Goaltending

[phoenix66]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

You missed what I was getting at.  The waiving only last until he is traded to Vegas or CGY.  They would need to ask him to waive again to go to Calgary from Vegas.  You can't just be selected by Vegas and be traded to Calgary.  

he has a list of 18 teams I believe he can be traded to.. if we are on that list , LV (or Pittsburgh) doesn't need his permission .. its like hes already waived for those teams already .

Its not like a NMC where the player has last right of refusal (Iggy for example)

[cross16]

45 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

well the NTC is a non starter.. we're either on his list or we're not .. we know that already I'm sure.

 

 

Maybe but depends on what he wants. If he wants to play, start, and play for a good team there really isn't another option outside Calgary that can offer him that.

 

Flames are probably on the list i'm sure (Mackenzie "guaranteed" it I believe), but i'm not sure I see it as a huge hindrance because i'm not seeing a better opportunity for him than the Flames. Flames are basically the only team that can basically guarantee him the starters job plus a chance to win.

 

 

 

 

[Thebrewcrew]

Anders Nilsson is a guy who I might have some interest in as a UFA. His career stats aren't as good as Raanta or Grubauer, but he's been with teams like NYI, BUF and EDM. His sv % was right around the same as Gru/Raanta on a weak Buffalo team. I know Johnson put up good numbers on Buffalo too, but I think the thing with Nilsson is that he is in the same age range as Raanta and Gru, and won't cost any assets to acquire and he could end up as a number one.

[travel_dude]

On 6/8/2017 at 11:21 AM, phoenix66 said:

he has a list of 18 teams I believe he can be traded to.. if we are on that list , LV (or Pittsburgh) doesn't need his permission .. its like hes already waived for those teams already .

Its not like a NMC where the player has last right of refusal (Iggy for example)

 

Originally posted this on Thursday, but the site went down without saving it.

 

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is wrong, but I believe he has to waive his NMC to be exposed.  Different kettle of fish.  SInce we are entering a new season, I believe he would need to supply a list of the 18 teams now.  If they only ask for him to waive the NMC, then that's only good for the expansion draft.  If Vegas selected him, his NMC and NTC are back in effect.  They would need to ask him to waive.  

[MAC331]

Quote

The longer this goalie talk goes the more curious I get on who we end up with when all is said and done.

 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Originally posted this on Thursday, but the site went down without saving it.

 

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is wrong, but I believe he has to waive his NMC to be exposed.  Different kettle of fish.  SInce we are entering a new season, I believe he would need to supply a list of the 18 teams now.  If they only ask for him to waive the NMC, then that's only good for the expansion draft.  If Vegas selected him, his NMC and NTC are back in effect.  They would need to ask him to waive.  

right ..in his case his  NMC is strictly for waivers(or an expansion draft ).. but he has a Modified NTC that goes with it ..  his NMC wouldn't prevent a team from trading him to a team that meets his list requirement.. they can just trade him to any one of those 18 teams and not even ask him first 

[travel_dude]

34 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

right ..in his case his  NMC is strictly for waivers(or an expansion draft ).. but he has a Modified NTC that goes with it ..  his NMC wouldn't prevent a team from trading him to a team that meets his list requirement.. they can just trade him to any one of those 18 teams and not even ask him first 

 

The NMC applies before the modified NTC kicks in.  It also applies to trades.

Waive it to be moved at the expansion draft.

Gets claimed.

NMC back in place.

 

[phoenix66]

22 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The NMC applies before the modified NTC kicks in.  It also applies to trades.

Waive it to be moved at the expansion draft.

Gets claimed.

NMC back in place.

 

its classified as a Partial NMC -  described as only applying to Waivers. It is completely separate from his NTC

Contract Notes:

• Limited NMC ( only prevents being placed on waivers)
• Limited NTC (can designate a list of teams he will accept a trade to)

[phoenix66]

well at least we can put this whole MAF thing to bed real soon now.. dominos should start to fall as early as Monday !

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

well at least we can put this whole MAF thing to bed real soon now.. dominos should start to fall as early as Monday !

Some rumors Raanta may be in our future.

[phoenix66]

13 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Some rumors Raanta may be in our future.

I can see that, Thats basically my dream combo right now  ..I think a MAF/Raanta tandem would do some serious damage 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

I can see that, Thats basically my dream combo right now  ..I think a MAF/Raanta tandem would do some serious damage 

 

To our prospect pool, picks available and our salary cap.

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

I can see that, Thats basically my dream combo right now  ..I think a MAF/Raanta tandem would do some serious damage 

I really don't see MAF in the cards. Raanta I could see happening then it appears the decision would be Elliott vs Mason. I would stay with Elliott even at the expense of the 2018 3rd we would give up.

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I really don't see MAF in the cards. Raanta I could see happening then it appears the decision would be Elliott vs Mason. I would stay with Elliott even at the expense of the 2018 3rd we would give up.

I didnt really ever seen MAF in the cards either,im assuming the acquisition cost wasent cheap, then on top of that we have his salary. BT has made it clear he doesnt want to give up assets for a short term older player, and 2 years with a guy costing 6 million is quite the cost. I get that everyone seems to think we need this legit high end #1, but even if we had that whos to say we would have beat the ducks. Im sure the team would perform just fine with elliott and raanta as our goalies with raanta getting the majority of the starts. Obviously it helps to have a world class goalie we just saw that in the cup finals, but you can win with an average goalie, I would argue that corey crawford is a good example of that. By average goalie I just mean hes no carey price or henrik in his prime for example.

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I didnt really ever seen MAF in the cards either,im assuming the acquisition cost wasent cheap, then on top of that we have his salary. BT has made it clear he doesnt want to give up assets for a short term older player, and 2 years with a guy costing 6 million is quite the cost. I get that everyone seems to think we need this legit high end #1, but even if we had that whos to say we would have beat the ducks. Im sure the team would perform just fine with elliott and raanta as our goalies with raanta getting the majority of the starts. Obviously it helps to have a world class goalie we just saw that in the cup finals, but you can win with an average goalie, I would argue that corey crawford is a good example of that. By average goalie I just mean hes no carey price or henrik in his prime for example.

The win now group will always want what they believe is the very best option out there for us. In the bigger picture having a tandem of Elliott and someone like Raanta give us a position of stability in our net and an ongoing competition from within the ranks which is healthy.

[cross16]

9 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

To our prospect pool, picks available and our salary cap.

 

Have to agree. I can't imagine the Flames have, or are prepapred to give up, the amount of assets it would take to get both MAF and Raanta.

 

5 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I didnt really ever seen MAF in the cards either,im assuming the acquisition cost wasent cheap, then on top of that we have his salary. BT has made it clear he doesnt want to give up assets for a short term older player, and 2 years with a guy costing 6 million is quite the cost. I get that everyone seems to think we need this legit high end #1, but even if we had that whos to say we would have beat the ducks. Im sure the team would perform just fine with elliott and raanta as our goalies with raanta getting the majority of the starts. Obviously it helps to have a world class goalie we just saw that in the cup finals, but you can win with an average goalie, I would argue that corey crawford is a good example of that. By average goalie I just mean hes no carey price or henrik in his prime for example.

 

That's not a very good standard then for an "average" goalie. Crawford is one of the top 10 netminders in the league right now and has been for several seasons.

 

I thikn you are probably going to give up more assets for Raanta then you would MAF. MAF needs to be dealt and carries a cap hit/situation that few teams can take. Raanta doesn't and just about every team in the league could acquire him if they wanted to. I think he's probably going to cost more to be honest. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

Have to agree. I can't imagine the Flames have, or are prepapred to give up, the amount of assets it would take to get both MAF and Raanta.

 

 

That's not a very good standard then for an "average" goalie. Crawford is one of the top 10 netminders in the league right now and has been for several seasons.

 

I thikn you are probably going to give up more assets for Raanta then you would MAF. MAF needs to be dealt and carries a cap hit/situation that few teams can take. Raanta doesn't and just about every team in the league could acquire him if they wanted to. I think he's probably going to cost more to be honest. 

not impossible.. I think one way or the other our goalie(s) will come out of Vegas..     MAF has to go there pretty much as Pittsburgh has no other non Murray goalie to expose.. so a trade before comes difficult.

NYR trading Raanta pretty much means losing yet another player they'd rather keep.. hes the lowest of their concerns

 

a package deal of both from Vegas should be cheaper than 2 individual pre trades.. it could legitimately put our first in play if we go after a selected Dman at the same time

 

Its a dream, but BT could conceivably get our Goal and Defense done in 1 trade with Vegas ---  just as an example ,   Raanta, MAF, Vatanen .. for our next 2 1st rounders and Kulak  with still another player they select in the Expansion draft .... to a team like Vegas, that's gold

[MAC331]

Just now, cross16 said:

 

Have to agree. I can't imagine the Flames have, or are prepapred to give up, the amount of assets it would take to get both MAF and Raanta.

 

 

That's not a very good standard then for an "average" goalie. Crawford is one of the top 10 netminders in the league right now and has been for several seasons.

 

I thikn you are probably going to give up more assets for Raanta then you would MAF. MAF needs to be dealt and carries a cap hit/situation that few teams can take. Raanta doesn't and just about every team in the league could acquire him if they wanted to. I think he's probably going to cost more to be honest. 

Such as what to get Raanta ? more than what CBJ gave for Darling ?

[AlbertaBoy12]

Just now, cross16 said:

That's not a very good standard then for an "average" goalie. Crawford is one of the top 10 netminders in the league right now and has been for several seasons.

 

I thikn you are probably going to give up more assets for Raanta then you would MAF. MAF needs to be dealt and carries a cap hit/situation that few teams can take. Raanta doesn't and just about every team in the league could acquire him if they wanted to. I think he's probably going to cost more to be honest. 

I would disagree corey crawford was 21 in GAA tied with brian elliot among goalies with more then 30 games played both had a 2.55 GAA. Also he was 13th in save percentage at .918, and I would argue that around .915-.920 is the average for goalies, of course you could argue that he had a down year but his career high is .926, really it doesnt matter. I think there is the high end goalies like price, bobrovsky, dubnyk, maybe a couple other guys, then theres alot of middle of the pack guys and then the guys who arent really great. 

 

Either way its irrelevant where you rank them, my point being elliott and crawford had similar stats the big difference being crawford was consistent most of the season where elliott was not. If we can find a consistent goalie that gives us average stats, we will be just fine.

[Flyerfan52]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Have to agree. I can't imagine the Flames have, or are prepapred to give up, the amount of assets it would take to get both MAF and Raanta.

 

 

That's not a very good standard then for an "average" goalie. Crawford is one of the top 10 netminders in the league right now and has been for several seasons.

 

I thikn you are probably going to give up more assets for Raanta then you would MAF. MAF needs to be dealt and carries a cap hit/situation that few teams can take. Raanta doesn't and just about every team in the league could acquire him if they wanted to. I think he's probably going to cost more to be honest. 

Although Raanta is 1 year away from UFA he's a cheap test drive @ $1 million. But I've got a hunch the Rags will try to steer LV toward a more expense contract. How I don't know as their prospect pool is weak & they have no 2nd or 3rd this year. But you're right the ask from the Rags will be high.

I'm bigger on Grubauer (3 years younger & RFA so we'd be trading for rights only). The Caps have no picks in the 1st 3 rounds so ideally I'd like to offer picks but other than our 1st we're in the same boat. Carolina, NJ, TB & Detroit seem to be flush with 2nds & 3rds so maybe we could trade down for 2 picks & use 1 to acquire his rights.

[cross16]

15 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Such as what to get Raanta ? more than what CBJ gave for Darling ?

 

Much more. Darling was a pending UFA and Raanta has 1 more year under contract so his value is much higher. 

[cross16]

17 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

 

Either way its irrelevant where you rank them, my point being elliott and crawford had similar stats the big difference being crawford was consistent most of the season where elliott was not. If we can find a consistent goalie that gives us average stats, we will be just fine.

 

But that is not a small difference, its a huge one. Doing what Crawford does for 60 games is significantly more valuable that Elliott for his 40 games. 

I don't think you are giving enough credit to how difficult it is to find that consistent net minder, nor giving enough value to that level of consistency. Even in your example you said Crawford was only 13th in save % but then ignore that 3 goalies ahead of him were backups (Darling, Raanta, Nilsson). If you want to assume that those 3 could have done that over a full season then fine but I would suggest to you history shows its not that easy. 

 

If you have a goalie that can post better than average stats over 55 plus game you have a top 15 goalie in the NHL right there. Thus, why I say your definition of average is pretty unrealistic when you mention Crawford. 

 

[MAC331]

57 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Although Raanta is 1 year away from UFA he's a cheap test drive @ $1 million. But I've got a hunch the Rags will try to steer LV toward a more expense contract. How I don't know as their prospect pool is weak & they have no 2nd or 3rd this year. But you're right the ask from the Rags will be high.

I'm bigger on Grubauer (3 years younger & RFA so we'd be trading for rights only). The Caps have no picks in the 1st 3 rounds so ideally I'd like to offer picks but other than our 1st we're in the same boat. Carolina, NJ, TB & Detroit seem to be flush with 2nds & 3rds so maybe we could trade down for 2 picks & use 1 to acquire his rights.

We don't have much to work with which is starting to concern me. Maybe Mason as a UFA so BT has that 3rd from the Elliott deal helps. BT needs to get creative.

[phoenix66]

18 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

We don't have much to work with which is starting to concern me. Maybe Mason as a UFA so BT has that 3rd from the Elliott deal helps. BT needs to get creative.

if we have learned one thing from BT , its expect the unexpected ..  whatever unfolds, However it unfolds,  will be met with "how did he do that ".. and as always quite a few "why did he do that"..LOL

but the biggest takeaway from his last 2 years .. is he has it covered one way or the other (whether we agree with the result or not)

[cross16]

FWIW. Appears as of now Fleury was only willing to waive for Vegas. Could still be moved once Vegas selects him but in terms of the Flames the general consensus seems to be the Flames are likely on his No Trade list.