Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
I agree that you don't throw a big contract at him. But a 2 year, show me deal, or a 3 year at decent money deal should definitely be at least up for discussion (assuming he continues to play well down the stretch).
|
I look at those 2nd and 3rd year as being too important both positionally and cap-wise to risk it. If he's a bottom 3rd of the league goalie, and making any level of money, with all the contracts we have to be giving out (Backlund, Tkachuk being the notable ones) - we can't afford a mishap in net.
Treliving needs to get the goaltending right. So far, Elliott hasn't earned the term and I don't think he should get it. Another year of show-me is in order when it comes to Elliott, or go find a more definitive solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
The 3rd run is pretty well elite stats. Far better than a good backup.
|
Darling: .931
Saros: .929
Grubauer: .927
Reimer: .922
Nilsson: .921
Raanta: .920
Back-ups do post numbers like that, but you're right - if you're above .920 on the season, generally you're a starter not a back-up. Guys like Saros and Grubauer are also reasons why I'm not fond of extending Elliott with term. Both Saros and Grubauer are going to be exposed in the expansion draft if they aren't traded before hand - I'd like to see us involved on those two.
I'm not outright anti-Elliott, I just believe that the market is going to make a number of things possible this summer - and that we're not in a position where we need to (or should be) giving Elliott any sort of term.