Speculation: Armchair GM Thread Version 974. Or, the boulevard of broken dreams

[Flameshomer]

Goalie is definitely number one priority. I would be going heavy after grubauer too (as many here have mentioned).

I still think sniffing around someone like Schneider or Saros might be worthwhile too. Saros is particularly interesting because of the Kipper similarities but that's probably just hoping for too much.

 

[Flameshomer]

Was chatting with Janko about this and while Bishop is likely the best fit when it comes to age and mileage, I just can't see a way he take a deal that's less than 5 years long. Now 30 years old, he's just not going to take a short deal, especially given his injury history. He's going to want 6 or 7 years to get that security, and that's where I personally say no to him, especially considering we have Gillies who (we think) is on the verge of making the jump.

Darling and Grubauer are interesting options as well but my biggest worry there is that they end up proving to just be "system goalies" like Elliott was (which is an argument that can be had another time, I suppose lol). My worry is less there with Darling though because we play a similar style to Chicago. Both guys would probably take a shorter deal to prove they can be reliable starters.

I still personally think I would rather go after Fleury who could be cheapish to acquire unless Pittsburgh wants to lose him for nothing at expansion. He's a proven starter with the desire to show that he's still reliable in the wake of Murray who's just about ready to take the reigns in Pittsburgh. Two years left on his deal also fits our timeline pretty nicely.

Fleury still scares me. He's playing great this year but last year he looked done already and with his history of playoff shakiness I would stay away.

 

[Volica]

Was chatting with Janko about this and while Bishop is likely the best fit when it comes to age and mileage, I just can't see a way he take a deal that's less than 5 years long. Now 30 years old, he's just not going to take a short deal, especially given his injury history. He's going to want 6 or 7 years to get that security, and that's where I personally say no to him, especially considering we have Gillies who (we think) is on the verge of making the jump.

Darling and Grubauer are interesting options as well but my biggest worry there is that they end up proving to just be "system goalies" like Elliott was (which is an argument that can be had another time, I suppose lol). My worry is less there with Darling though because we play a similar style to Chicago. Both guys would probably take a shorter deal to prove they can be reliable starters.

I still personally think I would rather go after Fleury who could be cheapish to acquire unless Pittsburgh wants to lose him for nothing at expansion. He's a proven starter with the desire to show that he's still reliable in the wake of Murray who's just about ready to take the reigns in Pittsburgh. Two years left on his deal also fits our timeline pretty nicely.

See, with Bishop, how many teams are going to lining up to give him 5-6 year contracts though? Like, I think the argument can be made, that it'll take two to tango here, and most of the tango partners are waiting on the side in hopes of more attractive dance partners. Bishop is the proverbial sloppy fat chick on the dance floor, who was one an absolute babe; I mean, there's someone out there that'll go for it, but most people will be a bit apprehensive. Especially after the season he had where he saw his job lost to a kid and then struggling in front of a team that made Peter Budaj look like an all-star.

Jets, Stars, Nucks and Flames are the 4 teams that'll look to get a new goalie this summer. In reality, I can see the Nucks throwing money, because that's just the Benning way. Stars have to buyout one terrible contract; not sure they'll be in the boat to hand out a 6 year deal to anyone. Jets are likely looking for more of a 1B who can hold down the fort for Hellebuyck to take the reigns.

I just don't know if the market is right for Bishop to command a 5-6 year deal. Flames could trade for MAF and only commit to two seasons; and likely at a very friendly cost; or grab Miller on the short term for an older guy who still has some left in the tank.

 

[Fig]

The way I see it ranked:

1. Bishop:

Pros: Good goalie, low mileage, costs no assets to acquire
Cons: Injury history, AAV and term might not be desirable.

2. Pickard

Pros: Cost to acquire likely lowest of young guys ready to make a jump
Cons: Possible he flops here, lowest ceiling (seemingly) of other young guys

3. MAF

Pros: Term at 2 years looks just right, should show up with a belly full of fire hoping to prove himself
Cons: Old, Elliott concerns, could just perpetuate goalie carousel

4. Grubauer

Pros: Good goalie, looks to be ready to make the jump/buried behind a great goalie
Cons: Cost to acquire is probably highest, concerns he might not fit our system

5. Darling/Dell/Saros

Pros: Should be reasonable price to acquire, might be buried guys acquired for a reasonable price that fits out system
Cons: Could flop, highest risk/reward of all options contemplated.

6. Elliott/Johnson

Pros: Should be willing to look for redemption, salary/term should be a fit
Cons: Familiarity is a double edged sword, goalie carousel concerns, ceiling is low and the floor is comparable to names above.
Misc: One could be a reasonable option as a backup.


Overall:

Is a long term deal a huge issue? 3-4 isn't a bad contract to go for IMO. Relieves goalie carousel and no need to pressure Gillies into stealing starter role. Worst case, I'm sure we can flip Bishop for assets if Gillies matures early. More than likely though, getting a good idea on cap, we can get Gillies to sign a 3x3 early and we'd walk around with two solid goalie tandem when chasing a cup. I really don't think anyone is willing to throw 5+ years on Bishop. 5 maybe, I doubt more than that. Most will aim at 2-4 years.

Fleury's playoff shakiness I don't know if it's as big of an issue as first contemplated mostly due to the fact we're a rebuilding team. Perhaps the boys learning to play in a way that protect the goalie would benefit their overall game. If we spend two years learning to protect a goalie and suddenly end up with someone whom they can trust, consider it a system that gives us the best chance to ride into sunset glory.

Our prospect goalies are still way out. We have no idea what we have. Hell, McDonald could surprise. Who knows. I think everyone agrees we need to acquire externally for the short run. However, the debate is how "short" is "short".

IMO, I'd target 3 years of external goalies. If we develop someone, IMO they should be eased into the role. Not given the reigns after doing well on the metaphorical tutorial.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

I think Bishop will be too much. I'd be totally fine with Johnson (as starter) and someone like Pickard as backup.

 

[Turning Mangiapanese]

I think Bishop will be too much. I'd be totally fine with Johnson (as starter) and someone like Pickard as backup.

I like Chad well enough as a backup but he really wasn't in any way superior to Elliott this season. Give him the starter job and we're having this same conversation yet again a year from now. But I would like him back as the backup, having two completely new guys rarely works very well.

 

[Calculon]

Saros wouldn't be cheap to acquire; he's expansion draft exempt and under contract for next year. Rinne's also has just two years left on his contract so transitioning shouldn't be a problem either. In all likelihood, Saros is probably not available at all.

Also, it's hard enough to move salary these days so older players with significant cap hits and term are basically impossible to trade for assets. Cap dumps, maybe but definitely not real, tangible assets. Especially when you factor in NTC/NMC's.

Johnson's a back up through and through.

I like the idea of a 1A/1B between Grubauer and Darling. Gives the Flames a ton of flexibility not only cap wise but also asset-wise plus the upside of having two potential starters on the rise.

 

[Kritty]

I think Bishop will be too much. I'd be totally fine with Johnson (as starter) and someone like Pickard as backup.

You're going to let the best goalie on the roster walk so you can go with 2 inferior goalies instead? Makes total sense.

I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that Elliott should be back, especially considering the other options. He should more than enough of what he is capable of. Of course he had a bad stretch, so did 90% of the team so I wouldn't lay that all on him. Then I'd be looking into a guy like Grubauer or Pickard with hopes they are ready to take over sooner rather than later.

 

[SKRusty]

SK, I agree with your post. Completely. This team put itself behind the 8-ball when they decided they were going to crawl out of the gate and look like a lotto team.

There's a lot of items this team needs to address before next season, but mostly we have to hope for internal growth. Monahan, Bennett, Gaudreau and Tkachuk all need to take that next step in their games and get to where we know they can be.

We're going to need a starting goalie. There are only a few teams out there that need some, and there are 5-6 guys available potentially this summer as pickups. My first hope is Darling and Grubauer; they're age appropriate goalies that are hungry to start. If we ended up with Bishop, I wouldn't be too upset, because the guy was a top goalie for a while and doesn't have much mileage on him (he's 30, but only had 270 NHL games, versus Quick, who's 31 and has near 500).

Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy bringing in both

Signing Bishop for a 2-3 year deal, and trade/signing Grubauer or Darling as the heir apparent. Gillies is likely the goalie closest to an NHL job, but we're not even sure what we have there.

I missed the Flames most important NEED in the off-season. Sign Treliving!!

There are several goalies that would be more than adequate. Scott Darling, Bishop, Fleury, Elliott, are to name a few.

I don't think trading for Fleury is wise. What the Penguins would require asset wise doesn't make sense when you have several free agent Goalies.

To get Bishop the Flames would likely need to dangle about 6M over 5 to 6 years which isn't a bad deal. Many mention age but any goalie with Bishop's pedigree is going to be about the same approximate age. Heck he would be about the same age as Kipper when the contract expired and until the last season Kipper's numbers were stellar.

It would be the perfect apprenticeship for either Gillies or Rittich. 2-3 years of being a back-up and then 2-3 years of splitting time with a savvy vet.

This means the back-up would be making back-up money until about the time Bishop's contract expired.

All that said either Elliott, Darling, or Bishop would be a good fit. Don't let your bitter taste of this years playoffs cloud the fact Elliott is a definite #1. He was overused from January 1 on and if he had been a little fresher he likely would have yielded a run like the previous year. Please don't forget how good he was for the Blues.

Unless Stone decides to stay at a slight discount the #4 d-man slot is more concerning to me. There are not many #4 guys out there for 3-4 M a season.

 

[Kritty]

I missed the Flames most important NEED in the off-season. Sign Treliving!!

Please don't forget how good he was for the Blues.

Unless Stone decides to stay at a slight discount the #4 d-man slot is more concerning to me. There are not many #4 guys out there for 3-4 M a season.

I couldn't agree more with Treliving. He has made all the right moves and needs to stay. That is exactly the reason why I think Elliott needs to stay. I trust the judgment Treliving has shown thus far. You are bang on with Elliott last year with the Blues, everyone seems to forget that part of it.

With Stone I think it's simple. You talk to TJ Brodie. If Brodie says that's his partner, you make it happen. Having Brodie back to the level he played at before this season is a huge signing/trade on its own and if that means Stone, you do it.

Sometimes the best moves you make are the ones that bring a player within the organization along, not someone from outside.

 

[Mobiandi]

There was some mocking earlier of a post that said no being injured might be hurting us a bit in terms of evaluation of young talent. We go into this off-season with an AHL team that had a number of standouts Klimchuk Jankowski Anderson Kulak and Wotherspoon all could have played A dozen NHL games after Xmas and challenged our bottom 5 guys (I think the most expensive bottom 5 in the league Bouna Stajan Brouwer Bartkowski Engelland) and really only Bouma really gave us more down the stretch than the average Bottom LW

Now we're in the off season and we haven't so much as seen Lazar enough for the coaching staff to pencil him in over these guys who are paid a kings ransom to lose every matchup they go into.

I think one of my big worries for next year is once again burying unknown talent behind guys who have played okay in the NHL at some point but aren't getting he job done now.

I agree with this post whole-heartedly. Some of the Heat guys could've definitely used some priming in the NHL before next season. It's a shame the opportunities stopped coming in after January. But I guess part of the reason it happened was that management and coaching were stuck in a win-now mentality, because of the hole we dug ourselves in, and were too apprehensive to deviate from the status quo, in typical Flames fashion.

 

[DCDM]

I missed the Flames most important NEED in the off-season. Sign Treliving!!

100% agree.

There are several goalies that would be more than adequate. Scott Darling, Bishop, Fleury, Elliott, are to name a few.

I don't think trading for Fleury is wise. What the Penguins would require asset wise doesn't make sense when you have several free agent Goalies.

What the Penguins want and what they actually get for Fleury could be wildly different considering their leverage in this isn't as great as it might seem. If they don't move a goalie, they risk losing one for nothing at the expansion draft. Some might say they'd be better to take something rather than nothing at all. It's an interesting situation for sure. If I'm Brad Treliving, I'm definitely inquiring to see how they feel.

To get Bishop the Flames would likely need to dangle about 6M over 5 to 6 years which isn't a bad deal. Many mention age but any goalie with Bishop's pedigree is going to be about the same approximate age. Heck he would be about the same age as Kipper when the contract expired and until the last season Kipper's numbers were stellar.

I see the point you're trying to make but you simply can't compare Bishop to Kiprusoff. You can talk about age but that's where the similarities end and Bishop hasn't done enough in his career IMO to be put on the same level as Kiprusoff. Not to mention when Kipper signed his contract, the organization knew what they were getting with him. Bishop is a virtual unknown at this point.

It would be the perfect apprenticeship for either Gillies or Rittich. 2-3 years of being a back-up and then 2-3 years of splitting time with a savvy vet.

This means the back-up would be making back-up money until about the time Bishop's contract expired.

This I can agree with, and in my mind is the only way signing a guy like Bishop to 5+ years makes any sense at all. I still am not a fan of committing that much though.

All that said either Elliott, Darling, or Bishop would be a good fit. Don't let your bitter taste of this years playoffs cloud the fact Elliott is a definite #1. He was overused from January 1 on and if he had been a little fresher he likely would have yielded a run like the previous year. Please don't forget how good he was for the Blues.

Disagree on the Elliott part. I don't know how you can say Elliott was overused since he was played sparingly between October and January and it was only near the end of January that he did anything resembling a "definite #1" as you call it. No one is forgetting how good he was for the Blues but they are (and were) a different team so it's not really fair to compare the two situations.

Unless Stone decides to stay at a slight discount the #4 d-man slot is more concerning to me. There are not many #4 guys out there for 3-4 M a season.

I think Kritty nailed it when he said you ask Brodie what he wants in a partner.

 

[BurnEmUp]

Assuming Vegas takes 3-5 goalies in the expansion draft and one of them is Pickard..

Rittich + pick (3rd, 4th?) for Pickard?

Sign Bishop 4 or 5 x $6 million

NHL - Bishop
NHL - Pickard

AHL - Gillies
AHL - Parsons

If Pickard has a strong year backing up Bishop behind a much better team then Tre can flip him next off season for a bigger return if Gillies is then ready to be an NHL back up.

 

[Skobel24]

100% agree.


What the Penguins want and what they actually get for Fleury could be wildly different considering their leverage in this isn't as great as it might seem. If they don't move a goalie, they risk losing one for nothing at the expansion draft. Some might say they'd be better to take something rather than nothing at all. It's an interesting situation for sure. If I'm Brad Treliving, I'm definitely inquiring to see how they feel.


I see the point you're trying to make but you simply can't compare Bishop to Kiprusoff. You can talk about age but that's where the similarities end and Bishop hasn't done enough in his career IMO to be put on the same level as Kiprusoff. Not to mention when Kipper signed his contract, the organization knew what they were getting with him. Bishop is a virtual unknown at this point.


This I can agree with, and in my mind is the only way signing a guy like Bishop to 5+ years makes any sense at all. I still am not a fan of committing that much though.


Disagree on the Elliott part. I don't know how you can say Elliott was overused since he was played sparingly between October and January and it was only near the end of January that he did anything resembling a "definite #1" as you call it. No one is forgetting how good he was for the Blues but they are (and were) a different team so it's not really fair to compare the two situations.


I think Kritty nailed it when he said you ask Brodie what he wants in a partner.

"Giordano".

I do agree that they should talk to him though.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

The way I see it ranked:

1. Bishop:

Pros: Good goalie, low mileage, costs no assets to acquire
Cons: Injury history, AAV and term might not be desirable.

2. Pickard

Pros: Cost to acquire likely lowest of young guys ready to make a jump
Cons: Possible he flops here, lowest ceiling (seemingly) of other young guys

3. MAF

Pros: Term at 2 years looks just right, should show up with a belly full of fire hoping to prove himself
Cons: Old, Elliott concerns, could just perpetuate goalie carousel

4. Grubauer

Pros: Good goalie, looks to be ready to make the jump/buried behind a great goalie
Cons: Cost to acquire is probably highest, concerns he might not fit our system

5. Darling/Dell/Saros

Pros: Should be reasonable price to acquire, might be buried guys acquired for a reasonable price that fits out system
Cons: Could flop, highest risk/reward of all options contemplated.

6. Elliott/Johnson

Pros: Should be willing to look for redemption, salary/term should be a fit
Cons: Familiarity is a double edged sword, goalie carousel concerns, ceiling is low and the floor is comparable to names above.
Misc: One could be a reasonable option as a backup.


Overall:

Is a long term deal a huge issue? 3-4 isn't a bad contract to go for IMO. Relieves goalie carousel and no need to pressure Gillies into stealing starter role. Worst case, I'm sure we can flip Bishop for assets if Gillies matures early. More than likely though, getting a good idea on cap, we can get Gillies to sign a 3x3 early and we'd walk around with two solid goalie tandem when chasing a cup. I really don't think anyone is willing to throw 5+ years on Bishop. 5 maybe, I doubt more than that. Most will aim at 2-4 years.

Fleury's playoff shakiness I don't know if it's as big of an issue as first contemplated mostly due to the fact we're a rebuilding team. Perhaps the boys learning to play in a way that protect the goalie would benefit their overall game. If we spend two years learning to protect a goalie and suddenly end up with someone whom they can trust, consider it a system that gives us the best chance to ride into sunset glory.

Our prospect goalies are still way out. We have no idea what we have. Hell, McDonald could surprise. Who knows. I think everyone agrees we need to acquire externally for the short run. However, the debate is how "short" is "short".

IMO, I'd target 3 years of external goalies. If we develop someone, IMO they should be eased into the role. Not given the reigns after doing well on the metaphorical tutorial.

How is Korpisalo here, and as a guy who follows the Preds a lot, Saros is not available bare massive overpayment as they don't really have any goalies in their system and Rinne is probably going to retire and is more or less guaranteed to not be starter material when his contract is up.

 

[Fig]

How is Korpisalo here, and as a guy who follows the Preds a lot, Saros is not available bare massive overpayment as they don't really have any goalies in their system and Rinne is probably going to retire and is more or less guaranteed to not be starter material when his contract is up.

It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive or completely accurate list. That's Treliving's job. His job isn't my hobby even if I think about the ideas a bit too much.

 

[JPeeper]

My dream for next off-season: never have to think about goaltending.

Every off season has been the same crap, goaltending. '

Calgary is the new Philly.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Let me start off by stating that I am a Flames fan with season tickets who goes to about 20+ games per year since 2002, even during losing streaks and Not some bandwagon jumper. When Treliving signed Gaudreau to the 6.75 million contract and made him the highest paid Flame on the roster, I thought boy this is Deja vu all over again. Remember back in 1995 when Al Coates tried to build a competitive team around another small skilled player who also happened to be a fan favorite "Theoren Fluery" and caused the start of all those lean years until the 2003. I remember vividly that the so called experts on TV and the radio back then made comments like the other NHL teams' executives were laughing at Al Coates in trying to build a competitive team around a small skilled players in a big man's game. When I took my History 201 class at U of A, I also remember the Professor telling us that the sole reason that we learn history is so that people do not make the same mistake again, but somehow humans have short memories and history tends to repeat itself over and over again throughout history. Yes, Gaudreau is very talented, but the Flames should have NEVER made him the highest paid player and tried to make him the face of the franchise. Until he builds up his physique like Martin St Louis with tree trunk thighs (which takes years of training) and learns how to play "playoff hockey", he will not be dominant and really that effective in the playoffs. His circus trick moves are only effective in the regular season when not all that much is on the line. Johnny Hockey is fun to watch I have to admit and I want him to succeed too but he should only be a complimentary player not a team leader (a good side kick) and should NEVER have been made the highest paid player over Monahan. This bad signing will eventually cause Treliving his job in Cowtown like Al Coates did 17 years ago. I really do not understand the fixation of Calgary fans with small players. Like a lot of my friends (especially females) just absolutely disagree with my assessment of him. I really hope I am wrong because with Gaudreau as the highest paid player (aka Leader of the team), it will be very difficult to get pass the Oilers just like what it was during the 80's. Agree or Disagree?

I don't know how much of an old timer you are, but I'm 36. I was an avid fan of the Flames in the 90's, the problem wasn't Fleury, the issue was that we were a small market Canadian team with a league that had no salary cap structure in place trying to compete with teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, and Wings. We were a farm team for the rest of the league and we could not afford to keep guys like Gilmour, Newy, Roberts and MacInnis.

Fundamentally I will agree that you have a point, but your argument is missing many parts. Is Monahan, Tkachuk, Bennett, Backlund, Ferland, Gio, Brodie and Dougie all not part of our core? This is not the Iggy and Co. era, Gaudreau is a massive piece to the puzzle, but he isn't the only piece. The Flames have multiple high end pieces locked up, at a discount. Gaudreau might be making the most because he's the most prolific scorer, but when you glance over the roster. We have no Toews or Kane albatross contracts, which alllows us to have almost 2 core pieces for the same amount when you compare us to the Hawks. If Gaudreau made 9+ million, I'd agree with you. However his contract fits in very nicely with our cap structure going forward.

tldr: We're good

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I don't think anyone including Gaudreau believes the Flames are building the team around him. It's impossible to win with 1 player/line, and you need depth on all 4 lines. But Johnny is a great player. Before his extension he was a Calder candidate, top 10 in league scoring, running the Flames powerplay, World Cup leading scorer, and did everything possible to earn himself a bit of a pay increase over Monahan. He's obviously better than Monahan so it's not surprising to see him paid like it.

The reason he's having a hard time in the playoffs is because the Flames are soft and coached like a soft team. There's nobody on the team ready to fight someone for looking at him weird, and he's getting slashed, hacked and cross checked every time he's on the ice. This isn't just up to Johnny to tough it out, the whole team needs to stand together to ensure he gets respected.

I'm confident Johnny will eventually bulk up to become dominant in the playoffs, but until then the team around him needs to get tougher for the playoff. I'd argue that our 4th line of Bouma, Stajan and Brouwer looked weaker than Johnny in the playoffs and that's an even bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

We have no one on this team willing to stand up and fight? Did you watch any playoff games? I think the Flames physically dominated the Ducks, myself.

 

[Body Checker]

Bouma for Matt Read. Philly would bite to save 1.4 in cap space. He brings more speed and a bit more offence to the bottom 6.

 

[Lunatik]

My dream for next off-season: never have to think about goaltending.

Every off season has been the same crap, goaltending. '

Calgary is the new Philly.

Comparing this years goaltending to last years, is completely unfair and inaccurate.

 

[Lunatik]

Bouma for Matt Read. Philly would bite to save 1.4 in cap space. He brings more speed and a bit more offence to the bottom 6.

God no. An additional 1.4 million for what 10 more points? That is a hard pass.

 

[Lunatik]

Also it's hilarious to me that so many people that are ******** on Elliott are all in for Bishop, he actually had a similar year to Elliott and considering he almost won the Vezina a year ago, that is an even bigger fall.

 

[TkachuksMouthguard]

The goalie pool is a giant question mark at the moment. I would be much more confident in giving Elliot an extension than bringing in another goalie with loads of questions surrounding them. Elliot knows the team and gets the system, might not be top end goalie but has proven that he can hold his net.

3-4 years @ 3.5 - 4 mil

 

[DCDM]

Also it's hilarious to me that so many people that are ******** on Elliott are all in for Bishop, he actually had a similar year to Elliott and considering he almost won the Vezina a year ago, that is an even bigger fall.

I actually agree with this and it's why I'm so hesitant to commit to Bishop for so long. His fall from grace was pretty unexpected. At least Elliott was suspected to be a product of the Blues system.