[Rumour] Kypreos: Flames still kicking tires on MAF

[Gaskal]

I don't feel like Treliving touches this deal at all until after the season is over.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

I don't feel like Treliving touches this deal at all until after the season is over.

Stupid question but has Tre got a new contract yet?

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am sure this is exactly like the past off-season. The Flames will be tied to a lot of goalies around the NHL until they finally (re-)sign one or trade for one. I would expect this is just part of Treliving's due diligence in filling out the position.

There could very well be some substance to these rumors, or just the 'feelers' Treliving is constantly sending out. Could also be part of the pressure in trying to keep any contract talks with Elliott more favorable (though if the Flames don't re-sign Elliott, I would assume he goes back to St. Louis).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Stupid question but has Tre got a new contract yet?

Nope. It's not 100% guaranteed he's back so I would be surprised to see any maneuver of assuming MAF's contract until the offseason after the GM's contract is settled one way or another.

[Hot_Flatus]

This is a big no go for me. Old player with a huge cap hit.

Let's also not forget that this is the guy that was typically associated with one of the biggest chokers/unerachievers in the league for a number of seasons. Suddenly he's the answer to the Flames problems?

No thanks.

[Strange Brew]

I understand the skepticism around Fleury but I'm surprised at the willingness to bring Elliott back. If the season ended today, I would give him an F for his performance and sub .900save percentage. Flames can't afford such goaltending for yet another season. Shouldn't we be looking elsewhere?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I understand the skepticism around Fleury but I'm surprised at the willingness to bring Elliott back. If the season ended today, I would give him an F for his performance and sub .900save percentage. Flames can't afford such goaltending for yet another season. Shouldn't we be looking elsewhere?

Sure, look elsewhere. But not to MAF who could be just as bad at this point in his career on a team with a marginal d core in front of him. Elliot looked like a star behind a good team in St. Louis.....what is Fluery going to look like?

If you have to go back to Elliot next year it's not ideal but it's better than trading assets and getting locked into a crippling cap number for two years for what will essentially be a push of one goalie to another.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Sure, look elsewhere. But not to MAF who could be just as bad at this point in his career on a team with a marginal d core in front of him. Elliot looked like a star behind a good team in St. Louis.....what is Fluery going to look like?

If you have to go back to Elliot next year it's not ideal but it's better than trading assets and getting locked into a crippling cap number for two years for what will essentially be a push of one goalie to another.

Signing Elliott costs the Flames a 3rd round pick and who knows what the contract will be.

[sureLoss]

Friedman on 960 says he doesn't think there is anything to this:

1. cost will be high
2. not sure that MAF wants to come to Calgary

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Signing Elliott costs the Flames a 3rd round pick and who knows what the contract will be.

Still better than trading something else (likely a prospect/pick or both) and absorbing that terrible contract. There are also going to be other goalies out there should the team not go the Elliot route.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman on 960 says he doesn't think there is anything to this:

1. cost will be high
2. not sure that MAF wants to come to Calgary

If there's any shred of truth to #2 I don't want him anywhere near this team. The last thing this team needs is a starting goaltender who's heart isn't in playing for the team. Actually the last time the team brought in a goaltender that didn't really want to be here was Ken Wregget who the Flames acquired from the Penguins. That didn't work out either.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If there's any shred of truth to #2 I don't want him anywhere near this team. The last thing this team needs is a starting goaltender who's heart isn't in playing for the team. Actually the last time the team brought in a goaltender that didn't really want to be here was Ken Wregget who the Flames acquired from the Penguins. That didn't work out either.

He has control over where he goes. If he doesn't want to be here, he won't be here.

[IgiTang]

You don't want a player who doesn't want to be on the Flames? Insightful. Lol.

That's like "you can't fire me because I quit"..

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If there's any shred of truth to #2 I don't want him anywhere near this team. The last thing this team needs is a starting goaltender who's heart isn't in playing for the team. Actually the last time the team brought in a goaltender that didn't really want to be here was Ken Wregget who the Flames acquired from the Penguins. That didn't work out either.

Fleury has either a full NMC or an NTC with a 12 team no-trade list, so if #2 is true, then the entire discussion is moot because Calgary will already be on that list.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman on 960 says he doesn't think there is anything to this:

1. cost will be high
2. not sure that MAF wants to come to Calgary

Lol at "cost will be high"
You go all in with that offsuit 7-2 Pens management.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

If Treliving is seriously considering this he should be sacked immediately. I would be hiding his cellphone and unplugging his office phone just in case.

Seriously?

That seems pretty dramatic to me.

The Flames need a long term solution in goal, and they can be hard to find. If they think Gillies will be ready in 24 months than a move like this is preferable to locking up a goaltender in his 30s for big dollars and term.

They'd have to like Fleury, but if they do his under 6M cap hit and only two years left is a pretty good window to fit the team's situation.

Having said that you're still helping Pittsburgh so use it to add an asset or get rid of one as well.

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

You don't want a player who doesn't want to be on the Flames? Insightful. Lol.

That's like "you can't fire me because I quit"..

I don't see it that way. I think he's saying that if the player isn't happy with the idea of coming here he won't play to his best and just coast, so I agree with him. If that is the case then we don't want him on the Flames.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Friedman on 960 says he doesn't think there is anything to this:

1. cost will be high
2. not sure that MAF wants to come to Calgary

Pens management needs to stop insisting this - it's embarrassing.

Simply put, the Pens need to trade MAF more than any team in the league needs to acquire him. They stand to lose Matt Murray to the expansion draft if they don't move Fleury before then.

All things considered, there is no justification for paying more than a 3rd round pick + a contract for MAF.

[Poe969]

I hope the pens ask for a lot for Fleury, that way the Flames won't trade for him and hopefully they get stuck with him on the roster. Sure, they'll be able to buy him out before the expansion draft so they can protect Murray but that'll just hurt them in the long run.

I still think the Flames should be making offers for Murray. If Rutherford is dumb enough to think there's a high cost for Fleury, maybe he's dumb enough to trade away the better goalie

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Why would Vegas accept this?

Murray >>>>>>> junk

Depends. They can take the 2nd/prospect and MAF if he waives.

Or just one player because they will buy out MAF.

Murray will be Penguin next year no matter what.