My sister said she was listening to ESPN Chicago on the radio and they said that malkin told Mario that he'd be ok with a trade to Chicago. EK's "rumors" are catching fire
- drummer829

you know what they say about rumors
where there's smoke, someones usually high

you know what they say about rumors
where there's smoke, someones usually high
- nightmare3020

You should be pumped. MAF is an outstanding goalie and great character guy, he's currently better than Murray too IMO.
- MattStrat

Uh oh... You're going to stir up some sh!t with that comment.

I agree however.

So the options are essentially
a.) ditch Fleury for peanuts now
b.) trade Murray now for a king's ransom
c.) wait it out and potentially (likely) lose Murray in expansion draft

C is a terrible option.

So if there's not much return on Fleury in option A, I heavily consider option B. What say you?
- YouMeAndDupuis9

For the love of God, why take option B or C? Why?!?! Its just crazy!

Why would you ditch a 22yr old goalie who so thoroughly dominated the AHL that he didn't let in a goal for the equivalent of 5 games in a row? Who played 40 AHL games & had shutouts for 12 of them? That's 30% shutout rate! Who posted a 2.08 GAA & 0.928% SVG in the playoffs? Who just went 15-6 to win the Stanley Cup? Who will have 4 more cost-controlled RFA years AFTER the expansion draft takes place?

For the love of God, pick the guy who won the goaltending job for the past two months when in competition with Fleury!

If none of those arguments sway you, how about just keeping the guy who has the higher value in Murray because, you know, he has higher value?

So the options are essentially
a.) ditch Fleury for peanuts now
b.) trade Murray now for a king's ransom
c.) wait it out and potentially (likely) lose Murray in expansion draft

C is a terrible option.

So if there's not much return on Fleury in option A, I heavily consider option B. What say you?
- YouMeAndDupuis9

It all depends on what we can get coming back? With a decent return I'd visit option A first but if that didn't bring in anything good I'd go with option B and move Murray but would also need to land a top 6 player...you are right though, option C is a terrible option.

For the love of God, why take option B or C? Why?!?! Its just crazy!

Why would you ditch a 22yr old goalie who so thoroughly dominated the AHL that he didn't let in a goal for the equivalent of 5 games in a row? Who played 40 AHL games & had shutouts for 12 of them? That's 30% shutout rate! Who posted a 2.08 GAA & 0.928% SVG in the playoffs? Who just went 15-6 to win the Stanley Cup? Who will have 4 more cost-controlled RFA years AFTER the expansion draft takes place?

For the love of God, pick the guy who won the goaltending job for the past two months when in competition with Fleury!

If none of those arguments sway you, how about just keeping the guy who has the higher value in Murray because, you know, he has higher value?
- s0rcerer1984

Hahaha you are so right. Why is this even in the conversation?

you know what they say about rumors
where there's smoke, someones usually high
- nightmare3020

First, even if Murray slumps a bit, please name the three goalies who you feel a team would acquire over him in an expansion draft. I can't think of more than one in Andersen/Gibson from Anaheim & Murray as a Cup champ and 4 RFA years left would still be 2nd either of them.

Second, what if Murray lights it up, the Pens can't trade Fleury, & they lose the next Patrick Roy in an expansion draft? I can make up crazy hypotheticals too, but I'dd rather deal in reality as it currently stands.

The facts, as they currently stand, are:
(i) the Penguins are unlikely to be able to keep both Murry and Fleury through an expansion draft;
(ii) the Penguins can only protect 1 G and that goalie must be Fleury, due to the terms his contract & the expansion draft rules, through an expansion draft;
(iii) Murray outplayed Fleury for the past two months on his way to Cup victory.

The Penguins make a decision on Fleury now because if you wait, the decision may no longer be within their power. Its not ideal, but, because of the expansion draft, doing nothing is the same as likely losing Murray for nothing.
- s0rcerer1984

I definitely understand your line of thinking but there are parts that I don't necessarily agree with and some of your facts are not really facts.

(i)We really don't have any clue what the chances of them keeping both through the draft are because we don't have any clue as of yet what other players may be available in the draft and we don't know what LV's plan for building their team is going to be. As I said in a previous post their may be players like Bishop/Vasilevskiy(both of whom are better than Murray right now) available as well as Gibson/Anderson and others, if LV is looking to compete as quickly as possible 1 of those other options may be more enticing to them if Murray slumps.

(ii) Yes they can only protect 1 goalie and as of right now it appears Fleury has to be the goalie protected but they are making adjustments and tweeks to those rules everyday that may not be the case by the time the draft arrives and as I detailed in (i) even if Murray is exposed(I wouldn't advise) there's no real guarantee he would be the player they choose for different reasons.

(iii)Murray didn't outplay Fleury the last 2 months on the way to winning the Cup because Fleury didn't play because of injury and by the time he returned staying with Murray was the only real decision regardless of eithers play.

Finally, the decision will always be in Pittsburgh's hands and nothing is going to force them to lose Murray unless they choose to let Murray go. The return value may be slightly affected but the Pens will be able to trade Fleury at any point right up until the day of the expansion draft, it may not be for good value but there will always be a deal available and the increased chances of winning another Cup more than offset the potential loss in trade value imo.

How's Jarry been looking for you guys in the AHL? If there is promise there, does it make some sense to move Murray for a big return and give Jarry the 3 years remaining on Fleury's contract to develop him? Either way, it's all a risk regardless of what you guys end up doing.
- TandA4Flames

It's been reported(rumors) that some in the organization still believe Jarry is the better long term option and favor him over Murray as the #1 of the future.

It's been reported(rumors) that some in the organization still believe Jarry is the better long term option and favor him over Murray as the #1 of the future.
- jaydogg1974

Dear Lord, what is this goalie roulette? Pick a number, any number and here she goes!

He seems like a great guy. Always seems to get a bit of a hard time, would you agree? He was one of the best if not the best goalies in the regular season this year. I think the Flames will be VERY competitive with him for the next 3 years with our young team. Good opportunity for him too!
- The-O-G

Great teammate and statistically is usually about 10-15 goalie in the league every year. Without looking its probably safe to say he hasn't fared quite as well in the playoffs.

He seems like a great guy. Always seems to get a bit of a hard time, would you agree? He was one of the best if not the best goalies in the regular season this year. I think the Flames will be VERY competitive with him for the next 3 years with our young team. Good opportunity for him too!
- The-O-G

His teammates love the guy. Good person. He kept the Penguins above water during the first part of the season when we were forced to watch the excruciating game plan of Mike Johnston.

...and the Blues about Elliott or Allen...and the Lightning about Bishop or Vas...or ANA about Andersen or Gibson...etc.

BT has been in contact with every GM that has a G concern for the exp. draft.
- TandA4Flames

Philipp Grubauer

I don't live in Calgary so I wouldn't know the merits of your local's reporting.
- Victoro311

on par with eklunds rumors... you get the idea

After hearing GMJR's comments today... It just seems like he's thinking MAF will be on his way out. He certainly didn't say anything definitive, but you could get the feeling he doesn't see another way with the expansion draft next year.

Hahaha you are so right. Why is this even in the conversation?

- The-O-G

I have no idea. It all makes no sense to me at all.

And, for the record, Fleury is a great guy & a very good goalie. Calgary would be lucky to have him. He won't single handedly elevate the Flames the way Schneider does with the Devils, but that is what guys like Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, & Hamilton are for. You have a good team with 1 big weakness in net.

Fleury would probably put the Flames over the hump & into the Playoffs given how bad the Flames goaltending was last year:

Fleury: 2.29 GAA / 0.921 SVG% / 58 games

Ramo: 2.63 GAA / 0.909 SVG% / 37 games
Orito: 2.76 GAA / 0.902 SVG% / 22 games
Backstrom: 3.35 GAA / 0.881 SVG% / 4 games
Hiller: 3.51 GAA / 0.879 SVG% / 26 games

For the love of God, why take option B or C? Why?!?! Its just crazy!

Why would you ditch a 22yr old goalie who so thoroughly dominated the AHL that he didn't let in a goal for the equivalent of 5 games in a row? Who played 40 AHL games & had shutouts for 12 of them? That's 30% shutout rate! Who posted a 2.08 GAA & 0.928% SVG in the playoffs? Who just went 15-6 to win the Stanley Cup? Who will have 4 more cost-controlled RFA years AFTER the expansion draft takes place?

For the love of God, pick the guy who won the goaltending job for the past two months when in competition with Fleury!

If none of those arguments sway you, how about just keeping the guy who has the higher value in Murray because, you know, he has higher value?
- s0rcerer1984

So let's say Calgary and Toronto (our two potential trade partners) trade ANA for Gibson/Anderssen and TBL for Bishop/Vasilevsky that leaves us with MAF and Murray and little options for moving MAF. At that point we may have to risk trading Murray for a good return or loose him via expansion draft. Murray can bring us a top 6 player and I know it would suck to lose him but our hands are somewhat tied because of expansion. We do have Jerry in the ranks.

For the love of God, why take option B or C? Why?!?! Its just crazy!

Why would you ditch a 22yr old goalie who so thoroughly dominated the AHL that he didn't let in a goal for the equivalent of 5 games in a row? Who played 40 AHL games & had shutouts for 12 of them? That's 30% shutout rate! Who posted a 2.08 GAA & 0.928% SVG in the playoffs? Who just went 15-6 to win the Stanley Cup? Who will have 4 more cost-controlled RFA years AFTER the expansion draft takes place?

For the love of God, pick the guy who won the goaltending job for the past two months when in competition with Fleury!

If none of those arguments sway you, how about just keeping the guy who has the higher value in Murray because, you know, he has higher value?
- s0rcerer1984

You can't tell me its not worth considering. You're looking at this through a very narrow lens.

Murray could fetch at least a top tier young player and probably more. Fleury is good enough to win a cup with. Murray could solve all of our roster holes and still have a fine goaltending situation for 5 years or more.

Its not just Fleury vs. Murray. Hypothetically, its Murray and no assets OR Fleury and a young stud top 6 winger/top 4 defenseman + pick + prospect.

As in the 53 or 55. There is risk in taking MAF w the concussions, and that he was unseated by a rookie (and looked shaky in his playoff start). And taking Wideman is relief, but also due to Pitts desperation. There are literally no othrr suitors that will take on MAFs contract if Ward gets resigned. Maybe Toronto, but he wont get them ihe playoffs yet, so it doesn't make sense there. Maybe Winnipeg, that's about it.
- FLflames34

Stop, just stop.

You can't tell me its not worth considering. You're looking at this through a very narrow lens.

Murray could fetch at least a top tier young player and probably more. Fleury is good enough to win a cup with. Murray could solve all of our roster holes and still have a fine goaltending situation for 5 years or more.

Its not just Fleury vs. Murray. Hypothetically, its Murray and no assets OR Fleury and a young stud top 6 winger/top 4 defenseman + pick + prospect.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Exactly

Fair enough. My concern isn't whether the Pens would do it or not, it's that Hornqvist (along with Fleury) isn't what CGY should consider using the 6th OA pick on. We are still building and using 2 high picks for a couple guys at 30ish years old isn't good use of that top pick.

Reality is, not with Ward having re-upped in CAR, options for moving a G are down pretty much to just CGY. Maybe TOR looks but unless they get a great deal, they have no need to improve in that area right now. They are at the start of a rebuild so the pooptier they are, the better, for next year anyway. DAL can't get another G without 1st moving one of Niemi or Lehtonen. WPG has no need as they already have 3 G's And CAR is out. Who realistically is left?

Sorry guys, not trying to be a Richard but this is basic economics, supply and demand. They supply is great, the demand just isn't their. After Ward signing, I wouldn't offer anything more than a 3rd round pick and a possible cap dump on a still useful player.
- TandA4Flames

A third round pick and a crap defenseman that doesn't provide much of anything to Pittsburgh for a starting goalie that could do so for the next three or four years. LOL. Someone needs a reality check. Fools think Pittsburgh would be interested in Wideman.

Let's just see Calgary fan ... Fleury for a second and a decent prospect or two seconds. That is much cheaper than the alternatives that could come from Anaheim or TB. You would be forking over the 6th overall pick plus, if its Bishop and a nice package if its Anderssen from Anaheim. Then again, I guess James Reimer could be your answer. He won't get you anywhere good. Won't cost you a thing in a deal, but $4 million plus for a multi-year contract and he isn't good. Fleury's cost is a lot cheaper. People with brains know this.

Stop, just stop.
- Oneonta Penguin

Yeah I don't think it's quite like that......

I have no idea. It all makes no sense to me at all.

And, for the record, Fleury is a great guy & a very good goalie. Calgary would be lucky to have him. He won't single handedly elevate the Flames the way Schneider does with the Devils, but that is what guys like Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, & Hamilton are for. You have a good team with 1 big weakness in net.

Fleury would probably put the Flames over the hump & into the Playoffs given how bad the Flames goaltending was last year:

Fleury: 2.29 GAA / 0.921 SVG% / 58 games

Ramo: 2.63 GAA / 0.909 SVG% / 37 games
Orito: 2.76 GAA / 0.902 SVG% / 22 games
Backstrom: 3.35 GAA / 0.881 SVG% / 4 games
Hiller: 3.51 GAA / 0.879 SVG% / 26 games
- s0rcerer1984

Calgary was last BY FAR this past season in goaltending. It was pathetic! Everyone said the Flames would regress and we heard a lot of "I TOLD YOU SO" this season. But if the Flames got the same goaltending as they did the year previous they would have finished in the exactly same spot. Bring on Fleury!

I definitely understand your line of thinking but there are parts that I don't necessarily agree with and some of your facts are not really facts.

(i)We really don't have any clue what the chances of them keeping both through the draft are because we don't have any clue as of yet what other players may be available in the draft and we don't know what LV's plan for building their team is going to be. As I said in a previous post their may be players like Bishop/Vasilevskiy(both of whom are better than Murray right now) available as well as Gibson/Anderson and others, if LV is looking to compete as quickly as possible 1 of those other options may be more enticing to them if Murray slumps.

(ii) Yes they can only protect 1 goalie and as of right now it appears Fleury has to be the goalie protected but they are making adjustments and tweeks to those rules everyday that may not be the case by the time the draft arrives and as I detailed in (i) even if Murray is exposed(I wouldn't advise) there's no real guarantee he would be the player they choose for different reasons.

(iii)Murray didn't outplay Fleury the last 2 months on the way to winning the Cup because Fleury didn't play because of injury and by the time he returned staying with Murray was the only real decision regardless of eithers play.

Finally, the decision will always be in Pittsburgh's hands and nothing is going to force them to lose Murray unless they choose to let Murray go. The return value may be slightly affected but the Pens will be able to trade Fleury at any point right up until the day of the expansion draft, it may not be for good value but there will always be a deal available and the increased chances of winning another Cup more than offset the potential loss in trade value imo.
- jaydogg1974

First, TB doesn't have the same an issue with Bishop/Vasilevskiy. Bishop is due to be a UFA next offseason. If he does not want to go to Las Vegas, he just has to wait until after the expansion draft to sign a new deal & he is golden. Tampa protects Vasilevskiy & Bishop walks or re-signs after the draft. Seems to be a misunderstanding a lot of Pens fans are under is that Tampa is in the same boat as Pitt is with Fleury/Murray. They aren't.

Second, Las Vegas will likely be required to draft 3 goalies as part of the expansion draft. Meaning, Murray would only have to be the 3rd best goalie available from the entire NHL. If you can name 3 better options, I'm all ears. I don't think they exist, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who thinks they do.

Third, we'll know about the rules prior to the NHL draft. If the Pens can keep both for this season & would not be required to protect Fleury at the expense of Murray, I'm more than OK with that. But, as of right now, that isn't an option. Unless it changes, I maintain the Pens need to move Fleury now so they don't lose Murray later.

Fourth, the Penguins stayed with Murray because he played well. Neither of us were in the room, but I'd wager Sullivan would have pulled Murray if he thought Fleury would have given him a better shot to win. He even did at one point in the Tampa series. If you feel the Pens "staying with Murray was the only real decision regardless of eithers play," I just disagree. I think they stayed with Murray because he was the better player.

Come on Flames fans....the Pens are in a tough spot but if you think they are gonna trade MAF for Wideman and change you're crazy! IMO they would rather lose him in the expansion draft for nothing than get royally bent over in a trade like that!