I know it won't be popular but if we could get a proven 60+ game starter that has at least 5 years of solid goaltending left I wouldn't be apposed to using one of our goalie prospects to help add another piece
- Redmile247

That's where we are right now. Once you have your big contracts signed & locked in, the $ start disappearing very quick. Believe me the Pens have learnt the hard way, but now it's more important having good players on ELC to spread the talent. Why have a player on 5/6m when 1 on 750k can do the same? The Hawks have this year really found out its hard - we've known for years & basically struggled to manage until our young guys Rust, Sheary, Knuckles, Dumo & Muzza have performed. Now we have a 5m goalie that is redundant (or soon will be), so why would you keep a high priced goalie if you can replace him with a player on an ELC?

Haha I know I am hard on him, but that super bowl thing really pissed me off. He had only played 15 games and had only one (frank)ing point to date on the season and he shows up late. He should be the first guy there and the last guy to leave. I agree that he can be a heart and soul guy on the 4th line but we need guys who make $600,000 doing that i.e. Hathaway. Plug him in and take out Bouma and nobody will even notice.
- The-O-G

Let's not forget that Treliving was only offering $1.5M per season to Bouma, so Lance filed for salary arbitration as he was seeking $2.5M. They presented their respective cases to the arbitrator and after the hearing the FLames must have felt that his case might warrant his ask. Remember also that the year before he had taken a 1 year "show me" deal. The $775,000 he signed for followed a season that he scored 5 goals and had 10 assists. After doing everything asked of him, and the fortune he found in playing with Backlund and Jones for the last half of the season, he increased those totals to 16 goals and 18 assists. I don't know about you, but tripling your goal output and almost doubling your assists screams "I just showed you" .
Firstly, it would be pretty disingenuous of the Flames to say"show me" and next year we'll take care of you, and not do it once the player did. It sends a message to every other player that the team can't be trusted to do what they say, and would undermine future attempts to get other players to take discounts.
Hind sight is 20/20. This year $2.1M didn't look like good value for the results the player produced. Hopefully this year he's worth more than $2.2M, and something clicks for him.

You're disagreement is based off of too much speculation and the fact that this is a mere "bandaid" fix. I could just as easily say that if Elliot plays 60 games next year, posts similar numbers to his past 3 seasons, then the Flames sign him for 5 years @ 6 million per year, and he goes on to be a top three goalie until 2022, that this was the best most ever. But I am not going to.

- The-O-G

Not sure you've grasped what I'm talking about. What about Gillies? If he's a legitimate starter why would you pay 6m instead of 600k on a goalie??

I'm basing my comment on actual facts & what can occur (both sides), & they both lead to the Flames having to make more decisions in a year that will definitely not have a 'cheap' goalie in net unless you roll the dice with another 'possible' starter, keeping in mind your prospects development.

The fix isn't a long term solution. Your GM has provided a window of 12 months to decide & he will then have more decisions to make for your goalie - what would you call that (a 12 month solution)? Short term? Stop gap? Bandaid? Breathing space? Delaying the inevitable? Suck it & see? You tell me what term I should have used.

That's where we are right now. Once you have your big contracts signed & locked in, the $ start disappearing very quick. Believe me the Pens have learnt the hard way, but now it's more important having good players on ELC to spread the talent. Why have a player on 5/6m when 1 on 750k can do the same? .... Now we have a 5m goalie that is redundant (or soon will be), so why would you keep a high priced goalie if you can replace him with a player on an ELC?
- Aussiepenguin

The Flames don't have this problem you speak of. We have a quality starter and a quality back up for a combined $4.2M because Brad Treliving found an excellent cheap solution to that problem. Thanks for the advice though. Good points.

Let's not forget that Treliving was only offering $1.5M per season to Bouma, so Lance filed for salary arbitration as he was seeking $2.5M. They presented their respective cases to the arbitrator and after the hearing the FLames must have felt that his case might warrant his ask. Remember also that the year before he had taken a 1 year "show me" deal. The $775,000 he signed for followed a season that he scored 5 goals and had 10 assists. After doing everything asked of him, and the fortune he found in playing with Backlund and Jones for the last half of the season, he increased those totals to 16 goals and 18 assists. I don't know about you, but tripling your goal output and almost doubling your assists screams "I just showed you" .
Firstly, it would be pretty disingenuous of the Flames to say"show me" and next year we'll take care of you, and not do it once the player did. It sends a message to every other player that the team can't be trusted to do what they say, and would undermine future attempts to get other players to take discounts.
Hind sight is 20/20. This year $2.1M didn't look like good value for the results the player produced. Hopefully this year he's worth more than $2.2M, and something clicks for him.
- InSutterWeTrust

If playing with Backlund is all it takes for Lance to get back to a 16 goal year, then that's pretty much a no brainer. Give him Colburne spot on the 3rd line.

The Flames don't have this problem you speak of. We have a quality starter and a quality back up for a combined $4.2M because Brad Treliving found an excellent cheap solution to that problem. Thanks for the advice though. Good points.

- InSutterWeTrust

I do hope your optimism is legitimate. Have you paid your stars yet? I'll come back in 12 months to see how you are with that & who is the starting goalie for the year to follow.

I do hope your optimism is legitimate. Have you paid your stars yet? I'll come back in 12 months to see how you are with that & who is the starting goalie for the year to follow.
- Aussiepenguin

I am not too worried about it. We have a lot of money coming off the books if we need to sign a starter. Goalies set to be UFA's include, Bishop, Ryan Miller, Steve Mason, Neuvirth, Elliott and Pavelec .

I do hope your optimism is legitimate. Have you paid your stars yet? I'll come back in 12 months to see how you are with that & who is the starting goalie for the year to follow.
- Aussiepenguin

Fine if Elliott stinks we will give Pitt a conditional 5th rounder for flower ....are you happy now ???

I am not too worried about it. We have a lot of money coming off the books if we need to sign a starter. Goalies set to be UFA's include, Bishop, Ryan Miller, Steve Mason, Neuvirth, Elliott and Pavelec .
- CapeBreton_er

I would take pav and Miller off there ...both will not be coming here

out of right field though.

What about paul gaustad as a 4th liner face-off specialist? he's big/mean and very good on the dot.

rather have him floating on the 4th line then bollig. and makes that 4th line useable clearing a zone
- numbear

I'd like him for that role. But we are too crowded on our 4th line with the likes of Ferland, Bouma, Bollig, Stajan, Vey, and Chiasson. Our focus should be filling the holes we have on our top 2 lines, especially on the right side.

Not sure you've grasped what I'm talking about. What about Gillies? If he's a legitimate starter why would you pay 6m instead of 600k on a goalie??

I'm basing my comment on actual facts & what can occur (both sides), & they both lead to the Flames having to make more decisions in a year that will definitely not have a 'cheap' goalie in net unless you roll the dice with another 'possible' starter, keeping in mind your prospects development.

The fix isn't a long term solution. Your GM has provided a window of 12 months to decide & he will then have more decisions to make for your goalie - what would you call that (a 12 month solution)? Short term? Stop gap? Bandaid? Breathing space? Delaying the inevitable? Suck it & see? You tell me what term I should have used.
- Aussiepenguin

I get what you are saying. Most important right now for the Flames is Johnny Hockey and S Monohan. Once those 2 guys are signed and a bunch of not so good contracts are leaving the books this year I believe that BT can really start focusing on a tender.

Best case scenario one of the 2 brought in step up and show they can handle being a number 1. Worst case scenario they go after someone else next season like a Fleury.

If the Flames were Cup contenders I would be a little pissed if they gambled on goaltending. But they are at best a bubble team next year. And we can both agree that the king price for Fleury was too high to pay.

Ek reporting Calgary making a push for Hoffman. Wonder what it would take to pry Hoffman away from the Sens? I would say Backlund but they have plenty of centers.
Hoffman would be great on the second line LW. Getter done BT!

Ek reporting Calgary making a push for Hoffman. Wonder what it would take to pry Hoffman away from the Sens? I would say Backlund but they have plenty of centers.
Hoffman would be great on the second line LW. Getter done BT!
- CapeBreton_er

Its an Eklund rumor... So in in other words...

Ek reporting Calgary making a push for Hoffman. Wonder what it would take to pry Hoffman away from the Sens? I would say Backlund but they have plenty of centers.
Hoffman would be great on the second line LW. Getter done BT!
- CapeBreton_er

Big, if true.

I wouldn't mind a deal bringing a guy like Hoffman (we can figure out the left shot log jam later). Guy has skill and can put the puck in the net.

Thing is we would most likely have to be sending salary back, Ottawa's a budget team and the trade for Brassard is a sign that they want to push for the playoffs now so they are going to want players that can help them win right now.


Who the hell would they want anyway? Frolik?

...as long as it doesn't involve our big 6 (dougie, brodie, gio, money, johnny, bennett) I'd be open to exploring a trade with Ottawa.

Edit:

Maybe they're wanting to bring in 2 players for the price they think they're going to have to pay for Hoffman.

Frolik and Jokipaka/Wideman at 50% would about equal the salary Hoffman's most likely going to get.

Frolik is a good replacement for Hoffman and Joki or Wideman would bolster their blueline at a reasonable price....could be something to it.

Its an Eklund rumor... So in in other words...


- geta02it

Big, if true.

I wouldn't mind a deal bringing a guy like Hoffman (we can figure out the left shot log jam later). Guy has skill and can put the puck in the net.

Thing is we would most likely have to be sending salary back, Ottawa's a budget team and the trade for Brassard is a sign that they want to push for the playoffs now so they are going to want players that can help them win right now.


Who the hell would they want anyway? Frolik?

...as long as it doesn't involve our big 6 (dougie, brodie, gio, money, johnny, bennett) I'd be open to exploring a trade with Ottawa.

Edit:

Maybe they're wanting to bring in 2 players for the price they think they're going to have to pay for Hoffman.

Frolik and Jokipaka/Wideman at 50% would about equal the salary Hoffman's most likely going to get.

Frolik is a good replacement for Hoffman and Joki or Wideman would bolster their blueline at a reasonable price....could be something to it.
- Saskabush

Agreed.
And log jam or not we need a second line LW more then we need a first line RW as I think Johnny and Money will produce no matter who is on the right side.

Agreed.
And log jam or not we need a second line LW more then we need a first line RW as I think Johnny and Money will produce no matter who is on the right side.
- CapeBreton_er

Johnny Money (whoever's hot out of camp)
Hoffman Bennett Brouwer
Ferland Backlund Prybl/Shink/Poirier/Tkachuk
Bouma Stajan Chiasson/Vey

That could be a pretty good top 6 when Tkachuk is ready to contribute...it'd suck to lose Frolik but I think Hoffman's better suited for top 6 action.

Unless you guys can think of anything else the Sens would possibly bite on? Backlund seems unlikely with all of their centres...

Agreed.
And log jam or not we need a second line LW more then we need a first line RW as I think Johnny and Money will produce no matter who is on the right side.
- CapeBreton_er

I say pass. We know we have a really decent 1-2 punch at LW and centre. But things are grim at RW.

Patience

I say pass. We know we have a really decent 1-2 punch at LW and centre. But things are grim at RW.

Patience



- DuranDuran

Tkachuck I know is a left shot but he played RW with Marner and Dvorak did he not?

I say pass. We know we have a really decent 1-2 punch at LW and centre. But things are grim at RW.

Patience



- DuranDuran

Tkachuck I know is a left shot but he played RW with Marner and Dvorak did he not?

Johnny Money (whoever's hot out of camp)
Hoffman Bennett Brouwer
Ferland Backlund Prybl/Shink/Poirier/Tkachuk
Bouma Stajan Chiasson/Vey

That could be a pretty good top 6 when Tkachuk is ready to contribute...it'd suck to lose Frolik but I think Hoffman's better suited for top 6 action.

Unless you guys can think of anything else the Sens would possibly bite on? Backlund seems unlikely with all of their centres...
- Saskabush

If Prybl can somehow make the big club then that is a pretty big rightside. Brouwer, Prybl and Chiasson all 6'3 and well over 200 pounds

Tkachuck I know is a left shot but he played RW with Marner and Dvorak did he not?
- CapeBreton_er

IDK, thought he was LW. If not then I retract my former post.

Ek reporting Calgary making a push for Hoffman. Wonder what it would take to pry Hoffman away from the Sens? I would say Backlund but they have plenty of centers.
Hoffman would be great on the second line LW. Getter done BT!
- CapeBreton_er

Whatever asset that saves Melnyk a bunch of $$$

Whatever asset that saves Melnyk a bunch of $$$
- TandA4Flames

I agree, his moves usually have some shrewedness to it. I don't know how realistic this rumor is but Bennett is exactly the type of player Melnyk would want. Cheap replacement, and able to contribute. We don't have anything else that has the type of value/cost savings Bennett has.
The only angle I see BT even considering this is that he doesn't believe Bennett's ceiling is as high as it once was, and he looks a what Hoffman could bring to the Backlund-Frolik pair and deems that a respectable 2nd line going forward.

I agree, his moves usually have some shrewedness to it. I don't know how realistic this rumor is but Bennett is exactly the type of player Melnyk would want. Cheap replacement, and able to contribute. We don't have anything else that has the type of value/cost savings Bennett has.
The only angle I see BT even considering this is that he doesn't believe Bennett's ceiling is as high as it once was, and he looks a what Hoffman could bring to the Backlund-Frolik pair and deems that a respectable 2nd line going forward.
- JallHockey

I think trading Bennett for Hoffman would be a terrible move for us. I think Bennett will be the better player next year and have the better career. Plus we couldn't afford it if we wanted to, Ottawa would have to take about 5 mill in salary back.