Small Trade! (Rumour no more)

Acrobat wrote:

504Heater wrote:

Acrobat wrote:
I have had to do a fair bit of learning about goalies and goaltending because my 10-yr old son has taken up goaltending (much to my dismay...why do some people take pleasure in stopping frozen pieces of rubber with their body parts? Especially their head?)

A year ago, after watching pre-season games where both Elliot and Price were in, the one thing I can say is that both are very mobile, and both move exceptionally well. I have heard a lot of people say that Elliot has the potential to be like Price; I don't doubt it. His speed across the net, his vision of the play, his anticipation were all excellent. I didn't see a significant drop-off (there was a slight difference, but it was small) when you compared Elliot to Price - keep in mind that when I saw Price up close, it was just as he was breaking in to the NHL, though. What I found interesting was that Elliot actually seemed a bit more confident when he was handling the puck. He did have a few miscues with misplaying angles and such, but nothing major. I didn't see anything acrobatic however - it was all very technical, very precise, very "by the book" (my son has done camps with Eli Wilson, and it was exactly the way Wilson teaches - almost no improvisation at all; kind of freaky actually, like watching a "how-to" video)

All in all, to my inexperienced eye, I'd have to say that Elliot does look like he has the potential. It comes down to how much Eli can mold that raw talent. But you are right, we may already have our top ten (or top five) goalie.

Very, very cool read. I noticed his lateral movement at development camp and also that when he was scored on, he shook it off, got back up and got back into net. Good head on his shoulders for a goalie. Very poised. Very cool.

Great read. This should seriously be in here:

http://gmcentralhockey.sosblog.com/Members-Blog-b2.htm

You really should write it up as a blog. Or at least give it's own thread.

I think that's the second one I've poured out tonight - perhaps just a mood I'm in.
Or perhaps just avoiding work.

Can it be cut and pasted?

Acrobat wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Acrobat wrote:I really wonder if he adds that much more that what we already have. Couldn't we spend the $1.5-2.5M somewhere better (say, perhaps, Gerber, Neil, and a pick for Khabibulin, Barker, and a first?)

As much as I don't think Khabibulin is all that much better, he is in a contract year, so he has the incentive to kick it up a notch, whereas Gerber may not be able to do so.

I'm not sure I follow. Khabby and Gerber are both in contract years, and you say yourself that the talent difference between the two is marginal... so how will the fact that it's a contract year motivate one mediocre goalie when it won't the other? Why doesn't the logic apply to both equally?

Personally, I want nothing to do with Khabby and his enormous price tag. Cut it in half and we'll talk. Until then, it's a non-starter in my mind.

Poor wording on my part.

I should have stated "the performance" is minimally different; Khabibulin has demonstrated that he can be phenomenal (admittedly, he can pull boners like the best of them too.) I also won't deny that Gerber has talent; in fact I think that we have yet to see Gerber's best in the NHL. It may have been what we saw at the WC against Team Canada.

I agree that the price tag is ugly. But Chicago needs to dump him, and desparately. So maybe, we can move someone in addition to Gerber (McAmmond? Neil?) and grab someone cheap or a draft pick. I am assuming here that Chicago would have a deal in place to flip Gerber - there's no way I want both on the books.

But here's the options (and I'll try to present them fairly):

1. Gamble on a scorer that might return to form, and, if he stays healthy enough to play more than 55-60 games, score 15-20 goals more than your already league-leading total. This will have little impact on overall team dynamic, given the players already brought in, however it may crowd out some of the young guns looking for a spot;

2. Gamble on a goalie that might return to prior form, and steal a few extra games that you might not have otherwise won, but who is otherwise no worse than what you already have. Given the lack of confidence the team has shown in goaltending in the past, this may (no promises) increase the confidence of the defense and forwards in their breakouts, and improve overall play (or it may all be media hype);

3. Go with the status quo, and hope that your forwards, including the young guns, as well as the goalies (Gerber, Auld, Elliot) can all withstand the media onslaught.

IMHO, the third is the default option.
The return on #1 is minimal. Winning 7-4 is no better than 6-4.

Last year, it all fell apart when our goaltending situation went to pot. Option 2 addresses that, both on the ice, and mentally.

Phoenix30 wrote:I wonder after this trade if Murray has something else bigger in the works still. We do have the assets to make a move for a quality D-man or Goalie. Especially if the rumer is true that Glen Murray has been invited to camp. Does the addition of Shannon to the team push another prospect out the door, or to add depth, or package him along with Schubert or Gerber, and a vet forward (Neil/McAmmond) for a quality D-man or Goalie....HMMMMM training camp is looking like its going to be very interesting this year.

504Heater wrote:

Phoenix30 wrote:I wonder after this trade if Murray has something else bigger in the works still. We do have the assets to make a move for a quality D-man or Goalie. Especially if the rumer is true that Glen Murray has been invited to camp. Does the addition of Shannon to the team push another prospect out the door, or to add depth, or package him along with Schubert or Gerber, and a vet forward (Neil/McAmmond) for a quality D-man or Goalie....HMMMMM training camp is looking like its going to be very interesting this year.

If we're blowing the load, we must acquire a top flight goalie - and if we're to do that, we'll need both number 1 picks and possibly a valuable guy like Schubert, Neil (no one wants McAmmond or Gerber or Shannon). Or maybe even Picard.

Damn. What goalie could possibly be available that's worth blowing the load on now? We'll have money to shop for one next year or the year after.

After Murrays shwred moves so far I wouldnt be surprised if he found a taker for McAmmond or Gerber and based on the praise for Shannon how nows. That being said I like the idea of our depth now and would love to see what Shannon could do for us. Maybe Murray sits on the money until later in the season when the playoff pic becomes clearer.

Is there one worth blowing this on?

PKC wrote:I'm pretty sure Elliott is going to be a solution in nets for us possibly before even the end of the year. Why do we need to shop or trade for a top flight goalie that is going to cost us half the proverbial farm.

504Heater wrote:

PKC wrote:I'm pretty sure Elliott is going to be a solution in nets for us possibly before even the end of the year. Why do we need to shop or trade for a top flight goalie that is going to cost us half the proverbial farm.

I guess we wait and see...deadline might be easier to get someone if Elliot's not ready (although I agree, I think he will be).

I don't wanna go all Bob Gainey here and get rid of Gerber until we're comfortable.

MurderOnIce wrote: I am calling Gerbs to have 40+ wins and a GAA of 2.20 to 2.35.

MurderOnIce wrote:
I am one of the few that are okay with Gerbs. He is as good as we can get. Everyone will call me crazy but I am calling Gerbs to have 40+ wins and a GAA of 2.20 to 2.35. I really am liking the makeup of the club. Solid character and solid defence wins championships. If the boys can clear the first rebound which is to be anticipated we are going to be solid in ou own end.

The one thing I see happening for sure right now is Alfie will be the PP quarterback. There is noone else. I like him in that role though. He has a hard accurate shot and makes good decisions, plus he is solid defensively despite a couple of high-profile gaffs over the years.

504Heater wrote:

2.20 to 2.35?

I love your optimism Murder, but his career numbers dictate the best he can do is 2.55 - if he's at the top of his game night in and night out. I know what you mean about the team being insulated by shot-blocking character machines, but...

Let's just say I hope you're right man.