Goaltending

[cross16]

Something to consider, is the Flames were the 9th best team in the league last year in terms of high danger chances allowed. So the swap Mason - Elliott in the exact same circumstances and you have 10 more goals allowed for the entire season. 

 

Mason does has a weakness with high danger shots but the positive, and why he is an option IMO, is the Flames are good at limiting them. 

[travel_dude]

Estimated cost to obtain, from lowest to highest:

 

Grubauer - pending RFA with arbitration rights

Raanta - one year remaining on cheap deal

MAF - lost his starting job in the playoffs, and PITTS could be in a bind.  They do have options, though.

Saros - doesn't need to be protected, and NSH has no reason to trade him

Schneider - not young anymore, but still a good goalie

Mrazek - if even available, the cost would be very high

 

The first three are likely to be a pick and prospect.  Considering what PITTS wanted in the summer for MAF, the ask could still be out of reach. 

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Something to consider, is the Flames were the 9th best team in the league last year in terms of high danger chances allowed. So the swap Mason - Elliott in the exact same circumstances and you have 10 more goals allowed for the entire season. 

 

Mason definetley has a weakness with high danger shots but the positive, and why he is an option IMO, is the Flames are good at limiting them. 

 

Nice reporting there Cross.  The decision between Mason and Elliott should come down to cap hit and cost to obtain (3rd in 2018).  I think both are likely to have better seasons as Flames.  But we need a longer term solution than either of those guys can provide.  

 

I don't have faith that any of the Flames prospect goalies can be ready for full time starter roles in less than 3 years.  That said, you can't assume that any of them ever will.  Better to get a long term solution in place and be stuck with a great vet and a great prospect chomping at the bit over a two year plan that leaves you in the same boat after two years.

[cross16]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Nice reporting there Cross.  The decision between Mason and Elliott should come down to cap hit and cost to obtain (3rd in 2018).  I think both are likely to have better seasons as Flames.  But we need a longer term solution than either of those guys can provide.  

 

I would add 1 thing, Games Played. The numbers aren't that dissimilar for Mason/Elliott and Mason has done it will average over 50 games the last 4 seasons. I know that doesn't matter to everyone but personally I think it matters. 

 

While I like Mason I think he should be one of your fall back. I don't disagree with the idea of going bigger in net but as a fall back I would put Mason ahead of Elliott. 

[robrob74]

The only part I don't like about Elliott is the fact he lets in easy goals when the Flames control the play and he gets no action. A goalie should be able to make routine saves when needed, even if cold. 

 

He didn't let in easy saves when cold  on just one occasion, that happened throughout the year. 

 

Dueing the playoffs i  even said that we are in danger because Elliott hadn't had any action, he is weak when not seeing pucks. 

 

Fir me, that is scary because controlling a game could go for not if your goalie can't make a routine save and then change momentum. The rest is on the team to react (of course).

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I would add 1 thing, Games Played. The numbers aren't that dissimilar for Mason/Elliott and Mason has done it will average over 50 games the last 4 seasons. I know that doesn't matter to everyone but personally I think it matters. 

 

While I like Mason I think he should be one of your fall back. I don't disagree with the idea of going bigger in net but as a fall back I would put Mason ahead of Elliott. 

 

Neither Raanta nor Grubauer are "big", but they are similar in size to MAF.  I think either of them would be the way to go, with the fallback plan there (injuries, not ready for 40+ games).

[cross16]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

Neither Raanta nor Grubauer are "big", but they are similar in size to MAF.  I think either of them would be the way to go, with the fallback plan there (injuries, not ready for 40+ games).

 

I should have clarified, but when I said go "big" I meant in terms of a trade/target not by size. 

 

[travel_dude]

52 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

The only part I don't like about Elliott is the fact he lets in easy goals when the Flames control the play and he gets no action. A goalie should be able to make routine saves when needed, even if cold. 

 

He didn't let in easy saves when cold  on just one occasion, that happened throughout the year. 

 

Dueing the playoffs i  even said that we are in danger because Elliott hadn't had any action, he is weak when not seeing pucks. 

 

Fir me, that is scary because controlling a game could go for not if your goalie can't make a routine save and then change momentum. The rest is on the team to react (of course).

 

It's easy to remember the bad we saw from Elliott.  How many remember how good he played in his win streak.  Regardless, he won't be the starter in Calgary next year.  He may or may not be the 1b goalie here next year.  He could get claimed by LV as a pending UFA (not likely), claimed by LV in the draft if signed by CGY and not protected, or signed by any team in FA.

 

46 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I should have clarified, but when I said go "big" I meant in terms of a trade/target not by size. 

 

 

Wasn't sure.  I am fine with a fall back assuming we get a Grubauer or equivalent.

 

Bigger would be trading for a #1.  Stay away from Dallas and Carolina.  Don't pay big for MAF.  Explore options for Schneider or Mrazek or other.  Not a fan of many of the UFA options.  I personally think Miller will regress due to his small size and huge pads he was so opposed to stop using.

 

NOTE:  I doubt Mrazek is even going to be available.  He's probably a better netmider to have during a re-tool or re-build.  Nothing wrong with Howard, but he will be too old by the time the Wings are relevent again.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

It's easy to remember the bad we saw from Elliott.  How many remember how good he played in his win streak.  Regardless, he won't be the starter in Calgary next year.  He may or may not be the 1b goalie here next year.  He could get claimed by LV as a pending UFA (not likely), claimed by LV in the draft if signed by CGY and not protected, or signed by any team in FA.

 

 

Wasn't sure.  I am fine with a fall back assuming we get a Grubauer or equivalent.

 

Bigger would be trading for a #1.  Stay away from Dallas and Carolina.  Don't pay big for MAF.  Explore options for Schneider or Mrazek or other.  Not a fan of many of the UFA options.  I personally think Miller will regress due to his small size and huge pads he was so opposed to stop using.

 

NOTE:  I doubt Mrazek is even going to be available.  He's probably a better netmider to have during a re-tool or re-build.  Nothing wrong with Howard, but he will be too old by the time the Wings are relevent again.

 

 

I dont think it was the easy the easy to see part. I remembered it from earlier in the year that he has a tendancy to let in bad goals on bad shots when he is cold. 

[Flyerfan52]

We can pursue players on teams no longer playing. I'm a bit surprised to see that neither the Flyers nor Flames have traded for the rights to Grubauer, Raanta, etc. yet (Jets can't as it means exposing Hellebuyck).

After the draft it means dealing with Vegas.

 

Just a thought but I wonder if @ least 1 team isn't willing to expose their ready for prime time b/u knowing they'll lose him because it means they don't lose a skater. As long as they value that skater more than the 2nd/3rd pick they'd recieve it would be the way to go.

The teams with the most to lose (Wild & Ducks) can't do that but Nashville could sacrifice Mazanek knowing they have Saros in the pipe & even @ 8-1 protect all their D but unlikely to lose a forward.

[JTech780]

4 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

We can pursue players on teams no longer playing. I'm a bit surprised to see that neither the Flyers nor Flames have traded for the rights to Grubauer, Raanta, etc. yet (Jets can't as it means exposing Hellebuyck).

After the draft it means dealing with Vegas.

 

Just a thought but I wonder if @ least 1 team isn't willing to expose their ready for prime time b/u knowing they'll lose him because it means they don't lose a skater. As long as they value that skater more than the 2nd/3rd pick they'd recieve it would be the way to go.

The teams with the most to lose (Wild & Ducks) can't do that but Nashville could sacrifice Mazanek knowing they have Saros in the pipe & even @ 8-1 protect all their D but unlikely to lose a forward.

 

I would be a bit surprised if the Rangers moved Raanta. If they traded him they might get a 2nd, most likely a 3rd in return plus they would probably lose Grabner, who just scored 27 goals while making $1.6m, in the expansion draft. So basically down two NHL players and all you get in return is a 3rd. I would rather just keep Grabner.

[phoenix66]

4 hours ago, MAC331 said:

This is the funny part or as some say the "voodoo" part when it comes to goalies. We are talking less than a "point" here and there but praising or condemning them if saves are not made at the right time. LOL

I see BT making a significant move to obtain a significant alternative as our goalie of the future. What he does for a possible partner will come down to cost. It will take a significant number of assets to obtain any of Mrazek, Grubauer or Raanta if those are the targets. I don't see BT wanting to spend any more than 2.5 to back up this position.

This is actually where my earlier point about the right goalie for the right system comes in .

teams that play us, with success, are the ones that get dirty.. in your face, in your crease, screening, tipping and redirecting shots. Lots of our goals against are the ones along the ice.

This is why Goalies like Bishop, as an example,  have a high success rate against these teams.. or Jonathan Quick.. because its not going in at ice level, whether they can see it or not.. you have to raise it , pick a spot.

Our D system, allows our goaltender to see those shots coming .. but we need a goalie that doesn't allow the unseen ice level shots. A low high danger percentage , means that goalie is prone to letting in goals that he doesn't see, or likely leaves openings at ice level.

 

Hrudey and Kyp , agreed last night . the second Nashville goal, it doesn't go in if that goalie is 2 inches taller.

Kiprusoff was so good, because he was a double jointed Freak LOL..he rarely allowed goals in scrambles

 

Elliot ..he plays the percentages and angles well.. but he doesn't cover the ice level completely..and he's not overly athletic

MAF even tho hes the same height , I've noticed covers the ground well.. he makes himself bigger,and hes more agile to recover when he gets out of position 

 

Now yes, it is the team's responsibility to limit those types of shots..but they're always going to happen..we need a goalie that's better at the high danger 

 

Its likely that Nashville plays Pittsburgh in the finals , should be interesting because Pittsburgh is one of Rinne's worst records..  interestingly enough, they dont play the in your face crease game.. they typically snipe their goals more often than not ..and that's how you beat a goalie like that .. we also tend to go more for the finesse goals (wish we would do the other more)..and oddly enough Goalies like Bishop, Rinne and even Quick,,have less than stellar records against us.

 

Bottom line.. this is why what looks to be a great goalie on one team, bites big time on another 

 

 

in reference to the bolded.. why is the assumption that the return for these goalie is going to be high??  if they are available , its due to the expansion draft. They are operating from a position of weakness.. the crown jewel of ready to graduate backups(Darling) went for a 3RD ROUNDER that's highly likely the most any of those 3 would cost us. Unless there is more to the deal, there will be no players..no prospects.. just a pick..maybe a conditional of some kind as well

Even if we win the MAF sweepstakes.. 2nd rounder..max

now.. if we have to get them from or though LV.. different story..the price will be higher..but still likely just picks

[travel_dude]

7 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

We can pursue players on teams no longer playing. I'm a bit surprised to see that neither the Flyers nor Flames have traded for the rights to Grubauer, Raanta, etc. yet (Jets can't as it means exposing Hellebuyck).

After the draft it means dealing with Vegas.

 

It worries me a bit.  Both Raanta and Gru are available right now.  Maybe, as you say, teams are looking at the potential loss elsewhere as a reason to expose their backups.  Depends on what the team is planning on protecting.  I can see NY being ok in exposing other players and not woirrying about it.  I think that WASH trading Gru for picks/prospect brings back more than they lose.  Holtby is going nowhere for some time.  They can pick up a backup easily. 

[cross16]

Trades are very uncommon during the playoffs. Tends to be an unwritten rule that you wait until after the Cup is awarded. Plus doesn't always make sense when you have GMs that have their focus elsewhere. 

 

But I also happen to agree with Jtech that I don't think the Rangers will trade Raanta and I've said before I don't think the Caps are trading Grubauer either as from an expansion draft perspective I think it makes more sense for both of those teams to hold on and let Vegas select them, if they want them that is. 

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

This is why Goalies like Bishop, as an example,  have a high success rate against these teams.. or Jonathan Quick.. because its not going in at ice level, whether they can see it or not.. you have to raise it , pick a spot.

Our D system, allows our goaltender to see those shots coming .. but we need a goalie that doesn't allow the unseen ice level shots. A low high danger percentage , means that goalie is prone to letting in goals that he doesn't see, or likely leaves openings at ice level.

 

Hrudey and Kyp , agreed last night . the second Nashville goal, it doesn't go in if that goalie is 2 inches taller.

Kiprusoff was so good, because he was a double jointed Freak LOL..he rarely allowed goals in scrambles

 

Your play adjusts.  Bishop had success playing behind a good defensive system, plus having a team that could score its way out of a jam.  He won't have that in Dallas.  Being tall is nice, but it doesn't guarantee success.  Hrudey etc. have their opinions.

Doesn't make them true.  Any goalies going to let in "soft" goals.  

 

It's a mistake to generalize how a goalie did here and project that towards what you need to win.  Every year is different and the way a goalie plays causes teams to adjust, both in front of and against.

[travel_dude]

Francois Allaire fired by the AVS.  I thought he was one of the better ones.  Could he be a target for the Flames?

[JTech780]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Francois Allaire fired by the AVS.  I thought he was one of the better ones.  Could he be a target for the Flames?

 

I thought of that too and then I came across this article.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/sports/leafs/2012/09/18/maple_leafs_gm_brian_burke_blasts_francois_allaire.html

 

Sounds like Allaire didn't leave Toronto on the best terms with Burke.

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Francois Allaire fired by the AVS.  I thought he was one of the better ones.  Could he be a target for the Flames?

 

Highly doubt it.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/brian-burke-says-ex-leafs-goalie-coach-francois-allaire-was-unwilling-to-evolve

 

He really isn't all that relevant. His style is outdated and outside of Roy and Jiggy his track record is very underwhelming. 

[Flyerfan52]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Francois Allaire fired by the AVS.  I thought he was one of the better ones.  Could he be a target for the Flames?

I certainly hope so. He seems to be the "goali whisperer".

He also has history with Burke from the Ducks & Leafs.

[travel_dude]

Whether or not he would be a fit here, we do need to upgrade the goalie coach.  

I have not been impressed with the starter decisions, the work done with the goalies, nor the results in the last three years.  

Need to go another direction if we plan to improve the position.  

[phoenix66]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Your play adjusts.  Bishop had success playing behind a good defensive system, plus having a team that could score its way out of a jam.  He won't have that in Dallas.  Being tall is nice, but it doesn't guarantee success.  Hrudey etc. have their opinions.

Doesn't make them true.  Any goalies going to let in "soft" goals.  

 

It's a mistake to generalize how a goalie did here and project that towards what you need to win.  Every year is different and the way a goalie plays causes teams to adjust, both in front of and against.

how many times have we said " we don't want X player because he's too slow".. or  we need a different style of player for a line?  It's no different .. nobody says we need all the other players to skate slower so he can keep up.. its no different saying we need a goalie that fits the style we play

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

how many times have we said " we don't want X player because he's too slow".. or  we need a different style of player for a line?  It's no different .. nobody says we need all the other players to skate slower so he can keep up.. its no different saying we need a goalie that fits the style we play

 

A line is made up of two or three complementary players, so it is different.

 

I'm not sure what style we actually play.  It can change several times in the season.  Look at the Ducks from a few years ago.  They couldn't score.  They had to learn how to play one goal games.  That changed near the end of the season.  What didn't change was getting quality goaltending.  That's all you need.  The defensive systems can adjust a bit to make the goalie look better.  And the darn forwards can stop cheating into the neutral zone and apply back pressure.  

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

A line is made up of two or three complementary players, so it is different.

 

I'm not sure what style we actually play.  It can change several times in the season.  Look at the Ducks from a few years ago.  They couldn't score.  They had to learn how to play one goal games.  That changed near the end of the season.  What didn't change was getting quality goaltending.  That's all you need.  The defensive systems can adjust a bit to make the goalie look better.  And the darn forwards can stop cheating into the neutral zone and apply back pressure.  

so you 're saying we need to change our team style of play , to suit the Goaltender ?

[phoenix66]

6 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

We can pursue players on teams no longer playing. I'm a bit surprised to see that neither the Flyers nor Flames have traded for the rights to Grubauer, Raanta, etc. yet

more fire fuel to suggest we're targeting MAF

[Cowtownguy]

6 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

so you 're saying we need to change our team style of play , to suit the Goaltender ?

We just need to play our system entirely. That means whomever is our goaltender will get some support. I believe that if we don't improve our d-zone play (which is much better than the year before), we are going to struggle.