travel_dude Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Not Ortio, still only at about 14 games, and assuming ATOs count as when he signed his 1st nhl contract his age rule wont kick in until after next season. If ATOs dont count, then still about 2 years away, or until he hits his 60 games.his one way contract does not impact his waiver eligibilityWell, there are numerous people, websites, and NHL sources that say so. Disagree if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 From what we have sen this year we have two goalies that play well at the NHL level, and 1 potential. Every team has a book on Ramo and Hiller, yet they still play well. Our goal tending is the major reason why we are in most games. Sign Ramo, unless a team is going to give you the moon. Ortio will have to fight for a spot next season. The only position this year that has been solid is goaltending. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix66 Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Well, there are numerous people, websites, and NHL sources that say so. Disagree if you wish. I'm using the CBA--heres a link .. http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-waiver-rules/ this is the chart from the CBA He signed his Entry Level Deal March 30, 2011 at the age of 19(his birthday is April 1991).. which, based on the chart sets him at 5 years or 80 nhl games, meaning his waiver eligibility based on age sets it at March of 2016. He started 9 games for the heat the season on 2011-12, to date has only played 14 NHL games (not sure of that includes back up games) Not sure how 2 seasons back in Finland affects the numbers ,or that he didnt play an NHL game until 2013-14. if anything it would push him back more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Not a lawyer or CBA expert but am about 99% sure he is waiver eligible next year They don't use your age on the day you sign they use the age you will turn in that league year. So while Ortio signed when he was 19, for the purposes of waivers he was 20 and thus only has 3 years exemption which is why he will be wavier eligible next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 The Flames are apparently trying to get the KHL to release goalie Deslauriers so they can sign him to a contract. Colorado (or ECHL) team has brought in a full time replacement for Carr and it looks like they may not expect to see him back anytime soon. The fact that the Flames are trying to move Glencross in the midst of a playoff run show that Treliving hasn't deviated from the rebuild path and doesn't want to lose a free agent for nothing. Add that all up and there is speculation (just chatter at this point) that the Flames may actually move Ramo (or Hiller) before the deadline. Personally I think it's a depth move to replace Ortio. Even with that it doesn't make a bunch of sense to me. But there it is. Trading Glencross smells like seller to me also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 I don't think that trading Glencross smells like seller. Honestly, he's not been a full factor this season. We've won or lost with or without him. I have a feeling they will shop Backlund and Raymond because we've won and lost with or without them as well. If we can get anything for Bollig, I assume they think he's also someone we don't really need. Stajan has been a good soldier, but is playing fourth line minutes. So, I think Treliving is selling off guys who aren't making a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 From the hockey writers: Example: Calgary goaltender Joni Ortio is waiver exempt for four years (or 80 NHL games) because he signed his first deal when he was 20. However, Reto Berra signed his first NHL deal when he was 26, he was only waiver exempt for his first season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zirakzigil Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Ortio will clear waivers, lets be realistic. No team is going to keep him on their roster all season long unless they have massive injuries. Markstrom is a more highly rated goalie and he even cleared this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Ortio will clear waivers, lets be realistic. No team is going to keep him on their roster all season long unless they have massive injuries. Markstrom is a more highly rated goalie and he even cleared this year. yup. Goal is kind of an important position, teams tend to already have their prospects! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I do agree people tend to be too concerned about waivers. Waivers are for adding pieces that can help your team now and is not a good resource for trying to add future assets because you have to offer them back to them team to send them down. I'm sure teams would like Ortio, but I dont' see many teams wanting Ortio to help them right now so I agree having him waiver eligible next year is not a huge concern it is a small concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 There are 30 back-ups in the NHL. Ortio won 4 of 5 starts this season posting a .931 save percentage on the way. Are we suggesting that a team like Edmonton wouldn't pick him up to play over someone like 32 yo Fasth? Maybe you get away with it early in the season when every team figures they are still in the playoff hunt. But even then, a number of teams have back-ups they are rolling the dice on already and wouldn't mind rolling those dice on someone with more long term upside. I wouldn't be taking the risk of I was Calgary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Its like you said though Kehatch, at the beginning of the season everyone usually likes their team and their goaltending and isn't interested in adding someone or adding another contract. The risk comes later in the season but you don't always have to call them up either. There is a small risk sure, but I just don't think its a given they lose him on waivers. Outside of Edmonton and Buffao I can't see other teams that would want him and that assumes that neither Edmonton nor Buffalo improve their goaltending. Having said that, If I had my way I would trade Hiller in the offseason, sign Ramo and run Ramo/Ortio. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreckening Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Its like you said though Kehatch, at the beginning of the season everyone usually likes their team and their goaltending and isn't interested in adding someone or adding another contract. The risk comes later in the season but you don't always have to call them up either. There is a small risk sure, but I just don't think its a given they lose him on waivers. Outside of Edmonton and Buffao I can't see other teams that would want him and that assumes that neither Edmonton nor Buffalo improve their goaltending. Having said that, If I had my way I would trade Hiller in the offseason, sign Ramo and run Ramo/Ortio. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Okay, am I the only guy that believes there's GM collusion in this league? "Screw me over, 8 of us will make you pay". Is that a "just me" thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Okay, am I the only guy that believes there's GM collusion in this league? "Screw me over, 8 of us will make you pay". Is that a "just me" thing? Not sure what you are meaning or getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Not sure what you are meaning or getting at? A level of respect and comaraderie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 A level of respect and comaraderie. Is there something specific that you are thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Okay, am I the only guy that believes there's GM collusion in this league? "Screw me over, 8 of us will make you pay". Is that a "just me" thing? In terms of putting ortio on waivers and thinkng no one will claim him because it screws the flames? I would agree to a point. In 2003 Sutter put Jason Morgan on waivers to send him down but Nashville claimed him. Sutter was none to happy and suddenly within a week jason Morgan was back on waivers and back in calgary. So I think there is some. From what I see teams usually get the players they want to clear waivers cleared but there are some exceptions which is why risking it is always a tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Thanks cross, that is the thought rolling around my pea brain lol. These optics happen often. The Brent Sutter thing, we trade down our #1 with NJ to appease Lou. Feaster leaves Chiarelli with egg on his face, Burke fires Feaster when Boston comes to Calgary. That's just our "coincidences". I may be wrong, but clearing waivers for guys you want to keep is a dilemma for all. If you want to be the GM that plucks from other teams, get ready to be handcuffed with your own moves. So I view it as a risk to waive, certainly, but there is likely calculation behind the risk. So sometimes you see guys clear waivers and wonder why, I believe there is more there than simply claiming anyone off of waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Thanks cross, that is the thought rolling around my pea brain lol. These optics happen often. The Brent Sutter thing, we trade down our #1 with NJ to appease Lou. Feaster leaves Chiarelli with egg on his face, Burke fires Feaster when Boston comes to Calgary. That's just our "coincidences". I may be wrong, but clearing waivers for guys you want to keep is a dilemma for all. If you want to be the GM that plucks from other teams, get ready to be handcuffed with your own moves. So I view it as a risk to waive, certainly, but there is likely calculation behind the risk. So sometimes you see guys clear waivers and wonder why, I believe there is more there than simply claiming anyone off of waivers. Ask Tampa about losing Panik to waivers. Goalies are at risk the least early in the season, but anyone with good number would be an option for a team seeking a good backup. Depends on what is available at FA time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth_henning Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 What will be interesting to see is that if Ramo can sustain his current level of play with consistent starts. If he shows that he can routinely play at or close to the level he's been at these past few games, I think we definiely resign him net year and look at trading Hiller for a D-man, RW, or prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
420since1974 Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Or sign Ramo and pay Orito his NHL salary to play in the AHL. I like our Hiller/Ramo tandem. It's not like the Flames don't have the cap space to do this for one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Or sign Ramo and pay Orito his NHL salary to play in the AHL. I like our Hiller/Ramo tandem. It's not like the Flames don't have the cap space to do this for one year. This option makes sense. Ortio is signed through next year and isn’t going anywhere. Maybe we should extend Ramo for 2 more seasons. That would set up Hiller/Ramo again next year and Ramo/Ortio the following year. I wonder what Ramo would be looking for in another 2 year deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Or sign Ramo and pay Orito his NHL salary to play in the AHL. I like our Hiller/Ramo tandem. It's not like the Flames don't have the cap space to do this for one year. 420, you must have missed the last few pages where this was tossed about. Ortio is on a 1 way deal, and is waiver eligible. He has to be waived to start in the AHL. We can keep 3 goalies, if you like otherwise somebody has to be waived or traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth_henning Posted March 4, 2015 Report Share Posted March 4, 2015 Or sign Ramo and pay Orito his NHL salary to play in the AHL. I like our Hiller/Ramo tandem. It's not like the Flames don't have the cap space to do this for one year. Comes down to whether Ortio is ready for reguar NHL duty AND if we have enough goalies to fill in all the positions in the junior leagues and be competitive there. Then there's the waiver issue. I don't follw the prospects closely enough to answer part two of that, but I feel that Ortio is definitely showing he's ready for a 20-30 game season at the NHL level for a look. A lt of people like Hiller, and while I think he's good, he's not great and I don't think has any upside from where he's played this year. Would I be OK with running with him another year? sure, but he moves at the TDL next year at the absolute latest. If that was the only thing for it, I'd say sure, Let Ortio play most of the season in the A, and then come up fresh(er) for the playoff drive as our depth. But will Ortio clear waivers at the start of next year? I honestly don't think so. There are never many really good goalie prospects available at any time, and some team is going to bite if we try to send him down. I see more upside in Ramo than I do in Hiller at this point, so I think if one has to go we look at trading Hiller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now