Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
The Flames's starting goalie was injured and they needed a second goalie with no-days-notice on a road trip. How is it you do not understand this?
|
You guys have got to stop fabricating points on our end. I feel so much of what we talk about is in defence of a POV you implied all on your own
I fully understand why Gillies was called up, and it's never once been any confusion on my end.
As I've said multiple times, my concern is with Gillies here, why didn't he start the logical start?
I'm very aware of why he was here, and even touched on it a few posts ago that he was the only/best option to call-up in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I would say "another time" is the correct answer. Jon Gillies's inability to play NHL games right now does not preclude the possibility that he will be ready later in the season or next year. Moreover, just because Gillies was recalled to the NHL, this does not mean that the Flames ever planned to have him start a game. I presume he was on the bench because they needed a goalie on the bench in the event that Smith got hurt.
But I am interested to know: if the coaches were not comfortable starting Jon Gillies, do you believe they should have gone ahead and played him anyways?
|
No. I wonder what the coaches are seeing in Gillies that Smith on a B2B is the better option.
And if it's that bad, why is he even around?
TO BE CLEAR: By 'around' I mean a part of the Flames/Stockton organization. Employed by Calgary Sports & Entertainment (or whatever).
Again,
Is it mistrust in Gillies? (which, must be severe given the scenario)
Too much trust in Smith? (which, was a mistake - and unearned)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Yes. That should tell you something about where Jon Gillies is at right now, and about his readiness to play in the NHL.
|
After all this time, you couldn't have found a better "any goalie we can play" scenario than having to play Mike Smith B2B.