Do the Flames really need Kipper?

[Joborule]

That's like saying do the Kings need Quick. You're all-star goalie is your all-star goalie. You keep him if you intend to compete for the cup.

Just because Joey MacDonald is being a serviceable backup (what a shocker to us), doesn't mean Kipper should be expendable now if he wasn't before.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Joborule

That's like saying do the Kings need Quick. You're all-star goalie is your all-star goalie. You keep him if you intend to compete for the cup.

Just because Joey MacDonald is being a serviceable backup (what a shocker to us), doesn't mean Kipper should be expendable now if he wasn't before.

Bernier may prove to be the better goalie in the not too distant future...

The Flames, however, desperately need Kipper. Joey Mac is a capable backup but not a starter. If Kipper can regain his play from last year and Joey Mac can keep up his play, this could be a dangerous team. If we continue to mess around with the goalie situation expect the top teams to feast on us.

[moon]

Macdonald has got results but in pretty much every game other than Minny he has not been very good at all. That isn't his fault he does what a back-up usually does, lets in soft goals, makes some saves he shouldn't and needs the team in front of him to score goals to win the game.

I don't think the Flames do anything with or without Kipper but to have any realistic chance at play-offs they need him and to win a round they basically need Kipper to go to 2004 form or better and get a couple of shutouts in round 1 to win.

[Bertuzzied]

Macdonald has been playing good but there is a reason why the Red Wings chose the monster over him.....

Of course we need to keep Kipper!

[Northendzone]

ramo could be the second coming of kipper, ken dryden or leland irving or brent krahan.

might be nice to see ramo stop some shots from NHL'rs before making a decision.

[burn_baby_burn]

What kind of return are you going to get from a 36 year old goalie who is showing signs of slipping? What do teams typically give up for goal tenders? I think the people who want to see Kipper traded are going to be very disapointed in what the Flames actually get in return.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Right you are ...some quick math ...
the opposition win % in the Flames win ... .497
Opp Win % in Flames losses .606
Opp win % in Flames SOL .704
opp win % for the remainder of schedule .579

In such a young season, the fact that the Flames won or lost those games respectively will skew those stats. Not a lot, but a little. The schedule gets tougher, for sure, but part of the reason the opposition win % in games where we beat them is low is because we beat them.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

What kind of return are you going to get from a 36 year old goalie who is showing signs of slipping? What do teams typically give up for goal tenders? I think the people who want to see Kipper traded are going to be very disapointed in what the Flames actually get in return.

The rub is if Kipper plays great, the Flames are probably not sellers. If he plays poorly, they probably are, and Kipper's return will be low. The only saving grace is Kipper's contract.

[moon]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

What kind of return are you going to get from a 36 year old goalie who is showing signs of slipping? What do teams typically give up for goal tenders? I think the people who want to see Kipper traded are going to be very disapointed in what the Flames actually get in return.

I think the best chance they have is a team like a Chicago or Sj that maybe has a goalie they don't totally trust but would be able to use if Kipper has injury issues/plays like he did at the start of the season.

If Florida was having a season like last year I could have seen them as an option going with Kipper for this year and having Markstrom as insurance.

Maybe TO with Reimer and/or Scrivens could work.

I think that Kipper is going to have to go to a very specific destination to get anything of consequence back and that spot might change with injuries/play between now and the trade deadline.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by dammage79

But after watching the last nine games without kipprusoff, can anyone seriously be asking this question? Of course we need kipper.

Which Kipper? The Kipper we saw open the season? No, we don't need that guy at all... we need the guy that he's shown himself to be capable of being. He doesn't have to be last years Kipper (who was amazing) but we need him to be better then 08-09 Kipper (who wasn't) which was better then the Kipper we opened the year with.

[Fry]

On HNIC after he was hired feaster was asked about moving his verterns, especially Kipper. He said he asked him and kipper told him he wouldn't of signed here if he didn't want to play here, and something along the lines of not asking him again, I believe.
I wouldn't doubt if he refuses to waive his no trade clause. Especially if what is speculated by some and even mentioned by Bob Mckenzie a couple of weeks ago that this is his last year. That it was agreed that he wouldn't play for the low pay in his last year and that it was just cap management.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Fry

On HNIC after he was hired feaster was asked about moving his verterns, especially Kipper. He said he asked him and kipper told him he wouldn't of signed here if he didn't want to play here, and something along the lines of not asking him again, I believe.
I wouldn't doubt if he refuses to waive his no trade clause. Especially if what is speculated by some and even mentioned by Bob Mckenzie a couple of weeks ago that this is his last year. That it was agreed that he wouldn't play for the low pay in his last year and that it was just cap management.

Kipper does not have a no trade clause.

[Phanuthier]

I want to see this team win games without a superstar goalie... while we need him to stay competitive, I don't want to just use him as a bailout option. For all the crying the past few weeks about Iginla never having any support (forget Tanguay, Cammalleri, Langkow, Huselius etc)... Kiprusoff has quietly been a workhorse back there backstopping team that isn't committed to team defense for half a decade.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by zunie75

IMO Macdonald hasn't played well enough to be considered to be anything more than a capable back up goalie. Even if we snuck into the playoffs, would a first round ousting after 4,5 or 6 games really change anything?

If we want a run of any significance then yes, we need Kipper. (Unless your considering tanking the season) He can single handily win us games, which is something you need from a starter. I don't think Macdonald can do that against the upper echelon teams.

Not really, but the real question there is can this team do any better than that with Kipper?

[The Coppernian One]

I haven't sat down and looked at the actual numbers, but it seems that since Kipper went down the Flames are needing to score 4+ goals to win. Even in their (Flames) wins the opposition is still scoring 4-5 goals. While the Flames have got some points over that stretch, it's not sustainable so I would say, yes, the Flames need him.

I think you also have to know what you have in Ramo. There was hype around him in his first stint in the NHL but he never materialized. Looking back his numbers weren't that good, but he was young and he's had a few more years to develop since then but still nothing to bet the farm on.

[dammage79]

The thing with Ramo though is what do the Flames sign him to? His KHL stats are really the only thing to base the monetary value off of. What if he wants a 5 year + deal? Before the Flames actually get the chance to see what they have in him they have to sign him first.

Based off his KHL success I would put him in the 2.5 to 4 m a year range. But again the bigger question is what does he want for term?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Kiprusoff has quietly been a workhorse back there backstopping team that isn't committed to team defense for half a decade.

He's certainly been a workhorse but as far as team defense goes he's largely gotten averagish defensive work in front of him...

2007-2008 SA/G: 15th
2008-2009 SA/G: 16th
2009-2010 SA/G: 16th
2010-2011 SA/G: 18th
2011-2012 SA/G: 23rd
2012-2013 SA/G: 12th (thus far)

... Last year stunk in that regard but for the most part he's gotten middling shot prevention. Certainly nothing to write home about but not a shooting gallary either.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by valo403

Not really, but the real question there is can this team do any better than that with Kipper?

Also,

can CGY contend for The Cup in 2-3 years? If not, should he moved for assets that will help CGY contend for The Cup in 5-6 years?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

In such a young season, the fact that the Flames won or lost those games respectively will skew those stats. Not a lot, but a little. The schedule gets tougher, for sure, but part of the reason the opposition win % in games where we beat them is low is because we beat them.

for sure ...

but when you see the list sorted it's a pretty good indication of teams I think the Flames will struggle against ...

Vancouver, Chicago, St. Louis, Anaheim, LA ... ouch

[Poe969]

Do the Flames really need Kipper? Well need him or not, he's going to be gone soon. Look at it this way; in the next couple of years do you think a team that has consistantly come in 9th place can turn things around and win the cup? If the answer is no, than it doesn't matter if we have Kipper or not. Having Kipper and finishing in 9th place is a lot worse than trading him away, getting help for the future, finishing in a lower spot and getting a better draft pick.

Either way, he won't be around forever so people have to start thinking about the big picture.