I don't think calling Dansk an upgrade upon Gillies or Rittich is particularly bold. He's younger, has higher and more recent draft pedigree, and has shown elite-quality play (albeit in small doses) at the NHL level.
Also, to patronize means to treat condescendingly or as a child. Repeatedly insisting that I "refuse to see things" is pretty condescending to me, but I'm not interested in a debate on semantics.
Dansk has some nice upside. But so do Rittich and Gillies. I think you're refusing the see the upside in the guys we have. Were we short on goalie prospects I'd be all for claiming a guy like that off waivers. But I think case I don't think he's a big upgrade on Rittich/Gillies so I think sticking with the guys we've invested in is the right move.
As for Patronize
patronize | ˈpatrənʌɪz | (also patronise)
verb [with object]
1 (often as adjective patronizing) treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority: ‘She's a good-hearted girl,’ he said in a patronizing voice.
Clearly I was not treating you with apparent kindness so it was a poor choice of words. If I then said, "Good try there kid" now that would be patronizing.
Now maybe Flames scouts and management are very, very high on Dansk. If they do then I'm sure they'll claim him. But I think they are quite high on the upside of Rittich and Gillies. I think Flames management and scouts hold a much higher opinion of Gillies and Rittich than you do. That's why I said you are refusing to see their upside.
Now all that said goaltending is one of the hardest positions for people to judge and evaluate. And a lot of patience is needed for young goalies. I can't claim to be an expert on evaluating young goalies but IMO having watched the Flames develop goalies in the past 20 years I think Rittich, Gillies and Parsons are some of the best prospects we've had in that timeframe.
Guess we'll see what happens but I think the Flames are pretty happy with their goaltenders at the moment despite some posters being unhappy. I think the Flames still see starter potential in all of Rittich/Gillies/Parsons. We've got 3 rolls of the dice there and I believe one or more of them will indeed to prove to develop into an NHL starter. I think the Flames probably see it similarly but its hard to know for sure.
I disagree. I'm almost completely over Gillies and Rittich. I think at a certain point we're stifling progress in favour of misguided loyalty to the mediocre options we already have. I think the Flames are going to shoot themselves in the foot if they don't pursue external options very soon.
Totally.
Just like Jankowski. Why wait on that guy, right
The Following User Says Thank You to DropIt For This Useful Post:
I'd be happy giving Dansk a shot here, but mostly because I view him close to equal to Gilles and Rittich. So really it's a crapshoot with any of them.
That said I have little doubt someone else picks him up before we have the chance to.
Same goes for Sparks if/when he hits waivers.
I don't see us being in a waiver priority position to improve at goal via waiver claim. If we're improving there this year it's through trade, and I think our recently found depth and prospects showing promise allows the Flames to make a trade.
Dansk had 5 very good NHL games last season. I would waive rittich to try him out. Rittich had 21 games and looked good in like 3-4
What in the hell are you going on about?
From 25 Nov–11 Feb Rittich played in 10 games and started in seven of them. In his seven starts he had a 5-1-2 record, a cumulative GAA of 2.20, and a 0.927 SP. He looked fantastic for the first three months of his NHL career. Proclamations of Rittich's demise are greatly overstated.
__________________
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?"
Well, two things about that. For one, Dube has far surpassed Klimchuk by now, although I still hold the latter in high regard. And in a position as fickle as goaltending, you need to cycle through options until you find somebody with potential. The Flames have been far too deliberate in testing out options doomed to fail in recent years while only bringing in mediocre veterans from the outside to counteract their own mediocre prospects. The only goaltender with any real potential in the Flames' system right now is Parsons and maaaaybe Gillies.
Yeah, Curtis McElhinney was claimed by the Leafs in 2017. There are other cases too
That is horrible idea unless you have really really crappy goaltending. Who would want to come to an organization that just turfs goalies left, right and centre because the have an off year. We still need to develop what we have. I think we should try Rittich and let Gillies and Parson go in the A. If Rittich sucks find someone else and cut him.
The Following User Says Thank You to EverfresH15 For This Useful Post:
Rittich was sheltered to start the year and was in over his head going from backup to starter. I think if he is used for 20 games as the back up, he'll probably be an average to above average backup. When the wheels fell off the team after mid January, it is kind of hard to peg any one player as being mostly responsible for how things went. So I'm giving him a bit of a pass on what has a complete cluster.... for the entire organization.
In order to see if he has any longer term potential, you have to give him another shot. He played well in Vancouver. The first game of the preseason against Edmonton, it was clear that he wasn't trying hard because it looked like he was trying to just get his muscles loose in a game vs actually trying mainly to avoid any minor injuries.
As for Gillies. He is capable of making big saves and has had a number of great games both at the NHL and AHL level. He's also been terrible in a number of games. That up and down play is typical with goalies. What he needs is more games and playing time. Being the starter in Stockton will help.
Similarly with Parsons, being the starter in Kansas will also help.
The problem with goalies is that they seldom are good from day one like Matt Murray has been for Pittsburgh. Pretty much it was only Dryden, Barrasso, Roy, Brodeur and Belfour who were top notch from the get go. Every one else takes a bit. Look at Hellebuyck in Winnipeg. He was bad at times for the first while when he got to the NHL. Last year, he was one of the very best. Same with Andersen and Gibson when they came up with the quacks.
Dansk is very much of a similar calibre as Gillies and Rittich. The problem is they are both still there. If they had one only, I'd say go for it with just as much enthusiasm as you have for the idea. Teams with fewer goalie prospects should be all over that though.
Bad Hellebuyck (2016-17) had a 26-19-4 2.89 GA .907 sv % This was so bad the Jets went and signed Peters.
Last year Smith was 25-22-6 2.65 .916 sv %.
Bad Hellebuyck was pretty close stats-wise to good Smith that the Flames are going into the season as clear #1.
Waiting for Trevling to make the big goalie move he said he was working on.
Would not surprise me at all if Buffalo put in a claim for Dansk. I mean, who else do they have?
Carter Hutton is the next attempt at having a reasonably good goalie. Linus Ullmark will be the backup and guy to fall on to if he stumbles, he's looked pretty good in limited action and the organization is pretty high on him. I think he's similar to Dansk at this point.
Past that it's Scott Wedgewood at the bad veteran third stringer who will play if we run into injuries, then prospects Jonas Johansson and Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen. Both are progressing fairly well but neither is close to ready for the NHL.
Rittich was sheltered to start the year and was in over his head going from backup to starter. I think if he is used for 20 games as the back up, he'll probably be an average to above average backup. When the wheels fell off the team after mid January, it is kind of hard to peg any one player as being mostly responsible for how things went. So I'm giving him a bit of a pass on what has a complete cluster.... for the entire organization.
In order to see if he has any longer term potential, you have to give him another shot. He played well in Vancouver. The first game of the preseason against Edmonton, it was clear that he wasn't trying hard because it looked like he was trying to just get his muscles loose in a game vs actually trying mainly to avoid any minor injuries.
As for Gillies. He is capable of making big saves and has had a number of great games both at the NHL and AHL level. He's also been terrible in a number of games. That up and down play is typical with goalies. What he needs is more games and playing time. Being the starter in Stockton will help.
Similarly with Parsons, being the starter in Kansas will also help.
The problem with goalies is that they seldom are good from day one like Matt Murray has been for Pittsburgh. Pretty much it was only Dryden, Barrasso, Roy, Brodeur and Belfour who were top notch from the get go. Every one else takes a bit. Look at Hellebuyck in Winnipeg. He was bad at times for the first while when he got to the NHL. Last year, he was one of the very best. Same with Andersen and Gibson when they came up with the quacks.
Dansk is very much of a similar calibre as Gillies and Rittich. The problem is they are both still there. If they had one only, I'd say go for it with just as much enthusiasm as you have for the idea. Teams with fewer goalie prospects should be all over that though.
Tony Esposito had 15 shut outs and won the Vezina as a rookie.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to The Cobra For This Useful Post:
Scorp you actually have warmed me up to the idea. Thing is if you claim him there’s really not much pre season left on which to base anything. So you’re essentially trading him for say Rittich. Which is not totally outlandish.
The Flames have yet to develop a goalie in my entire life.
At this point, I'm extremely skeptical that they're going to make any correct decisions in this regard. They've been patient before - wasn't Irving in the organization for around 7-8 years?
Gillies has now been here for 6 years. Ortio was here for around that amount of time. Goalies are a big investment to develop. You need to have a lot of contingency plans for when it doesn't work out (which is almost always).
At the very least, I'd rather have Dansk as an insurance option than Glass. And he's definitely a better prospect than Schneider and McDonald.
The Flames have yet to develop a goalie in my entire life.
At this point, I'm extremely skeptical that they're going to make any correct decisions in this regard. They've been patient before - wasn't Irving in the organization for around 7-8 years?
Gillies has now been here for 6 years. Ortio was here for around that amount of time. Goalies are a big investment to develop. You need to have a lot of contingency plans for when it doesn't work out (which is almost always).
At the very least, I'd rather have Dansk as an insurance option than Glass. And he's definitely a better prospect than Schneider and McDonald.
If you claim Dansk that means he on the roster. You can't claim him to send him down as Vegas would just take him back.
Man this gets old. Here's every waiver wire conversation:
"We should claim player x. He's a clear upgrade on player y."
"Yeah player y sucks. Our team would really be much better with player x."
Objective poster: "Here's the data on player y. You will see that they are actually on par with player x, and actually better in some ways."
Emotional poster: "If we don't claim player x, somebody else will! Players like this aren't available all the time. Where do we rank on the waiver claim list again? Who's ahead of us and are they likely to take player x? Gosh, I hope we don't miss out on player x."
24 hours passes...player x clears waivers.
"Well, I guess if nobody else wanted him, we shouldn't either, right?"
"Our GM is such an idiot. I can't wait to point out how bad player y is for the rest of the year and how good player x is doing elsewhere."
Rinse. Repeat.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Man this gets old. Here's every waiver wire conversation:
"We should claim player x. He's a clear upgrade on player y."
"Yeah player y sucks. Our team would really be much better with player x."
Objective poster: "Here's the data on player y. You will see that they are actually on par with player x, and actually better in some ways."
Emotional poster: "If we don't claim player x, somebody else will! Players like this aren't available all the time. Where do we rank on the waiver claim list again? Who's ahead of us and are they likely to take player x? Gosh, I hope we don't miss out on player x."
24 hours passes...player x clears waivers.
"Well, I guess if nobody else wanted him, we shouldn't either, right?"
"Our GM is such an idiot. I can't wait to point out how bad player y is for the rest of the year and how good player x is doing elsewhere."
Rinse. Repeat.
You forgot ".... and look no further than Paul Byron!!"
