Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Who do you WANT to be the Flames Starting Goalie Next Season [*NEW POLL 12·05·17]

Calgary4LIfe · 05-19-2017, 02:56 AM

All this talk reminded me of Chicago.

Remember in 2010, Chicago ran with a tandem of Huet and Niemi. Huet got the bulk of the starts, but Niemi took over and became the defacto starter for their playoff run. Was he outstanding? No. He merely provided a dependable level of goaltending. Unspectacular stats of SV% of .910 and 2.63 GAA during the playoffs.

Yet, because he won the cup, his ask was high, and Chicago made some waves by not re-signing him after the cup win. He was one of the more notable players not re-signed that year. What fricken' team doesn't re-sign their newly cup-winning goalie? How crazy is that? In fact, not only did they not re-sign him, they moved on from BOTH their starter and their former #1 who ended playing backup.

Instead, they gave the reigns to Crawford - a guy that was developing in their system for some years, but up until that time only had a total of 369 minutes of NHL time to his resume. They brought in a vet in Turco who proceeded to crap the bed with only 29 starts, a robust 3.07 GAA and a paltry .897 SV%. Crawford's numbers were much better, but not elite (57 starts, a good 2.30 GAA and a respectable but unspectacular .917 SV%).

The next year was the lockout year, an they brought in another established vet at the twilight of his career in Ray Emery. Crawford had the majority of starts (30 vs 21), but had an identical and sparkling GAA of 1.94, with Crawford having a .926 SV% and Emery with a .922 SV%.

Crawford rode that season into the playoffs, and upped his strong numbers to the tune of 1.84 GAA and an elite SV% of .932.

The following season, Crawford was trusted as a #1, and Raanta was brought in as a backup. His numbers declined that year and he posted average numbers - .917 SV% and a 2.26 GAA. Raanta was much worse.

Chicago saw fit to re-sign Crawford to a long contract paying him 6 million a year.

So, what does this tell us? From what I remember, Chicago played a very good defensive structure those years. Crawford made some spectacular saves at times, but I don't ever really remember him losing games. He was a consistently good starter with some game stealing abilities. Compared to Niemi? Crawford I thought was a tier above and Chicago recognized that, and acted accordingly. They dropped Niemi right after he backstopped them to a cup, but re-signed Crawford even though he had a dip in his numbers the season after he backstopped them to a cup.

Compare that to Calgary. What I think SHOULD happen is that Calgary needs to replace Elliott - you simply can not have a goalie lose games for you - at least not lose 'games in a row'. Niemi didn't do this much (IIRC). Elliott - when he is on - can provide you with elite-level goaltending (way better than Niemi's best), but throughout his career has shown that he does have that inconsistency to his game. You need consistently good goaltending to allow you to win a championship at minimum, regardless of how elite you can be at times.

Crawford (until this season) provided that in spades for Chicago. He was consistently good if unspectacular for the most part, but had game stealing ability at times without losing you games. Elliott has a larger variance - both positive and negative - so how does one use that?

Elliott is a tandem goalie. He is a tandem goalie and will always be a tandem goalie until he shows the ability to bounce back and provide his team with consistently good goaltending. Every goalie - Price, Schneider.. heck, even Hasek, Roy and Brodeur - had embarrassingly disgusting goals/games. What they did was bounce back and shook it off. Elliott goes on stretches. If you have another consistent goalie, this may work out well. You play Elliott hard through those good stretches, and play your consistent (if unspectacular) starter as soon as you see a hiccup.

Is that good enough?

Elliott is 32 years old, is a veteran of 375 NHL games, and should be in the prime of his career. He still has 'bad stretches' which make him inconsistent. He is a tandem goalie. The only way the Flames can bring him back is if they upgrade on Johnson. You bring in a Mike Smith or a goalie of that caliber that can give you consistently good stretches at starter level while you wait for Elliott to get on a roll, and then go back to your other starter at the first sign of that hiccup.

That will cost the Flames a 3rd round pick and loads of cash in net. You are more likely to end up in disarray like Dallas (and in no way should Lehtonen be considered - he is a more injury prone, less dependable version of Elliott who has exactly one season of .920 or better in his entire career).

You do like Chicago, and recognize that your investment is better utilized elsewhere. Bring in a solid vet, and re-sign Johnson. Get an average but dependable goaltender like a Niemi (a Niemi that won the cup, not the Niemi of today). Johnson is a dependable backup with an ability to provide consistent performance for stretches as he proved in Calgary earlier this year, and Buffalo before that. Besides, when has Calgary ever had a better backup? Decades...

Or, you roll the dice and you acquire two young but up-and-coming goalies and run them as a tandem, saving you some cap space. Grubauer and Korpisalo, or whatever.

Either way, you have to move on from a goalie with a propensity for losing games, regardless of his propensity to win games. You can win a championship with an unspectacular but consistent record. You can't win one that loses you games. Not when it happens almost every year for stretches.

Chicago didn't remain loyal to the goalie that backstopped them to a championship, but recognized a goalie that was better and paid that goalie accordingly. Pittsburgh remained loyal to a goalie that backstopped them to a championship, and remained unfaltering loyal to the same goalie who then proceeded to implode consistently in the playoffs. How many runs did that prime team waste? Chicago won 3 championships in a short amount of time, while it took an injury to MAF and a new coach to win their second one 7 years apart.

I have no idea who to bring in at this point, but I want it to start with just consistently average goaltending. That's enough for a deep playoff run if a team stays healthy and is playing well. Shaky goaltending can lead to an undeserved 1st round exit.

I have no doubt that bringing back Elliott this season will result in playoffs and probably a fighting chance as the division champs, but I don't feel there is a chance at a long playoff run with him being counted on as the defacto starter. Calgary would need to upgrade on Johnson, so you might as well retain Johnson and acquire someone more dependable to work with Johnson, or just bring in 2 new faces altogether.

05-19-2017, 02:56 AM	#443
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	All this talk reminded me of Chicago. Remember in 2010, Chicago ran with a tandem of Huet and Niemi. Huet got the bulk of the starts, but Niemi took over and became the defacto starter for their playoff run. Was he outstanding? No. He merely provided a dependable level of goaltending. Unspectacular stats of SV% of .910 and 2.63 GAA during the playoffs. Yet, because he won the cup, his ask was high, and Chicago made some waves by not re-signing him after the cup win. He was one of the more notable players not re-signed that year. What fricken' team doesn't re-sign their newly cup-winning goalie? How crazy is that? In fact, not only did they not re-sign him, they moved on from BOTH their starter and their former #1 who ended playing backup. Instead, they gave the reigns to Crawford - a guy that was developing in their system for some years, but up until that time only had a total of 369 minutes of NHL time to his resume. They brought in a vet in Turco who proceeded to crap the bed with only 29 starts, a robust 3.07 GAA and a paltry .897 SV%. Crawford's numbers were much better, but not elite (57 starts, a good 2.30 GAA and a respectable but unspectacular .917 SV%). The next year was the lockout year, an they brought in another established vet at the twilight of his career in Ray Emery. Crawford had the majority of starts (30 vs 21), but had an identical and sparkling GAA of 1.94, with Crawford having a .926 SV% and Emery with a .922 SV%. Crawford rode that season into the playoffs, and upped his strong numbers to the tune of 1.84 GAA and an elite SV% of .932. The following season, Crawford was trusted as a #1, and Raanta was brought in as a backup. His numbers declined that year and he posted average numbers - .917 SV% and a 2.26 GAA. Raanta was much worse. Chicago saw fit to re-sign Crawford to a long contract paying him 6 million a year. So, what does this tell us? From what I remember, Chicago played a very good defensive structure those years. Crawford made some spectacular saves at times, but I don't ever really remember him losing games. He was a consistently good starter with some game stealing abilities. Compared to Niemi? Crawford I thought was a tier above and Chicago recognized that, and acted accordingly. They dropped Niemi right after he backstopped them to a cup, but re-signed Crawford even though he had a dip in his numbers the season after he backstopped them to a cup. Compare that to Calgary. What I think SHOULD happen is that Calgary needs to replace Elliott - you simply can not have a goalie lose games for you - at least not lose 'games in a row'. Niemi didn't do this much (IIRC). Elliott - when he is on - can provide you with elite-level goaltending (way better than Niemi's best), but throughout his career has shown that he does have that inconsistency to his game. You need consistently good goaltending to allow you to win a championship at minimum, regardless of how elite you can be at times. Crawford (until this season) provided that in spades for Chicago. He was consistently good if unspectacular for the most part, but had game stealing ability at times without losing you games. Elliott has a larger variance - both positive and negative - so how does one use that? Elliott is a tandem goalie. He is a tandem goalie and will always be a tandem goalie until he shows the ability to bounce back and provide his team with consistently good goaltending. Every goalie - Price, Schneider.. heck, even Hasek, Roy and Brodeur - had embarrassingly disgusting goals/games. What they did was bounce back and shook it off. Elliott goes on stretches. If you have another consistent goalie, this may work out well. You play Elliott hard through those good stretches, and play your consistent (if unspectacular) starter as soon as you see a hiccup. Is that good enough? Elliott is 32 years old, is a veteran of 375 NHL games, and should be in the prime of his career. He still has 'bad stretches' which make him inconsistent. He is a tandem goalie. The only way the Flames can bring him back is if they upgrade on Johnson. You bring in a Mike Smith or a goalie of that caliber that can give you consistently good stretches at starter level while you wait for Elliott to get on a roll, and then go back to your other starter at the first sign of that hiccup. That will cost the Flames a 3rd round pick and loads of cash in net. You are more likely to end up in disarray like Dallas (and in no way should Lehtonen be considered - he is a more injury prone, less dependable version of Elliott who has exactly one season of .920 or better in his entire career). You do like Chicago, and recognize that your investment is better utilized elsewhere. Bring in a solid vet, and re-sign Johnson. Get an average but dependable goaltender like a Niemi (a Niemi that won the cup, not the Niemi of today). Johnson is a dependable backup with an ability to provide consistent performance for stretches as he proved in Calgary earlier this year, and Buffalo before that. Besides, when has Calgary ever had a better backup? Decades... Or, you roll the dice and you acquire two young but up-and-coming goalies and run them as a tandem, saving you some cap space. Grubauer and Korpisalo, or whatever. Either way, you have to move on from a goalie with a propensity for losing games, regardless of his propensity to win games. You can win a championship with an unspectacular but consistent record. You can't win one that loses you games. Not when it happens almost every year for stretches. Chicago didn't remain loyal to the goalie that backstopped them to a championship, but recognized a goalie that was better and paid that goalie accordingly. Pittsburgh remained loyal to a goalie that backstopped them to a championship, and remained unfaltering loyal to the same goalie who then proceeded to implode consistently in the playoffs. How many runs did that prime team waste? Chicago won 3 championships in a short amount of time, while it took an injury to MAF and a new coach to win their second one 7 years apart. I have no idea who to bring in at this point, but I want it to start with just consistently average goaltending. That's enough for a deep playoff run if a team stays healthy and is playing well. Shaky goaltending can lead to an undeserved 1st round exit. I have no doubt that bringing back Elliott this season will result in playoffs and probably a fighting chance as the division champs, but I don't feel there is a chance at a long playoff run with him being counted on as the defacto starter. Calgary would need to upgrade on Johnson, so you might as well retain Johnson and acquire someone more dependable to work with Johnson, or just bring in 2 new faces altogether.