travel_dude
-
Posts
52,010 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by travel_dude
-
The cost of Hiller is prorated, so it takes up less space the later in the year it is. At least that is my understanding. If you had $2m in cap space at the start of the year, after 3/4 of the season Hiller would cost you $1.125m in cap space.
-
If you were a team that may contend for the playoffs, do you stays with your backup who may be just over 0.500 in wins or do you want to spend a prorated portion of $4.5m on a goalie with playoff experience? The Flames won't keep him that lone, just saying that would be the best time to trade him. Now is not so good.
-
I don't know about that. Some other goalie have gotten longer contracts. As far as teams wanting a player like him, consider teams in rebuild-mode. They just have to look at the positive impact he had in Calgary. If we just offer a one-year deal or let him walk, he is going to get an offer elsewhere. At TDL, his value would probably be highest in trade, though.
-
With Hiller, we will either see more of the same or regression. With Ramo, it could be either of those or a career year. As Kehatch mentioned, none of the goalies are signed beyond this season. Unless we play Ortio a reasonable number of games to properly evaluate him, we won't know what we have. He may not want to even sign with us. He is ripe. And he has shown better than average starts in his recent games. He is at the age where he will improve only with a better level of competition. Not the AHL. Hiller will want a longer deal if he is the starter this season (meaning he is playing the best). Or he will want more money. If we are still considered to be in a rebuild, then you need to rebuild the goaltending as well. Hiller and Ramo do not allow this to happen if they are playing league average. We can't (potentially) toss away our closest-to-ready goalie prospect and wait another 2-3 years for Gillies, or longer for Mason.
-
The first paragraph is observation and history. Any goalie you draft or develop is done so to be a starter on the team at some point. You don't expend a draft pick just to have a backup. As far as Hiller, he was signed for two years. If you were looking to sign a long-term asset, you don't give him 2 years. Ortio is a future starter on the Flames, unless he craps the bed or is passed by the next one. BTW, love the debate. It's great to have a team to argue about good players. I would hate to be a fan of the Coyotes and argue about who the least bad player is, or how the future looks rosy because we drafted top 3 and one player is going to turn it around. How many teams have 3 goalies all performing well, or have performed well in the NHL.
-
Kipper got the chance due to injury replacement. Kipper also became the linchpin for the Flames. He overplayed to the point of not allowing a backup the opportunity to develop. As a result, when Kipper was on a bad streak, the Flames lost. No chance to use McBackup because he wasn't tuned up to be able to win. Ortio was always part of the future on the Flames, if he was able to prove he could win at the NHL level. They spent years developing him to be a starter. Hiller was a 2 year guy, to give you some stability during the rebuild. 2014/15 was more a year of overachieving by F and D, not goalies winning on their own. There wasn't Kipper performances on a normal basis. The odd game was stolen, but that was also a product of the team keeping away the quality scoring chances or outscoring a team while shooting less. The Flames were 2nd in the NHL in SH%. That is not the goalies doing it.
-
Kipper prevented us from developing a proper backup. Having both Ramo and Hiller again this season does the same thing. Ortio needs to play this year to see what he really is. Otherwise, we are forced to go with him next year as a starter, assuming he even re-signs.
-
Ortio and Ramo both have potential. We gave Ramo more rope because he had flashes of brilliance. B2B shutouts, winning a game for the team. My opinion of Ramo is based on what I have seen. Yes, he tends to overplay, but no different than a d-man doing the slide; Russell and Wideman do this at time. It either works or it doesn't. It works when the goalie makes the initial stop. It doesn't when a forward is at the other side of the net, unchallenged. We can carry 3 goalies to start the season, so we can look for a trade opportunity. I think it is time to pick one vet and play Ortio. If he is a starter in the making, he will shine. If he is just a McBackup, then we look elsewhere for the replacement starter. A vet + Ortio is likely to be no worse than Hiller/Ramo.
-
Many teams have backups that are not that good. The Oilers have two career backups and a prospect. Other teams signed goalies in FA. Evaluation in pre-season help GM's know where they are. A developed prospect goalie with better than average NHL game stats available for the total cost of $600k? What is the risk to any NHL team? Carry one less F or D until you evaluate him? Send him back to the Flames if he doesn't work out? We can debate all we want about how high the risk is, but in the end, it is a risk. BT signed Raymond and Engelland to avoid risk. He signed Ramo to avoid risk. It's more about what the loss of Ortio means. We developed a player for years. He is finally at the NHL backup-capable level. If Ramo or Hiller stumbles or is injured, they we are hooped.
-
What did we need to have besides two good goalies? We have too many players as it is right now. We are going to have to expose somebody to waivers as it is. What quality player could we have gotten for $3.8m? Franson? We have 7 guys on NHL deals and 4 left to deal with. Belesky? Hodgson? Schneider is in the WHL. Simpson is the current backup. If you demoted somebody, Simpson would go to the ECHL. He's on an AHL deal, so it's not a loss of a prospect, so much.
-
Low risk move that really just ties up money in a season where we have some cap space. You still have the option to demote any of them and paying them NHL money to play in the AHL. You re-sign the guy that took you past the 1st round. If he becomes a traded player, you have only spent the money for the games he is on the team. If Hiller is traded due to Ramo being the starter, then he looks like a genius.
-
Temporary brain fart. So Ramo has played better competition (Oilers in EDM, Canucks A team) than Hiller. All goalies are Voodoo.
-
Number alone don't tell the story. Ramo face the Canuck A team and Hiller faced the B team. Ramo faced the Avs B team tonight. All said and done, they have all looked good so far. Three goalies, no waiting.
-
Tampa already picked up a player off waivers. All GM's watch the wire for guys they are interested in. Colborne was traded becuase the Leafs knew a big center wouldn't pass through it. The Flames made an offer that was better than nothing at all. The Leafs picked up Erixon, we got Schlemko....the list goes on. Panik picked up by the Leafs... Ortio is making league minimum. Like $600k minimum. What is the risk to another team by picking him up? They use him and if he doesn't work out, offer him back to the Flames. Teams with a budget and lots of waiver exempt player could make room for him easily. A rebuilding team gets a quality prospect already developed. That is what a lot of people forget. He is a highly rated goalie prospect that could easily play in the NHL. Very low risk to a claim. Huge potential upside.
-
His first 4 games he had 4 wins, then we played Anaheim. Nuff said there. His next game was game #82 with most of the regulars sitting out. The previous year he played 9 games, of which the worst was 4 goals scored against him in a season where we were bottom 6 in the league. Still a 4 and 4 record. How are you going to ever know what you have at the NHL level if you waive him. He will get claimed. And he will be a backup for some other team. I all for mitigating risks by not trading Hiller or Ramo, but waiving Ortio does nothing to improve our goaltending. It then relies upon a well-rounded but aging #1 and an unknown-ceiling, often injured goalie.
-
Proven as in he has won the majority of game he played as a backup. We never had that in the past.
-
I think there is only so much Ortio can do at the AHL level. He has proven he can win in the NHL. Strictly as a backup, he is 100% ready to be here. I have confidence he could win 3/4 of games a backup would play, probably 15/20. With that in mind, we have to be sold on our starter. I don't think we can run a 1a/1b this year. Hiller and Ramo were okay with it last year, but you can't keep saying there is no true #1. It devalues both goalies.
-
I have my doubts they demote a goalie. Stockton has 2, plus one on a tryout. Gillies needs to play the majority this season, and we have a capable backup there. No room for a demoted guy. Hartley does not want to carry three goalies, but BT was less emphatic. He said it was less than ideal. I just can't see the situation being resolved in the next week. There is not enough high-level competition in pre-season to decide on who to trade. One option would be to play Hiller and Ramo for couple 3 game stretches and keep up the one with the best record. The loser gets sent down. Ortio then gets his shot as a backup to begin with. If he can win in a backup role, he gets a couple of 3 game stretches. Pros: Delays the decision to allow time to explore trade options Gives you a better idea of who is ready Cons: Means you carry one less forward or d-man Delays the decision until November Practices become cluttered
-
Hiller/Ramo will get the game Tuesday, while Ortio is slated for Thursday (according to Steinberg). That is very telling, IMHO. Keeping Ortio that late implies that he will not be waived. Too much risk (especially if he has another good game) to wait that long, as team will have a better idea of the goalies they have in camp. A goalie making only $600k would be easy for most teams to fit in, even if they kept 3 goalies.
-
His lack of mobility is his biggest downfall. He will drop to his knees and stay there until the puck is out of the zone. And he backs deep into the net when he does it. What it does is open up the top part of the net, Say what you like about Ramo, but BT doesn't sign him to a rich extension just to waive him. Sure, Hiller and Ramo have similar deals that expire the end of the year. But Ramo was signed for a reason. Maybe BT saw something in his last games he didn;t like. Maybe Hartley said he had more confidence in Ramo. Who knows.
-
I think they needed Hiller because we only had Ramo left from the three goalies of 2013/14. He had an injury, so they probably didn't want to take the chance. The way Ortio has played, I think you can't take the chance waiving him - now or ever. $600k is too attractive to pass up. The OIlers would probably pounce on it, and get rid of Scribbles. Best case, Ortio becomes their #1. Worse case, they are in another lotto pick.
- 13,148 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- goalies
- goaltending
- (and 2 more)
-
I'm not just going on Hiller time in CGY; he faded in the playoffs in orevious year. He lost his spot on the Ducks due to his fading stats. He will be turning 34 this year, so he is not likely to improve. The other two goalies have not reached their peak. They may never reach it. But, let's face it, Hiller and Ramo are only signed for this season. If one of them steps up this year, they get an extension.
-
Ramo and Ortio remind me of Kipper, in that they start off just ok and get better as the season rolls along. They both benefit from having runs in net, even if they lose one. Hiller on the other hand, starts really well. His best number were at the beginning of the season where he went on a tear. He fades once he gets to a certain number of games (it seems). To me, Hiller is a good regular season goalie. Ramo seems to pick it up in time for the playoffs. Hiller in a trade will get you a better return at TDL, assuming there are teams looking for experienced help for the playoffs. I tend to believe that you would not regret trading Hiller, whereas Ramo could become a Vezna goalie. I think we owe it to ourselves to see Ramo in the starter role, with Ortio as backup. Maybe even 1a/1b.
-
I did not say I think he should be sent down, just when there is zero risk. I am one of those people that cares nothing about the salary of a player. If he plays bad, that is different. I would prefer that they send down Engelland, Bollig, and Raymond since we have as good or better options. Nakladal (if still healthy) has shown to be both a good puck mover and has a wicked shot to boot. He also plays well defensively. Ferland and Byron are real competitors, and at the very least are better than Bollig. Granlund continues to show his sniping abilities, as well as his good 2-way play. As far as goaltending goes, I would be open to an extended look at all three goalies. The worst of the bunch gets dealt or demoted.
-
I think there is a reasonable risk that he gets claimed. His contract is so low that a cap team could claim him and waive one of their goalies. But the risk is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a team can only claim him if they make room first and have a contract available. If he is sent down tomorrow, he can't be claimed. I think the limit is up to 12 days prior to game 1 of the season, which is tomorrow.
