Goaltending

[rickross]

This is still the biggest position of weakness for the Flames, Smith is our stop gap option likely for the next 1-2 years but we still have no goalie of the future in place. I think Rittich can be a capable backup but he's still unproven, same with Gillies. There aren't a lot of options for goalies right now, as much improved as our roster is don't see Smith/Rittich backstopping us to the Cup anytime soon. Out of our goalie prospects, who'd likely fetch the best return ?  Rittich, Gillies or Parsons?

[DirtyDeeds]

2 hours ago, rickross said:

This is still the biggest position of weakness for the Flames, Smith is our stop gap option likely for the next 1-2 years but we still have no goalie of the future in place. I think Rittich can be a capable backup but he's still unproven, same with Gillies. There aren't a lot of options for goalies right now, as much improved as our roster is don't see Smith/Rittich backstopping us to the Cup anytime soon. Out of our goalie prospects, who'd likely fetch the best return ?  Rittich, Gillies or Parsons?

If goaltending is our biggest weakness(I agree with you on that) then why would you consider trading one/some of them for a best return? Any of them could become a capable backup. We have screwed up getting or keeping a capable 1A goalie since Kipper. Anderson, Fleury, Elliott, Bishop and maybe more.

 

Flames problems over and above the horrid developing part, is also giving up on them too soon. Goalies still develop later in age and need usually the extra time.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

If goaltending is our biggest weakness(I agree with you on that) then why would you consider trading one/some of them for a best return? Any of them could become a capable backup. We have screwed up getting or keeping a capable 1A goalie since Kipper. Anderson, Fleury, Elliott, Bishop and maybe more.

 

Flames problems over and above the horrid developing part, is also giving up on them too soon. Goalies still develop later in age and need usually the extra time.

 

We gave up on Giguere, sped up Kidd’s development, and others that played backup didn’t ever get to really backup often enough. 

[travel_dude]

On 7/8/2018 at 7:42 PM, DirtyDeeds said:

If goaltending is our biggest weakness(I agree with you on that) then why would you consider trading one/some of them for a best return? Any of them could become a capable backup. We have screwed up getting or keeping a capable 1A goalie since Kipper. Anderson, Fleury, Elliott, Bishop and maybe more.

 

Flames problems over and above the horrid developing part, is also giving up on them too soon. Goalies still develop later in age and need usually the extra time.

 

Since you brought this up, what is the best way of developing guys like Rittich, Gillies and Parsons?

Rittich is probably more like Ramo in that he's not a prospect, just a guy with limited NA experience.  He's shown good and bad at the AHL and NHL levels.  Those that follow Stockton say he'll follow up a great game with a stinker.  He could be a good NHL backup, but not really sure how you manage him to get there. 

 

Gillies is getting closer.  He's had a taste of the NHL and while he wasn;t bad, he didn;t look ready for the speed.  If one was being careful with his development, he would not be in the NHL for at least one more season, possibly two.  He lost a year to injury, so he really hasn't had much time to develop.  He's also played more of a 1a than a starter.  How do you manage that development?  Do you bring in a goalie trainer for him?

 

Parsons is a little worrisome.  He's supposed to be our top prospect, but he keeps getting injured.  The latest was a tweak before dev camp.  If he goes to Stockton, he will need to play a 1b role, but is there enough games between him and Gillies?  He'll probably play a bit in the ECHL just to get more playing time between starts in Stockton.

He's just going on 21, so he's got time before he's liable to be ready.

 

Unfortunately, Smith is the only goalie we have ready to start this season.  Based on what we have done this year to prepare, it looks likely Rittich will be the backup.  If BT has confidence in the group, then that's fine.  He made changes to the rest of the team.  Hopefully his confidence is based on more than just Sigalet's opinion.

[jjgallow]

On 7/8/2018 at 4:42 PM, DirtyDeeds said:

If goaltending is our biggest weakness(I agree with you on that) then why would you consider trading one/some of them for a best return?

 

I used to think goaltending and defense was our biggest weakness until I realized it was management.

[YounGuns]

24 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I used to think goaltending and defense was our biggest weakness until I realized it was management.

Management of goalies?  Or just management in general?  Because if we're talking about our General Manager, then I'd say there's currently very few teams I'd want to swap GMs with.  I think Treliving has done a great job in bringing in important pieces and signing critical pieces to value contracts.  This year will be a big one to see if this team can take big steps forward with the team and coaching staff he's assembled.  Sure some moves didn't work out (Brouwer), but others have been awesome.  Plus our drafting has been pretty good under him, at least it's looking good right now.  I'd disagree with you on the management part, in fact I'd say that's one of our areas of great strength.  Now, if it's managing goalies...that's more a coaching issue...and yes I would agree with you there.

[Cowtownguy]

On July 8, 2018 at 4:42 PM, DirtyDeeds said:

If goaltending is our biggest weakness(I agree with you on that) then why would you consider trading one/some of them for a best return? Any of them could become a capable backup. We have screwed up getting or keeping a capable 1A goalie since Kipper. Anderson, Fleury, Elliott, Bishop and maybe more.

 

Flames problems over and above the horrid developing part, is also giving up on them too soon. Goalies still develop later in age and need usually the extra time.

While I agree with your logic on this matter, I am unclear as to how the Flames can improve. When we bring in more goaltenders for increased competition, they need to play somewhere. Should we avoid drafting goalies and wait it out for Gillies? If he does not turn out to be effective, have we dug our own grave? Also, I wonder how long we give such a prospect. He is 24 now. Should we wait until he is 26, 28? I don't have the answers to these questions. I am just interested in how others see goaltender development.

[MAC331]

3 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

While I agree with your logic on this matter, I am unclear as to how the Flames can improve. When we bring in more goaltenders for increased competition, they need to play somewhere. Should we avoid drafting goalies and wait it out for Gillies? If he does not turn out to be effective, have we dug our own grave? Also, I wonder how long we give such a prospect. He is 24 now. Should we wait until he is 26, 28? I don't have the answers to these questions. I am just interested in how others see goaltender development.

I think now would be the perfect time to find out what we have in Rittich and Gilles, first Rittich. Smith will have an injury almost guaranteed, then we can see Gilles in a call up.

[robrob74]

I think playing the hell out of a young goalie would be good. Of course do it systematically. That’s what coaching and development is for. I wonder if creating competition is actually hindering them as they just really need to see the puck in game situations. Practice is great, but games are different.

[Cowtownguy]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

I think playing the hell out of a young goalie would be good. Of course do it systematically. That’s what coaching and development is for. I wonder if creating competition is actually hindering them as they just really need to see the puck in game situations. Practice is great, but games are different.

They do need those games to build up confidence. I suspect that each player is unique in this regard. Some maybe need more home games to be shored up by fans. Others might need the boringness of playing against the Buffalo Sabres or the California Golden Seals. Anyone else remember them? It is not an Austin Powers reference. The problem is that every year we are paranoid to lose the early games (get off to a good start), then we want to continue playing the hot, main goalie in late November/December, then things start going downhill in late February, so the #1 clearly has to play, and by the end of the season, we burn out the #1 because we are just a point or two shy of the playoffs. Treliving and Peters need to work together to develop a plan to move the young goalies into the NHL. I think that mean structured flexibility (I realize they are in contention) in scheduling. 

 

I think that I would start Gillies in Florida. He seems to get way too much adrenaline into his body when starting in Calgary. He then makes a terrible blunder and the team gets rattled. Hopefully, Treliving has addressed the rattling situation. 

 

Actually, screw it. Let's just take a look at what Edmonton does and do the exact opposite.

[kehatch]

Rittich is a goalie that can play 1 out of 5 games cherry picked for his success. I don't think he has the talent to carry the starter role even briefly though. He isn't a rookie and I don't see the upside. 

 

Gilles has the opportunity to prove he is a starter, but he was statistically almost the worst goalie in the NHL last season. Let's see him rebound in the AHL first before we expect quality NHL starts. 

 

Keep in mind, we hope to be talking about 100+ game season, not 82 games. Smith's durability is a big question mark, especially at 37. We need a solid plan B and we don't have one at the moment. 

 

Could Rittich or Gilles be the guy this season. Maybe. But I wouldn't bet a large sum of money on that. If I was Treliving I certainly wouldn't bet my job on that. Better to find a better plan B and be pleasently surprised if Gilles forces his way onto the rotation. 

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, kehatch said:

Rittich is a goalie that can play 1 out of 5 games cherry picked for his success. I don't think he has the talent to carry the starter role even briefly though. He isn't a rookie and I don't see the upside. 

 

Gilles has the opportunity to prove he is a starter, but he was statistically almost the worst goalie in the NHL last season. Let's see him rebound in the AHL first before we expect quality NHL starts. 

 

Keep in mind, we hope to be talking about 100+ game season, not 82 games. Smith's durability is a big question mark, especially at 37. We need a solid plan B and we don't have one at the moment. 

 

Could Rittich or Gilles be the guy this season. Maybe. But I wouldn't bet a large sum of money on that. If I was Treliving I certainly wouldn't bet my job on that. Better to find a better plan B and be pleasently surprised if Gilles forces his way onto the rotation. 

Agree with on Rittich. As far as getting another back up with more experience you only take away the incentive and after last season I wouldn't do that to these guys. They are both REAL close to being ready to step in. Rittich is primed for the back up role and if subbed in effectively will prove out. Gilles getting most of the starts in the AHL and staying injury free is about as ready as you can have a goalie should Smith go down. Now if you think neither is NHL calibre then that is another story, right now I think the hockey staff disagree with you.

[travel_dude]

I think what Kehatch is alluding to is the lack of a bonafide starter option, if Smith were to go down for any extended period of time.  We have no plan B.  There is the chance that one of Rittich or Gillies could prove themselves to be ready to be a starter, but that is not a safe bet for a GM that has played every card in his hand.  Both are possible backups, which is fine.  Neither has shown they are durable enough to withstand a long period of being a starter.  That is the key issue here.  Gillies should be lighting up the AHL before he is considered to be ready for that role.  Rittich needs to show more consistency.

 

It's one thing to have a 5/6 D or bottom 6 F that is questionable, but be able to shorten the bench to cover the issues.  It's another to hang an entire season on a 36 year old starter with injury history and poor results to end the season and two backups that provided middling results beyond starting one game every five or six.

 

BT may start camp with the existing 3 goalies, but he may also be doing that with plan B in his back pocket.  He doesn't strike me as a guy that pins the season on what he hopes will happen. 

[MAC331]

49 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I think what Kehatch is alluding to is the lack of a bonafide starter option, if Smith were to go down for any extended period of time.  We have no plan B.  There is the chance that one of Rittich or Gillies could prove themselves to be ready to be a starter, but that is not a safe bet for a GM that has played every card in his hand.  Both are possible backups, which is fine.  Neither has shown they are durable enough to withstand a long period of being a starter.  That is the key issue here.  Gillies should be lighting up the AHL before he is considered to be ready for that role.  Rittich needs to show more consistency.

 

It's one thing to have a 5/6 D or bottom 6 F that is questionable, but be able to shorten the bench to cover the issues.  It's another to hang an entire season on a 36 year old starter with injury history and poor results to end the season and two backups that provided middling results beyond starting one game every five or six.

 

BT may start camp with the existing 3 goalies, but he may also be doing that with plan B in his back pocket.  He doesn't strike me as a guy that pins the season on what he hopes will happen. 

Well I don't want to keep repeating myself but the only way Rittich and Gilles get advanced enough to be "proven" is by putting them in that position. Rittich IMO showed very admirably that he can handle the back up duties this past season. Gilles will be getting all the work he needs in Stockton and as you say if he is "lighting up the AHL" you slot him into the starting role should Smith go down.

[travel_dude]

29 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Well I don't want to keep repeating myself but the only way Rittich and Gilles get advanced enough to be "proven" is by putting them in that position. Rittich IMO showed very admirably that he can handle the back up duties this past season. Gilles will be getting all the work he needs in Stockton and as you say if he is "lighting up the AHL" you slot him into the starting role should Smith go down.

 

I think Rittich could handle limited starts the same way he did last season, but that's not the real point is it.  We need a starter in 2018/20 and we need to have a guy that can step up in case Smith goes down.  We have that luxury everywhere else in the lineup, except in nets.  Gillies and Parsons will likely be the pair in Stockton, so it may be more like Rittich/Gillies for starts there.

 

That is all.

[MAC331]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think Rittich could handle limited starts the same way he did last season, but that's not the real point is it.  We need a starter in 2018/20 and we need to have a guy that can step up in case Smith goes down.  We have that luxury everywhere else in the lineup, except in nets.  Gillies and Parsons will likely be the pair in Stockton, so it may be more like Rittich/Gillies for starts there.

 

That is all.

That is going backwards and being afraid of what these two are really capable of next season. There is no iron clad way here.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

That is going backwards and being afraid of what these two are really capable of next season. There is no iron clad way here.

 

Going backwards is relying on a 36 year old goalie the season after he fell on his face to end the season.  

Would you bet your annual salary on Smith/Rittich providing better than league average goaltending this season?  That is what BT could be doing.

All I am saying is that a smart GM has plans for when plans don't work out.  Or they mitigate a risk by adding a vet.

[MAC331]

19 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Going backwards is relying on a 36 year old goalie the season after he fell on his face to end the season.  

Would you bet your annual salary on Smith/Rittich providing better than league average goaltending this season?  That is what BT could be doing.

All I am saying is that a smart GM has plans for when plans don't work out.  Or they mitigate a risk by adding a vet.

Some push through the risk. I don't think BT will be putting his job on the line by putting his faith in their own development.

if Gilles isn't showing well in the AHL that may be the time to start looking around at who might be available.

[kehatch]

8 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Well I don't want to keep repeating myself but the only way Rittich and Gilles get advanced enough to be "proven" is by putting them in that position. Rittich IMO showed very admirably that he can handle the back up duties this past season. Gilles will be getting all the work he needs in Stockton and as you say if he is "lighting up the AHL" you slot him into the starting role should Smith go down.

 

Not true. Murray, Vasilevsky, Talbot, etc pushed their way onto the roster by playing exceptionally well in the AHL and then taking advantage of their NHL opportunity when it came around. They didn't play "okay" in the AHL, crap the bed during their NHL opportunity, and then be gifted an NHL spot based on the a feeling that they maybe could be might be close. 

[MAC331]

11 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

Not true. Murray, Vasilevsky, Talbot, etc pushed their way onto the roster by playing exceptionally well in the AHL and then taking advantage of their NHL opportunity when it came around. They didn't play "okay" in the AHL, crap the bed during their NHL opportunity, and then be gifted an NHL spot based on the a feeling that they maybe could be might be close. 

OK let's use what you have here. Rittich took over for Lack as the back up and as the back up played very well. Any argument ? I will agree with you that when Smith went down the situation became a premature situation for both to play the amount of games with regularity they did. Was Gilles knocking it out of the park in Stockton last year, NO ? I have suggested Rittich be the back up and have Gilles playing most the games in Stockton in order to be better prepared this next time. If he isn't doing well in Stockton I would think that would be the indicator for BT to start seeing who else would be available, NOT NOW.

You would get someone now, that's your opinion which is fine but not how I would handle what we have now.

[kehatch]

9 hours ago, MAC331 said:

OK let's use what you have here. Rittich took over for Lack as the back up and as the back up played very well. Any argument ? I will agree with you that when Smith went down the situation became a premature situation for both to play the amount of games with regularity they did. Was Gilles knocking it out of the park in Stockton last year, NO ? I have suggested Rittich be the back up and have Gilles playing most the games in Stockton in order to be better prepared this next time. If he isn't doing well in Stockton I would think that would be the indicator for BT to start seeing who else would be available, NOT NOW.

You would get someone now, that's your opinion which is fine but not how I would handle what we have now.

 

If Smith wasn't injury prone, 37, and coming off of an injury / terrible finish I wouldn't have a problem with Rittich as the backup. But I fully expect whomever does backup Smith to have to carry the load for an extended period. I don't want Rittich to be that guy. 

 

We are invested at every other position. That is true based on assets spent, positions filled, cap space, and term. But in net we have a 37 year old in his final year, a guy that projects to be a career back up (at best), and two guys who have disappointed in their pro careers to date. 

 

I also want Gilles in the AHL for a season to see how he does. I just want to upgrade Rittich to a better 1B option as insurance for this year and potentially for future years. 

 

But I get some people see more in Rittich then I do. If you see a potential starter or a guy that can cover 30+ games then fine. I just don't see it that way. 

[MAC331]

27 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

If Smith wasn't injury prone, 37, and coming off of an injury / terrible finish I wouldn't have a problem with Rittich as the backup. But I fully expect whomever does backup Smith to have to carry the load for an extended period. I don't want Rittich to be that guy. 

 

We are invested at every other position. That is true based on assets spent, positions filled, cap space, and term. But in net we have a 37 year old in his final year, a guy that projects to be a career back up (at best), and two guys who have disappointed in their pro careers to date. 

 

I also want Gilles in the AHL for a season to see how he does. I just want to upgrade Rittich to a better 1B option as insurance for this year and potentially for future years. 

 

But I get some people see more in Rittich then I do. If you see a potential starter or a guy that can cover 30+ games then fine. I just don't see it that way. 

We aren't going to agree on this. I think what we have now in where Rittich and Gilles are will prove out to be fine.

BTW everything I have said here has Rittich as a back up and not a potential starter so yes I think he could handle 30 games strategically planned out. Should Smith go down I have also said Gilles should be in Stockton with most the starts and rockin it should Smith go down to injury.

[MAC331]

14 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

If Smith wasn't injury prone, 37, and coming off of an injury / terrible finish I wouldn't have a problem with Rittich as the backup. But I fully expect whomever does backup Smith to have to carry the load for an extended period. I don't want Rittich to be that guy. 

 

We are invested at every other position. That is true based on assets spent, positions filled, cap space, and term. But in net we have a 37 year old in his final year, a guy that projects to be a career back up (at best), and two guys who have disappointed in their pro careers to date. 

 

I also want Gilles in the AHL for a season to see how he does. I just want to upgrade Rittich to a better 1B option as insurance for this year and potentially for future years. 

 

But I get some people see more in Rittich then I do. If you see a potential starter or a guy that can cover 30+ games then fine. I just don't see it that way. 

Here is a deal that may fit your scenario, Stone RD to OTT for Condon G. He played 31 games with a .902 making 2.4M. Rittich and Gilles would remain in Stockton.

[7wit]

On 2018-07-25 at 7:12 PM, MAC331 said:

We aren't going to agree on this. I think what we have now in where Rittich and Gilles are will prove out to be fine.

BTW everything I have said here has Rittich as a back up and not a potential starter so yes I think he could handle 30 games strategically planned out. Should Smith go down I have also said Gilles should be in Stockton with most the starts and rockin it should Smith go down to injury.

 

I hope you’re right. If it doesn’t work out this year though, then what? I guess you trade for a Bobrovsky?

[Cowtownguy]

On July 25, 2018 at 6:40 PM, kehatch said:

 

If Smith wasn't injury prone, 37, and coming off of an injury / terrible finish I wouldn't have a problem with Rittich as the backup. But I fully expect whomever does backup Smith to have to carry the load for an extended period. I don't want Rittich to be that guy. 

 

We are invested at every other position. That is true based on assets spent, positions filled, cap space, and term. But in net we have a 37 year old in his final year, a guy that projects to be a career back up (at best), and two guys who have disappointed in their pro careers to date. 

 

I also want Gilles in the AHL for a season to see how he does. I just want to upgrade Rittich to a better 1B option as insurance for this year and potentially for future years. 

 

But I get some people see more in Rittich then I do. If you see a potential starter or a guy that can cover 30+ games then fine. I just don't see it that way. 

Unfortunately, that likely sums up our situation. I find it difficult to believe that Treliving would stake his job on our current goaltending. Maybe he comes up with more magic this summer. 

 

Man, I am going to be choked if Eddie Lack comes up big this year.