Joni fricken Ortio

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think Hiller's number of starts over Ramo had more to do with Hiller playing than well it did with Ramo playing poorly (also he was injured a couple times I believe). I think most people see them pretty evenly, and that's why Hiller is the one proposed to trade because he has more of a league history and recognizability, and therefore will likely garner more in a trade. If you see them as relatively the same skill-wise, it only makes sense to trade the one that you think will return more.

Bottom line is that Hiller was a big part of the team having a successful season and IMO you can do too much tweaking for your own good as while I like the addition of Hamilton and Frolik I feel it's important to keep last year's team as much intact as possible as you look at the Avs for instance changing their chemistry letting go of Stastny and bringing in Iginla. I felt the biggest downfall in Sutter's GM history was the Ference/Kobasew trade and then you can look at how the Oilers went downhill after their 2006 run by having to undergo key changes. I just believe when you establish something good you try to not overly tinker with it. If Ramo can't perform adequately in a starter role and Ortio has rookie growing pains this team will have a high chance of disappointing. IMO Hiller's simply the safer bet here.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Benched

as I said, so he'd get lit up and they could move him through waivers.

I think you're pretty naive if the management didn't at least think that was one of the possibilities.

On the other hand they said 'if the kid can play well given this AHL defense, then we really might have something here'


Maybe it's not 'setting him up to fail'.....maybe a better term is 'trial by fire'

Sure, okay then.

[tvp2003]

To everyone who is convinced Hiller is better than Ramo -- if that was the case, why did Ramo play 30+ games last season? Because Hiller was tired? Also, who ended up starting four out of the five games in the Anaheim series (despite losing 3 of them)?

My theory is that Hiller is more consistent, especially against lesser competition. He's a blocker, and against lesser teams, that is often good enough. However, against better teams (like Anaheim), he has a more difficult time because they have the ability to exploit his weaknesses. On the other hand, Ramo is more athletic and more dynamic, but also more inconsistent. That is why he gives us a chance against better teams (like Anaheim), but can also play some stinkers as well.

If Ortio can find the balance between the two -- athletic yet consistent -- I think you give him a chance to take the reigns. There is a reason why they brought Ramo back -- it was insurance in case Ortio didn't perform and all that was left was Hiller.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

To everyone who is convinced Hiller is better than Ramo -- if that was the case, why did Ramo play 30+ games last season?

Because Hiller was not that much better. Just better.
Hiller was also better by every statistic. (GAA, win%, save%).

Personally I think Hiller and Ortio might make a good tandem because of their somewhat different styles. Gives the coaching staff options. I also think if you're going to go with a rookie goaltender, consistency is a key attribute for your other goalie.

EDIT: To put it another way:
Two inconsistent goalies is a huge risk for a team. If both go cold at the same time, it can send a team into a mental tailspin that can cost a ton of points.

[Geeoff]

Inb4 Ortio drops a .930 save % and we end up with another unsustainable PDO

[MisterJoji]

Aside from having one goalie in the press box per game, what is wrong with carrying 3 goalies for a short while? Play the hot hand(s) until it sorts itself out. Not ideal, but alternate goalies for the first 3 weeks or so until there's 2 clear cut guys and then waive/trade the "loser." If they get picked up on waivers that's great (your not going to get a great return in a trade anyways) if not you send them to Stockton. I really think Ortio will be one of the NHLers.

[ScorchyScorch]

Ramo's performance vs. Ducks (even despite results) > Hiller's vs Vancouver.

There's a little more risk in running with Ramo/Ortio, but also a higher ceiling for the season. And Ramo/Hiller were so similar in quality of play over the regular season that I don't think there's that much room for concern.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by ScorchyScorch

Ramo's performance vs. Ducks (even despite results) > Hiller's vs Vancouver.

We watched totally different series then.

I saw Hiller shutting the door on Vrbata, Daniel Sedin, Bo Horvat, Henrik Sedin... all skilled forwards while shutting down everybody else period.

I saw Ramo getting lit up, invariably, by Matt Belesky.

Don't get me wrong, Ramo had some great saves, especially game 5 where he stood on his head.

At the end of the day, Ramo's .907 save percentage against the Ducks while Hiller was .931% against the Canucks.

We needed Ramo against the Ducks because he's better laterally and they were lighting us up on cross-ice passes. But he wasn't as good as we needed him to be. It was in that series where neither goaltender had the package needed to steal a series, so I don't blame Ramo or Hiller, but let's get real. If Ramo could have just stopped some of those very ordinary Matt Belesky shots, it might have been a 6 or 7 game series. I didn't think the Blackhawks were that much better against the Ducks than the Flames in games 2-5.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So who's the odd man out in your opinion? I realize Ramo is the fan favorite here but it was largely Hiller that backstopped the team into the playoffs and in the first round playoff victory over the Canucks. I feel going with he and Ortio is the safest bet looking back on how things played out last year. Going with Ramo and Ortio is more of an unknown as Ramo was the backup last year and Ortio is still unproven.

So many schools of thought on that late Ramo signing.

1) Hiller odd man out
2) Ortio not ready
3) asset management
4) creating competition

or clearly a combination of the two or three or even four

I think Ramo wasn't signed earlier because they were hoping to avoid the situation they are in now (3 goalies all on one way, non waiver eligible contracts) and Ramo was asking for more than they liked.

Then July 1st comes and the goalie market is quiet, and Ramo drops his demands.

I think Haynes said it on twitter too ... hard to believe they'd go back to a goaltender they benched in the playoffs last year.

For me I see Hiller as a guy that got figured out. The Ducks dumped him for that reason, but he was perfect for a team like Calgary that nobody worried too much about in terms of advanced scouting.

Then you get to the playoffs and a team that knows him well exploits him.

This year the Flames won't be able to tiptoe into games and clearly the book on shooting high on Hiller will become a larger issue game to game. The logical step for Treliving is to improve the team in that area, and an Ortio Ramo tandem is likely the best way to achieve that without blowing up the budget with big names to sign next summer.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Poe969

I think Ramo has 0 trade value, and not because he isn't good but because he was a UFA and any team could have had him for free.

No they couldn't, he signed shortly before hitting free agency.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/c...year-contract/

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

To everyone who is convinced Hiller is better than Ramo -- if that was the case, why did Ramo play 30+ games last season? Because Hiller was tired? Also, who ended up starting four out of the five games in the Anaheim series (despite losing 3 of them)?

My theory is that Hiller is more consistent, especially against lesser competition. He's a blocker, and against lesser teams, that is often good enough. However, against better teams (like Anaheim), he has a more difficult time because they have the ability to exploit his weaknesses. On the other hand, Ramo is more athletic and more dynamic, but also more inconsistent. That is why he gives us a chance against better teams (like Anaheim), but can also play some stinkers as well.

If Ortio can find the balance between the two -- athletic yet consistent -- I think you give him a chance to take the reigns. There is a reason why they brought Ramo back -- it was insurance in case Ortio didn't perform and all that was left was Hiller.

Why would you use that argument? Sure Ramo started 30 games. Hiller started more.

And he started the last 4 games against Anaheim because Hiller lost the first one, and because he looked pretty good in the second, despite a loss. Then he won the third game, so he started the fourth.

I still think Hartley preferred Hiller slightly, seeing as how he started him against Vancouver and Anaheim (despite Ramo getting the series clincher against the Canucks). Hiller's leash was just a tad longer IMO.

I'm not saying one is preferable versus each other- but as a combo with Ortio, I'd lean towards Hiller.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Aside from having one goalie in the press box per game, what is wrong with carrying 3 goalies for a short while? Play the hot hand(s) until it sorts itself out. Not ideal, but alternate goalies for the first 3 weeks or so until there's 2 clear cut guys and then waive/trade the "loser." If they get picked up on waivers that's great (your not going to get a great return in a trade anyways) if not you send them to Stockton. I really think Ortio will be one of the NHLers.

The biggest issue is the 23 man roster limit. If you carry 3 goalies, that means you can only carry 13 forwards and 7 defencemen (or 14 forwards and 6 defence, but that's unlikely because you could get caught having no replacement D if there's a last minute injury).

Keeping an extra goalie in Calgary means having to send another forward who's on a one-way deal through waivers.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by getbak

The biggest issue is the 23 man roster limit. If you carry 3 goalies, that means you can only carry 13 forwards and 7 defencemen (or 14 forwards and 6 defence, but that's unlikely because you could get caught having no replacement D if there's a last minute injury).

Keeping an extra goalie in Calgary means having to send another forward who's on a one-way deal through waivers.

And practice time, there isn't enough time to go around.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by getbak

The biggest issue is the 23 man roster limit. If you carry 3 goalies, that means you can only carry 13 forwards and 7 defencemen (or 14 forwards and 6 defence, but that's unlikely because you could get caught having no replacement D if there's a last minute injury).

Keeping an extra goalie in Calgary means having to send another forward who's on a one-way deal through waivers.

"Hey Mason. Brian wants to see you."

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So many schools of thought on that late Ramo signing.

1) Hiller odd man out
2) Ortio not ready
3) asset management
4) creating competition

or clearly a combination of the two or three or even four

I think Ramo wasn't signed earlier because they were hoping to avoid the situation they are in now (3 goalies all on one way, non waiver eligible contracts) and Ramo was asking for more than they liked.

Then July 1st comes and the goalie market is quiet, and Ramo drops his demands.

I think Haynes said it on twitter too ... hard to believe they'd go back to a goaltender they benched in the playoffs last year.

For me I see Hiller as a guy that got figured out. The Ducks dumped him for that reason, but he was perfect for a team like Calgary that nobody worried too much about in terms of advanced scouting.

Then you get to the playoffs and a team that knows him well exploits him.

This year the Flames won't be able to tiptoe into games and clearly the book on shooting high on Hiller will become a larger issue game to game. The logical step for Treliving is to improve the team in that area, and an Ortio Ramo tandem is likely the best way to achieve that without blowing up the budget with big names to sign next summer.

Well to be honest nobody will ever figure out Ramo as the way he plays is so unpredictable he either looks really good or really bad. I don't believe teams just figured out Hiller last year. He's been around for a while and you have to beat him with a good shot and while Ramo can be more acrobatic he's beat from all sorts of strange angles. I would prefer a steady guy go split with Ortio. I guess we will just have to wait and see how this plays out.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Why would you use that argument? Sure Ramo started 30 games. Hiller started more.

And he started the last 4 games against Anaheim because Hiller lost the first one, and because he looked pretty good in the second, despite a loss. Then he won the third game, so he started the fourth.

I still think Hartley preferred Hiller slightly, seeing as how he started him against Vancouver and Anaheim (despite Ramo getting the series clincher against the Canucks). Hiller's leash was just a tad longer IMO.

I'm not saying one is preferable versus each other- but as a combo with Ortio, I'd lean towards Hiller.

The point I was trying to make was that at there were multiple times last year where Hiller was better that Ramo, and there were also multiple times that Ramo was better than Hiller. As such, I don't agree with some of the posters who are making absolute statements like "Hiller is better than Ramo" because there were many occasions where that was not the case.

I appreciate the thought that Hiller is more consistent and therefore better to pair a steady guy with Ortio (instead of Ramo); if Ortio lights the world on fire and becomes the #1, I'd be quite content with Hiller as a backup. But if there is no clear cut #1, I think the Hiller and Ramo are pretty even.

Regarding Hartley, I agree that his leash was longer for Hiller, but recall that he turned to Ramo to play those last few games down the stretch (starting in Edmonton), before he got injured. Fortunately, Hiller stepped in and played well, and was the clear #1 for the Vancouver series (while Ramo was injured).

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

The point I was trying to make was that at there were multiple times last year where Hiller was better that Ramo, and there were also multiple times that Ramo was better than Hiller. As such, I don't agree with some of the posters who are making absolute statements like "Hiller is better than Ramo" because there were many occasions where that was not the case.

I appreciate the thought that Hiller is more consistent and therefore better to pair a steady guy with Ortio (instead of Ramo); if Ortio lights the world on fire and becomes the #1, I'd be quite content with Hiller as a backup. But if there is no clear cut #1, I think the Hiller and Ramo are pretty even.

Regarding Hartley, I agree that his leash was longer for Hiller, but recall that he turned to Ramo to play those last few games down the stretch (starting in Edmonton), before he got injured. Fortunately, Hiller stepped in and played well, and was the clear #1 for the Vancouver series (while Ramo was injured).

Absolute statement? Sure it is, it has to be. Everything between the two statistically and career wise says so. Hiller is better than Ramo, always has been, thats a fact. No way around it. And since we're talking absolutes here. How about the other side of the coin where for the past 2 months almost everyone around here spoke in absolutes that Hiller was the odd man out. More so than the Hiller side. I piped up last night during the game because it was getting ridiculous about how much a forgone conclusion it was that Ortio was after Hillers job and Not Ramo's.

At the end of the day, the real goaltending battle lies betwen Hiller and Ramo for one spot. The other I am more than confident is Ortio's.

IMO, you want the experience Hiller brings to the table paired with Ortio. Consider it the very dame reasoning they went with the Ramo/Hiller Tandem last year, Because Ramo had to prove himself consistently, and since he didn't Hiller was there eating up the starts. If Ramo was better or the coaches had more faith in Ramo, he'd have gotten more starts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

The point I was trying to make was that at there were multiple times last year where Hiller was better that Ramo, and there were also multiple times that Ramo was better than Hiller. As such, I don't agree with some of the posters who are making absolute statements like "Hiller is better than Ramo" because there were many occasions where that was not the case.

Well sure, on any given night one goalie is better than another. On Hallowe'en last year Ryan Miller was better than Carey Price. When people said "better" about Hiller they meant over the season.

Now in this case, yes, both goalies tended to be streaky and Hartley was good (especially early on) in figuring out who was trending which way.

[dissentowner]

It will be interesting to see who moves between Hiller and Ramo. All I know is Ortio needs more skulls on his mask.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Absolute statement? Sure it is, it has to be. Everything between the two statistically and career wise says so. Hiller is better than Ramo, always has been, thats a fact. No way around it.

I'll suggest that Bob Hartley disagrees its as clear-cut as you contend. And to a lesser extent Brad Treliving, who saw fit to re-sign Ramo (although, as Bingo noted, we can only speculate as to the reasons why).

And I'll concede Hiller was lights out during the Anaheim glory years, but comparing his work last year to Ramo's work in the last year and a half, and trying to project that to 2015/16, I think it's closer than the stats might suggest.