Jump to content

The_Argus

SeniorMembers
  • Posts

    505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

The_Argus last won the day on February 4 2014

The_Argus had the most liked content!

The_Argus's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/3)

70

Reputation

  1. I probably would have been fine with that, but now with Ramo's big injury, I think there's just too much uncertainty to rely on him. Ortio has been decent, so at this point, I think you cut ties with Ramo, and go with Ortio and the best goalie you can find (for a reasonable price) in the off season as your duo for next year. I think a Ramo/Ortio tandem would have the potential to be solid or even very good, but at the same time, it's hard to justify bringing back 2 out of 3 of the worst goal-tending squad in the league this season (even if it's the better 2 of the 3). And that's even aside from Ramo's injury.
  2. Fair point, though I think it's still a legitimate concern. So I'm glad to see Hiller getting the start. I agree with Cross, after Edmonton I think you go back to Ramo (unless Hiller is stellar), because I don't really want the Flames getting back into the 1A/1B thing when Ramo is playing really well and has a lot of momentum. BUT, even if Hiller plays good, not great, I think it at least gives the coaching staff confidence to get him in the rotation a little more often (i.e., no more 12 game stretches for Ramo).
  3. Well, Edmonton is one of the worst teams in the league (at least in terms of the standings) and Hiller is coming off a shutout, so there's probably no better time to give him a second game and see if he can go on a run. On the other hand, Hiller still makes me very nervous, and a win against a divisional rival is really, really important. I would probably say start Hiller, though. We do need Ramo to get some rest against the weaker teams. Otherwise, in the event we do make the playoffs, we may have a Kipper scenario, where the team has rode the goalie so hard through the regular season that he doesn't have enough gas in the tank for a playoff run.
  4. Well, regardless of whether you're for or against the project, I think we can all agree that having the pretty much universally disliked (especially among Canadian fans) Bettman come and make a pitch for the project was a terrible idea and a bit of a head-scratcher. If anything, I think there would be less will among Calgary taxpayers to stump up money for the project now.
  5. Oh well, I guess... The goaltending situation has been bungled right from the start of the season. I don't like the result, but at least now it's put to rest. If the team is firmly out of the playoffs later in the season, I hope (and expect) we'll see Ortio back up (assuming he's not claimed). Just to see what we have in him. I don't think the limited use we saw this season so far provided much indication one way or the other.
  6. I think it worked last year because both goalies were generally playing well, so each guy would usually get at least a few starts in a row before turning the net over. Both goalies got to rest often, but there was also some stability. This year, it has been a different goalie every night, and I think that instability just compounds the fact that none of the guys are playing that well.
  7. To be fair, Ramo kind of failed on that goal as well. The shutout was in his hands. But you're right, the team also blew it defensively on that one. I'm actually fine with giving Ramo a string of games. Yeah, he hasn't earned it, but none of the other goalies have either. The back-and-forth between goalies obviously isn't working, so at some point I think you need to just stick with one guy for a while and let him build some momentum, even if it means suffering through a couple stinkers. They don't really have any other options, unless a trade for a goalie comes on the table. My only gripe is that they didn't give Ortio the same chance earlier. That's Hartley for you, though. He loves his vets.
  8. Yeah, as a potential future key player, I don't think you even consider throwing Gillies into this mess. The Flames are only going to salvage this season if they improve both their goaltending and defense. The chance that Gillies single-highhandedly turns things around is very low, whereas the chance he gets his confidence shattered is high with the way the Flames are playing defense. Not nearly worth the risk to a team that is still, IMO, rebuilding.
  9. If Ortio is the backup on Friday, and this is a way of phasing him in slowly instead of throwing him in entirely cold after not playing for so long, then I'm okay with it. If it's Hiller/Ramo again on Friday, then I just don't know what to think.
  10. I agree, and if that's the case, then as I said I think one of the goalies should be waived if they don't pull it together soon. I'm just saying, if anyone is offering anything at this point, Treliving should run with it and not feel bad for "losing" the trade. Well, the problem is we don't really know what we have in Ortio yet, because he's not getting any games. To rephrase my opinion, at worst I don't think he gives us a significantly lower chance to win (how could he with the way Ramo/Hiller are playing now?). But there is also a chance that he runs with the ball and improves our chance to win. I think that chance is clearly worth taking at this point.
  11. Sure, and I think once Ortio gets in the rotation, he too will get multiple starts if he is helping the team win. But it seems clear that Hartley has no interest in rotating three goalies, so I'm afraid that Ortio won't even be able to break in unless one of the vets goes. In the mean time, we can't waive him, so he is wasting a roster spot and getting no playing time.
  12. I understand that, but how long can you wait if neither guy is able to step up? That's why I'm saying we need a limit, at which point we get rid of one regardless. Also, we had all of last season to evaluate the goalies. In my mind, its very clear what we have in both. Both are good goalies, but not great. Neither will be the future #1 goalie of the Flames when the team hits its peak. The goalies have some different tendencies in terms of style, but overall, they're about equal in their ability to win games. So at this point, I think you just trade whichever one gets you the best return. Ortio is not the main issue, but to me he is still an important issue, because this is the year we need to evaluate him, and he also needs to be given a chance to step up, which he obviously will not get from Hartley while both Ramo and Hiller are still on the roster.
  13. I think we have to keep in mind that had we not re-signed Ramo, we would have lost him for nothing. Therefore, any return we can get now for Hiller or Ramo is better than what we would have got had we not re-signed Ramo. I know you never want to make a bad trade or give a guy away for too little, but as tmac said, we are in a position of weakness now, and I think we should just take whatever we can get and look at it as a positive (compared to what we would have got had Ramo walked). The goalie circus can't be allowed to continue. This is the year we have to see what we have in Ortio. We are not getting great goaltending so far. From last season and this season so far, I think it's safe to say that a Hiller/Ortio or Ramo/Ortio team isn't going to give us a significantly lower chance of winning compared to the Hiller/Ramo tandem. I hope Treliving can pull the trigger on a trade soon; otherwise I think he needs to make the tough decision and waive one of Ramo or Hiller. By mid-November at the absolute latest - that would still leave 3/4 of the season to evaluate Ortio. The only way I would change my mind is if Ramo and Hiller both start playing lights-out hockey and stealing games. But I don't see that happening.
  14. If the Flames are going to keep Wideman, I would like to see them bring someone else in to upgrade the top 4, and transition Wideman into an offensive specialist role. In that case, Wideman might only get third pairing minutes 5-on-5 but would get lots of extra time on the power play to make up for it. Potentially, that would give us a killer third pairing, and then we have someone who you know can step up if someone in the top 4 gets hurt. (And let's be honest, how often do you go a whole season without losing one of your top 4 guys at some point?) I would also be fine with trading Wideman, though, if someone is willing to overpay based on his career year.
  15. Schlemko definitely has room to improve, but I've liked him more than any of our revolving cast of 5/6 d-men this year (probably including Engelland for most of the season).
×
×
  • Create New...