[Rumour] McKenzie: Flames "scanning" goaltending market

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I can't agree with you.

Since January 1st, Elliott has played 13 games. He's boasting a stellar .891 save percentage during that time.

That's not good goaltending, that's bottom of the barrel goaltending.

I'm not saying Elliott's been great, but counterpoint: Since November 28, Elliott has a respectable GAA of 2.41 across twenty games in a league where the average team is scoring 2.78 goals per game.

Teams that give up few shots (Flames have given up 25.8 shots per game against Elliott over those twenty games) very often have lower save percentages than teams that give up a lot of shots because there are fewer easy shots to pad stats on and often more breakaways and odd man rushes faced.

Sure, with elite goaltending that GAA could be down below the 2.0 mark but that still is a respectable goals against that is giving you a chance to win nightly. Additionally, and this is just a subjective observation, but I think Elliott has been very steady handling the puck which by itself has probably saved a few goals without being registered as a save (since he took away the shot). Since November 28th Elliott has an "expected" goals against average of 2.30 (based on shot volume / shot quality). The difference between 2.41 and 2.30 could just be typical variance.

Elliott can and should be better than he has been but that is in no way "bottom of the barrel" goaltending. It's closer to that Pekka Rinne / Chris Osgood category of "competent, but un-ideal". And considering he has led the league in SV% in the past and our #4D position seems to have upgraded defensively wiith Stone, I could see his save percentages rising.

Again, Elliott should be better. He's probably even been below average over that stretch. And yes that stretch omits his poor start. But that is still far from "bottom-of-the-barrel". I'd argue he has been pretty unlucky to not get a shutout yet, even Hiller had a shutout last year.

[FlameZilla]

Elliott had a good game against Tampa. Some huge saves. Shame the Namestikov goal looked a bit weak, but other than that he saved the game on numerous occasions.

One positive thing about Elliott is that he's done little to deserve a big contract, so he could probably be signed to a pretty cheap deal. That won't sound appealing to many scapegoaters here but from a 'let's-get-all-our-young-talent-signed-and-under-the-cap' perspective it could work out long term for the team. If you had Elliott signed at say $3-4m a year then you could feasibly keep him for a year or two as a 1A/1B type starter, and if he's eventually supplanted by a youngster like Gillies or Parsons he could be a very serviceable veteran backup. Who's to say he doesn't eventually grow into being an ace starter, and on a bargain contract? The prospect of $7-8m cap space being devoted to Ben Bishop kinda frightens me.

[Poe969]

If the Flames sign Elliott, don't they have to give up a pick to the Blues?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If the Flames sign Elliott, don't they have to give up a pick to the Blues?

Yeah - the deal was a 2nd in '16 and a conditional 3rd in '18 (condition being whether or not he re-signs).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So if the games where Elliot played bad didn't count, he'd be doing great!

This team needs an elite goalie and until they get one, they won't be good enough to master. I'd be on board with getting Bishop to see if he worth a contract next year. If not, grauber or mrazeck and hope they turn out.

If you look at his numbers in his last 17 games they are very good outside of a .907 SV% which is on the pedestrian side and the Flames sport a winning record. He's definitely outplayed Johnson in the 2nd half of the season. I would try to sign him on the cheap so he can be kept around as a 1A/B goaltender until they find a legit starter and I don't see Fleury or Bishop as the answer and they will be much more costly.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah - the deal was a 2nd in '16 and a conditional 3rd in '18 (condition being whether or not he re-signs).

Still probably cheaper than what it would cost to acquire a different, better, starting goaltender.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yeah - the deal was a 2nd in '16 and a conditional 3rd in '18 (condition being whether or not he re-signs).

Is there any CBA rule against "trade circumvention"? Have another team sign him as a UFA on agreement that we will immediately trade for him for a fifth round pick?

You might burn a potential trade partner but I'm wondering if that would even be allowed.