[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ manageable?

Let me tell you a story.

There was a guy who got traded to a team one year, mid season. He had never played more than 22 games in a season. The coach gave him 17 of the next 19, after which he unfortunately sprained an MCL (not a fatigue related injury). When he came back he played 22 of 28. He played very well and the coach, recognizing this, played him in over 80 percent of the games for which he was available.

Then he backstopped his team to the Stanley Cup Finals. Some believe he should have won (it was in).

For the next 7 seasons he played at least 70 games a year. Won a Vezina trophy as well.

I remember that guy really well. I also remember watching him after those 70 game seasons attempting to do the impossible and will his team each year past the first round of the playoffs in a state of near exhaustion.

I also can't help but notice that four of the last five Stanley Cup winning goalies had played fewer 58 games in the regular season.

There was none of this ‘managing workload’ nonsense. He was the best goalie by far and they played him.

The Flames were also fighting tooth-and-nail for a playoff position all the way through to Game 81 of the 2004 season. In the seven years that followed, Kiprusoff's backup goalies accumulated a winning percentage of 0.289. That's a grand total of 22 wins in seven years. Riding Kiprusoff like a plough horse through 87% off the schedule each year was NEVER the plan—it was by necessity. Even with Smith's poor performances the Flames are now in a position in which they do not have to play their goalie four out of every five nights.

This "managing workload" is not nonsense. It is how good teams win. Unlike seemingly several posters I do not care who plays goal when the Flames win, so long as they do win. If the difference between a sharp, rested goalie and exhaustion by the second or third round of the playoffs is an additional seven or eights starts for Mike Smith, then so be it. It's the smart thing to do.

The only thing they didn’t have was an ego of a broken down warrior to massage...

The only "nonsense" I see is this bit of tripe. It is ridiculous to think that the GM and the coach would jeopardize the team's performance for the sake of a single player's ego.

Rittich has only let in more than 3 goals twice in all of his starts. Once in OT, and once with three goals last touched by his own team. Three of his losses were when his team failed to score.

With the other guy, it’s a coin toss if you do or do not have at least a softie when he starts. The guy is 36, injury prone, and inconsistent. And not only are some goals bad, the timing is worse. At this point, you can only hope (not expect) that he gives you a solid start, and hope is not a strategy.

Mike Smith wins at least half his games, even when he is playing poorly. It seems reasonable to expect about the same.

It is obvious to me and to many that it is time to give Rittich the vast majority of the starts.

Well, congratulations to you and the "many" who are so prescient. You have an opinion based on incomplete information. There is nothing "obvious" about that.

No benefit to managing Rittich here, if leadership wants to do what’s best for the team based on available evidence.

Management ensures adequate rest and preparation for a young goalie who has never experienced this level of work, nor anything close to this kind of pressure. The benefit seems to me very likely to pay off down the road—in April, May or June when I would hope the team is still playing.