Goaltending

[travel_dude]

Nothing like using a terrible game to justify your own opinion.  I don't think there are too many people here that feel that Lack was the right choice.  Smith on the other hand is doing exactly what you hoped for.  No he doesn't solve the long term issue, but we need to play hockey for the next few years with someone capable.  Injury prone - yes, he's prone to getting injured when he has his own player fall on top of him.

Or taking a puck off the wrist bone.

 

Lack shouldn't get another game.  That's probably a given based on his lack of good play.  The best thing to do right now is give Gillies (or Rittich) the net for a week.  Open up the phones and look for a backup, but in the meantime....Gillies has the opportunity to show he is a NHL goalie.  Rushing Smith doesn't help the team, but finding a quality goalie does.

 

Trading Backlund for anyone other than a Bob or Holtby is throwing good money after bad.  Nobody is going to give you a Suros.  You may get a Pickard or Hamburgler or Hutch, but none of those guys has shown they are ready to take the next step as a starter.  I'm not trading our best all-round center for that.  

[MAC331]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Nothing like using a terrible game to justify your own opinion.  I don't think there are too many people here that feel that Lack was the right choice.  Smith on the other hand is doing exactly what you hoped for.  No he doesn't solve the long term issue, but we need to play hockey for the next few years with someone capable.  Injury prone - yes, he's prone to getting injured when he has his own player fall on top of him.

Or taking a puck off the wrist bone.

 

Lack shouldn't get another game.  That's probably a given based on his lack of good play.  The best thing to do right now is give Gillies (or Rittich) the net for a week.  Open up the phones and look for a backup, but in the meantime....Gillies has the opportunity to show he is a NHL goalie.  Rushing Smith doesn't help the team, but finding a quality goalie does.

 

Trading Backlund for anyone other than a Bob or Holtby is throwing good money after bad.  Nobody is going to give you a Suros.  You may get a Pickard or Hamburgler or Hutch, but none of those guys has shown they are ready to take the next step as a starter.  I'm not trading our best all-round center for that.  

Man a lot of panic on this board today. The one thought I saw was the team has no faith in Lack LOL and my thought after last night was so this gives the rest of the team an excuse to play as lousy as they did in front of him. It used to be and still makes sense today that as a team you should try even harder when your back up gets a game because he has been sitting not playing. I hope GG throws Lack right back in there.

[travel_dude]

20 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Man a lot of panic on this board today. The one thought I saw was the team has no faith in Lack LOL and my thought after last night was so this gives the rest of the team an excuse to play as lousy as they did in front of him. It used to be and still makes sense today that as a team you should try even harder when your back up gets a game because he has been sitting not playing. I hope GG throws Lack right back in there.

 

That makes one of you.  

 

The team didn't show up.  The goalie didn't either.  While it's possible to win when only half of the team is playing well, you can't do much if the goalie outright sucks.  The lack of trust shown by the team is not just in this one start.  It's every period he has played in, every practice he show up for and every pre-season minute he played.

 

The defense owes Eddie an apology for forcing him to face shooters directly, but he showed nothing to imply that he is NHL game ready. 

[MAC331]

31 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

That makes one of you.  

 

The team didn't show up.  The goalie didn't either.  While it's possible to win when only half of the team is playing well, you can't do much if the goalie outright sucks.  The lack of trust shown by the team is not just in this one start.  It's every period he has played in, every practice he show up for and every pre-season minute he played.

 

The defense owes Eddie an apology for forcing him to face shooters directly, but he showed nothing to imply that he is NHL game ready. 

The goals I saw going in would have gone in on most goalies. I saw Brodie play his worst game of the season. I saw a lot of things I didn't like last night and I tend to agree with GG post games comments that this team needs to get their collective act together and quit reading their own headlines. You and cross have this tendancy to make it sound like you take in every practise and sit in the dressing room as one of the guys. I think the team deserves to have Lack go back in Saturday if not for his confidence maybe as a message to the team to play better. Smith has been saving their butts so far this season maybe it is them not Lack that needs to look in the mirror. If Lack stinks again waive him and bring in Riitch.

[cross16]

13 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

The goals I saw going in would have gone in on most goalies. 

 

Lack was late getting into position on just about every goal that went in on him last night. Pretty easy for shooters to find open areas when the goalie gives it to him. He was so out of position and late that shooters were picking open areas and then it just looks like a great goal, but reality is the spot shouldn't have been there. 

 

Not saying it's all his fault the Flames certainly could have been better, but Lack was down right terrible there is no way around that. Through 2 periods 5 on 5 the Flames limited the wings to 5 high danger chances, 13 scoring chances and 14 shots. You will take that type of performance on most nights. 

[phoenix66]

Here is the thing ... Eddie bit the big one last night , agreed ..  but unfortunately so did the entire team. From a GM and coach perspective it sends the wrong message to the team to cut a guy for one bad night  , when he was only maybe 20% of the problem .

This is why he needs the next start.. if he bites again , then you have ammo to say "it didn't work "

 

We have to be careful not to fall into the Kipper trap with Smith .. the backup cant be expected to be the same bar that Smith has set .. his job is to give you a chance to win.

It can be argued he was "ok" in his first start against St Louis.. he definitely helped preserve the win when he mopped up in the last St Louis game..albeit with some run support .

 

I have NO doubt the team in front of him will be better saturday..   now we find out if he can be .. if not , then he's made the decision for you and a new backup needs to be in place ,  starting with what we already have available ...because it also sends the wrong message when you have 2 guys playing very well, who look ready to be a backup ..and you go out and get another one now without giving them the chance to take the wheel...  personally I believe it should be Rittich.. but it can be argued either way 

[cross16]

4 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Here is the thing ... Eddie bit the big one last night , agreed ..  but unfortunately so did the entire team. From a GM and coach perspective it sends the wrong message to the team to cut a guy for one bad night  , when he was only maybe 20% of the problem .

This is why he needs the next start.. if he bites again , then you have ammo to say "it didn't work "

 

We have to be careful not to fall into the Kipper trap with Smith .. the backup cant be expected to be the same bar that Smith has set .. his job is to give you a chance to win.

It can be argued he was "ok" in his first start against St Louis.. he definitely helped preserve the win when he mopped up in the last St Louis game..albeit with some run support .

 

I have NO doubt the team in front of him will be better saturday..   now we find out if he can be .. if not , then he's made the decision for you and a new backup needs to be in place ,  starting with what we already have available ...because it also sends the wrong message when you have 2 guys playing very well, who look ready to be a backup ..and you go out and get another one now without giving them the chance to take the wheel...  personally I believe it should be Rittich.. but it can be argued either way 

 

Here is the problem though.. it's not 1 bad night.

 

Lack was terrible for 2 years in Carolina, was terrible in the preseason and was not very good in his other start. This isn't a one off, it's a trend. 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Nothing like using a terrible game to justify your own opinion. 

 

ok, you have a point there....

 

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Lack shouldn't get another game. 

 

Err....I am not sure if you're encouraging or discouraging justifying your own opinion with one game lol.

 

 

So Lack:   Never liked the trade.   But I don't blame him for this considering he came in cold.  Yes, I'm capitalizing on last night's game to express my opinion.   But I've felt for quite a while now like we need to acquire a young potential franchise goalie because I've pretty much given up on us ever drafting and developing one.   And the rent-a-goalie system we have is just an aweful mistake...always has been.

 

Lack never made sense here.   But what happened last night was the result of the Flames continually putting all their eggs in a 35 year old basket, over-playing Smith, and letting Lack go cold.   Lack, with a few more games under his belt, would not have looked like that.   

 

We have mutiple problems here, of poor veteran acquisitions, poor drafting, poor development, and over-playing rent-a-goalies.

 

All of that can be solved for the next decade by acquiring one NHL ready franchise calibre goalie.

 

Thus the Thatcher Demko example proposal.    Not because of last night's game.   But because we've seen last night's game too many times here since Kipper left.  Including in last year's very short playoff series.

[phoenix66]

22 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Here is the problem though.. it's not 1 bad night.

 

Lack was terrible for 2 years in Carolina, was terrible in the preseason and was not very good in his other start. This isn't a one off, it's a trend. 

Not disagreeing .. i personally want to see him starting his next game in Stockton , but we made this bed, we have to lie in it. We brought him in admittedly as a project , our Goalie coach stated he could get him back to Vancouver form. so we don't have the excuse of using his Carolina history in the decision .

We also have to set the precedent in the optics to Gilies and Rittich that there is  room for development ...  Even Niemi got 3 VERY BAD starts before PITT waived him, pretty similar circumstances.

Im not saying we have to start him because i truly believe he will stand on his head , Im actually very doubtful he will.. but  they have to send the proper message throughout the organization that they gave him the chance to do that 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

So Lack:   Never liked the trade.   But I don't blame him for this considering he came in cold.  Yes, I'm capitalizing on last night's game to express my opinion.   But I've felt for quite a while now like we need to acquire a young potential franchise goalie because I've pretty much given up on us ever drafting and developing one.   And the rent-a-goalie system we have is just an aweful mistake...always has been.

 

Lack never made sense here.   But what happened last night was the result of the Flames continually putting all their eggs in a 35 year old basket, over-playing Smith, and letting Lack go cold.   Lack, with a few more games under his belt, would not have looked like that.   

 

This.

 

That's all I was getting at, and last night was just the latest proof of the mistake.  There wasn't any reason to believe he was just a victim in his previous seasons or that he could recover the magic.  It was a risk.

The price to pay was reasonable, but it was a waste in the light of day.

 

What happened last night was the result of not having confidence in your backup, so you don't play him.  The schedule allowed Smith to play without being overworked.  If you can't play your backup in relief or the last start was bad, why would you trust him?

 

[JTech780]

 

[travel_dude]

9 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

 

I guess we know what that means: 

• Smith is back. 
• Emergency recall conditions don't exist anymore. 
• Eddie is still a Flame.  
• Gully's pets still have a home here.  JK.

 

This is a GM decision.  He has no choice but to send Gillies to Stockton unless Lack had cleared waivers or been traded.  

[Flyerfan52]

4 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

ok, you have a point there....

 

 

Err....I am not sure if you're encouraging or discouraging justifying your own opinion with one game lol.

 

 

So Lack:   Never liked the trade.   But I don't blame him for this considering he came in cold.  Yes, I'm capitalizing on last night's game to express my opinion.   But I've felt for quite a while now like we need to acquire a young potential franchise goalie because I've pretty much given up on us ever drafting and developing one.   And the rent-a-goalie system we have is just an aweful mistake...always has been.

 

Lack never made sense here.   But what happened last night was the result of the Flames continually putting all their eggs in a 35 year old basket, over-playing Smith, and letting Lack go cold.   Lack, with a few more games under his belt, would not have looked like that.   

 

We have mutiple problems here, of poor veteran acquisitions, poor drafting, poor development, and over-playing rent-a-goalies.

 

All of that can be solved for the next decade by acquiring one NHL ready franchise calibre goalie.

 

Thus the Thatcher Demko example proposal.    Not because of last night's game.   But because we've seen last night's game too many times here since Kipper left.  Including in last year's very short playoff series.

Normally you claim every minor league goalie in the Flames system (do the names Ramo or Ortio ring a bell) was exactly that young potential franchise goalie.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

 

I feel sorry for Gillies.  He came into a game in relief where the team stopped playing and gave up.

[cross16]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I feel sorry for Gillies.  He came into a game in relief where the team stopped playing and gave up.

 

A day after he attended a good friends funeral too.

 

Tough week for him for sure. I put zero stock into how he played last night. 

[jjgallow]

18 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Normally you claim every minor league goalie in the Flames system (do the names Ramo or Ortio ring a bell) was exactly that young potential franchise goalie.

 

Lol, well we all have some way of acting irrationally as Flames fans and that is my way

 

I like to cheer for those prospects.   You're right there.   I do blame the development, though.   Maybe it's time to consider blaming the drafting as well, fair enough.

 

But I also want MORE prospects (ie., Demko)

 

Small note for the record though:   Never supported Ramo.    There's a good 20 pages in this thread of me disagreeing with his acquisition, actually.   And I was harsher back then too lol.     Ortio:  Yeah.   I did.   And I blame that on development....    rightly or wrongly.

[Flyerfan52]

I've seen posts saying we made a mistake in trading for Lack. We paid almost nothing taking a chance Lack could become what he was in the minors & bigs with Vancouver. A low risk bet. 

We traded Keegan Kanzig (playing in the EHCL) & a 6th rounder in 2019 for Lack (@ 1/2 price), Ryan Murphy (who we promptly bought out) & a 7th in 2019.

 

Our cost is the 0.1 & 0.137 we pay Murphy plus the 1.375 we'll pay Lack this year. A gamble but we risked 1.5 over 2 years on the chance Lack would be a decent backup. We lost but considering the possible gain for a small bet it was 1 worth taking. Waive Lack & if we'll lucky he's claimed. If not we (& Carolina) pay an ECHL goalie to be the highest paid on his team.

 

IMO the solution is either trying another low cost backup (I mentioned Hutch) or call up a prospect already in the system. I've seen mention of having Gilles & Rittch take turns as backup so both stay playing in the AHL when Smith is back which sounds good in theory but doesn't take into account that it leaves both unsure every day on where the heck they are in the system. Imagine prepping for a game for the Heat prepared to backup when suddenly you're the starter while the assumed starter finds himself holding a clipboard after getting in game mode, travelling & watching. That's far from developing either. (If that's the plan the 2 should share an apartment as neither has a clue how many days they get NHL $s.)

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I've seen posts saying we made a mistake in trading for Lack. We paid almost nothing taking a chance Lack could become what he was in the minors & bigs with Vancouver. A low risk bet. 

We traded Keegan Kanzig (playing in the EHCL) & a 6th rounder in 2019 for Lack (@ 1/2 price), Ryan Murphy (who we promptly bought out) & a 7th in 2019.

 

Our cost is the 0.1 & 0.137 we pay Murphy plus the 1.375 we'll pay Lack this year. A gamble but we risked 1.5 over 2 years on the chance Lack would be a decent backup. We lost but considering the possible gain for a small bet it was 1 worth taking. Waive Lack & if we'll lucky he's claimed. If not we (& Carolina) pay an ECHL goalie to be the highest paid on his team.

 

IMO the solution is either trying another low cost backup (I mentioned Hutch) or call up a prospect already in the system. I've seen mention of having Gilles & Rittch take turns as backup so both stay playing in the AHL when Smith is back which sounds good in theory but doesn't take into account that it leaves both unsure every day on where the heck they are in the system. Imagine prepping for a game for the Heat prepared to backup when suddenly you're the starter while the assumed starter finds himself holding a clipboard after getting in game mode, travelling & watching. That's far from developing either. (If that's the plan the 2 should share an apartment as neither has a clue how many days they get NHL $s.)

 

Good assessment of the trade.  I wasn't a fan of the player, but whatever.  His play this season is all I am really caring about, and the fact he can't string together good periods as a backup.  IT's not an easy role, because you get into games on B2B's and relief after the other guy gets the hook.  There are guys that can handle it though.  Lack does not appear to be that guy.  

 

The choices that best come to mind are pick your backup from the farm and use him, or go and get a guy like Hutch that has shown he's quite good at times.  Rittich probably makes the most sense from the farm because he's not the Flames #1 goalie prospect in the AHL.  He's also used to sitting out 2-3 in a row.  And he's a older guy that has pro experience beyond the AHL.  Get him in every 5 games or so.  If he doesn't pan out, then go to Gillies and do the same thing.  It's either that or go buy a goalie.

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Good assessment of the trade.  I wasn't a fan of the player, but whatever.  His play this season is all I am really caring about, and the fact he can't string together good periods as a backup.  IT's not an easy role, because you get into games on B2B's and relief after the other guy gets the hook.  There are guys that can handle it though.  Lack does not appear to be that guy.  

 

The choices that best come to mind are pick your backup from the farm and use him, or go and get a guy like Hutch that has shown he's quite good at times.  Rittich probably makes the most sense from the farm because he's not the Flames #1 goalie prospect in the AHL.  He's also used to sitting out 2-3 in a row.  And he's a older guy that has pro experience beyond the AHL.  Get him in every 5 games or so.  If he doesn't pan out, then go to Gillies and do the same thing.  It's either that or go buy a goalie.

You might remember my take on goalies to acquire in a unique year but ce la vie.

BT rolled the dice & Smith looks like a win while Lack looks like a loss. On the whole still better than the combo he started last year.

 

Unless we trade for a backup I figure we should run the guys in the system with the most pro experience to see if 1 is finally ready. Rittch is 25 & RFA next year. Time for him to show he can hold his own in the bigs even if only a backup. If not try Gillies & so on to see who copes. We can't coddle players forever due to fear that they become good/great on a new team.

We have 5 goalie prospects in the minors & since our highest selections in the next 2 years are a 3rd next year & 2 4ths each of the following odds are good we'll add to the pool as that's where teams usually resort to goalie depth. How many should we have just in case 1 becomes a great?

[TheBurn]

The whole cold argument for lack is garbage. He played against the blues in relief of Smith for two periods and then started the next game. If that is cold, then he should not be a backup in the league. This is even more reason to cut him. 

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

You might remember my take on goalies to acquire in a unique year but ce la vie.

BT rolled the dice & Smith looks like a win while Lack looks like a loss. On the whole still better than the combo he started last year.

 

Unless we trade for a backup I figure we should run the guys in the system with the most pro experience to see if 1 is finally ready. Rittch is 25 & RFA next year. Time for him to show he can hold his own in the bigs even if only a backup. If not try Gillies & so on to see who copes. We can't coddle players forever due to fear that they become good/great on a new team.

We have 5 goalie prospects in the minors & since our highest selections in the next 2 years are a 3rd next year & 2 4ths each of the following odds are good we'll add to the pool as that's where teams usually resort to goalie depth. How many should we have just in case 1 becomes a great?

Management make commitments to these players and are never going to be as quick triggered to turf a player as fans. I suspect if Lack gets bombed in his next few starts we will see a change.

[travel_dude]

11 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

You might remember my take on goalies to acquire in a unique year but ce la vie.

BT rolled the dice & Smith looks like a win while Lack looks like a loss. On the whole still better than the combo he started last year.

 

Unless we trade for a backup I figure we should run the guys in the system with the most pro experience to see if 1 is finally ready. Rittch is 25 & RFA next year. Time for him to show he can hold his own in the bigs even if only a backup. If not try Gillies & so on to see who copes. We can't coddle players forever due to fear that they become good/great on a new team.

We have 5 goalie prospects in the minors & since our highest selections in the next 2 years are a 3rd next year & 2 4ths each of the following odds are good we'll add to the pool as that's where teams usually resort to goalie depth. How many should we have just in case 1 becomes a great?

 

I think we are agreeing, but let's fight about it anyway.  

 

We brought in Lack because BT wasn't sure that Rittich or Gillies could do the job as a NHL backup.  He went out and got Lack for that, rightly or wrongly.  The only way it makes sense to keep Lack is if he can win games.  They didn't bring him here to lose.  I haven't seen a goalie that is poised to win a bunch of relief games, it looks like a guy that has lost him positioning and confidence.  

 

Sending him to the minors is the only fair thing to do if there is nobody interested in him (Hello Vegas).

Give him 50% of the games down there if possible to get him back in game shape.  If he falters down there, then you know Parsons gets the call to the AHL.

[cross16]

I don't agree with the rationale of having to accept a trade because the cost was low. If it was wrong to target the player than it's a bad trade irregardless of what you paid for it. Would just make it worse if the cost had of been higher. I think you really have to question why the Flames wanted to target Lack in the first place. 

 

 

[MAC331]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I don't agree with the rationale of having to accept a trade because the cost was low. If it was wrong to target the player than it's a bad trade irregardless of what you paid for it. Would just make it worse if the cost had of been higher. I think you really have to question why the Flames wanted to target Lack in the first place. 

 

 

I have to believe BT is taking some thinking from GG on these ex-players he has some background even Jagr. Everyone on this forum is always quick to jump all over our goalie decisions every season. We would be hearing the same comments about Smith if he was having the odd bad performance. Mistakes happen with any GM and also coaches putting their faith in the wrong players but I don't think you run a player out of town after 2 partial starts. I like that we could because we have depth such as Rittich to try in that back up situation.

[travel_dude]

13 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I don't agree with the rationale of having to accept a trade because the cost was low. If it was wrong to target the player than it's a bad trade irregardless of what you paid for it. Would just make it worse if the cost had of been higher. I think you really have to question why the Flames wanted to target Lack in the first place. 

 

 

 

Listening to Gully before and after the game, he seems to be the one that "knows" what Eddie Lack is.  Before the game, he talks about him in Vancouver and how he knows what he can do.  Afterwards he talks about how the shots were unstoppable except for maybe one.  It almost sounded like he made the case to pick up Lack in the first place.  A 7th for a 6th and getting rid of Kanzig.  Not much there.  A player we end up buying out.  Taking $1.375m in salary off them when they had just got Darling is a win for them.  

 

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I have to believe BT is taking some thinking from GG on these ex-players he has some background even Jagr. Everyone on this forum is always quick to jump all over our goalie decisions every season. We would be hearing the same comments about Smith if he was having the odd bad performance. Mistakes happen with any GM and also coaches putting their faith in the wrong players but I don't think you run a player out of town after 2 partial starts. I like that we could because we have depth such as Rittich to try in that back up situation.

 

 Most people here panned the SMith trade, because of the cost and his likelyness to not be an upgrade.  He's done well by getting some wins that could have been losses and kept us in close games.  Smith has also had really bad games, some we ended up winning.

 

As far as running him out of town, how many periods of bad play do you want to watch.  How many starts can you afford to risk on a goalie not showing enough ability to get a win.  12 goals against, 5.29 GAA and a SV% of .813.  None of that points to a guy you should keep in the game.  If we had no goalie prospects or anyone under NHL contract in the AHL, then we would be in a different situation.