Proposal: PIT-CGY: Brouwer for Fleury

[Skobel24]

Flames need a starting goalie more then you seem to think. Gillis isn't ready to be a #1 ...Johnson isn't a #1

Fluery > Elloitt on his best day

Calgary absolutely needs a quality starter. However, trading Frolik does a lot of damage to the wing. Wouldn't trade him for Fleury.

I like Fleury. He's a good goalie. However, based on his age and contract, he really doesn't fit the Flames rebuild. Lack of scoring in the top 6, and a weak bottom 3 on defense are still things that need to be addressed. Realistically, I don't see the Flames being a playoff team for 1-2 more seasons yet.

If a goalie were the last missing piece, I'd definitely be interested.

 

[SEALBound]

lol, Johnson...

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

And doesn't it say something that you have to use 6 seasons for that to be true? It's not true for any other amount of seasons other than that. You're being intentionally dishonest by saying this. You go one more year back and Elliott's save% falls to a .915. You go one year shorter and Elliott's save% falls to a .917. Again, you're manipulating numbers and using a god like season Elliott had 5 years ago as a crutch for why Elliott is better than Fleury. It's totally dishonest in an argument and literally anyone who wants to look up the stats can see right through your argument.

WHy go one more year back though? Elliott wasn't as good seven years ago as he was for the past six years. It's very NORMAL for goalies to get better at a certain age as they enter their prime. It's not cherry-picking to pick the cutoff at a goalie's first good year of their career, it's just a matter of fact.

Beyond that, Elliott has a better adjusted save percentage than Fleury for the five seasons, last four seasons, last three seasons.

Even sticking to regular old save percentage, look, 2013-17

Elliott - .919 2.25 GAA
Fleury - .918 2.39 GAA

There, that even tyakes out the 2011-12 season that you are pretending is inflating Elliotts stats (while simultaneously eliminating a great season that Elliott actuall performed)

Elliott is putting up terrible numbers, he's getting severely outplayed by a journeyman backup.

MAF is putting up terrible numbers, he's getting severely outplayed by a 23 year old third-stringer-turned-backup.

See how misleading that sounds?

Chad Johnson played 45 games last season. That is more than Murray played.

 

[Skobel24]

lol, Johnson...

While I wouldn't be comfortable with him being the starter for the long term, I have no issues having him play the majority of the games this year. Calgary is still rebuilding, and they're missing more than just a goalie.

Johnson has also been really solid for Calgary.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Let's compare Elliott's stats and Fleury's stats since Elliott fully became a NHLer in 2008-2009:

Stats in the last 9 years: .915 save% for MAF, .913 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 8 years: .915 save% for MAF, .914 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 7 years: .917 save% for MAF, .915 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 6 years: .917 save% for MAF, .922 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 5 years: .918 save% for MAF, .917 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 4 years: .918 save% for MAF, .919 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 3 years: .919 save% for MAF, .918 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 2 years: .918 save% for MAF, .918 save% for Elliott
Stats this year: .907 for MAF, .882 save% for Elliott

So basically, if you choose any timeframe outside of 6 years, their save% are basically tied. But yeah, let's keep acting like Elliott is clearly a better goalie than Fleury and using their stats in the last 6 years as your only crutch. And yes, a guy who puts up a .940 save% over 40 games is inflating stats. That is literally exactly what that is, it's the exact definition of an outlier.

MAF is putting up terrible numbers, he's getting severely outplayed by a 23 year old third-stringer-turned-backup.

See how misleading that sounds?

Chad Johnson played 45 games last season. That is more than Murray played.

Calling Johnson a journeyman backup is completely accurate though. He's on his 6th team in 6 years and he's not a starting goalie. Calling Murray a "23 year old 3rd string turned backup" is just blatantly false because Murray is an actual starting goalie. My analysis of Johnson is accurate, yours is like calling Malkin a 2nd line center.

 

[Halla]

Saying "I wouldn't want Fleury because his contract can become problematic" is a hell of a lot different than what you were saying before this.



And doesn't it say something that you have to use 6 seasons for that to be true? It's not true for any other amount of seasons other than that. You're being intentionally dishonest by saying this. You go one more year back and Elliott's save% falls to a .915. You go one year shorter and Elliott's save% falls to a .917. Again, you're manipulating numbers and using a god like season Elliott had 5 years ago as a crutch for why Elliott is better than Fleury. It's totally dishonest in an argument and literally anyone who wants to look up the stats can see right through your argument.



Elliott is putting up terrible numbers, he's getting severely outplayed by a journeyman backup. That kind of deal is what I'm expecting to happen in the middle of the season.

change journeyman backup to 22 year old and you have fleury.
he is allowing twice as many goals per game as murray (1.58 vs 3.18). calgary might take him if the cost is almost nothing. they just parted with a 2 and 3 for elliot, it would look pretty bad if they gave up anything for fleury

 

[Empoleon8771]

change journeyman backup to 22 year old and you have fleury.
he is allowing twice as many goals per game as murray (1.58 vs 3.18). calgary might take him if the cost is almost nothing. they just parted with a 2 and 3 for elliot, it would look pretty bad if they gave up anything for fleury

Matt Murray isn't a backup though, Murray is an elite young starter. Comparing Johnson to Murray is insulting to Murray.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Let's compare Elliott's stats and Fleury's stats since Elliott fully became a NHLer in 2008-2009:

Stats in the last 9 years: .915 save% for MAF, .913 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 8 years: .915 save% for MAF, .914 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 7 years: .917 save% for MAF, .915 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 6 years: .917 save% for MAF, .922 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 5 years: .918 save% for MAF, .917 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 4 years: .918 save% for MAF, .919 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 3 years: .919 save% for MAF, .918 save% for Elliott
Stats in the last 2 years: .918 save% for MAF, .918 save% for Elliott
Stats this year: .907 for MAF, .882 save% for Elliott

So basically, if you choose any timeframe outside of 6 years, their save% are basically tied. But yeah, let's keep acting like Elliott is clearly a better goalie than Fleury and using their stats in the last 6 years as your only crutch. And yes, a guy who puts up a .940 save% over 40 games is inflating stats. That is literally exactly what that is, it's the exact definition of an outlier.



Calling Johnson a journeyman backup is completely accurate though. He's on his 6th team in 6 years and he's not a starting goalie. Calling Murray a "23 year old 3rd string turned backup" is just blatantly false because Murray is an actual starting goalie. My analysis of Johnson is accurate, yours is like calling Malkin a 2nd line center.

Murray isn't a starter, he's never played a starter's workload that Johnson actually has. My analysis of Murray is accurate, yours is like calling Leo Komarov a first liner.

Matt Murray isn't a backup though, Murray is an elite young starter. Comparing Johnson to Murray is insulting to Murray.

Steve Mason was once an "elite young starter".

 

[Empoleon8771]

Murray isn't a starter, he's never played a starter's workload that Johnson actually has. My analysis of Murray is accurate, yours is like calling Leo Komarov a first liner.

So you're basically just going to repeat my arguments then? Solid arguments, that's not something a 10 year old would do or anything

Chad Johnson is on his 6th team in 6 years=he's a journeyman. Chad Johnson isn't a starting goalie=Chad Johnson is a backup goalie. It's not that hard to comprehend. Matt Murray won a Stanley Cup as a starter, so that basically invalidates your entire argument that he's not a starter. Would it be more accurate to call Johnson a fringe starter or a 1B goalie?

Steve Mason was once an "elite young starter".

Relevance to this discussion:



Man, your chock full of compelling arguments here

 

[Skobel24]

Murray isn't a starter, he's never played a starter's workload that Johnson actually has. My analysis of Murray is accurate, yours is like calling Leo Komarov a first liner.



Steve Mason was once an "elite young starter".

Matt Murray is absolutely a starter. Steve Mason was once a young starter as well. Things can change, doesn't mean they will though. 21 playoff games leading a team to a cup is absolutely a "starters workload".

Chad Johnson is on his 6th team in 6 years=he's a journeyman. Chad Johnson isn't a starting goalie=Chad Johnson is a backup goalie. It's not that hard to comprehend. Matt Murray won a Stanley Cup as a starter, so that basically invalidates your entire argument that he's not a starter.

He's not someone I'd bank on being the starter for the Flames in the future, but he's worth taking the chance on for now. If he continues to play like this, Calgary could potentially sign him to a very reasonable deal.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Know who else were once "journeymen" by your lazy definitions based on just opportunity?

Dominik Hasek.
Mikka Kipprusoff.
Tim Thomas.

 

[Halla]

Matt Murray isn't a backup though, Murray is an elite young starter. Comparing Johnson to Murray is insulting to Murray.

nowhere did i compare murray to johnson

Fleury lost his job just as Elliot did. he is struggling just as Elliot is.
the situations are similar.

by the way this journeyman you keep referencing has a .920+SV%
in 3 of the last 4 years

 

[Empoleon8771]

Know who else were once "journeymen" by your lazy definitions based on just opportunity?

Dominik Hasek.
Mikka Kipprusoff.
Tim Thomas.

Dominik Hasek played for 1 team before he established himself as an elite goalie. The Hawks decided to move him because they had Ed Belfour already. Kipprusoff was in the same boat, he was on 1 team before he got moved to Calgary (where he finished his career). Thomas didn't even play for a team that wasn't the Bruins until his very last season, so that one is just nonsensical.

Man, you're really stretching at this point. Johnson is in the same boat as some guy like Greiss, he's a journeyman.

nowhere did i compare murray to johnson

Fleury lost his job just as Elliot did. he is struggling just as Elliot is.
the situations are similar.

by the way this journeyman you keep referencing has a .920+SV%
in 3 of the last 4 years

Do you not know the definition of a journeyman? He's a journeyman because he jumps from team to team and is reliable (not great, reliable) on most teams that he's on.

He's not someone I'd bank on being the starter for the Flames in the future, but he's worth taking the chance on for now. If he continues to play like this, Calgary could potentially sign him to a very reasonable deal.

Yeah that's fair. At this point, I'm not even arguing that the Flames should trade for Fleury. I'm just arguing against this idea that Elliott is somehow clearly superior to MAF. They're on the same level, but Fleury is more of a workhorse than Elliott is.

 

[Skobel24]

Yeah that's fair. At this point, I'm not even arguing that the Flames should trade for Fleury. I'm just arguing against this idea that Elliott is somehow clearly superior to MAF. They're on the same level, but Fleury is more of a workhorse than Elliott is.

For what it's worth, I'd take Fleury over Elliott. When you take contracts into consideration though, I'd bank on just letting Elliott play out the year, and look into options in the offseason. I wouldn't say no to Fleury entirely, I'd just say no right now.

 

[SEALBound]

Know who else were once "journeymen" by your lazy definitions based on just opportunity?

Dominik Hasek.
Mikka Kipprusoff.
Tim Thomas.

And you believe Johnson will some day be on the same level as though guys?

 

[Skobel24]

And you believe Johnson will some day be on the same level as though guys?

Who thought any of these three would end up being what they were.

It's HIGHLY unlikely, and it's not something I'd bank on... but really, goalies are unpredictable.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

"Only" cost something like 7x7.


The defense that's 9th in the league at suppressing shots, 16th with expected goals?
Merely "to some extent" it's the guy with the same save% as Hiller's last year?


This thread is about "after the season".

There's a very real chance Fleury in Calgary could come close to the numbers he had in his rookie season when the scoring was up and the penguins were a tanking team.

Hitchcock's god****ing malvelous system of wonders somehow has a worse ES SV% than the flames' right now. Fleury went .917 (.928 ES) in 35 games after Johnson was fired last year, which is pretty good.

I'm not buying this idea system and defense has a gigantic effect on save%. Sometime, they're good. Sometime, they suck.

Aging, yes. Declining? His last two years were his best two seasons.

Has it ever occurred to you that Allen and Hutton can't stop a beachball?

 

[Dertell]

The odds of Pittsburgh buying out MAF are very slim. Yes it's an option, but realistically, it'll never happen. I would be large sums on Murray getting traded before MAF gets bought out.

Right, they'll trade MAF or Murray at some point. The point was more that his value will tank after the season because they'll have to make a move quickly.

 

[Dertell]

I apologize on behalf of any Flames fan saying Brouwer isn't a 3rd liner.

That said I don't see how acquiring Fleury helps us in any way short term or long. I like our goaltending, although Elliott has struggled this year.

Short term, it makes no difference. Long term, you dump a bad deal and you get a starter with two years left on his contract.

My problem with Johnson right now is he's riding an unsustainable LDSV%. His HDSV% is below average (average by his past standard) and it's usually what stays more consistent. His numbers will probably fall back to backup standard at some point.

We'll see if Elliott get back on track. Even if he does, the difference between has to make up keeping Brouwer's contract and losing a 3rd.

Has it ever occurred to you that Allen and Hutton can't stop a beachball?

Heresy! Allen is a product of the great defensive mind of our time, Hitchcock.

 

[slappipappi]

This would be a bad trade for Calgary. They lose a guy who has been easily one of their best players this season for a goalie, when we have Gillies, who will probably be in the NHL next season. Plus if Johnson continues this play, no way we don't resign. Then we have Elliott and McDonald in the fold, it just wouldn't make sense.

Gillies is unlikely to be a regular next season.

Elliot is a UFA after the season.

 

[KIRK]

Right, they'll trade MAF or Murray at some point. The point was more that his value will tank after the season because they'll have to make a move quickly.

Speaking as a Penguins fan, I'm not sure Fleury has much value now. I'd be content with something around Fleury for Elliot and a 2nd.

 

[MakeCgyGreatAgain]

Speaking as a Penguins fan, I'm not sure Fleury has much value now. I'd be content with something around Fleury for Elliot and a 2nd.

A 2nd eh? You say your not expecting much but I'd be shocked if that was the return. All the GM's know Pittsburgh has to trade him or buy him out in order to keep Murray. Your expectations better drop even further than that.

 

[KIRK]

A 2nd eh? You say your not expecting much but I'd be shocked if that was the return. All the GM's know Pittsburgh has to trade him or buy him out in order to keep Murray. Your expectations better drop even further than that.

I'm talking about now. Not late in the season. I could even see the Pens retaining a little if it's less than the buyout hit.

EDIT: My point, by the way, wasn't to identify what the final price paid would be but instead to temper, from a Pens perspective, how a nice deal for Fleury should be defined.

 

[Riptide]

Yup, Henrik Lundqvist.

He's at the age that Bishop, Talbot, etc got their chance.

You're just a glutton for punishment aren't you? Not much of a surprise you're wrong again.

Talbot played 56 games for Edmonton last year as a 28 yr old. Bishop just turned 30 (4 days ago) and has 3 60+ game seasons under his belt for Tampa. Johnson on the other hand is 30 and has 1 season where he's played more than 28 games.

 

[Riptide]

Chad Johnson played 45 games last season. That is more than Murray played.

Yes it is. And quite likely why Rutherford was hesitant to move Fleury this summer. But seeing how he hasn't missed a beat since backstopping Pittsburgh to the Stanley Cup 5 months ago, I'm pretty sure that management has a little more faith in him then the average journeyman backup.