Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss
No one knows for sure, but I had heard that there was a deal in place to deal Hiller and it fell through.
But in any event, lets think about this logically.
What we know:
1) The flames signed Ramo on July 1.
2) Hiller was under contract
3) Ortio was under contract and had to pass through waivers
4) The flames were afraid Ortio might be claimed so didn't put him through waivers
Those facts suggest only 4 logical solutions
1) The flames wanted to keep Hiller and Ortio. That suggests they planned to trade ramo after signing him on July 1: Severely unlikely
2) The flames wanted to keep Hiller and Ramo. That suggests they either planned to keep 3 goalies (unlikely) or trade Ortio (somewhat unlikely)
3) The flames wanted to keep Ramo and Ortio. This suggests they planned to trade hiller (most likely)
There is only 4 logical end points. If you don't think the plan was to trade Hiller, then which of the other 3 do you think it was? Did they plan on trading Ortio, plan on carrying 3 goalies, or plan on trading Ramo?
|
Why do you say there are 4 options and then list only 3?
I would say the option that makes the most sense was option 4, they were unsure of Ortio and wanted Ramo in place in case Ortio wasn't ready. Then Ortio played great in the pre-season and the Flames a. thought he was good enough to be the back-up/1b and b. were scared he wouldn't clear waivers.
This makes waiving Ramo make much more sense. He was the weakest of the 3 guys early on and only there as insurance in case Ortio faltered and he didn't falter.
It wasn't confusing at all why the waived Ramo over Hiller. Ramo has been the weaker goalie over their careers and the weaker goalie to start the season. Why would they keep him over Hiller?