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

[Strange Brew]

Great chart Isikiz. Thank you. As you say, the stats are simplified but man, Elliott was not consistently good.

The inability to bounce back from a bad game is not acceptable in a starter. Who cares how much he signs for, unless it's so cheap he can be the backup.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I tend to agree with this and have been stating tontonthe pro-Elliott crowd that not only will he cost a 3rd to Re-sign but I think he will need a raise.

His play in Calgary is not worth a huge raise but the previous years in St. Louis he was underpaid. I feel he will want at least $3.5-$4M and probably 2-4 years. His season disappointed but if he kept up the play from last year as a Blue he would be seeking a 5x5 deal which is clearly out the window now

I'm not going to get back into the Elliott debate too much, but I suspect he will get closer to $3 million, up to $3.5 million if he signs for 3 years. As for the 3rd round pick, it will cost more than a 3rd for anyone we trade for.

[iamca]

Grubauer, stop mentioning Elliott please!

[sureLoss]

On McKenzie's latest podcast, McKenzie guarantees that Calgary is not on MAF approved destinations for his limited NTC and would have to sign off on being traded to the Flames.

He also said that Elliott is probably still in consideration for the Flames, but he thinks that maybe Elliott and the Flames would like to move on. However, he also says the door isn't 100% closed on Elliott returning and both sides may be forced back together.

Also mentioned that the Flames had considerable interest in Darling and Bishop prior to their respective rights being traded but were probably at a disadvantage in both cases as both were American UFAs.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

On McKenzie's latest podcast, McKenzie guarantees that Calgary is not on MAF approved destinations for his limited NTC and would have to sign off on being traded to the Flames.

He also said that Elliott is probably still in consideration for the Flames, but he thinks that maybe Elliott and the Flames would like to move on. However, he also says the door is 100% closed on Elliott returning and both sides may be forced back together.

Also mentioned that the Flames had considerable interest in Darling and Bishop prior to their respective rights being traded but were probably at a disadvantage in both cases as both were American UFAs.

Well this is a little encouraging at least. Now we know that the Flames were at least trying to get some of these top candidates before they were taken out of play.

I would put all my money on Treliving acquiring Fleury except for that confirmation of the need for Fleury's approval on the trade. I wonder if Fleury would rather play for Vegas or the Flames. You'd think he'd like a better chance at the playoffs with us, but it's also just as likely that he'd rather be out of the spotlight and simply collect a paycheck.

If Treliving goes after Fleury he might have to pay something significant to get him, with Vegas in on Fleury as well. If it's more than a 3rd round pick, I imagine we will see Elliott re-signed to a 1-2 year deal. That makes me nervous.

[Love]

1) Grubauer / Raanta
3) Fleury
4) Korpisalo

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Isikiz

Obviously save percentage it's a little bit of a simplified way of looking at it, but it kind of shows the inconsistency of both our goalies. For both goalies, it often looked like it would take 3-4 bad games to bounce back from a poor showing.

Carey Price for comparison:


(Green is above 0.920 and red is below 0.900.)

Streaky and bipolar goaltending. Hardly any games in between. It's okay to be just average at times. What you want to avoid is consecutive games of sub .900% which both were guilty of a lot. Difference between elliott and talbot (which allowed the Oilers to consistently pick up points) was talbot bounced back almost immediately after bad games.

Don't like goalies that let poor performances snowball. You're nervous after every bad game that it's gonna carry over.

[Isikiz]

Antti Raanta
My top choice - actually quite consistent with good bounceback capability.

Spoiler!

Phillip Grubauer
Limited games - would be wary, but has a decent showing in those games.

Spoiler!

Marc Andre Fleury
Inconsistent - but his hot streaks and cold streaks are typically shorter than Elliott's - ~2 games or so.

Spoiler!

Mike Smith
Better than expected but has several significant bad streaks throughout the year. Might be good in a tandem?

Spoiler!

Ryan Miller
Also seems like a tandem goalie now. Inconsistent like MAF with slightly longer bad streaks.

Spoiler!

[Enoch Root]

(referring to the charts above...)

41 of 82 games were red from the Calgary goalies. Half.

Looking at this from a green / yellow / red perspective, we get:

Price (70)...: 42 / 10 / 18
Flames (96): 47 / 8 / 41 (these numbers include games where both goalies appeared)

So basically, the Flames' tandem put up a reasonable amount of good starts, but way too many crap starts.

In other words, our good goaltending didn't carry us into the playoffs, as some like to suggest, we got a reasonable amount of good. It was all the crap that held us back. (I know this isn't a surprise).

Looking at the two of them...

Elliott...: 28 / 4 / 24
Johnson: 19 / 4 / 17

Equally inconsistent.

Now, for fun, if we take Price's ratios and apply them to our tandem (lol), we get:

57 / 13 / 24

(I rounded all down on the assumption that if the goaltending were that much better, there would have been fewer games where both appeared)

So 10 more good appearances, 5 more ok appearances, and 17 fewer crap shows.

If so, we don't just win the division, we win it walking away.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In other words, our good goaltending didn't carry us into the playoffs, as some like to suggest, we got a reasonable amount of good. It was all the crap that held us back. (I know this isn't a surprise).

Yeah I don't think there's a lot of people suggesting that we got good goaltending generally speaking, just a couple of very good stretches that helped when help was needed.

That said, Price is the best in the world, comparing to him is going to make every teams goaltending look like crap.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Itse

Yeah I don't think there's a lot of people suggesting that we got good goaltending generally speaking, just a couple of very good stretches that helped when help was needed.

That said, Price is the best in the world, comparing to him is going to make every teams goaltending look like crap.

Obviously. But there is a lot of room between what we got and what Price does. Enough room that splitting the difference probably wins us the division.

[Calgary4LIfe]

It is also interesting to me that the Flames were provided with inconsistent goaltending even after the Nov 21st turnaround. I myself looked back at that chart posted by Iskiz (one thanks wasn't enough by the way), and was surprised at how awful it was throughout the season. I was ready to just cross off that horrible start, but even after doing so things were very underwhelming in the goaltending department.

One thing that I still feel needs improvement is that the team needs to stop giving up so many prime chances. It seemed that last season they were regularly giving up breakaways. It seemed like they were good for one a game for a while. It doesn't matter if you have Price back there, any goalies' stats are going to suffer. With that being said, by far goaltending is the area of greatest need in shoring-up, and it isn't even close.

I am confident that the Flames will re-sign Stone (he likes it here, Flames sure seemed to like him here, and he is a great partner with Brodie). I am sure they can find some decent bottom-pairing guys this year (internally and externally), and no team has a great bottom pairing these days. I expect the defence to be more consistent this year in front of the goaltending.

It would be interesting to see these charts for backups. My personal assumption is that Johnson will look like a much better goalie in comparison, and I am basing this simply because the Flames haven't had any semblance of a backup goalie that you could even hope wins a game for so long. From that standpoint, regardless of who we get, I think Johnson could be a good backup.

With who is left, I would sooner run with a tandem of 2 good young goalies somehow that haven't had the opportunity to be #1 yet. I am not sure I would be all that comfortable with only 1 and Johnson as the backup. I am guessing Fleury isn't the guy the Flames will be getting by the sounds of it (though you never know), so running with 2 new ones maybe is the way to go and force them to push each other. A Grubauer/Raanta tandem seems like the best bet for me from what is left over.

Don't ask me how much that would be to acquire. Don't think it would be doable... but that is my most wanted tandem at this point.

[oldschoolcalgary]

^I think Raanta OR Grubauer...

not sure how we'd be able to pull off trades for both of them? once the expansion draft is done, I don't see any urgency for either NYR or Washington to trade those guys.

so our best leverage is trading for one of those guys before the expansion draft... and since we can only protect one goalie, i just don't see why BT would trade assets for both, only to expose one to the draft?

i'd rather keep Johnson as the backup and let Gillies/Rittch and possibly even Parsons continue to develop one more year in the minors

[Vulcan]

I'm not that gung-ho on trading for a younger goalie as I think we have three (Rittich, Parsons, and Gillies) good young guys that one or more should be ready in a year or two.

Miller and Johnson would be okay stop gaps.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not that gung-ho on trading for a younger goalie as I think we have three (Rittich, Parsons, and Gillies) good young guys that one or more should be ready in a year or two.

Miller and Johnson would be okay stop gaps.

But if they aren't ready, you have another bullet in the chamber via whoever you acquired.

If they do, you then have a spendable asset.

Acquiring a younger goalie and having an AHL/CHL prospect make the NHL within two years is not what any team in the NHL would call a "problem."

[Par]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

On McKenzie's latest podcast, McKenzie guarantees that Calgary is not on MAF approved destinations for his limited NTC and would have to sign off on being traded to the Flames.

He also said that Elliott is probably still in consideration for the Flames, but he thinks that maybe Elliott and the Flames would like to move on. However, he also says the door isn't 100% closed on Elliott returning and both sides may be forced back together.

Also mentioned that the Flames had considerable interest in Darling and Bishop prior to their respective rights being traded but were probably at a disadvantage in both cases as both were American UFAs.

I don't see Fleury wanting to come here, I think it is going to be one of Grauber, Raanta or Mrazek.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But if they aren't ready, you have another bullet in the chamber via whoever you acquired.

If they do, you then have a spendable asset.

Acquiring a younger goalie and having an AHL/CHL prospect make the NHL within two years is not what any team in the NHL would call a "problem."

We could also end up with the Ortio problem of having to keep three goalies as the young guy's waiver exemptions run out.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

^I think Raanta OR Grubauer...

not sure how we'd be able to pull off trades for both of them? once the expansion draft is done, I don't see any urgency for either NYR or Washington to trade those guys.

so our best leverage is trading for one of those guys before the expansion draft... and since we can only protect one goalie, i just don't see why BT would trade assets for both, only to expose one to the draft?

i'd rather keep Johnson as the backup and let Gillies/Rittch and possibly even Parsons continue to develop one more year in the minors

I was thinking more along the lines of a trade before the expansion draft, and working with Vegas in getting them to select the other one for us for a predetermined amount. However, like I said, I don't think it happens. There would still be some significant assets going for probably both, and I am not sure that I would like the Flames to start relinquishing assets so readily.

I am a big believer in Parsons. Who knows? Maybe he is even less than a year away from entering the NHL. However, I would probably assume he is 3 years away from entering the league as a backup if things go well. I am less confident in Gillies, but he is also at least a year away as well. Having too many options isn't a bad thing anyways - at least not for a season. Rittich is a wild-card for me. However, it is tough to just leave a spot open for either Gillies or Rittich at this point and assume that they will fill that job adequately. I am tired of having poor goaltending.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

We could also end up with the Ortio problem of having to keep three goalies as the young guy's waiver exemptions run out.

Rittich's exemption ends after next season.
Gillies' in 2 seasons.
Parsons in 4 seasons.

How does acquiring a young goalie impact this situation?

[JiriHrdina]

Chances are only one of Gillies, Rittich and Parsons ends up as a starter. That alone would be a win. If another end up being an NHLer it is incredible.
We should know by now that you simply can't count on young goalies emerging, nor should you hinge your success on that.