Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I had no problem with Smith's game in Detroit. He looked fine. But more to the point—if the hope is that the Flames would win more often than they lose when Rittich is not in goal, and if the Flames are winning more often than they lose when Rittich is not in goal, then it seems to me that the seriousness of this issue may be a tad overblown by some.
|
Oh come on, you're just being silly.
It's overblown, for sure. But it's a problem that needs to be fixed, and it's such a glaring and obvious problem that it draws ire from fans every time he starts.
That fans got on him in the Detroit win was absurd, and the result of reveling in Smiths failure more than anything IMO. But as fans that want the team to win (and celebrate games like Detroit) it's silly to say that there isn't a problem if we win.
That this team is good enough to outplay teams when we'd have been better off with a shooter tutor is remarkable. But Mike Smith has cost the team points - and we'll see in a few months how valuable those points would have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Is Michael Hutchinson any better than Mike Smith? He does not appear to me like an especially tangible upgrade at all. As for the "tons of options," I would encourage you to peruse TheScorpion's excellent thread on this subject, which pretty clearly demonstrates exactly what I have claimed: that there are no clear upgrades available at a palatable asking price. This is also something that was echoed by Elliotte Friedman on the morning show last week.
It should not be at all confusing. There is plenty of evidence which shows pretty clearly that the cost of acquiring a good goalie are too high right now, and there are few available. |
It's not that confusing actually. Watching the 2 games as a Leaf, Hutchinson would be a better option right now - and it'd have only cost a 5th. That's a gamble I'm willing to take over the Smith gamble. Please don't misconstrue this as "Hutchinson would solve our problem" as the Gillies option has been.
I understand all of your points, so please understand mine. If we try Gillies in the B2B and he's terrible... he's terrible. OR, we potentially win that game and Smith's last game was the result in Detroit.
Edit: also, in that Friedman piece they recognized the Toronto pickup, but then launched 'but you shouldn't give up a 1st for Howard'. No one wants the team to give up good assets to get a backup. But then he also touched on a great option in McE... who wouldn't cost that much. So the solutions are there, and the only argument is 'depending on price' for everyone.
I think where most of you are at is how Friedman closed it. 7 weeks to the deadline, take your time... see where you are.
The amount of time, and the efforts to 'see where they are' is where most disagree.