Quote:
Originally Posted by Split98
Saros has a 1.51 / .946 in 8 GP this year and turned 21 in April
|
Coming off of two seasons playing in the top Swedish league and a full season in the AHL. He has shuttled back and forth between Milwaukee and Nashville this season.
Quote:
|
Murray has a 2.10 / .929 in 32 GP this year, turned 22 in May and won the Stanley Cup 1 month into 22
|
Murray was called up to play in Pittsburgh last year after two full professional seasons in the AHL.
Quote:
|
Vasilevskiy is 22, Bibeau is 22, Gibson is 23 and those are goalies I'm looking at playing right now. Every year there are examples of goalies considered 'young' who are given a shot.
|
You are not talking about a "young" goalie. You are talking about a 20-year-old rookie NHL goalie with virtually no professional experience. There is a world of difference between what every one of your cited examples have done in their respective careers and what you are hoping for Parsons to do next year.
It isn't happening.
Quote:
|
Parsons is 20 in September, so younger than those but I wouldn't be labeling the concept as ridiculous. Don't confuse this with me saying that Parsons should be seriously looked at as the #1 next year, but the conversation is on re-signing Elliott.
|
To each his own. The concept is ridiculous—certainly much more so than re-signing Brian Elliott, which is also something I do not expect will happen.
Quote:
|
With Johnson as a good option, we have Gillies, Rittich and Parsons as potential candidates to be the 1B to his 1A to start the season. We don't need Elliott.
|
I agree that the Flames do not appear to need Brian Elliott next season (at least not as of today). But I fundamentally disagree that it would be an advisable idea to enter next season with Chad Johnson and a rookie NHL goalie. That is an extremely irresponsible situation which would have me questioning the competence of Flames management.