[Trade] Stars trade for Bishop and sign him to 6 year deal ($4.916 mil AAV)

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wonder if it's signed before July 1st or signed period. That's a big variable too. Let him go to UFA status and then look at him on Canada Day without the 3rd round pick being involved.

If he is signed in June 20th or July 20th he technically is Re-signing with Calgary and then we would still lose the pick correct? Is the window only for 1 year then the condition is over?

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

If he is signed in June 20th or July 20th he technically is Re-signing with Calgary and then we would still lose the pick correct? Is the window only for 1 year then the condition is over?

That's what I was just wondering... the way Armstrong phrased it, the 3rd round pick is if he signs with Calgary or is traded in the next year. Maybe both conditions are only valid until June 26/July 1...???

[Max Cow Disease]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I've played enough sports to know when a team gives up on someone, and this team has has no faith in Elliott. As soon as he lets in that bad goal, they just stop playing. The effort, the body language, the intensity, everything changes. There's no rebound from them when it happens. Normally when a goalie gives up a bad goal from time to time, the team in front of him will go through a wall to get it back for him. This team just quits in Elliott. You can maybe say that is an issue with the team, but this is a team built with a bunch of guys that just two years ago could never be counted out of game.

What I was coming in to say. Even if he's still not ruled out as a reasonable option on paper, I feel like the way the season ended necessitates the cutting of ties with Moose unfortunately. Unless he came out with a gangbuster stretch to start the season, I feel that the team's confidence in front of him would be affected by previous events.

[Diemenz]

Elliott will sign elsewhere and put up great numbers. He is a very solid goalie and all goalies including Price have had bad streaks.....His just happened to come at the worst time. If it wasn't for him playing lights out Calgary would not have made the playoffs so it is almost fitting that him not playing lights out meant that they were eliminated.

And yes I am saying that Calgary's fortune is tied to their goaltending.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

ng Price have had bad streaks.....His just happened to come at the worst time. If it wasn't for him playing lights out Calgary would not have made the playoffs so it is almost fitting that him not playing lights out meant that they were eliminated.

If it wasn't for him playing like crap most of the season, we wouldn't have needed him to save the season. Which was after Johnson had already saved the season once.

The issue with his playoff performance was not about him not playing lights out. It was about him sinking to a level where he can't make five routine saves in a row.

When was the last time you've seen a goalie pulled after five minutes with good reason? That's not a normal "off day", Elliotts meltdown was one of the worst in recent history.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Elliott will sign elsewhere and put up great numbers. He is a very solid goalie and all goalies including Price have had bad streaks.....His just happened to come at the worst time. If it wasn't for him playing lights out Calgary would not have made the playoffs so it is almost fitting that him not playing lights out meant that they were eliminated.

If we're going to go down that road, we could also say that if it weren't for his putrid start (.887 SV%, 3-8-0), he wouldn't have had to play lights out in order to recover our season.

EDIT: beaten by Itse

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

If we're going to go down that road, we could also say that if it weren't for his putrid start (.887 SV%, 3-8-0), he wouldn't have had to play lights out in order to recover our season.

EDIT: beaten by Itse

So you are saying the flames poor start was all goalie related?

This is a circular argument.
I can say that the poor start was due to bad defensive coverage while learning a new system. The goals against and + / - would support my argument as well as your argument is supported by Elliott's goaltending stats. My point would be further fuelled by showing that Calgary gave the most high danger scoring chances through the first 15 games, is that Elliott fault? I am not saying Elliott is the best goalie out there all I am saying is that Bishop is not better. Statically over the last 5 years they are almost identical with Elliott actually coming out on top.

[ComixZone]

Elliott's season:

Putrid
Amazing
Putrid

There was more bad than good, and he was putrid at the most important time of the year. Nothing else matters. There's no need to defend him at this stage, nor is there a need to pile on. It's just time to move on.

[Fire]

Usually when teams trade for the rights of a pending UFA they end up paying a premium to do it. Probably means 6 yrs x $6.5 or $7 or 7 yrs at $6.

Thankfully the Flames won't be doing that. If he didn't have a poor 2016-17 season I would feel better about it, but much too risky now.

[The Fonz]

nvm

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

So you are saying the flames poor start was all goalie related?

Well, if there's ever a fair comparison, it's two goalies playing roughly the same amount of starts for the exact same team during the exact same time, right?

From the start of the season until end of November, December Johnson started in 22 games, allowing 51 goals on 640 shots. for a SV% of .920. In those games Flames scored 58 goals, or 2.63 goals per game. Unsurprisingly, when a team scores more than it lets in, on average they win more than they lose. Flames record in those games was 13-9.

During that same period, Elliott started 18 games allowing 52 goals on 484 shots for a SV% of .892. Flames scored 50 goals in those games for an average of 2.77 goals per game. Unsurpisingly when you score less than you let in, you lose more than you win. Flames had a record of 7-11 with Elliott in net.

So I would say that yes, it was in part Elliots poor play that turned Johnsons hot 13-9 start into the teams mediocre 20-20 overall.

EDIT:
Additional notes, During the stretch above, the Flames scored 2.78 goals per game and allowed 26.9 shots per game with Elliott in net.

With Johnson in net, Flames scored 2.63 goals and allowed 29.1 shots per game. Talk about doing more with less.

EDIT2:
Obviously meant to the end of December, not November. ('bout halfway mark of the season).

[cannon7]

Wouldn't be surprised to see Bishop still end up a UFA. Don't think the Stars can afford what Bishop will be asking.

[Love]

I'm on the Fleury train at this point. Go attempt to redeem your career in Winnipeg, Brian.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Elliott will sign elsewhere and put up great numbers. He is a very solid goalie and all goalies including Price have had bad streaks.....His just happened to come at the worst time. If it wasn't for him playing lights out Calgary would not have made the playoffs so it is almost fitting that him not playing lights out meant that they were eliminated.

And yes I am saying that Calgary's fortune is tied to their goaltending.

If it weren't for him and Johnson being subpar for all but their 2 and 1 month hot stretches, it would've been a different season.

I hate the argument that Elliott was the reason the Flames were in the playoffs. If they had gotten even average (.915-.920) goaltending from their tandem starting in October, they would've made it comfortably, likely top 2 in the division.

Elliott/Johnson each saved the season at different points in the season, but it's also to an extent BECAUSE of them that it needed saving in the first place.

Hiller was as good as Elliott in his mediocre months, which was more than half the season. Pretty unacceptable.

I'd only take Johnson back as a backup. If Brian goes and does well elsewhere, then good for him. But he hasn't proven able to handle more than 40 or 50 games without serious questionable lapses. When he's good, he's great. When he's bad he's awful. We need someone that can show more in between, and more consistently.

[stone hands]

I'll always maintain that Elliot's amazing stretch was more of a byproduct of the entire team playing lights out rather than a stellar goaltending performance

[Locke]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I'll always maintain that Elliot's amazing stretch was more of a byproduct of the entire team playing lights out rather than a stellar goaltending performance

It doesnt matter either way. If it was the result of the team the goalie still has to come up with saves, looking at his last stint where he got pulled after a softie, that was below the standard of a normal NHL goalie.

[mrdonkey]

God do I miss having Kipper.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

God do I miss having Kipper.

Could you imagine Kipper in his prime backstopping this team?

Damn....

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Locke

It doesnt matter either way. If it was the result of the team the goalie still has to come up with saves, looking at his last stint where he got pulled after a softie, that was below the standard of a normal NHL goalie.

I agree completely, im more or less refuting this idea that Elliot saved the flames season- the flames saved the flames

[Locke]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I agree completely, im more or less refuting this idea that Elliot saved the calmed - the flames saved the flames

Well, yes and no. I'll agree that the Lion's share of the credit should go to team play as we didnt have a goalie bailing us out all the time, but Elliott still played well down that stretch.