[Trade] Canes acquire Scott Darling from Blackhawks for a 2017 3rd

[Ryan Coke]

I definitely don't blame Treliving for his goaltender choice last year. But the idea that you want to quit screwing around and do everything you can to minimize the odds of goaltending messing up your season is true, and I'm sure Treliving feels that way too.

Figure out who the best bet in net is, then pay what you need to and make it happen.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I definitely don't blame Treliving for his goaltender choice last year. But the idea that you want to quit screwing around and do everything you can to minimize the odds of goaltending messing up your season is true, and I'm sure Treliving feels that way too.

Figure out who the best bet in net is, then pay what you need to and make it happen.

Yep, I bet that's exactly where Treliving's head is at and his goaltending choice this offseason will reflect that. For better or worse, we're getting a proven number one who consistently plays 60 or more games a year.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Nah.

Brian Elliot stat line 5 years previous:

Starts - 164
Wins - 104
Loss - 46
GAA - 2.01 (2.55 with Flames)
SV% - 0.925 (0.910 with Flames)

Chad Johnson stat line 3 years previous:

Starts - 80
Wins - 47
Loss - 28
GAA - 2.43 (2.59 with Flames)
SV% - 0.915 (0.910 with Flames)

He goes out and snags two guys with sparkling recent numbers for a 2nd round pick and $4.2 million of cap space when the team was in a total cap crunch because of contracts he didn't even sign (Wideman, Smid, Stajan). It was wizardry at it's finest.

If they under performed that's on the players, not Treliving.

He didn't go out and get a couple scrubs and hope they would perform. He went out and got top performers.

...and not only that, despite their drop in numbers, the Flames still made huge improvements in most areas, including a 17 point standings gain and a playoff spot, so I wouldn't characterize what happened this season as Tre "screwing up the goaltending", nor should anyone.

He got two guys with good stats for a good price. He still had to hope one could carry the load as a starter, where neither previously had been so.
Calculated risk, but still a risk.
if rumors are true, he could had bishop.
So he went for the low acquisition cost option and hoped for the best.

Considering how the season ended, i'd say his risk failed. Imaging what could have been if he made a different choice.

[jayswin]

Agreed with GordonBlue, the stats are what they are, but the reality is making the jump from tandem/back up with great stats to 60+ game starter with good stats is not a sure thing and certainly a risk on the part of the GM.

That's what Elliot was, and you could argue that's what Talbot was and I'd agree and say their risk worked out, ours didn't. That's why Brad now needs to go the 60+ game, proven starter route, even if it costs a bit.

Another year with a "well, he had great stats and all signs showed he should have been great as a starter" low to medium cost acquisition and we're starting to seriously jeopardize a five year rebuild that is on the verge of being successful over a couple million a year in goaltending.

You do that, and any GM in the league is putting their job and the team's long term success in jeopardy. Brad won't do that again, I'm confident of it.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

He got two guys with good stats for a good price. He still had to hope one could carry the load as a starter, where neither previously had been so.
Calculated risk, but still a risk.
if rumors are true, he could had bishop.
So he went for the low acquisition cost option and hoped for the best.

Considering how the season ended, i'd say his risk failed. Imaging what could have been if he made a different choice.

Well if the rumors are true that it was Tkachuk being available that changed goalie acquisition targets at the draft then I'm actually okay with this season and the failed goaltending.

Think of it this way - If a great progression season (lifted by "at times" great goaltending) with a disappointing end got us Tkachuk - a franchise level pest/top 6 forward - and then you finally address starting goaltending this offseason with a true, proven starter, then I'm okay with how last off season went.

[Roof-Daddy]

That's why he went and signed Johnson as the "other" goalie last off season, because Elliott hadn't proven he could shoulder a starters workload. Johnson started 40 games himself in 2015/16 and posted a 0.920 save % while doing so.

If he had traded for Elliott (40 starts) and then brought in a guy who'd never started more than 20~ games in a season to back him up, I'd tend to agree with you.

[Samonadreau]

Ya with a 6th overall pick in what was touted by some the deepest draft since 2003 I can't hold it against Tre for not using that in a trade to make a quick fix in net.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jayswin

...That's what Elliot was, and you could argue that's what Talbot was and I'd agree and say their risk worked out, ours didn't. That's why Brad now needs to go the 60+ game, proven starter route, even if it costs a bit.

Another year with a "well, he had great stats and all signs showed he should have been great as a starter" low to medium cost acquisition and we're starting to seriously jeopardize a five year rebuild that is on the verge of being successful over a couple million a year in goaltending.

You do that, and any GM in the league is putting their job and the team's long term success in jeopardy. Brad won't do that again, I'm confident of it.

I have posted elsewhere (maybe in this thread) that I have a different take of Treliving's short history of goalie acquisitions. The short version is that after he signed his first UFA Jonas Hiller, Treliving has been very aggressive in pursuing young goalies with high potential to be NHL starters:

· In 2015 he was in on trade negotiations with NYR for Talbot before the Hamilton trade broke.
· In 2015 he was also involved in talks for acquiring Martin Jones.
· Before the end of the 2015–16 season he was pursuing a deal for Matt Murray before he had played a game in the NHL.

I think from this that Treliving's top priority is still acquiring a younger, emerging starting goalie who can grow with this team. Since this is something he has not yet achieved, I think he will continue work towards the goal.

[MisterJoji]

Regardless of who Treliving acquires, the best move that can be made is letting Sigalet go.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Regardless of who Treliving acquires, the best move that can be made is letting Sigalet go.

Maybe. Without really having a clear idea of exactly what it is that he did or did not do to affect Elliott's and Johnson's play here in Calgary it is difficult to say.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Regardless of who Treliving acquires, the best move that can be made is letting Sigalet go.

Do we actually know anything about Sigalet or does everyone just assume there must be something wrong there? I'm asking sincerely because my view as a fan I've literally never known anything about goalie coaches and how they're doing. I've only ever know success or failures of goalies themselves.

In that respect we haven't exactly had a bunch of great goalies who faltered, we've mostly just had over the hill or unknown goalies since the rebuild began. Perhaps it's the goalie coach's fault, but I tend to lean towards an unreliable crop of goaltenders in recent years.

[PeteMoss]

Will never understand why a team would give up more than a 5th rounder for a pending FA.

This is Darling's big shot as a free agent. Highly likely he's just going to take the best offer or at worst Carolina might have to pay a slight premium given their lack of attractiveness as a destination. How much could they possibly be saving by getting this opportunity to sign him early? $500k/year at most? Seems you'd value a 3rd round pick more than that.

Just seems like a GM throwing away a 3rd round pick because they have a bunch of them.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe. Without really having a clear idea of exactly what it is that he did or did not do to affect Elliott's and Johnson's play here in Calgary it is difficult to say.

...or Ortio, or Hiller, or Ramo...

[Itse]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Do we actually know anything about Sigalet or does everyone just assume there must be something wrong there?

I'm guessing very few people, if any, in the Flames organization know much about modern goalie coaching. It's a very specified position that has went through a lot of change over the years, and from what I've read the coaching techniques have advanced a lot in the last decade or so.

So I would simply go with results. He's worked for the organization for six years now (first for the Heat, then for the Flames), and during his time there haven't been any real successes in goal.

He might not be a problem, but then again he might, and I think based on the results it's very hard to make a case that he's a guy we can't afford to lose either, when every goalie he's worked with has seen they're numbers go down instead of up.

At worst we fire an okay coach who didn't deserve it, but I'm okay with that. That's the risk you take if you want to work in the NHL.

I don't however want to live with the risk that the bad results really have to do with him being a terrible coach.

[Ryan Coke]

Treliving may still want a young goalie that can grow with the team, but the difference is that the future has kind of arrived now.

Instead of a rebuilding team looking for a young guy in net that can grow into being a good starter, now I think they want a someone who is good right away. You can't always wait 2 more years for the mystical 'window to open'. Opportunity can arrive fast. I hate to see the Oilers success, but can you imagine if they had leaky goaltending because their 'window isn't here yet'?

The reality is this team is ready to start making noise, and may well still be playing if they had high level goaltending.

So instead of finding a goalie for the future, we need one for the present. I actually could almost see both an established starter (Bishop), and still one of the young guys that are well regarded (Grubauer, Pickard), depending on acquisition cost of course. Neither Gillies or Rittich (or Parsons) are ready for the NHL in all likelihood, even in a backup capacity.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm guessing very few people, if any, in the Flames organization know much about modern goalie coaching. It's a very specified position that has went through a lot of change over the years, and from what I've read the coaching techniques have advanced a lot in the last decade or so.

So I would simply go with results. He's worked for the organization for six years now (first for the Heat, then for the Flames), and during his time there haven't been any real successes in goal.

It is fair as a fan that weigh the results in our opinions as to whether Sigalet is a good coach or not, but the Flames will have much more information at their disposal for making this decision. I will say though that I am not especially persuaded by this argument that Sigalet's coaching capabilities are directly correlative to the "success" or "failure" of the goalies who have been in the Flames system over the course of the past four years (Sigalet has been coaching since then 2012–13 season).

Who are these goalies?

· Daniel Taylor
· Barry Brust
· Leland Irving
· Doug Carr
· Aaron Dell
· Joni Ortio
· Reto Berra
· Joey MacDonald
· Olivier Roy
· Laurent Brossoit

· Jonas Hiller
· Karri Ramo
· Brian Elliott
· Chad Johnson
· Jon Gillies
· David Rittich

This is not exactly a stellar list of high calibre goalies who have seen their careers derailed by bad coaching, and Sigalet does not really have a long enough track record from which to gauge the results properly.

I am more interested in the specifics of what he is doing as a coach, and the impact this is having—either positively or negatively. I would imagine that this is precisely how management will evaluate his work to date.

[ToewsFan]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Didn't want any Darling so glad he is off the board. This is Eddie Lack 2.0 for Carolina

Darling is going to shine, and he will have 3 or 4 career years for Carolina. The Flames dropped the ball by not acquiring him.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by ToewsFan

Darling is going to shine, and he will have 3 or 4 career years for Carolina. The Flames dropped the ball by not acquiring him.

I mean, let's not count our chickens before they hatch. How do you know that Darling won't become the next Bernier?

[Enoch Root]

why do you keep on feeding trolls?

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Do we actually know anything about Sigalet or does everyone just assume there must be something wrong there? I'm asking sincerely because my view as a fan I've literally never known anything about goalie coaches and how they're doing. I've only ever know success or failures of goalies themselves.

In that respect we haven't exactly had a bunch of great goalies who faltered, we've mostly just had over the hill or unknown goalies since the rebuild began. Perhaps it's the goalie coach's fault, but I tend to lean towards an unreliable crop of goaltenders in recent years.

The most common thing I've heard about goalie coaches is more mental support than anything. There might be some stylistic suggestions or technical feedback but most goalies establish their base early on I think.