Mike Smith's... woes? He blows? Eating crows? Who knows! (Also David Rittich exists!)

[jroc]

Originally Posted by smiggy77

Also so you know, players might be able to play 82 games at 20-25min a game, to say a goalie to be on and playing for the full 60 minutes and playing 82 games is the same is hilarious.

Not that I'm agreeing that if players can play 82 games, so can a goalie; but with all the time the puck is in the other end or in the neutral zone, the goalie is really only 'playing' 25-30 minutes as well.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by jroc

Not that I'm agreeing that if players can play 82 games, so can a goalie; but with all the time the puck is in the other end or in the neutral zone, the goalie is really only 'playing' 25-30 minutes as well.

You’ve got to remember that those 25-30 min the puck is at the other end of the rink, the goalie can’t sit down, take a breather, chat with the coaches, turn his brain off, he’s on the whole time, and the physical and mental stability needed for the 30 min he’s “actually” playing is much harder.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Sure. And for me the risk isn’t goalie 1 being fatigued, the risk is not having a good goalie 2 in case something happens to goalie 1

And how do you make sure goalie #2 is ready in case #1 goes down? You play him more than a few times a season. Either way you get a split

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Rittich isn't going to be getting over 50 starts, never mind 60 +, so maybe I'm missing the main point of the argument.



Another problem I have with Smith is that he's wasting a valuable development spot. A lot of goalies develop as backups and end up gradually becoming starters. Look at how the Capitals, Lightning, Kings, Sharks, Ducks, etc. have been developing goalies. It would be nice if our backup had at least some upside, rather than an extremely sharp decline.



You want to give Rittich a rest? Good, I largely agree. But why not give starts to someone who has potential and can grow. I hope the Flames don't acquire any goalies on the wrong side of 30. Definitely no one on the wrong side of 35 (like Smith, Howard, or Anderson), except maybe McElhinney if he's dirt cheap.



People are saying the Flames shouldn't trade Smith, but I think that's silly. It's clearly the biggest whole in the organization by a mile. Why not fix it.

I suspect the organization still views Rittich as the developing goalie. He’s in uncharted territory and last year dropped off significantly later in the year. Under these circumstances they probably prefer a proven vet as his partner. Just need a better proven vet than Smith.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Seperate from concerns over Smiths play I’m surprised people don’t see the rationale in starting him
You need to manage Rittichs starts. Overplaying him could be a huge factor in an early exit from the playoffs. So he was likely going to play against the Caps or Canes. With the early start tomorrow it’s basically back to back

I see the rationale in needing to manage Rittich’s starts. I do not see the rationale in thinking that Mike Smith is an adequate goalie to use in managing his starts. The Flames need to either trade for a goalie or try one of their AHL guys. Mike Smith is not an NHL level backup.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

I see the rationale in needing to manage Rittich’s starts. I do not see the rationale in thinking that Mike Smith is an adequate goalie to use in managing his starts. The Flames need to either trade for a goalie or try one of their AHL guys. Mike Smith is not an NHL level backup.

These are two different arguments.
I'm not happy with Smith as the backup but until he is replaced the Flames can't just run Rittich out there every game.
And I also have my doubts that they will replace Smith at the deadline.
Trying one of the AHL guys doesn't make any sense to me. Parsons hasn't played enough at the AHL level and Gillies has been awful.
I don't think there is an internal option here.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Rittich isn't going to be getting over 50 starts, never mind 60 +, so maybe I'm missing the main point of the argument.

Another problem I have with Smith is that he's wasting a valuable development spot. A lot of goalies develop as backups and end up gradually becoming starters. Look at how the Capitals, Lightning, Kings, Sharks, Ducks, etc. have been developing goalies. It would be nice if our backup had at least some upside, rather than an extremely sharp decline.

You want to give Rittich a rest? Good, I largely agree. But why not give starts to someone who has potential and can grow. I hope the Flames don't acquire any goalies on the wrong side of 30. Definitely no one on the wrong side of 35 (like Smith, Howard, or Anderson), except maybe McElhinney if he's dirt cheap.

People are saying the Flames shouldn't trade Smith, but I think that's silly. It's clearly the biggest whole in the organization by a mile. Why not fix it.

Having managed it well for the first 50 doesn't mean you should just open the floodgates now.

All that said, I think it would be good to start getting Rittich into 'series' form. Say 5 straight starts (excl. any back to backs), then a couple off. Then 6 straight and a couple off.


You don't develop goalies by giving them more time on an NHL bench. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a bit of waiver wire shuffle to get a few starts, I'm not sure it's worth completely torpedoing Smith in doing so.

My points would be:
1. If we need to go to our backup (whoever it is) in May or June, we're probably not raising the cup
2. There aren't many available goalies out there that are a guaranteed upgrade on Smith
3. Acquiring any of them would require spending some meaningful assets
4. I'd rather spend those assets to acquire something that is more likely to see the ice in May/June (a veteran 5/6/7 D-man or a swiss-army-knife forward with playoff experience)

I feel just as confident that Smith could rise to the occasion as a temporary stop-gap in May or June as anyone else we might acquire...which is to say, not very confident.

With divisional playoff format, I'm really not concerned about seeding. We're going to have to beat quality teams to advance one way or the other.

If it were a matter of staying above the playoff tidewater, then I'd be more willing to spend an asset on a 1B goalie

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

These are two different arguments.
I'm not happy with Smith as the backup but until he is replaced the Flames can't just run Rittich out there every game.
And I also have my doubts that they will replace Smith at the deadline.
Trying one of the AHL guys doesn't make any sense to me. Parsons hasn't played enough at the AHL level and Gillies has been awful.
I don't think there is an internal option here.

You may be right that Gillies is not the answer but the point is that they need to try something because we have a very large sample size that says that Mike Smith absolutely is not the answer. The crux of the thread is whether Mike Smith is costing the team points and whether he needs to be replaced and in my opinion the answer is overwhelmingly obvious. If they aren’t ready to pull the trigger on a trade then I think they need to at least try one of the AHL guys. Mike Smith is likely untradable so they just need to bury in the minors at this point. Lot of people think that will hurt team chemistry, I’m not going to pretend I know whether it will or not, but if burying a terribly underperforming player is what is going to wreck this team mentally then they probably don’t have what it takes to win it all anyway.

[Jiri Hrdina]

John Gillies has a GAA over 4 and a SVP of .866. We can attribute some of that to a poor team in front of him but there's no way to deny those are god awful numbers.
Trying a guy who has played worse than Smith at a lower level seems like a weird tactic. And I don't think management is so desperate as to just "try something". The team is winning. Smith is winning more than he is losing in spite of poor play.
I'd like to see them get a new backup but I don't know how they do that. I also don't think we are going to see Smith waived despite calls for that to happen.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

John Gillies has a GAA over 4 and a SVP of .866. We can attribute some of that to a poor team in front of him but there's no way to deny those are god awful numbers.
Trying a guy who has played worse than Smith at a lower level seems like a weird tactic. And I don't think management is so desperate as to just "try something". The team is winning. Smith is winning more than he is losing in spite of poor play.
I'd like to see them get a new backup but I don't know how they do that. I also don't think we are going to see Smith waived despite calls for that to happen.

Eh, Gillies hasn’t been good at all but, again, they gotta try something in my opinion.

Regardless of everything, I think it’s good that our biggest point of contention with the team is how they are managing their backup goalie. Kinda a sign that things are generally going very well.

[ResAlien]

I mean Smith does have the worst save percentage out of any goalie in the league who’s played more than 10 games. That’s objectively bad. I’ll be disappointed if the team doesn’t bring in a real backup to replace him. It’s just bad business to take the top team in the west to the playoffs with the worst backup in the league.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Eh, Gillies hasn’t been good at all but, again, they gotta try something in my opinion.

Regardless of everything, I think it’s good that our biggest point of contention with the team is how they are managing their backup goalie. Kinda a sign that things are generally going very well.

I'm sorry but "just gotta try something" is not how you manage an NHL team.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'm sorry but "just gotta try something" is not how you manage an NHL team.

Running out a player that is clearly not of NHL quality is also not how you manage a team.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'm sorry but "just gotta try something" is not how you manage an NHL team.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Particularly in the face of the argument of whether Mike Smith is an adequate backup, which he clearly is not. Good lord.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

What a ridiculous thing to say. Particularly in the face of the argument of whether Mike Smith is an adequate backup, which he clearly is not. Good lord.

Good lord indeed. Your idea is to trot out a guy who is playing even worse at the AHL level.

[gamesaver]

I am just amazed how many people think there is a clear need to rest Rittich... He played 30 games! Freaking 30 games, if you think he is going to implode because he has played too much, you might as well start to work those phones and aquire a real starter. Definitely for the next year, if not for this one. I want to see if Rittich can handle the starter's workload throughout the whole regular season. But apparently it's more important to keep losing games with Smith, games the team would have won with Rittich. I bet it's going to do so much good for the team morale coming into the playoffs.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by jonkaupp

Eh, Gillies hasn’t been good at all but, again, they gotta try something in my opinion.

Okay, let's call up Mason McDonald. It's something.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by gamesaver

I am just amazed how many people think there is a clear need to rest Rittich... He played 30 games! Freaking 30 games, if you think he is going to implode because he has played too much, you might as well start to work those phones and aquire a real starter. Definitely for the next year, if not for this one. I want to see if Rittich can handle the starter's workload throughout the whole regular season. But apparently it's more important to keep losing games with Smith, games the team would have won with Rittich. I bet it's going to do so much good for the team morale coming into the playoffs.

The most he's ever played is 48 games in his entire pro career.
You don't want him to burn out for the playoffs in a desperate attempt to get a slightly higher seed.
And saying that its more important to "keep losing games with Smith" complete ignores the fact that they are winning more games with him than they are losing.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by smiggy77

You’ve got to remember that those 25-30 min the puck is at the other end of the rink, the goalie can’t sit down, take a breather, chat with the coaches, turn his brain off, he’s on the whole time, and the physical and mental stability needed for the 30 min he’s “actually” playing is much harder.

This is silly. You know that the goalie isn’t generally physically fighting against resistance to claim his space, getting body checked, or doing the equivalent of outright sprinting every shift, right? There is sometimes sustained pressure in the zone, that gets the heart rate up, but often the puck comes down in the zone and exits without the goalie having to exert himself too much.

You know that beyond a lot of time standing around, there are TV timeouts and intermissions, right?

Good god, think of the mental fatigue the players get with the coaches in their ears and the iPads on the bench. I bet they just wish they could have some quiet time down in the crease.

I don’t get how guys like you are trying to make goaltending some monumental physical challenge that it really isn’t.

That anybody thanks garbage like that is laughable.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Okay, let's call up Mason McDonald. It's something.

Or here is something as well...

Bring back Brian Elliot....who is "something" and readily available once healed...oh and "something" else he does is eat into the cap space available at the deadline since Smith would go to Stockton and only some of his AAV would go with him.

Just do something!!