Just to reply from last blog (our night your day ), the main reason for the comment was the fact you have a young goalie coming through, & if you are to sign Elliot or Bishop they will want a lot more $ that MAF & term, $ that can be spent elsewhere. If it's a long contract which is what will probably happen then you'll find yourself shopping a goalie as we will be doing - not a bad thing really but still not ideal. MAF has the remaining term that suits your timeline. In saying that who is to say JR hasn't already got a trade lined up & your GM may want Bishop but those players coming off the books need to be replaced as well. He's playing the waiting game which a contender can't do for too long - are you guys going to be contenders???
- Aussiepenguin

You aren't wrong. But JR could of gotten a way better return if he had been reasonable at this last draft. I guess it's the cost of insurance & we'll just have to see how that plays out. JR's problem will be everyone knows he does not want to lose Murray & Fleury will have to be literally given away. I have no problem being on the receiving end. The only risk you run is if Elliott performs so well we have no choice but to extend him & we are suddenly out of the goalie market. Then JR is giving Vegas a 1st round pick not to take Murray. But I agree, if Elliott & Johnson are just OK & we can get Fleury for 2 years for future considerations, that isn't out of the question.

Just needed to bridge the gap until they are ready ...I personally love what BT did as we have two guys who have done well recently for half the cap hit most pay for their goaltending
- Redmile247

Yup. Both guys need to step up to get paid next year. Not a bad thing to have guys fighting for their contracts.

Yup. Both guys need to step up to get paid next year. Not a bad thing to have guys fighting for their contracts.
- DuranDuran

ya its a good situation.

and they have solid prospects that will be knocking at the door right behind them. I think gillies is about 2 yrs away. But if elliot does well this year. him getting a 2yr deal to ease gillies in is a great situation and I think more stable then if we sent picks out for MAF.

Those assets I think are better off used to get us that RW they need.

ya its a good situation.

and they have solid prospects that will be knocking at the door right behind them. I think gillies is about 2 yrs away. But if elliot does well this year. him getting a 2yr deal to ease gillies in is a great situation and I think more stable then if we sent picks out for MAF.

Those assets I think are better off used to get us that RW they need.
- numbear

Elliot is going to want more than 2 years, & if he does do well will get paid which then runs you into hindering your prospect tenders. That's what I'm saying, you will be back to square 1 next season & if Elliot falls flat there's another season gone due to goal tending. Your GM has put a bandaid on an open wound - there's a saying you get what you pay for.

Contract year? Wasn't your last 2 goalies in contract years?

I really hope you guys are successful but I'm just responding to the last blog because I disagree.

Gross. I heard the Flames may be trying to clear some space to sign Russell. Please don't let that be true.

Elliot is going to want more than 2 years, & if he does do well will get paid which then runs you into hindering your prospect tenders. That's what I'm saying, you will be back to square 1 next season & if Elliot falls flat there's another season gone due to goal tending. Your GM has put a bandaid on an open wound - there's a saying you get what you pay for.

Contract year? Wasn't your last 2 goalies in contract years?

I really hope you guys are successful but I'm just responding to the last blog because I disagree.
- Aussiepenguin

Elliott cost a 2nd rnd pick, JR wanted the #6 OA for Fleury. Elliott was 3rd in GAA last year. Fleury was 11th. Elliott was 1st in sv% while Fleury was 10th.

I sense a bit of panic and desperation in you. Understandable considering you may end up losing the younger and potentially better goalie. As for us, we'll run with our 2 guys, see where Gillies and the other G prospects are after this year and go from there. Who knows, maybe BT tosses JR a token 4th rounder for Fleury to help him out.

Fleury could very well have failed if we traded for him too. So, it's not a step backward. It gives us flexibility we wouldn't have gotten with Fleury.

Elliott cost a 2nd rnd pick, JR wanted the #6 OA for Fleury. Elliott was 3rd in GAA last year. Fleury was 11th. Elliott was 1st in sv% while Fleury was 10th.

I sense a bit of panic and desperation in you. Understandable considering you may end up losing the younger and potentially better goalie. As for us, we'll run with our 2 guys, see where Gillies and the other G prospects are after this year and go from there. Who knows, maybe BT tosses JR a token 4th rounder for Fleury to help him out.

Fleury could very well have failed if we traded for him too. So, it's not a step backward. It gives us flexibility we wouldn't have gotten with Fleury.
- TandA4Flames

No panic. Just read the last Flames blog & disagree. If Elliot was/is top notch I doubt the Blues let him go for a 2nd rounder. If hes 1st on that save % i dont understand him not starting in St Louis??? im not going to check but if you put a link ill look - id love to see the full comparison if Elliot is that red hot!?!? I know that Flower kept the Pens in the comp for us to eventually win (without Flower through last season we dont win the cup), so theres that as a comparison - what did Elliot do???? Time will tell.

Haven't heard anything bad about our new goalies from anyone from their former teams. Only ones in here talking sh!t are crappers from other teams!
I think BT did an awesome job to upgrade our goalies, time will tell. As of now our goaltending is better than all In the pacific except maybe LA or Jose!

As far as Monahan pay the plucker he's our future captain!!!!! sign him longgggg term.

No panic. Just read the last Flames blog & disagree. If Elliot was/is top notch I doubt the Blues let him go for a 2nd rounder. If hes 1st on that save % i dont understand him not starting in St Louis??? im not going to check but if you put a link ill look - id love to see the full comparison if Elliot is that red hot!?!? I know that Flower kept the Pens in the comp for us to eventually win (without Flower through last season we dont win the cup), so theres that as a comparison - what did Elliot do???? Time will tell.
- Aussiepenguin

The blues have a younger goalie ready to play as a starter ....kinda like how fleury got tossed aside for the younger goalie ...you'd think this would be a simple concept to get considering the team you cheer for

The blues have a younger goalie ready to play as a starter ....kinda like how fleury got tossed aside for the younger goalie ...you'd think this would be a simple concept to get considering the team you cheer for
- Redmile247

I'm using Flower as an example. Let me just clarify that I disagree with the last blog hence my comments - I'm not on here looking for a dispute. Your GM is rolling the dice, he has found a stop gap for 1 season moving forward - he hasn't found a cheap solution for your tending issues. You will have a similar (same if Elliot fails), scenario in 12 months - that's 12 months of hockey that may or may not be enjoyable. In 12 months you either re-sign/extend Elliot if he does play well which means a pay rise & term which may or may not hinder your prospect goalie depending on length (if Elliot goes well how many years is he going to want to sign for???), or you go looking for another tender like Bishop who will be $ & want term, trade for Crawford or Flower/Murray if they are still available, or try another 'Elliot' type & see how you go.

Just to reiterate, I said MAF would have been a better option for you guys (even with the price although the the #6 was fairy land, maybe a later pick & a prospect, but still JR wasn't trading for peanuts), due to his $ & term left which coincides with your prospects development. It's a known commodity that you can rely on & move on in other areas. That's all I'm saying people. I'm justifying my comment that I disagree with the blog.

Interesting note on that same interview they asked Monahan about the new NHL where players like Stamkos would take less money so that the team can be better around them and if he'd be willing to do the same

and he said yes... but you could tell it was a bit awkward and uncomfortable
I'm sure his agent was facepalming at that very moment lol


- cpltanto

Stamkos didn't really take less. The 8.5 he makes in tampa is the same as 12.5 in Toronto because is the tax differences. He got a full NMC so he doesn't have to worry about getting traded to a higher taxed area.

I'm using Flower as an example. Let me just clarify that I disagree with the last blog hence my comments - I'm not on here looking for a dispute. Your GM is rolling the dice, he has found a stop gap for 1 season moving forward - he hasn't found a cheap solution for your tending issues. You will have a similar (same if Elliot fails), scenario in 12 months - that's 12 months of hockey that may or may not be enjoyable. In 12 months you either re-sign/extend Elliot if he does play well which means a pay rise & term which may or may not hinder your prospect goalie depending on length (if Elliot goes well how many years is he going to want to sign for???), or you go looking for another tender like Bishop who will be $ & want term, trade for Crawford or Flower/Murray if they are still available, or try another 'Elliot' type & see how you go.

Just to reiterate, I said MAF would have been a better option for you guys (even with the price although the the #6 was fairy land, maybe a later pick & a prospect, but still JR wasn't trading for peanuts), due to his $ & term left which coincides with your prospects development. It's a known commodity that you can rely on & move on in other areas. That's all I'm saying people. I'm justifying my comment that I disagree with the blog.
- Aussiepenguin

The Flames needed a cheap solution in goal for THIS season. 2017/18 is a whole different situation. 16/17 required $14M (roughly) of cap space to sign our cornerstone pieces . Monahan and Gaudreau are our Toews and Kane. 16/17, Wideman, Smid, Englland, and Bolig will come off the books. Their combined $13M in salary can be replaced with players we have coming up in the system for $3M -$6M which leaves gives the team the extra $7M - $10M is cap room to extend Bennett at his new rate and address the goalie situation regardless if it's Elliott, Johnson or someone else.

Kudos definitely ARE deserved by Treliving for finding a cheap solution for the goaltenders for this year, which allows him to simply focus on #13 and #23 without having to figure out how to fit their new rates into the team's cap, or if he needs to move someone to make space. The space he needs to sign a goalie , at a starters rate, will be there, NEXT YEAR, when the team will be in a position to need a top flight tender as they will have reached that point in the rebuild where actually being ready to contend is within their sights, and within their reach. MAF's $5.75M wouldn't have been very manageable for the Flames this year, especially if Wideman couldn't be moved. Fleury or Bishop being added would have been problematic, which is probably why they aren't here.Not to mention, we wouldn't have drafted Tkachuk and wouldn't have what he will become to look forward to. Not every team gets the opportunity to draft multiple 1ST or 2nd OVERALL picks in successive years , not to mention one of them being a blue chip Generational talent, like Edmonton and Pittsburgh did. Most teams have to build slowly, and not waste their first round picks in trades for goalies who's best days are long gone.
The Flames GM is managing the cap pretty decently , something the Pens could use some help with, which certainly contributes to your desire to have Fleury off the Pittsburgh cap and counting against ours. We'd all trade in good cap management for a recent Stanley Cup, but moving forward, I like the way JT has been working it, so far. We'll just have to wait and see.

The Flames needed a cheap solution in goal for THIS season. 2017/18 is a whole different situation. 16/17 required $14M (roughly) of cap space to sign our cornerstone pieces . Monahan and Gaudreau are our Toews and Kane. 16/17, Wideman, Smid, Englland, and Bolig will come off the books. Their combined $13M in salary can be replaced with players we have coming up in the system for $3M -$6M which leaves gives the team the extra $7M - $10M is cap room to extend Bennett at his new rate and address the goalie situation regardless if it's Elliott, Johnson or someone else.

Kudos definitely ARE deserved by Treliving for finding a cheap solution for the goaltenders for this year, which allows him to simply focus on #13 and #23 without having to figure out how to fit their new rates into the team's cap, or if he needs to move someone to make space. The space he needs to sign a goalie , at a starters rate, will be there, NEXT YEAR, when the team will be in a position to need a top flight tender as they will have reached that point in the rebuild where actually being ready to contend is within their sights, and within their reach. MAF's $5.75M wouldn't have been very manageable for the Flames this year, especially if Wideman couldn't be moved. Fleury or Bishop being added would have been problematic, which is probably why they aren't here.Not to mention, we wouldn't have drafted Tkachuk and wouldn't have what he will become to look forward to. Not every team gets the opportunity to draft multiple 1ST or 2nd OVERALL picks in successive years , not to mention one of them being a blue chip Generational talent, like Edmonton and Pittsburgh did. Most teams have to build slowly, and not waste their first round picks in trades for goalies who's best days are long gone.
The Flames GM is managing the cap pretty decently , something the Pens could use some help with, which certainly contributes to your desire to have Fleury off the Pittsburgh cap and counting against ours. We'd all trade in good cap management for a recent Stanley Cup, but moving forward, I like the way JT has been working it, so far. We'll just have to wait and see.
- InSutterWeTrust

I don't get you throwing pot shots at the Pens when all I'm saying is I disagree with your bloggers last blog & gave my reason.

I see you guys competing this year, not needing to wait 'another' year, if you fill the holes you need to fill. As I've said I really hope this turns out well, I like the Flames (so stop trying to punch me out over the Internet ), & hope you get your arses into gear & get back to the playoffs! I'm sure if you ask your coach & GM if they will be disappointed if you finish outside the playoffs & if they think their team is good enough for playoff hockey their answer will be yes.

Edit: Also remembering your prospect goalie should be getting NHL time shortly & more starts over the next 2 years. Hopefully he will be ready in 2/3 years to start, so having to sign a new goalie contract next season is having a term of 2 years. Which #1 goalie will sign for 2 years? Any decent goalie will want term & a NTC knowing who is coming.

I'm using Flower as an example. Let me just clarify that I disagree with the last blog hence my comments - I'm not on here looking for a dispute. Your GM is rolling the dice, he has found a stop gap for 1 season moving forward - he hasn't found a cheap solution for your tending issues. You will have a similar (same if Elliot fails), scenario in 12 months - that's 12 months of hockey that may or may not be enjoyable. In 12 months you either re-sign/extend Elliot if he does play well which means a pay rise & term which may or may not hinder your prospect goalie depending on length (if Elliot goes well how many years is he going to want to sign for???), or you go looking for another tender like Bishop who will be $ & want term, trade for Crawford or Flower/Murray if they are still available, or try another 'Elliot' type & see how you go.

Just to reiterate, I said MAF would have been a better option for you guys (even with the price although the the #6 was fairy land, maybe a later pick & a prospect, but still JR wasn't trading for peanuts), due to his $ & term left which coincides with your prospects development. It's a known commodity that you can rely on & move on in other areas. That's all I'm saying people. I'm justifying my comment that I disagree with the blog.
- Aussiepenguin

The thing is this year and next there are options ...Elliott can play himself out of Calgary or into a new deal ...since none of our goalie prospects are ready we have a few years to figure it out and it's not like we just signed a couple of zakoffs ....Elliott has been a better goalie in the recent years than most in the league ...and as long as he can post a .900 or better sv% than its better than last year ...which I think he can and will do

I don't get you throwing pot shots at the Pens when all I'm saying is I disagree with your bloggers last blog & gave my reason.

I see you guys competing this year, not needing to wait 'another' year, if you fill the holes you need to fill. As I've said I really hope this turns out well, I like the Flames (so stop trying to punch me out over the Internet ), & hope you get your arses into gear & get back to the playoffs! I'm sure if you ask your coach & GM if they will be disappointed if you finish outside the playoffs & if they think their team is good enough for playoff hockey their answer will be yes.

Edit: Also remembering your prospect goalie should be getting NHL time shortly & more starts over the next 2 years. Hopefully he will be ready in 2/3 years to start, so having to sign a new goalie contract next season is having a term of 2 years. Which #1 goalie will sign for 2 years? Any decent goalie will want term & a NTC knowing who is coming.
- Aussiepenguin

Depending on the age of the goalie and the term a deal can be reached ...not just saying the two we have ...could be a different guy as well

Your getting punched out because your not the first pens fan to come in here and suggest we made a mistake ....it kinda feels like the girl you didn't chose getting jealous and trying to argue she's better ...even tho what's done is done

I don't get you throwing pot shots at the Pens when all I'm saying is I disagree with your bloggers last blog & gave my reason.

I see you guys competing this year, not needing to wait 'another' year, if you fill the holes you need to fill. As I've said I really hope this turns out well, I like the Flames (so stop trying to punch me out over the Internet ), & hope you get your arses into gear & get back to the playoffs! I'm sure if you ask your coach & GM if they will be disappointed if you finish outside the playoffs & if they think their team is good enough for playoff hockey their answer will be yes.

Edit: Also remembering your prospect goalie should be getting NHL time shortly & more starts over the next 2 years. Hopefully he will be ready in 2/3 years to start, so having to sign a new goalie contract next season is having a term of 2 years. Which #1 goalie will sign for 2 years? Any decent goalie will want term & a NTC knowing who is coming.
- Aussiepenguin

Competing for the playoffs? Sure. Competing for the cup? Probably not. We are still a few years away from having all the pieces in place to become a serious cup contender.

I think you're misinterpreting what the goalie market will be like next year. With the expansion draft it will be a buyers market, the majority of the teams out there have their #1's locked up and there will be a plethora of good quality goaltenders on the market whether it be through the trade market or free agency.

Not really the best negotiating tool for a guy like Bishop to get a long term, high-dollar contract with a NTC. If he and Johnson are both playing well, then look for them to be extended around Xmas time (with us then being able to expose Johnson in the draft).

I don't get you throwing pot shots at the Pens when all I'm saying is I disagree with your bloggers last blog & gave my reason.

I see you guys competing this year, not needing to wait 'another' year, if you fill the holes you need to fill. As I've said I really hope this turns out well, I like the Flames (so stop trying to punch me out over the Internet ), & hope you get your arses into gear & get back to the playoffs! I'm sure if you ask your coach & GM if they will be disappointed if you finish outside the playoffs & if they think their team is good enough for playoff hockey their answer will be yes.

Edit: Also remembering your prospect goalie should be getting NHL time shortly & more starts over the next 2 years. Hopefully he will be ready in 2/3 years to start, so having to sign a new goalie contract next season is having a term of 2 years. Which #1 goalie will sign for 2 years? Any decent goalie will want term & a NTC knowing who is coming.
- Aussiepenguin

We will be like allot of teams "on the cusp" (Oilers, Avs, etc) in the West. Better but not quite good enough. The prevailing thought in these parts is we are at least a year from being considered a playoff threat. I thing the Flames make significant point gains but whether that equates to a playoff spot is anyone's guess. We improved ten-fold in net and that should allow our D to play to their potential and the stats should reflect that.

As to the MAF/Bishop question, and as many others have stated, we have two good options in Elliot and Johnson. Short terms and good contract value. Should Elliot prove to be a world beater, he gets extended and our search ends. Should he pull a Hiller and Johnson a Ramo, we look at next season and either trade or FA sign for a (MAF, Bishop, or...). The great equalizer is the expansion draft because it will force teams to choose and thats to our advantage.

BT has made some very good moves and there are few who have complained about the work he's done to date.

We will be like allot of teams "on the cusp" (Oilers, Avs, etc) in the West. Better but not quite good enough. The prevailing thought in these parts is we are at least a year from being considered a playoff threat. I thing the Flames make significant point gains but whether that equates to a playoff spot is anyone's guess. We improved ten-fold in net and that should allow our D to play to their potential and the stats should reflect that.

As to the MAF/Bishop question, and as many others have stated, we have two good options in Elliot and Johnson. Short terms and good contract value. Should Elliot prove to be a world beater, he gets extended and our search ends. Should he pull a Hiller and Johnson a Ramo, we look at next season and either trade or FA sign for a (MAF, Bishop, or...). The great equalizer is the expansion draft because it will force teams to choose and thats to our advantage.

BT has made some very good moves and there are few who have complained about the work he's done to date.
- geta02it

I'd be curious to have someone point out a deal or signing that they didn't like it at least see the logic in with BT so far

I'm using Flower as an example. Let me just clarify that I disagree with the last blog hence my comments - I'm not on here looking for a dispute. Your GM is rolling the dice, he has found a stop gap for 1 season moving forward - he hasn't found a cheap solution for your tending issues. You will have a similar (same if Elliot fails), scenario in 12 months - that's 12 months of hockey that may or may not be enjoyable. In 12 months you either re-sign/extend Elliot if he does play well which means a pay rise & term which may or may not hinder your prospect goalie depending on length (if Elliot goes well how many years is he going to want to sign for???), or you go looking for another tender like Bishop who will be $ & want term, trade for Crawford or Flower/Murray if they are still available, or try another 'Elliot' type & see how you go.

Just to reiterate, I said MAF would have been a better option for you guys (even with the price although the the #6 was fairy land, maybe a later pick & a prospect, but still JR wasn't trading for peanuts), due to his $ & term left which coincides with your prospects development. It's a known commodity that you can rely on & move on in other areas. That's all I'm saying people. I'm justifying my comment that I disagree with the blog.
- Aussiepenguin

1st off, getting Fleury would have been a role of the dice just as trading for Elliott may as you suggest. Goalies are voodoo and MAF could have come here and flopped. Only then we'd be stuck with him for another 2 years, still have had a wasted season, paid out 2x the salary and lost significantly more assets than what Elliott cost.

2nd, saying MAF would have been a better option is just your opinion. We get it, you have Fleury posters on your wall and blow kisses at them before falling asleep. That and you're potentially going to lose a good young goalie next summer because we didn't pay up for your guy.

The rest of the hockey world applauded these acquisitions by BT. It's only you it seems that thinks it was terrible. As for adding a link for you to see the #'s, just go look at the NHL stats pages. Look at the G save % in leaders. You'll see a nice pic of Brian Elliott to start it off. I don't really care if you believe me or not. For the price of a 2nd rnd pick, we got 1 of the best current goalies on the market. Fleury could fall off a cliff next season; there is a lot of mileage on that body.

I'd be curious to have someone point out a deal or signing that they didn't like it at least see the logic in with BT so far
- Redmile247

Trading a 3rd for Bollig was dumb. But that could have been Burke since BT had just joined the team prior to the draft and likely didn't have control yet. Signing Bouma to $2.2 for 3 years was dumb as well.

We will be like allot of teams "on the cusp" (Oilers, Avs, etc) in the West. Better but not quite good enough. The prevailing thought in these parts is we are at least a year from being considered a playoff threat. I thing the Flames make significant point gains but whether that equates to a playoff spot is anyone's guess. We improved ten-fold in net and that should allow our D to play to their potential and the stats should reflect that.

As to the MAF/Bishop question, and as many others have stated, we have two good options in Elliot and Johnson. Short terms and good contract value. Should Elliot prove to be a world beater, he gets extended and our search ends. Should he pull a Hiller and Johnson a Ramo, we look at next season and either trade or FA sign for a (MAF, Bishop, or...). The great equalizer is the expansion draft because it will force teams to choose and thats to our advantage.

BT has made some very good moves and there are few who have complained about the work he's done to date.
- geta02it

AussiePen is right in some respect, we just differred the goal tender issue to next year. Did we hurt ourselves doing so? Nope Giving up the #6OA for Fleury or Bishop is a big hell no & Tre made the right call.
Have we solved our goal tending issue? Nope
He is right however. What if Gilles does excellent in A next year & Elliott plays good as well? Then what, do you sign Elliott for a 5 year deal that he's going to want? We just have to wait & see. Personally, Fleury with 2 years could be the perfect timeline bridge for Gilles. But my tune may change big time come June next year.

I'd be curious to have someone point out a deal or signing that they didn't like it at least see the logic in with BT so far
- Redmile247

Overpaid Bouma and Engellund...Hiller wasn't great in hindsight.


Raymond!!! (I get that he was to replace Cammi but that contract

He's been pretty good, but not perfect.

Overpaid Bouma and Engellund...Hiller wasn't great in hindsight.


Raymond!!! (I get that he was to replace Cammi but that contract

He's been pretty good, but not perfect.
- Saskabush

I agree on the most part. But you have to look at the original time frame for the rebuild. Dougie fell into our laps and at the time JG was a huge question mark. Without those 2 pieces Flames would still be looking at tanking.

We also got lucky with Bennett and Tkachuck. Imagine if they had not drafted Brodie!

I guess my point is that at the time the rebuild looked like it could be taking a couple more years.

I agree on the most part. But you have to look at the original time frame for the rebuild. Dougie fell into our laps and at the time JG was a huge question mark. Without those 2 pieces Flames would still be looking at tanking.

We also got lucky with Bennett and Tkachuck. Imagine if they had not drafted Brodie!

I guess my point is that at the time the rebuild looked like it could be taking a couple more years.
- DuranDuran

True enough...I guess Bouma's contract wouldn't really fall under that excuse though. I would've much rather us kept Colborne if there was a choice between signing only one of the two.

True enough...I guess Bouma's contract wouldn't really fall under that excuse though. I would've much rather us kept Colborne if there was a choice between signing only one of the two.
- Saskabush

Hindsight is easy. Bouma just came off of a 20 goal season, was a warrior on the PK & shot blocking & was aggressive. He earned a 1.8-2.0 mill deal so the overpay wasn't really that much. We get that Bouma back, he'll be one of those pieces of the puzzle teams like to add at the TDL. I have no problem with giving Bouma next year & putting last year behind him.