Who do you WANT the Flames Starting Goalie To Be Next Season [*NEW POLL 12·05·17]

[mrdonkey]

Seeing this list makes me sad. I don't want any of these guys but I guess if I had to pick it would be MAF. My instinct still tells me he doesn't want to play in Calgary and will end up in Vegas.

I pray Treliving has something up his sleeve here because I can't watch any more 'stop gap' goaltending flush season after season down the crapper. It's enough now.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I cannot vote!!! This really grinds my gears!!! Off to the other thread to say so.

[oldschoolcalgary]

out of curiosity, will guys like Grubauer, Rantaa or Pickard be exposed to the expansion draft or are they exempt...?

i ask because i wonder about the acquisition costs and measuring them versus re-signing Elliott for a 3rd draft pick for example...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah, says I've already voted even though only one vote has been cast so far.

Hmmm.

Sorry about that. I will see what I can do to fix it.

[alan21]

If the belief is there for Gillies and/or Parsons I see them just giving Smith and to a certain extent Miller a short term contract just to bridge the gap until they're ready.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Seeing this list makes me sad. I don't want any of these guys but I guess if I had to pick it would be MAF. My instinct still tells me he doesn't want to play in Calgary and will end up in Vegas...

It has already been reported that Calgary is among the 18 teams on Fleury's list to which he will accept a trade.

[Red Potato Standing By]

So if Pittsburgh buys out Fleury and protects Murray what goaltender would they expose?

[cross16]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So if Pittsburgh buys out Fleury and protects Murray what goaltender would they expose?

I was wondering this myself. Apologize if it has been mentioned but Pittsburgh has no other goalies other than Fleury/Murray that meet the exposure rules so if they are to trade MAF I believe they would need an eligible goalie in return unless i'm missing something?

May make it tougher on the Flames to make a deal. Sign and trade with Johnson may be an option if the Pens like him.

[Toonage]

NM - see below

[cross16]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I assume they protect Jarry, but sure any deal to move a goaltender would probably include a goalie prospect coming back

I don't believe Jarry is eligible.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by cross16

I don't believe Jarry is eligible.

My mistake, you are very correct.

[EVERLAST]

Price or Lundquist please.

Really don't know enough about some of the other names on the list and cannot understand why we can't move on from the obsession with Bishop.....he didn't want to play here.

I hope Tree shakes all the trees and looks under all the rocks as this glaring need for a starter is maddening.

[btimbit]

MAF.

But damn am I sour for missing out on Bishop. Should have offered the 3rd we would have lost to re-sign Elliott. Unless of course the rumours of him not wanting to come here are true. But damn that stings

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

0.916 / 2.32 GAA and 40 wins is not below average to bad, especially when coupled with 0.928 / 2.18 GAA and 13 wins in the playoffs.

Three straight above average to elite seasons.

It is when 18 other starting goaltenders (41+ games played) had a better SV%. Considering there are 30 starting goaltenders in the league, coming in 19th is not "above average."

Context matters if you're being objective. If you want to argue that season was "average" (19/30 in SV%, 13/30 in GAA) then feel free, but in no realistic way was that an above average season. A goaltender who puts up .916 is elite in a season where everyone else is putting up .915 or less. It's below average when the majority of starters put up higher numbers.

I'm not sure why you ignore context and the fact that Bishop only has two seasons of impressive hockey played so far. I would have liked to have him on the Flames too, but there's little evidence to suggest we just missed out on an Elite goalie. In fact, there is an equal amount of evidence that suggests Dallas just made a HUGE mistake. So either outcome seems about as likely as the other at this point.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is when 18 other starting goaltenders (41+ games played) had a better SV%. Considering there are 30 starting goaltenders in the league, coming in 19th is not "above average."

Context matters if you're being objective. If you want to argue that season was "average" (19/30 in SV%, 13/30 in GAA) then feel free, but in no realistic way was that an above average season. A goaltender who puts up .916 is elite in a season where everyone else is putting up .915 or less. It's below average when the majority of starters put up higher numbers.

I'm not sure why you ignore context and the fact that Bishop only has two seasons of impressive hockey played so far. I would have liked to have him on the Flames too, but there's little evidence to suggest we just missed out on an Elite goalie. In fact, there is an equal amount of evidence that suggests Dallas just made a HUGE mistake. So either outcome seems about as likely as the other at this point.

A 0.916 save % being 19th is very little to hang your hat on when the guy came in 4th with 40 wins and that 0.916 was sandwiched between two seasons of 0.920 + as well as the 13 playoff wins and a 0.921 in the playoffs that year where if the Bolts had won the Cup he would have won the Conn Smythe.

If THAT'S a "below average" season I take it on the Flames everyday and run for the hills. If we would have had a below average season like that from our goalies this year, we probably win the division and are still watching the Flames play playoff hockey.

[Textcritic]

REDIRECT TO THE NEW THREAD.

Please vote in the revised poll there.