'd be a great fit in Vancouver, Philly and WPG so I expect he will have suitors. 

I think CJ will come down to what the Flames do as their number 1. If they acquire someone like a Mrzaek or MAF I think he'd say Peace Out. I think he wants to be in a situation where he can do what he did last year and steal the net for periods of a time and the Flames may not be able to offer him that next year. he was also pretty candid that while he is interested in coming back, there are challenges that go with playing in your home town.

 

I'm hearing a lot of chatter about the Flyers & Jets adding Elliott on a 2-3 term as their "goalie(s) of the future" get a bit more experience. Just long enough that 1 can mature then tandem & take over as starter. The $s in both would reflect that so probably in the 3ish range.

 

I think CJ has accepted his role as backup. He seems to prefer it be as a Flame. Didn't he build his retirement home in Calgary?

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

If that is what it takes then the Flames shouldn't want Elliott back at any price. You will go nowhere as a team if your best goalie has that attitude. 

 

I'm saying that is when he performed his best.  Having no choice, the Flames had to play him.  No days off.  Carry the load no matter what.  With a viable backup, you give him a break after a bad game.  After game 2 against the Ducks, we should have had a fall back plan, but we didn't.  

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

 

 

I think CJ has accepted his role as backup. He seems to prefer it be as a Flame. Didn't he build his retirement home in Calgary?

 

I thought that was just Brouwer but could be wrong.

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

After game 2 against the Ducks, we should have had a fall back plan, but we didn't.  

 

If you need a fall back plan for your goalies after game 2 of the playoffs you are in bigger trouble than just having a better backup. There is a reason backups don't tend to win you cups. 

[phoenix66]

42 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm saying that is when he performed his best.  Having no choice, the Flames had to play him.  No days off.  Carry the load no matter what.  With a viable backup, you give him a break after a bad game.  After game 2 against the Ducks, we should have had a fall back plan, but we didn't.  

I agree with this .. due to circumstance.. Elliots hot run, CJ injury and drop in play ..    when the time to look at a switch, we had one goalie that had played one meaningful game in over a month , and another that had only played 1 career NHL game in a meant nothing game.. just the way it worked out.. when we should have started CJ in game 4, or even pulled Elliot in Game 3 when it started to go south.. there was too much room for ending badly .

In a perfect situation there should have been no hesitancy and no second guessing that switching goalies even for a game, was the right thing to do

[phoenix66]

27 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I thought that was just Brouwer but could be wrong.

 

If you need a fall back plan for your goalies after game 2 of the playoffs you are in bigger trouble than just having a better backup. There is a reason backups don't tend to win you cups. 

its pretty common ...  we lost to the Ducks in 2006 cuz we got up on Giguere, we didnt win a game after they switched to Bryzgalov..  Gibson dropped 2 to Nashville last year , Anderson got them to Game 7

Even Elliots great St Louis run last year ,required a few games from Allen..  I think with Elliot you need a 1B, not necessarily a Backup. Its not a condemnation , goalies that play 60-70 games a year are rare and usually end up being overworked.CJ can be that guy, but I think if you stick with Elliot  you get a solid 1b or use it to train one (Raanta, Grubaer, etc)  

[cross16]

9 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

its pretty common ...  we lost to the Ducks in 2006 cuz we got up on Giguere, we didnt win a game after they switched to Bryzgalov..  Gibson dropped 2 to Nashville last year , Anderson got them to Game 7

Even Elliots great St Louis run last year ,required a few games from Allen..  I think with Elliot you need a 1B, not necessarily a Backup. Its not a condemnation , goalies that play 60-70 games a year are rare and usually end up being overworked.CJ can be that guy, but I think if you stick with Elliot  you get a solid 1b or use it to train one (Raanta, Grubaer, etc)  

 

Sure, to win a round, maybe 2 but that shouldn't be the end goal.I don't see the value is trying to patch work your goaltending in order to win a round in the playoffs. That's what I mean when I say you have bigger problems. 

 

It might happen for the Flames as/if options dwindle but doesn't mean you are "fixing" the issue. The goal needs to be to try and find the right guy at number 1, not pick up a better backup plan in case the number 1 falters. If your number 1 falters in the playoffs i'd say with 90% certainty you are done as a club anyway. Rare cases where someone can take the ball and run with it. Cam Ward, Matt Murray being the obvious exceptions. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

Sure, to win a round, maybe 2 but that shouldn't be the end goal.I don't see the value is trying to patch work your goaltending in order to win a round in the playoffs. That's what I mean when I say you have bigger problems. 

Oh I agree.. you always come back to your guy, were it not for the perfect storm that kept us from starting Johnson earlier, I bet Elliot comes back strong the next start