Goaltending

[MAC331]

On ‎2017‎-‎05‎-‎26 at 11:12 AM, travel_dude said:

 

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.  

Depends on what the rest of the team felt about Elliott. I wouldn't make another change for the sake of one. I do like the idea of Elliott or Mason to bolster the addition of another goalie added to the mix to be a challenge for our goalie pipeline.

[travel_dude]

40 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Depends on what the rest of the team felt about Elliott. I wouldn't make another change for the sake of one. I do like the idea of Elliott or Mason to bolster the addition of another goalie added to the mix to be a challenge for our goalie pipeline.

 

I don't think the team blames him.  He was responsible for being the last line of defense, but where was the first line of defense?

I do think it comes down to asset management.  If Elliott costs you a 3rd in 2018, does BT value that more than the difference between Mason and Elliott?

 

To me, the most important thing right now is getting a top goalie to battle for starter.  This may be the only chance in the next 3 years to get one, and we can't take the chance of only having a good pipeline, with one eventually being a starter.  A surplus of good to great goalies is less of an issue.

 

[MAC331]

4 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't think the team blames him.  He was responsible for being the last line of defense, but where was the first line of defense?

I do think it comes down to asset management.  If Elliott costs you a 3rd in 2018, does BT value that more than the difference between Mason and Elliott?

 

To me, the most important thing right now is getting a top goalie to battle for starter.  This may be the only chance in the next 3 years to get one, and we can't take the chance of only having a good pipeline, with one eventually being a starter.  A surplus of good to great goalies is less of an issue.

 

I'm not so sure that goalie is out there right now if Grubauer and Raanta are who you mean. I don't think BT would have put that 3rd on the table unless he was prepared to eat it. He is on record for saying without Elliott and Johnson we are no even in the playoffs. Hard to say IMO which way he will go.

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I'm not so sure that goalie is out there right now if Grubauer and Raanta are who you mean. I don't think BT would have put that 3rd on the table unless he was prepared to eat it. He is on record for saying without Elliott and Johnson we are no even in the playoffs. Hard to say IMO which way he will go.

 

I know what he said.  I agree with it.  You can't blame the goalies for the loss in the playoffs.  I am of the opinion that you say that regardless of how you think.  It was a team loss.  

 

The bandaid approach won't work anymore.  We need a starter.  Find the best one available and go for it.  If it involves the 3rd in 2018, then forgo re-signing Elliott within the terms of the original trade.

[MAC331]

41 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I know what he said.  I agree with it.  You can't blame the goalies for the loss in the playoffs.  I am of the opinion that you say that regardless of how you think.  It was a team loss.  

 

The bandaid approach won't work anymore.  We need a starter.  Find the best one available and go for it.  If it involves the 3rd in 2018, then forgo re-signing Elliott within the terms of the original trade.

I'm not so sure we won't be doing a bandaid for a few more years and if we are I have no problem bringing back Elliott a goalie already familiar with the team.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I'm not so sure we won't be doing a bandaid for a few more years and if we are I have no problem bringing back Elliott a goalie already familiar with the team.

 

Elliott/Mason as a tandem wouldn't be the end of the world.  But, there are very few times in the NHL that a potential or bonafide starter could be available at a reduced cost (affordable, anyway).  If none are available, then so be it.  Bandaids are fine, but they really hurt when you leave em on and rip them off.

 

Build from the net out.  Solidify the position, then down the road you can figure out if your depth can handle the job.  Ortio seemed promising.  Gillies did coming right out of college.  Parsons looks good.  Rittich is a surprise.  I would rather that we sign the 1a/1b now and let one of the prospects take place of the lesser of the two in a couple/three years.  

 

[MAC331]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

Elliott/Mason as a tandem wouldn't be the end of the world.  But, there are very few times in the NHL that a potential or bonafide starter could be available at a reduced cost (affordable, anyway).  If none are available, then so be it.  Bandaids are fine, but they really hurt when you leave em on and rip them off.

 

Build from the net out.  Solidify the position, then down the road you can figure out if your depth can handle the job.  Ortio seemed promising.  Gillies did coming right out of college.  Parsons looks good.  Rittich is a surprise.  I would rather that we sign the 1a/1b now and let one of the prospects take place of the lesser of the two in a couple/three years.  

 

You make it sound like Elliott is the worst possible option for us and I don't think that is the case at all. He may not be this "World class #1" starter everyone seems to want but neither is anyone else that is being discussed here. This entire team needs to improve in a number of areas some of which will come with experience and maturity, some by additions and some from within. We still have some trial and error to endure but Elliott doesn't bother me if he is returned, we could do worse.

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

You make it sound like Elliott is the worst possible option for us and I don't think that is the case at all. He may not be this "World class #1" starter everyone seems to want but neither is anyone else that is being discussed here. This entire team needs to improve in a number of areas some of which will come with experience and maturity, some by additions and some from within. We still have some trial and error to endure but Elliott doesn't bother me if he is returned, we could do worse.

 

Nowhere did I say he was the worst possible option.  His struggles are documented, but I am not coming down hard on him for playoff woes or the start of the season.

 

If you find someone better, then you should do so.  Elliott will cost a 3rd + whatever term/dollars you need to pay.  I don't think they would re-sign him to a 3 year deal, so we have not solved the problem long term.  If, and it's a big if, you can find the next Jones or Talbot, then you have the luxury of fixing the problem short and long term.  If that goalie is not available for the right price, then you move on.

[jjgallow]

39 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

  But, there are very few times in the NHL that a potential or bonafide starter could be available at a reduced cost (affordable, anyway).

 

 

Hard to ignore this.    At the same time, 99% of the discussion on here seems to be about MAF and Murray.   Overly simplistic look at where the true opportunities will exist, imho.

 

First of all, I think we can scratch out "bonafide starter".    That's just never really available without a significant trade, imho.

 

"potential starter" is really where the best opportunities will likely be presented, and likely by someone currently unproven.

 

Those hoping we can just acquire the stanley cup winnning goalie and thus...be a contender, will be sorely dissapointed on multiple fronts.

[MAC331]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Nowhere did I say he was the worst possible option.  His struggles are documented, but I am not coming down hard on him for playoff woes or the start of the season.

 

If you find someone better, then you should do so.  Elliott will cost a 3rd + whatever term/dollars you need to pay.  I don't think they would re-sign him to a 3 year deal, so we have not solved the problem long term.  If, and it's a big if, you can find the next Jones or Talbot, then you have the luxury of fixing the problem short and long term.  If that goalie is not available for the right price, then you move on.

I guess that is what is being said here, I don't see the next Talbot or Jones in the mix for us presently, do you ? I would offer Elliott a 2 year deal in order to bridge to some of our own prospects such as Gilles or Parsons if BT believes they are the real deal.

[travel_dude]

32 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Hard to ignore this.    At the same time, 99% of the discussion on here seems to be about MAF and Murray.   Overly simplistic look at where the true opportunities will exist, imho.

 

First of all, I think we can scratch out "bonafide starter".    That's just never really available without a significant trade, imho.

 

"potential starter" is really where the best opportunities will likely be presented, and likely by someone currently unproven.

 

Those hoping we can just acquire the stanley cup winnning goalie and thus...be a contender, will be sorely dissapointed on multiple fronts.

 

Some teams are rebuilding.  Many do not like Schneider (or at least don't see him as a quality one), but there is some rumblings that he could be available.  Mrazek could be available, depending on how the Wings look at their future (and Coreau).  Probably significant return on these guys, yes.  But the point is that they could be available.  I personally don't see Mrazek available.

 

The potential is more likely.  And that is what I am focusing on.  Bring in a solid 1b guy with him, so you aren't left with just the potential guy.

 

I was never on the MAF train, since I think PITTS wants too much, and he has a lot of miles on him.  He may have two really good seasons left in him, but again that leaves us pinning our hopes on Gillies, Parsons and Rittich.  

 

There are so many being discussed here, I don't think anyone is really saying anything other than "what if".  

27 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I guess that is what is being said here, I don't see the next Talbot or Jones in the mix for us presently, do you ? I would offer Elliott a 2 year deal in order to bridge to some of our own prospects such as Gilles or Parsons if BT believes they are the real deal.

 

Yes, I do.  Will the deal get done?  Anyone's guess.  

[MAC331]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

Some teams are rebuilding.  Many do not like Schneider (or at least don't see him as a quality one), but there is some rumblings that he could be available.  Mrazek could be available, depending on how the Wings look at their future (and Coreau).  Probably significant return on these guys, yes.  But the point is that they could be available.  I personally don't see Mrazek available.

 

The potential is more likely.  And that is what I am focusing on.  Bring in a solid 1b guy with him, so you aren't left with just the potential guy.

 

I was never on the MAF train, since I think PITTS wants too much, and he has a lot of miles on him.  He may have two really good seasons left in him, but again that leaves us pinning our hopes on Gillies, Parsons and Rittich.  

 

There are so many being discussed here, I don't think anyone is really saying anything other than "what if".  

 

Yes, I do.  Will the deal get done?  Anyone's guess.  

Who ?

[robrob74]

On 2017-05-25 at 4:44 PM, travel_dude said:

 

NYR has big issues with the protected forwards.  They are unlikely to lose the goalie to the draft, but that isn't going to stop them from dealing the goalie.  They traded Talbot without any fear of loss to a draft.  They don't have a lot to fear losing Raanta, since they have forwards that are much more appealing; Hayes, Fast, Grabner or Pirri.  What they can do is get something for an asset like Raata and replace in FA.  They can also deal Hayes or Fast or Pirri so they only lose the least valuable of them to LV.  Sounds crazy, but they trade Hayes for an exempt prospect.  They trade Raanta for picks and maybe an exempt goalie.  Raanta is coming up to the starter or move on category.  If they keep him, they will lose the chance to get any return at all.  A pending UFA in 2018.  King Henrik will not be stepping down any time soon.

 

Washington can direct attention anywhere they like.  Expose Niskanen or Orpik to get rid of big salary.  If they do that, they would lose a forward like Beagle, Connolly or Eller or their goalie Grubauer.  If it was me, I would get something for the goalie over losing him.  Give LV the choice of the remaining players you don't mind losing.  I know there's many ways at looking at it, but TBH we have no idea of what their GM would do.  I'm just looking at one possible avenue.  

 

 

 

I know the Lundquist is one of the best in the business, but (not just asking you, asking everyone) do they have a succession plan for him? How many more years left on him?  They may need to start thinking of it and he lost his role for a bit this past season. So dealing a goalie might not be in their plan.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I guess that is what is being said here, I don't see the next Talbot or Jones in the mix for us presently, do you ? I would offer Elliott a 2 year deal in order to bridge to some of our own prospects such as Gilles or Parsons if BT believes they are the real deal.

 

I guess that I am getting more into the Elliott bus in having all of this time away from the boards and the season. He is ok, and able to start and give quality minutes. I would maybe offer both the job again to buy time for the kids to develop. 

 

I'd offer Elliott a 3yr and Johnson a 2yr deal. Does that create a back log for our up and coming goalies?  Two years to Johnson gives a kid a year in the AHL and then a year to beat out Johnson. 

 

Keeping Elliott also is asset management as well. We don't give up more to get another. Plus it will keep the cap hit relatively lower in net. Also, I think it was Deeds who argued he might come back stronger to prove himself? Maybe it was another poster. But if we can continue to grow our game as a team we should continue to get in. 

 

I think when a young guy is ready to take over is when we might challenge for a cup. 

 

I just think we need to solidify the position for a few years because the revolving door is just too much! There's. no stability.

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

We don't give up more to get another.

 

A 2018 3rd rounder for Elliott.  That is the known.  There are arguments to be made that we wouldn't have to pay that if signed in FA, but I haven't seen anything factual about it.

 

To put it another way:

Elliott = 3rd rounder

Mason = cash only

Unnamed UFA goalie = cash only

 

I'm waiting for the bus.  It's scheduled to be here sometime aftre the end of the SCF. 

[Flyerfan52]

On 2017-05-28 at 3:07 PM, cross16 said:

 

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. 

Huh? Detroit has under $6 million in cap space with a roster of 18, Tatar to re-sign & a roster of 18.

 

They could expose Howard (likely to no avail as a 33 year old with 5.3 x 2 on his contract isn't a need between the pipes for LV) but end up with that same $10 spent in net . They'll like lose what they can least afford with an empty pipeline in a young skater.

Since it'll be a while until they are competitive again they might as well get something for Mrazek before they have to qualify him @ over $4 million just to retain his rights after the season. Next years cap doesn't look much better as only Green & a batch of RFAs come off the payroll.

[robrob74]

27 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

A 2018 3rd rounder for Elliott.  That is the known.  There are arguments to be made that we wouldn't have to pay that if signed in FA, but I haven't seen anything factual about it.

 

To put it another way:

Elliott = 3rd rounder

Mason = cash only

Unnamed UFA goalie = cash only

 

I'm waiting for the bus.  It's scheduled to be here sometime aftre the end of the SCF. 

 

I forgot we might have to pay more. Too bad. 

[Flyerfan52]

48 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I know the Lundquist is one of the best in the business, but (not just asking you, asking everyone) do they have a succession plan for him? How many more years left on him?  They may need to start thinking of it and he lost his role for a bit this past season. So dealing a goalie might not be in their plan.

He's under contract for 4 more years so they are hoping he can remain a top goalie until he's 39-40 like Brodeur. Raanta is UFA July 1, 2018 & @ 28 will be tired of being in "The King" shadow.

Getting something for him now (the other goalies they can expose amount to little) might even help as it would force LV to take a bigger contract off their hands.

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

He's under contract for 4 more years so they are hoping he can remain a top goalie until he's 39-40 like Brodeur. Raanta is UFA July 1, 2018 & @ 28 will be tired of being in "The King" shadow.

Getting something for him now (the other goalies they can expose amount to little) might even help as it would force LV to take a bigger contract off their hands.

 

 

What if he decided to retire though? I guess it is a lot of money to give up.

[Flyerfan52]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

What if he decided to retire though? I guess it is a lot of money to give up.

After his playoffs (& WC Gold) this year he'll play @ least 1 more. By then Raanta will have moved on.

The Rags best bet is to ask for a good, exempt goalie prospect as partial return.

[cross16]

17 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Huh? Detroit has under $6 million in cap space with a roster of 18, Tatar to re-sign & a roster of 18.

 

They could expose Howard (likely to no avail as a 33 year old with 5.3 x 2 on his contract isn't a need between the pipes for LV) but end up with that same $10 spent in net . They'll like lose what they can least afford with an empty pipeline in a young skater.

Since it'll be a while until they are competitive again they might as well get something for Mrazek before they have to qualify him @ over $4 million just to retain his rights after the season. Next years cap doesn't look much better as only Green & a batch of RFAs come off the payroll.

 

That includes Franzen, who probably will never play again, so that's another 4 mill in cap space. 10 mill in cap space with really only Tatar to sign (who won't be that pricey) is not a cap issue in my mind. 

The problem with Mrzaek is your selling low. So if you are Detroit do you sell low on him or do you bank on him coming back next year and being the goalie of the future he was looking like 2 years ago. I'm thinking Detroit does the later

[Flyerfan52]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

That includes Franzen, who probably will never play again, so that's another 4 mill in cap space. 10 mill in cap space with really only Tatar to sign (who won't be that pricey) is not a cap issue in my mind. 

The problem with Mrzaek is your selling low. So if you are Detroit do you sell low on him or do you bank on him coming back next year and being the goalie of the future he was looking like 2 years ago. I'm thinking Detroit does the later

Nope. That's 4 mill in LTIR but limits signings as he counts against the cap until the season starts & he can go on LTIR. That limits signings until after since the team can exceed the cap during the summer but must be compliant by the opener.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Nope. That's 4 mill in LTIR but limits signings as he counts against the cap until the season starts & he can go on LTIR. That limits signings until after since the team can exceed the cap during the summer but must be compliant by the opener.

 

in a situation like Franzens where the player is not going to play or report to camp you can put him on LTIR before the season and be cap compliant day 1. You do not need to be cap complaint with Franzen. 

So Franzen does effectively give them 10 mill in cap space because his LTIR credit is in effect right away before the season opens. They had to do the same thing last year as they were over the cap before training camp 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

I forgot we might have to pay more. Too bad. 

 

I wasn't trying to insult, BTW.

I have a little more time for Elliott than a lot of people here, but he isn't plan A for me.  He may be in fact who we sign as a 2nd goalie, but he would be behind a capable goalie.  He could still outbattle whoever we got, just not banking on it. 

[robrob74]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

I wasn't trying to insult, BTW.

I have a little more time for Elliott than a lot of people here, but he isn't plan A for me.  He may be in fact who we sign as a 2nd goalie, but he would be behind a capable goalie.

He could still outbattle whoever we got, just not banking on it. 

I didn't take it as an insult. I just forgot we might still need to give up more. 

 

I am not keen on him, but I am ok if it happens as well.

 

it would be nice to create some stability in the position though.