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

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Mason suffers from the same issues as Elliott in that he can have prolonged periods of below average play and can meltdown to below AHL level goaltending at times. He can also be lights out for long stretches and carry his team at times.

...

If those are the two best options, I'm not sure which one I would pick. Either starter would require a backup like Johnson who can take the net for long stretches if needed.

Elliott's GP the last 6 years, counting backwards: 49, 42, 46, 31, 24, 38

Mason: 58, 54, 51, 61, 20, 46

You're not wrong in your assessment that having a backup like Johnson would be awesome, and I'd be more than happy to bring him back, but I don't think Mason's had the same consistency struggles Elliott has had, and has played more games every year except for 2012-13.

[Erick Estrada]

Mason to me would be a lateral move. His career numbers are closer to below average than better than average.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Mrazek seems to have completely lost it.

It was one bad season. Aren't you the guy who was completely forgiving of Bishop's one bad season, still called him "elite"?

Detroit was pretty bad this year and I don't feel like Mrazek is the surefire .920 goalie he looked like he might be the two seasons prior, but it seems premature to write off his entire career at 25.

[Toonage]

Re: Friedman suggesting Pickard as an option - He played the Flames tough, never quit on a play, but if they were to grab him (or someone with his level of experience) I'd be a lot more comfortable if he split the duties with a vet like Elliott than say Johnson or Gillies.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Re: Friedman suggesting Pickard as an option - He played the Flames tough, never quit on a play, but if they were to grab him (or someone with his level of experience) I'd be a lot more comfortable if he split the duties with a vet like Elliott than say Johnson or Gillies.

Elliott is a very small tiny fraction ahead of Johnson and certainly not worth losing a draft pick over.

Agreed we can't go Pickard-Gillies but we really need to move one from that bum Elliott

[Toonage]

Then a guy like Mason might fit the bill. Doesn't have to be Elliott but the Flames will need a proven vet.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It was one bad season. Aren't you the guy who was completely forgiving of Bishop's one bad season, still called him "elite"?

Detroit was pretty bad this year and I don't feel like Mrazek is the surefire .920 goalie he looked like he might be the two seasons prior, but it seems premature to write off his entire career at 25.

It was one HORRIBLE season after completing only one strong season as a starter in his career.

Bishop had a much longer track record of being a success and his bad season wasnt nearly as terrible.

EDIT:

It's also been longer than just one season for Mrazek. He finished the 2015/16 in a terrible slump going 6-6-2 in his last 17 games of that season and posting a 0.887 sv%

Combine that with a 0.901 sv% in 50 games this year and that is U-G-L-Y

[Jacks]

I've been very critical of Fleury in the past but I think where he is right now, play wise and contract wise, is a perfect fit for us. We get 2 years of solid goaltending at which point hopefully one of the young goalie prospects is ready to step in. Even with his occasional struggles Fleury would be the best goalie we've had since Kipper.

Of course that assumes the acquisition cost is low and he's willing to come here.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Re: Friedman suggesting Pickard as an option - He played the Flames tough, never quit on a play, but if they were to grab him (or someone with his level of experience) I'd be a lot more comfortable if he split the duties with a vet like Elliott than say Johnson or Gillies.

This is what I proposed earlier as while I don't think Pickard is going to be an elite goaltender he looks like he could be a younger version of a Brian Elliott. I also don't think he will be as costly to acquire compared to other backup goaltenders. Flames would need to solidify the 1B position with Elliott, Johnson, Mason or one of the UFA goaltenders that would come on a short term deal with an opportunity to seize a starting job and increase their UFA value at the expiry of the deal.

I voted for Fleury but I'm getting the feeling that if he's not already been dealt to Las Vegas in an agreed trade that the Penguins will ask for too much in return.

[Toonage]

Just watch, Fleury will end up going to the Flyers by way of Vegas.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It was one HORRIBLE season after completing only one strong season as a starter in his career.

Bishop had a much longer track record of being a success and his bad season wasnt nearly as terrible.

EDIT:

It's also been longer than just one season for Mrazek. He finished the 2015/16 in a terrible slump going 6-6-2 in his last 17 games of that season and posting a 0.887 sv%

Combine that with a 0.901 sv% in 50 games this year and that is U-G-L-Y

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It was one HORRIBLE season after completing only one strong season as a starter in his career.

Bishop had a much longer track record of being a success and his bad season wasnt nearly as terrible.

EDIT:

It's also been longer than just one season for Mrazek. He finished the 2015/16 in a terrible slump going 6-6-2 in his last 17 games of that season and posting a 0.887 sv%

Combine that with a 0.901 sv% in 50 games this year and that is U-G-L-Y

Mrazek still finished 15/16 at .921, you going to hypocritically discredit that after praising Bishop for his .916 season?

Mrazek is still a fantastic option, and while he's a slight risk he's still shown he at least has the ability to perform well as a starter (and poorly) behind a below average team. One season is a factor but is (again) not definitive. Writing him off for one season is about as dumb as ignoring one season for another goaltender. You've got to factor everything in.

Mrazek also experienced higher than average HDSA when compared to other starters, where he struggled quite a bit. If I remember correctly (Corsica isn't working on my phone) Calgary allowed less HDSA than Detroit, and (overall) is a stronger team.

All that said I don't think Detroit sends Mrazek out. I think they see the ability there, it would be stupid to trade him or protect Howard over him.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Mason's last contract was a 3 year $12.3 million deal ($4.1 million AAV)

His numbers over those three years (155 starts, 0.918 sv%, 2.45 GAA) don't suggest that he'll be taking a pay cut but I guess we will see.

Bishop just signed a $30 million dollar deal, I wouldn't be surprised to see Mason get close to $20 million total, but I suppose the market will decide that. I could see a 4 x $4.5 million or something like that ($18 million total).

By all accounts he wants to be the undisputed starter, and the only places he can currently go to get that are Calgary and Vegas.

Exactly, his options are very limited. Very good chance he will have to accept a 1B or backup position next season. That's why I really doubt he sees anything like a 4 x $4.5 deal next season. Plus he hasn't been very good lately, who is going to commit for that term?

Mason's Save Percentage Ranking (>= 25 games):
2016-17: 39th
2015-16: 24th
2014-15: 3rd
2013-14: 21st

He had one really good season in the last 4. You shouldn't give more than a 2 year deal to a goalie with this history.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Mrazek still finished 15/16 at .921, you going to hypocritically discredit that after praising Bishop for his .916 season?

Mrazek is still a fantastic option, and while he's a slight risk he's still shown he at least has the ability to perform well as a starter (and poorly) behind a below average team. One season is a factor but is (again) not definitive. Writing him off for one season is about as dumb as ignoring one season for another goaltender. You've got to factor everything in.

Mrazek also experienced higher than average HDSA when compared to other starters, where he struggled quite a bit. If I remember correctly (Corsica isn't working on my phone) Calgary allowed less HDSA than Detroit, and (overall) is a stronger team.

All that said I don't think Detroit sends Mrazek out. I think they see the ability there, it would be stupid to trade him or protect Howard over him.

I've never discredited anything or anyone.

I merely said that it looks like he's lost it.

Finishing the 2015/16 season with an .887 sv% over the last 17 games and then following that up with a .901 sv% in 50 games this season certainly makes it look like he's completely lost it.

I never said he can't bounce back, but I certainly wouldn't bet any money on it.

You're the one who felt it necessary to bring up Bishop again and for some reason compare his .910 season to Mrazek who had a much worse .901 season than Bishop which is magnified by the fact that Mrazek despite having ONE good season as a starter never had a track record like Bishop prior to their down seasons.

Bishop was better for longer and when they both had a bad seasons Mrazek was much, much worse. They are not even comparable at this point.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Fire

Exactly, his options are very limited. Very good chance he will have to accept a 1B or backup position next season. That's why I really doubt he sees anything like a 4 x $4.5 deal next season. Plus he hasn't been very good lately, who is going to commit for that term?

Mason's Save Percentage Ranking (>= 25 games):
2016-17: 39th
2015-16: 24th
2014-15: 3rd
2013-14: 21st

He had one really good season in the last 4. You shouldn't give more than a 2 year deal to a goalie with this history.

Well if the Flames go after Mason then I hope you are right.

[tkflames]

Pure Speculation

I saw Elliot Friedman's report today on Schneider not being available, but given the acquisition cost for NJ a couple of years ago, I cannot help but wonder if a deal involving

Schneider + Squid (a healthy scratch last year) for the 2017 1st + something makes sense for New Jersey.

The benefit to NJ
Salary dump (for a healthy scratch)
picking up a 1st (8 or so spots lower than the acquisition cost)
+ another piece. I honestly have a hard time figuring out if Calgary would need to add a young piece or a Stajan/Bouma/Brouwer

The benefit to Calgary
An experienced trigger man for Gaudreau/Monahan familiar with the city
A bonafide #1 goalie

[Kipper_3434]

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards this ranking:

#1: Schneider (1st +any prospect not named Parsons or Jankowski)
#2:Rask: See #1

#3:Halak: mid round pick and cap dump, either bouma or stajan. If they take brouwer flames pay more
#4: Mrazek: good prospect or pick
#5: Korpisalo, Grabauer, Raanta, Pickard,
#6:Mason, Fleury

From 3-5 I would try to re-sign Johnson.

Parsons and Jankowski have to much upside for me to trade right now. Don't see them having as much trade value as upside right now. 1st round pick should be off the table as unless we're getting a star player who's signed long-term. I like a few of the prospects that might be available mid first and think we need good young players for the future.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards this ranking:

#1: Schneider (1st +any prospect not named Parsons or Jankowski)
#2:Rask: See #1

#3:Halak: mid round pick and cap dump, either bouma or stajan. If they take brouwer flames pay more
#4: Mrazek: good prospect or pick
#5: Korpisalo, Grabauer, Raanta, Pickard,
#6:Mason, Fleury

From 3-5 I would try to re-sign Johnson.

Parsons and Jankowski have to much upside for me to trade right now. Don't see them having as much trade value as upside right now. 1st round pick should be off the table as unless we're getting a star player who's signed long-term. I like a few of the prospects that might be available mid first and think we need good young players for the future.

If you're going to start your rankings off with pie in the sky type acquisitions of goalies who are likely unavailable then you might as well have Price up there too.

[Kipper_3434]

Nope. Price is only signed for one year. Would potentially lose assets for nothing. If I'm sitting in the GM chair first I call Boston and Jersey. Make a solid but fair offer. If they say no way, not even close, I move down the list. It's not pie in the sky. There might only be a 2% chance of getting one of those guys but you still put an offer on the table. That's how we got Dougie Hamilton and many thought that was ridiculous before it happened. It's a process.

Fact is both guys had mediocre years and could be available. Jersey is rebuilding and might be willing to be bad for a few years. Boston has moved big names several times in the past.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Nope. Price is only signed for one year. Would potentially lose assets for nothing. If I'm sitting in the GM chair first I call Boston and Jersey. Make a solid but fair offer. If they say no way, not even close, I move down the list. It's not pie in the sky. There might only be a 2% chance of getting one of those guys but you still put an offer on the table. That's how we got Dougie Hamilton and many thought that was ridiculous before it happened. It's a process.

Fact is both guys had mediocre years and could be available. Jersey is rebuilding and might be willing to be bad for a few years. Boston has moved big names several times in the past.

Pie in the sky is something you will hope will happen but is very unlikely to happen. You pretty much defined it as that with your own 2% probability.

I agree though, you make the call and do what you can because you never know.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Nope. Price is only signed for one year. Would potentially lose assets for nothing. If I'm sitting in the GM chair first I call Boston and Jersey. Make a solid but fair offer. If they say no way, not even close, I move down the list. It's not pie in the sky. There might only be a 2% chance of getting one of those guys but you still put an offer on the table. That's how we got Dougie Hamilton and many thought that was ridiculous before it happened. It's a process.

Fact is both guys had mediocre years and could be available. Jersey is rebuilding and might be willing to be bad for a few years. Boston has moved big names several times in the past.

You're misremembering. Hamilton wasn't pie in the sky, he was rumoured to be on the block for any number of reasons and then we jumped in and got him. That wasn't a cold call about a future star defenseman that magically turned into a trade.

Schneider I could see potential for, but your Rask suggestion is basically "Hey playoff team, we want your starter" "Okay, but then we'd be on the market for a starter". RoofDaddy was right, if you're just suggesting any teams starter with no rumours they're available than you might as well just make a list of al the goalies in the league that are really good and say "let's at least try to get them".