Flames re-sign McElhinney
by Kent Wilson on Jun 5, 2009 10:49 AM PDT
Email
Print
It's being reported on local radio today that Sutter has re-upped back-up Curtis McElhinney to a two year deal. No other details were available.
It's good to see the kid get another chance. He was fed to the wolves by Keenan's terrible decision making last year and his record/stats took a beating as a result. The Flames still don't know what kind of asset they have in McElhinney; he may be as bad as his limited body of work suggests, but it's probably worth investigating further.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am honestly surprised by this. He’s shown almost nothing at this level, and if the Flames really do want to give Kipper less work, they need a goalie they can believe in. I really don’t think McElhinney is that.
Well, them’s the breaks when you spend 5.83M on a starter: the opportunities to sign a back-up are limited. Partially because you don’t have much money to do so and partially because any goalie looking to be more than a 10 game fill-in won’t sign with you anyways.
I Curtis can’t cut it this year, Im sure the Flames will give one of their other kids a go.
The fact that McE is probably cheaper than Irving’s 1.19 million cap hit likely plays a role as well. I’d suspect this will be another year where the Flames are scrounging for cap savings.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 5, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
NHL Numbers showed him at 500k last year, so it’s a 10% raise if that’s true. It’s still less than half of Irving’s hit. Even Matt Keetley would make more than that if he was called up for the season. Money aside, whoever wins the back up job needs to play more, irrespective of Kiprusoff’s opinion. Keenan gave the guy free reign this season, and it didn’t work. 60-65 starts seems like a better idea, because 75 is a proven recipe for failure, and Sutter has noted he didn’t think much of the workload either.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 6, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha, indeed. Sutter also said the coach needs to get the most out of his star players – now, that could be taken a number of ways, including “improved defensive responsibility” – but the fact is Iginla had one of his worst offensive seasons ever under Sutter in 05/06.
You may be seeing the downside to all those high mileage years for Kiprusoff. Playing 300 games plus playoffs in 4 years looks like it’s taken a toll. We always hear about his terrible starts, but I wonder what his March/April SV % is? I don’t think he’s immune from overuse.
by Robert Cleave on Jun 6, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m actually a little disappointed with this signing. For me, not a great start for next year. Unfortunately, this signing happens for two reasons. 1.) Sutter’s loyalty tendencies, which with guys like Primeau, Warrener, Ericsson, etc. have haunted us before. 2.) He’s cheap…a 500-550k cap hit.
I do realize that with a number one guy like Kipper who plays loads of games, even if it may seem to make no sense (even under Sutter) that it’s tough to convince veterans to come on board. But have you stopped to check the free agent list of goalies this year. They all gotta go somewhere, and for lots of them…it’s down. I’m sure that backing up Kipper in the bigs would be preferred over the farm for guys like: Sanford (650k) who was ok backing up work horse Luongo, or one of Clemmenson/Weekes (500/688).
If Kipper truly is done, it would be good to see someone come in who has a chance in hell of challenging for his job. Like the Tabarraci/Kidd days….only better, hopefully.
I understand your objections, but any UFA the Flames sign – or try to sign – is probably going to be more expensive than McElhinney. What’s more, the few within his pay level is not going to be any guarantee of superior results and is going to be significantly older and closer to his developmental ceilings.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Flames Schedule
Last 5 Games
Anaheim
|
Sat 04/07 | W 5 - 2 |
|
Vancouver
|
Thu 04/05 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 03/31 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
Colorado
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Wed 03/28 | L 0 - 3 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Jersey Fouls: Penner Pancakes; Attack of the FrankenJerseys; Winnipeg’s beer tribute
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: LA Kings juggernaut; Oilers coaching scenario; Game Show Friday!
- Will Mike Green return to the Washington Capitals?
- Jamaica’s Winter Olympic ice hockey dream bolstered by IIHF acceptance
- Penalties in 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Who’s drawing them, and who’s taking them?
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Hejduk staying with Avalanche
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- Milano takes over NHL's Twitter feed for Game 3
