Would you re-sign Brian Elliott?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Could be a buyer's market for goaltenders come Trade Deadline as teams attempt asset management heading into the Expansion Draft. Some big names and good young prospects could be moved.

It's quite possible neither Johnson or Elliott are back next season.

[EVERLAST]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Two??

Who are these better goalies?

Rittic and Parsons

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

Rittic and Parsons

Parsons? Wut? I get that he had a good WJC, but he's 19. Not a chance.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Split98

It's no riskier than putting in Elliott. I have to think that Gillies or Rittich can't do worse than what we've seen from Elliott.

I also don't think that Chad should be OUT of the discussion as the #1.

Agreed. But we're not talking about putting someone in. I was referring to going into next year with a Johnson/Rittich combination.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

Rittic and Parsons

Parsons has not played professional hockey.

[Enoch Root]

Rittich has played 12 games in the AHL and some of you want to claim that he is better than Elliott and that we should run with him and Johnson next year?

Un####ingbelievable.

During training camp, he couldn't stop a beachball, and many fans were asking why in hell the Flames signed him

[Split98]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Parsons? Wut? I get that he had a good WJC, but he's 19. Not a chance.

Yeah, and Tkachuk won't have an impact this year.

I'm not putting money on it, but I'm not ruling him out. The WJC also isn't the first time he's shown to be a good goalie.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Ryan Miller, I'd go after.

But why?

[MJK]

No, because Johnson is the better goalie.

[TBone290]

Nm

[Yamer]

If they don't re-sign him, who do the Flames expose for the expansion draft?

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Yamer

If they don't re-sign him, who do the Flames expose for the expansion draft?

Tom McCollum I believe his name is. They signed him earlier this year for that very reason.

[btimbit]

nvm

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Tom McCollum I believe his name is. They signed him earlier this year for that very reason.

Ah, whoops. Didn't realize they signed McCollum for 2 years.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by EVERLAST

Rittic and Parsons

That is utterly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Split98

Yeah, and Tkachuk won't have an impact this year.

I'm not putting money on it, but I'm not ruling him out. The WJC also isn't the first time he's shown to be a good goalie.

I would absolutely rule him out.

He would be a 20-year-old rookie goaltender starting his professional career in the NHL. How often does that happen? It is one thing for forwards and even occasional defenseman to make the jump straight from Juniour to the NHL, but the number of goalies who have successfully managed the transition in the past 15 years can be counted on one hand.

This isn't happening.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is utterly ridiculous.


I would absolutely rule him out.

He would be a 20-year-old rookie goaltender starting his professional career in the NHL. How often does that happen? It is one thing for forwards and even occasional defenseman to make the jump straight from Juniour to the NHL, but the number of goalies who have successfully managed the transition in the past 15 years can be counted on one hand.

This isn't happening.

Saros has a 1.51 / .946 in 8 GP this year and turned 21 in April
Murray has a 2.10 / .929 in 32 GP this year, turned 22 in May and won the Stanley Cup 1 month into 22
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.

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.

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.

[Textcritic]

This is not a very good post.

Originally Posted by Split98

I think Johnson has proven to have great potential here in Calgary. Without him, we're talking about the draft right now. I don't pretend that the hot streak was the Johnson we can expect to see nightly, but he absolutely earned a spot here next year.

I completely disagree. Yes, Johnson's run was very important to the Flames run up the standings, but it is really impossible to say how much better or worse the team would have been with someone else in his place. The Flames would be worse off without Johnson, but still much better off than the Western Conference bottom feeders.

This year, he's our starter. Elliott has been given enough opportunity to take the reigns so I hope the Chad is given an extension and the games he's earned. If we can find a taker, try and move Elliott this year. Otherwise, show him the press box for the rest of the season.

Johnson is not the Flames starter. He has not been handled like the starting goalie to this point, and I see no reason to believe that this is suddenly about to change now. Johnson and Elliott are playing in textbook tandem scenario, and will continue to do so for the full season.

It is preposterous to suggest that Elliott should be relegated to mop-up duties as a backup goalie. The Flames needed him to win a bunch of games in December and he delivered. The Flames will doubtlessly need him to win many more games down the stretch, and I am hopeful that he will return to the form that he has characteristically shown over the course of his time in St. Louis.

I am not opposed to re-signing Johnson for another two years, but this is not a question that should be breached now, and likely not until the end of the season.

As Calgary4LIfe mentioned earlier, we have two goalies in the AHL right now that are going to need contracts next year. Rittich is a good goalie, and has put up 1.96/.929 this season. I'd love to see him get a few games on the Flames this year so see what we've got...

The only way Rittich will see any time in Calgary this year is if one of Johnson or Elliott sustains an injury. It certainly is something that could happen, but there is no way the Flames are going to call him up and play him just to "see what we've got." This team is competing for a playoff berth and will not jeopardize that on the faint hope that David Rittich is an upgrade on the two goalies in Calgary.

But a Johnson/Rittich or a Johnson/Gillies tandem has potential to be an upgrade on what we're seeing from Elliott. If we make the playoffs it'll be in spite of Brian's starts I doubt he sees a game in the post-season. I see no problems playing either one of those two in Brian's place. The bottom feeders he's beaten were certainly not something Rittich or Gillies couldn't handle... and he lets in enough softies that there's no risk trying someone else. Really, we can only improve on his starts.

This is nonsense.

...With Johnson now, I feel comfortable enough that we have someone in net that can cover the starts. He may not light the NHL on fire, but he's good enough to do the job. Or hell... he HAS already lit the NHL on fire once before. Who's to say that Johnson hot-streak ISN'T the real Johnson?

Either way, I've seen no upside to having Elliott around.

The upside in keeping Elliott around is in the distinct possibility that he performs much better than he has down the stretch. I like Johnson and I like how he has performed to date, but I am not in any way convinced enough to cast aside the other goalie who is the same age, and who has been among the League's leaders in each of the past four seasons.

It is way too early for the Flames to move on from Brian Elliott.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is not a very good post.

I completely disagree. Yes, Johnson's run was very important to the Flames run up the standings, but it is really impossible to say how much better or worse the team would have been with someone else in his place. The Flames would be worse off without Johnson, but still much better off than the Western Conference bottom feeders.


Johnson is not the Flames starter. He has not been handled like the starting goalie to this point, and I see no reason to believe that this is suddenly about to change now. Johnson and Elliott are playing in textbook tandem scenario, and will continue to do so for the full season.

It is preposterous to suggest that Elliott should be relegated to mop-up duties as a backup goalie. The Flames needed him to win a bunch of games in December and he delivered. The Flames will doubtlessly need him to win many more games down the stretch, and I am hopeful that he will return to the form that he has characteristically shown over the course of his time in St. Louis.

I am not opposed to re-signing Johnson for another two years, but this is not a question that should be breached now, and likely not until the end of the season.


The only way Rittich will see any time in Calgary this year is if one of Johnson or Elliott sustains an injury. It certainly is something that could happen, but there is no way the Flames are going to call him up and play him just to "see what we've got." This team is competing for a playoff berth and will not jeopardize that on the faint hope that David Rittich is an upgrade on the two goalies in Calgary.


This is nonsense.


The upside in keeping Elliott around is in the distinct possibility that he performs much better than he has down the stretch. I like Johnson and I like how he has performed to date, but I am not in any way convinced enough to cast aside the other goalie who is the same age, and who has been among the League's leaders in each of the past four seasons.

It is way too early for the Flames to move on from Brian Elliott.

All I'm reading is that we have differing opinions.

[Textcritic]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

All I'm reading is that we have differing opinions.

It is true that our opinions differ, but I posit that yours is poorly informed. Mine is summarised in this discussion by the following comments:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Johnson is not the Flames starter. He has not been handled like the starting goalie to this point, and I see no reason to believe that this is suddenly about to change now. Johnson and Elliott are playing in a textbook tandem scenario, and will continue to do so for the full season.

It is preposterous to suggest that Elliott should be relegated to mop-up duties as a backup goalie. The Flames needed him to win a bunch of games in December and he delivered. The Flames will doubtlessly need him to win many more games down the stretch, and I am hopeful that he will return to the form that he has characteristically shown over the course of his time in St. Louis.

I am not opposed to re-signing Johnson for another two years, but this is not a question that should be breached now, and likely not until the end of the season.