Goaltending

[phoenix66]

another name that surprisingly has not come up , that we were linked to more than once before is James Reimer

Put up great numbers in Florida this year .

43

39

18

16

0

5

1,222

98

2.53

.920

3

2,325

 

He also comes with  .924 against the Pacific , .. and hey , Undefeated against Anaheim ! LOL  (2-0).. mostly playing for the Awful Leafs.not that Florida was much better this year

Add to that he's cap friendly for 4 more years at 3.4M

 

now its possible they protect Reimer and expose Luongo hoping nobody wants that contract to 2022,  but if he's available I'm sure BT will kick tires on it 

 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

Interesting article.. id be ok with almost any of these 6 pairings(aside from the fact since it was written the concept of Murray is a non starter now ). I also question the availability of Saros.. but all in all , great options

 

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/05/perfect-pairings-sommeliers-guide-to.html

 

I don't mind any of the suggestions made. The names are pretty much what we've mentioned in this thread though & with the alternate pairings mentioned some parallel what some of us have said. He didn't mention Mason though.

A decent article.

 

I'm still big on Grubauer & would like him paired with 1 of Mason, Bernier, Elliott or even Reimer.

[phoenix66]

8 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I don't mind any of the suggestions made. The names are pretty much what we've mentioned in this thread though & with the alternate pairings mentioned some parallel what some of us have said. He didn't mention Mason though.

A decent article.

 

I'm still big on Grubauer & would like him paired with 1 of Mason, Bernier, Elliott or even Reimer.

I agree, I'd like Grubaeur or Raanta in any of those pairing to protect your gamble. The tricky part, is we have one protection slot.. so if we trade for either , they get protected.. the other has to be available regardless of the ED.. I think that eliminates Reimer and Mason...  unless there's the other option of a deal with LV (they take the player, we trade with them)

 

On another nte, was reading and agreeing with an article the other day , that was explaining where Dallas messed up.. unless they truly wanted to run with Bishop and Lehtonen next year , they could have waited to sign Bishop until after the draft and snagged a better backup and protected them

[MAC331]

7 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I agree, I'd like Grubaeur or Raanta in any of those pairing to protect your gamble. The tricky part, is we have one protection slot.. so if we trade for either , they get protected.. the other has to be available regardless of the ED.. I think that eliminates Reimer and Mason...  unless there's the other option of a deal with LV (they take the player, we trade with them)

 

On another nte, was reading and agreeing with an article the other day , that was explaining where Dallas messed up.. unless they truly wanted to run with Bishop and Lehtonen next year , they could have waited to sign Bishop until after the draft and snagged a better backup and protected them

I don't agree with that thinking, get your man when the deal is in front of you especially if you have the positioning to do it. Same goes for us, I would hope BT is working the Goalie angles extensively once the targets are identified. We can protect a Goalie now.

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I don't agree with that thinking, get your man when the deal is in front of you especially if you have the positioning to do it. Same goes for us, I would hope BT is working the Goalie angles extensively once the targets are identified. We can protect a Goalie now.

kind of a unique situation though with the ED angle ..   if for example BT went out and traded for MAF and Grubauer before the ED, it would go down as  major bonehead move when we lost Grubauer to vegas.

If i were so inclined to want another deal , beng Jim Nill.. you work out your deal with Bishop.. sign it after June 24.. the only gamble is vegas throwing money at your player ..but if both sides are good, then its not a worry.

Back to my deal in a drawer  concept.. I almost guarantee there are some same team UFA signings already agreed to.. for example BT may have already told Versteeg , we want you back.. talk to you on the 25th..same with Stone

[travel_dude]

Ok, so I am going to backtrack a bit.

 

Trade for Grubauer or Raanta.

Sign Mason in FA.

 

The total cost would be likely less than MAF alone.

[Flyerfan52]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Ok, so I am going to backtrack a bit.

 

Trade for Grubauer or Raanta.

Sign Mason in FA.

 

The total cost would be likely less than MAF alone.

Still looks good to me.

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

 

Side note to phoenix, Mason will be UFA (@ least until after the LV draft) but you are right about Reimer.

[phoenix66]

13 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Still looks good to me.

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

 

Side note to phoenix, Mason will be UFA (@ least until after the LV draft) but you are right about Reimer.

ahh good to know

 

I like the concept, just something about Mason screams NO to me ..as in I'd rather Keep Elliot.  I am warming to the idea of Howard however ..not enough to make me really want him , but enough I wouldn't complain if he ends up here 

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

ahh good to know

 

I like the concept, just something about Mason screams NO to me ..as in I'd rather Keep Elliot.  I am warming to the idea of Howard however ..not enough to make me really want him , but enough I wouldn't complain if he ends up here 

 

Mason has played as a starter most of his career, playing at least 50 in the last 4 years.  His numbers in Philly may not be as good as Elliott's in STL, but I would argue that STL is a better defensive team.

 

I don't have a big beef with Elliott and I think he could be in line for a big bounceback season, but he will cost a 3rd in 2018 even if we sign him as a FA.  Mason costs only salary.  

[MAC331]

56 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

kind of a unique situation though with the ED angle ..   if for example BT went out and traded for MAF and Grubauer before the ED, it would go down as  major bonehead move when we lost Grubauer to vegas.

If i were so inclined to want another deal , beng Jim Nill.. you work out your deal with Bishop.. sign it after June 24.. the only gamble is vegas throwing money at your player ..but if both sides are good, then its not a worry.

Back to my deal in a drawer  concept.. I almost guarantee there are some same team UFA signings already agreed to.. for example BT may have already told Versteeg , we want you back.. talk to you on the 25th..same with Stone

To many assumptions for my liking, if you can make a definite move such as trade for Grubauer do it, why worry about the back up ? DAL got their man, hanging the other two out there really doesn't matter does it ? They still have a problem if LV doesn't take either of them and I doubt they do, that's Nill's problem but he had it anyways.

I'm sure BT talked to all the players he would like back on their way out the door, of course there will be some waiting until this ED is over.

[FlameFan4Life]

I am of the belief that if Calgary was planning on resigning Elliot there would have been some whispers. I personally don't want to see us pay Elliot 3+ a year at any term costing us a 3rd on top of the salary, and still having to hope he has a bounce back year. (better start)

I would sooner pick up Halak at 4m for 1 year and hope he has a good year while bringing up Rittich. 

Doing this gives the starter in the A to Gillies no question, also opens a spot for another prospect. I see something like this being more likely than MAF.

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

To many assumptions for my liking, if you can make a definite move such as trade for Grubauer do it, why worry about the back up ? DAL got their man, hanging the other two out there really doesn't matter does it ? They still have a problem if LV doesn't take either of them and I doubt they do, that's Nill's problem but he had it anyways.

I'm sure BT talked to all the players he would like back on their way out the door, of course there will be some waiting until this ED is over.

because if you pick up Grubauer its not to hand him the starter role, its to protect him behind a known entity

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

because if you pick up Grubauer its not to hand him the starter role, its to protect him behind a known entity

???? if we are trading for Grubauer at all it will be because BT believes he can be our starter, other wise don't waste the assets.

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

???? if we are trading for Grubauer at all it will be because BT believes he can be our starter, other wise don't waste the assets.

Calgary cant take that chance . I agree with the earlier that says you pair him with an Mason, Bernier, Elliott , Reimer, Howard (except I dont Like Mason  LOL)

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

???? if we are trading for Grubauer at all it will be because BT believes he can be our starter, other wise don't waste the assets.

 

We did assume that Elliott would be a starter too, but signed CJ as a 1b/backup.  I would love to get Grubauer, but BT can't pin his hopes 100% on him.  Signing a Mason or whatever as a 1a/1b option hedges that bet.  BT strikes me as a careful GM, and signing a FA goalie costs nothing more than $$.  A Gru trade shouldn;t break the bank.

If you have your goalies signed for less than $6m, then we can fix the rest of the roster without leaving the net to chance.

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We did assume that Elliott would be a starter too, but signed CJ as a 1b/backup.  I would love to get Grubauer, but BT can't pin his hopes 100% on him.  Signing a Mason or whatever as a 1a/1b option hedges that bet.  BT strikes me as a careful GM, and signing a FA goalie costs nothing more than $$.  A Gru trade shouldn;t break the bank.

If you have your goalies signed for less than $6m, then we can fix the rest of the roster without leaving the net to chance.

True enough.. the formula boils down to this for me..  we can debate who is what  forever, but I'll use my own as examples only ..

 

 

Proven , reliable #1 stud starter (MAF, Schneider)+  reliable backup (Johnson)

 

or 

 

#1 Quality with question marks (Elliot, Mason, Howard,Bernier,Reimer)+ stud starter potential, but unproven(Raanta, Grubauer)

 

comes down to, if you're going to Gamble..C.Y.A.

[MAC331]

8 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

We did assume that Elliott would be a starter too, but signed CJ as a 1b/backup.  I would love to get Grubauer, but BT can't pin his hopes 100% on him.  Signing a Mason or whatever as a 1a/1b option hedges that bet.  BT strikes me as a careful GM, and signing a FA goalie costs nothing more than $$.  A Gru trade shouldn;t break the bank.

If you have your goalies signed for less than $6m, then we can fix the rest of the roster without leaving the net to chance.

Plenty of back up options around. I don't think you ever pin your hopes on any goalie without a proper support plan. Elliott was a starter for us and he didn't meet some peoples expectations.

[phoenix66]

9 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Plenty of back up options around. I don't think you ever pin your hopes on any goalie without a proper support plan. Elliott was a starter for us and he didn't meet some peoples expectations.

Exactly.. didnt see it at the time but that's why BT signed Johnson.. covered his bets that Elliot wouldn't be as advertised. Imagine where we'd if we'd gone all in on Elliot and just signed Ortio as backup?..we'll never know but I'm guessing not as good

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

Exactly.. didnt see it at the time but that's why BT signed Johnson.. covered his bets that Elliot wouldn't be as advertised. Imagine where we'd if we'd gone all in on Elliot and just signed Ortio as backup?..we'll never know but I'm guessing not as good

Fact is don't know but I can tell it is a calculated move not guesswork. I think everyone knew what both Elliott and Johnson were capable of because they had solid track records. You were going to get so many games out of one and the rest out of the other. Ortio with no record would be considered gambling. It wouldn't bother me to see BT bring back both Elliott and Johnson on 2 year deals.

[phoenix66]

3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Fact is don't know but I can tell it is a calculated move not guesswork. I think everyone knew what both Elliott and Johnson were capable of because they had solid track records. You were going to get so many games out of one and the rest out of the other. Ortio with no record would be considered gambling. It wouldn't bother me to see BT bring back both Elliott and Johnson on 2 year deals.

Wouldn't be the end of the world, but I think the fact we are even having the discussion says that cant happen. Most would agree our goaltending was a major improvement this year , but still not good enough. I say at least one piece of the tandem has to change for next year

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

Wouldn't be the end of the world, but I think the fact we are even having the discussion says that cant happen. Most would agree our goaltending was a major improvement this year , but still not good enough. I say at least one piece of the tandem has to change for next year

Put it this way I would rather have these two than some of the names being recycled here today. I say go for a core Goalie like Mrazek or Grubauer or bring back Elliott and Johnson.

[travel_dude]

47 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Plenty of back up options around. I don't think you ever pin your hopes on any goalie without a proper support plan. Elliott was a starter for us and he didn't meet some peoples expectations.

 

To begin with, you are pinning hopes on a career backup, except with Mrazek or or MAF or Scheider.

Elliott was a career 1a/1b goalie, and CJ was a backup that played a starter role when Lehner went down at the start.

 

There's every reason to believe that Gru or Raanta could be starters, but are you (BT) willing to bet another season on a guy you think is ready to be a starter?

Mrazek and Schneider (if either available) will cost you a lot of assets.  DET will either expose Howard or trade for the best offer Mrazek.  Schneider will probably cost lest due to age and salary.  NJ is years away from being a contender, so they can afford to shed his salary now.

 

  

[MAC331]

22 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

To begin with, you are pinning hopes on a career backup, except with Mrazek or or MAF or Scheider.

Elliott was a career 1a/1b goalie, and CJ was a backup that played a starter role when Lehner went down at the start.

 

There's every reason to believe that Gru or Raanta could be starters, but are you (BT) willing to bet another season on a guy you think is ready to be a starter?

Mrazek and Schneider (if either available) will cost you a lot of assets.  DET will either expose Howard or trade for the best offer Mrazek.  Schneider will probably cost lest due to age and salary.  NJ is years away from being a contender, so they can afford to shed his salary now.

 

  

I don't want Schneider at the cost of assets and his 6M salary, do you ? I see the cost of Mrazek nuch like Andersson going to TOR from ANA only he is already at a determined salary. I don't view Elliott like you do, I would say he was in a working tandem, believe it or not there use to be quite a few successful ones in the NHL.I would say DET has ever intention of exposing Howard why wouldn't they ? LV will not take him and I would say DET doesn't want 10M tied up in goalies.

[travel_dude]

30 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I don't want Schneider at the cost of assets and his 6M salary, do you ? I see the cost of Mrazek nuch like Andersson going to TOR from ANA only he is already at a determined salary. I don't view Elliott like you do, I would say he was in a working tandem, believe it or not there use to be quite a few successful ones in the NHL.I would say DET has ever intention of exposing Howard why wouldn't they ? LV will not take him and I would say DET doesn't want 10M tied up in goalies.

 

Schneider I will not comment on, as I think he isn't in play.  But, I would say the same about Mrazek, unless they have issues with his attitude.  He was their #1 last year, so why would they trade him for futures?  The Andersen deal was a little bit complicated, as it included 30th overall, and a 2nd in 2017.  Part of the deal, though separated due to the $2m bonus owed Berner, included getting Bernier without sending anything unless he played in 50% of the playoffs or was traded and reaches the SCF, as well as plying in 50% of the games.  

 

The reason for Anaheim trading him then was that Gibson was set to be the starter and they wanted to get something ahead of the expansion draft.  And they got the pick in a strong draft.  There is no reason to trade Mrazek.

 

Elliott was set to be the starter last season.  They even had talks with him about re-signing in October.  A good backup should "net" you about 30 games, unless you live in EDM.  If you want to pay the 3rd in 2018 and the cost of Gru, then fine.  Let them play about 40 each.  Or you can go for another "starter" over Elliott and only pay the $$.

I don't blame Elliott for the playoff first round exit.  But, no way would I endorse bringing back both him and CJ.    

[Flyerfan52]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

???? if we are trading for Grubauer at all it will be because BT believes he can be our starter, other wise don't waste the assets.

You spend the assets now while Gruber, Raanta, Mrazek, etc. is available for fairly small assets as the other team prefers something over the nothing they get if LV picks him. After the draft the chances of landing our young, developed behind a starter that won't be unseated go down or get more costly. The teams likely losing 1 can't ask much as there are few teams bidding due to most having a goalie they want to protect. If LV lands 4 of them they'll keep the best 2 or 3 so we don't land the cream but because others will bid just to improve their backup LV has a seller's market. If say a Grubauer isn't picked by LV the Caps have no reason to trade him for less than a top end return. Or if they make 1 available the team like the Caps that lost 1 will bid because even the next goalie in most systems is a few years away & unproven.

Even if the 1 BT decides on isn't ready this year odds are he will be next year. That's why we hedge the bet with a former stater.

There will be vets that are former starters available as UFA to cushion the transition or be the starter if the 1 BT opts for isn't quite ready. Given that few teams can even offer them the chance they will be the starter prices should be low. For instance if Bernier want's 4 x 3 but Mason (a starter most years) 3.5 x 2 you tell Bernier that you'll give him a bit under what Mason asked but if he wants to take his chances we wish him good luck.

 

We tried 2 career backups last year. That was less than awe inspiring. To me an apt pupil stuck behind a top 5 paired with a guy used to being a starter sounds the better bet.