Ongoing - Elliott Friedman's 30 Thoughts (Wednesdays) - Page 11 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

sureLoss · 03-03-2017, 07:56 AM

Friedman on 960 said he thinks the Flames might have prioritized Lazar over Bishop and may have not made a trade offer on Bishop because they didn't feel like they had the assets to do both.

He also thinks that the Flames don't necessarily goes after Bishop this summer with Elliott finally "going".

Cecil Terwilliger · 03-03-2017, 08:02 AM

Bizarro world sureloss'd.

Lil Pedro · 03-03-2017, 08:04 AM

The way Elliott is rolling right now, if you can get him for 3 years at 4M per, why wouldn't you? It gives you extra cap flexibility to resign Stone and find another RW for this team. I still believe Elliott is the right guy for the job

manwiches · 03-03-2017, 08:05 AM

Maybe it's just our history with goaltenders since being spoiled by Kiprusoff for years, but signing a goalie for 6 years, even as highly touted as Bishop was, scares me. Unless it's for a Corey Crawford type of contract (low dollar)

ComixZone · 03-03-2017, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil Pedro

The way Elliott is rolling right now, if you can get him for 3 years at 4M per, why wouldn't you? It gives you extra cap flexibility to resign Stone and find another RW for this team. I still believe Elliott is the right guy for the job

Because he sucked - badly, for 75% of the season?

Also, because better goalies are available in free agency and they won't cost us a 3rd round pick to sign.

I find it odd how quickly people turn on players here. For the positive and the negative. 10 good games is enough to throw away 20 terrible ones, simply because they're the most recent games played...

ComixZone · 03-03-2017, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwiches

Maybe it's just our history with goaltenders since being spoiled by Kiprusoff for years, but signing a goalie for 6 years, even as highly touted as Bishop was, scares me. Unless it's for a Corey Crawford type of contract (low dollar)

Corey Crawford makes 6M. He signed a 6x6 deal a few years ago.

kyuss275 · 03-03-2017, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Because he sucked - badly, for 75% of the season?

Also, because better goalies are available in free agency and they won't cost us a 3rd round pick to sign.

I find it odd how quickly people turn on players here. For the positive and the negative. 10 good games is enough to throw away 20 terrible ones, simply because they're the most recent games played...

or "Lil Pedro" is looking at his body of work from the last couple of years and thinks that's the Elliot we are starting to see. I'm with Pedro, I hope Elliot tears it up down the stretch and flames can sign him to a 2-3 year deal under $5 million. Don't want to give Bishop a 6 year deal plus the money.

Enoch Root · 03-03-2017, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Because he sucked - badly, for 75% of the season?

Also, because better goalies are available in free agency and they won't cost us a 3rd round pick to sign.

I find it odd how quickly people turn on players here. For the positive and the negative. 10 good games is enough to throw away 20 terrible ones, simply because they're the most recent games played...

Well, he does have a prior track record as well, it's not like these last 10 games flew out of a unicorn's butt.

ComixZone · 03-03-2017, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well, he does have a prior track record as well, it's not like these last 10 games flew out of a unicorn's butt.

His track record adds to the uneasy of extending him to me. St. Louis never believed - never. Ryan Miller, Jaro Halak, Jake Allen - Elliott never got the benefit of the doubt. I think we have a good understanding as to why this year.

I'm not opposed to re-signing Elliott to a 1 year deal (even at the expense of a 3rd, because whatever it's a 3rd) - but I am not on-board with spending 4M+ on a multi year deal. If Elliott wants more than 1 year, then he can go to market and see what it yields there.

He hasn't earned an extension with any sort of term attached to it in my eyes.

The Fonz · 03-03-2017, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Because he sucked - badly, for 75% of the season?

Also, because better goalies are available in free agency and they won't cost us a 3rd round pick to sign.

I find it odd how quickly people turn on players here. For the positive and the negative. 10 good games is enough to throw away 20 terrible ones, simply because they're the most recent games played...

He didn't suck for 75% of the season:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I'm certainly not opposed to re-signing him. Elliott's awful stats this season are in large part due to how horribly this team played during GG's first 16GP behind the bench. Now I'm not completely absolving Elliott here, as there were some real stinkers that got by him, but I can acknowledge that it's very much a mental game and especially for goaltenders, and his confidence wasn't there at the start of the season.

If we break games 1-16 out of the stat-line, it looks like:

Games 1-16 (25% of season-to-date)
Team Record: 5-10-1
Elliott's Record: 3-8-0
Elliott's SV%: .882

Games 17-64 (75% of season-to-date)
Team Record: 31-16-3
Elliott's Record: 13-7-3
Elliott's SV%: .912

The numbers lean even further in Elliott's favor if you break out the games since Wideman has been replaced by Stone, but I won't do that because of the sample size (4GP).

TLDR; if Elliott can maintain his strong play down the stretch and into the playoffs, I'd be on-board with re-signing him

I think Elliott's future as a Flame is determined by how he plays between now and golf season. The way the year started, he didn't deserve another contract here, but he has played well enough these last couple months to re-open the conversation.

Bingo · 03-03-2017, 08:48 AM

not sure I buy it.

You have Yzerman saying only one real offer came in and he took it from the Kings. Plus you have Treliving suggesting media hints that Calgary was in on goaltending was a stretch.

He listens to everything but I'm not sure I'm with Friedman on this one.

Enoch Root · 03-03-2017, 08:49 AM

saying he sucked for 2/3 of the season is also misleading...

breaking it down in thirds...

1st 11.: 3-8-0 .882 3.36
2nd 12: 5-4-2 .901 2.49
3rd 11.: 8-1-1 .922 2.20

He got off to a horrible start but has been steadily improving. That middle 12 felt lousy because we were tainted by the first 11.

Edit: what Fonz said

ComixZone · 03-03-2017, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

saying he sucked for 2/3 of the season is also misleading...

breaking it down in thirds...

1st 11.: 3-8-0 .882 3.376
2nd 12: 5-4-2 .901 2.49
3rd 11.: 8-1-1 .922 2.20

He got off to a horrible start but has been steadily improving. That middle 12 felt lousy because we were tainted by the first 11.

Edit: what Fonz said

Good break down, but the only good run he has there is the 3rd section.

.901 and .882 are both bad stretches of goaltending, and that's 2/3 of the season (so yeah, 75% was an exaggeration).

That 3rd run is what I'd expect to see from a starting goaltender/good back-up, but even if he keeps that up into the playoffs, it's still not enough in my eyes for an extension with term. Bring him back on a 1 year deal? Sure. Make him earn another contract.

Enoch Root · 03-03-2017, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Good break down, but the only good run he has there is the 3rd section.

.901 and .882 are both bad stretches of goaltending, and that's 2/3 of the season (so yeah, 75% was an exaggeration).

That 3rd run is what I'd expect to see from a starting goaltender/good back-up, but even if he keeps that up into the playoffs, it's still not enough in my eyes for an extension with term. Bring him back on a 1 year deal? Sure. Make him earn another contract.

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).

Erick Estrada · 03-03-2017, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Good break down, but the only good run he has there is the 3rd section.

.901 and .882 are both bad stretches of goaltending, and that's 2/3 of the season (so yeah, 75% was an exaggeration).

That 3rd run is what I'd expect to see from a starting goaltender/good back-up, but even if he keeps that up into the playoffs, it's still not enough in my eyes for an extension with term. Bring him back on a 1 year deal? Sure. Make him earn another contract.

The 3rd run is pretty well elite stats. Far better than a good backup.

ComixZone · 03-03-2017, 08:59 AM

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.

Oling_Roachinen · 03-03-2017, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

That 3rd run is what I'd expect to see from a starting goaltender/good back-up,

Lol. Dubynk, Holtby, Bobrovosky and Murray. The only starters with better than "good back up" 0.922 save percentage numbers this year.

manwiches · 03-03-2017, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Corey Crawford makes 6M. He signed a 6x6 deal a few years ago.

Been a long morning. I'll show myself the door.

Husky · 03-03-2017, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Good break down, but the only good run he has there is the 3rd section.

.901 and .882 are both bad stretches of goaltending, and that's 2/3 of the season (so yeah, 75% was an exaggeration).

That 3rd run is what I'd expect to see from a starting goaltender/good back-up, but even if he keeps that up into the playoffs, it's still not enough in my eyes for an extension with term. Bring him back on a 1 year deal? Sure. Make him earn another contract.

You are wrong. Middle section is just fine. What happened is someone broke it out and basically made your 75% comment look stupid.

calgaryblood · 03-03-2017, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil Pedro

The way Elliott is rolling right now, if you can get him for 3 years at 4M per, why wouldn't you? It gives you extra cap flexibility to resign Stone and find another RW for this team. I still believe Elliott is the right guy for the job

$4 million a year for 3 years because he's strung together a few good games and still has some god awful stats?

Yes he's played way better but anything more than a one year deal would be a mistake.