Goaltending

[kehatch]

I still don't and never will understand how brining in a proven starter blocks someone from developing. Did Fleury block Murray? Did Luongo block Schneider? Did Halak block Price?

I think it's a ridiculous concept to think that brining in a proven starter means the flames can't develop someone else. Makes zero sense. Flames need someone who can start and if Ortio turns out to be better then him fantastic what a great "problem" the flames have.

Plan A would be to get someone in th right age range but if you can pick up someone like fleury for as little as a late 2nd it's a no brainer for me. He gives you better than average starting goaltending right away and IMO should for the duration of his contract. Allows the flames to start focussing on winning and not having to worry about crappy goaltending.

Exactly. As long as you don't sell the farm to do it, brining on a good goalie isn't going to hurt anything. If Gilles earns his way up or if Ortio is dynamite that is fantastic. The new goalie doesn't stop that from happening.

Alternatively going into next season with a tandem of Ortio/bleh could be very damaging. It isn't fair to Ortio. It isn't fair to the team in front of him. It isn't fair to the new coach who can't get the team to play the right way because they don't trust their goalie or because the need to score 5 every night to win.

There is no better way to derail a rebuild then failing to fix the goalie position. Fortunately our GM understands that and is hard at work to addressing the he position.

[robrob1974]

We lacked a goalie to make the saves we needed when we needed them. With just average goaltending in 2014/15, we made the playoffs. Do you want a goalie that exposes every thing wrong with your team, or do you want one that can help you win when you experience some problems?

We have a good offensive team. We had some hiccups on defense, but have a good base there. Secondary scoring dried up a lot, but that is fixable.

It's not like the Kipper years where we knew we lacked much of a team. Monahan is the best center we had since the Iggy trade.

Our biggest problems are goaltending and special teams. The first one helps improve the PK. Better special team coaching will improve the PP and PK.

I understand we made the playoffs, but we did in a year where both LA and San Jose missed. It was as much us as it was them playing themselves out. When did the Kings win their last cup? Then they missed the playoffs the year after. San Jose had problems transitioning their leadership which came from coaching and management, and now the true San Jose team is in the conference finals.

I get it, we made the playoffs, but we also did it on timely comebacks and if I remember correctly, 13 of them. That's not how to play, not how I want the team to play. I see it as a good thing that they made it, but I also think that year was an anomoly and don't heed too much into it as much as I believe it was a bonus in a rebuild and a fluke.

I felt their play was painful to watch and sure, the goalies helped a bit, but at the same time, we still played from behind more than we were ahead. Goaltending and poor play also got us behind that year, making us have to have a near unprecedented amount of comebacks. I can't accept that year as an argument for goaltending or a playoff because of the amount of luck that went into it as well.

Awesome, we never said die. This year, teams were ready and look where it got us... When we were right out of it, they didn't play as hard against us allowing us to get within 10 points, making it look like we were five wins out.

MAF isn't going to help, he has too many holes, once his confidence dries up, he's going to be bad news. He's easily broken. I pass.

[LouCifer]

Never been a fan of Fleury, I just don't think he is that good. I would pass unless they went even up and took Wideman off our hands.

 

I am personally not too fond of Fleury myself. I'm just attempting to put myself in BT's shoes and measure the options as I think he would. For all the aforementioned reasons - Anaheim not trading Andersen in conference, Murray likely taking the reigns in Pittsburgh, and Tampa likely not trading Bishop with this Stanley Cup window of opportunity open, I'm looking at what's left over.

 

Granted, I did label Fleury a playoff performer - perhaps I should've been more elaborate in that he has a lot of playoff experience and has a cup to his name. You can disagree with me if you want, but I believe that holds added value in a GM's evaluation. That said, I'm guessing BT is going to look hard at Fleury. Our team visibly lacked confidence in our goaltending last year - you could see the deflation when a crummy goal was scored (not to say the Fleury doesn't let in crummy goals - but he's an improvement in the position). Personally, I think the confidence of our team heading into next season hinges on the goaltending position a lot. New coach and new goalie, I think it's going to be an exciting start to the next season regardless.

[cccsberg]

I am personally not too fond of Fleury myself. I'm just attempting to put myself in BT's shoes and measure the options as I think he would. For all the aforementioned reasons - Anaheim not trading Andersen in conference, Murray likely taking the reigns in Pittsburgh, and Tampa likely not trading Bishop with this Stanley Cup window of opportunity open, I'm looking at what's left over.

 

Granted, I did label Fleury a playoff performer - perhaps I should've been more elaborate in that he has a lot of playoff experience and has a cup to his name. You can disagree with me if you want, but I believe that holds added value in a GM's evaluation. That said, I'm guessing BT is going to look hard at Fleury. Our team visibly lacked confidence in our goaltending last year - you could see the deflation when a crummy goal was scored (not to say the Fleury doesn't let in crummy goals - but he's an improvement in the position). Personally, I think the confidence of our team heading into next season hinges on the goaltending position a lot. New coach and new goalie, I think it's going to be an exciting start to the next season regardless.

Couple of things, your last statement kind of reminds me of the Oilers from last summer.  New promise but look where it got them.  Still lots of work to do to make-over the team into a strong, cohesive possession-dominant force.  Coach and goalie will go a long ways but they are not the full answer.  A different style of play means everyone is going to be learning and its hard to sit here and project success all across the board.  I'm betting next year an improvement but transitional year.

 

Secondly, glad the WC are over this weekend.  That should mean that BT returns shortly thereafter and hopefully we start seeing some real progress on a new coach and player signings.  That would be huge and hopefully some meaningful trades follow quickly thereafter.  The next 6 weeks are going to be pretty crucial for the Flames' next several years.

[LouCifer]

Couple of things, your last statement kind of reminds me of the Oilers from last summer.  New promise but look where it got them.  Still lots of work to do to make-over the team into a strong, cohesive possession-dominant force.  Coach and goalie will go a long ways but they are not the full answer.  A different style of play means everyone is going to be learning and its hard to sit here and project success all across the board.  I'm betting next year an improvement but transitional year.

 

Secondly, glad the WC are over this weekend.  That should mean that BT returns shortly thereafter and hopefully we start seeing some real progress on a new coach and player signings.  That would be huge and hopefully some meaningful trades follow quickly thereafter.  The next 6 weeks are going to be pretty crucial for the Flames' next several years.

 

Anytime there is change work has to be put in. New coaches, new systems, new style of play, new goalie?... we all saw Hamilton's struggles to transition to our systems last year, and we should expect a learning/development curve for next season and potentially beyond. I was simply stating that change is exciting to see, not that I'm expecting success across the board or the Stanley Cup next year.

[travel_dude]

I understand we made the playoffs, but we did in a year where both LA and San Jose missed. It was as much us as it was them playing themselves out. When did the Kings win their last cup? Then they missed the playoffs the year after. San Jose had problems transitioning their leadership which came from coaching and management, and now the true San Jose team is in the conference finals.

I get it, we made the playoffs, but we also did it on timely comebacks and if I remember correctly, 13 of them. That's not how to play, not how I want the team to play. I see it as a good thing that they made it, but I also think that year was an anomoly and don't heed too much into it as much as I believe it was a bonus in a rebuild and a fluke.

I felt their play was painful to watch and sure, the goalies helped a bit, but at the same time, we still played from behind more than we were ahead. Goaltending and poor play also got us behind that year, making us have to have a near unprecedented amount of comebacks. I can't accept that year as an argument for goaltending or a playoff because of the amount of luck that went into it as well.

Awesome, we never said die. This year, teams were ready and look where it got us... When we were right out of it, they didn't play as hard against us allowing us to get within 10 points, making it look like we were five wins out.

MAF isn't going to help, he has too many holes, once his confidence dries up, he's going to be bad news. He's easily broken. I pass.

 

My point was that outstanding goaltending is absolutely required in the NHL.  The Kipper years were mostly average teams.  We have a lot now that Kipper teams didn't, so I'm not worried about the goalie masking the problem.

[kehatch]

My point was that outstanding goaltending is absolutely required in the NHL. The Kipper years were mostly average teams. We have a lot now that Kipper teams didn't, so I'm not worried about the goalie masking the problem.

I think too much is made of the goalie masking the problems of a team. GMs and coaches aren't idiots. It isn't tough to see a bad team in front of a great goalie is a bad team.

We made the second round last season with a lot of players having career years. It isn't like the GM declared the rebuild over. Instead he still traded pending free agents at the deadline and told fans to continue to be patient.

[MAC331]

My point was that outstanding goaltending is absolutely required in the NHL.  The Kipper years were mostly average teams.  We have a lot now that Kipper teams didn't, so I'm not worried about the goalie masking the problem.

When it comes to NHL goaltending are the differences extreme between any of them, not really. Is one that has .920 save % that much better than one at .905%, the difference is miniscule. You need outstanding goaltending when it counts the most and the ones that are difference makers are the ones that stand out. The true measure is what has each goalie done with his NHL playing time and the ones that are just breaking in are going to be a riskier proposition.

[travel_dude]

When it comes to NHL goaltending are the differences extreme between any of them, not really. Is one that has .920 save % that much better than one at .905%, the difference is miniscule. You need outstanding goaltending when it counts the most and the ones that are difference makers are the ones that stand out. The true measure is what has each goalie done with his NHL playing time and the ones that are just breaking in are going to be a riskier proposition.

 

Yes, there is a huge difference between Ramo and Quick.  The obvious things are wins, SA% and GAA.  You need to also look beyond the obvious stats.  5v5 SA%, 5v4 SA%.  High-danger, low-danger, etc.  

 

I think we agree that a great goalie is one of the biggest needs of any team.  

[Flyerfan52]

When it comes to NHL goaltending are the differences extreme between any of them, not really. Is one that has .920 save % that much better than one at .905%, the difference is miniscule. You need outstanding goaltending when it counts the most and the ones that are difference makers are the ones that stand out. The true measure is what has each goalie done with his NHL playing time and the ones that are just breaking in are going to be a riskier proposition.

0.920 & 0.905 is a big difference.

Say a goalie faces an average of 30 SA (fairly low) he allows 2.4 goals a game . The other allows 2.85. For a starter playing 50 games that's 22.5 GA in the course of a season that could/would have a big effect on the "W" column.

 

Of course a lot depends on the quality of the SA. A good defensive team in front of a goalie limits both the quality & # of SA so that factors in. A great D masks a lot but if a team has largely offensive D-men the goalie better be above average.

[MAC331]

0.920 & 0.905 is a big difference.

Say a goalie faces an average of 30 SA (fairly low) he allows 2.4 goals a game . The other allows 2.85. For a starter playing 50 games that's 22.5 GA in the course of a season that could/would have a big effect on the "W" column.

 

Of course a lot depends on the quality of the SA. A good defensive team in front of a goalie limits both the quality & # of SA so that factors in. A great D masks a lot but if a team has largely offensive D-men the goalie better be above average.

I guess that is what I'm trying to say, none of these goalies reached the NHL by accident, they are here because to a certain degree they are good. Maybe not quite as good as the standouts because the standouts are just exceptional possibly due to better play reading, anticipation of shots etc.. or a better team in front of them. Like most every player you either cut it with your year in year out performances or you get shown the door.

[robrob1974]

Did anyone know Montreal was that bad without Price?

[nevermissashift]

Anytime there is change work has to be put in. New coaches, new systems, new style of play, new goalie?... we all saw Hamilton's struggles to transition to our systems last year, and we should expect a learning/development curve for next season and potentially beyond. I was simply stating that change is exciting to see, not that I'm expecting success across the board or the Stanley Cup next year.

Sometimes I know I am occasionally taken for an idiot but it's better than being known as a fool but I always expect success across the board, and should the Flames make the playoffs I expect a Stanley cup until reality proves it otherwise.

We work toward improvement and expect development but we should expect the sky each time we perform; that is a winning attitude that you can't teach; something you might be called a slave to. Like a dog who chases a bus; he doesn't worry about stats. He just doesn't know what to do with it when he catches it!

[jjgallow]

So, are you willing to wait until Johnny and Monahan are in the latter stages of their "prime" for a goalie?  Suppose Ortio and Gillies are not ready after 3 years.  By that, I mean they aren't good enough yet to play in the NHL.

 

I don't hear any solutions coming from you in the above.  How do you propose getting the best?  Who are you talking about?  Do we have the assets to get it in trade?  Or are you talking about finding the best drafted player and developing them?  

 

That's great.  In 3-5 years we may have that player.  Or maybe we are still drafting to fill that need.  What about now?  Are you advocating using Ortio as the starter or just picking up a random starter just to fill the position, good, bad or ugly.

 

You are preaching to the choir, I have been advocating on here since the Beginning of the rebuild, and even well before, with Kipper, that we strengthen our drafting, development, and assessment of goalies.  Unfortunately, I'm not in charge, and the organization had other plans.   Am I willing to wait?   No.   The situation is less than ideal.   But, it hasn't changed, either.  Acquiring aging veterans is almost always Overlay costly, damaging to an organization's future, and ....well, doesn't end up with a Stanley Cup.

 

Are you willing to watch Gaudreau and Monahan spend the majority of their prime in the middle of the pack?   That's what you're advocating when you "patch" the most important position in the game.  More than a patch is needed.  Has been needed for some time, and will continue to be, until they Stop patching.  Because it hinders development, and wrecks the cap, and messes up our drafting order (out future).

 

I don't actually work for the Flames organization and as far as I know, they are not looking to acquire my services as a consultant or otherwise provide deliverables in the form of goaltending solutions to them.   Maybe you are closer in that loop than me?   It cerainly seems that way from what I read.

 

Suggestions?  I've provided many examples in the thread already.  In the past, now, and in the future.  It won't change.  It will never change.  Firstly, Assess and Develop existing talent.   I'm not actually a crazed Ortio fan.  It's the lack of assessment and development that is frightening.  Especially with Gillies coming on soon too.

 

After being Forced to assess and develop Ortio (WAY too late in his development), YES, I agree we should look at an acquisition now.  

 

Murray, Kuemper, and Gibson are all candidates, but ONLY for the right price, and we can basically rule Murray out of that now.   So, as risky as everyone makes young goalies out to be on here, I can't have been that far off based off these playoffs.

 

Otherwise, take a risk on lesser names.   Murray and Kuemper were both cheap a season ago.  This season, other prospective goalies will be cheap.   

 

My proposal is to think long term, and take Inexpensive risks, rather than Overpay and wreck our future to "manage risk".

 

But, if none of those big young names are affordable (Murray, Kuemper, Gibson):

 

Someone like Juuse Saros.   (or someone else in that boat)

 

There.  There's your proposal.  I'm sure there's a reason it won't work...can't do anything about that.  And, if it's too much risk for you, well, that's fine.  But it's not for me.

[jjgallow]

Throwing goalies in over their head isn't the right way to develop them. 

 

Ok, except one small thing, you're wrong.  Definitively.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/hockey/lightning/pittsburgh-columnist-matt-murray-rewards-pens-faith/2278046

 

You are correct that goalties are Rarely trusted early in their careers.  And that many develop slow.

 

You are wrong, that giving young goalies a chance, ruins them.  You've absolutely Zero basis that giving young goalies a chance leads to failure, or that it ruins them.   We come out of this year with only one goalie worth signing:  Ortio.  The one goalie we were afraid, all season, to play.   The one we Only played, against all our "best judgement", after being Forced To.  And all that is proven to be wrong now.   Like him or not, he ended up giving us our best chance.  His limited performance last year was similar in results.

 

 LOSING FAITH in goalies, and bouncing them around, does ruin them.    You need not look further than these playoffs to show how flawed the "risk management" strategy hyped on this thread is.   Wrong to the point, that it is slowly turning the Pens into this year's Stanley Cup favorites.

 

Which is kind of the whole point....of Everything.....   yet...overlooked, somehow, here.

[LouCifer]

Reading material (yes, I know which website it comes from, but it'll spawn more conversation on this very topic)

 

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Could-Be-Goalies-Galore-This-Summer/1/77076

[kehatch]

Ok, except one small thing, you're wrong.  Definitively.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/hockey/lightning/pittsburgh-columnist-matt-murray-rewards-pens-faith/2278046

 

You are correct that goalties are Rarely trusted early in their careers.  And that many develop slow.

 

You are wrong, that giving young goalies a chance, ruins them.  You've absolutely Zero basis that giving young goalies a chance leads to failure, or that it ruins them.   We come out of this year with only one goalie worth signing:  Ortio.  The one goalie we were afraid, all season, to play.   The one we Only played, against all our "best judgement", after being Forced To.  And all that is proven to be wrong now.   Like him or not, he ended up giving us our best chance.  His limited performance last year was similar in results.

 

 LOSING FAITH in goalies, and bouncing them around, does ruin them.    You need not look further than these playoffs to show how flawed the "risk management" strategy hyped on this thread is.   Wrong to the point, that it is slowly turning the Pens into this year's Stanley Cup favorites.

 

Which is kind of the whole point....of Everything.....   yet...overlooked, somehow, here.

 

You are so hung up on your ludicrous idea that you overlook every fact that doesn't reinforce your notion.  I mean you seriously posted an article of a Matt Murray success story (a guy who got a dozen games backing up Fleury) as 'proof' of why we shouldn't get a goalie like Fleury.  Wow.    

 

Come back down to earth.  Murray was spectacular this season and earned the trust of the coaching staff.  That is why he is getting the starts.  If we had Matt Murray we wouldn't be having this conversation.  If Ortio put forward that type of performance we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Ortio is not Matt Murray.  Your expectation that we should just gift the dude the starting position as an act of faith is ridiculous.  

[nevermissashift]

You are so hung up on your ludicrous idea that you overlook every fact that doesn't reinforce your notion.  I mean you seriously posted an article of a Matt Murray success story (a guy who got a dozen games backing up Fleury) as 'proof' of why we shouldn't get a goalie like Fleury.  Wow.    

 

Come back down to earth.  Murray was spectacular this season and earned the trust of the coaching staff.  That is why he is getting the starts.  If we had Matt Murray we wouldn't be having this conversation.  If Ortio put forward that type of performance we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Ortio is not Matt Murray.  Your expectation that we should just gift the dude the starting position as an act of faith is ridiculous.  

You guys need to save some of that fighting spunk for on the ice.

[travel_dude]

You are preaching to the choir, I have been advocating on here since the Beginning of the rebuild, and even well before, with Kipper, that we strengthen our drafting, development, and assessment of goalies.  Unfortunately, I'm not in charge, and the organization had other plans.   Am I willing to wait?   No.   The situation is less than ideal.   But, it hasn't changed, either.  Acquiring aging veterans is almost always Overlay costly, damaging to an organization's future, and ....well, doesn't end up with a Stanley Cup.

 

Are you willing to watch Gaudreau and Monahan spend the majority of their prime in the middle of the pack?   That's what you're advocating when you "patch" the most important position in the game.  More than a patch is needed.  Has been needed for some time, and will continue to be, until they Stop patching.  Because it hinders development, and wrecks the cap, and messes up our drafting order (out future).

 

I don't actually work for the Flames organization and as far as I know, they are not looking to acquire my services as a consultant or otherwise provide deliverables in the form of goaltending solutions to them.   Maybe you are closer in that loop than me?   It cerainly seems that way from what I read.

 

Suggestions?  I've provided many examples in the thread already.  In the past, now, and in the future.  It won't change.  It will never change.  Firstly, Assess and Develop existing talent.   I'm not actually a crazed Ortio fan.  It's the lack of assessment and development that is frightening.  Especially with Gillies coming on soon too.

 

After being Forced to assess and develop Ortio (WAY too late in his development), YES, I agree we should look at an acquisition now.  

 

Murray, Kuemper, and Gibson are all candidates, but ONLY for the right price, and we can basically rule Murray out of that now.   So, as risky as everyone makes young goalies out to be on here, I can't have been that far off based off these playoffs.

 

Otherwise, take a risk on lesser names.   Murray and Kuemper were both cheap a season ago.  This season, other prospective goalies will be cheap.   

 

My proposal is to think long term, and take Inexpensive risks, rather than Overpay and wreck our future to "manage risk".

 

But, if none of those big young names are affordable (Murray, Kuemper, Gibson):

 

Someone like Juuse Saros.   (or someone else in that boat)

 

There.  There's your proposal.  I'm sure there's a reason it won't work...can't do anything about that.  And, if it's too much risk for you, well, that's fine.  But it's not for me.

 

There's a big difference between signing an aging goalie (Hiller, Smith, etc) vs signing a great goalie still in his prime (Bishop, Andersen, Allen, Elliott, lesser extent MAF).  Those kinds of signings give the team the best chance to be a contender, for now and likely the next 5 years.  If they still ended up being a middle of the pack team, then goaltending is not the issue.  

 

I'm not sure why you keep harping on goalie development on the Flames.  Ortio has never shown consistent numbers in the AHL. His absolute best year was a .926 in 2013/14.  He got 8 starts with the Flames.  IIRC, he was only sent to the Aces because of a slow start in the AHL.  Maybe it was having Berra and Ramo and McDonald.

 

What I am getting at is that he wasn't good enough before that to project as a top goalie.  How is that the Flames fault?  He just turned 25.  At 22 he came off a good AHL season and posted middling results.  He got the call to the Flames on a emergency basis and was returned when that was over.

[JTech780]

Ok, except one small thing, you're wrong. Definitively.

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/hockey/lightning/pittsburgh-columnist-matt-murray-rewards-pens-faith/2278046

You are correct that goalties are Rarely trusted early in their careers. And that many develop slow.

You are wrong, that giving young goalies a chance, ruins them. You've absolutely Zero basis that giving young goalies a chance leads to failure, or that it ruins them. We come out of this year with only one goalie worth signing: Ortio. The one goalie we were afraid, all season, to play. The one we Only played, against all our "best judgement", after being Forced To. And all that is proven to be wrong now. Like him or not, he ended up giving us our best chance. His limited performance last year was similar in results.

LOSING FAITH in goalies, and bouncing them around, does ruin them. You need not look further than these playoffs to show how flawed the "risk management" strategy hyped on this thread is. Wrong to the point, that it is slowly turning the Pens into this year's Stanley Cup favorites.

Which is kind of the whole point....of Everything..... yet...overlooked, somehow, here.

The difference is that Murray dominated the AHL for two seasons and played exceptional in his first 13 regular season games.

Ortio was OK in his time in the AHL, and has been backup level at best in the NHL.

Murray is basically forcing Pittsburgh's hand and stole the job from Fleury while he was injured. If Ortio or Gillies do that next year than great, but handing the job to them next year does not make us a better team in the short term or the long term.

[jjgallow]

Side note:  Always been a fan of Tristan Jarry.   

[travel_dude]

Side note:  Always been a fan of Tristan Jarry.   

 

[jjgallow]

You are so hung up on your ludicrous idea that you overlook every fact that doesn't reinforce your notion.  I mean you seriously posted an article of a Matt Murray success story (a guy who got a dozen games backing up Fleury) as 'proof' of why we shouldn't get a goalie like Fleury.  Wow.    

 

Come back down to earth.  Murray was spectacular this season and earned the trust of the coaching staff.  That is why he is getting the starts.  If we had Matt Murray we wouldn't be having this conversation.  If Ortio put forward that type of performance we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Ortio is not Matt Murray.  Your expectation that we should just gift the dude the starting position as an act of faith is ridiculous.  

 

The reason I only have one example should be pretty intuitive:  Only one team wins the Stanley cup.

 

I'm not actually trying to incite you, I'm just saying that you're wrong.  Because you are.  About this one specific thing.   I realize nobody takes that well.  But it's just the truth, and we're all wrong sometimes.

 

You've been pretty vocal that a goalie with less than 40 NHL games CANNOT be a starter.  That it was an unacceptable level of risk which NO NHL team would consider, now matter how well that goalie performed.

 

Murray had 37 games, going into these playoffs.

 

Case closed, move on.

[jjgallow]

The difference is that Murray dominated the AHL for two seasons and played exceptional in his first 13 regular season games.

 

Murray   >> Ortio.    

 

Murray has Always been >> Ortio.  Since before the draft.    

 

That's all fine.  But it does NOT mean:

 

-Developing Ortio, Gillies, and other prospects is a waste of time

-Murray will always be >> Ortio   (even if it is appearing highly likely now)

-Giving young goalies opportunities is an unacceptable risk for an NHL team to take.

[jjgallow]

There's a big difference between signing an aging goalie (Hiller, Smith, etc) vs signing a great goalie still in his prime (Bishop, Andersen, Allen, Elliott, lesser extent MAF).  Those kinds of signings give the team the best chance to be a contender, for now and likely the next 5 years.  If they still ended up being a middle of the pack team, then goaltending is not the issue.  

 

In what universe are those goalies in their prime (maybe Andersen?), and in what universe would they make us contenders?  That's the issue.  If they could make us contenders, I'd be all for it.   But the numbers don't add up.

 

I'm not sure why you keep harping on goalie development on the Flames.  Ortio has never shown consistent numbers in the AHL. His absolute best year was a .926 in 2013/14.  He got 8 starts with the Flames.  IIRC, he was only sent to the Aces because of a slow start in the AHL.  Maybe it was having Berra and Ramo and McDonald.

 

Because we haven't developed one, Ever (in modern times).  In a sentence.

 

What I am getting at is that he wasn't good enough before that to project as a top goalie.  How is that the Flames fault?  He just turned 25.  At 22 he came off a good AHL season and posted middling results.  He got the call to the Flames on a emergency basis and was returned when that was over.

 

Then....What have the Flames been doing for the last 3 years?   If you're saying Ortio was done at 22, what were the Flames doing?  Fostering a backup?    I am of the opinion that he was not given opportunities.  Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.   But at the end of the day, you either give them an opportunity, or give someone else that opportunity.   You don't sit on your hands for years at a time.  Or a decade.  It's not like this was unforseen.  Kipper is 39 years old.   We've had 10 years now for this to be a pressing issue.