Goaltending

[jjgallow]

29 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.

 

Can't blame Lack for starting cold.   

 

This is a combination of things and truths.

 

• The Lack acquisition never made sense (but wasn't really Lack's fault either)

 

• Lack hasn't been given a chance (the Flames typically latch onto one goalie and ride them into the ground)

 

• The Smith trade looks good right now, but for it to stay that way Smith will have to Keep doing more good things, and the draft picks we gave up will have to Not do good things in their careers.

 

• The Flames sucked the other night.  Not just the goaltending.   The whole team.

 

• We spend a lot of time on this thread talking about problems and not a lot talking about solutions.    The Flames are very good at running goalies out of town.   They're not so good at acquiring something which is actually better.  Which is the actual reason we're having this convo.

[Carty]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I think you really have to question why the Flames wanted to target Lack in the first place.

,

The only answer I can think of is that Gully pushed for him because of the potential he saw in Lack a couple of seasons back...   Unless Lack can somehow snap out of the slump, his days even as a backup in the bigs could be nearing an end...   How long has it been since Lack put together at least 5 decent cent game in a row?...

 

As for his time with the Flames, trade him or waive him to the Heat...   Now...   He has no confidence, and without that he is not going to get any better...   I might be wrong, but I don't think Lack can regain the confidence under the pressure he feels while playing in the NHL right now...   Maybe he can get it back, but the best place for him is either in the AHL or at most a team at the bottom of the standings where the expectations for success are lower...   You could just see it in Lacks face after the first goal went in, he looked defeated, then after the 2nd and 3rd went in, he was beyond finished for the night...

 

Either of Gillies or Rittich are better options at this point, and if it was up to me I would give Rittich a shot,...   It's getting to the point that if the don't at least give him a chance they will risk losing him for nothing, and it would be a shame to see him go on to have success on a different team and the Flames be in the position of shoulda, woulda, coulda...   

[Carty]

On 11/14/2017 at 7:38 PM, Flyerfan52 said:

I think Carty will agree goalies are strange.

 

Yes, we are a different breed...   You can call it mojo, or a number of other names, but when some goalies lose it they never get it back, and that can happen at any age...

[MAC331]

34 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Can't blame Lack for starting cold.   

 

This is a combination of things and truths.

 

• The Lack acquisition never made sense (but wasn't really Lack's fault either)

 

• Lack hasn't been given a chance (the Flames typically latch onto one goalie and ride them into the ground)

 

• The Smith trade looks good right now, but for it to stay that way Smith will have to Keep doing more good things, and the draft picks we gave up will have to Not do good things in their careers.

 

• The Flames sucked the other night.  Not just the goaltending.   The whole team.

 

• We spend a lot of time on this thread talking about problems and not a lot talking about solutions.    The Flames are very good at running goalies out of town.   They're not so good at acquiring something which is actually better.  Which is the actual reason we're having this convo.

I never buy into much of your thinking however I have always maintained being a back up goalie in the NHL is the hardest job there is in professional sports. You do come in cold but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared to play or perform well. They do practise along with the team between games and have to use this time to stay sharp. I don't know that your comment about the decision making sense holds water if not only because you never know "the old goalies are voodoo" myth. Lack had experience over what we had and GG thought he performed well as a back up in VAN, let's see if he can again was likely the thinking. We wouldn't be the first or last to try and catch lightening in a bottle.

The Flames are hardly the only team that rides their regular Goalie at all times. Why would the draft picks have to do lousy to make the trade worthwhile ? that is just warped thinking.

You want solutions expect all situations to be moving targets.

[Cowtownguy]

20 minutes ago, Carty said:

,

The only answer I can think of is that Gully pushed for him because of the potential he saw in Lack a couple of seasons back...   Unless Lack can somehow snap out of the slump, his days even as a backup in the bigs could be nearing an end...   How long has it been since Lack put together at least 5 decent cent game in a row?...

 

As for his time with the Flames, trade him or waive him to the Heat...   Now...   He has no confidence, and without that he is not going to get any better...   I might be wrong, but I don't think Lack can regain the confidence under the pressure he feels while playing in the NHL right now...   Maybe he can get it back, but the best place for him is either in the AHL or at most a team at the bottom of the standings where the expectations for success are lower...   You could just see it in Lacks face after the first goal went in, he looked defeated, then after the 2nd and 3rd went in, he was beyond finished for the night...

 

Either of Gillies or Rittich are better options at this point, and if it was up to me I would give Rittich a shot,...   It's getting to the point that if the don't at least give him a chance they will risk losing him for nothing, and it would be a shame to see him go on to have success on a different team and the Flames be in the position of shoulda, woulda, coulda...   

Lack is clearly struggling. I suspect most Flames' fans were nervous with him being in net last game. I was hoping that he could get a break, but that goal off of Brodie was likely the worst thing that could happen at the worst time. Perhaps a stint in the AHL with a lot of games could help him out. It might also be the case that he is finished as an NHL goalie.

 

I don't understand the decision to bring in Gillies for that game at all. Clearly, Gillies is the Flames' princess and Rittich is their ugly duckling. Given his play for the Flames and Canes, it was not exactly a shocker when Lack struggled. After the game against the Blues, it was not a huge surprise that the team overall was lethargic. We often tend to sink a lot of our physical and emotional energy into good teams and seem to have little reserved for average to less than average teams. Putting in Gillies at that point was asking for a weak start to his NHL career. Then they send him back to Stockton after one game. I am not convinced that this was an intelligent move. We have a sordid history of developing goalies, and I think that this decision did little to alleviate that concern.

[Cowtownguy]

21 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I never buy into much of your thinking however I have always maintained being a back up goalie in the NHL is the hardest job there is in professional sports. You do come in cold but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared to play or perform well. They do practise along with the team between games and have to use this time to stay sharp. I don't know that your comment about the decision making sense holds water if not only because you never know "the old goalies are voodoo" myth. Lack had experience over what we had and GG thought he performed well as a back up in VAN, let's see if he can again was likely the thinking. We wouldn't be the first or last to try and catch lightening in a bottle.

The Flames are hardly the only team that rides their regular Goalie at all times. Why would the draft picks have to do lousy to make the trade worthwhile ? that is just warped thinking.

You want solutions expect all situations to be moving targets.

I think he means that if they become Connor McDavids (which they likely will not), then giving them up for Smith is less advantageous, especially if he plays poorly down the stretch.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

The Flames are hardly the only team that rides their regular Goalie at all times.

 

True, lots of other teams never ever win the Stanley Cup.   As we've gone through many times on here, there is clear favoritism towards contenders who don't overplay their top goalie, or somehow manage to have a relatively fresh goalie in the playoffs.   They simply have better odds of winning the big one.   Not 100% true, but a very clear indisputable correlation.

 

Quote

Why would the draft picks have to do lousy to make the trade worthwhile ? that is just warped thinking.

 

I would argue that a  lack of that thinking is why we're always on the verge of doing lousy.

 

If the goal is the Stanley Cup, and we are more likely to win the cup some Other year in the next 10 years than this particular year, we just reduced our odds.

 

So, assuming all years equal, 10% of the next decade's opportunity to win the cup is this year.   (Except we know we're not a contender yet.  So it's really more like 3-5%)

 

The other 90% (or more) of our opportunity to win the cup is compromised by our short term "need", acquiring a goalie who is extremely unlikely to have a significant impact past this year.     

 

Now, if your goal is just to "win now", then maybe it looks like a good trade.       But, if you have any intentions of "winning now" next year, and the year after, and the next 10 years....again....  we reduced our overall odds over the next decade with that trade.

 

the only arguement is that "we had no choice".    I disagree there too.  I think there were equally acceptable ways of succeeding this year that didn't involve sacrificing our future.

 

Quote

You want solutions expect all situations to be moving targets.

 

I want long term solutions, not quick fixes.

[MAC331]

21 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

True, lots of other teams never ever win the Stanley Cup.   As we've gone through many times on here, there is clear favoritism towards contenders who don't overplay their top goalie, or somehow manage to have a relatively fresh goalie in the playoffs.   They simply have better odds of winning the big one.   Not 100% true, but a very clear indisputable correlation.

 

 

Because if the goal is the Stanley Cup, and we are more likely to win the cup some Other year in the next 10 years than this particular year, we just reduced our odds.

 

So, assuming all years equal, 10% of the next decade's opportunity to win the cup is this year.   (Except we know we're not a contender yet.  So it's really more like 3-5%)

 

The other 90% (or more) of our opportunity to win cup is compromised by our short term "need", acquiring a goalie who is extremely unlikely to have a significant impact past this year.     

 

Now, if your goal is just to "win now", then maybe it looks like a good trade.       But, if you have any intentions of "winning now" next year, and the year after, and the next 10 years....again....  we reduced our overall odds over the next decade with that trade.

 

the only arguement is that "we had no choice".    I disagree there too.  I think there were equally acceptable ways of succeeding this year that didn't involve sacrificing our future.

 

 

I want long term solutions, not quick fixes.

You are dealing in hypotheticals whenever you are discussing the future and attempting to address our chances of success with players we do not even have yet. A GM's job every year is to try and build a winning roster taking into account where he is with what he has already. When it comes to our Goalie pipeline I think the Flames are in as good a shape as they have ever been. We need these two season from Smith IMO to try and have the smoothest transition to a well developed replacement from within.

[jjgallow]

Just now, MAC331 said:

You are dealing in hypotheticals whenever you are discussing the future and attempting to address our chances of success with players we do not even have yet. 

 

You are dealing with much greater hypotheticals the moment you say that Smith is a "need" right now.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

You are dealing with much greater hypotheticals the moment you say that Smith is a "need" right now.

I don't think so, if the last two Elliott and Johnson were unacceptance from a performance standard the GM has to make changes and replace them, If what he has he deems not ready for NHL full time action he must get the hole filled with the experience and talent level he believes is better than where he was. I think he has done that.

[phoenix66]

4 hours 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 totally get why , this is a young goalie who had recent history of being very good, and the explanation of why he fell is acceptable .  He was good enough enough in Vancouver to be picked up by Carolina and projected as their starter .. then they proceeded to try and remake him.. Fail.

This isn't a Jonas Hiller falling off the age cliff..its a kid who needs better coaching . His confidence is shot ..when you're scared to make a mistake, you make more of them .

We have 2 young goalies in the A who BT even said if there was no other options we could have inserted one but it was still a bit of a rush .. no matter what , Lack was not going to be here next season .

That being said...

1) I have no faith that Sigalet is the one to fix him 

2) he needs games to continue to improve and 1 every 9 wont cut it 

 

Like i said earlier , BT isn't stupid..and if he really thinking "win now" his patience is a lot shorter with a position that's not working . I have a gut feeling Lacks leash is as long as his next game.. if he shows no improvement, get him to Stockton , get him playing . Myself I'd bring up Rittich, because now we need to know who he is. Even tho hes still only an RFA after this season , it will be harder to sign him if he thinks hes just going back to Stockton again ..and hes already used to sitting a few then playing 

[Cowtownguy]

I don't know why Lack was put in net to begin with. I understand that he is our back up and we are paying him to be as much. Having said that, can anyone here on this site identify anything that would leave you to believe he was ever ready for a start? They should have sent him to Stockton (if they can) while Smith was playing all of those games and increased his confidence. Use Rittich as the back up for a bit and give him a sense of optimism that he might actually play. Let Gillies and Lack split duties in Stockton. Then, bring him up when he looks mentally prepared. Not doing so strikes me as a sink or swim attitude, and I cannot recall the last solid goaltender that we have developed. I can think of several that we have destroyed though. Instead, we have Rittich who might be losing hope that he has a chance in Calgary when he was being courted elsewhere, and Lack who is currently in the fetal position sucking on his thumb (screaming "laces out!" for some reason) as I write this.

[ABC923]

The weird thing is, we had a pretty solid backup last year in Johnson.  He saved the season for us, but when his play slipped later in the season we decided not to bring him back.  He's not a starter, but that's how we played him and he burned out.  Why BT thought Lack was an upgrade over Johnson i'll never understand.

[Flyerfan52]

3 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

True, lots of other teams never ever win the Stanley Cup.   As we've gone through many times on here, there is clear favoritism towards contenders who don't overplay their top goalie, or somehow manage to have a relatively fresh goalie in the playoffs.   They simply have better odds of winning the big one.   Not 100% true, but a very clear indisputable correlation.

 

 

I would argue that a  lack of that thinking is why we're always on the verge of doing lousy.

 

If the goal is the Stanley Cup, and we are more likely to win the cup some Other year in the next 10 years than this particular year, we just reduced our odds.

 

So, assuming all years equal, 10% of the next decade's opportunity to win the cup is this year.   (Except we know we're not a contender yet.  So it's really more like 3-5%)

 

The other 90% (or more) of our opportunity to win the cup is compromised by our short term "need", acquiring a goalie who is extremely unlikely to have a significant impact past this year.     

 

Now, if your goal is just to "win now", then maybe it looks like a good trade.       But, if you have any intentions of "winning now" next year, and the year after, and the next 10 years....again....  we reduced our overall odds over the next decade with that trade.

 

the only arguement is that "we had no choice".    I disagree there too.  I think there were equally acceptable ways of succeeding this year that didn't involve sacrificing our future.

 

 

I want long term solutions, not quick fixes.

A couple of players that didn't fit & a conditional 3rd reduce our odds of being good down the road? Do you really believe that putting the players seen as core in a losing situation is better than getting @ least close to the prize?

 

 

 

 

[phoenix66]

30 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

The weird thing is, we had a pretty solid backup last year in Johnson.  He saved the season for us, but when his play slipped later in the season we decided not to bring him back.  He's not a starter, but that's how we played him and he burned out.  Why BT thought Lack was an upgrade over Johnson i'll never understand.

Johnson chose not to come back , we were talking to him in the negotiation window right up to the end. He wanted starter money and a position to win a starting job. We couldn't offer either of those things 

[Flyerfan52]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

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.

More fun to disagree.

 

BT thought he hit the jackpot with Smith so went to the bargain basement for a backup. The 1st part worked out but part 2 didn't.

Time to eat crow & dump Lack even if as far as the ECHL so we can develop goalies with more future in the organization.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

I totally get why , this is a young goalie who had recent history of being very good, and the explanation of why he fell is acceptable .  He was good enough enough in Vancouver to be picked up by Carolina and projected as their starter .. then they proceeded to try and remake him.. Fail.

This isn't a Jonas Hiller falling off the age cliff..its a kid who needs better coaching . His confidence is shot ..when you're scared to make a mistake, you make more of them .

We have 2 young goalies in the A who BT even said if there was no other options we could have inserted one but it was still a bit of a rush .. no matter what , Lack was not going to be here next season .

That being said...

1) I have no faith that Sigalet is the one to fix him 

2) he needs games to continue to improve and 1 every 9 wont cut it 

 

Like i said earlier , BT isn't stupid..and if he really thinking "win now" his patience is a lot shorter with a position that's not working . I have a gut feeling Lacks leash is as long as his next game.. if he shows no improvement, get him to Stockton , get him playing . Myself I'd bring up Rittich, because now we need to know who he is. Even tho hes still only an RFA after this season , it will be harder to sign him if he thinks hes just going back to Stockton again ..and hes already used to sitting a few then playing 

 

Acquiring a goalie that you needed to "fix" when you had already acquired your starter and talked about how part of the reason you like him is the workload he can handle, doesn't make a lot of sense and is inconsistent with the win now mode he had in the off season. I think Treliving and the Flames went for a cheaper option and now they are paying for that decision. I'm not ripping BT, but I just think it's clear he made a mistake and that happens. It doesn't make sense to acquire a guy you plan to play 55-60 games and then pick up a backup that you need to get games in order to help him improve. Sure you can argue the Flames should have played Lack in a game or two more this season but I have 2 issues with that. 1- he's been bad since day 1 of camp so why do we think an extra game or two at the NHL level is going to change anything and 2 - with how Smith has played when was a good time to take him out and put in a guy that hasn't looked good?

 

 

50 minutes ago, ABC923 said:

The weird thing is, we had a pretty solid backup last year in Johnson.  He saved the season for us, but when his play slipped later in the season we decided not to bring him back.  He's not a starter, but that's how we played him and he burned out.  Why BT thought Lack was an upgrade over Johnson i'll never understand.

 

Don't think that was the reasoning. Johnson was pretty candid in his post season interviews that he wanted a chance to compete for time and Treliving also made it seem like that once they signed Smith Johnson really had no interest in coming here. I also don't think the Flames were prepared to pay over 2 million bucks for a backup.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I don't think so, if the last two Elliott and Johnson were unacceptance from a performance standard the GM has to make changes and replace them, If what he has he deems not ready for NHL full time action he must get the hole filled with the experience and talent level he believes is better than where he was. I think he has done that.

 

I'm just saying, if we look at our "needs" over the last 30 years, none of them were actually weren't "needs" as defined by winning us a Stanley Cup.    And MOST of them weren't even "needs" with regards to significantly better performance in a given year.    

 

Yet they all felt like "needs" at the time.

 

Has Mike Smith won us some games?  Yes.  Will he be the difference maker this season?   That's a huge assumption.

 

Was he the only way of achieving that?  Highly, highly unlikely.

 

Was he a good long term solution?  No.

 

Were there solutions available with better long term outcomes?   Almost definitely.

 

Did we have the same Love-in with Brian Elliot at times last year?   Definitely

 

     Did it last?   Absolutely not.

 

     Does it ever last?   Almost never.   

                   Maybe with Kipper.   But Still not enough. 

                   Because...again, we kept sacrificing out future, and basically used up his entire career without assembling a good enough team in front of him. 

                   Lots of short term acquisitions that cost us big within 3-5 year windows (Kipper's career)

                   Overplayed him too.

 

 

So I'm saying flat out:   Are the odds good that we will look favorably on the Mike Smith acquisition?   No, those odds are historically very poor.  Same or worse than they were with Brian Elliot and many before him.    They all lacked foresight.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

A couple of players that didn't fit & a conditional 3rd reduce our odds of being good down the road? Do you really believe that putting the players seen as core in a losing situation is better than getting @ least close to the prize?

 

Conditional or not, we'll lose that 3rd.    Moreso, that it seems to be a 2nd or 3rd every year.  And that is the issue imho with the rent-a-goalies.   Were Smith the only way to achieve wins, then ok.   But, not the case at all.  I see it as lack of foresight, lack of planning, and laziness.  We could have acquired an actual long term solution and gotten similar results.   

 

If Smith leads us deep into the playoffs, my apologies.   But that aside (and very unlikely), we had better options to achieve the same success this year.   

[MAC331]

44 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm just saying, if we look at our "needs" over the last 30 years, none of them were actually weren't "needs" as defined by winning us a Stanley Cup.    And MOST of them weren't even "needs" with regards to significantly better performance in a given year.    

 

Yet they all felt like "needs" at the time.

 

Has Mike Smith won us some games?  Yes.  Will he be the difference maker this season?   That's a huge assumption.

 

Was he the only way of achieving that?  Highly, highly unlikely.

 

Was he a good long term solution?  No.

 

Were there solutions available with better long term outcomes?   Almost definitely.

 

Did we have the same Love-in with Brian Elliot at times last year?   Definitely

 

     Did it last?   Absolutely not.

 

     Does it ever last?   Almost never.   

                   Maybe with Kipper.   But Still not enough. 

                   Because...again, we kept sacrificing out future, and basically used up his entire career without assembling a good enough team in front of him. 

                   Lots of short term acquisitions that cost us big within 3-5 year windows (Kipper's career)

                   Overplayed him too.

 

 

So I'm saying flat out:   Are the odds good that we will look favorably on the Mike Smith acquisition?   No, those odds are historically very poor.  Same or worse than they were with Brian Elliot and many before him.    They all lacked foresight.

Man I am glad you alone live in that head of yours. I choose not to dwell in the past especially 30 years LOL.

[jjgallow]

21 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Man I am glad you alone live in that head of yours. I choose not to dwell in the past especially 30 years LOL.

 

Then you will inevitably re-live it.   If you want something better, or different, you may not want to ignore the past.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, MAC331 said:

You are dealing in hypotheticals whenever you are discussing the future and attempting to address our chances of success with players we do not even have yet. A GM's job every year is to try and build a winning roster taking into account where he is with what he has already. When it comes to our Goalie pipeline I think the Flames are in as good a shape as they have ever been. We need these two season from Smith IMO to try and have the smoothest transition to a well developed replacement from within.

 

Its a known fact that the chances of being a contender these days is by building your team through the draft rather than free agency and trading away futures. 

 

Sure we don’t know what the players will be like, but it still cost a lot to get Player’s we weren’t able to develop ourselves. 

 

So it’s still a question of our development system? Drafting? When teams like St. Louis are able to cycle through Player’s and stay competitive and Stanley cup threats? 

 

I think JJ has a bit of a point, but so do you. It’s tough when we are chasing our own tails, so we have to go outside... 

 

i feel like we’ve been JUST mediocre so far. Why is it that a team can’t play better and more sound when they don’t have confidence in the goalie? Why do they forget how to play the game when they have no confidence in someone?

 

Ive only ever played beer league... so I just know I try be more structured in my own game when we get a sub goalie who looks shaky. 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Conditional or not, we'll lose that 3rd.    Moreso, that it seems to be a 2nd or 3rd every year.  And that is the issue imho with the rent-a-goalies.   Were Smith the only way to achieve wins, then ok.   But, not the case at all.  I see it as lack of foresight, lack of planning, and laziness.  We could have acquired an actual long term solution and gotten similar results.   

 

If Smith leads us deep into the playoffs, my apologies.   But that aside (and very unlikely), we had better options to achieve the same success this year.   

I'll bite.

Who was this actual long term solution & what was the cost?

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I'll bite.

Who was this actual long term solution & what was the cost?

 

Ortio for Monahan....

[Thebrewcrew]

33/35 for Rittich last night. He now has a 2.17 GAA and .931 SV%. At 25 years old if he's not ready for a backup role now, then he never will.

 

My thinking is Lack starts next Saturday in COL. If he does well then he buys himself some time, if not it's 3 strikes you're out IMO.

 

I know that it feels like everyone is panicked over a couple poor starts, but the reality is that the league is so tight now that you can't have a drop off between your starter and backup. If we wanna be a playoff team we are gonna need 10-15 wins from our backup.