Ongoing - Elliott Friedman's 30 Thoughts (Wednesdays)

[Poe969]

If they can get him for under 4 mill, I'd give him 3 years. If he wants 4+ I would give him 1 year, if he wants 5+ I would shop elsewhere

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Husky

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

.901 is not "fine". 901 is bottom of the barrel goaltending. I even address that my post is incorrect on the 75% point, it's actually 66% - so yeah, that's a bad on me.

"Middle section is just fine". No, it's not.

.901 is actually Elliott's average on the season - and that places him 45th out of 52 goalies who have played 15 or more games - 8th worst.

Yep, just "fine".

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If they can get him for under 4 mill, I'd give him 3 years. If he wants 4+ I would give him 1 year, if he wants 5+ I would shop elsewhere

I wouldn't give Elliott more than 2/$3M per. Who are we bidding against for his services? He has had a fine stretch of games. So did Chad Johnson.

Add to that the goalie market is flooded this summer. Lots of value to be had.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

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.



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.

If the Flames can get Saros I'd be all for it. I think he'll be a star.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I wouldn't give Elliott more than 2/$3M per. Who are we bidding against for his services? He has had a fine stretch of games. So did Chad Johnson.

Add to that the goalie market is flooded this summer. Lots of value to be had.

Elliott & Bishop will definitely struggle to get the dollars they want this summer. There are only 3-5 teams looking for a #1:

Calgary - obvious
Dallas - would need to rid themselves of Lehtonen ($5.9M) and Niemi ($4.5M) first though. Is that possible?
Winnipeg - they won't do a Hutchinson/Hellebuyck duo again next year
Ottawa - I don't actually think they'll be looking, as Anderson still has a year on his contract and has been outstanding, but I think there's potential that Anderson steps back or retires due to what's happening in his personal life.
Las Vegas - obvious


Available goaltenders:
Elliott
Fleury
Bishop
Mason
Miller
Kuemper
Johnson
Nilsson
Bernier
Howard/Mrazek
Raanta/Lundqvist


Edit: should have included Philadelphia

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

.901 is not "fine". 901 is bottom of the barrel goaltending. I even address that my post is incorrect on the 75% point, it's actually 66% - so yeah, that's a bad on me.

"Middle section is just fine". No, it's not.

Middle section is as good as you're going to get from most goalies with Dennis Wideman putting out the welcome mat and escorting opposing forwards right up to the goal mouth. A goalie may pull a Chad Johnson and look good for short stretches under those conditions, but in the long run, you need an NHL-quality defence to have NHL-quality goaltending.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Middle section is as good as you're going to get from most goalies with Dennis Wideman putting out the welcome mat and escorting opposing forwards right up to the goal mouth. A goalie may pull a Chad Johnson and look good for short stretches under those conditions, but in the long run, you need an NHL-quality defence to have NHL-quality goaltending.

I'd say this is a bit of a different debate. When Wideman was suspended last year - did our goalies all of a sudden have a significant improvement in save %?

Wideman has also only been scratched for...Elliott's last 5 games? So how does that explain the previous 5 games where Wideman was playing?

[Par]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

If the Flames can get Saros I'd be all for it. I think he'll be a star.

If Elliott signs for 2 years/$3miilion, going with a tandem of Mrazek or Grubauer or Saros and Elliott would work.

It would give us a chance to see how one of Mrazek or Grubauer or Saros, would be in a starters role and it would give us Elliott to fall back on if they can't handle the load.

I agree with you on Saros, he will be a star in this League.

[GioforPM]

I will be accused of cherry picking games, but I'd rather not look at the season save % because of all the poor play by everyone then. I'd rather look at mid-late season Elliott. Because that's the Elliott I think is more likely representative (just like present Gaudreau/Brodie/Monahan/Gio versus early season versions).

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Par

If Elliott signs for 2 years/$3miilion, going with a tandem of Mrazek or Grubauer or Saros and Elliott would work.

It would give us a chance to see how one of Mrazek or Grubauer or Saros, would be in a starters role and it would give us Elliott to fall back on if they can't handle the load.

I agree with you on Saros, he will be a star in this League.

I don't think Mrazek's cap-hit would work in tandem with Elliott, but a Saros/Elliott tandem would be rad. Would Elliott be open to that though? He asked for a trade away from a near identical situation in St. Louis with Jake Allen.

Also, if you're going with Saros/Elliott, you're looking at a 3rd in '17 for Elliott, and whatever Saros costs to acquire (could be a late 1st, or a number of picks like Talbot - who returned a 2nd, a 3rd and a 7th).

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'd say this is a bit of a different debate. When Wideman was suspended last year - did our goalies all of a sudden have a significant improvement in save %?

The goalies last year were a thirty-car pileup. Remember when Ramo finally began to look decent and then blew out his season with that injury? You're not going to get meaningful statistical information out of that.

[Ryan Coke]

I hope Elliot (or Johnson) are part of a deep cup run that makes us need them back, but neither have shown enough that there shouldn't be a long hard look at all available goalies.

This last stretch has been the only one all year where Elliot has really been good. And no, a .901 save percentage is not good enough, in spite of whatever excuses a person wants to find.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The goalies last year were a thirty-car pileup. Remember when Ramo finally began to look decent and then blew out his season with that injury? You're not going to get meaningful statistical information out of that.

Up until this recent stretch I'd argue Elliott has been every bit as bad as the goalies last year.

So if you don't want to compare to last year's goalies, then there's no real comparison to be made outside of Elliott's last 5 games vs. the work that comes before it. To blame everything wrong with Elliott outside of the last 5 games on Wideman seems like a stretch.

[yourbestfriend]

Again, we gotta think about the big picture. We're still in a "rebuild".
With that in mind if I'm giving up a 2nd, I'm throwing it a 22yr old former top prospect, not a UFA goalie. I feel like mgmt decided, with or without Bishop this year, we don't have a realistic chance of making a lot of noise in the playoffs.
Better to add for the future and then try to sign Bishop in the summer without any acquisition cost.
Good on them for sticking to the plan.

[Jay Random]

The NHL average save percentage so far this year is .913. The difference between that and Elliott's .901 in that middle stretch is about four goals. If you look at the heat map for the Flames' shots against, you see a lot of blue on the left side of the ice and a big red carpet leading up to the right of the goal mouth. Wideman accounts for a significant part of that difference. I don't think it's a stretch to say that it might be four goals' worth.

Elliott was not by any means good during that stretch of games. But it was not ‘bottom of the barrel goaltending’.

And by the way, I never make excuses for anybody. I look for cause and effect. Some people think hockey players are magic robots, and if they don't perform at 100% of capacity every single shift, it must be because they are lazy bums. That isn't true. They have ups and downs like everyone else, and the downs often happen for identifiable reasons.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Up until this recent stretch I'd argue Elliott has been every bit as bad as the goalies last year.

So if you don't want to compare to last year's goalies, then there's no real comparison to be made outside of Elliott's last 5 games vs. the work that comes before it. To blame everything wrong with Elliott outside of the last 5 games on Wideman seems like a stretch.

Recent stretch? I think he's been generally pretty good since December, when he went 4-1. He was bad against Vancouver and Toronto in Jan, but otherwise good (he was 4-2 but one loss was his outstanding SO loss against the Oilers and one was after he took over from Johnson when the Oilers won the laugher and the game was already done IMO). In February he was bad against Arizona, but so was everyone else (7-3, including the OT loss in Vancouver where he was good).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Up until this recent stretch I'd argue Elliott has been every bit as bad as the goalies last year.

You are just wrong about that. Simply, unequivocally wrong.

To blame everything wrong with Elliott outside of the last 5 games on Wideman seems like a stretch.

I don't think you blame "everything wrong" on Wideman, but surely the dramatic and almost immediate improvement in team defence since the Stone and Bartkowski acquisitions have to count for something pretty significant. I would argue as others have done that Elliott's game started to come around in December, still behind a pretty suspect and adventurous defence. The improvements made to the blue line in the past two weeks has helped Elliott to play his game more confidently.

Elliott is a good goaltender, and more importantly one that can continue to be a good, reasonably priced stop-gap for this team until they have a better read on Gillies and Parsons. I am not altogether impressed by the list of available free agent goalies this summer relative to their acquisition cost. To my mind, a 2–3 year deal for Elliott still makes a lot of sense.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Elliott & Bishop will definitely struggle to get the dollars they want this summer. There are only 3-5 teams looking for a #1:

Calgary - obvious
Dallas - would need to rid themselves of Lehtonen ($5.9M) and Niemi ($4.5M) first though. Is that possible?
Winnipeg - they won't do a Hutchinson/Hellebuyck duo again next year
Ottawa - I don't actually think they'll be looking, as Anderson still has a year on his contract and has been outstanding, but I think there's potential that Anderson steps back or retires due to what's happening in his personal life.
Las Vegas - obvious


Available goaltenders:
Elliott
Fleury
Bishop
Mason
Miller
Kuemper
Johnson
Nilsson
Bernier
Howard/Mrazek
Raanta/Lundqvist


Edit: should have included Philadelphia

Not that the Rags would trade him, but just a hypothetical. What would you offer for Lundqvist?

He's 35 years old, and has four years left at $8.5. If the Rangers retained $2.5M, I would look long and hard at it.

[Erick Estrada]

I'm not too worried about this situation as once the season plays out and the smoke clears it will be pretty apparent if Elliot is worth bringing back or not. I'm not a Brouwer fan at all and I hope he's exposed and picked up in the expansion draft but the rule applies to him as well as Elliott in that a lot of new players to a team take almost a full season to fit in and acclimate themselves to a new city, team, system, etc. I think Brouwer will be better next season if he's a Flame as I would expect Elliott to have a better start to next season if he was to remain a Flame. If he sustains this play down to the Flames last game of the season I would feel pretty confident that he's at least part of a 2-3 year solution in the nets for this team. If he falters down the stretch then the team knows they have several other options via trade or free agency.

[Poe969]

I don't think going after an older goalie is a good idea at this point. You want a goalie who can grow with the team and the King's window of eliteness isn't long enough. I'd be over the moon for Price because he's younger...and better.