[Trade] Flames acquire Mike Smith (25% retained) for Chad Johnson, Brandon Hickey, & cond 3rd

[Gaudfather]

The issue in Carolina for Lack, was the lack of fit.

The goalie coach there tried to change his style of play, have him play out of the net more and use more skating around his crease. That was not what Lack was comfortable with and his numbers there reflected that.

I think both GG and Sigalet understand that and will have Lack play to his strengths and natural comfort as opposed to super imposing a style of play that he is not familiar with.

It will be interesting to see how he responds to this.

[Locke]

Its also important to note that Lack is now on his 3rd organization.

This is 'Journeyman-backup' territory and pretty much everyone knows it.

So hes got something to prove. If he thinks he has what it takes to be a starter he is rapidly running out of time and chances to prove it so he best start taking the ones that come his way.

[Erick Estrada]

Not too worried about Lack. If he becomes an important story for the Flames next season the chances are it means the Mike Smith experiment failed for one reason or another which kind of dooms the team anyway. Maybe not as extreme as say Edmonton if Brossoit was a big story for the Oilers it likely means Talbot suffered a major injury and it's back to the draft lottery for that organization but it certainly would cast a dark cloud on the Flames playoff aspirations.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its also important to note that Lack is now on his 3rd organization.

This is 'Journeyman-backup' territory and pretty much everyone knows it...

I am only bringing this up because for some reason Anti Raanta has been introduced to this discussion, but he is also now in his third organisation, and for some reason is also lauded as an "up and coming" young goalie, despite being only one year younger than Eddie Lack.

[Roof-Daddy]

Mike Smith's ability is clearly there to be an average level NHL goalie, as that's what he was behind one of the most putrid teams in the league for the last 5 years. Fortunately that's all the Flames really need as well, just steady average NHL goaltending. Mt only concerns with Smith are:

1. Can he stay healthy?
2. Can he handle a much bigger spot light?

If the answer is yes to those questions, the Flames should be in good hands for the nxt 2 seasons.


As for Raanta, well he won't be a back up behind the Rangers or Hawks next season, so we are going to find out what he's made of.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Irrelevant comparison? They are one year apart in age, and both have been in the NHL for 4 years as backups.

The comparison is very relevant, but you seem to have a bias against Lack. It is pretty well documented that they changed his playing style in Carolina and it hurt his performance. Whether or not you 'buy' that doesn't really change that fact. And his performance improved substantially during the latter part of last season, as he moved away from the style.

But what's the point in bringing Raanta into the debate? I didn't mention him and I don't understand what he has to do whether Lack is a capable goalie.

I don't have a "bias" against Lack. I just don't believe he's very good and I don't really believe in blaming coaching for a goalie's performance. There are no "facts" that support coaching was the reason for his play but it's an OK theory. We'll see if the Flames accomplished goalie whisperer can turn him around.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am only bringing this up because for some reason Anti Raanta has been introduced to this discussion, but he is also now in his third organisation, and for some reason is also lauded as an "up and coming" young goalie, despite being only one year younger than Eddie Lack.

I also don't understand what Raanta has to do with anything. But other than age, he is not that similar to Lack. Raanta is unproven as a starter, after posting some stellar results as a back up. That gives people hope he can perform that was as a starter. His results have stayed strong, or improved year over year.

Lack was given opportunity to start and crapped the bed. Maybe he can rebound, and maybe it was all due to coaching, as some believe.

But neither are up and comers. One is looking to prove himself as a starter. One is looking to rebound.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by IrishSpring2013

lack is more..reclaimation.. then up and comer.. he is accountable, for his own play.. but that doesnt mean he's a bad person.. seems like a jovial guy.. wasnt he better down the stretch.. after a tounge lashing? id feel more comfortable with lack then croissant.. though why we're talking about lack.. then comparing him to the oilers back up... in a thread anout mike smith.. was confusing..

MrMastadonFarm is rolling in his grave at those ellipsis.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But what's the point in bringing Raanta into the debate? I didn't mention him and I don't understand what he has to do whether Lack is a capable goalie.

I think upon reflection on the last couple pages off this thread that Mike F is the source for introducing Raanta to the discussion.

I don't have a "bias" against Lack. I just don't believe he's very good and I don't really believe in blaming coaching for a goalie's performance. There are no "facts" that support coaching was the reason for his play but it's an OK theory. We'll see if the Flames accomplished goalie whisperer can turn him around.

What sort of "facts" would satisfy your burden of proof in this instance?

I would tend to agree with abstaining from blaming goalie coaches for a goaltenders shortcomings in instances where there is nothing more than correlation from which to draw. But in the case of Lack, there is actually a clear demonstration of change in tactics that also corresponds to a dramatic reduction of positive results.

I am curious as to why you discount the alteration to his game that he experienced under David Marcoux as a viable explanation for his poorer performance in Carolina.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think upon reflection on the last couple pages off this thread that Mike F is the source for introducing Raanta to the discussion.


What sort of "facts" would satisfy your burden of proof in this instance?

I would tend to agree with abstaining from blaming goalie coaches for a goaltenders shortcomings in instances where there is nothing more than correlation from which to draw. But in the case of Lack, there is actually a clear demonstration of change in tactics that also corresponds to a dramatic reduction of positive results.

I am curious as to why you discount the alteration to his game that he experienced under David Marcoux as a viable explanation for his poorer performance in Carolina.

So you are stating its a fact that his poor play in Carolina is due to his goalie coach, or that it's a theory? My instinct is that a good goalie wouldn't be ruined by a bad goalie coach. Kind of like how bad hitting coaches generally don't ruin good hitters.

But I hope you're right TC. Admire your optimism.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So you are stating its a fact that his poor play in Carolina is due to his goalie coach, or that it's a theory? My instinct is that a good goalie wouldn't be ruined by a bad goalie coach. Kind of like how bad hitting coaches generally don't ruin good hitters.

I think what I am stating is that the demand for facts in this discussion is too high a burden of proof, because no one here has anything to offer of the like sort. I suspect that some intuitions are stronger than others, and in this case—unlike many others in which a goalie's individual play suffers so dramatically as Lack's did in the move from Vancouver to Carolina—the explanation offered seems too be a sensible one.

But I hope you're right TC. Admire your optimism.

I would feel better if Lack was returning to work with Rollie Melanson. We shall see how this turns out.

[getbak]

Did anyone here watch much of Lack last season? It's interesting how much his stats changed after Peters called him out after that bad game against Tampa.

That game was on March 1. Even though it was so late in the season, it was actually the halfway point of Lack's season (he missed almost 3 months due to a concussion). That was his 8th start and 10th game overall.

After the Tampa game, he had a 2-4-2 record with a .873 SV% and a 3.33 GAA.

He then went on to play another 10 games before the end of the season. In those 10 games, he had a 6-3-1 record with a .925 SV% and a 2.09 GAA.



That's why I'm curious to hear from someone who actually watched him last season. If his early record was the result of trying to adapt his style to how Marcoux wanted him to play, and his later style was him saying "Screw it, I'll play the way I play and if you don't like it, bench me", I'm more optimistic about what he can bring to the Flames.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by getbak

Did anyone here watch much of Lack last season? It's interesting how much his stats changed after Peters called him out after that bad game against Tampa.

That game was on March 1. Even though it was so late in the season, it was actually the halfway point of Lack's season (he missed almost 3 months due to a concussion). That was his 8th start and 10th game overall.

After the Tampa game, he had a 2-4-2 record with a .873 SV% and a 3.33 GAA.

He then went on to play another 10 games before the end of the season. In those 10 games, he had a 6-3-1 record with a .925 SV% and a 2.09 GAA.



That's why I'm curious to hear from someone who actually watched him last season. If his early record was the result of trying to adapt his style to how Marcoux wanted him to play, and his later style was him saying "Screw it, I'll play the way I play and if you don't like it, bench me", I'm more optimistic about what he can bring to the Flames.

As an aside, this is an interesting commentary on the starter vs backup situation mentioned earlier. 55-60 game starters can have a bad eight game stretch top open their season and it's a blip on the radar for their whole-season aggregate performance. We even saw it with Kipprusoff in some years. Elsewhere, I've noticed it in recent years with guys like Lehtonen, Andersen, and Bobrovsky. Yet if a backup has a poor stretch of games, it will completely kill all positive perception of their season. The idea that it's easier to play well for 25 games than for 60 is flawed, because it's easier to make up a lone bad stretch with a bigger sample.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

As an aside, this is an interesting commentary on the starter vs backup situation mentioned earlier. 55-60 game starters can have a bad eight game stretch top open their season and it's a blip on the radar for their whole-season aggregate performance. We even saw it with Kipprusoff in some years. Elsewhere, I've noticed it in recent years with guys like Lehtonen, Andersen, and Bobrovsky. Yet if a backup has a poor stretch of games, it will completely kill all positive perception of their season. The idea that it's easier to play well for 25 games than for 60 is flawed, because it's easier to make up a lone bad stretch with a bigger sample.

Except that it is not, because it is fundamentally much more difficult to play at high enough of a level over a long enough period of time to cement oneself as a bona fide starting goalie. If it were indeed easier, then every backup goalie who strings together a good spat of games would emerge as a NHL starter.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think what I am stating is that the demand for facts in this discussion is too high a burden of proof, because no one here has anything to offer of the like sort. I suspect that some intuitions are stronger than others, and in this case—unlike many others in which a goalie's individual play suffers so dramatically as Lack's did in the move from Vancouver to Carolina—the explanation offered seems too be a sensible one.


I would feel better if Lack was returning to work with Rollie Melanson. We shall see how this turns out.

Agreed. Which is why I questioned a poster who resorted to stating the "facts" about the reasons for Lack's performance in Carolina after stating I had a bias against him. The only facts are his results.

I would be careful about overstating Lack's results in Vancouver. He had a very good 2014/15 season. Maybe that's how good he is or maybe that's his peak. But sometimes goalies get figured out and don't adapt. Check out Chad Johnson's 2013/14 season.

I know nothing about goalie coaches. Maybe the Carolina coach was actually trying to help him after noticing a flaw in his game that would surely be exposed. The argument that he "ruined" his game seems a little far fetched to me, even though somebody in an interview somewhere put it forward as a theory.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Except that it is not, because it is fundamentally much more difficult to play at high enough of a level over a long enough period of time to cement oneself as a bona fide starting goalie. If it were indeed easier, then every backup goalie who strings together a good spat of games would emerge as a NHL starter.

Well, no.

You're either a good goalie or you're not a good goalie.

There are not-good goalies who are "starters" and there are good goalies who are "backups". That's why for every Cam Talbot, Cory Schneider, or Martin Jones going from Backup to Starter seemlessly, there's still a Ondrej Pavelec, Antti Niemi, Cam Ward, or Marc-Andre Fleury who have been bad starters essentially their whole career.

I guess we'll find out next year if Mike Smith is a good goalie, or just a "starting mediocre goalie".

[Duffalufagus]

Colour me skeptical about Smith. I am nervous.

[ReinhartonD]

Originally Posted by getbak

Did anyone here watch much of Lack last season? It's interesting how much his stats changed after Peters called him out after that bad game against Tampa.

That game was on March 1. Even though it was so late in the season, it was actually the halfway point of Lack's season (he missed almost 3 months due to a concussion). That was his 8th start and 10th game overall.

After the Tampa game, he had a 2-4-2 record with a .873 SV% and a 3.33 GAA.

He then went on to play another 10 games before the end of the season. In those 10 games, he had a 6-3-1 record with a .925 SV% and a 2.09 GAA.



That's why I'm curious to hear from someone who actually watched him last season. If his early record was the result of trying to adapt his style to how Marcoux wanted him to play, and his later style was him saying "Screw it, I'll play the way I play and if you don't like it, bench me", I'm more optimistic about what he can bring to the Flames.

I too think Lack can be better if the Flames work with his strengths--after listening to Kevin Woodley, from InGoal magazine, talk about him before the Flames signed Lack.

Not sure if this link will work, but he pretty much explains his reasoning in an interview with Vancouver radio on June 27--if you can, skip ahead to the 18:10 mark and listen to what he says: http://www.tsn.ca/radio/audio/sekere...our-2-1.790437

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think upon reflection on the last couple pages off this thread that Mike F is the source for introducing Raanta to the discussion.

Hey, don't try to throw me on this fire! I never mentioned Lack. If Raanta came up in a discussion of Lack, someone else dragged him there.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Well, no.

You're either a good goalie or you're not a good goalie.

There are not-good goalies who are "starters" and there are good goalies who are "backups". That's why for every Cam Talbot, Cory Schneider, or Martin Jones going from Backup to Starter seemlessly, there's still a Ondrej Pavelec, Antti Niemi, Cam Ward, or Marc-Andre Fleury who have been bad starters essentially their whole career.

I guess we'll find out next year if Mike Smith is a good goalie, or just a "starting mediocre goalie".

Trolling the posters who wanted MAF here?

It's "seamlessly" BTW.