No, it was pure assumption by Ramo supporters that Hiller was getting dealt. There was absolutely nothing reported that suggested Hiller was close to being dealt other than the story imagined in their heads.
No one knows for sure, but I had heard that there was a deal in place to deal Hiller and it fell through.
But in any event, lets think about this logically.
What we know:
1) The flames signed Ramo on July 1.
2) Hiller was under contract
3) Ortio was under contract and had to pass through waivers
4) The flames were afraid Ortio might be claimed so didn't put him through waivers
Those facts suggest only 4 logical solutions
1) The flames wanted to keep Hiller and Ortio. That suggests they planned to trade ramo after signing him on July 1: Severely unlikely
2) The flames wanted to keep Hiller and Ramo. That suggests they either planned to keep 3 goalies (unlikely) or trade Ortio (somewhat unlikely)
3) The flames wanted to keep Ramo and Ortio. This suggests they planned to trade hiller (most likely)
There is only 4 logical end points. If you don't think the plan was to trade Hiller, then which of the other 3 do you think it was? Did they plan on trading Ortio, plan on carrying 3 goalies, or plan on trading Ramo?
No, it was pure assumption by Ramo supporters that Hiller was getting dealt. There was absolutely nothing reported that suggested Hiller was close to being dealt other than the story imagined in their heads.
That is incorrect. I heard talk of it on the Fan, I think either Duha or Freidman, that talked about the rumour of a potential deal for Hiller which ended up falling through.
It was discussed as a rumour and not as fact, but it isn't just an imagined scenario.
There is only 4 logical end points. If you don't think the plan was to trade Hiller, then which of the other 3 do you think it was? Did they plan on trading Ortio, plan on carrying 3 goalies, or plan on trading Ramo?
I think they were impressed with Ramo enough to give him another year and planned on letting him and Hiller fight for one of spots and moving the other. If they really signed Ramo to be their starter Hiller would have been the guy waived.
Am I the only one who hates the "this goalie until he loses" mindset?
IMO doing that hinders the goalie's development, especially mentally.
But in Bob we trust..
Eh, don't really see how this could mentally hinder a goalies development. If anything, it should keep the goalies regulated and on top of their game if they they want to be in the crease again.
That is incorrect. I heard talk of it on the Fan, I think either Duha or Freidman, that talked about the rumour of a potential deal for Hiller which ended up falling through.
It was discussed as a rumour and not as fact, but it isn't just an imagined scenario.
I stand corrected then. It must have been a rumor that stayed in Calgary. Even so, it shouldn't be preached as fact by Ramo supporters.
I think they were impressed with Ramo enough to give him another year and planned on letting him and Hiller fight for one of spots and moving the other. If they really signed Ramo to be their starter Hiller would have been the guy waived.
Treliving is on record as saying he didnt want to start the season with three goalies. Which means he wanted to trade one of the three guys.
His reputation for signing ufas would have suffered immensely if he signed ufas only to trade them before the season even started. No gm would ever do that. So logically he had no plan to trade ramo.
Youre right though...very confusing why they waived ramo over hiller.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
The fact Gullfoss is not banned for life on here is such an embarrassment. Just a joke.
Treliving is on record as saying he didnt want to start the season with three goalies. Which means he wanted to trade one of the three guys.
His reputation for signing ufas would have suffered immensely if he signed ufas only to trade them before the season even started. No gm would ever do that. So logically he had no plan to trade ramo.
Youre right though...very confusing why they waived ramo over hiller.
The Ramo signing was a re-signing not a UFA signing since he never hit free agency so I don't think it would impact signing UFAs. I think the only thing they promised him was the opportunity to win the starting position at camp. I'm sure he knew there was a chance he would be the odd man out so in return they gave them the money they did.
Think about it. It makes absolutely no sense to re-sign a goalie with the intention of making him your starter only to waive him.
No one knows for sure, but I had heard that there was a deal in place to deal Hiller and it fell through.
But in any event, lets think about this logically.
What we know:
1) The flames signed Ramo on July 1.
2) Hiller was under contract
3) Ortio was under contract and had to pass through waivers
4) The flames were afraid Ortio might be claimed so didn't put him through waivers
Those facts suggest only 4 logical solutions
1) The flames wanted to keep Hiller and Ortio. That suggests they planned to trade ramo after signing him on July 1: Severely unlikely
2) The flames wanted to keep Hiller and Ramo. That suggests they either planned to keep 3 goalies (unlikely) or trade Ortio (somewhat unlikely)
3) The flames wanted to keep Ramo and Ortio. This suggests they planned to trade hiller (most likely)
There is only 4 logical end points. If you don't think the plan was to trade Hiller, then which of the other 3 do you think it was? Did they plan on trading Ortio, plan on carrying 3 goalies, or plan on trading Ramo?
Why do you say there are 4 options and then list only 3?
I would say the option that makes the most sense was option 4, they were unsure of Ortio and wanted Ramo in place in case Ortio wasn't ready. Then Ortio played great in the pre-season and the Flames a. thought he was good enough to be the back-up/1b and b. were scared he wouldn't clear waivers.
This makes waiving Ramo make much more sense. He was the weakest of the 3 guys early on and only there as insurance in case Ortio faltered and he didn't falter.
It wasn't confusing at all why the waived Ramo over Hiller. Ramo has been the weaker goalie over their careers and the weaker goalie to start the season. Why would they keep him over Hiller?
...not sure why when Ramo is the worst of the 3 our best chance is for him to get hot. That seems like the most unlikely thing to happen.
I don't understand how anyone can make a choice between the three with such conviction. Ramo has looked no better or worse than either Hiller or Ortio, and he seems just as likely to succeed or fail based on everything we have seen this season. In the end, all three goalies have been poor in October.
__________________
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'd prefer to see Ramo in for tomorrow night's game, although I have little confidence in any of them at this point. That win in Edmonton could be a confidence builder - I'd rather see what comes of it than put Ortio in.
I don't understand how anyone can make a choice between the three with such conviction. Ramo has looked no better or worse than either Hiller or Ortio, and he seems just as likely to succeed or fail based on everything we have seen this season. In the end, all three goalies have been poor in October.
And that's as much an indictment on the team as it is on the three goalies. It's not like they all forgot how to stop a puck -- all three were lights out in the preseason.
The confidence thing is huge and it feeds off of each other. Goalies play more confidently when their D is keeping opposing scoring chances low, and the D plays more confidently when the goalie is making saves. Neither are happening right now in any great abundance, although its getting better.
And that's as much an indictment on the team as it is on the three goalies. It's not like they all forgot how to stop a puck -- all three were lights out in the preseason.
The confidence thing is huge and it feeds off of each other. Goalies play more confidently when their D is keeping opposing scoring chances low, and the D plays more confidently when the goalie is making saves. Neither are happening right now in any great abundance, although its getting better.
Even in games where the Flames D has kept scoring chances relatively low, the Goals against remain high. You have to expect an NHL caliber goaltender to make the occasional big save, which we have seen absolutely none of from any of the 3 goalies. There have been games we lost where we actually had 2x as many quality scoring chances. Montreal and Ottawa were good examples of that. Of course that is with Brodie back and a healthy blue-line with nobody in over their heads. Games previous to that the Flames had several defensive breakdowns, but the point stands.
The defense is now pulling their weight, so hopefully the goal-tending can as well.
Just saying "win and you're in" is far to simplistic. Hypothetically I'd rather go with a goalie that lost a game 2-1 while getting shelled then one who won 8-7 while facing 15 mild shots... wins are terrible goalie stat. Having said that, the fact is that none of the goalies are putting in any standout performances so you may as well go with the guy that put in the "good enough" performance last time out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
I don't understand how anyone can make a choice between the three with such conviction. Ramo has looked no better or worse than either Hiller or Ortio, and he seems just as likely to succeed or fail based on everything we have seen this season. In the end, all three goalies have been poor in October.
Hiller has been better than Ramo every single year up until this year where at best they are equal, I have found Hiller to be better. So its pretty easy to say that Hiller is better than Ramo.
As for Ortio probably tougher to say he is for sure better now, but he certainly isn't worse so with his age and chance at getting better for me he is obviously a much better option.
Hiller has been better than Ramo every single year up until this year where at best they are equal, I have found Hiller to be better. So its pretty easy to say that Hiller is better than Ramo.
As for Ortio probably tougher to say he is for sure better now, but he certainly isn't worse so with his age and chance at getting better for me he is obviously a much better option.
It is unsurprising, coming from you, to see your opinions posted axiomatically, as if they were blatantly obvious to everyone else. Based on what we have seen so far this season, I see no reason to think that Hiller has been better. He has had more starts, and he has won one more game, but by the same token, I think he has probably been more consistently poor than either of the other two.
__________________
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?"
