[GDT] Flames vs Sabres - 5:00 - SNet 360

[Petert]

Hartley and his foolish decisions all year long?
My sanity is becoming an issue because I did not skip more games.

Hartley + Hiller?
I don't need the torture.
Providing starts for Hiller gains the Flames ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Providing starts for Backstrom costs the Flames ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Seriously, if he hates Ortio that much, may as well just starts Backstrom and gets those promised starts out of the way.

I can easily catch the highlights if Sam and Johnny massacre the opponents.
As if Hartley will actually leave that line alone for the whole game to begin with, lol.
Most likely scenario is Johnny goes back to Sean's wing to be stuck with Joe.

Just another fine display of Hartley and his favouritisms.
Always earned, never given my rat ass.
Watch Wideman goes back to 1st PP unit as soon as he comes back.

[heep223]

^ is that a poem?

[kehatch]

The fact that there is this much controversy on this (and other) forums, on social media, and even by normally objective media personalities like Haynes and Steinberg just shows you how inexplicable this decision is.

I love how easy some fans swallow the BS. "You know, ahh, we are going to follow a set goalie rotation like dey do in minor ockey now because Ahh, we'll because..." I hope to have some of you as my jury one day if I need it.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Which is why Ortio will continue to get plenty of starts down the stretch.


Under certain conditions I would agree. But this presumes that he three healthy Flames goalies are jockeying for position in the lineup right now, which I very much doubt. I think it is more likely that the coaching staff has already outlined a playing schedule, and all three know exactly where they stand. As such, no, I don't believe Ortio, Hiller, or Backstrom are the least bit bothered when they do not start a game in which they were not scheduled to play.


Why does it matter at this point? Ortio is only 24-years-old, and will not be the Flames starter at the beginning of next season, if at all.


I can't agree, because you are wrong.

You are responding irrationally and with incredible short sight to a situation that has not yet played itself out. I and others continue to point to very good reasons why it would make sense to start Hiller in tonight's game in stead of Ortio, and yet you remain obstinately committed to this notion that somehow this is unequivocally a huge mistake. It doesn't make any sense.

Oh get over yourself. Me and others have pointed out many reasons why it makes more sense for Ortio to start and you've made selective quotes to counter arguments and have the audacity to believe that you're right, as if your assumptions of written starter schedules, goalies not bothered, or Ortio getting starts down the stretch is somehow more rational than other speculative points introduced.

The fact is you don't know anymore about what Hartley is planning or what goes on in the locker room, and therefore your commitment to your notions are equally flawed. The difference between us is that YOU ARE the only one too proud and irrational to accept an agreeance to disagree. You are the only one to call the other one blatantly wrong, and yet you suggest that I'm "obstinately committed". Hmmmm, sounds like hypocrisy

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Indeed. Management never benches pros. Never. I mean who would ever park Backstrom on the bench (for example) or waive a veteran pro. Never seen that recently.

This is not a team competing for the playoffs, and looks very likely to finish the season with a lottery pick, and with two aging, pending UFA goaltenders on their roster. The circumstances are such that benching either of them does nothing positive, and actually only serves to frustrate and anger two veteran players.

I also agree that management owes starts to these contracted millionaires. Much better to forward their careers then give opportunities to developing talent (who most of you didn't have any concern with rotting on the bench and in the press box despite the potential impact to their careers).

Without knowing all that went into the decision to have Ortio "rotting on the bench" it doesn't really follow that we can have any insight into what potential impact it had on his career. It sounds to me like you are more resentful about the money earned by Hiller than you are concerned about Ortio's development which is practically guaranteed to continue into next season.

I also agree that treating Hiller ad the backup and giving him sheltered starts over the developing goalie makes a lot of sense. It's a fantastic defense really.

Well, I fail to see how this decision will cause any harm to anyone whatsoever. If we all agree that Ortio has looked quite good in his previous three or four games, then would it not also follow that the decision to play him against the Penguins as opposed to the Sabres shows a high level of confidence on the part of the coaches? He has held his own against LA, Boston, NYI and Anaheim. Why should anyone think that he is incapable of playing well and getting a win against Pittsburgh?

The problem with trying to rationalize irrational decisions is that it leads to more irrational horse poop.

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, there really is no good reason to consider the goaltending decision in tonight's game an irrational one.

[AC]

Saw this on r/calgaryflames:

[kehatch]

He played well last game and isnt getting the start this game despite every other goalie getting that opportunity this season. Sounds like a pretty sound "good reason".

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by kehatch

The fact that there is this much controversy on this (and other) forums, on social media, and even by normally objective media personalities like Haynes and Steinberg just shows you how inexplicable this decision is.

I love how easy some fans swallow the BS. "You know, ahh, we are going to follow a set goalie rotation like dey do in minor ockey now because Ahh, we'll because..." I hope to have some of you as my jury one day if I need it.

Thinking that it is okay to give Hiller a game once in a while does not mean having to agree with every decision.

It is possible (at least for some of us anyway) to make decisions and form opinions on events individually.

[dissentowner]

I can't believe there are this many peeved off people over which goalie is starting this game. It doesn't matter! Watch the young players develop, look forward to the draft, and relax.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kehatch

He played well last game and isnt getting the start this game despite every other goalie getting that opportunity this season. Sounds like a pretty sound "good reason".

He played well against LA, and lost. Then got the next start against NYI.
He played well against NYI and lost. Then he got the next start against Ott.
Ortio has started four of the last five games.

Sounds like you are ignoring the coaches' handling of Ortio since his callup.

[MarkGio]

To me it makes more sense for Ortio to play against Buffalo because maybe he'll get a win and some confidence than it is to give it to Hiller, who will likely get a victory against a lousy team and then get another start because he "earned it" with his victory.

[GranteedEV]

Despite falling under the category of "Ortio Supporter" I have no problem with Hiller starting. I'm sure all the goalies have dates pencilled into the coaches' schedules that they will start. This isn't about Ortio dropping the ball it's more like "Hiller starts Monday, Ortio starts Tuesday/Wednesday, Backstrom Starts Friday, Ortio Starts Monday/Tuesday, Hiller starts Thursday.

They've very obviously waived the white flag since the day Hiller crapped the bed in Anaheim & Arizona.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Hiller is a pro. Backstrom is a pro. Management isn't going to bench these guys for the rest of the season even though YOU might want them to.

If you look at all the remaining games this season this is a good game to play our backup. Certainly much better to play Hiller this game then against the Pens on Sat.

Treliving has already gone on record saying they are going to give Ortio the bulk of the starts. So I don't know why anybody can be unhappy with this.

I'm all for this circus to pick up steam for the last few weeks of the season. Keep this up a while longer and the Flames quest for the draft lottery will soon possess the momentum of a runaway freight train.

Hartley, please stay on course by starting your worst goalie ad nausea and juggling the lines at will. We just might be rewarded for having a very honest, yet completely inexcusable awful season to the likes of which our neighbors to the north could be proud of.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thinking that it is okay to give Hiller a game once in a while does not mean having to agree with every decision.

It is possible (at least for some of us anyway) to make decisions and form opinions on events individually.

I don't have a problem with Hiller getting another start this season. It's not like he hasn't started. He started two game ago.

Ortio played well last game. He hasn't been given much of an opportunity to get on a roll this season. It was the automatic and easy decision to start Ortio this game that almost everyone expected. In all likelihood you and the other rationalozers in the crowd thought the same thing. But Bob didn't make it and his explanation of following a minor league rotation makes little sense.

Which is why of the respected Calgary media are confused. It's why many of the posters are confused.

I can even buy an argument like "it's an odd decision, but it's one game let's not worry to much about it." But the "you guys are a bunch of dummies for thinking this is an odd decision. Let me explain to you (in a very irrational way) why it's not an odd decision" arguments are silly.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

To me it makes more sense for Ortio to play against Buffalo because maybe he'll get a win and some confidence than it is to give it to Hiller, who will likely get a victory against a lousy team and then get another start because he "earned it" with his victory.

What if they lose?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

To me it makes more sense for Ortio to play against Buffalo because maybe he'll get a win and some confidence than it is to give it to Hiller, who will likely get a victory against a lousy team and then get another start because he "earned it" with his victory.

I guess we will have to see. But this is far from a foregone conclusion.

[Petert]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is not a team competing for the playoffs, and looks very likely to finish the season with a lottery pick, and with two aging, pending UFA goaltenders on their roster. The circumstances are such that benching either of them does nothing positive, and actually only serves to frustrate and anger two veteran players.

Hiller utterly crap the bed when he got to play.
Now we have to take care of his feelings too?
Did you not say he is a "pro"?
Playing him does nothing positive is more like it.

Without knowing all that went into the decision to have Ortio "rotting on the bench" it doesn't really follow that we can have any insight into what potential impact it had on his career. It sounds to me like you are more resentful about the money earned by Hiller than you are concerned about Ortio's development which is practically guaranteed to continue into next season.

Hartley has been making foolish decisions all year.
Just have to come to the conclusion that he is not a very good coach, then everything becomes more explainable.

Well, I fail to see how this decision will cause any harm to anyone whatsoever. If we all agree that Ortio has looked quite good in his previous three or four games, then would it not also follow that the decision to play him against the Penguins as opposed to the Sabres shows a high level of confidence on the part of the coaches? He has held his own against LA, Boston, NYI and Anaheim. Why should anyone think that he is incapable of playing well and getting a win against Pittsburgh?

Is there a rule that Ortio cannot play against the Pens 2 days later if he gets to play against the Sabres?
The same coach who played Ramo in back-to-back games while rotting Ortio on the bench?

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, there really is no good reason to consider the goaltending decision in tonight's game an irrational one.

The irrational part is justifying this irrational decision.

[Bingo]

a 12 page brawl over a starting goaltender between two teams that have zero chance to make the playoffs is another example of why I'm glad I'm a Calgarian and not the owner of nashvillepuck.com

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What if they lose?

I would much rather know if Ortio is gonna lose to a crappy team like Buffalo than if Hiller will lose. Hiller I can understand cause he sucks. If Ortio loses than that's telling too, which helps the Flames make a more informed decision in the off season.

If Ortio loses against a good team like Pittsburgh, well that's understandable because they're a far better team, likewise if Hiller lost. So all things considered it makes sense to play Ortio tonight to see if he can win and then play Hiller or Backstrom against Pittsburgh because it's likely all 3 would lose

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kehatch

...Ortio played well last game. He hasn't been given much of an opportunity to get on a roll this season. It was the automatic and easy decision to start Ortio this game that almost everyone expected. In all likelihood you and the other rationalozers in the crowd thought the same thing. But Bob didn't make it and his explanation of following a minor league rotation makes little sense.

Under the current conditions, a set goalie rotation actually makes perfect sense to me.

I can even buy an argument like "it's an odd decision, but it's one game let's not worry to much about it." But the "you guys are a bunch of dummies for thinking this is an odd decision. Let me explain to you (in a very irrational way) why it's not an odd decision" arguments are silly.

Why do you consider the counter explanations "irrational"?

When I am using this word in this discussion, it is with regards to the level of angst the choice to start Hiller has caused, and also as far as the arguments forwarded so far are really meaningless until we have seen the balance of starts for all of Hiller, Ortio, and Backstrom at the end of the season. If Ortio is stapled to the bench from here on out, I would agree with you. But I have no good reason to think that will happen, nor do I think it especially rational to complain about the possibility until it has happened.