Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Recommended Posts

Renaud Lavoie (@renlavoietva) tweeted at 4:00 PM on Tue, Jun 21, 2016:

As you know Flames are looking for a goaltender and #avalanche Semyon Varlamov is a goalie they're looking at.

Renaud Lavoie (@renlavoietva) tweeted at 4:01 PM on Tue, Jun 21, 2016:

Don't know yet if Varlamov is really on the market. #tvasports

I like Varlamov. He has good term, he is in his prime, he is a good goalie.

Thanks to the internet and Twitter, we are going to be "close to a deal" with every goalie in the league until we actually aquire one

All will be asking for 6 OA, none will get it. Im gonna reserve all future comments til we actually have one.

I will say this though, if we dont have one by Sunday? It means we're going after Reimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah......the reality of it all.

 

All the bright ideas on here, slamming against a concrete wall of facts.

 

Sometimes, the risk of going with a few young goalies, IS preferable than dangling 6th overall picks.

 

gsus

 

Murray would cost you #6++.

Vasilevskiy would be similar in cost, not quite as much.

Hutch was re-signed.

There's loads of goalie, but how many are available and for what cost.  In a year, would we be looking at the results and thinking we blew it?  Of your suggested goalies (Keumper, Gibson, Murray, Vasilevskiy), only Keumper is possibly available.  He may get re-signed by Minny.  Is he another Murray or more like an Ortio,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray would cost you #6++.

Vasilevskiy would be similar in cost, not quite as much.

Hutch was re-signed.

There's loads of goalie, but how many are available and for what cost.  In a year, would we be looking at the results and thinking we blew it?  Of your suggested goalies (Keumper, Gibson, Murray, Vasilevskiy), only Keumper is possibly available.  He may get re-signed by Minny.  Is he another Murray or more like an Ortio,

 

Those aren't even close to my suggested goalies.   I'm not sure how many times I've had to explain to you that we're not getting Murray....but....I'll do it again if you want.

 

Salary is not the problem with Murray.  The problem with Murray is that we aren't getting him.

 

I have made some suggestions...that list doesn't represent them.   Not that it matters.   There are good goalies available to organizations who know what they're doing and are prepared to accept the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't even close to my suggested goalies.   I'm not sure how many times I've had to explain to you that we're not getting Murray....but....I'll do it again if you want.

 

Salary is not the problem with Murray.  The problem with Murray is that we aren't getting him.

 

I have made some suggestions...that list doesn't represent them.   Not that it matters.   There are good goalies available to organizations who know what they're doing and are prepared to accept the risk.

 

Who said salary, I was talking about picks.  Thought you were going on about that too, since you mentioned the 6th overall.

 

I must be mistaken then.  You suggested those goalies back in May...

 

There is nothing wrong with taking risks on goalies.  Tampa and Pitts both found gems in the draft.  They both had bonafide starters on their team to give them the time to develop.  Neither team went and threw caution to the wind to give their backups 40+ games in a season.  If you want to suggest getting the next Murray or Vasilevskiy, I am all for it.  Use him as a backup for now until he wins the job and they trade him like they are with Bishop and MAF.  

 

Isn't that what we are trying to do with Gillies?  Turn him into the next Murray?  Get a starter that can win until he is ready to be a backup, then eventually be the starter? 

 

 

Murray, Kuemper, and Gibson are all candidates, but ONLY for the right price, and we can basically rule Murray out of that now.   So, as risky as everyone makes young goalies out to be on here, I can't have been that far off based off these playoffs.

 

Otherwise, take a risk on lesser names.   Murray and Kuemper were both cheap a season ago.  This season, other prospective goalies will be cheap.   

 

My proposal is to think long term, and take Inexpensive risks, rather than Overpay and wreck our future to "manage risk".

 

But, if none of those big young names are affordable (Murray, Kuemper, Gibson):

 

Someone like Juuse Saros.   (or someone else in that boat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so our #6 isn't in play for a goalie. Was our goaltending that bad or did we just have a bad defensive system that led us to the worse GAA in the league.

That being said how do we get a bonified #1 goalie without mortgaging the future. Or do we find a #2 goalie and hope for the best.

What teams are looking to dump a goalie if there is an expansion draft.

I am on the side that our D was that bad, but I don't have a lot of other fellow Flames fan posters in my corner. They tend to think a good enough and better goalie get us "5 wins" and we are in the playoffs.

My belief is that we can't judge those ten points because if circumstances were different, some of those points would be harder to come by.

But on the goalie and play front, I think a combination of improved D and goaltending will get us there. I think even Reimer ups our chances and has been a tad better than Ortio and Ramo. Someone better than Reims would still be preferred.

I like the idea of a stopgap until we contend for the cup. Salary structures could be better then, but maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said salary, I was talking about picks.  

 

Oh, ok.  Well, sorry then.  But same thing, no.  They're not going to give us Murray for a 6th overall.   Not for 2 6th overalls.

 

We're....  NOT...  getting Murray.

 

So, if you actually read what I wrote in the quote above, you'll see those aren't actually my suggestions.  I'm reiterating what others said, and cautioning them on it.

 

Later on, I did provide suggestions.   They vary, but are generally higher risk, similar potential, and much cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, ok.  Well, sorry then.  But same thing, no.  They're not going to give us Murray for a 6th overall.   Not for 2 6th overalls.

 

We're....  NOT...  getting Murray.

 

So, if you actually read what I wrote in the quote above, you'll see those aren't actually my suggestions.  I'm reiterating what others said, and cautioning them on it.

 

Later on, I did provide suggestions.   They vary, but are generally higher risk, similar potential, and much cheaper.

 

Again, I wasn't implying we could get Murray for a 6th++.  I was saying that would be the cost.  

 

I only saw two other suggestions from you; Saros (Nashville) and the guy that NYI drafted.  Since you devote enough time to say that you provided names, why not just provide the names?  You keep saying that you have given them, but I just don't see it.  Are you talking about the joke names like Steven Harper or Hextall's son (said in jest)?

 

Other than that, do you agree with the rest of my post about Pitts having MAF as their #1 guy while Murray was still developing? Sounds like a good strategy to me.  We are missing the MAF or Bishop or Elliott piece of that puzzle right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Other than that, do you agree with the rest of my post about Pitts having MAF as their #1 guy while Murray was still developing? Sounds like a good strategy to me.  We are missing the MAF or Bishop or Elliott piece of that puzzle right now.

 

It's in the thread....and all I will accomplish by bringing them up is starting a heated debate not worthy of the off-season :)

 

I don't agree, no.   I understand your point of view, but MAF did not make Murray.

 

If that were the case, Irving would have turned out a lot better under Kipper (a long with a host of other disappointments under him in that era).

 

Murray made Murray.  And the Pens development system, and coaching staff, made Murray.

 

 

I will give you this olive branch:     I don't believe Pittsburgh wins the cup without MAF.  

 

But not because he developed Murray.  Because Murray was fresh going into the post-season.   A lot of cup-winning goalies have this going for them.

 

Cup-winning teams typically have two very good goalies, not one.    But they don't necessarily have to be a vet and a prospect.

 

Having two Good, Young goalies works equally well.

 

And I think that's the direction we should be headed in.   And frankly, maybe the only one we can afford without dismantling our rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's in the thread....and all I will accomplish by bringing them up is starting a heated debate not worthy of the off-season :)

I don't agree, no. I understand your point of view, but MAF did not make Murray.

If that were the case, Irving would have turned out a lot better under Kipper (a long with a host of other disappointments under him in that era).

Murray made Murray. And the Pens development system, and coaching staff, made Murray.

I will give you this olive branch: I don't believe Pittsburgh wins the cup without MAF.

But not because he developed Murray. Because Murray was fresh going into the post-season. A lot of cup-winning goalies have this going for them.

Cup-winning teams typically have two very good goalies, not one. But they don't necessarily have to be a vet and a prospect.

Having two Good, Young goalies works equally well.

And I think that's the direction we should be headed in. And frankly, maybe the only one we can afford without dismantling our rebuild.

I don't think anybody is saying that MAF made Murray, but what he did was give Pittsburgh great goaltending while Murray worked on his craft in the AHL so that he was ready to play in the NHL when the time came.

I think to a T everyone on these forums believes or hopes that Gillies is the next Murray, Vasilevskiy, Gibson or Mrazek, but he first needs to prove himself at the AHL level like those guys did. In the mean time we need goalies who are ready to play in the NHL. MAF is ready. Bishop is ready. Varlamov is ready. All of those guys can get us into the playoffs so our young core can cut their teeth in the playoffs and learn what it takes to win. By the time we are ready to be true contenders hopefully Gillies is ready to bust down the door to the NHL, right now he isn't ready, 99% of goalies under the age of 23 aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres no way, I'd be trading the 6th overall, or any roster player not named Wideman, England, Stajan for a goalie.  

 

Sign one of these goalies to a 1 year deal

 

Ramo

Lindback

Reimer

Bernier (if bought out)

Pickard

 

Then wait for the expansion draft and see what you can get when its, leave them unprotected, or get something for them.  Also I personally believe that Ramo played well enough to warrant another go.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody is saying that MAF made Murray, but what he did was give Pittsburgh great goaltending while Murray worked on his craft in the AHL so that he was ready to play in the NHL when the time came.

I think to a T everyone on these forums believes or hopes that Gillies is the next Murray, Vasilevskiy, Gibson or Mrazek, but he first needs to prove himself at the AHL level like those guys did. In the mean time we need goalies who are ready to play in the NHL. MAF is ready. Bishop is ready. Varlamov is ready. All of those guys can get us into the playoffs so our young core can cut their teeth in the playoffs and learn what it takes to win. By the time we are ready to be true contenders hopefully Gillies is ready to bust down the door to the NHL, right now he isn't ready, 99% of goalies under the age of 23 aren't.

 

Nicely put.  We have the Murray part of the equation.  Just need the other, equally essential part.  

 

It's in the thread....and all I will accomplish by bringing them up is starting a heated debate not worthy of the off-season :)

 

 

Unfortunately, all you are doing is creating a debate about what you say you said.  You don't want to discuss them, that's fine.  If you don't want to take the time to go through 300 pages of posts to prove you are right, I get that.  Maybe there in another thread.  All I am am saying is that I can't find any of these mystery people you refer to.  I gave you a list of who you have named.  All except Ortio, who I think is too obvious to mention.

 

It's a Goaltending thread.  People bring up goalies and others debate them.  What else is there to talk about in this thread when we don't have any signed to the NHL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I have is, is Gillies going to be exempt from the draft or not? On General Fanager they show him as eligible and needing to be protected. If this is the case, do we really want MAF who will keep his NMC (can someone clarify if he keeps the NMC after waiving it for a trade?) and then have to be protected by us, thus exposing Gillies?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, all you are doing is creating a debate about what you say you said.

 

Well, a debate usually takes two people.  And I don't care.   And nobody else seems to.  So....it appears to be a one-person debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I have is, is Gillies going to be exempt from the draft or not? On General Fanager they show him as eligible and needing to be protected. If this is the case, do we really want MAF who will keep his NMC (can someone clarify if he keeps the NMC after waiving it for a trade?) and then have to be protected by us, thus exposing Gillies?

I'd take the risk. Unless Gillies has some kind of record-breaking AHL season this upcoming year, I'd say he's pretty safe. Considering the amount of other goalies on the market who are established at the NHL level already for the expansion team(s) to take. Gillies has the potential to be our Murray/Vasilevsky, but he hasn't had the seasoning in the AHL yet. He's likely 2 years (again, I'll give him 1 if he has the aforementioned record breaking season) before he's ready for the NHL. Murray, Vasilevsky and their ilk were NHL ready this season, and ready for bigger roles as of next season. Gillies isn't there yet, it's unlikely he get's picked up (more likely if it's 2 teams, but still not as likely. There are bound to be 4 better goaltenders exposed and through free agency).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I have is, is Gillies going to be exempt from the draft or not? On General Fanager they show him as eligible and needing to be protected. If this is the case, do we really want MAF who will keep his NMC (can someone clarify if he keeps the NMC after waiving it for a trade?) and then have to be protected by us, thus exposing Gillies?

 

Don't trust generalfanager's expansion tool, it is wrong in numerous places, they have Nick Schmaltz, who just signed earlier this week and hasn't played a single pro game as a player that Chicago would have to protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillies is a very good prospect. He really could be another Matt Murray. But our search for a goalie cannot be just paving the way for his inevitable ascension. There is nothing inevitable about him reaching his ceiling. This goes for the vast majority of prospects and Gillies has missed almost a year. We should be looking to find a starter long term. That may mean a short term stop gap if the solution isn't available now rather than giving up assets and salary for a lesser option long term, but it shouldn't be a stop gap for Gillies to take over the reigns. If we have a good starter long term and Gillies does develop the way we all hope, this is not a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pittsburg wants our first round pick. Hopefully their demands will drop if Fleury is our goal.

If that's what they want I'd just hang up the phone right then. Heck no.

(Now to remember to return the favor and toss two boat anchors to them given the chance.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take the risk. Unless Gillies has some kind of record-breaking AHL season this upcoming year, I'd say he's pretty safe. Considering the amount of other goalies on the market who are established at the NHL level already for the expansion team(s) to take. Gillies has the potential to be our Murray/Vasilevsky, but he hasn't had the seasoning in the AHL yet. He's likely 2 years (again, I'll give him 1 if he has the aforementioned record breaking season) before he's ready for the NHL. Murray, Vasilevsky and their ilk were NHL ready this season, and ready for bigger roles as of next season. Gillies isn't there yet, it's unlikely he get's picked up (more likely if it's 2 teams, but still not as likely. There are bound to be 4 better goaltenders exposed and through free agency).

Absolutely not, you NEVER take that risk, especially since we'll know for sure re his eligibility within 12 hours. If he is eligible you also do not take that risk because his history is outstanding and he'd immediately be the future for the Las Vegas team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I have is, is Gillies going to be exempt from the draft or not? On General Fanager they show him as eligible and needing to be protected. If this is the case, do we really want MAF who will keep his NMC (can someone clarify if he keeps the NMC after waiving it for a trade?) and then have to be protected by us, thus exposing Gillies?

 

He hasn't played a "professional season" yet; 10 games in the AHL for someone 20 or older.  He played 7.  By the end of this year, he will have played 1 pro season.

Well, a debate usually takes two people.  And I don't care.   And nobody else seems to.  So....it appears to be a one-person debate.

 

Since you have no desire to talk about your preferences, other than vague references, I will let you be.  Criticize everyone else's preferences or predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Ben Bishop talk is false smoke. Tampa has no reason to deal him since protecting him isnt an issue (him being UFA and all). Infact they can probably get just as much as a deadline rental as they could right now. 

The only reason they would need to deal him would be for cap considerations. They only reason they would have cap considerations is if they are trying to pay Stamkos. The only way they can sign Stamkos is if they have Bishop in net. Pus you need Bishop to play ball with his NMC. 

As such I don't expect anything to happen on the Bishop front until at least a week after the start of UFA when Stamkos is likely signed. AND most likely, nothing until TDL 2017. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Ben Bishop talk is false smoke. Tampa has no reason to deal him since protecting him isnt an issue (him being UFA and all). Infact they can probably get just as much as a deadline rental as they could right now. 

The only reason they would need to deal him would be for cap considerations. They only reason they would have cap considerations is if they are trying to pay Stamkos. The only way they can sign Stamkos is if they have Bishop in net. Pus you need Bishop to play ball with his NMC. 

As such I don't expect anything to happen on the Bishop front until at least a week after the start of UFA when Stamkos is likely signed. AND most likely, nothing until TDL 2017. 

 

Sure, they can leave him unprotected.  What does that do for them?  Vegas would snap up that quality a goalie in a heartbeat.

 

Tampa's cap issues run deeper than just Stamkos.  They have the following RFA that need deals; Killorn, Miller, Namestnikov, Kucherov, Paquette, and Nesterov.  Some of those are gonna cost.  Clearing Bishop's salary helps cover the overage for Stamkos, but that's all it does.  They still have challenges this year and next year even moreso.  They can't afford Bishop today, let alone earning a raise next year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I have is, is Gillies going to be exempt from the draft or not? On General Fanager they show him as eligible and needing to be protected. If this is the case, do we really want MAF who will keep his NMC (can someone clarify if he keeps the NMC after waiving it for a trade?) and then have to be protected by us, thus exposing Gillies?

Based on the rules of elgibility we are working with, 2 years pro or less being exempt, then Gillies will be exempt. Due to his age his 1st year was burned by his 1st game but this upcoming season will be his 2nd. (Dman morrison for example wont be exempt due to the handful of games he played after he signed)

Players with NMC must be protected, unless they agree to waive it for the draft..no trade clauses are not affected by expansion draft and the player can be exposed,

Its very apparent we are watching a very huge chess game right now.

Every team in the league KNOWS we need a goalie, and feels they can get a ransom from us.

We know certain teams are going to be behind the 8 ball to either trade a goalie or risk losing them for nothing.

Pittsburgh leads the pack in that regards so right now we are having a staredown, but at the end of the BT has the leverage.

He can walk away and talk to other teams, he can start speaking with Reimer on Saturday.

All they have to do is tell Reimer to wait and he'll wait. We are now his only FA option to be a starter..any place else hes a backup

Basically yes, we need a goalie, but we dont need MAF. Pittsburgh needs to move MAF and I cant think of one other team who needs/wants a 6M goaltender? That may change by TDL next year, but the return will suck at that time.

So long as BT stays willing to all options, we will be fine..we just have to be patient and remember if we dont have the big sexy name on opening night, its because he refused to pay a ransom. Rumor mills are putting every goalie in the league to us probably because yes, he is calling every single team.hence why I said earlier im not putting any stock into many of the names we are hearing, but im now wondering if we don't see this solved until a week into free agency. We obviously have a GM who wont blink first.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, they can leave him unprotected.  What does that do for them?  Vegas would snap up that quality a goalie in a heartbeat.

 

Tampa's cap issues run deeper than just Stamkos.  They have the following RFA that need deals; Killorn, Miller, Namestnikov, Kucherov, Paquette, and Nesterov.  Some of those are gonna cost.  Clearing Bishop's salary helps cover the overage for Stamkos, but that's all it does.  They still have challenges this year and next year even moreso.  They can't afford Bishop today, let alone earning a raise next year.

I disagree, affording Bishop is a choice they have to make. What happens with the others will depend on their decision,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, affording Bishop is a choice they have to make. What happens with the others will depend on their decision,

It all hinges on Stamkos. If he resigns for 8.5 like has been reportedly offered, then Bishop pretty much has to go . Stevie Y will not sacrifice a young star just to keep a (admittedly stud) 30 yr old goalie who due a further raise in a year.

If Stamkos walks, then they keep him.

Weve seen the rumblings last few days of Tampa asking, almost demanding some kind of answer from Stamkos..thats because hes the domino.

All the more reason why BT isnt blinking, very likely tampa and calgary have talked scenario, which he can relay to piitsburgh and vice versa

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...