Speculation: Armchair GM Thread: Post your terrible ideas here!

[Ace Rimmer]

I wouldn't want Miller if he played for free

I'd take him for league minimum.

We haven't had a top end goalie prospect since Trevor Kidd though. Let's not pretend like we've had a bunch of top end goalie prospects over the years

Craig Anderson tho!

It's sad but other than Mike Vernon, the Flames have drafted like no decent goalies since coming to Calgary.

 

[Calculon]

I'll the take odds that at least one of Darling/Grubauer/Pickard/Korpisalo/Gillies/Parsons end up being an above average starter over the odds of Bishop not turning into the next Hiller/Playoffs Elliott by year three of his anchor six year deal.

There's no guarantee's either way but only one of those options gives the Flames flexibility to deal with the issue in the future. Once they've sunk 6M for 6 six years into an aging and possibly declining Bishop, they're stuck with him. Struggling vets with massive contracts and significant term are all but impossible to move in the cap world.

Unless the plan is to use a compliance buyout from Bettman's next lockout on Bishop. That might actually work.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Bring Fleury in, if none of our prospects or young guys take any steps next year, sign MAF to an extension. Providing an opportunity for the young guys to succeed is what's important.

Then what? You're still without a long term answer in net, which is what's important IMO. This carousel needs to stop.

Again, no disagreements that Fleury for next to nothing makes sense, but paying extra to go out and get a young guy with upside and an NHL resume is a wise investment.

Chances a guy who has already had success at the NHL level turns into a high end starter is greater than any of our other guys who have yet to earn much in terms of an opportunity.

If that leaves us with two capable starters down the road in the acquired guy and our prospects that's not a bad problem to have at all.

 

[Mobiandi]

We haven't had a top end goalie prospect since Trevor Kidd though. Let's not pretend like we've had a bunch of top end goalie prospects over the years

Brent Krahn.

But regardless, our goalie development system has always been putrid and resting hopes on a goalie in the pipeline is exactly what this team shouldn't do as it looks to become a contender

 

[Lunatik]

Brent Krahn.

But regardless, our goalie development system has always been putrid and resting hopes on a goalie in the pipeline is exactly what this team shouldn't do as it looks to become a contender

Krahn was never considered a too end guy. Everyone saw his pick as the Flames catering to the hometown crowd.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Then what? You're still without a long term answer in net, which is what's important IMO. This carousel needs to stop.

Again, no disagreements that Fleury for next to nothing makes sense, but paying extra to go out and get a young guy with upside and an NHL resume is a wise investment.

Chances a guy who has already had success at the NHL level turns into a high end starter is greater than any of our other guys who have yet to earn much in terms of an opportunity.

If that leaves us with two capable starters down the road in the acquired guy and our prospects that's not a bad problem to have at all.

The problem is, other than our 1st, we don't really have any available assets that are worthwhile. I wouldn't spend that asset when I think Gillies or Parsons could be our starter in a few seasons. I wouldn't deal Andersson or Kylington before we know what they are. I mean, if you can get Pickard or Grubauer for Poirier and Shinkaruk, count me in. But I don't see any Martin Jones or Talbot available this offseason. The one guy I would be interested in is Murray and he's not available.

Just spitballing here, but what would Vancouver want for Markstrom?

 

[Mobiandi]

Krahn was never considered a too end guy. Everyone saw his pick as the Flames catering to the hometown crowd.

The hype thrusters were high until injuries destroyed him.

Anyway, afaik there's no such thing as a bluechip goalie prospect. King Henrik was taken from that same draft in round 7 and look at what he became for the Rangers.

 

[Lunatik]

The hype thrusters were high until injuries destroyed him.

Anyway, afaik there's no such thing as a bluechip goalie prospect. King Henrik was taken from that same draft in round 7 and look at what he became for the Rangers.

I never heard any if the so called hype. People were excited because the Flames picked a goalie the fans knew, he was drafted way too high and anyone with a brain knew that. But the draft was in Calgary and the gave the fans something to cheer about

Irving had more hype than Krahn and even that was pretty sparse

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Krahn was seen as having decent potential until he blew out his knee(s)

 

[Lunatik]

Krahn was seen as having decent potential until he blew out his knee(s)

Decent potential, yeah. But no one was declaring him one of the top goaltending prospects league wide like we have been seeing with Gillies & Parsons.

 

[DFF]

Krahn was ranked in the top 10 by most in his draft year


But yeah the Flames sure know how to pick goalie. Krahn, Irving, Muzatti...etc...depressing to think about it.

 

[FLAMES666]

Bishop to me is really the only logical goalie at this point. Im not the biggest fan but it makes the most sense. He would be the first legit #1 goalie this team has had in a long time. Its clear that's what the Flames need as this 1a/1b tandem they have been riding the last few seasons is not working. Not a big fan of giving up a bunch for a younger goalie either when we have prospects in the pipe. Bishop is only 30 which is young for a goalie. I see no problem signing him to a 4-5 year deal

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

The problem is, other than our 1st, we don't really have any available assets that are worthwhile. I wouldn't spend that asset when I think Gillies or Parsons could be our starter in a few seasons. I wouldn't deal Andersson or Kylington before we know what they are. I mean, if you can get Pickard or Grubauer for Poirier and Shinkaruk, count me in. But I don't see any Martin Jones or Talbot available this offseason. The one guy I would be interested in is Murray and he's not available.

Just spitballing here, but what would Vancouver want for Markstrom?

I'd actually really like to go after Markstrom. He's a good goalie to have. I think to get Markstrom however, it's not so much what we have to give up, it's more of we may have to take a cap dump back lol. If Brouwer goes unclaimed. Would anyone do Brouwer for Markstrom and Eriksson? Gives the Nucks cap relief and gives us albeit a more overpaid player that is better and a goalie.

 

[lightstorm]

PHI is adding Hischier or Patrick and Lindblom so I have to wonder if one of their forwards becomes available. Dare I say, Simmonds? Would we want Filpulla?

 

[SmellOfVictory]

The hype thrusters were high until injuries destroyed him.

Anyway, afaik there's no such thing as a bluechip goalie prospect. King Henrik was taken from that same draft in round 7 and look at what he became for the Rangers.

Price and Vasilevsky were both pretty much bluechip from day one, but bluechip goalie prospects are exceedingly rare, to be sure.

 

[Lunatik]

So I'm going to try and steer this conversation a different way. Well sort of.

When it comes to starting goaltenders in what order would you like them? And what is the most you would give up for them in terms of money and/or assets. You can list a goaltender more than once, for example if you like Bishop @ 5.5 or under more than Fleury, but like Fleury more than Bishop at more than 5.5. I hope that makes sense.

My list.

1. Ben Bishop - max $5 million/4 years
2. Brian Elliott - max $3 million/3 years
3. Ben Bishop - max $6 million/5 years
4. Scott Darling - max $3 million/3 years
5. Marc-Andre Fleury - max Troy Brouwer
6. Scott Darling - max $4 million/3 years
7. Steve Mason - max $4.5 million/2 years
8. Ryan Miller - max 1 year/$3 million

I did not include Grubauer because I don't believe we have the assets (picks) needed to get a trade done with either Washington or Vegas.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

PHI is adding Hischier or Patrick and Lindblom so I have to wonder if one of their forwards becomes available. Dare I say, Simmonds? Would we want Filpulla?

Hischier is a LHS and Patrick is a center, so I'd assume they'd trade Giroux and Schenn before Simmonds. I also want neither Schenn or Simmonds. Simmonds style won't age well from the looks of it, Schenn is a nobody on our team. Giroux I'd be willing to have, but not willing to give up the pieces.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

So I'm going to try and steer this conversation a different way. Well sort of.

When it comes to starting goaltenders in what order would you like them? And what is the most you would give up for them in terms of money and/or assets. You can list a goaltender more than once, for example if you like Bishop @ 5.5 or under more than Fleury, but like Fleury more than Bishop at more than 5.5. I hope that makes sense.

My list.

1. Ben Bishop - max $5 million/4 years
2. Brian Elliott - max $3 million/3 years
3. Ben Bishop - max $6 million/5 years
4. Scott Darling - max $3 million/3 years
5. Marc-Andre Fleury - max Troy Brouwer
6. Scott Darling - max $4 million/3 years
7. Steve Mason - max $4.5 million/2 years
8. Ryan Miller - max 1 year/$3 million

I did not include Grubauer because I don't believe we have the assets (picks) needed to get a trade done with either Washington or Vegas.

Washington fans were okay with our 1st rounder for Barber and Grubauer. Barber is a RHS RWer who is better than what would most likely be available at that point other than Yamamoto. I'd do our 1st for Barber and Grubauer.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

We shouldn't spend our first on a goalie unless it's a Price or Schneider. There are too many goalies out there and we need more depth up front.

I know the common narrative is, get a young goalie and all our problems are solved. When in reality there is just as much if not more risk going with a young guy like Grubauer.

We have goalies of the future. We need goalies of the present. Hiller and Elliot (both were bad decisions at the time, check my post history) were not the answers because they weren't great goalies. Not because they were "too old".

Mike Smith, Ryan Miller, MAF are all still top 10-15 goalies that could be had for peanuts. Much rather that then spend our first on Grubauer and hope he plays well. Very low risk, high upside imo.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Fleury has certainly made himself more appealing. I still prefer Bishop depending on the term and cost.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Fleury has certainly made himself more appealing. I still prefer Bishop depending on the term and cost.

If it doesn't look like Vegas will take Brouwer, swapping him for Fleury could work out well.

 

[Volica]

If it doesn't look like Vegas will take Brouwer, swapping him for Fleury could work out well.

On a team that values it's cap, I don't think they're taking Brouwer just to get rid of Fleury. That's negative value for value right there. That'd be awesome, but I think Brouwer to Vegas is a lot more likely being honest.

I'd throw a pick their way, something along the lines of a 3rd or something, and hope no one matches.

I'd rather have Flouwer on a 2 year deal with inflated cost, versus Bishop for 4+ on an inflated cost. I'm sure MAF would rather waive and go to a playoff team, than sit in Vegas and waste 2 of the last 4-5 years of his career.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

On a team that values it's cap, I don't think they're taking Brouwer just to get rid of Fleury. That's negative value for value right there. That'd be awesome, but I think Brouwer to Vegas is a lot more likely being honest.

I'd throw a pick their way, something along the lines of a 3rd or something, and hope no one matches.

I'd rather have Flouwer on a 2 year deal with inflated cost, versus Bishop for 4+ on an inflated cost. I'm sure MAF would rather waive and go to a playoff team, than sit in Vegas and waste 2 of the last 4-5 years of his career.

I would see if they'd be willing to take on Bouma (and a pick) for Fleury. Less money and term remaining than Brouwer would certainly make them more willing to add Bouma over Brouwer.

Get rid of Bouma in that deal and Brouwer to Vegas and we are laughing.

 

[FLAMES666]

My list.

1. Ben Bishop - max $5 million/4 years
2. Brian Elliott - max $3 million/3 years
3. Ben Bishop - max $6 million/5 years
4. Scott Darling - max $3 million/3 years
5. Marc-Andre Fleury - max Troy Brouwer
6. Scott Darling - max $4 million/3 years
7. Steve Mason - max $4.5 million/2 years
8. Ryan Miller - max 1 year/$3 million

I agree with this list for the most part. I do think Ryan Miller is Cali bound though. Also I don't really have any interest in Steve Mason. Another goalie I would consider though is Jonathan Bernier. He has had a rough couple of years but towards the end of this season has played very well, better then Gibson in my mind. He is a guy that posted a .921 save perecentage on a bad Toronto team a few years ago. Still only 28 and looks to be getting back in form after his debacle in Toronto last year.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

I'd be OK if we decided to run with a Elliott / Bernier duo.