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

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If I'm Fleury, I put all the teams who need goaltending on my 12 team no-trade list so the Pens buy me out, then I sign a nice 3-4m contract with whoever I want and get paid 9m over the next two years.

It's the smart money play, even if you end up having to take less than that.

I understand that Fleury has a good relationship with Rutherford and I'm not sure he would be willing to stick it to the team he's played his entire career for. He's a pro and understands the situation. Also remember if he pulls off that stunt he can forget about negotiating a NMC/NTC or long term deal with any team on his next contract because no team will want to risk him doing this to them.

[oldschoolcalgary]

i think the only way Elliott can come back is if Bishop asks for too much and signs like a 6x6 contract in LV...

MAF has looked great... but he suffers from Elliott's playoff issues in the past too, so this could just be a hot streak for him as well...

i think you can re-sign Elliott if you've made a legit attempt at a Bishop type move... and he signs for a reasonable value (say 3 years at 4m)

i hate to say, but Johnson would probably not be part of the plans as i think you'd need a guy like Gillies as the backup (or a young guy we trade for) in order to show the fans that there is an heir apparent being groomed

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by guuar

Anyone that is thinking we should trade for another teams sloppy seconds unproven backup goalie needs a reality check. We need to stop taking the path with the least amount of risk. We do not need another Ramo, Hiller or Elliot situation next year...

There is a HUGE difference between trading for a currently younger backup goalie with some upside, and trading for an established goalie like Elliott or Hiller. If Treiving could somehow pull in a goalie like Grubauer or sign Darling I would say this represents an opportunity for the team to grow with a potential starter in the long term. The key is for scouts to do their homework and to pursue a solid, underutilised goalie—the fact that the Flames have been in on trade rumours in the past for Matt Murray, Martin Jones, and Cam Talbot strongly suggests that they have a good handle on identifying this sort of player.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There is a HUGE difference between trading for a currently younger backup goalie with some upside, and trading for an established goalie like Elliott or Hiller. If Treiving could somehow pull in a goalie like Grubauer or sign Darling I would say this represents an opportunity for the team to grow with a potential starter in the long term. The key is for scouts to do their homework and to pursue a solid, underutilised goalie—the fact that the Flames have been in on trade rumours in the past for Matt Murray, Martin Jones, and Cam Talbot strongly suggests that they have a good handle on identifying this sort of player.

I agree with all of that, though it's funny how we think of a 28 year old player (Darling) as "younger".

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I agree with all of that, though it's funny how we think of a 28 year old player (Darling) as "younger".

28-year-old goalies are "younger." More than half of the goalies who started +40 games this season were at least 29-years-old.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

28-year-old goalies are "younger." More than half of the goalies who started +40 games this season were at least 29-years-old.

I know, it's just funny to me. Especially the way the league is trending at the other positions.

[guuar]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There is a HUGE difference between trading for a currently younger backup goalie with some upside, and trading for an established goalie like Elliott or Hiller. If Treiving could somehow pull in a goalie like Grubauer or sign Darling I would say this represents an opportunity for the team to grow with a potential starter in the long term. The key is for scouts to do their homework and to pursue a solid, underutilised goalie—the fact that the Flames have been in on trade rumours in the past for Matt Murray, Martin Jones, and Cam Talbot strongly suggests that they have a good handle on identifying this sort of player.

We already have the potential to grow a potential starter. His name is Jon Gillies. He's 23 and could be brought along playing 15-25 games behind Ben Bishop.

The idea is you start him off at 15-20 games in his first season and gradually get to a point where Bishop and Gillies are splitting the net.

St. Louis did the exact same thing with Elliot/Allen. Now St. Louis has a 26 year old solid #1 goalie with a $4.350m cap hit.

Calgary will never be capable of developing their own goalie if they aren't going to give the kids they draft the opportunity to succeed. Gillies is already 23 years old so he's not an inexperienced teenager.

It would be silly to give away any reasonable asset to acquire a goalie that lit it up for 15-20 games in front of a team that is substantially better than Calgary.

We are 1 for 2 in trading for secondary goalies. Worked with Kiprusoff and was a horrible failure with Ramo. Kipper wasn't even a solid #1 and we ended up losing the best defensive dman in the league in Vlasic. Kipper would have one good year followed by a season where he was bottom 5 amongst starters in save percentage.

Fact is you rarely see a team's #1 goalie come up and get traded because it's more difficult to develop that elite #1 goalie than any other position. I don't want a guy that just gets by as a #1.

If we want to win a Stanley cup we need a Top 5 goalie that is capable of winning the vezina and conn smythe.

A goalie that your team completely trusts to keep the puck out the net affording them the ability to take risks and score more goals so we can win more games.

You aren't going to get that in Scott Darling. If Scott Darling was that goalie Chicago would be shipping Crawford out. The only goalie recently to be traded that has the potential to win it is Cam Talbot. Martin Jones and Robin Lehner both have glaring weak spots that are going to get worse when they shrink the equipment.

So long as we can get Bishop at 6M or less it's a safe move. Best case scenario Gillies grows into that #1 and starts to out play Bishop in 2-3 years. IF you retain 2-3 million on Bishop you'd have interest from half the league.

So as I said. There is no down side to signing Bishop. It's really an open and shut discussion.

[guuar]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I know, it's just funny to me. Especially the way the league is trending at the other positions.

The prime years are very different for Forwards, Defencemen and Goalies.

Forwards = 22 to 28 years.
Defencemen = 24 years to 30 years.
Goalies = 28 years to 34 years.

Problem is teams often don't give young Dmen or Goalies a chance to show they can be successful at this level. Matt Murray had horrible numbers in Junior. He plays two half seasons in the AHL and all the sudden he is an NHL all star the following year.

There's really nothing wrong with Fleury as a goalie. All of his problems are in his head. If pit was smart they would be trading Murray for two high end prospects and a 1st round pick.

[VilleN]

Bishop getting injured is my biggest concern. I'd prefer MAF for that reason. The only way I feel comfortable with Bishop is re-signing Elliott so that we have a capable goalie to step in if Bishop goes down... Don't know how Elliott feels about being a backup, but at this point he might have to accept that not many (if any) teams would view him as a number 1.

[guuar]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Bishop getting injured is my biggest concern. I'd prefer MAF for that reason. The only way I feel comfortable with Bishop is re-signing Elliott so that we have a capable goalie to step in if Bishop goes down... Don't know how Elliott feels about being a backup, but at this point he might have to accept that not many (if any) teams would view him as a number 1.

That's the wrong mentality. Where do you think Gillies is going to get the experience and confidence to be the #1 guy in the future.

Your afraid of Bishop getting hurt but not at all concerned with acquiring goalies who haven't played more than 25 games in a season. The fact they haven't played more than 25 games means we can't tell how good or bad their durability is.

Fleury DOES NOT want to come to Calgary. If Calgary was on the list of teams he would have been a Flame at the draft last year. I'm certain Treliving made the same offer for Fleury as he did for Bishop. You'd think Fleury would be all over Calgary as his destination given that there are very few teams looking for a goalie like himself.

[868904]

Those of you who want to put Gillies in as the NHL backup realize that he has less than 50 games of pro experience right?

Guur cited Jake Allen as an example. Well, Allen played 120 AHL games before he got 15 games in the NHL. Then they sent him down the next year for another 52 games.

Everyones favourite young goalie Matt Murray played 72 games in the AHL before debuting in the NHL AND in those 72 AHL game, Murray dominated the AHL.

Gillies doesn't have the pro experience and he hasn't come close to dominating the AHL yet to say he is ready.

When Gillies puts together a full season in the AHL of over 40 games with a GAA less than 2.5 and a save percentage over .920, that's when he is about ready to take the next step and even then, I would still be okay if the Flames kept him down and told him to do it again.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by guuar

That's the wrong mentality. Where do you think Gillies is going to get the experience and confidence to be the #1 guy in the future.

Your afraid of Bishop getting hurt but not at all concerned with acquiring goalies who haven't played more than 25 games in a season. The fact they haven't played more than 25 games means we can't tell how good or bad their durability is.

Fleury DOES NOT want to come to Calgary. If Calgary was on the list of teams he would have been a Flame at the draft last year. I'm certain Treliving made the same offer for Fleury as he did for Bishop. You'd think Fleury would be all over Calgary as his destination given that there are very few teams looking for a goalie like himself.

So, you're fine with Gillies taking the reins if Bishop gets injured? I am not, that is not responsible player development in my opinion.

Fleury didn't go anywhere at the draft last year, mainly because Rutherford didn't want to trade him because he didn't have to... he now has the luxury of two no. 1 goalies, a situation he likely wanted to have for as long as possible. However, with the expansion draft coming it is very likely Fleury gets traded, and I have not seen any indication that he won't come to Calgary - could be wrong - but I haven't heard anything.

[guuar]

Originally Posted by 868904

Those of you who want to put Gillies in as the NHL backup realize that he has less than 50 games of pro experience right?

Guur cited Jake Allen as an example. Well, Allen played 120 AHL games before he got 15 games in the NHL. Then they sent him down the next year for another 52 games.

Everyones favourite young goalie Matt Murray played 72 games in the AHL before debuting in the NHL AND in those 72 AHL game, Murray dominated the AHL.

Gillies doesn't have the pro experience and he hasn't come close to dominating the AHL yet to say he is ready.

When Gillies puts together a full season in the AHL of over 40 games with a GAA less than 2.5 and a save percentage over .920, that's when he is about ready to take the next step and even then, I would still be okay if the Flames kept him down and told him to do it again.

Have you ever watched AHL games? AHL stats in particular for goalies are difficult to gauge. We've seen goalies like Danny Taylor put up stellar numbers for our AHL affiliate.

The only way you are going to know how well a goalie is going to play in the NHL is to play them in the NHL.

It's not a question of whether he is ready or not. We can't tell if he is or isn't ready if he isn't given the opportunity to be successful.

The Flames did the same thing back when Sutter was in charge. They would promise our young kids would get their shot and it would never happen.

Right now in order to acquire any of these young goalies it's most likely Gillies is going the other way. It simply makes no sense to allow another team to develop a goalie that we've patiently waited for. Especially when we know he's a damn good goalie.

This past season he came back from a serious injury, was playing with some very young Dmen and still put up respectable numbers. He looked solid in his 1 start in Los Angeles.

You've got Bishop as a #1 so it really can't hurt to give Gillies 15 games in year #1. If he's clearly not cut out for it we can try rittich or parsons or sign another backup.

To not try though would be a tragedy. Many fans on Calgary puck have wanted to see Gillies get the opportunity to the be the man. Now that the opportunity is knocking everyone is suddenly asking for another team's backup goalie...

Like seriously WTF

[guuar]

Originally Posted by VilleN

So, you're fine with Gillies taking the reins if Bishop gets injured? I am not, that is not responsible player development in my opinion.

Fleury didn't go anywhere at the draft last year, mainly because Rutherford didn't want to trade him because he didn't have to... he now has the luxury of two no. 1 goalies, a situation he likely wanted to have for as long as possible. However, with the expansion draft coming it is very likely Fleury gets traded, and I have not seen any indication that he won't come to Calgary - could be wrong - but I haven't heard anything.

It's the same thing we did for nearly a decade. Nobody was complaining about it back then at all.

We only had one NHL caliber goalie named Miika Kiprusoff. He was expected to play 76 games a year since playing our backup goalie would cost us our chance at making the playoffs.

Henrik Lundquist getting hurt was the sole reason the world discovered Cam Talbot was a legit NHL starting goalie.

You won't know how good Gillies can be until he's given that opportunity.

Fact is and remains Gillies would have been a good option for Game #4. The team already knows there is a 96% chance that we are done. If Gillies were to have come in and win Game #4 and Game #5 all the sudden Calgary has found our goalie.

Instead our idiot coach goes right back to Brian "I need glasses" Elliot. Made zero sense to put the blind moose in net.

Anyways fans here are willing to risk it all on an unknown like Darling or Grubauer. Gillies has that same risk reward.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by guuar

Have you ever watched AHL games? AHL stats in particular for goalies are difficult to gauge. We've seen goalies like Danny Taylor put up stellar numbers for our AHL affiliate.

The only way you are going to know how well a goalie is going to play in the NHL is to play them in the NHL.

It's not a question of whether he is ready or not. We can't tell if he is or isn't ready if he isn't given the opportunity to be successful.

The Flames did the same thing back when Sutter was in charge. They would promise our young kids would get their shot and it would never happen.

Right now in order to acquire any of these young goalies it's most likely Gillies is going the other way. It simply makes no sense to allow another team to develop a goalie that we've patiently waited for. Especially when we know he's a damn good goalie.

This past season he came back from a serious injury, was playing with some very young Dmen and still put up respectable numbers. He looked solid in his 1 start in Los Angeles.

You've got Bishop as a #1 so it really can't hurt to give Gillies 15 games in year #1. If he's clearly not cut out for it we can try rittich or parsons or sign another backup.

To not try though would be a tragedy. Many fans on Calgary puck have wanted to see Gillies get the opportunity to the be the man. Now that the opportunity is knocking everyone is suddenly asking for another team's backup goalie...

Like seriously WTF

Scott Darling just got traded for a 3rd round pick.

[guuar]

3rd round pick for a UFA goalie....

Not only do you need to give up assets but likely overpay to get him to sign.

All that for the hope he might be good as a #1 goalie.

[Caged Great]

of the UFA's only Bishop is appealing now with the current Flames goalies being okay fall back options.

[VladtheImpaler]

Just a thought, but I would be very surprised if the Flames/Treliving took a chance on a young/unproven guy at this point. After 2 consecutive "whiffs" with respect to the goaltending situation (regardless of the perfectly valid excuses or logic of the moves made), you would expect them to go for the "sure thing". It would be very ballsy to roll the dice again at this point...

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Just a thought, but I would be very surprised if the Flames/Treliving took a chance on a young/unproven guy at this point. After 2 consecutive "whiffs" with respect to the goaltending situation (regardless of the perfectly valid excuses or logic of the moves made), you would expect them to go for the "sure thing". It would be very ballsy to roll the dice again at this point...

These are my thoughts exactly. If the Flames bring in an unproven goalie and it goes south the optics are very poor. I believe the optics are also poor if they come back with Elliott and Johnson.

If the Flames go get Bishop, Fleury or another proven 60 game starter and it doesn't work out that is unfortunate but not as bad as whiffing on an unproven backup or bringing back the same guys. Elliott for all his stats still was at best a 1A/B goalie which he proved last year.

[Roof-Daddy]

I'd like to see the Flames trade for Pickard to be the back up next year behind (hopefully) Bishop as the starter.

Might be a chance to get him dirt cheap, given the market and the fact that he had a rough season starting 50+ games for one of the worst teams of the modern era.

If Vegas takes him, which is possible because Colorado does not have much to pick from, and they have an abundance of goalies, Tre might be able to get a good deal on him.

He'd probably bounce back with a lesser work load, behind a much better team, and then next off season maybe he can be flipped for a better return. That way you leave Gillies in Stockton to start the majority of the games.