Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Recommended Posts

i saw concerns on Kinkaid (NJ) which are merited but when he gets some regular time he seems to gain confidence. His numbers are solid. I think nerves got the better of him in the Pittsburg match up, his overall numbers are decent and when settled in he produces. Maybe a cheap salary for at least a year and he tandems with Ortio. Both show they can provide a good performance and then maybe Gillies pops in when he is ready.

I like Kinkaid and also see an opportunity to possibly unload some players there. NJ needs to get younger and will be filling a bunch of holes next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2) We should NOT go into next year with 2 prospects competing for roles and no stability in net because this is a recipe or disaster. One hopefully would work out, but if neither does (or one goes down to injury and the other isn't up to par) we're screwed. And while we get another good pick out of it its a wasted season. 

 

 

Yes, Just like you say, one would hopefully work out, of the three, because I think Gillies could have a small shot too.

 

If none of the three does, we're not screwed at all.   At that point, we know what we have.   Which means we've taken a giant leap forward.

 

Once we know what we have, we can take the necessary following steps.

 

In a worst case scenario.....I would rinse and repeat.   Ortio, at 25, would be let go.  Whoever else we got, if at a similar age, might be let go.  If younger, we could find them a home in the minors to ripen.  Gillies would stay in the AHL.

 

And we would bring two more prospects in.   Simple as that.

 

Bottom line, I don't measure next season as a success based on regular season wins/losses.

 

At this point in the rebuild, I measure it as a success, by whether we have Solid Young goaltenders and defence, ready to reach their prime and make a run for the cup.

 

That's how I measure success next year.    "making the playoffs" as the singular goal has never gotten us anywhere but two steps backwards.

 

Yes it's risky, and no it's not ideal.   Ideal would have been doing this 2-3 years ago.   But we didn't.  Which is why we don't have a young #1 goaltender, and also probably, to be honest, why we don't have McDavid.  

 

But, we still have to do it.  IMHO.    None of the other ideas on here involve Less risk, imho.  Even in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ, are you suggesting re-signing Ortio and if so for what kind of deal?  One year, around $1.5m?  Or two years, less money?

Reason I ask is because you seem to be suggesting that if he doesn't cut it, you cut him loose.  Do you think he would would sign for a one year deal?  

 

I have a big problem with giving Gillies a shot this soon.  Seven games of pro experience right to the NHL is a huge risk.  Could easily ruin him.  For one thing, he is just coming off surgery and needs time to get his game back.  For another, he's still early in development.

Would like to see what he does in a full season, though he could probably get a callup for injury relief.

 

Developing the team is not just starting from scratch all the time.  Johnny Hockey developed pretty well in a winning environment, because he is a competitor and hates to lose.  You can see that when we get down a few goals this season, caused by a truly bad goalie.  You want to see the team struggle for the sake of rinse and repeat development of "young" goalies?  

 

Goaltending is the single most important piece for the team to acquire.  Without it, we are bottom 5.  With it, we are likely a playoff team.  Varly gets us 3 years to find a capable starter from within.  Andersen probably gets us the same time, if signed for three.  If Ortio or Gillies can become a starter in less time, then we have a very good problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ, are you suggesting re-signing Ortio and if so for what kind of deal?  One year, around $1.5m?  Or two years, less money?

Reason I ask is because you seem to be suggesting that if he doesn't cut it, you cut him loose.  Do you think he would would sign for a one year deal?  

 

I have a big problem with giving Gillies a shot this soon.  Seven games of pro experience right to the NHL is a huge risk.  Could easily ruin him.  For one thing, he is just coming off surgery and needs time to get his game back.  For another, he's still early in development.

Would like to see what he does in a full season, though he could probably get a callup for injury relief.

 

Developing the team is not just starting from scratch all the time.  Johnny Hockey developed pretty well in a winning environment, because he is a competitor and hates to lose.  You can see that when we get down a few goals this season, caused by a truly bad goalie.  You want to see the team struggle for the sake of rinse and repeat development of "young" goalies?  

 

Goaltending is the single most important piece for the team to acquire.  Without it, we are bottom 5.  With it, we are likely a playoff team.  Varly gets us 3 years to find a capable starter from within.  Andersen probably gets us the same time, if signed for three.  If Ortio or Gillies can become a starter in less time, then we have a very good problem.

This is it. The Flames can't afford to wait on prospects right now. We really need a proven capable Starter. Most of all they can't go into next season with a group of untried Goaltenders that look promising.  

 

This is similar to a couple years back when we first picked up Hiller. I think he was supposed to be the man last season and this season and give us the veteran goaltender to ease in Ortio or Ramo.

 

I hope we get the "Right Goaltender" this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Just like you say, one would hopefully work out, of the three, because I think Gillies could have a small shot too.

If none of the three does, we're not screwed at all. At that point, we know what we have. Which means we've taken a giant leap forward.

Once we know what we have, we can take the necessary following steps.

In a worst case scenario.....I would rinse and repeat. Ortio, at 25, would be let go. Whoever else we got, if at a similar age, might be let go. If younger, we could find them a home in the minors to ripen. Gillies would stay in the AHL.

And we would bring two more prospects in. Simple as that.

Bottom line, I don't measure next season as a success based on regular season wins/losses.

At this point in the rebuild, I measure it as a success, by whether we have Solid Young goaltenders and defence, ready to reach their prime and make a run for the cup.

That's how I measure success next year. "making the playoffs" as the singular goal has never gotten us anywhere but two steps backwards.

Yes it's risky, and no it's not ideal. Ideal would have been doing this 2-3 years ago. But we didn't. Which is why we don't have a young #1 goaltender, and also probably, to be honest, why we don't have McDavid.

But, we still have to do it. IMHO. None of the other ideas on here involve Less risk, imho. Even in the short term.

You keep making broad statement such as "we have to do it". If that is the only way to do it then give me examples of teams that have done it and found success. Because I and others have given you plenty of examples of veteran / rookie tandems that have worked. We have given plenty of examples of teams having success off of a veteran who wasn't playing at a top 15 level prior. Take a step off the soap box and give some examples to prove your theory. Try refuting the examples that have been given if your going to claim your way is the only way.

Because I can't see how you can legitimately say that going into next season with 40 games played among our goalies in camp carries less risk then having a proven NHL goalie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ, are you suggesting re-signing Ortio and if so for what kind of deal?  One year, around $1.5m?  Or two years, less money?

Reason I ask is because you seem to be suggesting that if he doesn't cut it, you cut him loose.  Do you think he would would sign for a one year deal?  

 

I have a big problem with giving Gillies a shot this soon.  Seven games of pro experience right to the NHL is a huge risk.  Could easily ruin him.  For one thing, he is just coming off surgery and needs time to get his game back.  For another, he's still early in development.

Would like to see what he does in a full season, though he could probably get a callup for injury relief.

 

Developing the team is not just starting from scratch all the time.  Johnny Hockey developed pretty well in a winning environment, because he is a competitor and hates to lose.  You can see that when we get down a few goals this season, caused by a truly bad goalie.  You want to see the team struggle for the sake of rinse and repeat development of "young" goalies?  

 

Goaltending is the single most important piece for the team to acquire.  Without it, we are bottom 5.  With it, we are likely a playoff team.  Varly gets us 3 years to find a capable starter from within.  Andersen probably gets us the same time, if signed for three.  If Ortio or Gillies can become a starter in less time, then we have a very good problem.

If you are BT there are a lot of scenerios to sort through but you have to be prepared for the failure of not getting a Varlamov, Bishop and Andersen by way of trade or OS. Personally I don't see why their current team would trade any of these goalies this offseason as their team goalie costs are not cap prohibitive. The other side of this trade is having the trade chips to pull off such a trade which I don't see that we have unless BT uses the 1st round pick this year.

 

I would rather take my chances with a good tandem and keep the 1st round pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of a follow-up to my last.  Just over half of the NHL teams started the season with an inexperienced young goalie in either the starter or the back-up role. Here is the list starter/back-up for those teams (inexperienced player in bold)

  • Andersen/Khudobin (demoted to the AHL and replaced by Gibson)
  • Johnson/Lehner
  • Crawford/Darling
  • Varlamov/Pickard
  • Mrazek/Howard
  • Talbot/Scrivens (traded late season and replaced with Brossoit)
  • Dubnyk/Kuemper
  • Schneider/Kinkaid
  • Lundqvist/Raanta
  • Anderson/Hammond
  • Jones/Stalock (traded late season and replaced with Reimer)
  • Allen/Elliot
  • Bishop/Vasilevskiy
  • Bernier/Sparks
  • Miller/Markstrom
  • Holtby/Gruabaur
  • Pavelec/Hutchinson

In every single case teams started the season with at least one experienced goalie.  Anaheim eventually demoted Khudobin and recalled Gibson once Andersen was proving to carry the load.  But they still had him in reserve if they needed to recall him. 

 

That covers today.  But lets look at some of the good young goalies in the NHL today and see if they got their starts with another inexperienced goalie.  

  • Rask (Thomas)
  • Price (Huet)
  • Schneider (Luongo/Brodeur)
  • Holtby (Neuvirth)
  • Mrazek (Howard)
  • Andersen (Hiller/Khudobin)
  • Talbot (Lundqvist/Scrivens)
  • Jones (Quick/Stalock)
  • Allen (Halak/Elliot)

I am not seeing any examples of these goalies developing in the NHL without an experienced partner.  

 

 

Yes it's risky, and no it's not ideal. Ideal would have been doing this 2-3 years ago. But we didn't. Which is why we don't have a young #1 goaltender, and also probably, to be honest, why we don't have McDavid. 

But, we still have to do it. IMHO. None of the other ideas on here involve Less risk, imho. Even in the short term.

 

So I ask again.  Give me something credible to back this statement up.  An example of a team that has done it and had success.  Because from my perspective it has NEVER been ideal to throw a bunch of rookie goalies into camp and pick the best two.  What would have been ideal is to have had a rookie pushing our veteran for starts prior to now so we had a proven young player to be our starter.  And that is what is ideal now.  The only question is who is the rookie and who is the veteran.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of this thread seems to be posts about backups. Heck, some say go to camp with 3 or more backups & hope we get a 1A/1B tandem.

Backups are easy to find every year but the Flames need is a starter.

 

Unfortunately goalies are a roll of the dice. Last year's hot hand can cool or get injured. Out of nowhere a Tim Thomas is suddenly "Super Goalie". A Dubnyk goes from 0 to hero.

Even past performance is little indication if hoping for youth. Few Gold Medal goalies on TC live up to anywhere near that. Anyone remember Jeff Glass?

 

I figure the best bet is to trade for someone with a track record (preferably recent but looking @ Steve Mason since he hit Philly a reclaim can work) & hope his backup develops behind him & takes his job.

 

We were pretty well gifted Kipper but we can't pin our hopes on that. Play the odds but keep your good luck charms handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of this thread seems to be posts about backups. Heck, some say go to camp with 3 or more backups & hope we get a 1A/1B tandem.

Backups are easy to find every year but the Flames need is a starter.

 

Unfortunately goalies are a roll of the dice. Last year's hot hand can cool or get injured. Out of nowhere a Tim Thomas is suddenly "Super Goalie". A Dubnyk goes from 0 to hero.

Even past performance is little indication if hoping for youth. Few Gold Medal goalies on TC live up to anywhere near that. Anyone remember Jeff Glass?

 

I figure the best bet is to trade for someone with a track record (preferably recent but looking @ Steve Mason since he hit Philly a reclaim can work) & hope his backup develops behind him & takes his job.

 

We were pretty well gifted Kipper but we can't pin our hopes on that. Play the odds but keep your good luck charms handy.

While I agree with you, I hope I have my math in order here....

 

We're at about $49mil in cap next year on 15 players (General Fanager), so if we sign JG & Monahan at a realistic $14mil, we're at $63 mil on 17 (10 forwards/7 dmen/0 goalies).

That leaves us at about $8mil.

If my math is wrong, please let me know, because it could well be, I'm not being facetious.

What would Mason take? Conservatively, half I would assume.

$4mil needing a backup (Ortio @ 1). What will Colborne want? Likely 2.

We are up against the cap.

I'm not sure General Fanager keeps Raymond's 3 buried, I'd assume not.

But even then, I hope someone can spell this out to me in that I'm wrong.

Because man oh man, I see a really downside year next year because it looks like cap jail to me without drastic measures.

I KNOW we need a #1, but can we trade Smid's contract for it? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of a follow-up to my last.  Just over half of the NHL teams started the season with an inexperienced young goalie in either the starter or the back-up role. Here is the list starter/back-up for those teams (inexperienced player in bold)

  • Andersen/Khudobin (demoted to the AHL and replaced by Gibson)
  • Johnson/Lehner
  • Crawford/Darling
  • Varlamov/Pickard
  • Mrazek/Howard
  • Talbot/Scrivens (traded late season and replaced with Brossoit)
  • Dubnyk/Kuemper
  • Schneider/Kinkaid
  • Lundqvist/Raanta
  • Anderson/Hammond
  • Jones/Stalock (traded late season and replaced with Reimer)
  • Allen/Elliot
  • Bishop/Vasilevskiy
  • Bernier/Sparks
  • Miller/Markstrom
  • Holtby/Gruabaur
  • Pavelec/Hutchinson

In every single case teams started the season with at least one experienced goalie.  Anaheim eventually demoted Khudobin and recalled Gibson once Andersen was proving to carry the load.  But they still had him in reserve if they needed to recall him. 

 

That covers today.  But lets look at some of the good young goalies in the NHL today and see if they got their starts with another inexperienced goalie.  

  • Rask (Thomas)
  • Price (Huet)
  • Schneider (Luongo/Brodeur)
  • Holtby (Neuvirth)
  • Mrazek (Howard)
  • Andersen (Hiller/Khudobin)
  • Talbot (Lundqvist/Scrivens)
  • Jones (Quick/Stalock)
  • Allen (Halak/Elliot)

I am not seeing any examples of these goalies developing in the NHL without an experienced partner.  

 

 

 

So I ask again.  Give me something credible to back this statement up.  An example of a team that has done it and had success.  Because from my perspective it has NEVER been ideal to throw a bunch of rookie goalies into camp and pick the best two.  What would have been ideal is to have had a rookie pushing our veteran for starts prior to now so we had a proven young player to be our starter.  And that is what is ideal now.  The only question is who is the rookie and who is the veteran.  

i dont think anybody is arguing having an "experienced" goaltender ahead of the prospect .. where it becomes murky is the notion of a prev #1 from another . nearly all the best examples of tenders who had success once changing teams , were either part of 1B scenario, or backups stuck behind entrenched starters.

eg Im not against the idea of a Ranta, Anderson , or even a Nilsson..just like the Oilers and Talbot. But the league is riddled with failed aquisitions of a #1 going to #1 on another team.

IE: Miller.. nobody denied Miller was an Elite tender that should have pushed St Louis to the cup ..he didn't , and in Vancouver he certainly hasn't been a saviour

In the Modern Era, only Roy and Hasek com to mind as #1 trades that actually significantly helped their teams

 

If we are going to trade , the most succesful method is like was mentioned, a 1B or an upcoming one who has proven as a backup 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, I hope I have my math in order here....

 

We're at about $49mil in cap next year on 15 players (General Fanager), so if we sign JG & Monahan at a realistic $14mil, we're at $63 mil on 17 (10 forwards/7 dmen/0 goalies).

That leaves us at about $8mil.

If my math is wrong, please let me know, because it could well be, I'm not being facetious.

What would Mason take? Conservatively, half I would assume.

$4mil needing a backup (Ortio @ 1). What will Colborne want? Likely 2.

We are up against the cap.

I'm not sure General Fanager keeps Raymond's 3 buried, I'd assume not.

But even then, I hope someone can spell this out to me in that I'm wrong.

Because man oh man, I see a really downside year next year because it looks like cap jail to me without drastic measures.

I KNOW we need a #1, but can we trade Smid's contract for it? lol

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

We will likely be in Cap Hell for one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think anybody is arguing having an "experienced" goaltender ahead of the prospect .. where it becomes murky is the notion of a prev #1 from another . nearly all the best examples of tenders who had success once changing teams , were either part of 1B scenario, or backups stuck behind entrenched starters.

eg Im not against the idea of a Ranta, Anderson , or even a Nilsson..just like the Oilers and Talbot. But the league is riddled with failed aquisitions of a #1 going to #1 on another team.

IE: Miller.. nobody denied Miller was an Elite tender that should have pushed St Louis to the cup ..he didn't , and in Vancouver he certainly hasn't been a saviour

In the Modern Era, only Roy and Hasek com to mind as #1 trades that actually significantly helped their teams

If we are going to trade , the most succesful method is like was mentioned, a 1B or an upcoming one who has proven as a backup

I was responding to JJ who is suggesting the Flames have to invite a bunch of rookies to camp and go forward with the best of the two. Which I seriously disagree with.

But I do agree with most of your post. Preferably I would like a young proven goalie ready to start. Realistically though I am not sure that is available.

There are plenty of examples though of goalies that have done well after a fresh start. Luongo, Dubnyk, and Mason come immediately to mind. JTech780 suggested Varlamov aways back and I think he is primed for that kind of play on a fresh team.

But whether it's Ramo, Varlamov or someone else it isn't a total failure if they are just mediocre. Ortio or another will hopefully push for starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was responding to JJ who is suggesting the Flames have to invite a bunch of rookies to camp and go forward with the best of the two. Which I seriously disagree with.

But I do agree with most of your post. Preferably I would like a young proven goalie ready to start. Realistically though I am not sure that is available.

There are plenty of examples though of goalies that have done well after a fresh start. Luongo, Dubnyk, and Mason come immediately to mind. JTech780 suggested Varlamov aways back and I think he is primed for that kind of play on a fresh team.

But whether it's Ramo, Varlamov or someone else it isn't a total failure if they are just mediocre. Ortio or another will hopefully push for starts.

agreed.. this is also the reason the "plan" i believe is to see what Backstrom still has.. not saying its my wish , just that its what i think the Flames are hoping for. he could, of course, seriously stink out his starts to end the season and bury the notion ..  but in the perfect scenario, it would be ideal.. solid vet to mentor a younger one, likely get a cheap year out of him cuz he wants to prove he still has it...  buys us a a year to decide the next step and Gillies gets a year of experience in the A

 

i dont think his age is a factor, pretty sure we'd all agree Kipper would still be playing if his heart was still in  the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, I hope I have my math in order here....

 

We're at about $49mil in cap next year on 15 players (General Fanager), so if we sign JG & Monahan at a realistic $14mil, we're at $63 mil on 17 (10 forwards/7 dmen/0 goalies).

That leaves us at about $8mil.

If my math is wrong, please let me know, because it could well be, I'm not being facetious.

What would Mason take? Conservatively, half I would assume.

$4mil needing a backup (Ortio @ 1). What will Colborne want? Likely 2.

We are up against the cap.

I'm not sure General Fanager keeps Raymond's 3 buried, I'd assume not.

But even then, I hope someone can spell this out to me in that I'm wrong.

Because man oh man, I see a really downside year next year because it looks like cap jail to me without drastic measures.

I KNOW we need a #1, but can we trade Smid's contract for it? lol

58ed8347d1d88a69c9b033f486909318.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backstrom may surprise us all, though the chances are probably slim.

 

If not, he's just another UFA like Hiller that won't be re-signed by Calgary.

 

If he does show well, he could be a low cost option for a season or two..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...so the math is this:

Nhl cap 71.4M- flames committed cap hit next season 48.8M

22.6 M to sign 7 players- estimating johnny and monahan @14m means 8.6M to sign 5 players

Nak, Jooris, and Colborne all sign for minimum 10% raise (not likely) is 3.37M

This leaves approx 5.2M to sign 2 goalies

Lets give Ortio 1M.. you have 4.2M to give a starter

Possible variables:

Cap may go up

Move Wideman (likeliest easiest to move)? Replace with 1M replacement, frees up another 4.2

Potential to free up another 2.5 if you do the same with Smids contract (likely IR)

I think its a pipe dream but stajan frees up another 2.1 if you replace him with a cheaper option as well

Engelland not going anywhere..and Bollig is a wash whether you replace him or not

So end result because I dont think you sign all 3 RFA skaters for the minimum raise, and I think wideman will be moved. You have between 3 and 7M to get your #1 goalie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't a total failure if they are just mediocre. 

 

Agree with me or not.....you see my issue with this, I assume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now assuming the above is true, and also for sake of argument that we are moving on from Ramo ( and Hiller obviously) this should give some insight into where BT is looking.also not assuming he can make another "how did he pull that off" trade like he always does..

Just say NO to:

Bishop... too expensive to aquire, for a UFA who will likely be looking to get 8-9 M to re sign

Reimer..will want way too much..and likely going back to Toronto

Ward... I could be wrong but just not convinced hes the right style for us

Try, but I think the price will be too high

Anderson.. would be great but I think if they trade him it will be away fom the division..the cost to us will hurt

Varlamov.. im not convinced hes available, but if he is..see above

Best bets;

Ranta .. could be had for a short term new starter contract..2-2.5 has put up great numbers for 2 teams now..hes ready

Nilsson.. could be had for a 2nd or later, looked great in Edmonton while pkaying behind a porous defense before losing out to Talbot

Darling... only 500k for another year, good numbers behind Crawford

Kincaid. ? Obviously not passing Schneider anytime soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I want Miller, but the Canucks are going to want to offload his contract this summer as Markstrom is pushing for a #1. Who knows with Demko coming into his own too, maybe their AHL #1 and only have to live with Markstrom for a few years while the build on the fly...

He could be had for cheap since they are pretty much ready to part ways. Doesn't he only have one year left?

His contract is expensive though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with me or not.....you see my issue with this, I assume?

No I don't. Of course I am assuming you read the entire post and didn't take that comment out of context.

The plan isn't to get mediocre goal tending. The plan is to have a young goalie challenging for starts and a veteran who has the capacity to be good. But it's a much better worst case scenario then loading camp with a bunch of goalies with zero experience and hope you get lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now assuming the above is true, and also for sake of argument that we are moving on from Ramo ( and Hiller obviously) this should give some insight into where BT is looking.also not assuming he can make another "how did he pull that off" trade like he always does..

Just say NO to:

Bishop... too expensive to aquire, for a UFA who will likely be looking to get 8-9 M to re sign

Reimer..will want way too much..and likely going back to Toronto

Ward... I could be wrong but just not convinced hes the right style for us

 

Of course we can't afford them outright until after next year but in a trade it depends on what is going the other way, how much is going the other way or if the trading team is willing to take some salary back to make it work. Personally I would pass on Reimer and Ward but not pass on Bishop.

Try, but I think the price will be too high

Anderson.. would be great but I think if they trade him it will be away fom the division..the cost to us will hurt

Varlamov.. im not convinced hes available, but if he is..see above

Best bets;

Ranta .. could be had for a short term new starter contract..2-2.5 has put up great numbers for 2 teams now..hes ready

Nilsson.. could be had for a 2nd or later, looked great in Edmonton while pkaying behind a porous defense before losing out to Talbot

Darling... only 500k for another year, good numbers behind Crawford

Kincaid. ? Obviously not passing Schneider anytime soon

Ask yourself how many of them(last group) are prospects like Ortio. I am not fond of pumping more prospects into the wash on chance they might work out. As well there is a reason why other teams(like Oilers) have moved on from prospects. Just because they will be cheap doesn't mean they are a bargain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask yourself how many of them(last group) are prospects like Ortio. I am not fond of pumping more prospects into the wash on chance they might work out. As well there is a reason why other teams(like Oilers) have moved on from prospects. Just because they will be cheap doesn't mean they are a bargain.

The only reason Bishop would be on the block is due to cap hit and the crunch they face in re signing Stamkos etc. Hes going to be a high pucks and top prospects aquisition

You mean like they moved on from Dubnyk? Nilsson is rfa..he played well enough to receuve a significant raise, makes more sense to groom Brossoit on a backup salary

The others are more proven than Ortio just stuck behind an unmovable wall of a starter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backstrom may surprise us all, though the chances are probably slim.

 

If not, he's just another UFA like Hiller that won't be re-signed by Calgary.

 

If he does show well, he could be a low cost option for a season or two..

Might as well start Backs for B2B games. We know Hiller won't play well. Might as well go with someone who might have a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...