Ortio on Waivers [Update: Clears]

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How should the Flames have handled this situation differently?

Not signed Ramo. Started the season with Hiller & Ortio.

Though with Hiller getting hurt, they probably would have had to sign someone like Tokarski or another 1B goalie. Which IMO is comparable to Ramo anyways. To me, it's pretty clear that the mistake was signing Ramo.

Treliving made a mistake. It happens to the best of them, but it contributed significantly to this mess of a season.

[tvp2003]

Posted on Flames twitter last night -- the boys enjoying an American Thanksgiving team dinner:



Notice Hiller sitting next to Ramo. Obviously the presence of the younger Ortio created an unsettling triangle that upset the goalie bromance between the two vets.

Now that Ortio is back in the AHL, I'm pretty sure we'll go back to pitching shutouts starting tonight...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Your still focusing on the 8 games and ignoring the rest. Ramo was near the bottom of the NHL in every single measurable metric before Hartley decided to give Ramo that string of games. He was terrible to start that string as well. Sure it was under the premise that he was stopping the goalie rotation. But is it just a coincidence he decided to start that as soon as Hiller got hurt? Is it a coincidence that he is finally stopping it now that Hiller is back?

Ortio got the first start after Hiller's injury. If Ortio hadn't played like a flaming bag of poo in that game, he probably would have got the following start(s).

Also, you are making an assumption that Hartley is going to stop going with Ramo now that Hiller is back. That may well be the case - I expect Hiller to start tomorrow - but we don't know the future yet.

Hartley didn't want to play Ortio, plain and simple. He went out of his way to not play him. Agree with the decision if you want to. But it is what it is.

Giving a goalie fresh off of waivers a predetermined string of starts regardless of performance certainly doesn't speak to the "always earned" mantra. Sitting another goalie for a month while the other goalies are terrible doesn't speak to the mantra. Neither does sitting him again after he doesn't perform well in two games after sitting for a month.

"Always earned" defined the culture that made us successful last season. But I haven't seen much of it this season. In fact there is a distinct lack of accountability.

Hartley wanted to play Ortio. But he looked poor against the Isles, then was atrocious against the Habs. I'm not saying Ramo's next start was great - it wasn't - but he still won that game. And Hartley has consistently rewarded a win with another start. That turned out to be the 6-3 loss to Colorado. So while Hartley could have gone back to Ortio at that point, the numbers bear out that he ultimately made the right decision to stick with Ramo for the following games.

Your argument boils down to being upset that Hartley made what was ultimately a good decision to stick with Ramo. And if, as has been suggested, Ortio wasn't practicing well at the same time, then I would argue that the "always earned" mantra was fully in play here.

Honestly, your argument is more one of being upset that Ortio wasn't given anything, which flies in the face of what you are saying.

[Petert]

Fact was, Hartley has a different standard towards youngsters and vets.
You said it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Petert

Fact was, Hartley has a different standard towards youngsters and vets.
You said it.

Yup. As did Bowman, as does Quennville...

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ortio got the first start after Hiller's injury. If Ortio hadn't played like a flaming bag of poo in that game, he probably would have got the following start(s).

Also, you are making an assumption that Hartley is going to stop going with Ramo now that Hiller is back. That may well be the case - I expect Hiller to start tomorrow - but we don't know the future yet.



Hartley wanted to play Ortio. But he looked poor against the Isles, then was atrocious against the Habs. I'm not saying Ramo's next start was great - it wasn't - but he still won that game. And Hartley has consistently rewarded a win with another start. That turned out to be the 6-3 loss to Colorado. So while Hartley could have gone back to Ortio at that point, the numbers bear out that he ultimately made the right decision to stick with Ramo for the following games.

Your argument boils down to being upset that Hartley made what was ultimately a good decision to stick with Ramo. And if, as has been suggested, Ortio wasn't practicing well at the same time, then I would argue that the "always earned" mantra was fully in play here.

Honestly, your argument is more one of being upset that Ortio wasn't given anything, which flies in the face of what you are saying.

I don't even like Ortio. But facts are facts. Ortio sat for close to a month before getting a start. Hartley had a very low threshold to benching him again (two games spread out). The other goalies were playing like flaming bags of poor (as you say) but kept getting starts.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by kehatch

I don't even like Ortio. But facts are facts. Ortio sat for close to a month before getting a start. Hartley had a very low threshold to benching him again (two games spread out). The other goalies were playing like flaming bags of poor (as you say) but kept getting starts.

Facts are facts, but you are choosing to disregard them.

My personal guess on the first few weeks of the season was that Hartley and Treliving were hoping one of Hiller or Ramo would step up. None of the three did in pre-season, and neither of those two did in those first few games. So, finally, they decided Hiller was better and demoted Ramo to eliminate the three goalie situation. That was also the point where Ortio started to slot in.

I do think Hartley wanted to add a little stability into the roster at the start of this month - god knows this team needed some - and it just turned out that Ortio sucked and Ramo's play dramatically improved. That's bad luck for Ortio, but the fact remains that you are upset over the fact that Ramo earned his starts while Ortio was not given them.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Facts are facts, but you are choosing to disregard them.

My personal guess on the first few weeks of the season was that Hartley and Treliving were hoping one of Hiller or Ramo would step up. None of the three did in pre-season, and neither of those two did in those first few games. So, finally, they decided Hiller was better and demoted Ramo to eliminate the three goalie situation. That was also the point where Ortio started to slot in.

I do think Hartley wanted to add a little stability into the roster at the start of this month - god knows this team needed some - and it just turned out that Ortio sucked and Ramo's play dramatically improved. That's bad luck for Ortio, but the fact remains that you are upset over the fact that Ramo earned his starts while Ortio was not given them.

Not sure how you can read that string and suggest it is someone else disregarding the facts.

Your ignoring that Ortio was parked for a month and then expected to perform. Your focusing on Ortio poor play while ignoring the poor play of the other two.

Your accusing me and others of wanting Ortio given something and ignoring the only thing we wanted him given was equal opportunity.

Personally I don't even like Ortio. But he is an organizational asset that wasn't managed well. If not rectified it leaves us in a tight spot come next summer with zero NHL goalies signed to a contract.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I guess I still don't understand why it "looks good on them".
They made an error in judgement which is going to happen and they are paying the consequences - but I don't have the view that the 3 goal system de-railed the season like some do. It's a good narrative I guess, but any goalie worth his salt should be able to play through such a situation.
But the phrased "looks good on them" is usually reserved for people who basically deserve their fate. I don't think that's the case here.

There are situations where teams make moves that totally blow up in their face where you can say nobody could have ever predicted that outcome and then there's situations like this where nobody is really surprised that things never worked out. The Flames made their bed on this one with the goaltenders as all we heard of all summer was what the Flames would do after they signed Ramo and had three goaltenders on one way deals. We and the media speculated about one of them being traded for the simple reason it never made sense. It looks good on them because they have nobody to blame for themselves and quite frankly when I made the statement I didn't point it just to Treliving as the goaltenders are either mentally soft or were simply unprepared to start the season. Like I have said before the blame can be spread around from management to coaches to players.

I don't believe that the 3 goaltender rotation is the sole reason the season got off to a craptacular start but I do believe it was the catalyst for a bad situation that has snowballed in conjunction with poor team play and suspect coaching.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I do think Hartley wanted to add a little stability into the roster at the start of this month - god knows this team needed some - and it just turned out that Ortio sucked and Ramo's play dramatically improved. That's bad luck for Ortio, but the fact remains that you are upset over the fact that Ramo earned his starts while Ortio was not given them.

You keep saying this but constantly avoid the fact that after both Ramo and Ortio played poorly, Hartley just decided to run with Ramo. There's little objective evidence that Ramo earned the net in a balanced, head-to-head competition. Ramo's "dramatically improved" play in this run of 11 straight starts includes 5 goals against in the second game in Colorado ("earned" the next start), consecutive losses in Florida ("earned" the next start), and as many weak outings as ostensibly strong ones.

Bob gave Ramo more chances to keep the net, and also announced the net to be his for a stretch regardless of play. We have no idea what Ortio would do if he was given that amount of leeway. In that regard, I think it's pretty dubious to claim Ramo grabbed the net for himself over Ortio. Bob, as is his prerogative, decided to give the net to Ramo. Coach's decision, and I respect it. But let's not pretend that our 6-5 record in that stretch is a demonstration of Ramo earning the 11 straight starts.

[GioforPM]

"Always earned, Never given" =/= losing a spot to another player because of poor play, if that other player also plays poorly.

If Ramo and Ortio both underperform, then Hartley has to decide which of the guys who haven't really earned a start should get the job. I would imagine he makes the call based on the in game play (IMO Ramo was better even when they were both bad - he was giving up at least one softy every game, sure, but his good saves were better), what he saw in practice (I have no idea) and then I guess thenod goes to the vet.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A) Carrying three goalies on an NHL roster is vanishingly rare.

B) Carrying three goalies on an NHL roster is universally regarded as a bad thing.

So how did the Flames find themselves in this situation? What unforeseen events forced their hand and left them with no choice but to start the season with three goalies on the NHL roster, when this is something virtually every other team in the NHL manages to avoid every year?

Well said here... a lot is said for players who miss training camp or the start of the season taking half a year to find their groove. Ortio was pretty much in that situation sitting in the press box. His "chances to prove himself" with sporadic starts reminds me of years reminds me of the goaltending graveyard of the backup position behind Kiprusoff for a decade.

Ortio, in case people forget, was the MVP of our farm team last year. He was steller in his callups. I get the "create competition" and everything, but Ortio won the position last year, IMO... again I generally like Treliving, but this three headed monster was a huge, toxic mistake.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

You keep saying this but constantly avoid the fact that after both Ramo and Ortio played poorly, Hartley just decided to run with Ramo. There's little objective evidence that Ramo earned the net in a balanced, head-to-head competition. Ramo's "dramatically improved" play in this run of 11 straight starts includes 5 goals against in the second game in Colorado ("earned" the next start), consecutive losses in Florida ("earned" the next start), and as many weak outings as ostensibly strong ones.

Bob gave Ramo more chances to keep the net, and also announced the net to be his for a stretch regardless of play. We have no idea what Ortio would do if he was given that amount of leeway. In that regard, I think it's pretty dubious to claim Ramo grabbed the net for himself over Ortio. Bob, as is his prerogative, decided to give the net to Ramo. Coach's decision, and I respect it. But let's not pretend that our 6-5 record in that stretch is a demonstration of Ramo earning the 11 straight starts.

No, FF PHD, I am not ignoring the fact that both Ramo and Ortio were playing poorly. I am very much aware of that fact. The question is why you two are ignoring the fact that, once given the reins, Ramo's play improved dramatically. Seriously, what is the point of your argument? Are you angry that Hartley chose to change up something that was not working at all? Would you rather he kept doing the exact same things that were part of why we were playing .300 hockey out of some misguided sense of unfairness that a goalie who played poorly in training camp, poorly in the regular season and apparently poorly in practice wasn't getting more ice time?

[Caged Great]

Always earned never given.

If you are better than another player you get the spot.

If you are just okay, or equal to the other guys you don't get the spot.

Jooris last year was better than enough players that Setoguchi lost his spot permanently.

Ortio had the perfect opportunity to come in and impress, then allowed 10 goals in 2 games. At the end of the day, the answers are in the room. If a player can't step up when given a great opportunity, then they don't get another chance for a while. Raymond stepped in against Chicago and looked good enough to get another shot. He blew it and likely won't play tonight (or if he does it'll be on the 4th line).

Players being given spots on the team just because "youth" is how you get the Edmonton Oilers. The young guys need to take spots. If you can't cut it, that's on you. Wotherspoon had a great opportunity and he couldn't cut it and has now been passed by 2-3 players on the depth chart. That's on him.

With having three goalies, one of them should have taken the ball and ran with it. They did not until Hartley basically told Ramo that you're the starter period and even then Ramo has been inconsistent like the rest of the team since then. If the goaltending situation is that fragile that they can't handle some internal competition, then they should be moved. The Flames fans last playoffs got into Lack's head and the Canucks ditched him. If our trio can't handle it, there is an easy remedy. There are a lot of goalies out there that would jump at the chance to backstop a team like the Flames.

[Petert]

So, according to this "stability" non-sense regardless of crappy GA, Hiller should also be warming up the bench for a month straight.
Funny how "stability" was never an issue last season when we were rotating Hiller and Ramo.

Watch the next crappy game Ramo has and Hiller gets the next start, book it.

Hartley was on an agenda to screw Ortio, mask it all you want.

[Petert]

In hindsight, Ortio could very well improved if he was given the reins ala Ramo.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, FF PHD, I am not ignoring the fact that both Ramo and Ortio were playing poorly. I am very much aware of that fact. The question is why you two are ignoring the fact that, once given the reins, Ramo's play improved dramatically. Seriously, what is the point of your argument? Are you angry that Hartley chose to change up something that was not working at all? Would you rather he kept doing the exact same things that were part of why we were playing .300 hockey out of some misguided sense of unfairness that a goalie who played poorly in training camp, poorly in the regular season and apparently poorly in practice wasn't getting more ice time?

Really? As I said above...

Oh yes,
Nov 3 - 5 Goals on 41 shots. 0.873 sv% Ramo, You get the next start cuz you saved 36 shots.

Nov 10 - 4 Goals on 31 shots. 0.871 sv% Ramo, You still get the next start cuz you know we have 3 games in next 5 days, need you used to getting beat a lot.

Nov 12 - He losses again. 3 goals on 29 shots.

No 13 - Now we have a back to back and you've lost 2 in a row. Nope you will stay in the net until that other idiot Hiller is ready to play.

Thats what I call Always Earned Never Given.

Jack Adams Winner Coach Hartley.

He didn't change up anything, he went with one guy and kept going back to him win or lose.
I don't care about Ortio but he wasn't poor during training camp. Staple someone on the bench for weeks then blame them they were sluggish?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Petert

So, according to this "stability" non-sense regardless of crappy GA, Hiller should also be warming up the bench for a month straight.
Funny how "stability" was never an issue last season when we were rotating Hiller and Ramo.

Watch the next crappy game Ramo has and Hiller gets the next start, book it.

Hartley was on an agenda to screw Ortio, mask it all you want.

Why would he?

Apparently Ortio looked bad in practice throughout the past month. If he doesn't play well in practice, how can you reward him with a start. Always earned never given. Ramo may have played bad at times, however if your options are a guy that isn't putting enough of an effort to show he's ready and a guy that's not playing well in the games, you have to go with the latter player.

[Petert]

I do not watch practices, but I saw how crappy Ramo has been during live games majority of the time.
Earned what?
See above post.

[Resolute 14]

Da chief - I was looking at his overall play over a period of time, not cherry picked individual games. That argument is incredibly vapid, even for you.