No goalie is going to be good enough for this team until there is a GM who can build the core and the depth of this team needed to win consistently on a night to night basis. The goalie should be one of the last pieces of the puzzle to complete. It's like a revolving door right now and at this moment in time, every goalie that comes in to play as a Flames ain't gonna cut is because we're all gonna biatch at how bad their GAA or some stupid stat and say how bad they're playing. Ramo or Kipper type of goalie is what the Flames need since these goalies are more athletic. Butterfly goalies that stay in the crease is bad for this team due to the number of shots the Flames D lets up.
The Following User Says Thank You to CSharp For This Useful Post:
Is it horrible of me to secretly want Elliott to miss some time so Rittich can get called up and play a few games. You know just a minor injury like a glorified leg cramp or something.
Or we could just deal Elliott at the deadline and call him up... either or.
Is it horrible to want someone to get injured? Yes, it is. Not to mention Rittich hasn't been anywhere near as good lately. In his last 7 games (he's only played 16) he has allowed 3+ goals in 6 of them and only has 2 games with a .900 sv%. Rittich is not NHL ready, he needs to have more than 8 good AHL games before seeing NHL time.
So which backup in the league is ready to take the next step?
Grubauer has a sold stat line but a strong team in front.
Pickard had a strong stat line until this season, but that is understandable
Raanta has been inconsistent
Mrazek probably has the fewest questions but probably won't be available (if DET is smart
Our first round pick for Mrazek? A second and Gilles?
So which backup in the league is ready to take the next step?
Grubauer has a sold stat line but a strong team in front.
Pickard had a strong stat line until this season, but that is understandable
Raanta has been inconsistent
Mrazek probably has the fewest questions but probably won't be available (if DET is smart
Our first round pick for Mrazek? A second and Gilles?
LOL you can't be serious? Mrazek isn't proven and given how goaltenders bomb playing behind this team I wouldn't give up anything more than what it took to get Elliott.
Andersen cost the Leafs a 30th and ~45th pick and he was more established than Mrazek so you are probably right in terms of his value. But what could the Flames offer?
A mid-2nd isn't going to do it in a weak draft.
Regardless, who out of the potential 2nd strings would we be comfortable with?
No goalie is going to be good enough for this team until there is a GM who can build the core and the depth of this team needed to win consistently on a night to night basis. The goalie should be one of the last pieces of the puzzle to complete. It's like a revolving door right now and at this moment in time, every goalie that comes in to play as a Flames ain't gonna cut is because we're all gonna biatch at how bad their GAA or some stupid stat and say how bad they're playing. Ramo or Kipper type of goalie is what the Flames need since these goalies are more athletic. Butterfly goalies that stay in the crease is bad for this team due to the number of shots the Flames D lets up.
We give up the 6th least shots in the league per game, so don't think it had anything to do with the number of shots the Flames D lets up.
Outside of the first two weeks of the season the team defense and limiting scoring chances has been pretty good.
There are some other holes in the team right now, namely #4 d-man and top 6 RW, but really until they get consistent goal-tending none of it matters.
LOL you can't be serious? Mrazek isn't proven and given how goaltenders bomb playing behind this team I wouldn't give up anything more than what it took to get Elliott.
So you don't want to pay for a goalie, nor do you want to give up assets for a goalie, because in your estimation, the Flames make all goalies bad.
LOL you can't be serious? Mrazek isn't proven and given how goaltenders bomb playing behind this team I wouldn't give up anything more than what it took to get Elliott.
True. I would take a chance on Mrazek, but I wouldn't give more than a 2nd.
Re: Elliott... I got roasted when we acquired him by saying he was a little overrated if you look at his on-ice stats. When you look at his acquisition cost (a 2nd rounder) and his salary ($2.5 million), he is pretty much playing to that value however.
If you want a sure thing, you are going to be paying a lot for it. Something the Flames didn't do, so it should be no surprise that we are where we are right now.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Re: Elliott... I got roasted when we acquired him by saying he was a little overrated if you look at his on-ice stats. When you look at his acquisition cost (a 2nd rounder) and his salary ($2.5 million), he is pretty much playing to that value however.
If you want a sure thing, you are going to be paying a lot for it. Something the Flames didn't do, so it should be no surprise that we are where we are right now.
Elliott was, by many metrics, a top 5 goalie last year with a long tenure of work, despite not being paid like one.
Judging on-ice performance based off of salary and trade value is ridiculous enough as it is, doing it for a goalie even more so. And he also requested a trade, which skewed his trade value, particularly for a goalie market that favored the buyer like it did last summer.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
Elliott was, by many metrics, a top 5 goalie last year with a long tenure of work, despite not being paid like one.
Judging on-ice performance based off of salary and trade value is ridiculous enough as it is, doing it for a goalie even more so. And he also requested a trade, which skewed his trade value, particularly for a goalie market that favored the buyer like it did last summer.
I took his point to mean more along the lines of the Flames gave up very little to in both assets and salary to acquire what we hoped would be a solution to our #1 goaltending dilemma.
It was a shot well worth taking, due to the benefits had it had worked out (and to your point, plenty of reason to be optimistic that it might have). Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out, and we are going to likely have to pay to solve the goaltending issues. Whether that be in assets, salary or both, there's no way around it.
Looking at all the available options for the Flames they are almost better off re-signing Elliott & Johnson on 1 year deals at discounts based on their play this year.
Looking at all the available options for the Flames they are almost better off re-signing Elliott & Johnson on 1 year deals at discounts based on their play this year.
That certainly is a possibility although it will be interesting to see where the Vegas franchise factors in as they could be players for one of the two.
For sure. Vegas is (no pun intended) the wild card in all of this. I just look at all of the available options and none stand out as can't miss or sure fire, etc. Instead we stick to the devil(s) we know and hope that goalies in the system show improvement and can be given the reigns at some point. Otherwise the Flames end up on the hook for the rest of Fleury's deal or they sign Bishop at an inflated rate, even if it isn't his initial ask from a year ago. And both of those guys have had down years and are looking like shell's of what they used to be. I'd rather try to get things right with Elliott & Johnson (and to your previous point, a new goalie coach) than turn things over to Darling or Mrazek and hope they can find success playing 60+ games in this system without any changes.
