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

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

None of what you say means that every other goalie on earth is automatically an improvement over Smith. He is not the only goalie in the world who fails to stop shots that he should.

Oh, did you somehow think I said that every goalie on earth is an improvement on Smith? Weird. Because I didn’t.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Oh, did you somehow think I said that every goalie on earth is an improvement on Smith? Weird. Because I didn’t.

Actually, you did, every time you said that goalie X couldn't be any worse than Smith. That is only true if Smith actually is the worst goalie in the world.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Oh, did you somehow think I said that every goalie on earth is an improvement on Smith? Weird. Because I didn’t.

Many nights I feel like I could outperform Mike Smith by simply taking control of him via Goalie Mode in NHL 19 and sitting there for 3 hours with an Xbox controller.

Every time play starts, Goalie Mode takes over and his free will is gone. He is simply a shell of a goalie with input-based controls for me to manipulate as I see fit.

Every time play stops, we unfortunately have to deal with him racing over to the bench screaming, "Guys! I'm going crazy here, I can't control my body at all! Something else is taking control of it! Ritter needs to go in!"

At which point, the guys all have a good chuckle and say "What are you talking about Smitty? You were amazing out there! You bailed us out a few times with some good saves! Get back in net!"

Then, swearing, Smith would return to the net to await the puck drop and the next time something removes control over his bodily functions.

[Joborule]

The argument that Gillies could be worse than Smith, and that's why you don't give him a chance, discounts just how terrible Smith has been. Gillies isn't having the best season, but neither is Smith; so at worse you may be getting equal results (team having to attempt to bail out goalie to get the win), or you may find Gillies can perform the backup role better than Smith can currently.

Just like Rittich, he did get starts last year, and overall they weren't that great, but doesn't mean he wouldn't perform better now. You're not gonna find out, until you do it.

You put him net, and the net behind him gets lit up, oh well, you gave it a shot and move on. But if he does adequate to justify another chance, I think it's worth the risk for at least one game. Especially since Flames are in a comfortable spot playoff wise a the moment.

If Gillies can successfully succeed Smith as a backup for the rest of the season, then it'll allow the Flames to avoid spending assets for a backup goalie, which isn't an automatic guarantee of better backup results. There's always a chance that it doesn't pan out, so take the risks that have the least amount of costs if possible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The argument that Gillies could be worse than Smith, and that's why you don't give him a chance, discounts just how terrible Smith has been. Gillies isn't having the best season, but neither is Smith; so at worse you may be getting equal results (team having to attempt to bail out goalie to get the win), or you may find Gillies can perform the backup role better than Smith can currently.

This is just not true. What’s being discounted is how terrible Gillies has been. We’ve all seen Smith, we’ve seen the warts, we’ve seen the terrible play. Now imagine a player playing worse than that Gillies has been real bad. He’s young, so there’s time, but people were whining when it others suggested they should play Smith so he “finds his game,” and now some of you want to do the same thing for Gillies while bumping him up a league? Wild.

At worst, you get worse results than Smith. At best, Gillies plays so well he’s suddenly the starter. The likelihood of any outcome weighs far closer to “at the worst,” so let’s not kid ourselves and pretend Smith is as bad as it can get. That’s how you make bad decisions that end up costing you even more games.

Gillies can earn his start.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The argument that Gillies could be worse than Smith, and that's why you don't give him a chance, discounts just how terrible Smith has been.

No, the argument is that Gillies at this time is worse than Smith. Nobody is discounting how terrible Smith has been. But the people who think Gillies can't be worse are discounting just how terrible Gillies has been. At the very least, he needs time in Stockton to get his game turned around.

Gillies isn't having the best season, but neither is Smith; so at worse you may be getting equal results (team having to attempt to bail out goalie to get the win),

Fallacious. Having to bail out a goalie who lets in one bad goal per game is not nearly as hard as having to bail out a goalie who lets in three. Hence, the results are not equal. Those who can remember Philippe Sauvé can confirm this.

Just like Rittich, he did get starts last year, and overall they weren't that great, but doesn't mean he wouldn't perform better now.

No, but the fact is that he isn't performing better now.

You put him net, and the net behind him gets lit up, oh well, you gave it a shot and move on.

That's what the Flames did to Doug Dadswell back in 1987. He got shelled so badly that his confidence was permanently broken. In his one season as the team's regular backup, he was the worst goalie in the NHL (minimum 25 GP). He was so bad, they traded away Brett Hull to fix the problem. Dadswell never played an NHL game again.

Here's what I don't understand. Gillies has been by far the worst goalie that Stockton has used this season. Why are so many posters adamant that he is the one who needs to be brought up, and not any of the others?

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Many nights I feel like I could outperform Mike Smith by simply taking control of him via Goalie Mode in NHL 19 and sitting there for 3 hours with an Xbox controller.

Which is actually saying a lot considering how dog#### the goalie controls are in NHL

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is just not true. What’s being discounted is how terrible Gillies has been. We’ve all seen Smith, we’ve seen the warts, we’ve seen the terrible play. Now imagine a player playing worse than that Gillies has been real bad. He’s young, so there’s time, but people were whining when it others suggested they should play Smith so he “finds his game,” and now some of you want to do the same thing for Gillies while bumping him up a league? Wild.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, the argument is that Gillies at this time is worse than Smith. Nobody is discounting how terrible Smith has been. But the people who think Gillies can't be worse are discounting just how terrible Gillies has been. At the very least, he needs time in Stockton to get his game turned around.

Are we saying this because of his stats, or visually is this the case, and more than bad defense in front of him?

Here's what I don't understand. Gillies has been by far the worst goalie that Stockton has used this season. Why are so many posters adamant that he is the one who needs to be brought up, and not any of the others?

I'm just saying him because of convience since he was called up with the roster. Call up anyone from the system, who may be ready to serve a backup role every fourth or fifth game.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, you did, every time you said that goalie X couldn't be any worse than Smith. That is only true if Smith actually is the worst goalie in the world.

Okay, that is a very weird an incorrect view of what I have said. Or maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

Quite simply,
- again, consider 3 types of shots. Should stop / could stop / can’t stop.
- Mike Smith is regularly letting in too many goals on shots that are of the ‘should be stopped’ variety.
- This has been the case for 9-10 months and shows no signs of improving
- If Gillies (and I don’t even care if it is Gillies or someone else, or, say backup goalies from other teams) have been doing well with ‘should stop’ shots, then there is good reason to believe they are a potential upgrade in net. I’m taking about basic professional goaltending standards, all you can ask for from a backup. Not stealing games, not faring as well on the ‘could stop’ shots on the whole, just stopping the ‘should stop’ shots.

We know that Smith and Rittich have different results behind the same team. They are being compared on the same basis.

We know that Gillies on last year’s team, which was atrocious, had not great numbers, but certainly better than Smith under this tear’s good team.

Moreover, say what you will about Feaster, but he retired Conroy’s ass. Mid season. Conroy wasn’t even bad. They could have easily found him a reduced role on the team, but he wasn’t in the future plans, so at a point they decided that was it.

Tough love. If you believe in Smith, then send him to the Heat for starter duties and let him play his way out of his funk.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Can’t stop, won’t stop...... rockafella records.

[SeanCharles]

I don't see the point in debating about this still..

Both Smith and Gillies are guys I'm not comfortable with in net.

Schneider and McDonald are not either and Parsons needs more pro experience before I'd even consider throwing him in the crease.

Arguing over the goalies on our depth charts is just crazy IMO.

Rittich is our only goalie so far this season who has consistently been NHL calibre.

The solution for this season is not within the organization. We need to either ride with Smith or upgrade.

Playing any of the others over Smith, while he is still here and healthy, is not something I could see happening and considering their ages and performances so far in the lower levels I don't think that's far fetched.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If Gillies (and I don’t even care if it is Gillies or someone else, or, say backup goalies from other teams) have been doing well with ‘should stop’ shots, then there is good reason to believe they are a potential upgrade in net.

From what I've been hearing about Stockton, Gillies hasn't been doing well with that. His positioning isn't what it needs to be, and I understand that he has a habit of giving up big fat juicy rebounds. That won't cut it in the NHL.

I'm not saying Gillies is a write-off, just that he needs to work on his game before he is a viable option for the Flames even as a backup.

We know that Gillies on last year’s team, which was atrocious, had not great numbers, but certainly better than Smith under this tear’s good team.

We also know that Gillies had much better numbers in Stockton last year than he has this year – and he is the only goalie in the system of whom this is true. It would appear that he has regressed.

Moreover, say what you will about Feaster, but he retired Conroy’s ass. Mid season.

No, he didn't. Conroy retired voluntarily. You cannot terminate a player's contract in mid-season except for an egregious breach, such as refusing to report.

Tough love. If you believe in Smith, then send him to the Heat for starter duties and let him play his way out of his funk.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe in Smith. Earlier in the season I was prepared to give him rope, but he's used it up now.

I think it's fair to throw out the Pittsburgh game and everything before it, because the team just was not serious about defensive play at that point and it was biting them in the arse. Since that game, Smith's save percentage is .895. That's pretty bad; certainly enough to justify getting him off the team. But there's no point in replacing him with another .895 goalie – or, let's say, an .864 one.

Too many of the suggestions thrown around in the Smith thread amount to replacing a flat tire with another flat tire. Treliving needs to buy a tire that can hold some air.

[Split98]

Here's what we know:
It's harder to win with Mike Smith.

Here's what we don't know:
How hard is it to win with [insert almost any goalie]?


The only reason anyone asked for Gillies to start was he was the closest to the net at the time. He's not my choice, and I wish the Flames management had this problem sorted out by now TBH. But he was sitting right there as Smith played B2B and played as terrible as we feared he would.

Mike Smith is such a negative in net that literally anything we try could be an improvement. We're not talking about a backup that is pushing the starter for starts (what you'd want from a 1B), but we're talking about someone in net who doesn't fabricate goals from anything that's shot near the net.

Gillies stops a way-too-long highlight reel of Smith flubs that have hurt this team. If he doesn't, move on to the next goalie.

What's very clear is that Mike Smith is not the NHL backup this team needs. An L is an L... and whether it's Smith letting in 5 on EIGHT SCORING OPPORTUNITIES or Gillies letting in all 8, we still have the same L as we would have had with Smith.

In the best case scenario, Gillies doesn't fabricate 2 goals but still plays about as lackluster as Smith did the rest of the game. We likely win that game in that scenario, and instead we have another L on the pile that Smith single-handedly fabricated on his own.

If Gillies still sucks, we find any cheap backup that would be an improvement over him. If he's fine, we have an opportunity to have less Ws taken off the board. We're pot-committed to Smith it seems, and it's time to move onto the next hand.

[Strange Brew]

Is it asking too much for Gillies to play well in the AHL before giving him time in the NHL? Every prospect in the organization needs to do this.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

Here's what we know:

It's harder to win with Mike Smith.



Here's what we don't know:

How hard is it to win with [insert almost any goalie]?...

Is this something that EVERYONE does not know? I seriously doubt it.

I suspect that the Flames coaches, who have a better read on Gillies than anyone, likely decided that Smith was a clearly better option than Gillies on Thursday night. They also have a better grasp of what is good or harmful for Gillies’s own development, and they are furthermore highly invested in seeing Gillies succeed. The Flames coaches are probably leery of a situation in which they are riding a first-year NHL starter and a NHL rookie into the playoffs as their goalie tandem.

There are plenty of good reasons to refrain from giving Gillies NHL games at this juncture.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, the argument is that Gillies at this time is worse than Smith. Nobody is discounting how terrible Smith has been. But the people who think Gillies can't be worse are discounting just how terrible Gillies has been. At the very least, he needs time in Stockton to get his game turned around.

Then let's see it.

But if Gillies is worse than Smith is he even an asset still worth developing anymore? I can not imagine 'worse than Smith' is a goalie that belongs anywhere near the NHL, and considering how long Gillies has been in development that's a pretty large hill to climb at this point.
I don't think he's 'worse than Smith'.

I believe there's a chance that Gillies doesn't play worse than Smith.
Until he plays, it's our opinion to discuss. You absolutely can not know how well Gillies would have played in Boston (FTR, the only start most have suggested that Gillies should have started)

On one hand, we hope that the AHL stats are a poor indicator of how he'll play.
On the other hand, we've watched how bad Smith is

Both sides have a reason to be pessimistic that either side is right. But in all cases, we're both hoping that our side of the fence helps the solution. From my side of the fence, I've seen the Smith solution not work over and over and over.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Fallacious. Having to bail out a goalie who lets in one bad goal per game is not nearly as hard as having to bail out a goalie who lets in three. Hence, the results are not equal. Those who can remember Philippe Sauvé can confirm this.

He had a 0.891in his 8 games here

...is he available?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's what the Flames did to Doug Dadswell back in 1987. He got shelled so badly that his confidence was permanently broken. In his one season as the team's regular backup, he was the worst goalie in the NHL (minimum 25 GP). He was so bad, they traded away Brett Hull to fix the problem. Dadswell never played an NHL game again.

I wondered when confidence would come up

How much confidence does Gillies have sitting B2B games while one of the worst goalies in the NHL sharts all over the 2nd start?

I'll bet it wasn't a confidence booster

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Here's what I don't understand. Gillies has been by far the worst goalie that Stockton has used this season. Why are so many posters adamant that he is the one who needs to be brought up, and not any of the others?

This needs to stop happening. Please.

Who is it that you think has professed that Gillies is the one who needs to be brought up? You're just kneecapping someone else's opinion with hyperbole as far as I can see. This happens every time something like this comes up, and it's just as bad as the posters who get on Smith for every goal.

Of the options available... Gillies was the most logical. But very few people legitimately think that this is a good option.

The spare tire isn't the best tire around, but I put it on when I have a flat.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is it asking too much for Gillies to play well in the AHL before giving him time in the NHL? Every prospect in the organization needs to do this.

Yes, that would be ideal.

Gillies starting only comes up as Gillies was on the bench... as Smith expectedly sharted all over the Boston start.

They didn't, he did, and we still don't have a solution to our backup problem. I had 'Gillies solves the problem' at about 15%. I have Smith lower.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Is this something that EVERYONE does not know? I seriously doubt it.

I suspect that the Flames coaches, who have a better read on Gillies than anyone, likely decided that Smith was a clearly better option than Gillies on Thursday night. They also have a better grasp of what is good or harmful for Gillies’s own development, and they are furthermore highly invested in seeing Gillies succeed. The Flames coaches are probably leery of a situation in which they are riding a first-year NHL starter and a NHL rookie into the playoffs as their goalie tandem.

There are plenty of good reasons to refrain from giving Gillies NHL games at this juncture.

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. 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 him (as in, 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 still a surprise.

Hitching us to the Gillies wagon is unfair. I'm on the 'start a goalie that isn't Smith' wagon. The goalie sitting on the bench in Flames gear is usually a pretty solid option to talk about.


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?

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'.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

...They didn't, he did, and we still don't have a solution to our backup problem. I had 'Gillies solves the problem' at about 15%. I have Smith lower.

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

[dammage79]

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?