Goaltending

[cross16]

Not that this is going to be a surprise as most people already assumed this but Shero today mentioned he isn't moving Schneider. Dropped the obligatory "that can change with 1 phone call" but sounds like Schneider is basically a no go.

Quote

 I asked Shero whether he felt there were any “untouchables” on his roster regarding potential trades. He basically laughed that notion away, given the Devils’ finish last season. Interestingly, he brought up goalie Cory Schneider unprompted as part of his answer, saying the plan is for Schneider to remain with the Devils and that’s what both player and organization want. But Shero also quickly noted plans can change as swiftly as one phone call. Like, for instance, when the Oilers call up to ask what it would take to get Adam Larsson and quickly acquiesce to you asking for Taylor Hall. Not sure what kind of market there is for Schneider now that the Stars have signed Ben Bishop, maybe the Flames? But I wouldn’t put any trade past Shero this summer

http://www.northjersey.com/story/sports/nhl/devils/fireandice/2017/05/26/top-10-impressions-after-chatting-ray-shero/348394001/

 

 

Also Friedman noted on the fan today that he feels MAF is likely going to Vegas unless Calgary can work a deal for him. Didn't sounds like he felt it was going to happen and was more continuing the line of thought that MAF will wind up in Vegas. 

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Circular argument, but did he do that because of the expansion draft or did he do it that way because his doesn't have the required trade pieces to get higher end talent? The deals you mentioned are low risk deals and picking up lower level talent that really isn't claim worthy for Vegas anyway.

 

either way it's not really an argument i want to have because I don't want to come across like i'm upset with or don't like BT when I do. I'm not criticizing him I'm just stating I think the reality here is the Flames just, at this point, don't have a very rich talent level in the organization and that's why they are in good shape. Reality of a team coming out of a rebuild that has drafted only ok last 5-6 years. 

no worries , i don't think youre criticizing him at all. nor am I saying every move he made was 100% towards that goal.. you are right , the initial pick up may been coincidental.. but when he says he spoke to his agent regarding extension prior to the trade and there was heavy talk of an extension early , why didnt he do it?  why did he sign Johnson to only a 1 year ?  who was he expecting to be the backup next season ?  those moves tell me he worked some level of the ED in mind

[cross16]

1 minute ago, phoenix66 said:

no worries , i don't think youre criticizing him at all. nor am I saying every move he made was 100% towards that goal.. you are right , the initial pick up may been coincidental.. but when he says he spoke to his agent regarding extension prior to the trade and there was heavy talk of an extension early , why didnt he do it?  why did he sign Johnson to only a 1 year ?  who was he expecting to be the backup next season ?  those moves tell me he worked some level of the ED in mind

 

Because Elliott played like crap to start the season. 

 

Fair to say he had it in his mind but to me it's of very small consequence. Especially when you consider the Flames don't even have a goalie worth protecting. I think what is more likely is he is setting himself up for what spins out of the Expansion draft and if he can manage something there then we give him credit. 

[JTech780]

10 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I can see LV choosing 6 or 7 goalies..unless they can pick up a whack of young D.. they'll become brokers - less than 50% of the players they choose will be on the opening night roster 

 

Maybe, but they have to select 14 forwards, 9 defense and 3 goalies, that means they have 4 spots to pick whatever position they want. Picking 6 or 7 goalies seems like a mistake as there isn't that many teams looking for goalies. I think you will see them taking extra defense as defense is easier to trade.

[phoenix66]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

Because Elliott played like crap to start the season. 

that's hindsight tho .. there was heavy talk of an extension before the season even started , and the hype and comment was all about how we were set in goal and had found our bona fide #1, the guy who was going to get us to our kids..  again just saying the ED was a consideration ..

[travel_dude]

19 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

Maybe, but they have to select 14 forwards, 9 defense and 3 goalies, that means they have 4 spots to pick whatever position they want. Picking 6 or 7 goalies seems like a mistake as there isn't that many teams looking for goalies. I think you will see them taking extra defense as defense is easier to trade.

 

The big issue for LV is waiver eligibility.  They will select 30 players.  They will have at least one other player signed by then.  Come the roster deadline, they will need to send down a minimum of 8 players assuming they don't trade anybody away for picks or sign any UFA's.  Sign 3 goalies, waive one.  Sign 11 D, waive 4.  Sign 16 F, waive 2.

 

It's going to be a challenge for LV to find 7 players they can send to the AHL without losing them to the waiver wire.  Especially if they tap into the FA market.  There are only so many players left unprotected that are waiver exempt.  

[cross16]

another chart but more evidence that IMO Steve Mason is likely the best choice out there (outside of trade candidates we aren't aware of). He's likely not a big upgrade over Elliott but I think he'll give you better goaltending and he can start 50 plus games

 

Chart is over the last 3 years so includes Elliott's time in St Louis. 

[MAC331]

Just now, cross16 said:

another chart but more evidence that IMO Steve Mason is likely the best choice out there (outside of trade candidates we aren't aware of). He's likely not a big upgrade over Elliott but I think he'll give you better goaltending and he can start 50 plus games

What in your honest opinion would it take to get Mrazek from DET ? Would our 2017 1st and the 3rd round pick saved by not resigning Elliott do it ? I would rather see us go with a starter that already has some time in than play around with hoping a Grubauer and a Mason does the trick.

[JTech780]

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

What in your honest opinion would it take to get Mrazek from DET ? Would our 2017 1st and the 3rd round pick saved by not resigning Elliott do it ? I would rather see us go with a starter that already has some time in than play around with hoping a Grubauer and a Mason does the trick.

Can't use that 3rd in a trade till Elliott signs with another team and unless he signs with Vegas that won't happen till after the 2017 draft.

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

What in your honest opinion would it take to get Mrazek from DET ? Would our 2017 1st and the 3rd round pick saved by not resigning Elliott do it ? I would rather see us go with a starter that already has some time in than play around with hoping a Grubauer and a Mason does the trick.

 

Honestly I don't know because I don't see why Detroit would trade him. Last season this guy looked like one of the top 10 goalies in the league so I just cannot see why the trade that unless you pay and 2 picks is not paying. I won't even counter because i'd be just guessing.

 

Mason has been a starter the last 4 years in Philly and is a 2 time All-Star. That is far more qualified than Mrazek if you are looking for a proven starter.  

[cross16]

1 minute ago, JTech780 said:

Can't use that 3rd in a trade till Elliott signs with another team and unless he signs with Vegas that won't happen till after the 2017 draft.

 

Do you think?

 

I would think they could but then all it would mean is that they then would not be able to sign Elliott. The pick is still theirs, it just has a condition attached to it and I know you can trade conditional picks. 

[MAC331]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

Honestly I don't know because I don't see why Detroit would trade him. Last season this guy looked like one of the top 10 goalies in the league so I just cannot see why the trade that unless you pay and 2 picks is not paying. I won't even counter because i'd be just guessing.

 

Mason has been a starter the last 4 years in Philly and is a 2 time All-Star. That is far more qualified than Mrazek if you are looking for a proven starter.  

When was Mason an AS I don't ever recall him being very good but what do I know. I would still like to see us get a goalie the team could grow with and become part of the core.

[JTech780]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Do you think?

 

I would think they could but then all it would mean is that they then would not be able to sign Elliott. The pick is still theirs, it just has a condition attached to it and I know you can trade conditional picks. 

 

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Calgary has already effectively traded that pick, till that condition is or isn't met then that pick stays in limbo.

[cross16]

13 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

When was Mason an AS I don't ever recall him being very good but what do I know. I would still like to see us get a goalie the team could grow with and become part of the core.

 

Sorry my bad I read the site wrong. He was an All star once, as a young star, and finished 6th in the All star voting for goalies 2 years ago. Was a top 10 finalist for the Vezina 3 seasons ago. I think he gets a bad rap becuase of how poorly he finished in Columbus but he's a solid goalie IMO.

 

Only 29 years old too. 

[cross16]

Different gear

Helps solve the goalie question in the minors. Highly doubt the Hitmen trade for him if he was going pro. Also means he's likely to start for the Hitmen who I believe are losing their starter this year. 

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Sorry my bad I read the site wrong. He was an All star once, as a young star, and finished 6th in the All star voting for goalies 2 years ago. Was a top 10 finalist for the Vezina 3 seasons ago. I think he gets a bad rap becuase of how poorly he finished in Columbus but he's a solid goalie IMO.

 

Only 29 years old too. 

 

If the choice of a goalie is Mason or Elliott, I would lean towards Mason.  Mind you, that is not to be the guy here, just a fall back plan.  We need to get a guy ready for full time as the real #1.  Gru, Raanta, Saros, whatever.  I have faith in Gillies and Parsons, but I don't see either guy ready for a starter role anytime soon.  I think Gillies needs at least two more seasons in the AHL to become consistent.  Parsons will be loner term.  Mason is the stopgap until one of them is ready to become a backup/1b NHL goalie.  

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Calgary has already effectively traded that pick, till that condition is or isn't met then that pick stays in limbo.

an interesting thing about that pick..Elliot Friedman a few weeks back on HNIC, said that it wasn't tied to him signing, but that it was if we traded his rights. Now, I'll add that I have found absolutely nothing to support that, but Friedman rarely makes a definitive statement like that unless its true.. otherwise,he'd say"i believe" or something ..but he was pretty sure of this

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

an interesting thing about that pick..Elliot Friedman a few weeks back on HNIC, said that it wasn't tied to him signing, but that it was if we traded his rights. Now, I'll add that I have found absolutely nothing to support that, but Friedman rarely makes a definitive statement like that unless its true.. otherwise,he'd say"i believe" or something ..but he was pretty sure of this

 

Are you sure it was Friedman? I know Boomer one morning on the Fan a few weeks ago tried to make this claim but I never heard it linked to Friedman.

 

either way it seems to be incorrect. If you go back and listen to interviews at the time of the trade both Armstrong and Treliving confirm that the 3rd is conditional to Elliott re-signing as well as being flipped. 

[phoenix66]

9 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Are you sure it was Friedman? I know Boomer one morning on the Fan a few weeks ago tried to make this claim but I never heard it linked to Friedman.

 

either way it seems to be incorrect. If you go back and listen to interviews at the time of the trade both Armstrong and Treliving confirm that the 3rd is conditional to Elliott re-signing as well as being flipped. 

Yup it was definitely Elliot, on one of the panels between periods.. shortly after we got eliminated , and the discussion was "well we guess Calgary wont have to pay the 3rd rounder now"  and I remember now, he started "I have learned something interesting about that pick.."  said it was owed if we traded his rights,,but ya again .. nothing anywhere else to support that , so I'm sure its not accurate .. just found it odd at he was so definitive

 

maybe it was both .. payable if we resign him, or if we flipped him at the deadline or something ?

[travel_dude]

For what it's worth, Capfriendly has the following listed for the condition:

 

*Condition: St. Louis acquires Calgary's 2018 3rd round pick if Brian Elliott signs an extension with Calgary.

 

If that wording is accurate, the condition expires upon him going UFA.  The key word is extension.  

[Flyerfan52]

5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

When was Mason an AS I don't ever recall him being very good but what do I know. I would still like to see us get a goalie the team could grow with and become part of the core.

2nd AS Team 2009.

 

OHL Goaltender of the Year 2007.

[rocketdoctor]

On 26/05/2017 at 6:09 PM, cross16 said:

Different gear

Helps solve the goalie question in the minors. Highly doubt the Hitmen trade for him if he was going pro. Also means he's likely to start for the Hitmen who I believe are losing their starter this year. 

 

Reading between the lines I think Clouston in the Hat  lost faith in Schneider last year.    I hope not too much damage was done to the kids confidence.   Is this the Flames exerting a bit of pressure to keep an eye on an asset?

 

 

[MAC331]

On ‎2017‎-‎05‎-‎26 at 10:45 AM, cross16 said:

 

Honestly I don't know because I don't see why Detroit would trade him. Last season this guy looked like one of the top 10 goalies in the league so I just cannot see why the trade that unless you pay and 2 picks is not paying. I won't even counter because i'd be just guessing.

 

Mason has been a starter the last 4 years in Philly and is a 2 time All-Star. That is far more qualified than Mrazek if you are looking for a proven starter.  

Do you see DET wanting to maintain spending 10M plus on their goaltending or do you see them buying out Howard ?

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Do you see DET wanting to maintain spending 10M plus on their goaltending or do you see them buying out Howard ?

 

They can expose Howard.  If not chosen, then they can possibly use the 2nd buyout window (Tatar is arbitration eligible) on him or look for a post expansion trade partner.  Somebody is going to lose a goale they don't want to.  They can retain salary and make it more attractive.  The buyout cap hit is between $1.5m and $2,5m over 4 years.

 

Given his age, it would not make much sense to keep Howard and trade Mrazek.  Howard's next contract will be a 35+ one.  

[cross16]

4 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Do you see DET wanting to maintain spending 10M plus on their goaltending or do you see them buying out Howard ?

 

Cap space isn't an issue for them so yes I could see them doing that. I think they'd rather pay the 10 mill and give Mrzaek a chance to bounce back and prove what he was a few seasons ago rather than give up on him now.