Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Facts are facts, but you are choosing to disregard them.
My personal guess on the first few weeks of the season was that Hartley and Treliving were hoping one of Hiller or Ramo would step up. None of the three did in pre-season, and neither of those two did in those first few games. So, finally, they decided Hiller was better and demoted Ramo to eliminate the three goalie situation. That was also the point where Ortio started to slot in.
I do think Hartley wanted to add a little stability into the roster at the start of this month - god knows this team needed some - and it just turned out that Ortio sucked and Ramo's play dramatically improved. That's bad luck for Ortio, but the fact remains that you are upset over the fact that Ramo earned his starts while Ortio was not given them.
|
Not sure how you can read that string and suggest it is someone else disregarding the facts.
Your ignoring that Ortio was parked for a month and then expected to perform. Your focusing on Ortio poor play while ignoring the poor play of the other two.
Your accusing me and others of wanting Ortio given something and ignoring the only thing we wanted him given was equal opportunity.
Personally I don't even like Ortio. But he is an organizational asset that wasn't managed well. If not rectified it leaves us in a tight spot come next summer with zero NHL goalies signed to a contract.