Who do you WANT the Flames Starting Goalie To Be Next Season [*NEW POLL 12·05·17]

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Elliott got ypu to the playoffs on the back of an 11 game win streak. Those who use the excuse he almost....haha....almost kept the Flames out of the playoffs as a reason he should not be back are grasping at straws. Yes, he had a weak start, then he made Flames history. That alone let's me consider bringing him back.

The real issue for me is when it comes to Elliott, did the playoffs shatter his confidence beyond repair. Because the Flames cannot afford another slow start next year. So at this point I think it's better to just let sleeping dogs lie and find a younger solution.

Elliott didn't win those 11 games by himself, and that run does not excuse his horrific start.

From a starting goalie, you don't want extremely low lows and extremely high highs. You want consistency, you need consistency. Consistency is what makes a goalie a #1 goalie.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. He had a tough start to the season, new team, new baby, basically an all new life. I can forgive and forget. After that, he was rock solid the rest of the way once he got the starter's net back.

Those last two games just came at the worst possible time and are what most people will remember him for. Fact is, this team doesn't make the playoffs without him. Not to mention he's been equally as solid for the past few years in STL, leading the league in most goaltending stats.

So by that logic Chad Johnson would be an equally good choice for starter next year. The team doesn't make the playoffs without him carrying the team when Elliott was crapping the bed.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What if his name is Gillies?

I'm definitely of the mind that it could be. That's why (despite their ability) I'm not sold on 5+ years on an over 30 guy.

Basically anyone on a 2-3 year deal is great. I think they're more likely to find that type of contract with a young backup ready for prime time, which has the added bonus of potentially solving the starter issue before Gillies or Parsons arrive, and if it doesn't, then you have your two goalie prospects waiting. You've got to have a degree of confidence in the farm.

If Bishop came in for 3 years, then that's ideal, but what happens if it's 5 and he's underwhelming? We've seen him do it. What if Gillies or Parsons emerges and we have to trade one of them or an average Bishop? Tampa had Bishop on the block for the past year and could barely get anything back, and had to wait until 2 months before his contract expired to do it. How easy is it going to be to trade Bishop with 2-3 years left at 6m, if those Vezina seasons start looking more and more like outliers?

I voted Bishop because at 2-3 years he's the best choice. In truth, I think any contract longer than that is too much of a risk. Even Fleury at 2 (with his up and down performances) feels like a better bet than anyone at 5.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Elliott got ypu to the playoffs on the back of an 11 game win streak. Those who use the excuse he almost....haha....almost kept the Flames out of the playoffs as a reason he should not be back are grasping at straws. Yes, he had a weak start, then he made Flames history. That alone let's me consider bringing him back.

The real issue for me is when it comes to Elliott, did the playoffs shatter his confidence beyond repair. Because the Flames cannot afford another slow start next year. So at this point I think it's better to just let sleeping dogs lie and find a younger solution.

Johnson was pretty much as instrumental in the Flames making the playoffs as Elliott with his run in November that pulled the Flames out of the basement. Elliott's late season run would have been irrelevant if it wasn't for Johnson. So we had 2 goalies that were either backups or 1B types. The Flames should be looking for a legit number 1 right now and I am not as concerned about finding out goalie of the future because I believe one of Gillies or Parsons will be that guy. The Flames need a 2-4 year stop gap veteran number 1 and a guy who has played 60+games a year.

[Poe969]

Imagine getting a decent goalie who could keep a team in any game?? Remember how Kipper always played really well, he wasn't streaky and there was a good chance at winning any game he was in net for.

If you say Elliot's winning streak is the reason the Flames made the playoffs, his his garbage play for most of the rest of the time is the reason they weren't a higher seed.

Good goalies steal wins but aren't usually the ones that cost the game. Even Talbot played pretty constant the whole year and not a lot of games could be pinned on him directly. The Flames need a goalie who gives them a chance to win every game and there were too many games when everyone would hold their breath for every shot against the Flames because soft goals were too common.

Bishop seems to be the answer but someone else might be a better fit...or they could end up being an average goalie. Bishop has been pretty good for a while, except last year. Grubaur seems like a good fit because in his limited viewings, he's been pretty good.

I'd love for the Flames to pick him up before the expansion draft and protect him and then sign Bishop to an affordable contract. IMO that's not a 1a 1b kinda thing, it's more a 1 1 sort of thing as both seem to be good starters.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Elliott didn't win those 11 games by himself, and that run does not excuse his horrific start.

From a starting goalie, you don't want extremely low lows and extremely high highs. You want consistency, you need consistency. Consistency is what makes a goalie a #1 goalie.

You're right, he didn't win those games by himself, he also didn't lose 3 of those 4 playoff games by himself either. I can pin the game 3 loss on Elliott. That was a back breaker. But there's too much focused blame on Elliott alone. Johnson cool off considerably as well which allowed Elliott to get hot, and then struggled in his limited starts before his injury.

At any rate, I think most are on board with not bringing Elliott back including myself.

[mrkajz44]

I just don't understand why people have this love for Bishop and Fleury over Elliott. Their regular season stats last year are virtually the same (their save percentages are 0.2% within each other). I'll admit Elliot had a rough go of it in the playoffs, but that was only 4 games. The fact that the Flames couldn't score 5v5 made a huge difference in the series as well. Not to mention the bad luck the Flames seemed to experience.

Any post that is saying we need Bishop or Fleury so we have a solid #1 just makes no sense when you consider their play compared to Elliot last year. All 3 were essentially the same goalie over the course of the season. So why not just bring back Elliott on a more cap friendly deal?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I just don't understand why people have this love for Bishop and Fleury over Elliott. Their regular season stats last year are virtually the same (their save percentages are 0.2% within each other). I'll admit Elliot had a rough go of it in the playoffs, but that was only 4 games. The fact that the Flames couldn't score 5v5 made a huge difference in the series as well. Not to mention the bad luck the Flames seemed to experience.

Any post that is saying we need Bishop or Fleury so we have a solid #1 just makes no sense when you consider their play compared to Elliot last year. All 3 were essentially the same goalie over the course of the season. So why not just bring back Elliott on a more cap friendly deal?

My preference for Bishop or Fleury over Elliott largely stems from a greater sample size of good results. One of the concerns about Elliott heading into the year was the fact that he has not ever really established a track of success over the course of 60+ games in a regular season and into the playoffs, whereas both Bishop and Fleury have. I would say that is still a concern, and not an insignificant one.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I just don't understand why people have this love for Bishop and Fleury over Elliott. Their regular season stats last year are virtually the same (their save percentages are 0.2% within each other). I'll admit Elliot had a rough go of it in the playoffs, but that was only 4 games. The fact that the Flames couldn't score 5v5 made a huge difference in the series as well. Not to mention the bad luck the Flames seemed to experience.

Any post that is saying we need Bishop or Fleury so we have a solid #1 just makes no sense when you consider their play compared to Elliot last year. All 3 were essentially the same goalie over the course of the season. So why not just bring back Elliott on a more cap friendly deal?

This is another example in this thread where people are claiming Elliott's poor playoffs are the reason he is no longer wanted when in fact it was the last straw in what was a pretty underwhelming year outside of a very impressive run late in the season. Elliott ends another season where he is unable to play 50+ games because he was not good enough. Over the course of the season he cost the team as many wins as he stole if not more.

People want Bishop or Fleury because they are proven number 1 goalies who have played 60+ games in a season. Bishop was a Vezina runner up a year ago. The Flames goaltending was adequate last year as both guys had their ups and downs resulting in average starter numbers at the end of the year. I prefer to try and get a guy that is above average and if the cost is cap space I am okay with the Flames spending it on a Bishop.

Teams that need a starter next year:
Dallas
Calgary
Winnipeg
Carolina
Vancouver?

Bishop, Elliott, Miller hit the market and plenty of options in the trade front with expansion. I am not sure there is a team that will give Bishop 6x6 so he may need to take a 3 year deal where I think Calgary would have a good chance of signing him

[Roof-Daddy]

Thought I'd put all these goalies stats in one place so it's easier to compare.

This is their averages over THE LAST 4 SEASONS

Obviously some of the younger goalies don't have a 4 season sample size, so for them this is their career to date.

QS% = Quality start percentage, .530 is about average, below .500 is terrible, above .600 is stellar.




Some takeaways..

Elliot's numbers are sparkling, although he's never shouldered a full starters workload, and how can you trust him after the collapse this year?

Bishop's numbers hold up very well against some of the best starters in the league over the last 4 years. No surprise with 2 Vezina nominations.

Price is a friggin goalie god. No wonder the Habs go from a 100+ point team with him to a lottery team without him.

If Rask, Crawford or Schneider are available via trade, and the price doesn't rip our young core apart, you pay it and get them. Especially Schneider because he's been backstopping a crappy non playoff team for the last 4 years.

Darling's numbers are frighteningly good, and if your scouts are confident he can translate them into a starters role then you might hit a massive home run value wise. It's a gamble though.

Smith is T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E. Stay away Tre please.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

^This further reinforces my thoughts earlier in this thread.

Bishop is an easy choice if you can get him signed to a decent contract.

Darling would be a great gamble if you're willing to take a gamble on a backup.

Fleury would at least give you average starting goalie numbers, plus he's got a LOT of experience under his belt to support a younger team. The plus is that he's only got 2 years left on his deal, which would allow for Gillies or Parsons to take over if they're ready. The negative is that you'd have to trade for him unless the Penguins buy him out.

Schneider is really, really good and it would be perfect if we could land him, but the cost would probably be astronomical.

Elliott does have good underlying numbers, and it makes sense as to why Treliving acquired him in the first place, but he laid an egg a couple times in the playoffs and through the first couple months of the year. I agree with the fact that you can't trust him even though his numbers say he's good. Far too inconsistent to be a regular starter.

[Badgers Nose]

Came to say Miikka, voted Gillies (i.e. he comes into camp and steals the job, not just has it handed to him).

[Zoller]

Where is Parsons on this list?

[Crumpy-Gunt]

I'd take elliott back but not as a starter.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Thought I'd put all these goalies stats in one place so it's easier to compare.

This is their averages over THE LAST 4 SEASONS

Obviously some of the younger goalies don't have a 4 season sample size, so for them this is their career to date.

QS% = Quality start percentage, .530 is about average, below .500 is terrible, above .600 is stellar.




Some takeaways..

Elliot's numbers are sparkling, although he's never shouldered a full starters workload, and how can you trust him after the collapse this year?

Bishop's numbers hold up very well against some of the best starters in the league over the last 4 years. No surprise with 2 Vezina nominations.

Price is a friggin goalie god. No wonder the Habs go from a 100+ point team with him to a lottery team without him.

If Rask, Crawford or Schneider are available via trade, and the price doesn't rip our young core apart, you pay it and get them. Especially Schneider because he's been backstopping a crappy non playoff team for the last 4 years.

Darling's numbers are frighteningly good, and if your scouts are confident he can translate them into a starters role then you might hit a massive home run value wise. It's a gamble though.

Smith is T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E. Stay away Tre please.

Have you factored in the goalie equipment changes into that? Would that be a factor?

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

I'd take elliott back but not as a starter.

Then your giving up a 3rd round pick for a back up.

[GranteedEV]

Way I see it, Elliott hit rock bottom with us. He is probably due for another elite year and hopefully it's with us. Bring him back but have a backup plan.

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Has anyone done the leg work to see which of the potentially available goalies has the best record against the pacific? Just curious.

Edit - hockeyreference.com seems to have this info. Career highlights for Bishop for example

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...hobe01/splits/

vs. Anaheim 7-0-2
vs. Los Angeles 4-2-0
vs. Vancouver 4-3-0
vs. Edmonton 5-1-1
vs. Arizona 3-1-2

My goodness, that record vs. Anaheim...

Haha, reading this just tipped the scales in favour of Bishop for me - otherwise I'm a fan of taking a risk with one of the seemingly starter-quality backup guys stuck behind established starters (Raanta, Grubauer, Darling).

[Badgers Nose]

Bishop and Darling, it's the only way to be sure.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by Zoller

Where is Parsons on this list?

Typically goalies coming straight out of junior don't fare well in the nhl. I'm guessing whoever made the poll only listed realistic options for starters