Sure there are, and I would love for them to have found a backup that solves this problem without Gillies.
But they haven't, Gillies was there, and Smith sucks.
If Flames management is still primarily invested in getting Smith going, then that is concerning...
I don't believe that anyone is invested in "getting Smith going." He is what he is. What he is is a goalie who will win some games and lose others. He will often allow bad goals, but will still manage to pick up wins here-and-there.
Quote:
We need to be looking at a solution at this point, and trying your goalies is a part of that. If what we're seeing from Smith is so much better than what they expect from Gillies that it's not worth starting (ie. the start in Boston that was pretty predictable was still better than they thought Gillies would do)... then move on from him.
What I can't figure out is if it's a distrust in Gillies or if what happened in Boston was a surprise.
Why must it have been one or the other? I suspect that having watched Gillies in a couple of practices the coaches decided he was not ready to play in Boston. Why can it not be just as simple as that?
As for "mov[ing] on" from Gillies, why? Just because he does not appear ready to play in the NHL now does not mean that he could be ready to play next year. Gillies may be a terrible option to play NHL games, and yet is still a valuable asset for the team who may still believe that he can be a NHL goalie in the future. This is not a decision that needs to be made today.
Quote:
...Every trade option, waiver pickup and goalie call-up are shouted down. So what is the solution?
Are you going to continue to tell me Smith is a good option back there?
I don't believe that anyone has said that Smith is a good option. What I continue to maintain is that there are NO GOOD SOLUTIONS right now. The Flames would be best to trade for a goalie, but also need to ensure that available options present a tangible upgrade for a reasonable cost. The reason I continue to pass over suggested trade or waiver options is that either 1) the player does not provide a tangible upgrade on Mike Smith, or 2) the cost is probably prohibitive.
Quote:
All I keep seeing is every hopeful solution being shouted at every time it comes up. But I don't understand what you guys think is the best way forward here besides 'keep letting Smith work it out'.
Once again, this is NOT about "letting Smith work it out." This is about making the best of a bad situation with no easy solutions. The best way forward is to keep going, and to hope that something shakes out closer to the trade deadline.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
No harm in giving a farm goalie a start or two IMO. Smith hasn't been cutting it. If you're one of the many who chalk up a loss before the game starts when you see Smith in net, there's literally no reason to argue starting anyone or anything else. Whats the worst that can happen? You lose the game you already thought you were gonna lose?
Your premise is terrible. Smith is 12-9-1. Yes, that is largely due to the team helping him out. Yes, he has been bad. Yes, you can argue as much as you want about whether any replacement might put up the same or better numbers and you could very well be right. BUT, chalking up a loss before the game starts when he actually has a winning record is stupid.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Superfraggle For This Useful Post:
I have this at 0%, and here is why: Rittich is a second-year NHL goalie and a first-year starter. Jon Gillies is a NHL rookie. I have no confidence that a Rittich + Gillies could handle the stress of a stretch drive to the post-season, to say nothing of the playoffs themselves.
The Flames are still heavily invested in developing BOTH goalies, and I think this factors significantly into their decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
0% is fine. I get that entirely - the stats are there to justify your pessimism. Guess where I have Smith returning to form?
I would honestly hope that if Gillies had started in Boston and played well that we would still keep looking for a backup. It's a 'better than Smith' option that I hoped Gillies could provide. But 'better than Smith' isn't the end to the search - it's a hope that we can get a few wins when Rittich isn't in net. I'd be right there talking about getting Gillies some time in the AHL to season vs. riding the pine. But we don't have that luxury until Smith isn't our only option to backup IMO.
Whoever we're discussing will also hopefully not see a play-off game. We're looking for someone to give our starter games off without assuring us a L - or an uphill battle to a W.
I completely agree that tandem is scary - I hate it. But the tandem I like less is Rittich + You're-unlikely-to-win
The Following User Says Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
0% is fine. I get that entirely - the stats are there to justify your pessimism. Guess where I have Smith returning to form?
I would honestly hope that if Gillies had started in Boston and played well that we would still keep looking for a backup. It's a 'better than Smith' option that I hoped Gillies could provide. But 'better than Smith' isn't the end to the search - it's a hope that we can get a few wins when Rittich isn't in net. I'd be right there talking about getting Gillies some time in the AHL to season vs. riding the pine. But we don't have that luxury until Smith isn't our only option to backup IMO.
Whoever we're discussing will also hopefully not see a play-off game. We're looking for someone to give our starter games off without assuring us a L - or an uphill battle to a W.
I completely agree that tandem is scary - I hate it. But the tandem I like less is Rittich + You're-unlikely-to-win
The current tandem has notched six wins in the last ten games in which Rittich has not started.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I don't believe that anyone is invested in "getting Smith going." He is what he is. What he is is a goalie who will win some games and lose others. He will often allow bad goals, but will still manage to pick up wins here-and-there.
I'm really curious about what wins you think Smith 'picked up'. I've seen a lot more 'despite Smith' wins than I have 'good thing Smith started'.
I'm not saying there's zero, so we'll start with snuffing that retort. But I'm curious which ones you were happy we had Mike Smith as the Calgary goaltender that night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Why must it have been one or the other? I suspect that having watched Gillies in a couple of practices the coaches decided he was not ready to play in Boston. Why can it not be just as simple as that?
As for "mov[ing] on" from Gillies, why? Just because he does not appear ready to play in the NHL now does not mean that he could be ready to play next year. Gillies may be a terrible option to play NHL games, and yet is still a valuable asset for the team who may still believe that he can be a NHL goalie in the future. This is not a decision that needs to be made today.
I never said this, and made multiple efforts to assure that no-one misconstrued that.
And it doesn't have to be one or the other. I'm wondering why the decision was made as I thought there were multiple reasons to give Gillies Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I don't believe that anyone has said that Smith is a good option. What I continue to maintain is that there are NO GOOD SOLUTIONS right now. The Flames would be best to trade for a goalie, but also need to ensure that available options present a tangible upgrade for a reasonable cost. The reason I continue to pass over suggested trade or waiver options is that either 1) the player does not provide a tangible upgrade on Mike Smith, or 2) the cost is probably prohibitive.
What confuses me is how you know that.
There's tons of options, and you've seen names move around the NHL in the last few weeks. Mike Smith is really bad. It's more likely that most available will be an upgrade to what we've seen this season.
Is Mike Smith better than Michael Hutchinson?
Would a 2020 fifth-round draft pick have been prohibitive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Once again, this is NOT about "letting Smith work it out." This is about making the best of a bad situation with no easy solutions. The best way forward is to keep going, and to hope that something shakes out closer to the trade deadline.
Well fingers crossed!
The Following User Says Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
I wouldn't have playing well in the AHL as an ideal requirement before getting getting NHL time. I would call it a minimum requirement.
I very much agree
Gillies was here, and the closest thing to 'not Mike Smith'. That is the only reason Gillies is brought up. He's not the best option - he's an awful option.
One of the worst goalies in the NHL should not be starting B2B games. You rarely start your starter in B2B games. That is why Gillies starting is a thorn. Not because I think this problem ends with Gillies.
The Following User Says Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
I'm really curious about what wins you think Smith 'picked up'. I've seen a lot more 'despite Smith' wins than I have 'good thing Smith started'.
I'm not saying there's zero, so we'll start with snuffing that retort. But I'm curious which ones you were happy we had Mike Smith as the Calgary goaltender that night.
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.
Quote:
What confuses me is how you know that.
There's tons of options, and you've seen names move around the NHL in the last few weeks. Mike Smith is really bad. It's more likely that most available will be an upgrade to what we've seen this season.
Is Mike Smith better than Michael Hutchinson?
Would a 2020 fifth-round draft pick have been prohibitive?
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.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I don't believe the situation is so dire that you need to grasp at straws. I do suspect Hutchinson would be an upgrade on Smith right now, but not sure he's the guy I want to go with through the end of the year. There are, and will be, other options. You can't cycle through 5 different goalies, upgrading every time a new option comes available IMO.
...FTR, here's his body of work over those 6 games...
Outside of Detroit and Minnesota, there's a lot of battling the Flames didn't need to do for Ws
Those are not Mike Smith's six wins in his last ten starts.
2 Jan @ Detroit
8 Dec v Nashville
6 Dec v Minnesota
2 Dec @ Chicago
30 Nov v LAK
25 Nov @ Arizona
Smith was not the starter in Columbus, but came in relief of Rittich and won the game. While Smith did start against Philadelphia, he was not credited with the win because he left the game with an injury and Rittich was the goalie of record in the third period when the Flames mounted the comeback.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
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.
Those are not Mike Smith's six wins in his last ten starts.
2 Jan @ Detroit
8 Dec v Nashville
6 Dec v Minnesota
2 Dec @ Chicago
30 Nov v LAK
25 Nov @ Arizona
Smith was not the starter in Columbus, but came in relief of Rittich and won the game. While Smith did start against Philadelphia, he was not credited with the win because he left the game with an injury and Rittich was the goalie of record in the third period when the Flames mounted the comeback.
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...
It is not at all silly. I completely agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved, but it absolutely is overblown by fans who are irate that this does not happen immediately. It is overblown by fans who seem to relish in ensuring that Smith's tenure in Calgary ends in the most unprofessional manner possible.
Quote:
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.
THAT's "being silly." I recognize that this is an intentional exaggeration, but that does not preclude the fact it is an utterly false statement. Yes, Smith has cost the team points, and it remains to be seen how that has affected them once the season ends. I suspect that the impact will not be especially significant: at this point I think the team will at worst finish with home-ice advantage in the first round.
Quote:
...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.
I get that. What I don't get is the incredulity expressed by some that the Flames chose to start Smith ahead of Gillies. I think the decision made was entirely straightforward and defensible.
Quote:
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.
Yes. I continue to believe that "the right deal" is something the Flames are being careful to pursue, and this is what is taking time.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
It is not at all silly. I completely agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved, but it absolutely is overblown by fans who are irate that this does not happen immediately. It is overblown by fans who seem to relish in ensuring that Smith's tenure in Calgary ends in the most unprofessional manner possible.
I do hope you understand that doesn't speak for all of us.
And I don't think it's too overblown by fans who legitimately think we are rolling the dice every time Smith starts - and we'd like a bit more odds in our favour (a better goalie)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
THAT's "being silly." I recognize that this is an intentional exaggeration, but that does not preclude the fact it is an utterly false statement. Yes, Smith has cost the team points, and it remains to be seen how that has affected them once the season ends. I suspect that the impact will not be especially significant: at this point I think the team will at worst finish with home-ice advantage in the first round.
Of course it is
I don't know how having a #### goalie is not especially significant
He is a remarkably bad goalie, that TBH hasn't really accomplished a whole lot with us. A bunch of years in the desert with a good start here hasn't been enough to excuse the notion that he's done in the NHL and is very unreliable.
He's cost the team points
the team works harder to win when he's in net
and we use our starter more often when there isn't a good backup option
Those things are very significant at season's end. With Vegas nipping at our heels, I don't think you can make that statement when Smith has almost entered double digits of points he's single-handedly cost.
That matters, and the solutions are there. At the very least, solutions need to be tried. If we lose home-ice to Vegas by 2 points - what then? Seems significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I get that. What I don't get is the incredulity expressed by some that the Flames chose to start Smith ahead of Gillies. I think the decision made was entirely straightforward and defensible.
In the Boston game, I don't think the decision was defensible - especially when the result was a loss that sits on his shoulders.
Back to back games are normally split between goalies
We had 2 goalies that had played NHL games
We had 2 goalies that had played NHL games poorly
We need a solution to the terrible goaltending we have seen so far
We played one of the worst goalies in the NHL in a rare situation instead
Sheltering Gillies shouldn't have been the straightforward decision, and I remain confused as to why they did it. And the result was indefensible. Whether it's a lack of trust in Gillies, or too much trust in Smith I think it was a mistake.
And again, I think if Gillies is not capable of splitting B2B games and Smith was the better option - I think Gillies has too much of an uphill battle at this stage in his development. Playing backup to Mike Smith the day after he started is about as low as you could be as a goalie. Gillies has been in development long enough that he should be capable of playing 1 NHL game in this rare circumstance.
Hell, if we played Rittich B2B and he stunk it up I'd be asking why Gillies is so terrible he couldn't have played.
I don't believe he is this terrible, so I think it was a very poor decision - and it ultimately cost them a win and more goalie controversy.
Just imagine if Detroit was Smith's last start and Gillies played better than Smith did. What a different story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Yes. I continue to believe that "the right deal" is something the Flames are being careful to pursue, and this is what is taking time.
And I wish that we'd put on the spare tire to get home. This'd cost a 5th (it seems) to give us a potential break from terrible goaltending, but Tres work isn't done (unless your 5th turns into a good backup option... then you're done)
Treliving let an unproven goalie, rough prospects, and a 36yo that's been looking pretty bad and recently injured enter the season as the Flames goalie options. That Rittich has played as well as he has is something Tre should consider himself very lucky for. But the need to get Smth out of the net was around when Toronto let 2 goalies walk - and many other options since then.
The right deal on a backup shouldn't be a tough decision, and it doesn't seem like it's taking too much to get a goalie that gives you a better chance than Smith
Last edited by Split98; 01-07-2019 at 12:45 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Split98 For This Useful Post:
...In the Boston game, I don't think the decision was defensible - especially when the result was a loss that sits on his shoulders.
Back to back games are normally split between goalies
We had 2 goalies that had played NHL games
We had 2 goalies that had played NHL games poorly
We need a solution to the terrible goaltending we have seen so far
We played one of the worst goalies in the NHL in a rare situation instead
Sheltering Gillies shouldn't have been the straightforward decision, and I remain confused as to why they did it. And the result was indefensible. Whether it's a lack of trust in Gillies, or too much trust in Smith I think it was a mistake...
I am not going to continue to rehash the previous points made about Smith, but this one conjecture about the Boston game bears repeating. I suspect that the coaches were not comfortable with Jon Gillies and ultimately decided he was not ready to play in Boston. Gillies was recalled on 2 January, and as far as I can see had no practices with the team. Choosing to sit an AHL goalie who is struggling and who has had no NHL practice reps is a thoroughly defensible decision. I think you will find that NHL coaches are hesitant to start an AHL goalie inside a 24-hour recall window and with no practice. It rather looks to me like a completely sensible decision.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I am not going to continue to rehash the previous points made about Smith, but this one conjecture about the Boston game bears repeating. I suspect that the coaches were not comfortable with Jon Gillies and ultimately decided he was not ready to play in Boston. Gillies was recalled on 2 January, and as far as I can see had no practices with the team. Choosing to sit an AHL goalie who is struggling and who has had no NHL practice reps is a thoroughly defensible decision. I think you will find that NHL coaches are hesitant to start an AHL goalie inside a 24-hour recall window and with no practice. It rather looks to me like a completely sensible decision.
That there's a reason why doesn't mean that it was the right decision. All of what you said is true. It's also true that Smith can't be counted on either.
You see goalies get called up and play all the time. Sometimes they're called up to play. Sometimes they're called up to play in a B2B - that was the purpose of their call-up
