Goaltending

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, Cowtownguy said:

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.

No argument that our defense still needs to get better .. My point is that every goalie has strengths and weaknesses.

some have 5 hole issues, Kipper was brutal in Shootouts, apparently Holtby has a "tell" in regards to his glove hand etc..every goalie has one 

Elliot, has an issue apparently with ice level shots when hes being screened .. which our team gives up, ..bad combo 

HIs style, is not conducive to the possession system we will be playing ..its not his fault, in a different system he can be lights out..one where traffic is diverted to the outside perimeter most of the time . 

Ironically , under Hartley's system where the defense was taught "block first ask questions later " ..he likely would have been a brick wall

 

[Flyerfan52]

14 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

more fire fuel to suggest we're targeting MAF

Hope not.

[Flyerfan52]

15 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

No argument that our defense still needs to get better .. My point is that every goalie has strengths and weaknesses.

some have 5 hole issues, Kipper was brutal in Shootouts, apparently Holtby has a "tell" in regards to his glove hand etc..every goalie has one 

Elliot, has an issue apparently with ice level shots when hes being screened .. which our team gives up, ..bad combo 

HIs style, is not conducive to the possession system we will be playing ..its not his fault, in a different system he can be lights out..one where traffic is diverted to the outside perimeter most of the time . 

Ironically , under Hartley's system where the defense was taught "block first ask questions later " ..he likely would have been a brick wall

 

We can't change the whole team to fit the goalie (Rinne would probably not do well with our D) but it's BT's job to find a goalie that suits what he will face in Calgary. I'm not into the extended #s tracking where shots come from so will leave it to the Flames #s guy to make suggestions. I just use the eye test. But I do believe in adding defense (preferably on defense) to give him a fighting chance. There is room for a few pure gunners (like P Kane in Chicago) but you can't have most of the forwards likely to get top minutes be spectators when the other team is hauling (.) toward your 'keeper. I'll give up a little skill for heart.

& you are right about the systems. Under Hartley there would be less pressure/rubber faced on the goalie. Same with Sutter. Now we need 1 that stops easy 1s & prays we score more than what gets past him.

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

I remember an interview with Monahan on him watching game film on every center to catch tendencies so he could beat them. He's improving a tad every year but that is only 1 facet of his job as a center.

Scheifele takes about 1 week off & then is back to working with Adam Oates & Gary Roberts to be the best he can be by catching what he sees as weaknesses (he watches a lot of game film) & coming back even better the next year . Hawerchuk saw that in junior & mentioned it to the Jets (big reason they took him when Couts was available).

I'm not scoffing @ Monahan or Bennett's work ethic but if they had that same drive they could be greats as they do have the tools. I guess it comes down to wanting to be the best (Scheifele wants to be the best in the league).

[travel_dude]

57 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

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

 

No.  Get a goalie that can stop pucks and improve the system/players around him.  Elliott struggled the most when the systems broke down or weren't working.  Early season.  End of season.  We got away from the game play that gave us wins.  You could see it coming the last week of the season.  Anaheim beat Elliott in the playoffs with just about every type of shot.  

 

I will give you this; if you are a team that can win the majority of draws in the D-zone, then you want a goalie that catches pucks and slows the play.  If you are a team that had a controlled breakout under pressure, then you want a goalie that can handle the puck.  If you have guys that can defend against the rebound shot, then you want a blocking style.  None of those matched our play at most times.  

 

Whatever goalie we end up with, we want to make sure that the defense is able to make a pass and clear the zone.  I don't want to see more than one forward blow the zone, and they better get back if the puck doesn't get out.  

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

more fire fuel to suggest we're targeting MAF

I really doubt that, I cant remember BTs exact comments but para phrasing something like we dont want an old goaltender and we dont want to pay big term/dollars. It was in regards to bishop but I dont see them that differently. 

[phoenix66]

33 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I really doubt that, I cant remember BTs exact comments but para phrasing something like we dont want an old goaltender and we dont want to pay big term/dollars. It was in regards to bishop but I dont see them that differently. 

This one?

“We’re looking at goaltending, so it’s natural we’d be poking around. Did we look at it as an option? Yes. But the assumption we can make is that for the American guy who played minor league hockey in Texas coming to Calgary was probably not choice No. 1. And if he was, it was probably for a long time for a lot of dough.”

 

In regards to Bishop he was referring to the fact, being UFA , we likely weren't his #1 choice(many reasons it seems Dallas was). And to override that would have cost Term and high $$.. likely of the 6yrs $6M variety

 

That has no bearing on MAF-- he's not American.. and his contract is set for 2 years

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

This one?

“We’re looking at goaltending, so it’s natural we’d be poking around. Did we look at it as an option? Yes. But the assumption we can make is that for the American guy who played minor league hockey in Texas coming to Calgary was probably not choice No. 1. And if he was, it was probably for a long time for a lot of dough.”

 

In regards to Bishop he was referring to the fact, being UFA , we likely weren't his #1 choice(many reasons it seems Dallas was). And to override that would have cost Term and high $$.. likely of the 6yrs $6M variety

 

That has no bearing on MAF-- he's not American.. and his contract is set for 2 years

 

Here's a quote from The Herald....

 

“At end of the day, here’s where we’re at,” said Treliving, laying out the various goaltending options he’s juggling. 

“If you want to go long-term on anyone, you’ve got to be careful on term and dollars. We have some young guys in the pipelines, but we also don’t want to expose them and they fail. Question is, is there someone out there we want to go long-term with?”

 

That sounds less like MAF than somebody else.  Sure, he is an option.  So is Mason or one of the other available UFA's.  So is simply re-signing Elliott.

Low risk/low reward is signing Elliott on the cheap for two years.  You know what you get from him.  You know he is a bridge.  So, you trade assets for a young guy that could be a home run.  In two years you have the home run guy and prospects battling it out.  Elliott is gone.  Worse case is your home run fouls out and Elliott has to carry the load.  You are forced into bringing up Gillies or Rittich.  Swap Elliott with Mason if you don't want to pay the 3rd.  A little more tisk added.

 

I'm not convinced that MAF could be a star here.  The possible high cost to obtain might completely rule him out.  You still need a 1b goalie or a backup capable of 30+ games.    

 

[AlbertaBoy12]

8 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

This one?

 

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Here's a quote from The Herald....

 

TD got the right quote. I just dont think we pay the price for MAF to come here, and then deal with his contract it just doesnt seem like smart management to me especially with what we have in the pipe. 

 

I think we are more likely to see as TD said there elliot coming back or a different veteran maybe even johnson come back with a younger guy we trade for like a grubauer. Its not the sexy trade or starter everyone wants in my opinion, but BT has always been a long term guy and bringing in a MAF or bishop didnt necessarily make long term sense.

 

It could always end up being a surprise and we could get MAF, but based on BT comments I think any veteran guy on long term/dollars is probably out of the question.

[phoenix66]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Here's a quote from The Herald....

 

“At end of the day, here’s where we’re at,” said Treliving, laying out the various goaltending options he’s juggling. 

 

“If you want to go long-term on anyone, you’ve got to be careful on term and dollars.  Luckily MAF is only 2 years at an affordable $5.75

We have some young guys in the pipelines, but we also don’t want to expose them and they fail. MAF gives them time to develop without being rushed into action.

Question is, is there someone out there we want to go long-term with who will give us the experience and performance of a MAF and wont stand in the way of  our prospects when they're ready ?”

 

 

I found the hidden tapes with the unedited version of BT's interview ..man I hate when Writers leave stuff out ..LOL

But seriously .. this needs to get settled soon..still almost a month to go and we're already looking for the hidden meaning behind newspaper quotes. By the time ED rolls around we're going to be interpreting what BT had for breakfast ,,,,, ( He had his eggs sunny side up!  Florida is Sunny..OMG we're getting Luongo! )  LOL

 

Just havin some fun here ..  but the good news is we could know as early as Friday!  (GO Sens !!!)

[MAC331]

11 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

 

TD got the right quote. I just dont think we pay the price for MAF to come here, and then deal with his contract it just doesnt seem like smart management to me especially with what we have in the pipe. 

 

I think we are more likely to see as TD said there elliot coming back or a different veteran maybe even johnson come back with a younger guy we trade for like a grubauer. Its not the sexy trade or starter everyone wants in my opinion, but BT has always been a long term guy and bringing in a MAF or bishop didnt necessarily make long term sense.

 

It could always end up being a surprise and we could get MAF, but based on BT comments I think any veteran guy on long term/dollars is probably out of the question.

The only way I see MAF here is if the Flames believe in their Goalie pipeline. MAF has 2 years remaining on his contract and I can't see picking him up being an expensive proposition or shouldn't be IMO. If the ask is to much walk away. BT could go with MAF and Johnson while not giving up that 3rd rd pick by bringing back Elliott.

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

The only way I see MAF here is if the Flames believe in their Goalie pipeline. MAF has 2 years remaining on his contract and I can't see picking him up being an expensive proposition or shouldn't be IMO. If the ask is to much walk away. BT could go with MAF and Johnson while not giving up that 3rd rd pick by bringing back Elliott.

And that's just it .. I believe they do . We have 2, maybe 3 potential big league performers ..odds are you hit on at least one of them .I won't be surprised if they draft one more.

and as I mentioned before, there will be no prospects..no players..just a pick

[AlbertaBoy12]

9 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

The only way I see MAF here is if the Flames believe in their Goalie pipeline. MAF has 2 years remaining on his contract and I can't see picking him up being an expensive proposition or shouldn't be IMO. If the ask is to much walk away. BT could go with MAF and Johnson while not giving up that 3rd rd pick by bringing back Elliott.

If MAF can be had for a 3rd, which is basically what we are giving for elliott there isent much of a difference there. But I dont know if I agree that he will be a cheap acquisition regardless of the ED. 

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

And that's just it .. I believe they do . We have 2, maybe 3 potential big league performers ..odds are you hit on at least one of them .I won't be surprised if they draft one more.

and as I mentioned before, there will be no prospects..no players..just a pick

Yeah I think the decision boils down to working through the next 2 seasons to our prospects or adding to the mix with a challenger such as Grubauer. If you make a trade for Grubauer the trade pieces will be significant so the Flames would be making a commitment to the future.

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

If MAF can be had for a 3rd, which is basically what we are giving for elliott there isent much of a difference there. But I dont know if I agree that he will be a cheap acquisition regardless of the ED. 

Being blunt and IMO we don't really gain much with MAF over Elliott and we get to pay more for MAF. If I were BT I would rule out both as options and use that 3rd in another deal.

[phoenix66]

Just now, MAC331 said:

Yeah I think the decision boils down to working through the next 2 seasons to our prospects or adding to the mix with a challenger such as Grubauer. If you make a trade for Grubauer the trade pieces will be significant so the Flames would be making a commitment to the future.

exactly .. tho again ,   Darling went for a 3rd.. likely Grubauer is the same .

 

I wouldn't be all that upset if we went off the board and grabbed Reimer in many ways it could be argued he's a better choice ..  i just think that MAF is BT's target , and don't disagree with it .

[MAC331]

4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

exactly .. tho again ,   Darling went for a 3rd.. likely Grubauer is the same .

 

I wouldn't be all that upset if we went off the board and grabbed Reimer in many ways it could be argued he's a better choice ..  i just think that MAF is BT's target , and don't disagree with it .

Darling was pending UFA vs Grubauer is RFA so a bit of difference in control so I believe it takes more than a 3rd. Is Grubauer worth our 1st and the 3rd we save from not signing Elliott ?

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Darling was pending UFA vs Grubauer is RFA so a bit of difference in control so I believe it takes more than a 3rd. Is Grubauer worth our 1st and the 3rd we save from not signing Elliott ?

nope.. 2nd tops

Andersen went for basically that (1st and 2nd I believe ).  66 vs 191 games of Experience and proven in the playoffs.. Andersen was a much more high end prospect, and also Anaheim didn't have to trade him yet (probably wishing they didn't now !).. Washington knows they're likely to lose Grubauer for nothing if they don't move him .

 

See I like to get in people's heads ..in this case BT

Since he came here , he has had to address Goaltending every off season..and based on comments , he's sick of it 

This team has rolled the dice on Goaltending since Kipper left..before and after BT got here 

We've brought in non NHL players (Berra, Ramo)

We've tried to give the ball to kids (Ortio, Irving)

We've tried to resurrect careers (Hiller , Backstrom)-- tho to be fair to BT, pretty sure Hiller was meant to tandem with Ramo

We've made a highly calculated gamble (Elliot)..and even then he hedged his bet with Johnson , he didnt go all in 

We've plugged holes (Joey McDonald)

 

If I'm BT, I believe in the system.. he has mentioned it more than once.. but hes sick of having to address #1 goaltending every year 

so he's trying to check all the boxes this time..

Proven #1-----   Check

Playoff Success----- Check

Still playing at a high level ------ Check

Has carried a team ------ Check

Fits our system ----- Check

Cost acceptable on $ and term-- wont block the next wave when ready --- Check

 

Odds, gut feeling , likelihood and all  arguments aside-- a Grubauer is another roll of the dice , I personally don't think he's willing to roll again ..he doesn't want to talk about Goaltending ever again , until its a controversy with the kids trying to take the jobs. Obviously no goaltender comes with guarantees, but hes going to want to take as much possibility of failure out of the equation. Bishop was the top target , but he obviously walked away from a bad deal, and there may be others that fit those criteria.. but there is no doubt in my mind he wants those boxes all checked this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carty]

10 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I really doubt that, I cant remember BTs exact comments but para phrasing something like we dont want an old goaltender and we dont want to pay big term/dollars. It was in regards to bishop but I dont see them that differently. 

 

Elliott is 2 years older than Bishop, and 4 years older than Darling...   Johnson is also older than both Bishop and Darling...

 

Treliving went with cheaper options for goaltenders last season, and we all know how that turned out...   If he fails to deliver on an upgrade for a starter, it won't matter what happens for upgrades at RW, D etc...   The team will be handicapped from the start of the season...   They need a goaltender that can inspire confidence on a consistent basis...   Every goaltender can let in the occasional softy or have a bad game once in a while, but the good ones can snap back after a bad goal or come back the next game with a solid performance like Kipper did and not fall into an extended streak of meltdowns...

 

 

[cross16]

A first straight up for Grubauer would be insane IMO on the Flames part. I think giving up that much for a backup goalie who has never played more than 30 games and has a sub .890 Save % against playoff teams the last 2 years gets you fired. I'm not seeing enough in Grubauer to show me he is a legit starter ready for a 40-50 game workload so no way is a 1st worth it. I personally wouldn't give up more than 2 picks below the 3rd round because IMO you are acquiring a tandem goalie who might  be a starter but could just as easily be a career backup. situation just reminds me too much of Andres LIndberg. 

 

I think at the price teams will likely want to pay, WSH will be better off leaving him unprotected and hoping Vegas bites. I think if the Flames deal their first you have to get someone more proven. Rolling the dice using your first round pick is a poor idea for the flames, especially when they are more than 1 piece away. 

[MAC331]

11 minutes ago, cross16 said:

A first straight up for Grubauer would be insane IMO on the Flames part. I think giving up that much for a backup goalie who has never played more than 30 games and has a sub .890 Save % against playoff teams the last 2 years gets you fired. I'm not seeing enough in Grubauer to show me he is a legit starter ready for a 40-50 game workload so no way is a 1st worth it. I personally wouldn't give up more than 2 picks below the 3rd round because IMO you are acquiring a tandem goalie who might  be a starter but could just as easily be a career backup. situation just reminds me too much of Andres LIndberg. 

 

I think at the price teams will likely want to pay, WSH will be better off leaving him unprotected and hoping Vegas bites. 

So are you saying you don't even want Grubauer at all ? I don't think it terribly fair to look at a save % for any goalie that plays so little behind a dominant starter. There is no doubt the thoughts of a tandem to support him with a seasoned veteran would be a way to enhance your chances for the team. To have Grubauer in the same mix as our chain of prospects would be fine with me. If it does take anymore than a 3rd and a 4th all the better.

[cross16]

Just now, MAC331 said:

So are you saying you don't even want Grubauer at all ? I don't think it terribly fair to look at a save % for any goalie that plays so little behind a dominant starter. There is no doubt the thoughts of a tandem to support him with a seasoned veteran would be a way to enhance your chances for the team. To have Grubauer in the same mix as our chain of prospects would be fine with me. If it does take anymore than a 3rd and a 4th all the better.

 

No i'm saying for what I would be willing to pay for Grubauer the Capitals would be better off leaving him for the expansion draft or probably just keeping him for depth. 

[MAC331]

35 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

nope.. 2nd tops

Andersen went for basically that (1st and 2nd I believe ).  66 vs 191 games of Experience and proven in the playoffs.. Andersen was a much more high end prospect, and also Anaheim didn't have to trade him yet (probably wishing they didn't now !).. Washington knows they're likely to lose Grubauer for nothing if they don't move him .

 

See I like to get in people's heads ..in this case BT

Since he came here , he has had to address Goaltending every off season..and based on comments , he's sick of it 

This team has rolled the dice on Goaltending since Kipper left..before and after BT got here 

We've brought in non NHL players (Berra, Ramo)

We've tried to give the ball to kids (Ortio, Irving)

We've tried to resurrect careers (Hiller , Backstrom)-- tho to be fair to BT, pretty sure Hiller was meant to tandem with Ramo

We've made a highly calculated gamble (Elliot)..and even then he hedged his bet with Johnson , he didnt go all in 

We've plugged holes (Joey McDonald)

 

If I'm BT, I believe in the system.. he has mentioned it more than once.. but hes sick of having to address #1 goaltending every year 

so he's trying to check all the boxes this time..

Proven #1-----   Check

Playoff Success----- Check

Still playing at a high level ------ Check

Has carried a team ------ Check

Fits our system ----- Check

Cost acceptable on $ and term-- wont block the next wave when ready --- Check

 

Odds, gut feeling , likelihood and all  arguments aside-- a Grubauer is another roll of the dice , I personally don't think he's willing to roll again ..he doesn't want to talk about Goaltending ever again , until its a controversy with the kids trying to take the jobs. Obviously no goaltender comes with guarantees, but hes going to want to take as much possibility of failure out of the equation. Bishop was the top target , but he obviously walked away from a bad deal, and there may be others that fit those criteria.. but there is no doubt in my mind he wants those boxes all checked this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reality check I can see with your thinking is that you think we are going to the SC next season and that won't happen. IMO

Your suggest IMO changes the names and just throws more money at the same situation possibly. Which leads me back to my original thinking of NO to MAF as a solution.

[MAC331]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

No i'm saying for what I would be willing to pay for Grubauer the Capitals would be better off leaving him for the expansion draft or probably just keeping him for depth. 

I guess I don't understand why you think WAS losing him for nothing to LV is a good move on their part if we are willing to offer them at least something for him ?

[cross16]

Just now, MAC331 said:

I guess I don't understand why you think WAS losing him for nothing to LV is a good move on their part if we are willing to offer them at least something for him ?

 

Because again in the expansion draft you will lose someone for nothing, that is guaranteed. Why not lose your back up goalie (probably the position of least importance to them IMO) and keep the rest of your team intact? why lose Grubauer plus another player for only a couple late round picks when you could just lose Grubauer and be done with it?

[phoenix66]

3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

The only reality check I can see with your thinking is that you think we are going to the SC next season and that won't happen. IMO

Your suggest IMO changes the names and just throws more money at the same situation possibly. Which leads me back to my original thinking of NO to MAF as a solution.

I'm not saying we are , but I definitely say we can.

The 16th seed just got in ..  the OILERS were a game 7 away from a good shot at it

I like our chances against the Preds, not saying we'd win ,(I dont think anybody is beating Rinne anytime soon.. the guy is on another planet right now ) but we've always stacked up well against them.

 

The Oilers played the game for years of "we're rebuilding ..its ok!"..not us.   BT said himself, the bar is raised next year .. just making the playoffs is no longer acceptable.

It starts with him to ensure the pieces are in place to allow that possibility .. the possibility of failure in net due to a gamble , could likely cost him his job 

Maybe the unspoken goal isn't the cup..but going deep is.. which only makes your team that much more experienced for the next run

 

now , does he have other areas to address too?.. of course he does..and I'm sure he will.. but that doesn't change the fact that at least one reason we lost in 4 games was goaltending . So its on the list to be fixed