Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryjohn87
Why is everyone on the Cory schenieder bandwagon?
|
Probably because his career numbers (over 300 games by now) are in the Lundqvist/Rask/Talbot/Price/Holtby category?
Is there a reason to think the Devils are interested in trading him though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy77
I just dont think Fleury will come here. It's unlikely he will accept a trade anywhere, why would he.
He can force the Pens to buy him out, take the buy out $ and become a UFA and go anywhere. I see him heading to Dallas in that scenario.
|
UFA or not, why wouldn't the Flames be an attractive destination for MAF or any other goalie for that matter? We're a young team that's made the playoffs twice in three years, our shots against was top 10 last season (5-on-5 shots against was in the top 5) and any goalie that could hold the net for a season would literally be the best goalie we've had since Kipper.
Personal opinion on what Treliving should do:
Don't give up a lot of assets. Goalies are never sure things, at least not ones that are available in a trade.
If you can get a young guy that's ready to challenge for a starting position (like Darling or Grubauer) without giving up a ton, you get them pretty much regardless of other considerations. If we get an extra shot of getting a young top level starter, we take it. If we end up with more than we need, that's a good problem to have, and in our situation it's absolutely worth the risk of losing some assets.
Beyond that, there's a lot of guys that I like. I agree that the lenght of MAF:s contract is excellent for us at this point, and his playoff numbers have actually been going up with experience, which goes with my impression that he's gotten past his playoff jitters. I wouldn't mind Bishop at all, and I think he might be available for a decent contract. I wouldn't pay too much for him, but I'd be okay with giving him some years. You can usually trade a goalie if you end up with a guy you don't need, as long as the cap hit isn't too much.
I wouldn't mind having Johnson back for another short and cheap contract, but I see him as a 3rd option after Gillies and pretty much any other guys we might be signing. Someone who'd come cheap enough that it's not a big issue if Gillies takes his spot, but good enough to be the backup.
I don't see why we'd bring back Elliott back over Johnson. They had pretty similar numbers over the season, both are streaky but Johnson is a bit younger, probably a bit cheaper and comes with less baggage.