I would be interested in seeing what Mason might cost. He's been really inconsistent through his career, but he's also shown he can be fantastic.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
I would be interested in seeing what Mason might cost. He's been really inconsistent through his career, but he's also shown he can be fantastic.
Sounds like Elliott. What would be the point? I think they need to just find a young backup ready to take the next step like others have mentioned and look at upgrading the right wing. All the household names would be either too costly and/or no better than Elliot.
its been hard to watch the past 2-3 games. Elliot seemed to have put himself in a position where the flames would have been happy to resign him if he was able to keep his play up. Unfortunately he fell flat on his face & likely cost them the chance to at least be competitive in this series. He probably let in 5-6 bad goals in 4 games. He was beyond bad.
I feel bad for the guy. By all accounts he seems well liked. A friend played with him years ago and has the same to say. Great guy just couldn't keep it together.
It's clear the flames will have to move on.
I know it's not popular, but I am a proponent of acquiring Fleury. He's got two years left on his current deal, that should be enough time for one of Gilles, Riitich, or Parsons to mature and take the horns. Fleury would certainly be an upgrade on pretty much everyone since Mika.
Last edited by TOfan; 04-20-2017 at 12:50 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TOfan For This Useful Post:
This is so sad. I feel for Ells. I blame GG for going back to him after three poor showings in a row.
Gulutzan was in a very tough spot. Johnson getting hurt resulted in him playing 5min of action in a month. Elliott also is a battler and really wanted an opportunity to redeem himself.
I voted Johnson as the starter but understand that he hasn't played in a while and struggled over his last few games. I think pulling Elliott when he did was thenright call even if it was embarrassing for Moose
The Following User Says Thank You to Vinny01 For This Useful Post:
It never ceases to amaze me that people think you can sign a 30 year old FA goalie to a 3 year deal....This guy is going to have several options of at least 5 year deals. The Flames should not entertain signing any goalie to a deal longer than 2 seasons at this point with all the volatility we've seen at this position since Kipper left.
If you can trade for Gubauer or similar, you do that and deal with losing those assets. Coughing up somewhere in the ballpark of $6M a year for Bishop on a 5 year deal would cripple the teams salary cap and likely leave us only a half step further ahead of where we are with Elliott anyway.
I am on the Scott Darling bandwagon, but same idea. I agree that the next two years more than any, it is critical that we don't hamstring the team with another painful contract. The team needs to set itself up for the maximum cap availability to take a good run in 2019 & 2020.
Remember when Hiller made some comments to the effect that not everything that happened last year was the goalie's fault?
I am starting to think there might be some legit logic here because the performance we have received from multiple goalie's in the last few years has been suspect. End of *****in story
It's pretty simple. It's not entirely the goaltenders fault, but most of it is.
This is a pretty young and fairly fragile team emotionally. If the team gets good goaltending, they play with confidence and win. If they get bad goaltending, the opposite occurs.
We saw that to start the season. We say that to end the playoffs. It's not a situation that is unique to Calgary in any way, but it certainly does seem to bite us hard.
I think Elliot just lost himself several millions dollars with his play. Not only will he not have a contract offer in Calgary now, who is going to take a risk on him? Which is a shame because for 75% of the year he may have been the best goalie in the NHL. But you can't stink 1/4 of the time and expect people to put their trust into you.
The CBC just published an article ( http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...wrap-1.4077185 ) that summed it up. We lost to bad luck and bad goaltending. Generally articles aren't so blunt and spread the blame around. Not in this case. Elliott is the single biggest reason for our early exit.
I personally hope to see a tandem of Bishop/Gillies next year. MAF would be OK, but isn't my first pick.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Serapth For This Useful Post:
I know this will be unpopular, but I would not be opposed to bringing Elliott back on a 1 year deal. He went from looking for a retirement deal to a 1-year "show me" deal in the course of 4 games. So he'll be affordable and won't need term.
None of the UFAs are significantly better options in my mind, especially since they will want $$ and term. Any other goalie will have (potentially significant) acquisition cost.
This team's future in net is Gillies/Rittich/Parsons, and they're not ready. This team is still realistically 1-2 seasons away from truly contending, so blowing bank on a middling solution is the wrong call. Elliott will get us into the playoffs, no question, and this team needs experience learning how to be a top team in the regular season and then learning how to win in the playoffs. It's not like Elliott cost us a chance at the cup this year.
I know this will be unpopular, but I would not be opposed to bringing Elliott back on a 1 year deal. He went from looking for a retirement deal to a 1-year "show me" deal in the course of 4 games. So he'll be affordable and won't need term.
None of the UFAs are significantly better options in my mind, especially since they will want $$ and term. Any other goalie will have (potentially significant) acquisition cost.
This team's future in net is Gillies/Rittich/Parsons, and they're not ready. This team is still realistically 1-2 seasons away from truly contending, so blowing bank on a middling solution is the wrong call. Elliott will get us into the playoffs, no question, and this team needs experience learning how to be a top team in the regular season and then learning how to win in the playoffs. It's not like Elliott cost us a chance at the cup this year.
Anyhoo, flame away.
He blew the start of the season this year...Chad saved our asses
and it costs a 3rd rounder to bring him back, its not happening. Would also be an absolute PR nightmare after that playoff series. Its not like he was a little off...he was TERRIBLE when it mattered most in the playoffs and at the start of the season
__________________
GFG
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
I am on the Scott Darling bandwagon, but same idea. I agree that the next two years more than any, it is critical that we don't hamstring the team with another painful contract. The team needs to set itself up for the maximum cap availability to take a good run in 2019 & 2020.
I don't think Darling is worth a gamble. A 28 year old goalie with only 75 NHL games, and never more than 32 in a season.
I like his background story, but seems risky.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
No. No half measures. No hopes that a 28 year old goalie can be something that he's never been before.
Get an established, high-end #1 goalie. No more question marks. No more wishes. Solve the goaltending problem. If it means a 5 year deal for Bishop, so be it. If that means we have a goalie controversy in 2 years with Bishop/Gillies/Parsons - so be it. Having too many good players at that position is never a problem.
The Following User Says Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
Not okay with the how the goalie played. I believe he had a bad series but I don't have any faith that whoever we can get to replace him will be better.
Well I can guarantee you the team and management no longer have any faith in Elliott regardless of the cliches they spew to the media. Elliott is as good as gone and we can all be thankful for that.
His numbers were pretty much just as bad as Elliots this year and they've been close their entire careers. He is the same tier of goalie as Elliot. Signing him long term is a mistake when (if) we can sign Elliot for cheap and short term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle
Well I can guarantee you the team and management no longer have any faith in Elliott regardless of the cliches they spew to the media. Elliott is as good as gone and we can all be thankful for that.
Well they should realize his play in the second half is the reason why they were in the playoffs in the first place.
Really hope Treliving is more grounded in his opinion the goaltending situation than the fans.
Last edited by polak; 04-20-2017 at 02:26 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
Bishop played 60+ games for three seasons in Tampa, that's starting goalie numbers. Bishop didn't play under The Debutante of Defense Ken Hitchcock like Elliott did in St. Louis. Bishop was a Veniza nominee last season and two seasons prior to that.
This season was Brian Elliott's first real chance at solidifying at job as 1 goalie and he fumbled it out of the gate then at the finish line. The only time these two have been on the same level is this season when Bishop was injured for a good chunk of it.
I'll admit to previously choosing Elliott over Bishop towards the end of this season, cheaper to sign and shorter tern where factor and Bishop having an off year. But if you look at the roles they played the numbers they produced it's not even close. Bishop is a boneafide starting goalie in the NHL, Elliott isn't.
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
Don't let the door hit you on the way out Elliott. You played like hot garbage when we needed you the most and I'm confident that many teams will stay far far away from you. Your padded stats are quite deceiving because of the many years playing for a superior defensive team. Take Johnson with you to he's not much better.
Gulutzan was in a very tough spot. Johnson getting hurt resulted in him playing 5min of action in a month. Elliott also is a battler and really wanted an opportunity to redeem himself.
I voted Johnson as the starter but understand that he hasn't played in a while and struggled over his last few games. I think pulling Elliott when he did was thenright call even if it was embarrassing for Moose
I share the EXACT sentiment. I do however fault Sigalet. It's his responsibility to prep the goalies and I'm sure GG would ask for his recommendation on who to start.
We have not seen a successful goalie under Sigalet. It's time to move on.
__________________
"You're a wizard, Johnny Tre"
The Following User Says Thank You to smiggy77 For This Useful Post:
