Goaltending

[LouCifer]

On 10/7/2023 at 4:22 AM, conundrumed said:

So. All 5 Flames collapsing on the puck carrier. Wide open dman at the middle of the point, wide open forward in front of the net...I have no idea wtf they were doing, but it sounds like that pathetic little display gets 5 passes.

Does why they scored just not matter at all?

I don't have a problem when a goalie let's in a weak shot. Freeze the play just before the puck goes to the point for the shot. What in the dying F kind of defence is that? All 5 Flames players. WTF are at least 3 of them doing there? And top players to boot. Look at those guys just wiiiiide open in front of Markstrom and at the point.

Now that is scary.

The forwards, the best ones, were awful defensively for goals 1 and 3. The 2nd goal, Oesterle is stuck in no man's land because Hughes just waltzes through the forwards,

If you can't score, can you at least pick your defensive games up?

Pardon me @conundrumed. I should have prefaced my rant with my lament for our D zone play as well. Of course, I was well aware of our defensive issues on that goal. The simple difference between a lot of teams with similar defensive zone “misplays” is a goalie that can give them a chance to bounceback by making a “routine” save. That shot was far from dangerous, and 6’5” Jacob Markstrom shouldn’t have had any issue seeing that puck from the point with his entire team out of the play and a lone player in front of him. I am not even a part time driver of the “it’s the goalie’s fault” bandwagon. The position is difficult, carries a lot of pressure, and there will be weak ones that get through. But when the “weaker” ones get through with more consistency, it definitely gets in the heads of the entire team. We know we’re not the only ones noticing this pattern/trend… and I’m miffed it’s picked up where it’s left off in no time. 

[LouCifer]

On 10/7/2023 at 12:22 AM, Heartbreaker said:

 

I don't think you have a choice, m'man. I mean, unless you choose to watch a different team. I can't see another team wanting to take on the rest of the contract, and besides, he has a no-move clause. For better or worse, he's the Flames #1 for the foreseeable future.

 

Love.

Ya I know. I’m not going to watch another team. Marky does have his NMC so I can’t see him waiving for WPG. WPG was an easy target because of their situation with Helly being UFA at the end of this season and not wanting to re-sign with them. The idea was that WPG gets a few more years to sort out their goalie situation with Marky in nets; we get out of Markstrom’s contract, can keep Vladar, open the door for Wolfie earlier, and if we’re having a piss poor season we can flip Helly somewhere else for assets because he won’t re-sign with us either anyway. Ideally, send Marky to WPG and ship Helly to Chicago for more of a return if he’ll re-sign there. 
 

Ah, who am I kidding? You’re right. Won’t happen.

 

Ditto. 
 

[cross16]

Neither Markstrom nor the flames d coverage was good in the preseason. I saw at least 3-4 goals against in Markstrom that he should own and save but agree there are a lot of problems in front of him right now. I think d play and goalies are going to be a work in progress for the first month before we get a read on how this he gonna go. If we are being fair though, no flames goalie was good in the preseason. So while I can understand the anxious level being higher with Markstrom, no one really showed their ready either. 
 

I agree he isn’t tradable but with only 2 more years left after this, and with Wolf there, you've got some options. I don’t think we should be writing down Markstrom as the flames number one if he doesn’t bounce back this year 

[The_People1]

Markstrom is going to be 0.905% mix in about 5 Vezina-level games to make us think he's still got it in him.  

 

I don't get what he's done to make anyone believe he will be anything more this season.

[robrob74]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Markstrom is going to be 0.905% mix in about 5 Vezina-level games to make us think he's still got it in him.  

 

I don't get what he's done to make anyone believe he will be anything more this season.

Isn't he going to need to be more over .910 on the season to be vezina level?  I thought closer to a .920 average?

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

Isn't he going to need to be more over .910 on the season to be vezina level?  I thought closer to a .920 average?

 

I mean 5-games worth of Vezina-level performance.  Sorry didn't mean to hype him up that much lol

[LouCifer]

Color me surprised. Helly and Sheif re-up in wpg. I’m happy for the peg that this wasn’t another exodus from Canada story. 

[travel_dude]

16 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Markstrom is going to be 0.905% mix in about 5 Vezina-level games to make us think he's still got it in him.  

 

I don't get what he's done to make anyone believe he will be anything more this season.

 

I look at what Markstrom does.  He comes off a poor season with a career season.  Then he has a poor one.  Pre-season tells me he looked bad, but it means nothing.  The first 10 games is much more telling.  Anything worse than 4 losses will be a bad sign.  .905 in those 10 games means nothing if the losses mount up.

 

I'm a gonna take a wait and see approach.  I don't have the same confidence that Maloney and Edwards have.   Happy is they are right.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

15 hours ago, LouCifer said:

Color me surprised. Helly and Sheif re-up in wpg. I’m happy for the peg that this wasn’t another exodus from Canada story. 

Theres alot of Jet faithful just as surprised. Considering the word was they didnt want to re sign is making people around here think this is more to facilitate a move(s) before TDL.

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

22 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I look at what Markstrom does.  He comes off a poor season with a career season.  Then he has a poor one.  Pre-season tells me he looked bad, but it means nothing.  The first 10 games is much more telling.  Anything worse than 4 losses will be a bad sign.  .905 in those 10 games means nothing if the losses mount up.

 

I'm a gonna take a wait and see approach.  I don't have the same confidence that Maloney and Edwards have.   Happy is they are right.

How they lose would be more telling I think.  +4 losses where Marky did his part but has no support would be easier to swallow than a bunch of "shoulda stopped those" losses.  Considering the D are going from one on one to a  zone coverage, I'm not putting alot behind the results of the first dozen or so games.

[sak22]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I look at what Markstrom does.  He comes off a poor season with a career season.  Then he has a poor one.  Pre-season tells me he looked bad, but it means nothing.  The first 10 games is much more telling.  Anything worse than 4 losses will be a bad sign.  .905 in those 10 games means nothing if the losses mount up.

 

I'm a gonna take a wait and see approach.  I don't have the same confidence that Maloney and Edwards have.   Happy is they are right.

I don't know what they've said showing confidence.  I know there was really only one option which was a buyout and I think the buyout option makes more sense financial sense next year.  There were no options to trade him, and that's not Maloney or Edwards its 31 other GM's either don't need goaltending or don't want to acquire a 6 million dollar one.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

I don't know what they've said showing confidence.  I know there was really only one option which was a buyout and I think the buyout option makes more sense financial sense next year.  There were no options to trade him, and that's not Maloney or Edwards its 31 other GM's either don't need goaltending or don't want to acquire a 6 million dollar one.

 

Just referring to their comments after BT left.  Maybe just smoke being blown, since there wasn't really any other option.

[jjgallow]

I think there is either some misunderstanding as to what no trade clauses are.

 

The clause merely means the team has to ask for the player's permission.    Given the Flames current circumstance this borderlines on irrelevant.

 

To trade Markstrom imho is possible but yes is highly unlikely.   Not really because of the clause but because of the salary.  Money talks.

 

It would involve either a buyout, or a trade for another bad salary.   

 

It would also probably involve a hot streak on Markstrom's part, for the other parry to be interested.   This is highly probable. 

 

It would involve the Flames seeing past the hot streak.   This is highly unlikely imho.

 

 

If the Flames chose to spend some money to get themselves building faster,  they could probably trade Markstrom for prospects or picks.   But it would not be an enviable return and would probably either be expensive in terms of buyout or taking on another problem.  Maybe a worse one.

 

There is no clear case here right now.   But possibly could work in a package deal?    Still holding out for that 5 player trade with Toronto.

 

The biggest reason I don't see this happening is that Markstrom would need a string of 10 good games to interest buyers.   Statistically this is likely,  but the Flames would have to see this as chance and not a potential cup run.   It is highly unlikely that they would capitalize on it.

 

[travel_dude]

5 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

I think there is either some misunderstanding as to what no trade clauses are or more likely some people are choosing to ignore what they are out of some sense of duty towards prioritizing Fandom over facts.

 

The clause merely means the team has to ask for the player's permission.    Given the Flames current circumstance this borderlines on irrelevant.

 

Any day that I am clarifying contracts is a dark day indeed.  This is not my thing.   But pretty straightforward here.

 

To trade Markstrom imho is possible but yes is highly unlikely.   Not really because of the clause but because of the salary.  Money talks.

 

It would involve either a buyout, or a trade for another bad salary.   

 

It would also probably involve a hot streak on Markstrom's part, for the other parry to be interested.   This is highly probable. 

 

It would involve the Flames seeing past the hot streak.   This is highly unlikely imho.

 

 

If the Flames chose to spend some money to get themselves building faster,  they could probably trade Markstrom for prospects or picks.   But it would not be an enviable return and would probably either be expensive in terms of buyout or taking on another problem.  Maybe a worse one.

 

There is no clear case here right now.   But possibly could work in a package deal?    Still holding out for that 5 player trade with Toronto.

 

The biggest reason I don't see this happening is that Markstrom would need a string of 10 good games to interest buyers.   Statistically this is likely,  but the Flames would have to see this as chance and not a potential cup run.   It is highly unlikely that they would capitalize on it.

 

 

The issue today with Markstrom (since he hasn't played a game yet) is the cap hit on this year's cap.  It prevented us from overpaying in FA for a F or D.  The roster spot complicated it by not giving us a spot to sign a top goalie in FA if there was one available TO US.

 

Trading Markstrom is always an option, but we went through the dark days of having no real starter and then having Smith.  Doing so means we have Vladar and Wolf as the only option.  Neither has played more than 30 games in a season.  We might be fine or a lotto team.  I was in favor of trading Vladar earlyu on, since it would at least leave us with a starter.  Trading Markstrom sets us back.

 

If he is as bad a trade option, why do we do it?  Lose assets to make the trade.  The cap left means we can make more trades to improve the roster, but we have little left other than picks.  So we hold out a year, possibly suck, and sign a UFA next summer.  Same issues with overpaying.

 

Trading Markstrom this season is scorched earth, but only useful if we burn the barn and kill the horses.  

[jjgallow]

22 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The issue today with Markstrom (since he hasn't played a game yet) is the cap hit on this year's cap.  It prevented us from overpaying in FA for a F or D.  The roster spot complicated it by not giving us a spot to sign a top goalie in FA if there was one available TO US.

 

Trading Markstrom is always an option, but we went through the dark days of having no real starter and then having Smith.  Doing so means we have Vladar and Wolf as the only option.  Neither has played more than 30 games in a season.  We might be fine or a lotto team.  I was in favor of trading Vladar earlyu on, since it would at least leave us with a starter.  Trading Markstrom sets us back.

 

If he is as bad a trade option, why do we do it?  Lose assets to make the trade.  The cap left means we can make more trades to improve the roster, but we have little left other than picks.  So we hold out a year, possibly suck, and sign a UFA next summer.  Same issues with overpaying.

 

Trading Markstrom this season is scorched earth, but only useful if we burn the barn and kill the horses.  

 

 

For me, scorched earth was Gaudreau and Tkachuk.  And..Toffoli.

 

I don't disagree with trading them,  even if I might disagree with the return on the first two. 

 

I just don't know that there is much left to scorch.

 

I'm not saying we need to trade Markstrom.   Really I think we are past that mattering much.  But I do think the Flames need to solidify their goalie prospect pipeline.   I'm  not talking a about selling everyone for picks because I don't know there's that much left to sell.    I am talking about getting another Wolf though...2 of then feels right...and making sure the coaching ans development systems are there for them.

[cross16]

44 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

I think there is either some misunderstanding as to what no trade clauses are.

 

The clause merely means the team has to ask for the player's permission.    Given the Flames current circumstance this borderlines on irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Well and that the player can say no. To a trade or to specific teams.

 

that's a very relevant piece for a guy who just started a family and really complicates a trade because he isn't likely going to say yes to many places (even if there were interested suitors which I would suspect there would not be many of).

 

The most important piece is the salary but the NMC is a big hurdle as well unless Markstrom really wants to leave, which he's given zero indication he wants to. 

[travel_dude]

51 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

For me, scorched earth was Gaudreau and Tkachuk.  And..Toffoli.

 

I don't disagree with trading them,  even if I might disagree with the return on the first two. 

 

I just don't know that there is much left to scorch.

 

I'm not saying we need to trade Markstrom.   Really I think we are past that mattering much.  But I do think the Flames need to solidify their goalie prospect pipeline.   I'm  not talking a about selling everyone for picks because I don't know there's that much left to sell.    I am talking about getting another Wolf though...2 of then feels right...and making sure the coaching ans development systems are there for them.

 

What does a successful goalie pipeline look like?

You can't just draft guys and have them report to a Flames AHL camp and possibly play in the ECHL.

You can look at undrafted players elsewhere and give them an opportunity to make $70k in the AHL, assuming they meet the requirements to play there.  You can sign unsigned NCAA grads that choose not to sign with their drafting team or undrafted NCAA players coming out with no jobs.  

 

We can carry 4 goalies outside the NHL, and up to 3 in the NHL.

We have the two NHL goalies, Wolf, Dansk, Murphy and Radomsky in the immediate pipeline plus Sergeyev and Yegorov playing in their respective leagues.  

 

It would have been ideal had we burned picks to get Cossa or Wallstedt or Askarov.  No chance on Askarov without cost to trade up.  One of the other two would have cost Coronato.  None have yet to show the trajectory of Wolf.  Daws is starting to look good.  You could argue that we wasted some later picks.  Agains, have to fit them in the system.  We can't yet graduate Wolf, so it's backing up.  

[jjgallow]

30 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

What does a successful goalie pipeline look like?

You can't just draft guys and have them report to a Flames AHL camp and possibly play in the ECHL.

You can look at undrafted players elsewhere and give them an opportunity to make $70k in the AHL, assuming they meet the requirements to play there.  You can sign unsigned NCAA grads that choose not to sign with their drafting team or undrafted NCAA players coming out with no jobs.  

 

We can carry 4 goalies outside the NHL, and up to 3 in the NHL.

We have the two NHL goalies, Wolf, Dansk, Murphy and Radomsky in the immediate pipeline plus Sergeyev and Yegorov playing in their respective leagues.  

 

It would have been ideal had we burned picks to get Cossa or Wallstedt or Askarov.  No chance on Askarov without cost to trade up.  One of the other two would have cost Coronato.  None have yet to show the trajectory of Wolf.  Daws is starting to look good.  You could argue that we wasted some later picks.  Agains, have to fit them in the system.  We can't yet graduate Wolf, so it's backing up.  

 

I'm starting to think that what a successful goalie pipeline looks like actually means a review of the scouting and the coaching and the training for that position.

 

Before we even seriously look at prospects.

 

If you make the assumption of building out from the net and that goalies take the longest to develop, this is the one position where we could "speed up" the rebuild by acquiring another Wolf.  Preferably at a similar age,  because if we need to go through the draft we are looking at like 6 years before we even have decent goaltending.

 

So...this is the one position worth being a buyer.  For the right age and ceiling.     And we would be well advised to skip some of the development phase given our history.

 

But before any of that I think the scouting and coaching and training should be reviewed. 

[travel_dude]

Just now, jjgallow said:

 

I'm starting to think that what a successful goalie pipeline looks like actually means a review of the scouting and the coaching and the training for that position.

 

Before we even seriously look at prospects.

 

If you make the assumption of building out from the net and that goalies take the longest to develop, this is the one position where we could "speed up" the rebuild by acquiring another Wolf.  Preferably at a similar age,  because if we need to go through the draft we are looking at like 6 years before we even have decent goaltending.

 

So...this is the one position worth being a buyer.  For the right age and ceiling.     And we would be well advised to skip some of the development phase given our history.

 

But before any of that I think the scouting and coaching and training should be reviewed. 

 

Wolf is a success story in AHL development, so I don't know if we have to review that end.

NHL coaching is undetermined.  Don't know how much impact they are having.

A good season from both goalies followed by a bad season.

 

As far as goalie prospects, trading for another Wolf is problematic.  Might get Askarov if the team wants to giove up on him.  Why do teams really want to trade prospects?  Usually only happens when they undervalue them and may want to include in a NHL trade.  NJ isn't trading Daws.  Levy isn't for sale.  Most likely you end up making a play for a goalie that has to go through waivers.  If they pass through, then the owner won't just trade them.  That is the goalie that doesn't need much development.

 

I'm just saying that Wolf's aren't growing on trees that are ripe for picking.  It costs to make trades.  Prospect for prospect doesn't happen much now.  Teams have longer leashes on their own.  

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't just that the pipeline for all positions has to be kept in mind.  For every Saros there are 5 Mason MacDonald's in the queue.  

[jjgallow]

23 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Wolf is a success story in AHL development, so I don't know if we have to review that end.

NHL coaching is undetermined.  Don't know how much impact they are having.

A good season from both goalies followed by a bad season.

 

As far as goalie prospects, trading for another Wolf is problematic.  Might get Askarov if the team wants to giove up on him.  Why do teams really want to trade prospects?  Usually only happens when they undervalue them and may want to include in a NHL trade.  NJ isn't trading Daws.  Levy isn't for sale.  Most likely you end up making a play for a goalie that has to go through waivers.  If they pass through, then the owner won't just trade them.  That is the goalie that doesn't need much development.

 

I'm just saying that Wolf's aren't growing on trees that are ripe for picking.  It costs to make trades.  Prospect for prospect doesn't happen much now.  Teams have longer leashes on their own.  

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't just that the pipeline for all positions has to be kept in mind.  For every Saros there are 5 Mason MacDonald's in the queue.  

 

It's not easy but you only need the one move.

 

Askarov, would do that 100% if they are crazy enough to.

 

Wolf and Askarov....that's huge.

 

Wolf had a good year last uear but none of the other prospects did, he struggled in playoffs and didn't translate in preseason.    And any good coaches he had are gone now.  So...would still review ahl imho

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

It's not easy but you only need the one move.

 

Askarov, would do that 100% if they are crazy enough to.

 

Wolf and Askarov....that's huge.

 

Wolf had a good year last uear but none of the other prospects did, he struggled in playoffs and didn't translate in preseason.    And any good coaches he had are gone now.  So...would still review ahl imho

 

I won't pretend to say the current goalie coach is any good or not.

Former goalie, current co-owner of a goalie consulting firm.

 

I can't see NAS trading him, they have little else signed.  

He's a project for them and likely comes up as Saros gets older.

Long term that is.

They have a backup the same age as Saros and he was decent last season.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I won't pretend to say the current goalie coach is any good or not.

Former goalie, current co-owner of a goalie consulting firm.

 

I can't see NAS trading him, they have little else signed.  

He's a project for them and likely comes up as Saros gets older.

Long term that is.

They have a backup the same age as Saros and he was decent last season.

 

The other way to go is just start signing some FAs around this age and bring them over to the AHL ASAP.

 

I never understand how the contracts work, I'm assuming would be easier in the offseason.

 

But in goaltending there are Always guys who are not really being given a chance if one wants to have a look.

 

Here's a quick random name who would stack up extremely well to any goalie prospect we have outside of Wolf, unsigned by any NHL team

 

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/292689/samuel-hlavaj

 

Generally speaking, to find these guys one does have to either look off of the continent, or look at guys 6'0 or under.  In this example I went with the former since we already have one of the latter.

 

We got some extra contacts.  Get some reliable scouting on them (back to my earlier point), sign 2-3.  See what happens. 

 

I'd be happy with that.   But it needs to be a bit more than just fill-ins in the AHL while we wait for one of the draft picks to claim it.

 

[bosn111]

JJ, your assessment is accurate. There are definitely issues that could be overcome but are difficult. I believe it would be easier/cheaper to move Markstrom than it was to move Monahan. At worst, Markstrom is a below average starter (see last season) or an experienced but expensive backup, but in a good season he could challenge for best goalie (not sure how likely this is now but glass half full I guess) while Monahan was an extreme injury risk whose stats and role had completely tanked over the previous couple of seasons.

 

TD makes a good point about experience in net and games played, but… Kipper. There are many who believe that Wolf could be the next Kipper, even if Kipper had been 3rd string goalie with multiple AHL years at the time of acquisition, thus a little more seasoned.

 

None of the 3 goalies really shone in pre-season. Wolf didn’t steal the spot from either Markstrom or Vladar, so here we are. 
 

I think a Markstrom trade really depends on Lindholm as the two are very close. Lindholm walking or being traded likely makes Markstrom more willing to waive his clause for another team. Lindholm re-signs and that becomes more difficult.

 

There was a buyout comment made as an option for Markstrom, but that would make little sense. Had it been done this year, would have only saved 2 million on the cap due to actual salary for the next 2 years, then just over 2 mil in cap savings for the final year, followed by a nearly 4 million cap hit for nothing and then 2 more years of over 1 million cap used for nothing. After this season would be a little better, 4 years to pay out 2 years of work, first 2 years costing nearly 4 mil and last 2 over a mil per season. Small cap savings over last 2 contract years, but then 2 extra years of buyout. Just not very useful for what gets tied up. Final season buyout makes sense with over 4 mil in cap savings with only 1 year of cap penalties. Whole reason the contract was created that way.

Not sure the right thing to do, but we may be dealing with another 2 years of pain unless Markstrom can bounce back before anything else happens. (Trade deadline next season likely best opportunity for trade due to upcoming buyout scenario/ real money being paid out.)

Just something I was thinking about.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

The other way to go is just start signing some FAs around this age and bring them over to the AHL ASAP.

 

I never understand how the contracts work, I'm assuming would be easier in the offseason.

 

But in goaltending there are Always guys who are not really being given a chance if one wants to have a look.

 

Here's a quick random name who would stack up extremely well to any goalie prospect we have outside of Wolf, unsigned by any NHL team

 

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/292689/samuel-hlavaj

 

Generally speaking, to find these guys one does have to either look off of the continent, or look at guys 6'0 or under.  In this example I went with the former since we already have one of the latter.

 

We got some extra contacts.  Get some reliable scouting on them (back to my earlier point), sign 2-3.  See what happens. 

 

I'd be happy with that.   But it needs to be a bit more than just fill-ins in the AHL while we wait for one of the draft picks to claim it.

 

 

I don't pretend to scout goalies anywhere in the world.  I would imaging that we have scouts watching guys and keeping track of eligible players.  We did do that before, right?  Since we haven't done it, there is likely a reason for it that isn't easy to see by looking at Elite Prosects.  Is he signed to 24/25?  Is he just another Euro that has no intention of moving to NA and get a smallish paycheck?  Canada not exactly being the cheapest place to move to out of the blue.  My point is that it's hard to just sign guys because you want them.  There has to be a track to real money.  Has to be something you can offer that no other team offers.

[jjgallow]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't pretend to scout goalies anywhere in the world.  I would imaging that we have scouts watching guys and keeping track of eligible players.  We did do that before, right?  Since we haven't done it, there is likely a reason for it that isn't easy to see by looking at Elite Prosects.  Is he signed to 24/25?  Is he just another Euro that has no intention of moving to NA and get a smallish paycheck?  Canada not exactly being the cheapest place to move to out of the blue.  My point is that it's hard to just sign guys because you want them.  There has to be a track to real money.  Has to be something you can offer that no other team offers.

 

He might not be interested.    It's true.  And it's true we had to offer nhl contracts to the likes of Ramo to get them over.

 

I guess that goes back to havjg the scouting capacity to make those big decisions.   And I don't think we have it.

 

But also, I really do believe there is a huge pool of talent that never gets a chance.   Basically all talent 6 feet and under.   As well as guys from less scouted regions.   My guess is this guy went to the world cup for a reason and would love a shot.   I might be wring.

 

I guess where I am going with this is that there is some opportunity out there for teams willing to make the investment and the talent pool is ...impressive.