Would you re-sign Brian Elliott?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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:

Really? Because your post is well summarized to me with this:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

Which, is a opinion that I strongly disagree with. It's pretty easy to claim re-written history would favour your opinion, but looking back at the state of the team before his run absolutely shows the contrary. Things were looking bad for the Flames, and the outlook was grim. It was on Johnson's back that this season was saved and I'm very confident in that.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Split98

Things were looking bad for the Flames, and the outlook was grim. It was on Johnson's back that this season was saved and I'm very confident in that.

You could also say that Johnny's injury played a big part as it caused the rest of the team to step up. No doubt Johnson came up big for the team but I'm not so sure he was the sole reason.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

Really? Because your post is well summarized to me with this...

Well, it's not.

Which, is a opinion that I strongly disagree with. It's pretty easy to claim re-written history would favour your opinion, but looking back at the state of the team before his run absolutely shows the contrary. Things were looking bad for the Flames, and the outlook was grim. It was on Johnson's back that this season was saved and I'm very confident in that.

This is a discussion about whether to re-sign Brian Elliott and a good deal of that decision incorporates Johnson's play to date. You are the one who forwarded the opinion about how much worse the team would be without Johnson, to which I responded specifically within the larger rebuttal that was intended to address this issue. I am not nearly as confident as you are, and will not be at all surprised to see Elliott perform well again when the team will need him to do so.

The bottom line here being that Johnson has not and will not be played as the number one goalie for the Flames this year. While he has acquitted himself well to this point, there is no reason to make a change to the current goalie rotation which is working fairly well—not perfectly, but well enough. This IS NOT the time to be drawing sweeping conclusions about either goalie, and while I am of the opinion that Brian Elliott should not be re-signed today, I am also open to the possibility that this could change by the end of the season.

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by Split98

Really? Because your post is well summarized to me with this:


Which, is a opinion that I strongly disagree with. It's pretty easy to claim re-written history would favour your opinion, but looking back at the state of the team before his run absolutely shows the contrary. Things were looking bad for the Flames, and the outlook was grim. It was on Johnson's back that this season was saved and I'm very confident in that.

The Flames are three points ahead of the tire fire that is the Canucks. Without Chad Johnson getting hot when he did the Flames would be a bottom five team right now.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

The Flames are three points ahead of the tire fire that is the Canucks. Without Chad Johnson getting hot when he did the Flames would be a bottom five team right now.

And without Elliott crapping the bed the first 10 games we'd likely have 3 or 4 more wins.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Well, it's not.


This is a discussion about whether to re-sign Brian Elliott and a good deal of that decision incorporates Johnson's play to date. You are the one who forwarded the opinion about how much worse the team would be without Johnson, to which I responded specifically within the larger rebuttal that was intended to address this issue. I am not nearly as confident as you are, and will not be at all surprised to see Elliott perform well again when the team will need him to do so.

The bottom line here being that Johnson has not and will not be played as the number one goalie for the Flames this year. While he has acquitted himself well to this point, there is no reason to make a change to the current goalie rotation which is working fairly well—not perfectly, but well enough. This IS NOT the time to be drawing sweeping conclusions about either goalie, and while I am of the opinion that Brian Elliott should not be re-signed today, I am also open to the possibility that this could change by the end of the season.

Johnson will not be played as the number one goalie? I wouldn't be too sure of that. I agree that Elliott still might turn it around but unless Johnson drops off, he won't be given many chances. You may not be giving enough notice to the significant discrepancy in their play this season.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Johnson will not be played as the number one goalie? I wouldn't be too sure of that. I agree that Elliott still might turn it around but unless Johnson drops off, he won't be given many chances. You may not be giving enough notice to the significant discrepancy in their play this season.

I am confident that Brian Elliot will play at least 15 of the remaining 40 games.

Both goalies have played <25 games this season, and Elliott has one less win than Johnson since Dec 1. I see nothing in the current situation to suggest that one will suddenly take on the lion's share of starts in the second half. Yes, if one of them goes on a tear he will play until he starts to tail off. But I do not believe that either goalie has shown with any confidence that they will play at an elite level for the balance of the year. I'm frankly surprised that you seem so willing to position Johnson as the starter after what has transpired in the first half. Unless something dramatic happens they will continue to play in tandem until April.

[Locke]

This is one of those times where I'd resign Brian Elliott.

Yeah...no...not a typo.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

And without Elliott crapping the bed the first 10 games we'd likely have 3 or 4 more wins.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am confident that Brian Elliot will play at least 15 of the remaining 40 games.

Both goalies have played <25 games this season, and Elliott has one less win than Johnson since Dec 1. I see nothing in the current situation to suggest that one will suddenly take on the lion's share of starts in the second half. Yes, if one of them goes on a tear he will play until he starts to tail off. But I do not believe that either goalie has shown with any confidence that they will play at an elite level for the balance of the year. I'm frankly surprised that you seem so willing to position Johnson as the starter after what has transpired in the first half. Unless something dramatic happens they will continue to play in tandem until April.

I see you are counting wins. One could argue that over that period the coaches lobbed Elliott a softball with Col x2, Arizona x2 and Van x2.

Throw out that narrative that any given night, any team can win. This is a statistically biased gift to a guy that really bloody well needs it.

Shame on you for comparing wins since Dec 1, as if quality of competition was no factor. Please.

[Alberta_Beef]

I'll wait until at least the trade deadline to re-sign with Elliott or Johnson. One could see themselves wearing another jersey after the deadline

[Cycling76er]

I would resign him.

[BrownDrake]

Sign Johnson to a friendly 3-4 year deal +/-3.5/year.

Let Rittich and Gillies fight it out next training camp. The one who loses carries Stockton in AHL and the other fights with Johnson for the number one job.

Frees up +/-2 to 3 million over the next 2-3 years to help find that top 6 winger. This team is really built to win in 2-3 years, don't get a 5 to 6 year boat anchor now, pay more later for someone you have complete confidence in that is a bonafide number 1, and lets hope he already plays for us (Gillies/Rittich/Johnson/Parsons).

If we sign Elliott to a 5 year deal - start trading young promising, at least 2, goaltenders right now for maximum value.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by BrownDrake

Sign Johnson to a friendly 3-4 year deal +/-3.5/year.

Let Rittich and Gillies fight it out next training camp. The one who loses carries Stockton in AHL and the other fights with Johnson for the number one job.

Frees up +/-2 to 3 million over the next 2-3 years to help find that top 6 winger. This team is really built to win in 2-3 years, don't get a 5 to 6 year boat anchor now, pay more later for someone you have complete confidence in that is a bonafide number 1, and lets hope he already plays for us (Gillies/Rittich/Johnson/Parsons).

If we sign Elliott to a 5 year deal - start trading young promising, at least 2, goaltenders right now for maximum value.

There's no guarantee that Rittich will be back. He's on a 1 year deal.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

The Flames are three points ahead of the tire fire that is the Canucks. Without Chad Johnson getting hot when he did the Flames would be a bottom five team right now.

lol that you would make that comment after referencing the Canucks being 3 points behind us.

Overall, the Flames have had average goaltending this year. If any team is being carried by their goalies, it's the Nucks.

The Flames are better and deeper than the Nucks at every position.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I see you are counting wins. One could argue that over that period the coaches lobbed Elliott a softball with Col x2, Arizona x2 and Van x2.



Throw out that narrative that any given night, any team can win. This is a statistically biased gift to a guy that really bloody well needs it.



Shame on you for comparing wins since Dec 1, as if quality of competition was no factor. Please.

Do you disagree with my expectation that Elliott will start at least another 15 games? My point is not that he and Johnson are interchangeable, but rather to show that neither is the clear starter in Calgary.

[BrownDrake]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

There's no guarantee that Rittich will be back. He's on a 1 year deal.

Rittich is an RFA after this season and will get an extension from the flames considering how he has been playing.

[442scotty]

I suspect Elliott will be traded before the deadline for a nice asset... He's too expensive to keep, especially with his up and down play. Rittich will come up and play alongside Johnson and will get his shot. He's just too good to leave on the farm. IMHO

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 442scotty

I suspect Elliott will be traded before the deadline for a nice asset... He's too expensive to keep, especially with his up and down play. Rittich will come up and play alongside Johnson and will get his shot. He's just too good to leave on the farm. IMHO

This makes very little sense: how does Elliot's cap hit have any impact on the team after the deadline? The only way either goalie is traded before the draft is if the Flames suddenly find themselves out of contention for the playoffs, and I can't see that happening. There is no way this team goes into the post season with a rookie NHL goalie in his first NA pro season on the bench.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am confident that Brian Elliot will play at least 15 of the remaining 40 games.

Both goalies have played <25 games this season, and Elliott has one less win than Johnson since Dec 1. I see nothing in the current situation to suggest that one will suddenly take on the lion's share of starts in the second half. Yes, if one of them goes on a tear he will play until he starts to tail off. But I do not believe that either goalie has shown with any confidence that they will play at an elite level for the balance of the year. I'm frankly surprised that you seem so willing to position Johnson as the starter after what has transpired in the first half. Unless something dramatic happens they will continue to play in tandem until April.

Counting their recent wins is one measure to be sure. But Elliott looked shaky in many of those wins and they were clearly against lesser competition. If you want to take a numbers based approach, look at their save percentage and GAA for the entire year.

In my view, Johnson had already been given the starters job (tenuous, to be sure) but he lost his hold after some underwhelming starts. I would suggest he has it back again, and will receive the majority of the starts rest of the way. Johnson really controls the situation and playing time will be predicated mostly on his play.

I predict Elliott gets about 10 starts rest of the season. If he gets more than that, it will mean Johnson is not playing well or is hurt.