[News] Dube and Gillies assigned to Stockton. Mangiapane activated off IR

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But the reasons I provided are entirely DEFENSIBLE, even after the fact.

I guess I use the word defensible in different contexts

If a bad decision (which I believe it was, you do not) was made and the result was as poor as feared... I don't use the word defensible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Split98

I guess I use the word defensible in different contexts

If a bad decision (which I believe it was, you do not) was made and the result was as poor as feared... I don't use the word defensible.

That’s not using defensible in a “different context,” that’s using it wrong.

Plenty of reasons, good or bad based on subjective or objective data, why not to start Gillies over Smith.

Smith sucks. Gillies sucks. One of them is doing it in the NHL, the other in the AHL. I’m definitely not clamouring to give my terrible warm-body bench warmer starting time because I’m a bad enough coach that I just randomly throw things at the wall.

Thank goodness Peters has at least some strategy.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s not using defensible in a “different context,” that’s using it wrong.



Plenty of reasons, good or bad based on subjective or objective data, why not to start Gillies over Smith.



Smith sucks. Gillies sucks. One of them is doing it in the NHL, the other in the AHL. I’m definitely not clamouring to give my terrible warm-body bench warmer starting time because I’m a bad enough coach that I just randomly throw things at the wall.



Thank goodness Peters has at least some strategy.

It's a fun conversation when the other side just implies things and then adds it to the criticism.

There has been enough conversation about what the poor AHL stats could mean. Conversely, I've watched Smith.

But you're right. I was pushing for Peters to randomly throw things at the wall. Not at all that I wish he made a different, well thought out, also defensible choice.

Thank goodness you belittled my opinion to prop yours up.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

...But you're right. I was pushing for Peters to randomly throw things at the wall. Not at all that I wish he made a different, well thought out, also defensible choice...

He did make a defensible choice, and you are, in fact, not using the word correctly in this instance.

de·fen·si·ble
/dəˈfensəb(ə)l
adjective
1. justifiable by argument.
"a morally defensible penal system"
synonyms: justifiable, arguable, tenable, defendable, supportable

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Split98

It's a fun conversation when the other side just implies things and then adds it to the criticism.

There has been enough conversation about what the poor AHL stats could mean. Conversely, I've watched Smith.

But you're right. I was pushing for Peters to randomly throw things at the wall. Not at all that I wish he made a different, well thought out, also defensible choice.

Thank goodness you belittled my opinion to prop yours up.

Conversely, I’ve watched Gillies.

Albeit not as much as Smith (4 games streamed, 1 live) and he’s been terrible. Not even good guy getting bad breaks, just bad. I’m not an expert on him, but we’re not just looking at a stat line here.

The thing that’s kind of silly to me is some of the people pushing for Gillies to get a start is doing it without watching him and with a “see what happens!” approach.

I just don’t understand. You don’t think playing Smith was defensible, but you want Peters to make a different choice that is “well thought out and defensible” by playing a guy who is struggling bad?

If Gillies gets lit up for 8, is that decision then defensible to you or not? I get that the grass is always greener, but even though we lost Smith gave us a better chance to win, full stop. The result doesn’t change the probability that went into it at decision time.

[keenan87]

Let Dube play in the minors for the remainder of the season. I also don't think Gillies will be back with the Flames next season.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Conversely, I’ve watched Gillies.



Albeit not as much as Smith (4 games streamed, 1 live) and he’s been terrible. Not even good guy getting bad breaks, just bad. I’m not an expert on him, but we’re not just looking at a stat line here.



The thing that’s kind of silly to me is some of the people pushing for Gillies to get a start is doing it without watching him and with a “see what happens!” approach.



I just don’t understand. You don’t think playing Smith was defensible, but you want Peters to make a different choice that is “well thought out and defensible” by playing a guy who is struggling bad?



If Gillies gets lit up for 8, is that decision then defensible to you or not? I get that the grass is always greener, but even though we lost Smith gave us a better chance to win, full stop. The result doesn’t change the probability that went into it at decision time.

As has been mentioned before, a poor showing in the AHL could be indicative of trying new things. It's one reason, and I'd have to see results to get on board with it - but it's one reason.

And yes, if Gillies gets lit up for 8 it was defensible... and the result is as the same as starting Smith. Or... he's fine

Halfway through the he season, they need to try something, and they haven't. That was an opportunity to try something, and they didn't.

If Gillies cannot play the next night in place of a terrible goalie, I don't understand why he's around at all. Considering he is, I assume they hope he could play that role - but if not now, when? This was a time Calgary needed a goalie and he lost out to a bad goalie playing twice.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

...Halfway through the he season, they need to try something, and they haven't. That was an opportunity to try something, and they didn't.

If Gillies cannot play the next night in place of a terrible goalie, I don't understand why he's around at all.

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?

Considering he is, I assume they hope he could play that role - but if not now, when?

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?

This was a time Calgary needed a goalie and he lost out to a bad goalie playing twice.

Yes. That should tell you something about where Jon Gillies is at right now, and about his readiness to play in the NHL.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Split98

If Gillies cannot play the next night in place of a terrible goalie, I don't understand why he's around at all. Considering he is, I assume they hope he could play that role - but if not now, when?

You don’t understand why Gillies is in the system? It’s pretty clear, they are trying to develop nhl goalies. Gillies still has NHL upside despite his poor season. Is he ready to be backing up or starting in the NHL? Doesn’t seem like it. When might he be ready? I dunno, development isn’t always linear and goalies can sometimes take forever to develop. As we know all too well from giving up on Roloson, Anderson and Giguere before they were fully developed.

Sounds like you’re just grumpy and impatient and your feelings on Smith are clouding your objectivity and reason. Management doesn’t think Smith = auto loss like some of you do. I’d be surprised if they have anywhere near the desperation to replace Smith that some of the haters have. Most likely we will be rolling with Smith as the backup the rest of the year and the haters are just gonna have to get used to it. The issue has been overblown because Rittich is doing well and we’re still getting wins with Smith. Backup goalie is not the critical position on the team that you’d think it was reading a thread like this.

[Split98]

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.

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)

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.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You don’t understand why Gillies is in the system? It’s pretty clear, they are trying to develop nhl goalies. Gillies still has NHL upside despite his poor season. Is he ready to be backing up or starting in the NHL? Doesn’t seem like it. When might he be ready? I dunno, development isn’t always linear and goalies can sometimes take forever to develop. As we know all too well from giving up on Roloson, Anderson and Giguere before they were fully developed.

Sounds like you’re just grumpy and impatient and your feelings on Smith are clouding your objectivity and reason. Management doesn’t think Smith = auto loss like some of you do. I’d be surprised if they have anywhere near the desperation to replace Smith that some of the haters have. Most likely we will be rolling with Smith as the backup the rest of the year and the haters are just gonna have to get used to it. The issue has been overblown because Rittich is doing well and we’re still getting wins with Smith. Backup goalie is not the critical position on the team that you’d think it was reading a thread like this.

I like Gillies, I think he should have started ONE GAME

In this scenario, I start to question his NHL upside if he wasn't trusted to start - and a trainwreck happened

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

...No. I wonder what the coaches are seeing in Gillies that Smith on a B2B is the better option.

I think it is pretty obvious. Jon Gillies has been really terrible this year. On a short recall and with no practice-time with the Flames it seems patently obvious to me why the coaches would not choose to start a struggling AHL goalie in a very tough building in an NHL game.

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).

I am well aware of that, and it's a response that has been repeated numerous times in this thread. Jon Gillies is part of the Flames organisation because the Flames continue to believe that he could become an NHL player.

Again,
Is it mistrust in Gillies? (which, must be severe given the scenario)
Too much trust in Smith? (which, was a mistake - and unearned)

This has been answered, but I suspect that having the team's backup goalie with 12 wins on the season start two games in a row does not exhibit "too much trust," nor is the start following a win "unearned." These are your interpretations of the situation, but I am abundantly confident they are not shared by anyone in the Flames organisation.

After all this time, you couldn't have found a better "any goalie we can play" scenario than having to play Mike Smith B2B.

Are you suggesting that the Flames should have pulled the trigger on a trade in order to save Smith from playing the Boston game?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Split98

I like Gillies, I think he should have started ONE GAME

In this scenario, I start to question his NHL upside if he wasn't trusted to start - and a trainwreck happened

You are confusing NHL upside with NHL readiness
Just because he wasn't ready to take that start doesn't mean he wouldn't be in the future.

You use the term "logical" to say that he should have made the logical start. The's the primary disconnect. What you view as a logical decision seems mighty illogical to others, given Gillie's play this season.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

...You use the term "logical" to say that he should have made the logical start. The's the primary disconnect. What you view as a logical decision seems mighty illogical to others, given Gillie's play this season.

More to the point, I fail to see what is remotely "logical" with starting a struggling AHL goalie with no practice time in Boston. The Bruins have lost five games at the Garden. How is this a good idea?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Split98

Halfway through the he season, they need to try something, and they haven't. That was an opportunity to try something, and they didn't.

If Gillies cannot play the next night in place of a terrible goalie, I don't understand why he's around at all. Considering he is, I assume they hope he could play that role - but if not now, when? This was a time Calgary needed a goalie and he lost out to a bad goalie playing twice.

They need to try something, but not anything. There’s a big difference, and trying a guy who is struggling majorly in the AHL in the NHL definitely falls under “anything” and likely something they should not try. It was an opportunity to try something that was a bad idea. I don’t know if you’re ignoring it on purpose, but trying Gillies in that spot would’ve been objectively more dangerous than trying Smith. I get that “maybe” he would’ve been fine. “Maybe” Smith would’ve been fine too. He wasn’t. But the likelihood of him being fine was higher than Gillies. Gillies has work to do.

To your question of if not now, when? Maybe never. But certainly after he’s found his game in the AHL. You put the player in that gives you the best chance to win, and that was Smith on both nights. I get there is some impatience over the situation, but this was not Gillies one and only night to shine. So if not now, when? How about when Gillies has earned it? How about when he gives you a better chance of win than Smith? It’s not a high bar to set, but posters advocating the “any other choice is a better one” narrative are being silly imo. We’re in the business of winning games. Smith isn’t helping, but Gillies isn’t helping Stockton either, so call me crazy for not being excited about literally any human body not named Mike Smith.

[DeluxeMoustache]

It’s amazing the conviction some people have in their opinions.

Stockton’s top D are all up here and the team is a tire fire defensively. Huska as well.

Smith is the NHL equivalent right now of when Fonzie lost his cool.

It is very plausible that Gillies will make the stops that Smith is struggling with.

Finally, Gillies in his time up last year was playing under a very bad team, and had some outstanding saves. I will leave this here to remind people of some nice saves he made.

https://twitter.com/user/status/992056185988595712

[Jiri Hrdina]

I could easily put together a highlight reel of great Smith saves.
Highlight reels are a terrible way to assess someone.
Someone asked the question earlier (perhaps even you) - do folks that watch the Heat more regularly have a view on whether his stats are bad because he's giving up bad goals or just bad D? Or is there somewhere where advanced goalie stats are available (e.g. low danger, medium danger, high danger SVP). I can't find them. Perhaps not tracked at the AHL?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I could easily put together a highlight reel of great Smith saves.
Highlight reels are a terrible way to assess someone.
Someone asked the question earlier (perhaps even you) - do folks that watch the Heat more regularly have a view on whether his stats are bad because he's giving up bad goals or just bad D? Or is there somewhere where advanced goalie stats are available (e.g. low danger, medium danger, high danger SVP). I can't find them. Perhaps not tracked at the AHL?

Trying to add some positivity to the thread. You must be a hoot at parties. :-)

I’ll tell you what. His stats in the A are no damn good because the team is a tire fire defensively and they can’t be decoupled. The right data is not collected to allow this to be done in a truly meaningful way. That is a fact.

By the way, you know what the staff generate for coaches to review a player’s work? A curated selection of video clips.

Enjoy the highlights.

They compare favourably to that montage of several garbage shots going through Smith.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Trying to add some positivity to the thread. You must be a hoot at parties. :-)

I’ll tell you what. His stats in the A are no damn good because the team is a tire fire defensively and they can’t be decoupled. The right data is not collected to allow this to be done in a truly meaningful way. That is a fact.

By the way, you know what the staff generate for coaches to review a player’s work? A curated selection of video clips.

Enjoy the highlights.

They compare favourably to that montage of several garbage shots going through Smith.

Video review likely includes a balance of examples strong saves and examples of where the goalie could have improved, perhaps resulting in a goal. Much different than a curate selection of big saves.
Though sometimes that is used to boost a player's confidence
But if you are trying to use that sizzle reel to show that Gillies is a valid choice to be a back up NHLer, it is a slanted view.
Again, you could put together a nifty highlight reel of every NHL and AHL goalie. Tells you nothing.

And yeah I'm not much fun at a party. My wife would confirm that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

...By the way, you know what the staff generate for coaches to review a player’s work? A curated selection of video clips...

I bet it is not a montage comprised of cherry-picked samples that exaggerates the high- or low-points of a player's body of work.

We can in fact remain optimistic about Gillies's future while simultaneously also recognising that he is having a bad year. Some of this has to do with the defensive ####-show he plays behind on a nightly basis, but not all of it. You appear incapable of nuance.