Quote:
Originally Posted by tvp2003
I'm confused.
1. Kipper looking like he'll be back on Wednesday. Assuming we don't trade him, why bring in McDonald if Irving is a decent backup.
2. If the Flames have no confidence in Irving, why re-sign him? It's not like his play has totally fallen apart since then; his past two starts, if anything, show that he can at least be a servicable backup.
3. If Irving only got two games to show himself, Danny Taylor won't get a sniff at the NHL. Signing McDonald confirms it. So why did we burn a contract by signing him in the first place? Wasn't McDonald available last week? Couldn't we bring in Broissoit on an emergency contract to hold the door open against the Blue Jackets?
4. If the Flames have that little faith in Irving, how bad must have Karlsson been in training camp?
Unless Irving tweaked a groin in Vancouver making all of those acrobatic saves (or Taylor stubbed his toe sitting on the bench), this makes little sense to me at all...
|
Explanation:
Flames organization feels Irving was a competent backup for a goalie that would never let him play. If he doesn't see the ice, how much damage could he do? The plan was to play kipper most, if not all, of the games this season in an attempt to make the playoffs (win now). Once it came apparent that Irving could not carry the mail as a replacement starter (win now), Calgary went and did what they could to acquire a bona fide backup/replacement starter in an effort to get as many points between now and Kipper's return as possible (win now).
Echoing another statement, Karlsson must have been seven shades of shiatzu to have been excused so indelicately in favour of Irving, the odd-man out in Abortsford.
Calgary is doing everything they can to position themselves as playoff contenders at the deadline. Admirable, perhaps, but ultimately myopic.