Marc-Andre Fleury as a Flame ?? could this be the Goaltender we get this summer ?

[ricosuave]

Meh, we could do worse. I'm hoping we hit a home-run with Anderson at a fair cost though.

[Badgers Nose]

MAF/JR with JG in the AHL would = goalie problem solved.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

Meh, we could do worse. I'm hoping we hit a home-run with Anderson at a fair cost though.

Getting Anderson would probably cost and arm and a leg out of Anaheim. No way they would trade within the division to improve a up and coming rival.

[ricosuave]

^ Probably. But we'll see...

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

^ Probably. But we'll see...

Andersen would be hitting into a double-play IMO.

High Acquisition Cost + Marginal Upgrade

The guy has below average stats behind one of the best defensive teams in the league - honestly the last guy I want.

[Icon]

My order of preference based on who's rumored to be "available"

Bishop - highest pricetag most likely but best goalie on the list
Mrazek - high pricetag, high potential
Greiss - presumably high pricetag, high potential
Vasilevsky - high pricetag, high potential
Fleury - lower pricetag (?), known quantity
Neuvirth - lower pricetag (?), decent potential, maybe not enough of an upgrade?
Elliot - unknown pricetag (depends what STL wants to do), inconsistent
Anderson - unknown pricetag (depends what ANA wants to do between him & Gibson), inconsistent
Allen - see Elliot, inconsistent, should still be some potential there though you'd think
Reimer - cheap, hasn't played >40games in a season in his career, likely requires good #2 as insurance anyway

[edslunch]

The Flames should be looking for their next decade goalie not someone cheap or temporary. Gillies is no sure thing and if he hits it's a nice problem to have.

If they can't find the next great young goalie then Fleury is the best of the 'easily acquired' goalies. I wouldn't go with Reimer just because he's cheaper, they should be convinced that he is the best available.

[Wolfman]

A Co worker of mine brought up a good point about Reimer. He was winning the Leafs games last season...therefore they got rid of him and played Sparks. It's quite clear what the Leafs were doing this season and that was tank.

I've been hard on Reimer myself but this makes me think differently about him. I thought if he was a starter he would have stayed but the Leafs wanted to lose.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Getting Anderson would probably cost and arm and a leg out of Anaheim. No way they would trade within the division to improve a up and coming rival.

It depends if they feel the same as the Flames in regards to trades within the division, which is you take the best offer.

[jmac98]

Originally Posted by Icon

Anderson - unknown pricetag (depends what ANA wants to do between him & Gibson), inconsistent

I actually feel one of the best attributes of Andersen is his consistency. There are some on here who point out that it's easy to look good with Anaheim in front of you, however, he was their best player in the first half of this past season when Anaheim was in last place not looking good at all. He has had 2 very good playoff tournaments to show his worth under pressure. And he's been terrific when Anaheim themselves have been during regular season play. In all scenarios, he's proven his value in my view and is a model of consistency.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by jmac98

I actually feel one of the best attributes of Andersen is his consistency. There are some on here who point out that it's easy to look good with Anaheim in front of you, however, he was their best player in the first half of this past season when Anaheim was in last place not looking good at all. He has had 2 very good playoff tournaments to show his worth under pressure. And he's been terrific when Anaheim themselves have been. In all scenarios, he's proven his value in my view and is a model of consistency.

I label him as inconsistent as he couldn't keep the starting role the whole time. Now part of that may just be that Gibson's just as good, so since the Ducks had the option they gave Gibson the ball to run with on occasion. I agree, when he's good he's really good.

[jmac98]

Originally Posted by Icon

I label him as inconsistent as he couldn't keep the starting role the whole time. Now part of that may just be that Gibson's just as good, so since the Ducks had the option they gave Gibson the ball to run with on occasion. I agree, when he's good he's really good.

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarity.

I actually see that scenario as the other way around. The job is supposed to be Gibsons, but Andersen's play is preventing that plan from coming to fruition. Not unlike Elliot in St Louis.

[CSharp]

Not sure why MAF is even considered when he's past his prime years ago. It's just gonna be another Hiller fiasco and with a couple more years with his contract - eff dat! TBH, Pens could've won without MAF - wait, they just did!

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Not sure why MAF is even considered when he's past his prime years ago. It's just gonna be another Hiller fiasco and with a couple more years with his contract - eff dat! TBH, Pens could've won without MAF - wait, they just did!

Gee, except for the fact that he just had one of his best statistical seasons to date (2.29 GAA / .921 Sv% through 58 games) - and that the Pens would not have even made the playoffs were it not for his play - this post would be bang on.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Not sure why MAF is even considered when he's past his prime years ago. It's just gonna be another Hiller fiasco and with a couple more years with his contract - eff dat! TBH, Pens could've won without MAF - wait, they just did!

Except that if MAF wasn't their MVP for the first 3/4 of the season then they don't make the playoffs.

Also MAF's best two seasons were the last two seasons - hard to say he was past his prime years ago.

I agree that I don't really want him due to age, cost, and his poor playoff history but as a regular season goalie his best two years have been his last two.

I'd have him above Andersen though.

[Toonage]

Not a huge Fleury fan, but I find the remarks about his age a bit puzzling.

He's 31 going on 32. 3 years left on his deal. 35 when he likely moves on. This isn't that old for a goalie. Guys have been (recently) very competitive at that position at 35 or older.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Not a huge Fleury fan, but I find the remarks about his age a bit puzzling.

He's 31 going on 32. 3 years left on his deal. 35 when he likely moves on. This isn't that old for a goalie. Guys have been (recently) very competitive at that position at 35 or older.

My only problem with Fleury's age has to do with acquisition cost.

In 5 years Fleury will either be gone, or he will be 37 so I don't want BT to give anything that in 5 years time has a high chance of being an impact piece for us and just heading into their prime.

For example, whoever the Flames take at 6th overall will be 22/23 in 5 years and should be an impact player heading into their prime. So in no way do I want the Flames to trade that for Fleury.

A couple 2nd round picks? Sure. But nothing really high end. If that's the cost, I'd rather keep the high end potential and roll the dice with Reimer.

[Toonage]

100% agree. Fleury for late round picks? Fine. Late pick and a B prospect? Sure. For our 1st rounder? No way.

[dino7c]

I want MAF big time and think he will have a monster year wherever he goes...that being said I wouldn't pay a big price

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The Flames should be looking for their next decade goalie not someone cheap or temporary. Gillies is no sure thing and if he hits it's a nice problem to have.

If they can't find the next great young goalie then Fleury is the best of the 'easily acquired' goalies. I wouldn't go with Reimer just because he's cheaper, they should be convinced that he is the best available.

Is it a nicer problem to have then depth up the middle? Nicer than a deep defensive core?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I would object to a deal for the "next decade" goalie in principle. But goaltending is also the easiest position to build depth in, just based on numbers. And teams that have dealt goaltending depth recently don't seem to be getting a king's ransom for doing so.