Goaltending

[Thebrewcrew]

Geez, Friedman tweeted Mrazek left unprotected by Detroit. 

[AlbertaBoy12]

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

It's Christmas morning and we got the 7 year old Honda instead of the new Audi we wanted. Plus mom and dad arguably paid a little too much. Disappointing, but it will get us to work safely in the morning. 

 

The Flames couldn't go back to Elliott. He was the single biggest reason we played catch up all year. He was also the single biggest reason we were out in four. Fair or not, those are the facts. The GM had to make a change. 

 

The Flames couldn't go with a gamble. We are at the point in our build where we can't afford a gamble in net. 

 

I was hoping the Flames would have went with a better temporary fix, or even better a long term fix, but we have seen many of those options disappear and who knows what is actually available and at what cost. 

 

Smith is fine. He is a decent number one and a clear upgrade in net. He gives us a year or two to get a kid in net or find something else. A second and a okay prospect without a contract isn't the moon (even if it is a bit much). 

 

I am meh on the deal. But at the end of the day it is better then biking to work. At the very least he is a solid option for next season. 

Holy crap you live to post another day.

[AlbertaBoy12]

3 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Geez, Friedman tweeted Mrazek left unprotected by Detroit. 

They did expose him yeah, but I guess the price of a trade might have been too rich for the flames which is totally fair in my opinion. The lists can be found here.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-reveals-protection-lists-ahead-of-expansion-draft-1.782246

[phoenix66]

2 hours ago, kehatch said:

It's Christmas morning and we got the 7 year old Honda instead of the new Audi we wanted. Plus mom and dad arguably paid a little too much. Disappointing, but it will get us to work safely in the morning. 

 

LOL.. I love this  

 

 

Now we can focus on the #2 spot

Like I mentioned earlier, BT was very cut and clear that we've moved on from Elliot, if it wasn't obvious already

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/treliving-thanked-brian-without-dont-get-playoffs/

 

In terms of Johnson , he was more cryptic..to me anyway , he's leaving the door wide open with Johnson to be back 

Check out starting at about 4:45

 

My assumption is he's going to kick the tires with Vegas , and if its not realistic, we'll likely have a Smith / Johnson Tandem next year .. with some good opportunity to get the kids some games as well

 

 

Lists are now out :

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-reveals-protection-lists-ahead-of-expansion-draft-1.782246

 

 

Lots of quality names that can be looked at by Vegas , a number of which could be a conversation with LV to make a deal to pick and trade , so BT's job is definitely not done.

Barring any side deals (like Korpisalo) these are just some names we could target to funnel through LV for our backup next year, including the obvious ones :

Nilsson 
Ullmark
Lack
Pickard
Korpisalo
Mrazek
Coreau
Brossoit
Montoya
Raanta
Neuvirth
Dell
Budaj
Copley
Grubauer
Reimer
McElhinney
Hutton
Condon
Kincaid

[rickross]

3 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Seriously I'm at a loss why there is so much angst over this trade.  Calgary has what looks like two potential franchise-level goalie prospects, plus another older one that played the best of the three last year.  Rittich is probably ready to move up this year, and the other two next year or the year after.  Smith has been a very solid goalie for one of the worst teams in the league for the past several years, has a great record against our tough division, and an even better record in the playoffs, plus he's proven he can carry the starter load and thrive.  The Flames haven't had anyone as good for years.  Smith also is a terrific puck handler which should benefit our attack and if he can pass on some of that skill to the youngsters, bonus.

 

As for the price Johnson is UFA so he doesn't even count except as an x-draft number.  So it really is Hickey and (hopefully, likely) a 2nd for Smith on a reduced contract.  How much is that extra $1mm plus worth?  Something, we will see in the coming months after the dust clears.  As for Hickey, I like him, but to be honest he's fallen behind Andersson, Killington, Falkovsky(?), Fox and perhaps others.  Since I don't see Giordano, Hamilton or Brodie going anywhere anytime soon, and Hickey choosing to go back for his senior year rather than battle for an opening this year, there is a very high likelihood he'd go UFA next summer and we'd lose him for nothing since we get no compensatory pick because he wasn't a first rounder.  If that is the case, then it's REALLY a reduced-price Smith for a 2018 2nd rounder that won't be ready for 2-3 years beyond that.

 

Guys, our window is opening NOW, this is a tremendous trade for the Flames, a steal even considering all factors.  It fits our team, it fits our timing, it fits our up-and-coming goalies.  Get ready for a great year.

I agree, we've seen a ton of Mike Smith over the years so we should know what to expect from him moving forward. I much rather we trade for a player we're familiar with and has a proven track record of consistency then for an unproven and questionable commodity like Raanta, Darling or Grubauer. Once the smoke settles it will be easier to digest the fact that Smith is one of the top options in a dwindling goalie market. 

 

I dont recall Hickey being at the very top of our defensive prospects, he's gone from a standout to more of a depth prospect over the last couple of years. The fact the Flames decide whether it's a 2018 or 2019 pick does give BT some time to recoup the pick down the line. The 25% salary retention on Smiths salary should help us sign/extend another asset as well. By no means do I think the Coyotes fleeced us on this one.

[MAC331]

34 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

LOL.. I love this  

 

 

Now we can focus on the #2 spot

Like I mentioned earlier, BT was very cut and clear that we've moved on from Elliot, if it wasn't obvious already

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/treliving-thanked-brian-without-dont-get-playoffs/

 

In terms of Johnson , he was more cryptic..to me anyway , he's leaving the door wide open with Johnson to be back 

Check out starting at about 4:45

 

My assumption is he's going to kick the tires with Vegas , and if its not realistic, we'll likely have a Smith / Johnson Tandem next year .. with some good opportunity to get the kids some games as well

 

 

Lists are now out :

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-reveals-protection-lists-ahead-of-expansion-draft-1.782246

 

 

Lots of quality names that can be looked at by Vegas , a number of which could be a conversation with LV to make a deal to pick and trade , so BT's job is definitely not done.

Barring any side deals (like Korpisalo) these are just some names we could target to funnel through LV for our backup next year, including the obvious ones :

Nilsson 
Ullmark
Lack
Pickard
Korpisalo
Mrazek
Coreau
Brossoit
Montoya
Raanta
Neuvirth
Dell
Budaj
Copley
Grubauer
Reimer
McElhinney
Hutton
Condon
Kincaid

I don't know that even with the Smith signing BT shouldn't move to add a challenger to both Smith and our prospects. We are only talking 2 years for Smith and those go fast. I hope some of the names that have been discussed on here over the past few weeks are still being considered.

[phoenix66]

13 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I don't know that even with the Smith signing BT shouldn't move to add a challenger to both Smith and our prospects. We are only talking 2 years for Smith and those go fast. I hope some of the names that have been discussed on here over the past few weeks are still being considered.

yep.. on this list, I'd be all over Ullmark, Raanta and Grubauer  as my top 3.. I'd say Mrazek but his contract is a little hefty for a backup .

Pretty sure Raanta and Grubauer borth have to clear waivers so makes them more likely to have to be moved by LV

[JTech780]

The fact that Mrazek was left unprotected definitely raises some ebrows, both in the fact that is this a guy we should have traded for and the fact that I don't think Detroit would have left a young goalie available if there wasn't serious question marks around him.

[MAC331]

Just now, JTech780 said:

The fact that Mrazek was left unprotected definitely raises some ebrows, both in the fact that is this a guy we should have traded for and the fact that I don't think Detroit would have left a young goalie available if there wasn't serious question marks around him.

I'm not sure that is the case at all. DET has cap issues and are stuck with Howard so why not lessen the load by 4M. If I am LV I am selecting Mrazek, no question.

[travel_dude]

5 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

The fact that Mrazek was left unprotected definitely raises some ebrows, both in the fact that is this a guy we should have traded for and the fact that I don't think Detroit would have left a young goalie available if there wasn't serious question marks around him.

 

There were some rumblings about his work ethic and maturity.  He was given the keys and left a few dents.

 

He makes sense to draft, but what do you do with him if you are Vegas?  Backup to MAF?  Forget MAF and go with him?  Trade him to a team needing a starter?  There's not many teams that need one now.    

[phoenix66]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

There were some rumblings about his work ethic and maturity.  He was given the keys and left a few dents.

 

He makes sense to draft, but what do you do with him if you are Vegas?  Backup to MAF?  Forget MAF and go with him?  Trade him to a team needing a starter?  There's not many teams that need one now.    

Id keep him.. somebody is gonna want one eventually . he's a good example of one who didn't quite make the leap from backup to starter with conviction . Id back him up to MAf and raise his stock back up. Worst case he's RFA next year , easy TDL flip for good return 

Raanta and Grubauer will both likely fetch a 1st immediately .

[MAC331]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

Id keep him.. somebody is gonna want one eventually . he's a good example of one who didn't quite make the leap from backup to starter with conviction . Id back him up to MAf and raise his stock back up. Worst case he's RFA next year , easy TDL flip for good return 

Raanta and Grubauer will both likely fetch a 1st immediately .

You think Raanta ad Grubauer will fetch 1st round picks really ? I don't think so.

[phoenix66]

Just now, MAC331 said:

You think Raanta ad Grubauer will fetch 1st round picks really ? I don't think so.

Totally .. I actually fully expect NYR to pony up the 1st to not have Raanta selected 

If we can swing a deal to get either of those guys, I expect our #16 to be gone 

I would have put Korpisalo on that list too if it wasnt already out there CBJ has paid a 1st to not have him (and a couple others ) taken

[cross16]

I don't think it makes sense for the Flames to deal assets to get a backup. Plenty of UFA options and they've spent a bunch of assets already on goaltending it doesn't make sense to spend more. They've got future assets to develop and they've got a starter, no sense in getting more. They are not an asset rich enough organization to deal away so much future. 

 

Mrzaek is a bit of a a head scratcher but I agree it makes you wonder. I still like Mrazek but I wasnt prepared to pay a bunch for him as it's  hard to ignore how bad he was last year. I wonder if it's just a case of the league not sure of what they have. 

[travel_dude]

5 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Totally .. I actually fully expect NYR to pony up the 1st to not have Raanta selected 

If we can swing a deal to get either of those guys, I expect our #16 to be gone 

I would have put Korpisalo on that list too if it wasnt already out there CBJ has paid a 1st to not have him (and a couple others ) taken

 

Vegas can draft all the goalies they want, minimum 3.  Think the max they could get would be another 4.  What the heck do they do with them?

That many and the trade market is watered down.  Can realistically only keep 2 on the roster.  

Let's say they ended up with MAF, Mrazek, Grubauer, Raanta, Domingue, Coreau.  I'm not even counting the lesser names that are good prospects.

Who is going to pay a high asking price?  WPG?  PHI?  Flames?  

[cross16]

With MAF all but guaranteed to Vegas I wonder if Holland is taking a calculated risk that McPhee won't want to pay over 10 million in net and that trade interest in Mrzaek was so soft that he won't get much for him so he just avoids him altogether. 

 

Afterall you are basically rolling the dice on mrzaek for 1 year at 4 million. If he doesn't bounce back you wouldn't qualify him and then you risk losing him as a UFA so I don't think teams were prepared to pay anything close to what Detroit wanted. 

[phoenix66]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

Vegas can draft all the goalies they want, minimum 3.  Think the max they could get would be another 4.  What the heck do they do with them?

That many and the trade market is watered down.  Can realistically only keep 2 on the roster.  

Let's say they ended up with MAF, Mrazek, Grubauer, Raanta, Domingue, Coreau.  I'm not even counting the lesser names that are good prospects.

Who is going to pay a high asking price?  WPG?  PHI?  Flames?  

once the whole draft is over and protection is no longer an issue , it becomes way bigger .

first , some wont require waivers and will go to the farm (like a Coreau for example)

 

Start with the teams that lost goalies..notably NYR , WSH and PITT. all are going to need backups

Followed by CGY, WPG, PHI, PHO

EDM and TOR are both in the market for solid backups.. likely VAN as well

 

The big losers in all this are going to be the UFA's July 1, as LV will corner the market on futures 

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Seriously I'm at a loss why there is so much angst over this trade.   

 

Same.  After all is said and done, the Flame could have Smith as starter and Johnson as backup and sign Hickey next summer as UFA.  What are the Coyotes really left with at that point?

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

once the whole draft is over and protection is no longer an issue , it becomes way bigger .

first , some wont require waivers and will go to the farm (like a Coreau for example)

 

Start with the teams that lost goalies..notably NYR , WSH and PITT. all are going to need backups

Followed by CGY, WPG, PHI, PHO

EDM and TOR are both in the market for solid backups.. likely VAN as well

 

The big losers in all this are going to be the UFA's July 1, as LV will corner the market on futures 

 

Very few goalie are waiver exempt.  Vegas may not choose more than one if they are available.  

The teams that lost goalies aren't going to turn around and trade with Vegas for a goalie.  They could have done that initially.

Nobody is going to trade for Mrazek to be a backup.  They are also not going to break the bank if they have internal options.  Worse case they sign a guy like Elliott or Mason.

 

The big loser is the team that gets stuck with more than 3 waiver eligible goalies come October.

[Flyerfan52]

26 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Very few goalie are waiver exempt.  Vegas may not choose more than one if they are available.  

The teams that lost goalies aren't going to turn around and trade with Vegas for a goalie.  They could have done that initially.

Nobody is going to trade for Mrazek to be a backup.  They are also not going to break the bank if they have internal options.  Worse case they sign a guy like Elliott or Mason.

 

The big loser is the team that gets stuck with more than 3 waiver eligible goalies come October.

McPhee has probably guaged the interest in various goalies now & has an idea of the return. For instance, Jets & Flyers both protected a guy they see as part of the future but will need someone to at least tandem (or possibly start ahead of him) with him for a few years. If that happens to be a young 1 like Grubauer Wpg. & Philly both have the assets to make it happen & both probably have a 2nd choice if the 1st is kept or they are out bid.

So LV could very well take 5 goalies, trade 2 of Gruabauer, Raanta or Mrazek & use the other as a backup. The 5th will be easy enough to trade somewhere as @ least some of the teams that lost their b/u won't have 1 ready to go & Arizona no longer even has a starter. (Flyers might even opt for 2 or add 1& bring Mason back as Stolarz is still a bit raw. That's true even if Neuvirth isn't selected as he could be flipped to a team wanting a reasonably priced b/u if it improves the net situation. He'd be a ood acquisition for the Flames as insurance behind Smith actually. )

[Thebrewcrew]

Been doing some thinking about the backup goalie situation. I know BT is hesitant to do this but it might be the best idea, let Rittich and Gillies battle it out in training camp for the backup spot. Johnson would be nice to have back but I'm not sure he will sign a one year deal. I know Smith has an injury history and a 1B may be what BT wants, but IMO Gillies and Rittich need to prove what they can be at the NHL level. If both guys and Parsons play in the minors the next 2 years, and they sign Johnson to a 2 year deal this summer, what is BT gonna do when Smith and Johnson become UFA in 2 years.? You'll be right back to not having a proven NHL goalie. However, if say Rittich backs up Smith the next 2 years and gets 20-30 games each year, then I feel a whole lot better about the situation because then Rittich becomes something like this years Grubauer/Raanta as a young potential starter. I guess I'm ok with a proven NHL backup but on a one year deal only, I just think a 2 year deal doesn't send a good message to the kids. End of my rant lol.

[phoenix66]

15 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Been doing some thinking about the backup goalie situation. I know BT is hesitant to do this but it might be the best idea, let Rittich and Gillies battle it out in training camp for the backup spot. Johnson would be nice to have back but I'm not sure he will sign a one year deal. I know Smith has an injury history and a 1B may be what BT wants, but IMO Gillies and Rittich need to prove what they can be at the NHL level. If both guys and Parsons play in the minors the next 2 years, and they sign Johnson to a 2 year deal this summer, what is BT gonna do when Smith and Johnson become UFA in 2 years.? You'll be right back to not having a proven NHL goalie. However, if say Rittich backs up Smith the next 2 years and gets 20-30 games each year, then I feel a whole lot better about the situation because then Rittich becomes something like this years Grubauer/Raanta as a young potential starter. I guess I'm ok with a proven NHL backup but on a one year deal only, I just think a 2 year deal doesn't send a good message to the kids. End of my rant lol.

It's a tricky slope at this point.. while I agree you don't want to hold your kids back, both Rittich and Gillies have just one year of pro experience .. I think BT is right to assume both will run in Stockton next year , with Parsons getting his feet wet in the ECHL. That being said if one comes in and lights it up in Camp ?  anything is possible .

 

In terms of "just coming back to Johnson"  may be easier said than done based on this article. he's pretty clear he wants his own crease , if he doesn't find it, well then we are probably his best option(if in fact he is even our own best option ) .. but I can see him getting that shot in Arizona however .

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/another-chapter-yet-to-be-written-for-former-flame-chad-johnson

[MAC331]

16 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Been doing some thinking about the backup goalie situation. I know BT is hesitant to do this but it might be the best idea, let Rittich and Gillies battle it out in training camp for the backup spot. Johnson would be nice to have back but I'm not sure he will sign a one year deal. I know Smith has an injury history and a 1B may be what BT wants, but IMO Gillies and Rittich need to prove what they can be at the NHL level. If both guys and Parsons play in the minors the next 2 years, and they sign Johnson to a 2 year deal this summer, what is BT gonna do when Smith and Johnson become UFA in 2 years.? You'll be right back to not having a proven NHL goalie. However, if say Rittich backs up Smith the next 2 years and gets 20-30 games each year, then I feel a whole lot better about the situation because then Rittich becomes something like this years Grubauer/Raanta as a young potential starter. I guess I'm ok with a proven NHL backup but on a one year deal only, I just think a 2 year deal doesn't send a good message to the kids. End of my rant lol.

BT has said a few times that it would best for Rittich ad Gilles to remain in Stockton another year so I expect either another challenger or a 1 year back up goalie.

[jjgallow]

12 hours ago, jaybooitt19 said:

I would love it if this site gave me the ability to ignore certain posters. If I never had to read another one of your posts I would be a happy man. 

 

Try closing your eyes?

 

Also, the site does allow this.   In the simplest way I could possibly imagine.   If you can't figure that out, my posts are sure to annoy you.  Get someone to help you with the feature for sure.

[Flyerfan52]

BTW, does anyone else remember that Mike Smith's best years were behind a Phoenix team that made Ilya Bryzgalov look great?

 

Sorry. I'm just disappointed this is the best BT could do.