Friedman: Flames ownership killed Bishop trade to Flames last summer

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

MAF after a .909 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "He's the best of what's left, we need to trade for him.... wait, he's so good... maybe we'll just get Murray instead!?"

But Pittsburgh better not want anything more than a draft pick for him because they're desperate!!

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Elliott will be playing somewhere in the NHL for more than he currently makes

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Elliott to sign for less than $2.7M. At 32yo, he still hasn't established himself as a legitimate starting goaltender, and you can't pay for the potential that he'll develop into that role at his age.

His career is made up of 5 bad seasons, 2 average, and 2 elite. The "elite" years, he only started 36 and 38 games. The 4 seasons where he had his most starts, 3 were bad, and 1 was average.

08/09 - 30 GS - .902 SV%
09/10 - 47 GS - .909 SV%
10/11 - 51 GS - .893 SV%
11/12 - 36 GS - .940 SV%
12/13 - 20 GS - .907 SV%
13/14 - 25 GS - .922 SV%
14/15 - 45 GS - .917 SV%
15/16 - 38 GS - .930 SV%
16/17 - 45 GS - .910 SV%

The perception of Elliott was much different this time last year, with many thinking he'd finally turned the corner. The way he performed this season though... he's put himself right back into that spot, and perhaps cemented it, that he can not be relied on as a starting goaltender.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is pretty hilarious watching the goalie discussion.

Bishop after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "Sure, I'd still pay 6x6 for that, it's just a down year! He's a franchise goaltender!"

Johnson after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "We'd be doing him a favour to offer him a PTO."

Elliott after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "He'll be drinking at the legion with Glencross!!"

MAF after a .909 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "He's the best of what's left, we need to trade for him.... wait, he's so good... maybe we'll just get Murray instead!?"

How many games did each of those goaltenders play in the "2/3 years @ .920 or higher"?

[powderjunkie]

Lots of ways to look at that data - it shows a really solid goalie from 2011-2016 to me. But it also shows he is definitely a platoon guy.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

How many games did each of those goaltenders play in the "2/3 years @ .920 or higher"?

NHL.com usually has that info, I'm not sure off the top of my head.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

NHL.com usually has that info, I'm not sure off the top of my head.

Hmm, I wonder if it has any relevance.

[Demaeon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

NHL.com usually has that info, I'm not sure off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Hmm, I wonder if it has any relevance.

I guess we'll never know.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Hmm, I wonder if it has any relevance.

To my point?

No.

To yours? Probably, but god knows what that point is when you keep asking questions you can google.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To my point?

No.

I must be confused as to what your point was. Seemed like you were implying that all of Bishop, Fleury, Elliott, and Johnson had performed at the same level over the 3 seasons prior to this one.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is pretty hilarious watching the goalie discussion.

Bishop after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "Sure, I'd still pay 6x6 for that, it's just a down year! He's a franchise goaltender!"

Johnson after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "We'd be doing him a favour to offer him a PTO."

Elliott after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "He'll be drinking at the legion with Glencross!!"

MAF after a .909 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "He's the best of what's left, we need to trade for him.... wait, he's so good... maybe we'll just get Murray instead!?"

While I laughed, nobody thinks stats tell the whole story.

(Also, there's more than one CP opinion about anything. I mean, we even have Trump supporters on this forum.... although I find that less weird than seeing so many Elliott supporters )

[Da_Chief]

I'd be fine with Pickard-Johnson combo.

[TheScorpion]

Ugh, why are people still bringing up Pickard? I'd rather bring in Jonathan freaking Bernier to be the starter than him.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

I'd be fine with Pickard-Johnson combo.

I don't understand how anyone would be fine with that. I'm really feeling like too many fans are having trouble understanding how Flames goalies compare to the rest of the league because we see their faults right in front of us and it's incredibly frustrating.

But the amount of fans on here that say we simply have to improve goaltending to move forward and then suggest worse options and say "I'd be fine with that" is mind boggling. Calgarypuck goaltending discussions are "grass is greener" to a friggen tee.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I must be confused as to what your point was. Seemed like you were implying that all of Bishop, Fleury, Elliott, and Johnson had performed at the same level over the 3 seasons prior to this one.

lol, yeah, you whiffed on that one.

I was saying that they all performed about equally this season, and the reaction to this season's performance has been anywhere from "They are done because of this season" to "If you ignore this season, we can all agree they should get 6 million a season!"

Just a funny observation, a little tongue in cheek. You might be taking it a little too seriously.

I think realistically they'll all probably to continue their role next season on some team, whether that's a backup, 1B, or bonafide starter. But people sure do react to the consequences of one equally bad season amongst 4 goalies in vastly different ways.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is pretty hilarious watching the goalie discussion.

Bishop after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "Sure, I'd still pay 6x6 for that, it's just a down year! He's a franchise goaltender!"

Johnson after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "We'd be doing him a favour to offer him a PTO."

Elliott after a .910 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "He'll be drinking at the legion with Glencross!!"

MAF after a .909 year (following 2/3 at .920 or higher): "He's the best of what's left, we need to trade for him.... wait, he's so good... maybe we'll just get Murray instead!?"

Which of these goalies spent over a third of the season with a league-bottom 88% or lower?

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Ugh, why are people still bringing up Pickard? I'd rather bring in Jonathan freaking Bernier to be the starter than him.

Chad Johnson backed up Pickard at the World Championships. So likely Pickard > Johnson.

Pickard as half of a tandem might work out.

Unless the Flames are willing to give up real assets (16th, Bennett etc) whoever they wind up with they will be settling for less and hoping for the best.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

Chad Johnson backed up Pickard at the World Championships. So likely Pickard > Johnson.

Pickard as half of a tandem might work out.

Unless the Flames are willing to give up real assets (16th, Bennett etc) whoever they wind up with they will be settling for less and hoping for the best.

This may be the case, but I'd want more than just the WCs to gauge the difference.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Which of these goalies spent over a third of the season with a league-bottom 88% or lower?

Again, NHL.com has pretty much all this information. I'm not sure why this is hard to look up, so here you go:

Brian Elliott - 49 GP/18 below .890 = 38%
Chad Johnson - 36 GP/15 below .890 = 42%
Ben Bishop - 39 GP/14 below .890 = 36%
MAF - 38 GP/14 below .890 = 37%

So I guess the answer is all of them.

(And, actually I seem to have misread the number you gave. If you drop it down to .880 or lower, the only two that didn't spend 1/3 of the season or more at that dismal number are Elliott at 28% of his season and MAF at 31% of his season. Johnson and Bishop were both .880 or worse >33% of the season).

[TheScorpion]

The Flames shouldn't hesitate to trade 16 for a good goalie. Bennett, on the other hand...

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, NHL.com has pretty much all this information. I'm not sure why this is hard to look up, so here you go:

Brian Elliott - 49 GP/18 below .890 = 38%
Chad Johnson - 36 GP/15 below .890 = 42%
Ben Bishop - 39 GP/14 below .890 = 36%
MAF - 38 GP/14 below .890 = 37%

So I guess the answer is all of them.

(And, actually I seem to have misread the number you gave. If you drop it down to .880 or lower, the only two that didn't spend 1/3 of the season or more at that dismal number are Elliott at 28% of his season and MAF at 31% of his season. Johnson and Bishop were both .880 or worse >33% of the season).

Just goes to show while Elliott wasn't nearly as bad as some people think he was as Johnson and Bishop were worse. I'm actually stunned some around here still think Johnson is better lol. I wouldn't object to trading for Pickard (I don't see the price being as high as some of the other backups that may or may not be available) and signing Elliott to a one year deal if he would accept that and seeing if either can take hold of the starting job. Johnson and Pickard doesn't make sense because we know Johnson can't seize the job and would have to hope Pickard could be good enough to start the majority if games.