Goaltending

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The chances of picking up a young player in trade that has a good track record is slim.

Missed out on Anderssen because ANA wouldn;t deal with us.

Missed out on Bishop, though I'm not even sure that is a top talent.

Missed out on Grubauer for lack of picks available.

Same for Raanta.

Not sure we had the pieces at the time to deal anyway.

 

slimmer than picking up Lucic?

[jjgallow]

 

18 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The chances of picking up a young player in trade that has a good track record is slim.

Missed out on Anderssen because ANA wouldn;t deal with us.

Missed out on Bishop, though I'm not even sure that is a top talent.

Missed out on Grubauer for lack of picks available.

Same for Raanta.

Not sure we had the pieces at the time to deal anyway.

 

 

 

So, really I don't see a solution without better development programs in place.

 

I mean, the players you listed above are all at peak value for what they are.    Skip pick slightly earlier in their career and they were absolutely affordable, at the cost of just a Little bit of development.

 

Who would that be now?    I think maybe those from the list below, while not household names and considerably cheaper, could look a lot like the list above in 1-2 years's time.

 

Mikhail Berdin

Adam Werner

Lukas Dostol  **

Veini Vehvilainen

Connor Ingram

Dylan Wells

 

So why don't we snag one of them?  IMHO the answer is that we are only ever interested in what is immediately in front of us (not even next season, but next game), which is why everything looks so "impossible".

 

But the truth is, maybe it really is a bad idea to acquire one or 2 of these guys, because we Really struggle with the development piece.  Which is one reason I was more hopeful with Ortio.  I thought he could sidestep that abroad.   And he did, until he got here.   

 

Ultimately we just need to improve our development imho, or pay the big bucks for someone our of your list, or find someone in this list who is actually ready to make a large jump.      Dostol might be one.  He's 19, Loaded with talent, and he's already playing at a level well above most of our projects.  If he continues to improve anywhere near this rate, then I don't think anyone could screw him up.    Plus he's overseas for one more year.   So a thought.

 

[travel_dude]

^^^^^

Every one of those listed are drafted by other teams.

Only two of them are belonging to East teams.

Is EDM about to deal us Wells?

I can't even see past his middling junior and pro results.

The others?  I don't have any faith in any of them being the next Vasilevskiy, so I don't even know if the risk is worth it.

 

What I don't get is why you feel that neither Parsons or Zagidulin (or Schneider for that matter) have an equal chance at being the next one.

Both are young.

Parsons has played big-time games.

Zagidulin has experience in the pro league.

[The_People1]

15 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

^^^^^

Every one of those listed are drafted by other teams.

Only two of them are belonging to East teams.

Is EDM about to deal us Wells?

I can't even see past his middling junior and pro results.

The others?  I don't have any faith in any of them being the next Vasilevskiy, so I don't even know if the risk is worth it.

 

What I don't get is why you feel that neither Parsons or Zagidulin (or Schneider for that matter) have an equal chance at being the next one.

Both are young.

Parsons has played big-time games.

Zagidulin has experience in the pro league.

 

I'm really interested to see how Zagidulin is.  I have no expectations because he's a "free" acquisition but his numbers in the KHL look good.  Maybe the KHL and other leagues is where we should go to get a goalie, not via the draft.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm really interested to see how Zagidulin is.  I have no expectations because he's a "free" acquisition but his numbers in the KHL look good.  Maybe the KHL and other leagues is where we should go to get a goalie, not via the draft.

 

I have more faith in a young KHL goalie like Zag, over a 31 year old Koskinen.

Not saying either is a great idea, but the pro experience might help.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

^^^^^

Every one of those listed are drafted by other teams.

 

Right, and, so were all the players in your list.  Were we not...talking about acquisition?  

 

That's not  a "free player" list.   And this is my point.   Just because the names look strange doesn't make my list that much different.

 

They are high, high-end elite talents.    Yeah we'd have to give up a bit for them.    But some of them have very bright futures in the not too distant future. 

 

It's just your list, before your list became overpriced basically.

 

Quote

Only two of them are belonging to East teams.

Is EDM about to deal us Wells?

I can't even see past his middling junior and pro results.

 

He did come last on that list for a reason, yeah.   But we have made crazier trades with Edmonton...

 

Quote

The others?  I don't have any faith in any of them being the next Vasilevskiy, so I don't even know if the risk is worth it.

 

The amazing and beautiful thing about buying low and selling high, is that it always appears to be the most risky despite being the most conservative form of asset management.  It is human nature to scrutinize the small investments at low prices because surely others would be buying if it was good.   And to assume the only good investments are the ones everyone else is buying for way too much.    It's the same here.    

 

And when these players become big names, we will say they are too expensive.    Because some of the players in your list were suggested when they were cheap, and people here felt it was too risky at that time.   

 

Quote

What I don't get is why you feel that neither Parsons or Zagidulin (or Schneider for that matter) have an equal chance at being the next one.

Both are young.

Parsons has played big-time games.

Zagidulin has experience in the pro league.

 

So again I'd refer to crowd mentallity of just following bigger names.    And I'd ask why you left out Schneider who is also young,and has better numbers.  That we got for free.   I guess it goes back to the nature or nurture thing.    The bottom line is, everyone in that list is a similar age to Parsons and doing dramatically better.

 

Lukas Dostol, as an example.   Blew parsons away in his World Junior year (which was last year for him).  Absolutely dominated in world juniors.  Parsons, on a much better team, far less so.    (I could point out similar in regular season but point to WJC because it matters to me how they perform under pressure).    But the biggest reason:  Is because Parsons is being developed in our system.   :/

 

Zagidulin: He's an outside shot.   He's very likely too old to transition.  He also declined last year.  acquiring players in decline has never worked out well for the Flames but BT seems to be a big fan of it lately.   If he's not rising in the KHL its amazing to me that we expect him to in the NHL.

   A lot of the others in my list are abroad, or knocking on the NHL door.   Mikhail Berdin, for instance.  Only difference between his stats and Binnington's is a Stanley Cup.

 

 

Without dumping on our prospects to much, I'd ask....what is the fear here? 

 

Is the worst case scenario that we'll have more than one good goalie prospect and not overpaid for them?

 

 

[travel_dude]

7 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Right, and, so were all the players in your list.  Were we not...talking about acquisition?  

 

That's not  a "free player" list.   And this is my point.   Just because the names look strange doesn't make my list that much different.

 

They are high, high-end elite talents.    Yeah we'd have to give up a bit for them.    But some of them have very bright futures in the not too distant future. 

 

It's just your list, before your list became overpriced basically.

 

 

He did come last on that list for a reason, yeah.   But we have made crazier trades with Edmonton...

 

 

The amazing and beautiful thing about buying low and selling high, is that it always appears to be the most risky despite being the most conservative form of asset management.  It is human nature to scrutinize the small investments at low prices because surely others would be buying if it was good.   And to assume the only good investments are the ones everyone else is buying for way too much.    It's the same here.    

 

And when these players become big names, we will say they are too expensive.    Because some of the players in your list were suggested when they were cheap, and people here felt it was too risky at that time.   

 

 

So again I'd refer to crowd mentallity of just following bigger names.    And I'd ask why you left out Schneider who is also young,and has better numbers.  That we got for free.   I guess it goes back to the nature or nurture thing.    The bottom line is, everyone in that list is a similar age to Parsons and doing dramatically better.

 

Lukas Dostol, as an example.   Blew parsons away in his World Junior year (which was last year for him).  Absolutely dominated in world juniors.  Parsons, on a much better team, far less so.    

 

But the biggest reason:  Is because Parsons is being developed in our system.   😕
   A lot of the others in my list are abroad, or knocking on the NHL door.   Mikhail Berdin, for instance.  Only difference between his stats and Binnington's is a Stanley Cup.

 

Without dumping on our prospects to much, I'd ask....what is the fear here? 

 

Is the worst case scenario that we'll have more than one good goalie prospect and not overpaid for them?

 

 

 

Misread your post.  Yes they were all available.

 

As far as adding in others to the ones we had eyes on?  We struggle to develop any of them with limited space.

Fine if they are still in Europe or junior, but after they make the jump, not so much.

One would think that Loob is keeping a watchful eye over there.

Might be neglecting the KHL, but seem to be in on other leagues.

Over here?

The Q is tough to project.

The WHL seems to be less scoring, so are the goalies any better?

 

As much as I can point the finger at development in the NHL, the AHL has been better for us.

But that's only with goalies already developed.

Could be interesting to see if a new coach in Stockton has any impact.

Parsons has inner demons he needs to get past, plus injury bug.

Schneider was never that good, but might be able to show something.

Gillies?  No idea what to think.  He was great when he first came into the AHL, but missing a season killed him.

 

What is the solution considering we have struck out so often?

Better drafting?

Longer development?

Better goalie coaches?

Look to Europe for young players unsigned?

 

The best goalies are going to go first these days, but even a 2nd rounder has risks.

Demko over MacDonald?

Obvious at the time, but also not determined if the future is set.

[jjgallow]

 

A good overall view, I agree on all those counts except maybe longer development.   I think if we figure out why they all go into decline when they come here, we might not need development quite as long lol.

 

Otherwise I hope to see improvements in all those areas, drafting, coaching, Europe.    It's a position that an organization should Always be strong in and I don't think we have since Vernon.    I say that because even with Kipper it was a one trick pony show.   I've never seen us take it seriously.   But unfortunately, dealing with the issue probably starts with core things that won't yield immediate results.  coaching, development, prospect signings, maybe a prospect trade or two.

 

What else can you do?   It is the only affordable way to address it.  and there is never a bad time to start.  There is always that group of top goalies looking to make NHL debuts.   Anything past that development stage gets really expensive.

[travel_dude]

12 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

A good overall view, I agree on all those counts except maybe longer development.   I think if we figure out why they all go into decline when they come here, we might not need development quite as long lol.

 

Otherwise I hope to see improvements in all those areas, drafting, coaching, Europe.    It's a position that an organization should Always be strong in and I don't think we have since Vernon.    I say that because even with Kipper it was a one trick pony show.   I've never seen us take it seriously.   But unfortunately, dealing with the issue probably starts with core things that won't yield immediate results.  coaching, development, prospect signings, maybe a prospect trade or two.

 

What else can you do?   It is the only affordable way to address it.  and there is never a bad time to start.  There is always that group of top goalies looking to make NHL debuts.   Anything past that development stage gets really expensive.

 

What seems to be the case in a lot of good goalies is they develop sooner than later.

Murray and Vasilevskiy both were young when they showed great promise.

The runway for the good ones is shorter, which is a trap most GM's fall into.

If he hasn't shown x by date y, then we are moving on.

 

[jjgallow]

46 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

What seems to be the case in a lot of good goalies is they develop sooner than later.

Murray and Vasilevskiy both were young when they showed great promise.

The runway for the good ones is shorter, which is a trap most GM's fall into.

If he hasn't shown x by date y, then we are moving on.

 

Entirely agree.

 

I think we got all a bit off track here because we all looked at the Kipper example.   Failing to recognize that Kipper is an anomaly on the far edges of the bell curve.  Such a strategy you described probably misses the next Kipper but catches the next Matt Murray or, well, Most other top goalies.   Kipper is an example of why Sometimes it's ok to take an outside chance on an older prospect.   But I think it should stop there.

[travel_dude]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Entirely agree.

 

I think we got a bit off track here because we all looked at the Kipper example.   Failing to recognize that Kipper is an anomaly on the far edges of the bell curve.  Such a strategy you described probably misses the next Kipper but catches the next Matt Murray or, well, Most other top goalies.   Kipper is an example of why Sometimes it's ok to take an outside chance on an older prospect.   But I think it should stop there.

 

I'll give Zag a year to see where he is.  Consider him to be an unsigned prospect prior to now.

Or a re-drafted player.

[jjgallow]

23 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'll give Zag a year to see where he is.  Consider him to be an unsigned prospect prior to now.

Or a re-drafted player.

 

Fair deal

[kehatch]

Top 5 goalies based on Vezina voting last season: 

 

1. Vasilevskiy: First round draft pick.  Back up 3 post draft season, starter 5 season.  It was for his drafting team. Great right away. 
2. Bishop: Mid-round draft pick.  8-years post draft until he was a starter, lots of up and down before that.  It wasn't for his drafting team. Struggle in his first 3 seasons in the NHL. 
3. Lehner: Second round draft pick. 7-years post draft until he was a starter.  It wasn't for his drafting team.  A lot of up and down before starting.  Good numbers, but took a lot of back-up time on different teams before getting a chance as a 1A.  
4. Fleury: First overall draft pick.  Played back-up immediately and starter three seasons post draft.  Struggled initially. Did play for his drafting team. 
5. Binnington: Mid-round draft pick.  Only 1 game played until his 7 post draft season.  Only played 32 games in his one and only season, but was exceptional in the playoffs. Plays for his drafting team.

We have goalies starting early. Goalies starting later.  Ones that were developed by their ultimate team, some that weren't.  Some that were strong out of the gates and others that struggled early. Some that came out of nowhere.  Some that were thought of as career back-ups. Things don't clear up after the top 5 as well.  

 

There is no trend.  There is no recipe.  There is no common thread or path to follow.  

[jjgallow]

Except the trend of us never being on that list since Kipper.

 

Or even anywhere close to it.

 

That's a trend.

 

 

So 4 to 5 out of 5 of those goalies were developed in-house.   Which is pretty much what you get when you look at Stanley cup winning goalies, which matters more, except the trend is even stronger.

 

4 to 5 out of 5 were identified as 1As by or before the age of 26. Same with Stanley cup winning goalies but even stronger.  Only exception I can think of is Tim Thomas.

 

Those are, quite honestly strikingly high correlations.   And again I think you get better data out of Stanley cup winners, but this aligns pretty well.

 

Probably one more trend, that I can't validate:    Pretty sure if you look at the teams responsible for developing those goalies, their organizations Do believe in trends, and recipes, and put resources into them.   And I think you'd find they produce a higher number of quality goalies in general.    Not seeing a lot of Voodoo here.

[Horsman1]

Goalies are certainly a funny lot.. But.. one consistent trend amongst all teams is that they all had a long term dependable back-up goalie to fall back on.. Back up goalie was never a star.. Just a goalie teams had enough confidence in that the rest of their team could play their game.. For Vernon.. We had Reggie lemelin.. never a star goalie.. but always a fan favorite so to see him in nets was not a Oh Crap!! Were' done for!!!.. Kipper completely changed the game here in Calgary.. When he first became a star.. There was a particular point to the season where he told the d men to clear the front of the freggin net so he could see the shots coming.. Can't stop what you can't see.. Our defence has played that way ever since and this is why we get frustrated watching our d-men skate like the wing instead of doing what we consider to be a proper job of defending in our zone

[JTech780]

This potentially could be a very good hire. Some good goalies have gone through the UNTDP.

[Horsman1]

14 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

This potentially could be a very good hire. Some good goalies have gone through the UNTDP.

well it's what we've all been asking for.. winning begins in the locker room and back stage.. All we see is the final results .. Having said that.. to be a champion.. you must be flexible and be willing to take risks.. Look at the Baltimore Orioles Ball Club.. This week .. they fired the entire scouting dep't.. If you think there weren't some personal friendships and family issues involved with that process.. you are mistaken.. But in order to move on.. they made the tough decision

 

[jjgallow]

16 hours ago, JTech780 said:

This potentially could be a very good hire. Some good goalies have gone through the UNTDP.

 

16 hours ago, Horsman1 said:

well it's what we've all been asking for.. winning begins in the locker room and back stage.. All we see is the final results .. Having said that.. to be a champion.. you must be flexible and be willing to take risks.. Look at the Baltimore Orioles Ball Club.. This week .. they fired the entire scouting dep't.. If you think there weren't some personal friendships and family issues involved with that process.. you are mistaken.. But in order to move on.. they made the tough decision

 

 

Been a while since I made a happy post in here!

 

Don't know much about him but the fact that they are making attempts to address this area is definitely encouraging

Looking forward to reading up on him

[robrob74]

https://www.tsn.ca/carriers-and-the-carried-unduly-affecting-their-teams-1.1357943

 

Quote

One of the first things we need to do is look at the distribution of how team performance is impacted by a given player on relative terms. For skaters, I like to consider how a player affects actual goals for and expected goals against. Why expected goals against? Because actual goals against is much more reliant on goaltender performance, which is generally outside of the control of the skater itself. (Alternatively: defensively, we should value the ways in which skaters can suppress both shot volume and the quality of those shots. Stopping the pucks is up to the goalie.)

 

 

This is where I disagree and have problems with advanced stats and people who use them for their use and argument. I just feel like yes, "alternatively: defensively, we should value the ways in which skaters can suppress both shot volume and the quality of those shots..."  but I feel like stopping the puck can't be placed solely on the goalies. I think that it is still very difficult to have analysis for quality of shots and those that are unstoppable for the goalies. Yes actually pucks are up to the goalies, but the whole team can be the reason for goals being scored. To put all of the blame on goalies for not stopping the puck is not fair. That's basically what he's saying here. 

 

I feel like we have tended to place blame on our goalies more than we should. Although, I feel like Smith did it to himself. I don't feel like Rittich was as terrible as his numbers suggest, although, he had some breakdowns at the end of games when games were out of hand.... 

[Horsman1]

16 hours ago, robrob74 said:

https://www.tsn.ca/carriers-and-the-carried-unduly-affecting-their-teams-1.1357943

 

 

 

This is where I disagree and have problems with advanced stats and people who use them for their use and argument. I just feel like yes, "alternatively: defensively, we should value the ways in which skaters can suppress both shot volume and the quality of those shots..."  but I feel like stopping the puck can't be placed solely on the goalies. I think that it is still very difficult to have analysis for quality of shots and those that are unstoppable for the goalies. Yes actually pucks are up to the goalies, but the whole team can be the reason for goals being scored. To put all of the blame on goalies for not stopping the puck is not fair. That's basically what he's saying here. 

 

I feel like we have tended to place blame on our goalies more than we should. Although, I feel like Smith did it to himself. I don't feel like Rittich was as terrible as his numbers suggest, although, he had some breakdowns at the end of games when games were out of hand.... 

Kipper changed the way this team plays defence.. He would yell his face off on the ice and rip into the d men in the dressing room for attempting to block shots.. He wanted to see the puck.. In his mind.. there wasn't a puck he couldn't stop if it wasn't deflected.. Since Kipper.. this team has put an undo amount of trust in the goalie ,, rather than playing a team defence 

 

[travel_dude]

8 minutes ago, Horsman1 said:

Kipper changed the way this team plays defence.. He would yell his face off on the ice and rip into the d men in the dressing room for attempting to block shots.. He wanted to see the puck.. In his mind.. there wasn't a puck he couldn't stop if it wasn't deflected.. Since Kipper.. this team has put an undo amount of trust in the goalie ,, rather than playing a team defence 

 

 

Well, I would say that the team relied on the goalies stopping the majority of low danger shots, which Smith was terrible at.

Keep the shots to the perimiter, let the goalies stop the lesser ones.

 

What I dd find was that there were a lot of 2nd and 3rd shots off the initial save.

Part of that is on the goalie for putting the puck back into the slot on that 1st save.

Yes, the tem needs to control the rebounds, but Rittich seemed to have better angles for popping those out.

 

One thing this team did that I was not a fan of was keeping the play gong instead of freezing it.

A lot of so-called great goalies do that; make the save and get the whistle.

You need to recognize who is on the ice and what is happening.

4th line out against the top line; freeze it and let your best D-zone people worry abut the next faceoff.

Fresh players out there, stop the puck and get it to your D to move out on transition.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, Horsman1 said:

Kipper changed the way this team plays defence.. He would yell his face off on the ice and rip into the d men in the dressing room for attempting to block shots.. He wanted to see the puck.. In his mind.. there wasn't a puck he couldn't stop if it wasn't deflected.. Since Kipper.. this team has put an undo amount of trust in the goalie ,, rather than playing a team defence 

 

 

It depends on the goalie I think. We had Kris Russell as a second goalie on the ice for a few seasons and it worked.  Other goalies just want D to play D, not block shots.  Prevent the shot in the first place.

[Horsman1]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Well, I would say that the team relied on the goalies stopping the majority of low danger shots, which Smith was terrible at.

Keep the shots to the perimiter, let the goalies stop the lesser ones.

 

What I dd find was that there were a lot of 2nd and 3rd shots off the initial save.

Part of that is on the goalie for putting the puck back into the slot on that 1st save.

Yes, the tem needs to control the rebounds, but Rittich seemed to have better angles for popping those out.

 

One thing this team did that I was not a fan of was keeping the play gong instead of freezing it.

A lot of so-called great goalies do that; make the save and get the whistle.

You need to recognize who is on the ice and what is happening.

4th line out against the top line; freeze it and let your best D-zone people worry abut the next faceoff.

Fresh players out there, stop the puck and get it to your D to move out on transition.

 

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

It depends on the goalie I think. We had Kris Russell as a second goalie on the ice for a few seasons and it worked.  Other goalies just want D to play D, not block shots.  Prevent the shot in the first place.

Smith was  real good at knocking down pucks that weren't actually on net.. However.. any shot above his knee on his glove side was a guaranteed goal.. I hope we don't forget this when we play him this year

[travel_dude]

53 minutes ago, Horsman1 said:

 

Smith was  real good at knocking down pucks that weren't actually on net.. However.. any shot above his knee on his glove side was a guaranteed goal.. I hope we don't forget this when we play him this year

 

Obviously, I wasn't talking about those.

Do those even count as shots?

Where I was annoyed was the shots on pads that bumped into the slot.

Or the flopping on the 1st shot and being out of position for the 2nd or 3rd shot.

The easy shots (not easy for me, but come on man) from the top of the circle went in too often.

For all the good he played in the playoff games, two game winners were shots from that distance.

They were probably glove side in both cases.

[Horsman1]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Obviously, I wasn't talking about those.

Do those even count as shots?

Where I was annoyed was the shots on pads that bumped into the slot.

Or the flopping on the 1st shot and being out of position for the 2nd or 3rd shot.

The easy shots (not easy for me, but come on man) from the top of the circle went in too often.

For all the good he played in the playoff games, two game winners were shots from that distance.

They were probably glove side in both cases.

yes they actually count as shots on net if they are played/touched by the goalie.. Smith can't see 10 feet in front of himself.. He should retire and become a referee