Goaltending

[Flyerfan52]

6 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

now this is one of the funniest ones I've seen yet ...

 

https://www.hockeyfeed.com/nhl-news/rumor-major-plot-twists-expected-in-the-marc-andre-fleury-s-case

 

If Calgary is supposedly on MAF's no trade list , I almost Guarantee that Philly is ..

It's not that far fetched. Although cross state rivals the list of players that played for both francises is long.

There are seldom direct trades (although those aren't unheard of) but even last TD Streit went from the Flyers to the Pengies via TB.

 

I personally don't want Fleury but the Flyers usually have Pittsburgh's # during the season & having MAF in net for those wins (especially in their own barn) would drive those pseudo fans nuts (a short drive btw ).

[cross16]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The other thing to consider is, what does LV expect to get from a MAF trade?  If it's a young D, then why don't they just draft Dumoulin and be done with it?

 

If LV expects more from the Flames, then do we want to pay that price?

 

Because with MAF waiving they likely won't get a shot at Doumalin. Pens likely go the 8-1 route and protect Crosby, Malkin, Kessell, Rust, Letange, Matta, Schultz and Doumalin. Means they lose someone like Hagelin, Cole or maybe Poliout if Vegas wants to take someone with a future but at the end of he day that's not really a big deal for the Pens. Easy loss to swallow. 

 

34 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Are you sure about this?  Have you read his contract?  What exactly is a limited NMC?

 

Technically speaking, what Fleury has is a limited NMC. All the full futures of the NMC except the modified condition that instead of the NMC covering all trades he needs to submit a list of 12 teams he Oks a move too. I know Capfriendly breaks it down differently but that's just to try and make it easier for people to understand. 

 

 

[phoenix66]

33 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Are you sure about this?  Have you read his contract?  What exactly is a limited NMC?

 

Yes..  again ..a Limited No Movement clause(sometimes referred to as a Modified No Movement Clause)  prevents the team from demoting or placing the player on Waivers

 

and its almost anywhere that reports Player Contract Details 

 

For starters...

Sportac:  http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/pittsburgh-penguins/marc-andre-fleury-2041/

Cap Friendly :  https://www.capfriendly.com/players/marc-andre-fleury1

 

for example if you look onCap Friendly , for the Penguins..https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/penguins/clause

 

you will see Malkin and Crosby with "NMC"

 this is a Full NMC.. that player is on the Penguins NHL roster as long as he wants to be during that contract . he cannot be demoted, waived, traded  etc.. without signing off to complete the deal, like I mentioned earlier, Just like Iggy had.. you can ask him for a list , but its not binding . its a courtesy.. he still has to waive the clause to complete the actual trade or transaction 

 

Then scroll down , you will see players like Letang, Kessel, Fleury..  they say "Modified NTC, NMC" 

These are players with Limited NMC--  they have pre-approved to be traded based on a list provided by them to certain teams.. typically provided on or around July 1, each year 

 

Great example right now,   Dion Phaneuf.. refused to waive his NMC to be exposed ,,   what is Ottawa reportedly doing ?  Trying to Trade him .

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1318996-report-phaneuf-drawing-trade-interest

 

oh look! , here is how they describe his contract .."The 32-year-old also has a modified no-movement clause, which allows him to provide a list of 12 teams to which he'll accept a trade."   Same scenario.. he didn't waive the NMC, but they can still trade him to one of those 12 teams

They don't even have to ask him for a new list.. but most teams will..

 

 

 

Even if you take Legal speak and the Big Words out of it..  just look at it from a logic / simple point of view ....

What would be the point of a NTC of any kind if the NMC prevented you from being traded without your permission ?    Kinda Redundant No? 

 

[Flyerfan52]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Not necessarily a bad thing. Read more than a few people who think Vegas wants Fleury to stay, not as trade bait. 

 

Vegas could be looking at a tandem of Fleury and Grubaeur for example. Veteran starters who gives them a chance to win every night plus a young guy in behind they can start giving starts too. Not to mention still take someone like Raanta for trade bait.

 

 

That's the part that worries me so I hope BT is proactive in trading for Grubauer's rights before Vegas gets a chance to select him. Grubauer is 25 so could become a starter very soon.

Raanta is 28 (1 year younger than Mason who has usually been a starter) & always a backup in NA (including in the AHL) so I wouldn't bank on him pulling a Tim Thomas.

 

I'm willing to give up good assets for Grubauer who could well be the starter for many years & tandem him with a more proven 1 like Mason as insurance while he transitions to the heavier work load.

With Raanta I have doubts he can make that jump so see the odds as more likely he fills the role of backup as usual. If we bank on him repeating the success of former Rags backup we should remember that Talbot was only 27 & had been on NHL sized ice all his life while having a 50/50 record in NHL playoffs. Raanta was good in the Finnish league with a high of 45 games but has never hit that # in a year even when that season was split between the NHL & AHL & never won in NHL playoffs. I wouldn't give much for 1 year of him as backups come pretty cheap.

[phoenix66]

43 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

It's not that far fetched. Although cross state rivals the list of players that played for both francises is long.

There are seldom direct trades (although those aren't unheard of) but even last TD Streit went from the Flyers to the Pengies via TB.

 

I personally don't want Fleury but the Flyers usually have Pittsburgh's # during the season & having MAF in net for those wins (especially in their own barn) would drive those pseudo fans nuts (a short drive btw ).

I get the ability , but you cant be heavily involved in a rivalry like that , and be open to playing there .. he could probably kiss any future recognition (jersey , awards etc) goodbye if he accepted that trade.. if hes really the Team Guy  we hear about , they are on his No Trade for sure , he'd likely rather play in LV

I still remember Penguin fans roasting Jagr for signing there ..Not sure MAF wants to poke that bear or not 

Did Streit have a NTC?.. probably wasnt his 1st choice..

[travel_dude]

12 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Even if you take Legal speak and the Big Words out of it..  just look at it from a logic / simple point of view ....

What would be the point of a NTC of any kind if the NMC prevented you from being traded without your permission ?    Kinda Redundant No? 

 

Too long to quote your whole text.

 

Limited NTC, NMC do not necessarily mean Limited NTC and Limited NMC.  As reported elsewhere, if Vegas selects MAF, then the NMC is back in place.  What does that mean?  Means he would have to waive again, does it not?  Separate issue, but if his NTC list was done last year, it would need to be updated this year, would it not?

 

BTW, if you choose to use Garrioch or Lawless as your source of truth, then you will have some people here that will dismiss their reports immediately.  If his post is true it's because he read Bobbie Mac or someone with some creds.

[Flyerfan52]

2 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I get the ability , but you cant be heavily involved in a rivalry like that , and be open to playing there .. he could probably kiss any future recognition (jersey , awards etc) goodbye if he accepted that trade.. if hes really the Team Guy  we hear about , they are on his No Trade for sure , he'd likely rather play in LV

I still remember Penguin fans roasting Jagr for signing there ..Not sure MAF wants to poke that bear or not 

Did Streit have a NTC?.. probably wasnt his 1st choice..

After being bought out due to the new CBA John LeClair signed with the Pengies which surprised many. The Bruins & Leafs were after him so were seen as most likely.  It always seemed he hated them but so it goes.

LOL @ Pengie fans since they thought  Jagr signing with them was a foregone conclussion. They overlooked that his leaving wasn't under great circumstances since he was part of the purge when the decision was made to tank for years to draft a surrounding cast & then Crosby. Of course few of those "life long" fans followed the Pens during their years of deliberate tanking.

 

Streit didn't have a NTC but nobody figued he'd ever have need due to his age.

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

Too long to quote your whole text.

 

Limited NTC, NMC do not necessarily mean Limited NTC and Limited NMC.  As reported elsewhere, if Vegas selects MAF, then the NMC is back in place.  What does that mean?  Means he would have to waive again, does it not?  Separate issue, but if his NTC list was done last year, it would need to be updated this year, would it not?

 

 

I'm Curious, you're just messing with me right ?  cuz you cant possibly be this easy to confuse ...

 

yes it would be back in place ..  he would have to waive it again 

 

EXCEPT TO BE TRADED TO ANY TEAM ALLOWED BY HIS  PREDETERMINED  LIST THAT HE GAVE THEM.

 

and yes, it will need to be updated again ... On July 1

 

[phoenix66]

6 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

After being bought out due to the new CBA John LeClair signed with the Pengies which surprised many. The Bruins & Leafs were after him so were seen as most likely.  It always seemed he hated them but so it goes.

LOL @ Pengie fans since they thought  Jagr signing with them was a foregone conclussion. They overlooked that his leaving wasn't under great circumstances since he was part of the purge when the decision was made to tank for years to draft a surrounding cast & then Crosby. Of course few of those "life long" fans followed the Pens during their years of deliberate tanking.

 

Streit didn't have a NTC but nobody figued he'd ever have need due to his age.

True, I remember that . I still recall Kevin Lowe, almost signed with Calgary before he signed back in Edmonton.. I recall him saying he was here , ready to go sign and have the press conference , and said he just couldn't do it.. got back on the plane and went to Edmonton .

 

As much as I cant stand the guy in any way shape or form , I remember actually respecting him for that .

Kent Nilsson didnt have a choice, he got traded there ..

 

I will say tho, should it happen that Iggy signs with Edmonton next year ?  First thing Flames should do is retire Hakan Loob;s number  

[The_People1]

13 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

True, I remember that . I still recall Kevin Lowe, almost signed with Calgary before he signed back in Edmonton.. I recall him saying he was here , ready to go sign and have the press conference , and said he just couldn't do it.. got back on the plane and went to Edmonton .

 

As much as I cant stand the guy in any way shape or form , I remember actually respecting him for that .

Kent Nilsson didnt have a choice, he got traded there ..

 

I will say tho, should it happen that Iggy signs with Edmonton next year ?  First thing Flames should do is retire Hakan Loob;s number  

 

When we signed Todd Bertuzzi... 

[phoenix66]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

When we signed Todd Bertuzzi... 

close but not quite the same.. yes VAN/CGY had some bad blood, but it wasn't the pure hatred BOA was . Its been said the only 2 close  has been Yankees / Red Sox ..and Flyers- Penguins 

 

tho i do give MTL / QUE a goo shout out there too

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

When we signed Todd Bertuzzi... 

yup

[Thebrewcrew]

They had Kevin Woodley of Ingoal Magazine on the Fan today, he had some good points. He said the most important factor in deciding which goalie to go after is the relationship between the weaknesses of the goalie and the system you play. He brought up Eddie Lack, he said when Lack was with VAN they weren't a very solid defensively and were usually outplayed, however Lack excels on shots from within his defensive zone, hence why his numbers in VAN were solid. When he went to Carolina though under Bill Peters system they are much better defensively and Lack faces fewer shots from within his own zone. Woodley said with CAR Lack faces more shots off the rush than he did with VAN and lateral movement is a weakness of his, which explains the disparity in stats from his time with VAN and now with CAR. Some interesting points to consider when discussing goalies IMO

 

 

[phoenix66]

1 hour ago, Thebrewcrew said:

They had Kevin Woodley of Ingoal Magazine on the Fan today, he had some good points. He said the most important factor in deciding which goalie to go after is the relationship between the weaknesses of the goalie and the system you play. He brought up Eddie Lack, he said when Lack was with VAN they weren't a very solid defensively and were usually outplayed, however Lack excels on shots from within his defensive zone, hence why his numbers in VAN were solid. When he went to Carolina though under Bill Peters system they are much better defensively and Lack faces fewer shots from within his own zone. Woodley said with CAR Lack faces more shots off the rush than he did with VAN and lateral movement is a weakness of his, which explains the disparity in stats from his time with VAN and now with CAR. Some interesting points to consider when discussing goalies IMO

 

 

I heard that too!  made total sense, Ive been saying that since Day one, but certain people keep saying matching the goalie style of play to the team is silly and that we should improve the D and it wont matter  

 

but yes, its very true.. and its good to finally hear someone who knows what they are talking about discussing it .

[The_People1]

11 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

They had Kevin Woodley of Ingoal Magazine on the Fan today, he had some good points. He said the most important factor in deciding which goalie to go after is the relationship between the weaknesses of the goalie and the system you play. He brought up Eddie Lack, he said when Lack was with VAN they weren't a very solid defensively and were usually outplayed, however Lack excels on shots from within his defensive zone, hence why his numbers in VAN were solid. When he went to Carolina though under Bill Peters system they are much better defensively and Lack faces fewer shots from within his own zone. Woodley said with CAR Lack faces more shots off the rush than he did with VAN and lateral movement is a weakness of his, which explains the disparity in stats from his time with VAN and now with CAR. Some interesting points to consider when discussing goalies IMO

 

 

 

Totals.  This is an overlooked aspect of finding a good fit but it also extends beyond goaltending.

 

Some forwards are better with linemates who play East/West, some excel off the rush, others off the cycle etc. Some D are better man on man and others read zone D better.

[Cowtownguy]

11 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

They had Kevin Woodley of Ingoal Magazine on the Fan today, he had some good points. He said the most important factor in deciding which goalie to go after is the relationship between the weaknesses of the goalie and the system you play. He brought up Eddie Lack, he said when Lack was with VAN they weren't a very solid defensively and were usually outplayed, however Lack excels on shots from within his defensive zone, hence why his numbers in VAN were solid. When he went to Carolina though under Bill Peters system they are much better defensively and Lack faces fewer shots from within his own zone. Woodley said with CAR Lack faces more shots off the rush than he did with VAN and lateral movement is a weakness of his, which explains the disparity in stats from his time with VAN and now with CAR. Some interesting points to consider when discussing goalies IMO

 

 

I agree that some goalies are a better fit for a team than others. You can only take this so far though. A goalie can only cover for a weak defence so much. One can also look at personality etc.

[cross16]

 

More and more it looks like MAF won't be an option for the Flames. So baring a name being out there we are not hearing about I think the Flames are left with a group of goalies that basically are all very similar. Sure you can argue Mason over Elliott, or Grubauer's age over Mason/Elliott, or Howard etc but it's all an argument. There really is no clear cut favorite or number 1 option out there, IMO at least.

 

I think Flames would be wise to just pick the ones that comes with the lowest acquisition cost. I know people will hate that statement but with the options out there I'm not seeing the value in giving up top 60 picks, Gilles or prospects for the likes of Grubauer/Raanta etc. Get Mason if you can (Free) or look at spending the 3rd rounder and keeping Elliott, unless Treliving has an ace up his sleeve I'm preparing to not be wow'd by who is in net come October. 

[The_People1]

17 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

More and more it looks like MAF won't be an option for the Flames. So baring a name being out there we are not hearing about I think the Flames are left with a group of goalies that basically are all very similar. Sure you can argue Mason over Elliott, or Grubauer's age over Mason/Elliott, or Howard etc but it's all an argument. There really is no clear cut favorite or nubmer 1 option out there, IMO at least.

 

I think Flames would be wise to just pick the ones that comes with the lowest acquisition cost. I know peole will hate that statement but with the options out there I'm not seeing the value in giving up top 60 picks, Gilles or prospects for the likes of Grubauer/Raanta etc. Get Mason if you can (Free) or look at spending the 3rd rounder and keeping Elliott, unless Treliving has an ace up his sleeve I'm preparing to not be wow'd by who is in net come October. 

 

Thats too bad with MAF.  He would've been the perfect stop gap for Gillies/Parsons.  

 

[MAC331]

50 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

More and more it looks like MAF won't be an option for the Flames. So baring a name being out there we are not hearing about I think the Flames are left with a group of goalies that basically are all very similar. Sure you can argue Mason over Elliott, or Grubauer's age over Mason/Elliott, or Howard etc but it's all an argument. There really is no clear cut favorite or number 1 option out there, IMO at least.

 

I think Flames would be wise to just pick the ones that comes with the lowest acquisition cost. I know people will hate that statement but with the options out there I'm not seeing the value in giving up top 60 picks, Gilles or prospects for the likes of Grubauer/Raanta etc. Get Mason if you can (Free) or look at spending the 3rd rounder and keeping Elliott, unless Treliving has an ace up his sleeve I'm preparing to not be wow'd by who is in net come October. 

Listening to BT the net is wide open for considerations. We just have to wait until this expansion draft is done.

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Listening to BT the net is wide open for considerations. We just have to wait until this expansion draft is done.

 

That's the problem.  It's wide open.  Nobody standing in front of it.

[Carty]

10 hours ago, travel_dude said:

That's the problem.  It's wide open.  Nobody standing in front of it.

 

I sure hope that Treliving works a deal for an upgrade in the next 3 1\2 hours before the freeze...    The Flames have a unique advantage of being able to protect a goalie if they trade for one...    There are only a few good choices left since Bishop and Darling are out of the picture, and there are a few other teams also looking for a goalie...   I just don't see the cost being any less after the expansion draft when other teams are also going to be able to bid on the best goaltenders...

[MAC331]

11 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

I sure hope that Treliving works a deal for an upgrade in the next 3 1\2 hours before the freeze...    The Flames have a unique advantage of being able to protect a goalie if they trade for one...    There are only a few good choices left since Bishop and Darling are out of the picture, and there are a few other teams also looking for a goalie...   I just don't see the cost being any less after the expansion draft when other teams are also going to be able to bid on the best goaltenders...

This is interesting only because the same goalies may be available now or after the expansion draft. It is sounding like MAF is a given to end up in LV so they could take one more goalie or 4 depending on their game plan. The other side of this (our side) is that we do not have much to work with unless dipping into next year's draft picks. Whether we are dealing with LV or some other team for a goalie the cost to the Flames could be the same. Listening to BT it doesn't sound like any team wants to deal just because we have these openings to use.

[Carty]

12 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Whether we are dealing with LV or some other team for a goalie the cost to the Flames could be the same. Listening to BT it doesn't sound like any team wants to deal just because we have these openings to use.

 

Of course other teams are not going to simply accommodate the Flames by trading a goalie just because the Flames have a need for one and a unique opportunity to protect them for the draft...   Dealing a goalie before the draft would still have to benefit the team that was trading the goalie...   But as far as cost goes, I just can't see the deals getting better after the draft when other teams that need a goalie are then also able to bid and drive the cost even higher...   Market value will go up, not down...   Supply and demand, economics 101...

[MAC331]

9 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

Of course other teams are not going to simply accommodate the Flames by trading a goalie just because the Flames have a need for one and a unique opportunity to protect them for the draft...   Dealing a goalie before the draft would still have to benefit the team that was trading the goalie...   But as far as cost goes, I just can't see the deals getting better after the draft when other teams that need a goalie are then also able to bid and drive the cost even higher...   Market value will go up, not down...   Supply and demand, economics 101...

I don't need an economics lesson to know a few goalies will be gone from the market. Maybe they were ones the Flames had interest in maybe they won't be. We will have to see how this effects the costs, I'm not convinced every target price changes.

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, Carty said:

 

Of course other teams are not going to simply accommodate the Flames by trading a goalie just because the Flames have a need for one and a unique opportunity to protect them for the draft...   Dealing a goalie before the draft would still have to benefit the team that was trading the goalie...   But as far as cost goes, I just can't see the deals getting better after the draft when other teams that need a goalie are then also able to bid and drive the cost even higher...   Market value will go up, not down...   Supply and demand, economics 101...

 

Haven't heard if Detroit was protecting Howard or Mrazek.  Howard has a M-NTC so I think he is automatically selectable by Vegas if not protected.  Not sure what Vegas would benefit by trading Mrazek.  If they protect Mrazek, then they lose a good player, not Howard.  If they protect Howard and don't trade him, they lose Mrazek.  If they protect Howard and trade Mrazek, they still lose a good player.