The Goaltending Carousel

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Markstrom will cost $7M-$7.5M on a 5 or 6 year deal I'd imagine.

$7M x 5 years? Yeah, I'd probably do that. Either that, or acquire someone notable via trade (Kuemper would be my first choice). Matt Murray would be cool to get IF the team truly believed he could bounce back (I'm not sure he can - but at 26, I certainly understand the desire to see what may happen).

It is time to fill the #1 goalie position. Then let Rittich play his 35 games a season.

Hellebuyck signed a 6.17 x 6 year deal back when the cap was rising 10% a year and he was coming off a Vezina nomination season with 44 wins.

Now that it is flat for the next 4 or so years I don't think that there will be contract inflation for a 30 year old goalie that broke into the top 12 goalies stats wise for the first time in his career and has topped out at 28 wins in a season.



Cam Talbot had a 42 win season followed up with a 31 win season and his biggest contract was 4.2 x 3.

[dino7c]

Demko had 13 wins in 27 games behind that team...what Markstrom did this season was remarkable. Best goalie in the NHL this year.

Wins are more of a team stat

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Mitt31

I want them to bring in Dustin Wolf

I feel he is going to be the NHLs version of NFLs Tom Brady

In tears at the draft , playing with a chip on his shoulders to prove to everyone he was ghe best and the best CHL goalie In the draft

I agree that they shouldn't wait too long to give deserving goalie prospects a cup of tea.

Most of the NHL's elite goalies were starters before the age of 23. That's really quite young. Gibson, Vasilevsky, Hart, Hellebuyck all regulars by that age. Most other good goalies were at least backups by that age.

The Flames kept guys like Irving, Gillies, and Ortio in the system for 6+ years. The Flames haven't given the starter role to anyone 23 or younger since Mike Vernon in the 1986-1987 season or Kidd in 1994. They also haven't developed any elite goalies since then.

There seems to be an idea that it never hurts to be patient. For elite goalies, that's not necessarily true.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I agree that they shouldn't wait too long to give deserving goalie prospects a cup of tea.

Most of the NHL's elite goalies were starters before the age of 23. That's really quite young. Gibson, Vasilevsky, Hart, Hellebuyck all regulars by that age. Most other good goalies were at least backups by that age.

The Flames kept guys like Irving, Gillies, and Ortio in the system for 6+ years. The Flames haven't given the starter role to anyone 23 or younger since Mike Vernon in the 1986-1987 season or Kidd in 1994. They also haven't developed any elite goalies since then.

There seems to be an idea that it never hurts to be patient. For elite goalies, that's not necessarily true.

There is a strong possibility that we just have no clue about goalies. Scouting or development. How do you miss every single time?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

There is a strong possibility that we just have no clue about goalies. Scouting or development. How do you miss every single time?

I am pretty sure having the same goalie coach (and multiple head coaches) for the last 5 years has something to do with it.


Didn't the Flames keep Glenn Hall as a goalie consultant for years also. The guy last played in the early 70s and was a go to guy for the Flames in the 2000s - think the game had changed any in that time?

I bet they are considering 1 NHL GP Krahn for their next goalie guru hire.

[David Struch]

How did the trade break down that time when Marc-André Fleury waived his NTC and thought it was a done deal and that he'd been traded to the Flames?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by David Struch

How did the trade break down that time when Marc-André Fleury waived his NTC and thought it was a done deal and that he'd been traded to the Flames?

It was at the trade deadline before the expansion draft.

Fleury went to bed the night before the deadline believing he was a Calgary Flame. He had waived his NTC. Woke up, and the deal never went through.

Most believe it was due to Brian Elliott and team's 10 game win streak (or whatever it was). Good thing we banked on Elliott. Brilliant move there, Tree. First acquiring him, and then not improving upon him.

I imagine it would have included our 2017 1st round pick that year though - which turned into Valimaki.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

I am pretty sure having the same goalie coach (and multiple head coaches) for the last 5 years has something to do with it.


Didn't the Flames keep Glenn Hall as a goalie consultant for years also. The guy last played in the early 70s and was a go to guy for the Flames in the 2000s - think the game had changed any in that time?

I bet they are considering 1 NHL GP Krahn for their next goalie guru hire.

Goalie coaches can do a lot. Look at Mitch Korn. Every goalie he coaches has a big improvement (and I think he’s a big part of Trotz’ success).

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Talbot and Rittich is about as average/unimpressive a tandem as you can have. For as good as Talbot was (our defence was solid and we did not allow a lot of quality chances), he fell apart in an elimination game and lost the most important game of the season for his team. When the team is banking on him as the starter in the playoffs, that just can't happen. It exposes the tandem for the mid to bottom tier pairing that it is.

There's a year and a half difference between Markstrom and Lehner - so, assuming Lehner signs a 6 year deal and Markstrom signs a 5 year deal, it's a wash.

I'm definitely not on the side of this team absolutely needing to pay for Markstrom or Lehner - but I am on the side that says this team needs to improve the tandem it goes with. Heading into the next season with Talbot and Rittich again would be a mistake in my eyes - they are just not a good enough pair.

That's simply not true. Ward lost that game by putting Rittich in.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

I am pretty sure having the same goalie coach (and multiple head coaches) for the last 5 years has something to do with it.


Didn't the Flames keep Glenn Hall as a goalie consultant for years also. The guy last played in the early 70s and was a go to guy for the Flames in the 2000s - think the game had changed any in that time?

I bet they are considering 1 NHL GP Krahn for their next goalie guru hire.

I think it's more of a development thing than a drafting thing. That's why it's affected the team for so long.
Other than taking McDonald over Demko, which was just terrible drafting.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Demko had 13 wins in 27 games behind that team...what Markstrom did this season was remarkable. Best goalie in the NHL this year.

Wins are more of a team stat

Markstrom 23-16-4 .581 winning %
Demko 13-10-2 .560 winning % in his rookie year

behind the same team.

Demko back to wall carrying the team in the playoffs 42/43 saves 48/48 saves and 33/34 saves. 123 / 125 saves in 3 games in 4 nights.

Odds on the 24 year old Demko not being the #1 within the next 2 years pretty small.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

That's simply not true. Ward lost that game by putting Rittich in.

Goal 1 - short side, Talbot isn't on his angle. From where the puck is shot, he should have his short side covered.

Goal 2 - short side again, Talbot isn't on his angle. Bad goal.

Goal 3 - Talbot isn't sharp yet again, not tracking the puck well at all. Tip off to the side like that from that far out beats you five hole? Shouldn't happen.

He gave up what would be considered three softies. That's why he got pulled in the first place. He fell apart when his team was in full control.

...and then yeah, Ward made a brutal call to put in Rittich in, but if Talbot hadn't fallen apart in the first place it wouldn't have happened.

[TheSquatch]

It was 3 to 3 when Talbot was pulled. The Flames didn't score again.

So. I mean, it's not about Rittich.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Goal 1 - short side, Talbot isn't on his angle. From where the puck is shot, he should have his short side covered.

Goal 2 - short side again, Talbot isn't on his angle. Bad goal.

Goal 3 - Talbot isn't sharp yet again, not tracking the puck well at all. Tip off to the side like that from that far out beats you five hole? Shouldn't happen.

He gave up what would be considered three softies. That's why he got pulled in the first place. He fell apart when his team was in full control.

...and then yeah, Ward made a brutal call to put in Rittich in, but if Talbot hadn't fallen apart in the first place it wouldn't have happened.

That's pretty bad analysis, but you seem to have a particular knack for that.

Talbot should have had one of those goals and definitely did not deserve to get pulled.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Goalie coaches can do a lot. Look at Mitch Korn. Every goalie he coaches has a big improvement (and I think he’s a big part of Trotz’ success).

I agree, but there really seems to be only a very small handful of high quality goalie coaches who are able to make these consistent improvements. Korn is one; Ian Clark is another. This list is probably only four or five names deep.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

That's pretty bad analysis, but you seem to have a particular knack for that.

Talbot should have had one of those goals and definitely did not deserve to get pulled.

Ooh snarky. Do share my other bad takes.

Talbot was hard on himself for his poor performance as well. He was terrible that game. Talbot’s performance should have had him yanked...if we had a goalie that could replace him, but Rittich shouldn’t have been put in. Brutal call by Ward, but it still doesn’t erase how bad Talbot was that game.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by David Struch

How did the trade break down that time when Marc-André Fleury waived his NTC and thought it was a done deal and that he'd been traded to the Flames?

It was never at the point where he thought he had been traded, nor had he waived his NTC for the Flames. Here's the interview he gave to Eric Francis in September 2017: https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...de-go-calgary/

Marc-Andre Fleury can admit now he was preparing for the possibility of becoming a Calgary Flame.

He’ll even go as far as to say that had Pittsburgh Penguins GM Jim Rutherford crafted a deal to send Fleury to the Flames at last season’s trade deadline, the 32-year-old goaltender would likely have waived the no-trade clause he has in his contract.

“I think so,” said Fleury while in New York for league meetings.

“I think Calgary is a great town and a great hockey team too. I think they’ll be very good again this year. But here I am.”

In Vegas.

“I heard all the rumours – Winnipeg, Calgary and Vegas,” said Fleury of the trade deadline talk.

“I didn’t know what was going to happen. At the trade deadline I couldn’t sleep that night, wondering, ‘where am I going?’”

The longtime Penguins goalie had informed Rutherford he wanted to stay in Pittsburgh for the remainder of the season.

However, his limited no-trade clause kept the door open for Rutherford to peddle him.

Fleury knew he could be asked to go to a team he didn’t have listed, and shrugged off such parameters as if to say they could easily be overcome if a deal was put in place and management wanted him to move on.

“(On deadline day) Mr. Rutherford said, ‘go take a nap, you’re not going anywhere,’” said Fleury, flashing the grin that will be plastered all over Vegas as their cornerstone player.

“I’m fine with the decision.”

Obviously, because the interview is with Francis, it's going to be from a Calgary point of view. Even if he had been traded, it doesn't mean that it necessarily would have been to Calgary.



I think it was much closer to happening at the 2016 draft than the 2017 deadline. The rumour at the time was that Rutherford wanted a first round pick in return for Fleury, but Treliving wasn't willing to give up the chance at Tkachuk and couldn't get any deals done for a lower first rounder. Also, there's the factor that Elliott had actually put up better stats in recent years than Fleury and Elliott had taken the Blues to the Western Final, while Fleury had been completely replaced by Murray in the playoffs that year.



Once Fleury agreed to waive his NMC for the Expansion Draft, I think that killed any chance that Pittsburgh would move him at the 2017 deadline. I'm sure that Rutherford was willing to listen to offers, but they would have needed to blow his socks off to make the deal. If Fleury had refused to waive, Rutherford would have needed to move him no matter what, in order to save Murray. After Fleury agreed to waive, Rutherford didn't have to worry about losing anyone else in the expansion draft. To convince him to move Fleury, a team would not only have needed to offer fair compensation for Fleury, but also something to replace the additional player the Pens would now lose in the expansion draft. At that point, you're overpaying for Fleury -- and potentially giving up a player you may have lost in the expansion draft yourself, so it compounds the cost, making it not worth your while.

[dino7c]

Talbot had a .733 Save Percentage in the biggest game of the year

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Markstrom 23-16-4 .581 winning %
Demko 13-10-2 .560 winning % in his rookie year

behind the same team.

Demko back to wall carrying the team in the playoffs 42/43 saves 48/48 saves and 33/34 saves. 123 / 125 saves in 3 games in 4 nights.

Odds on the 24 year old Demko not being the #1 within the next 2 years pretty small.

So Markstrom was better over a larger sample size...which was the point. Demko will be the #1 because Markstrom is going to go elsewhere then we can judge Demko on being an NHL starter.

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by dino7c

So Markstrom was better over a larger sample size...which was the point. Demko will be the #1 because Markstrom is going to go elsewhere then we can judge Demko on being an NHL starter.

You think the 'Nucks won't sign him?