Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Yes, it will cost us a roster spot. It will cost us uncertainty in a goalie situation just like we had earlier in the year. It will cost us flexibility in bringing in a proven goalie should one become available in a trade.
|
Sigh. Khudobin's contract expires at the end of this season so unless we plan on bringing like 4 new players in this season it's not a problem. And no it won't be uncertain. You send Hiller down if Khudobin outplays him, you send Khudobin down if Hiller outplays him, if you lose one of them through waivers no big deal their contracts are expiring anyways.
Secondly, how does bringing in Khudobin cost us flexibility in a trade for a goalie? Again you can send him down. And who really is trading away a proven goalie? Montreal? Nashville? Washington?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Many people confuse the possible with the probable. Those people make bad decisions because of it. I hope the Flames set a slightly higher bar than the jokesters in Edmonton when it comes to evaluating the chances of a hockey more being a likely improvement versus random flailing about in the hopes of getting lucky.
|
Can you stop comparing this action to the Oilers? We aren't trading assets away for backup goalies. This is a waiver wire pickup and if it's a shot in the dark to improve our team I'd take it.