Goaltending

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

The fact he didn't get called when it's known both Smith and BSD were playing hurt at some point in the season kinda says it something doesn't it? If there had been a substantial injury to either after the TDL I cant imagine how that would have went.

 

And just so you know, I think he's done.

Focus is now on others.

Talbot can steal the job this year for good by being adequate.

[jjgallow]

47 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Talbot can steal the job this year for good by being adequate.

 

For good, meaning however long he can still steal it at the age of 31 with his career already in decline and becoming a travelling goalie.

 

We can't we just do something right for a change and get a Tristan Jarry or similar.

 

On a less drastic note,  Nick Schneider...what to make of his season last year?   If I'm going for is ECHL performance, I'm thinking he's done.

 

If I go by his AHL performance, he's actually one of the better prospects going right now for his age.

[JTech780]

A little higher than I had hoped.

 

[cross16]

For the people who wanted Bobrovsky. That is.... yikes .......

 

 

[kehatch]

36 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

For good, meaning however long he can still steal it at the age of 31 with his career already in decline and becoming a travelling goalie.

 

We can't we just do something right for a change and get a Tristan Jarry or similar. 

 

It's not a wedding proposal. If you can get a few years out of a player it's a win. Particularly when the acquisition cost is zero. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 

It's not a wedding proposal. If you can get a few years out of a player it's a win. Particularly when the acquisition cost is zero. 

 

Maybe you're right,

 

Because if we keep half-assing the most important position in the game, the current core really has no chance of succeeding.    Which will hasten the need for a rebuild.  If it's bad enough, like it was in the playoffs, maybe there will be a changeup in staff too.

 

And then maybe we'll get the next rebuild right, and build out from our goaltender.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

For good, meaning however long he can still steal it at the age of 31 with his career already in decline and becoming a travelling goalie.

 

We can't we just do something right for a change and get a Tristan Jarry or similar.

 

On a less drastic note,  Nick Schneider...what to make of his season last year?   If I'm going for is ECHL performance, I'm thinking he's done.

 

If I go by his AHL performance, he's actually one of the better prospects going right now for his age.

 

Summer is just starting.

Jarry is there if we make that choice.

Some teams managed to make the 3 headed monster work until they figured it out, then they boobed it up.

[kehatch]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Maybe you're right,

 

Because if we keep half-assing the most important position in the game, the current core really has no chance of succeeding.    Which will hasten the need for a rebuild.  If it's bad enough, like it was in the playoffs, maybe there will be a changeup in staff too.

 

And then maybe we'll get the next rebuild right, and build out from our goaltender.

 

Drama much? There is more then one way to address the position. Step back from the ledge. 

[jjgallow]

49 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

Drama much? There is more then one way to address the position. Step back from the ledge. 

 

No drama here, I can wait.    I know you can't.  You've always been for only looking at the immediate.   I have no idea how you think Talbot versus Smith is a win, Smith was way better last year.   That's a little contorted, even withing the limited scope you're operating.  Every year you say our 30-something goaltender switch is a step up and every year it's not that at all.

 

Talbot, Smith, all I know is neither of them will ever win a cup.   Which means this is a negative for our current core.

[kehatch]

9 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

No drama here, I can wait.    I know you can't.  You've always been for only looking at the immediate.   I have no idea how you think Talbot versus Smith is a win, Smith was way better last year.   That's a little contorted, even withing the limited scope you're operating.  Every year you say our 30-something goaltender switch is a step up and every year it's not that at all.

 

Talbot, Smith, all I know is neither of them will ever win a cup.   Which means this is a negative for our current core.

 

This entire post is dramatic.  Talbot / Smith can never win a cup.  You have no idea how someone could think Talbot is an upgrade over Smith.  Trying to take over both sides of the debate with comments like 'every year you say' and 'even with the limited scope you're operating'.  That is just this post.  It doesn't even touch on the 'we are still old', 'giving up or only playoff player to the Oilers for nothing', 'at least this speeds us towards a rebuild', etc.  

 

This is a 1-year contract for a back-up goalie.  This isn't roof on fire sort of stuff.  

 

My take:

 

• The Flames are hoping Rittich materializes as their starter.  He took a big step forward last season and the Flames are hoping he can take another. 
• Talbot is veteran support to help him.  As fans we discount this a lot, but most of the great goalies had strong veteran support. 
• Hopefully Talbot will rebound some moving from one of the worst to one of the better defensive cores in the NHL. 
• If Rittich doesn't take a step forward and/or Talbot doesn't rebound then both are on flexible contracts allowing the Flames to address it at the deadline / next off season. 
• Even if they wanted Smith back, they wouldn't have the flexibility at the deadline with Smith signed due to his 35+ status and the bonuses. 
• But in reality they probably didn't want Smith back due to his regular season performance and a desire to invest in Rittich as their starter.  

 

Disagree with the take all you want, but maybe with a rational argument.   

 

[jjgallow]

13 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

It's not a wedding proposal. 

 

12 hours ago, kehatch said:

 

 Step back from the ledge. 

 

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 

This entire post is dramatic. 

 

 

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

 

 You have no idea

 

So,

 

I've had to remind you of this before, 

 

But this is not a 1997 IRC chat room.     If you used this tone in person with real people, the person you were targeting, and other people in earshot of you, would have the urge to avoid you, and probably would for quite a while.

 

Everyone reading this is in fact a real person, and if you've noticed less and less people reply to your posts over the years, this is why.

 

You Really need to stop turning every disagreement into something personal.  It's a hockey team playing a hockey game.    Belittling opposing views just isolates you and discourages people from frequenting the site, let alone participating with their own thoughts.

 

Again this isn't the first time I've had to bring this up, and I'm not the only one who notices.

 

Just be respectful.

[kehatch]

Yes.  Humans are at the other end of the keyboard.  Which means people are going to react.  And calling a dramatic post dramatic isn't exactly hurt feelings territory, or at least it shouldn't be. 

 

The quotes you made were either not personal, very mild, or taken completely out of context.  (The last one was me quoting you telling me I have no idea.  Seriously.)  You may also want to look at your own tone if you can't handle any sort of reaction.  For example: 

 

Quote

I can wait.    I know you can't.  You've always been for only looking at the immediate. 

 

Quote

I have no idea how you think Talbot versus Smith is a win

 

Quote

That's a little contorted, even withing the limited scope you're operating

But I tell you what.  You ignore me.  I will ignore you.  Both of us will enjoy the boards more.  

[travel_dude]

Since it's official and we have one year of Talbot as a backup, perhaps we can wait to see what the results look like.

I'm not a big fan of the deal, but it's not a long term thing for an iffy goalie.

Lehner is a good goalie with issues that make him a big risk.

Mzarek has had issues with the role he's played and now wants starter money.

Jarry is a big question mark, but a guy you could take a chance on if you had an emergency chute.

Were never even a possible destination for Bob, and that's not because of the money; he would not play way out here.

Reimer is a risk and at times terrible.

The good prospects are not being dealt.

 

The biggest issue with Talbot for me is the Oiler stink.

Not that he is an ex-Oiler just that he has been beat down and will need to get back his game.

He has the development history to be good to great.

Big concern for me is any dealings he has with Sigalet.

[Davis1891]

22 minutes ago, kehatch said:

Yes.  Humans are at the other end of the keyboard.  Which means people are going to react.  And calling a dramatic post dramatic isn't exactly hurt feelings territory, or at least it shouldn't be. 

 

The quotes you made were either not personal, very mild, or taken completely out of context.  (The last one was me quoting you telling me I have no idea.  Seriously.)  You may also want to look at your own tone if you can't handle any sort of reaction.  For example: 

 

 

 

But I tell you what.  You ignore me.  I will ignore you.  Both of us will enjoy the boards more.  

 

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

 

 

So,

 

I've had to remind you of this before, 

 

But this is not a 1997 IRC chat room.     If you used this tone in person with real people, the person you were targeting, and other people in earshot of you, would have the urge to avoid you, and probably would for quite a while.

 

Everyone reading this is in fact a real person, and if you've noticed less and less people reply to your posts over the years, this is why.

 

You Really need to stop turning every disagreement into something personal.  It's a hockey team playing a hockey game.    Belittling opposing views just isolates you and discourages people from frequenting the site, let alone participating with their own thoughts.

 

Again this isn't the first time I've had to bring this up, and I'm not the only one who notices.

 

Just be respectful.

I’m thinking someone should create a fight club thread to take these types of arguments into, instead of clogging up the  hockey talk.

[Davis1891]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Since it's official and we have one year of Talbot as a backup, perhaps we can wait to see what the results look like.

I'm not a big fan of the deal, but it's not a long term thing for an iffy goalie.

Lehner is a good goalie with issues that make him a big risk.

Mzarek has had issues with the role he's played and now wants starter money.

Jarry is a big question mark, but a guy you could take a chance on if you had an emergency chute.

Were never even a possible destination for Bob, and that's not because of the money; he would not play way out here.

Reimer is a risk and at times terrible.

The good prospects are not being dealt.

 

The biggest issue with Talbot for me is the Oiler stink.

Not that he is an ex-Oiler just that he has been beat down and will need to get back his game.

He has the development history to be good to great.

Big concern for me is any dealings he has with Sigalet.

I’m not seeing anything posted anywhere that he’s actually signed, can you tell me what his contract is?

[travel_dude]

9 minutes ago, Davis1891 said:

I’m not seeing anything posted anywhere that he’s actually signed, can you tell me what his contract is?

ONe year at 2.75m

[travel_dude]

[Davis1891]

24 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

ONe year at 2.75m

It’s a little higher then what I hoped for, 2.25 max is what I thought. I’m okay with it though. 

[kehatch]

7 minutes ago, Davis1891 said:

It’s a little higher then what I hoped for, 2.25 max is what I thought. I’m okay with it though. 

 

As far as July 1 signings go, not too bad.  Its tough to regret a 1-year deal for under 3-million.  Low risk signing.  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, kehatch said:

But I tell you what.  You ignore me.  I will ignore you.  Both of us will enjoy the boards more.  

 

I stopped responding years ago, which is why I was surprised to see you start responding to my posts.

 

Let's just both be better and stick to facts and the discussion.  Because it's clear you're not going to ignore my posts.

 

I've been pushing for the Flames to start with a young goalie pipeline for years.  Simple reason, most (90%+ of) Stanley-Cup winning goalies were developed in-house and have years of familiarity with their team.  This isn't Tinder, you're building a system which should be effective at the reflex level.

 

The annoying part is in the rebuild we had extremely similar opinions of what to do with goaltending.  Our only disagreement really was that I held out hope for Ortio by an extra year.  And Ramo.     But when the young prospects let you down, as they did me, you gave up.  And now I have too, in terms of developing them.   We should probably just acquire.  But I'm not sure why you're giving up on the whole concept, which you have supported, of building a team around a young goalie.

 

You had a really nice post once, you started out making an incredibly sarcastic post about me but I know that's just all you know,

 

And then you illustrated a priority list of what the Flames need to do in net, from 1-4.   Which was very well thought out and I agreed with so much I didn't respond to your totally unnecessary insults.

 

• Number 1 was acquire a competent Young goalie who is NHL ready.  Build around him.
• Number 4 the "last resort", is acquire a declining veteran on a short term deal (like we just did with Talbot).

 

By your own posts on here,  you are giving up and trying to plug holes in this ship.  By your own methodology, this is an absolute last resort.   And by your own posts, this should NEVER happen as it is quite honestly Not that hard to acquire goalies in trades.  Even good young prospects.

 

By your own analysis, the Flames have gone with option 4.     They either don't get it, or they've given up.   

 

If I am being dramatic now, then you must have been dramatic then.

 

Look,

 

We've had some big fights about Ramo.   That's about 80% of our confrontations.

 

Sorry, but,  I was right.  No matter how much you bashed the opinion.

 

I'm telling you now, if Rittich is your next Ramo,  it's going to be a repeat on that but much worse.  We need better than Another injury prone 26 year old with declining performance and a .911 save percentage.   We've been trying the old "but Kipper was 26" thing for a decade now and it's gotten us nowhere fast.

[travel_dude]

I don't see Rittich as being injury prone.

Smith, yes.

First and foremost, we needed to sign a backup, because BSD at his best was exactly what the Flames were looking for.

Are there better options available?

That's really hard to tell.

None of the younger ones are without risk.

We just sgned a younger prospect and drafted a young one.

But we also have to see something positive happen in the development side.

Parsons taking a step.

Zagidulin looking like a pro.

Gillies looking capable of winning more than 1 in 3.

 

Until then, we have to play the game.

 

[Davis1891]

56 minutes ago, kehatch said:

 

As far as July 1 signings go, not too bad.  Its tough to regret a 1-year deal for under 3-million.  Low risk signing.  

Agreed, as long as it’s more of a filler for Rittich (and anyone else in the pipes) to continue to grow as opposed as a mentor role. If he shines, then it’s an added bonus

[jjgallow]

30 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

None of the younger ones are without risk.

 

I agree, none of the younger ones are without risk.

 

But signing a 30+ goalie with a save percentage under .900 and showing no signs of getting better since an undisclosed injury in 2017.....

 

That is beyond risk.  This is the stuff of playing the jackpot.

 

And it's not without a cost.  Every game he plays is one more game we're not ensuring a future by playing a far more capable younger goalie.   If we're willing to go sub .900 we can pick up any number of 21 year old goalies who can deliver better right now in the NHL, for really not that much.

 

It might be different if we hadn't tried this method already for the last 6 or so years, and we hadn't seen 6 or so years of sub-optimal goaltending.  Then we'd have a real debate.

[phoenix66]

9 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree, none of the younger ones are without risk.

 

But signing a 30+ goalie with a save percentage under .900 and showing no signs of getting better since an undisclosed injury in 2017.....

 

That is beyond risk.  This is the stuff of playing the jackpot.

 

And it's not without a cost.  Every game he plays is one more game we're not ensuring a future by playing a far more capable younger goalie.   If we're willing to go sub .900 we can pick up any number of 21 year old goalies who can deliver better right now in the NHL, for really not that much.

 

It might be different if we hadn't tried this method already for the last 6 or so years, and we hadn't seen 6 or so years of sub-optimal goaltending.  Then we'd have a real debate.

But you are taking one year of his career .. and you cant overlook where he was 

a few years back , ive said it before.. it was all about finding the hotshot backup ready to be a starter .. in fact " the next Talbot " was a commonly used phrase .

Irony is WE were very close to getting him over Edmonton ..  how would everybody feel now ?

 

I agree full that the goal is to develop Rittich .. but to bash Talbot makes no sense over 1 bad year 

 

 

 

just like i find it baffling .. nearly everybody on this board , has written off a great regular season because " only playoffs matter ".. but yet most are cheering the fact we just cut loose the All Time League Leader in Playoff save %....  all hes ever done is dial it up when he gets to the playoffs ..cant have it both ways 

[travel_dude]

12 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree, none of the younger ones are without risk.

 

But signing a 30+ goalie with a save percentage under .900 and showing no signs of getting better since an undisclosed injury in 2017.....

 

That is beyond risk.  This is the stuff of playing the jackpot.

 

And it's not without a cost.  Every game he plays is one more game we're not ensuring a future by playing a far more capable younger goalie.   If we're willing to go sub .900 we can pick up any number of 21 year old goalies who can deliver better right now in the NHL, for really not that much.

 

It might be different if we hadn't tried this method already for the last 6 or so years, and we hadn't seen 6 or so years of sub-optimal goaltending.  Then we'd have a real debate.

 

Some mystery injury a few years ago?

Well, anyway Rittich is the starter.

Mistake not playing him in the playoffs.

As long as JS doesn't try to mess with either, they will be fine.

Rittich sholdn't start 50 gams this year.  

You need a fresh goalie.

Talbot will help that.

Jarry might end up being a worse solution because it puts pressure to start the starter.