Goaltending

[MAC331]

10 hours ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Where did I say only wins count?? where did you get that idea? Come on Mac.. you can do better than try to put words in my mouth.

 

I complain about our Goalie Coach and how few(pretty much none) successes he has had both in Abbottsford and in Calgary. No one has answered my question to show me one Goalie success he has had.

 

I said in another post wins or losses are not what counts nor do Stats.. To judge a prospect when he has his opportunity you have to look at how well he plays, not any of the other stuff.

On your last statement we agree. I find many posters these days take such small samples as how players will be forever without taking into account any progression that will take place. Rittich and Gilles gained some valuable NHL time this past season and how they learned from it will only be measured by putting them back in there.

Sorry maybe that was JJ always going on about development and goalies.

[cross16]

16 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

The fish that got away doesn't make the fisherman.

 

We don't know what happened behind the scenes, that includes the ones mentioned above but also other opportunities. I would think part of the issue is that we have used our assets elsewhere limiting what we had to make a deal (some of it wasted on things like the Lazar trade.)

 

Not a great analogy, considering catching fish is an individual skill and does not require another part unless we want to give the fish credit for their negotiation skills. Trades takes 2 and are hard to do. If we had MAF today but no Tkachuk are you happy? If we had Bishop today at 7mill AAV but didn't have Backlund are you happy?

 

I guess it comes down to what side you sit on this question. Do you think Treliving views his goaltending as good and therefore comfortable to run with it, or did he look around and find limited options available at a fair price that would make his situation better? I'm in the later camp all the way so thus why I think this debate is getting overblown. I'm much more intersted in the organization find a more homegrown solution than the trade market where finding a goalie is super challenging. 

[kehatch]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Not a great analogy, considering catching fish is an individual skill and does not require another part unless we want to give the fish credit for their negotiation skills. Trades takes 2 and are hard to do. If we had MAF today but no Tkachuk are you happy? If we had Bishop today at 7mill AAV but didn't have Backlund are you happy?

 

I guess it comes down to what side you sit on this question. Do you think Treliving views his goaltending as good and therefore comfortable to run with it, or did he look around and find limited options available at a fair price that would make his situation better? I'm in the later camp all the way so thus why I think this debate is getting overblown. I'm much more intersted in the organization find a more homegrown solution than the trade market where finding a goalie is super challenging. 

 

Sorry Cross, but this is just more justification using conjecture as facts.  The Penguins gave up MAF for nothing.  We don't know it would have cost us Tkachuk.  Bishop would not have cost us Backlund, it would have meant different decisions along the way, such as not having the cap to go after Neal.  We also don't know what else was available or the content of those discussions. You are saying it is a matter of priorities, but a few posts ago you were saying that Treliving has been on every goalie transaction out there.  This doesn't appear to be a situation where the GM is satisfied with our goaltending.  Given his approach at every other position I can't imagine he is happy with the gamble he is taking in net.  

 

I agree getting a home grown solution is the preferred approach. But Rittich and Gilles did not achieve when given the opportunity.  Gilles development has been rocky since leaving college and Rittich has never projected that high. Parsons has also struggled.  We are running our of options to find our solution internally.  

[conundrumed]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The players are Millennials.  The most privileged generation to date in mankind's history.  You cannot apply motivational tactics from the 1980s.  Lol

True dat, as much as I would regardless

[The_People1]

15 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

True dat, as much as I would regardless

 

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[conundrumed]

32 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

Sorry Cross, but this is just more justification using conjecture as facts.  The Penguins gave up MAF for nothing.  We don't know it would have cost us Tkachuk.  Bishop would not have cost us Backlund, it would have meant different decisions along the way, such as not having the cap to go after Neal.  We also don't know what else was available or the content of those discussions. You are saying it is a matter of priorities, but a few posts ago you were saying that Treliving has been on every goalie transaction out there.  This doesn't appear to be a situation where the GM is satisfied with our goaltending.  Given his approach at every other position I can't imagine he is happy with the gamble he is taking in net.  

 

I agree getting a home grown solution is the preferred approach. But Rittich and Gilles did not achieve when given the opportunity.  Gilles development has been rocky since leaving college and Rittich has never projected that high. Parsons has also struggled.  We are running our of options to find our solution internally.  

I guess my question kehatch would be have you already written off Rittich and Gillies?

Did they have one chance and it's over?

I'm not asking to argue, just wondering if your conclusive is all.

Great arguments both ways, just proves the unpredictability for me.

[conundrumed]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Reminds me of a comic's line:

I always wanted to be good at sports, until one day I realized that you can just buy trophies, now I'm good at everything. lol

[The_People1]

12 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I guess my question kehatch would be have you already written off Rittich and Gillies?

Did they have one chance and it's over?

I'm not asking to argue, just wondering if your conclusive is all.

Great arguments both ways, just proves the unpredictability for me.

 

I think what's important is how BT moves forward rather than what he did in the past.

 

Bobrovsky sounds available.  Price has a bad contract the Habs want to get rid of.  What is BT going to do?  Stick with Smith/Rittich/Gillies?  

 

 

[cross16]

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 

Sorry Cross, but this is just more justification using conjecture as facts.  The Penguins gave up MAF for nothing.  We don't know it would have cost us Tkachuk.  Bishop would not have cost us Backlund, it would have meant different decisions along the way, such as not having the cap to go after Neal.  We also don't know what else was available or the content of those discussions. You are saying it is a matter of priorities, but a few posts ago you were saying that Treliving has been on every goalie transaction out there.  This doesn't appear to be a situation where the GM is satisfied with our goaltending.  Given his approach at every other position I can't imagine he is happy with the gamble he is taking in net.  

 

Pens gave up MAF for nothing because of the expansion draft and i've read multiple sources that pegged the MAF cost at the Takchuk pick and that Backlund was involved when the Flames were talking about Bishop from the Lightning. Might not be facts, but it's also not a fact that he wasn't involved because as you said we don't know either way. However, given cost of similar goalies acquired those rumors seem to make sense to me, but everyone is free to believe what they want. 

 

Actually no i'm not saying it is a matter of priorities I think it's a matter of cost vs opportunity. I think goaltending by nature is a very temperamental position and really outside of maybe 8-9 guys that are legit sure fire number ones, you have a really mixed bag at the position. Did Ben Bishop really fix the Dallas problem last year when they missed the playoffs? Are they happy with the contract they gave him? As mentioned, Talbot was a huge reason the Oilers struggled last year so is that position fixed for them?

 

I'm not in favor of overpaying, ie the cost, just to make it appear like the position is fixed. Cost and opportunity have to meet and so far IMO it hasn't. i think we are both saying the same thing, that we'd like to see goaltneding improved, but all i'm saying is I think the criticism Treliving is taking is unfair. He's tried and it's a really difficult position to fix unless you overpay or get the opportunity to land a top guy. IMO to get Fleury/Bishp he would have overpaid (not a fan) and he missed on the opportunities with Jones/Andersson but those appears to be out of his control (according to Conroy). 

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

The players are Millennials.  The most privileged generation to date in mankind's history.  You cannot apply motivational tactics from the 1980s.  Lol

Gawd just give me the dryland training already.

"okay you louts, here's the dryland training gear. Red spandex flashdance asspants, white leg warmers and a white PROPERTY of the CALGARY FLAMES halter top.

Embarrassing? Perfect. We'll revisit weekly who has worked their way out of it. Some of you might never".

Lol, I had some great coaches

[conundrumed]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think what's important is how BT moves forward rather than what he did in the past.

 

Bobrovsky sounds available.  Price has a bad contract the Habs want to get rid of.  What is BT going to do?  Stick with Smith/Rittich/Gillies?  

 

 

They aren't affordable under the cap for us though, no?

We can throw out names all day, but the numbers have to work. We've finally (hopefully) addressed more needs at F. Do we start slashing again to work on the backend for the nth year in a row?

[The_People1]

11 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

They aren't affordable under the cap for us though, no?

We can throw out names all day, but the numbers have to work. We've finally (hopefully) addressed more needs at F. Do we start slashing again to work on the backend for the nth year in a row?

 

Oh I absolutely believe Backlund has been replaced but a committee of Lindholm, Bennett, Ryan, and Jankowski.  Smith needs to go.   Just those two caps combined gets us Bobrovsky for a year.

[Flyerfan52]

I'd love to have the Rinne/Saros situation Nashville is fortunate to have happening. No such luck. but few teams can claim to have something like that. In fact, none come to mind.

 

There look to be 2 options that both will have support.

1 is a 30ish but proven big $ goalie like Bob, Schneider or Price that will cost us big in players/prospects/picks & mess with our cap severely.

The other is a stopgap like we've used in the past. We could try to snag 26 year old Pickard from the TML & hope he's just a late bloomer or go with a former starter who is now a UFA @ no cost. I'd offer Mason a PTO & hope last years streak of injuries were just bad luck. If he outplays the AHLers in camp offer a $1 x 1 contract to stay in the league & if healed earn a job for next year. @ 30 he might still have the good years the Jets were hoping for left. To me it felt like last year was just that ultimate storm where he couldn't stay healthy but when he finally could Helle was cemented as starter. If you just look @ his #s in the limited games he played they are horrible due to a rotten start. They were much better in the few games he got into later. (His trade to the Habs was the #s game due to cap. Like BT over his tenure Chevy took a chance assuming Helle wasn't ready yet but in this case he got lucky.) Little cost but could be high reward since if he can refind his game he could buy a few more years for BT to find the "goalie of the future" by replacing Smith for a few years.

[kehatch]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I guess my question kehatch would be have you already written off Rittich and Gillies?

Did they have one chance and it's over?

I'm not asking to argue, just wondering if your conclusive is all.

Great arguments both ways, just proves the unpredictability for me.

 

That is the wrong question in my opinion.  The questions should be:

 

Are we comfortable Mike Smith will stay healthy and effective over a 100+ game season?  If the answer is no (and given his injury history and age my answer is no)  then you need to ask: Are we comfortable Rittich or Gilles can be effective as a starter over an extended period of time next season?  If the answer is no then we have a serious problem (and my answer remains no because past performance shows that neither has been capable of that).  

 

It isn't that I have written either player off.  But the objective of next season should be to win a Stanley Cup, not to give one of our goalies a chance to develop.  Gilles still has a lot to prove in the AHL.  Rittich would likely clear waivers and gives us some depth in the position.  Both will likely be given another opportunity to show what they can do in the NHL.  I just don't agree with gifting them an NHL position at the potential expense of a season.  I also don't agree that a lack of options excuses the situation we are in, not when Treliving has had 4-seasons to fix this ongoing issue.

 

I will give this post a rest because people have clearly stated their positions and there really isn't any new ground to talk about.  I get that not everyone's answers to the above two questions are no, and that is fine.  I also appreciate Cross's stance that goal tending is a difficult position to address and the cost outweighed the players available, I just think by now we should have a better plan B then David Rittich (and no plan beyond this season).  I do think the lack of short and long term certainty in net is on our GM, even though I like the work he has done in most other areas.  

[MAC331]

51 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

That is the wrong question in my opinion.  The questions should be:

 

Are we comfortable Mike Smith will stay healthy and effective over a 100+ game season?  If the answer is no (and given his injury history and age my answer is no)  then you need to ask: Are we comfortable Rittich or Gilles can be effective as a starter over an extended period of time next season?  If the answer is no then we have a serious problem (and my answer remains no because past performance shows that neither has been capable of that).  

 

It isn't that I have written either player off.  But the objective of next season should be to win a Stanley Cup, not to give one of our goalies a chance to develop.  Gilles still has a lot to prove in the AHL.  Rittich would likely clear waivers and gives us some depth in the position.  Both will likely be given another opportunity to show what they can do in the NHL.  I just don't agree with gifting them an NHL position at the potential expense of a season.  I also don't agree that a lack of options excuses the situation we are in, not when Treliving has had 4-seasons to fix this ongoing issue.

 

I will give this post a rest because people have clearly stated their positions and there really isn't any new ground to talk about.  I get that not everyone's answers to the above two questions are no, and that is fine.  I also appreciate Cross's stance that goal tending is a difficult position to address and the cost outweighed the players available, I just think by now we should have a better plan B then David Rittich (and no plan beyond this season).  I do think the lack of short and long term certainty in net is on our GM, even though I like the work he has done in most other areas.  

So I ask again who should the Flames target now ?

[sak22]

7 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Oh I absolutely believe Backlund has been replaced but a committee of Lindholm, Bennett, Ryan, and Jankowski.  Smith needs to go.   Just those two caps combined gets us Bobrovsky for a year.

I'm a hard no on Bob, I think he brings the same  issues that Hiller and Elliott did only with Vezina trophies.  His playoffs have been disastrous and I'd rather if we made the playoffs do it with someone like Smith with marginal playoff success 6 years ago than a proven choke artist.

[Cowtownguy]

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 

That is the wrong question in my opinion.  The questions should be:

 

Are we comfortable Mike Smith will stay healthy and effective over a 100+ game season?  If the answer is no (and given his injury history and age my answer is no)  then you need to ask: Are we comfortable Rittich or Gilles can be effective as a starter over an extended period of time next season?  If the answer is no then we have a serious problem (and my answer remains no because past performance shows that neither has been capable of that).  

 

It isn't that I have written either player off.  But the objective of next season should be to win a Stanley Cup, not to give one of our goalies a chance to develop.  Gilles still has a lot to prove in the AHL.  Rittich would likely clear waivers and gives us some depth in the position.  Both will likely be given another opportunity to show what they can do in the NHL.  I just don't agree with gifting them an NHL position at the potential expense of a season.  I also don't agree that a lack of options excuses the situation we are in, not when Treliving has had 4-seasons to fix this ongoing issue.

 

I will give this post a rest because people have clearly stated their positions and there really isn't any new ground to talk about.  I get that not everyone's answers to the above two questions are no, and that is fine.  I also appreciate Cross's stance that goal tending is a difficult position to address and the cost outweighed the players available, I just think by now we should have a better plan B then David Rittich (and no plan beyond this season).  I do think the lack of short and long term certainty in net is on our GM, even though I like the work he has done in most other areas.  

I think that you broke new ground here. If the objective of next season is to win a cup, then your logic is sound. But, are we good enough to think like that? That is, are we good enough that we can drop player development to a lower priority? I think that we should chase the cup this year, but others might think we are not there yet.

[sak22]

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 

 

It isn't that I have written either player off.  But the objective of next season should be to win a Stanley Cup, not to give one of our goalies a chance to develop.  Gilles still has a lot to prove in the AHL.  Rittich would likely clear waivers and gives us some depth in the position.  Both will likely be given another opportunity to show what they can do in the NHL.  I just don't agree with gifting them an NHL position at the potential expense of a season.  I also don't agree that a lack of options excuses the situation we are in, not when Treliving has had 4-seasons to fix this ongoing issue.

 

 

I think its a bit drastic MAF as good as he was last year played 46 games Maxime Lagace played 16 which is close to Rittich, and his numbers were far more dreadful than either Rittich or Gillies, yet he was only a game under .500.  I think your thinking we need the goaltending to win 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2.  I'm thinking we have a team that could hold the others to 3 or under, but we need a team that will average over 3 goals a game.  

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, kehatch said:

Are we comfortable Mike Smith will stay healthy and effective over a 100+ game season?  If the answer is no (and given his injury history and age my answer is no)  then you need to ask: Are we comfortable Rittich or Gilles can be effective as a starter over an extended period of time next season?  If the answer is no then we have a serious problem (and my answer remains no because past performance shows that neither has been capable of that).  

 

IT's one of those situations that we could have found out a great deal more last season.  Lack was supposed to be the backup but was never used and by the time he was, he was so bad it hurt us.  He started 2 games.  Plan B.  Bring up Rittich but refuse to play him very much either, even when he was showing he could win.

 

So, here we are a year later.  Same two goalies with same lack of information.

Smith hasn;t managed to play more than 55 games in the last 3 years, and has never played more than 61.  No playoffs to gauge his extended season durability.

Rittich played some good hockey but we didn;t get to see him handle more than a game per week until Smith was injured.

 

If there wasn;t a question in nets, I would say we were a contender.  We may still be, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  They may not be any readily available solutions out there, but our plan is no different than it was last year, just a year older.  BT doesn;t seem to be a guy that takes big risks without plan B's, but it seems like he has this year.

I will cheer for whomever our goalie is on any given night.  I hope Rittich is a diamond and Gillies takes big steps this season.  

 

There.  I'm done.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

I'm a hard no on Bob, I think he brings the same  issues that Hiller and Elliott did only with Vezina trophies.  His playoffs have been disastrous and I'd rather if we made the playoffs do it with someone like Smith with marginal playoff success 6 years ago than a proven choke artist.

 

You have a problem with goalies winning Vezina trophies?

[cccsberg]

On 2018-08-09 at 5:26 PM, kehatch said:

 

That is the wrong question in my opinion.  The questions should be:

 

Are we comfortable Mike Smith will stay healthy and effective over a 100+ game season?  If the answer is no (and given his injury history and age my answer is no)  then you need to ask: Are we comfortable Rittich or Gilles can be effective as a starter over an extended period of time next season?  If the answer is no then we have a serious problem (and my answer remains no because past performance shows that neither has been capable of that).  

 

It isn't that I have written either player off.  But the objective of next season should be to win a Stanley Cup, not to give one of our goalies a chance to develop.  Gilles still has a lot to prove in the AHL.  Rittich would likely clear waivers and gives us some depth in the position.  Both will likely be given another opportunity to show what they can do in the NHL.  I just don't agree with gifting them an NHL position at the potential expense of a season.  I also don't agree that a lack of options excuses the situation we are in, not when Treliving has had 4-seasons to fix this ongoing issue.

 

I will give this post a rest because people have clearly stated their positions and there really isn't any new ground to talk about.  I get that not everyone's answers to the above two questions are no, and that is fine.  I also appreciate Cross's stance that goal tending is a difficult position to address and the cost outweighed the players available, I just think by now we should have a better plan B then David Rittich (and no plan beyond this season).  I do think the lack of short and long term certainty in net is on our GM, even though I like the work he has done in most other areas.  

Kehatch, your post was so full of bias and misinformation I forgot for a minute I wasn't reading one of the Fake MSM "News" outlets in the USA.  Let me respond, with a perhaps more balanced view.

 

My answer to your first question is also no, but I take that completely differently than your presumptions.  First off, I am not comfortable that ANY goalie in the world will stay healthy and be effective over a 100+ game season.  Such a person does not exist.  Not MAF, not Bobrovsky, not Rinne, not Schneider, not Talbot, not Hellebyuck, not Grubaer, not Anderson, not Price, not Bishop..... none.  By nature of the game and team play injuries happen, and slumps with stretches of poor play happen.  I fully believe that Smith is basically the same as other top goalies with both injuries and consistency.  You can state Smith will get injured and that's the end of the season because you don't like the options over and over and over all you want, but others have different assumptions and you are not putting forth any new ideas or arguments to support your view.  I would challenge you to prove the point that Smith is particularly "injury-prone" versus others versus basically random, and secondly that he is inconsistent versus others.  As part of that challenge show us other goalies that are substantially better in both those categories to back up your point and to prove that there are good options.  The same can be said for the backups, though my answer there is yes, probably.  Again, you seem to think there are better out there but I haven't seen much if anything to prove they exist in any place except your mind.  When you bring up a guy like Talbot, it seems you are assuming a 2017 Talbot, but forgetting the 2018 Talbot... and etc.  

 

Hockey is very much a team game, probably on a par with football but even more so because of continuous play and the very limited options to plug holes to cover off for injuries and someone else's mistakes versus the better options, and the set-piece play in football.  In both a certain player is critical, quarterbacks and goalies, but frankly they alone cannot win you games, they need others.  In hockey you can have a great team but if a key player gets injured it can derail a whole season, and that's especially so for goalies, but also true for others.  If Smith does get injured the team certainly may sink, but I can name you basically every other team out there that could be in the same boat if one of their best players went down.  That's hockey.  However, certain things can be overcome, like Vegas last year who went through 5 goalies but still succeeded.  Why do you think that happened?  Is their success something others can emulate?  What about Pittsburg Penguins when Letang went out in the playoffs?  How did they adapt?  How about Washington last season, went Holtby went in the tank for while during the season but Grubaer came through for a stretch, only to crater himself once the playoffs started?  Every team is going to face challenges and every team is going to have to find a way, just like the "Find-a-way" Flames from a few years back under Hartley.  The Flames are vulnerable via goalies, yes, but they are vulnerable in many other ways too, like most.  How the organization is able to adapt and overcome is going to decide their fate, not whether or not they are susceptible.  There are no magic bullets.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cccsberg said:

First off, I am not comfortable that ANY goalie in the world will stay healthy and be effective over a 100+ game season.  

 

Fair point.  Anyone can get injured at any time.

 

My problem is even if Smith stays healthy, he is inconsistent at best.  He started last season great but even before he got injured, he had an awful couple of weeks.  Which Smith will we see this season?  It's a question that if we even have to ask, then that means he's not good enough.

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, cccsberg said:

My answer to your first question is also no, but I take that completely differently than your presumptions.  First off, I am not comfortable that ANY goalie in the world will stay healthy and be effective over a 100+ game season.  Such a person does not exist.  Not MAF, not Bobrovsky, not Rinne, not Schneider, not Talbot, not Hellebyuck, not Grubaer, not Anderson, not Price, not Bishop..... none.

 

Just to be clear, 100+ games for a team.  That's roughly 18 games of playoffs plus a full season.  The 2017 Oilers played 95 games, and they lost in the 2nd round.  Talbot was healthy for 95 games.  Yes, they overplayed him, but that's also kind of the point.  They had nobody else

 

Bring it to the Flames.  Can Smith be healthy the entire season and playoffs if he only plays 55 games.  Not overplayed.  Not brought back right after he has a minor tweak.  Can he be given the last few games off before the playoffs to ensure he can be ready to play each and every game.  

 

If the answer is no, then we do not have a starter.  I get that every goalie may have a freak accident at some point.  This should not be a yearly occurance.

 

  

[MAC331]

On ‎2018‎-‎08‎-‎12 at 0:48 PM, travel_dude said:

 

Just to be clear, 100+ games for a team.  That's roughly 18 games of playoffs plus a full season.  The 2017 Oilers played 95 games, and they lost in the 2nd round.  Talbot was healthy for 95 games.  Yes, they overplayed him, but that's also kind of the point.  They had nobody else

 

Bring it to the Flames.  Can Smith be healthy the entire season and playoffs if he only plays 55 games.  Not overplayed.  Not brought back right after he has a minor tweak.  Can he be given the last few games off before the playoffs to ensure he can be ready to play each and every game.  

 

If the answer is no, then we do not have a starter.  I get that every goalie may have a freak accident at some point.  This should not be a yearly occurance.

 

  

I don't think the question is Smith, given his track record you can bank on him missing some time and games. He will come in as motivated as all the other players given the additions and his friend Neal joining the team. The question and kehatch isn't wrong is whether Rittich and/or Gilles be given the opportunity to back up Smith's effort. He says no because they failed to perform with lengthy runs last season. He also thinks we have a serious chance for the SC this coming season which efforts his thoughts. The other way to look at the goalie situation is that both Rittich and Gilles gained some valuable experience last season which should help them to be better prepared this season. There is no guarantee an outside back up coming in will get anymore time in the net or perform any better than us starting with Rittich ( he did well backing up)and plan in more games for him. Should Gilles be in Stockton and not doing well there then sure I would look for another answer if Smith goes down with a serious injury.

[cross16]

There were 16 goalie in the league last year that played 55 games or more. Of that 9 of them, including Smith, had a save % of over .915 and 6 of them had a save % over .920. Now yes Fleury and Price were hurt/struggled but doesn't mean they auto jump into that category, nor does someone else fall out. Of those 6 5 of them were playing for the team that originally drafted them with Bobrovsky being the only exception. 

 

Finding a goalie you are comfortable with for 100ish game is not easy. What is a more reasonable ask is getting a goalie who can get hot at the right time.