[News] Hiller to start against Leafs. Backstrom to start against Wild on Thursday

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Hiller is far from what Vernon and Fehr were. Those guys earned sendoffs. Secondly, Ortio has been a member of the Flames organization longer than Hiller. Yet Ortio has not been extended the same leniency.

Just to be certain, we’re talking about Grant Fuhr here, right?

The same Grant Fuhr who played 23 games with the Flames?

Agree on the Vernon front, but… Fuhr?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Hiller is far from what Vernon and Fehr were. Those guys earned sendoffs.

Mike Vernon earned a sendoff, I agree. But what did Donald Fehr ever do for the Flames?

Secondly, Ortio has been a member of the Flames organization longer than Hiller. Yet Ortio has not been extended the same leniency.

Yup. We know absolutely that Ortio is going to be released at the end of the season and never play in the Flames' organization again. We also know absolutely that he is never going to get another start for the rest of the season. Clearly the organization is out to get Ortio, and we should burn the Saddledome to the ground, as previously discussed.

[DoubleK]

I hope they give Backstrom a few more starts.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The only opinion that counts here is Bob Hartley's and he clearly doesn't care what you think hence Hiller and Backstrom starting the last few games on the road.

Thanks? Guess you've never disagreed with a coaches decision before Mr. Perfect.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Honestly - do you think the other players care about classy? You may have made one guy happy (Hiller) and irritated the other 22 guys who have to play in front of him (or sit while he plays).

Is anyone going to turn down going to Minnesota because they pretended Backstrom wasn't on the team for the past year despite the fact he has way more goodwill with the Wild being there for so long than Hiller does with the Flames.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

He's keeping 1 player happy while annoying the other players (and not just the other goalies).

I can understand giving Backstrom a start in Minnesota... that's fine. But I really doubt Hiller in 10 years is going to be sitting back thinking of these last few starts.

I don't particularly care that he's playing. But acting like its some class move doesn't work for me.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Seems like Hartley and everyone else is much more about making Hiller/Backstrom happy than worried about the team who I'm sure rolls their eyes when Hiller starts just the like the fans.

How do you know for sure the other 22 guys on the ice are upset and rolling their eyes with the goalies starting? That is your own personal assumption.

A more likely scenario is that 22 guys know that this string of games is meaningless. Sure, they want to win. Right now, it is more about personal performances in order to secure a spot on the team next season. I also would imagine that these guys share a locker room, right? Do they dislike Hiller? Do they dislike Backstrom? I would think they are rather supportive of Hiller and Backstrom, not rolling their eyes when they see that player start.

It could be them down the road. They will feel assured that when it comes down to them winding down or just going through a horrible spell of their own, that the organization wouldn't just ostracize them and feed them to the wolves.

I have some serious reservations that they are getting annoyed and rolling their eyes. In fact, Backstrom was just praised by Hamilton (leading to some over-the-top speculation that he was throwing the other two under the bus).

Hiller helped get this team into the playoffs last year. He has had a horrible year. He won't return. Everyone knows it is all about him trying to do well enough to secure an NHL contract for next season, rather than have to leave the NHL and go to Europe. The other 22 guys on the team I am sure are 100% aware of his situation, and the last thing I bet they are doing is rolling their eyes.

And do players care about stuff like this? Hell yeah. Players always sign-up for a chance to win + money. That is the two biggest motivators. However, do they also know when certain teams have terrible management, coaching, or treat their players terribly? Yes. It is a small fraternity. There are agents that players from all teams use. Yes, it does make an impact on if a player wants to sign somewhere. Wouldn't you consider it if you were a player? Sure, the ones that are just trying to cash-in on what could be their biggest contract would put it down the list, but I am sure most players do in fact care how they will be treated throughout their time in a new organization.

Fans are the only ones I would expect are rolling their eyes.

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I hope they give Backstrom a few more starts.

Totally...I feel like I'm the only guy in Calgary that actually thinks Backstrom still has some game left in him, 1 game sample size is way too small but he's just so composed in net. Heck I'd give him another 2-3 games at least, and the rest to Ortio.

[PeteMoss]

I'm speaking of Hiller. I'm sure they understand why Backstrom is playing.

And why does the 'good' treatment of Hiller outweigh the 'bad' treatment of Ortio earlier this year?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

And why does the 'good' treatment of Hiller outweigh the 'bad' treatment of Ortio earlier this year?

What 'bad' treatment? For a guy who supposedly doesn't care who starts you sure seem personally offended about how the situation is being handled.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What 'bad' treatment? For a guy who supposedly doesn't care who starts you sure seem personally offended about how the situation is being handled.

I'm having a discussion about it. And as I said before - I don't care who they start, I disagree about this being a 'classy' move to play him. I feel that's dishonest. If its for tanking purposes - that's fine. I don't expect the Flames to come out and say that, but disagree with the fan notion that they are playing Hiller to be 'classy'.

Bad treatment - being asked to go to the minors on a conditioning stint so they could get him to the AHL without waivers, sitting games for a month before being put in to look terrible.

[PeteMoss]

If you want to sub out Ortio's treatment - how about the treatment of Mason Raymond? Sending him to the AHL instead of giving him ceremonial games in the NHL.

[djsFlames]

Backstrom showed up Kipper for a few years when they would meet. He was damn good. And he was still an average starter 2-3 years ago. But hasn't had any significant playing time since to know if that game is still there.

With examples like Tim Thomas and Luongo out there, maybe there's a chance he can be effective for another season or two with the change of scenery.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Bad treatment - being asked to go to the minors on a conditioning stint so they could get him to the AHL without waivers, sitting games for a month before being put in to look terrible.

I think Ortio refusing the conditioning assignment looks bad on Ortio. Ortio's play didn't deserve another start. If he was smart he would've taken the conditioning assignment. Him refusing the assigment probably guaranteed he wouldn't start for a while and for good reason

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm speaking of Hiller. I'm sure they understand why Backstrom is playing.

And why does the 'good' treatment of Hiller outweigh the 'bad' treatment of Ortio earlier this year?

I am sure the team is supportive of Hiller AND Backstrom AND Ortio. Why? Because they are teammates. They share a locker room. They travel together. Have dinners together. Show up at functions together. If they don't support one another, then that is called a dysfunctional team. I doubt anyone is rolling their eyes at Hiller starting (and I doubt he will get another start again, barring an injury).

Good treatment of Hiller vs bad treatment of Ortio at the beginning of the year?

At the start of the season, the Flames had much higher expectations - fresh off not only making the playoffs, but from advancing to the 2nd round. They were also fresh from acquiring Hamilton and Frolik. There were expectations.

Ortio was given a chance to perform, and failed. Apparently, he was also lackluster in practices. He still had a few shots, and failed to solidify himself as even the backup. Hartley knows Ramo and Hiller much more - they both helped him win last season. Vets always have a bit more leeway with coaches to play through a funk because they have proved in past performances that they have been able to get the job done. Rookies are tougher - so many bust outright. A coach will always try to put a guy in the lineup who he thinks has a better chance to win.

If Ortio stepped up back then like he has been since Ramo went down, he would have been the defacto starter. He was kept on the team while Ramo was sent down. Ramo got called up again and made the most of it. Now with Ramo going down, and the season all but lost, Ortio managed to step up ahead of Hiller and thus got the bulk of the starts right up until this point. It was the 'fair' thing to do.

Giving someone one or two games at the end of the season when the playoffs are all but a fantasy is a classy thing to do to a vet who is winding down and is hard-pressed to find an NHL contract. I just don't see how it can be interpreted as a terrible thing to do.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

If you want to sub out Ortio's treatment - how about the treatment of Mason Raymond? Sending him to the AHL instead of giving him ceremonial games in the NHL.

They gave Raymond 1.5 seasons of second, third, fourth,......80th chances at salvaging his career. They him gave over half a season of ceremonial games in the NHL this year. Dude should've be sent to the minors at the start of this year. Hathaway, Grant, and others outplayed him in camp.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

If you want to sub out Ortio's treatment - how about the treatment of Mason Raymond? Sending him to the AHL instead of giving him ceremonial games in the NHL.

How is this the same thing?

Raymond has a valid NHL contract for next season, and you can bet your house that the Flames will allow him to compete for a spot on the team.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

How is this the same thing?

Raymond has a valid NHL contract for next season, and you can bet your house that the Flames will allow him to compete for a spot on the team.

Not necessarily. Maybe they'll buy Raymond out. With the impending need to give Monahan & Gaudreau new RFA deals, I could see it possible that the Flames buy out one or two guys this summer.

[Southside]

Hiller will not see the Saddledome ice again. I've said that since his last home start and I promised at that time if he started at home again my seats would be empty. We owe him nothing. He got paid. He's lost his game. Dude is done.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Southside

Hiller will not see the Saddledome ice again. I've said that since his last home start and I promised at that time if he started at home again my seats would be empty. We owe him nothing. He got paid. He's lost his game. Dude is done.

Agreed. I think there is an outside chance he starts next Monday in ARI. If he doesn't start then he probably won't start again the rest of the season.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Karl

Not necessarily. Maybe they'll buy Raymond out. With the impending need to give Monahan & Gaudreau new RFA deals, I could see it possible that the Flames buy out one or two guys this summer.

I find that very unlikely. Yes, they reduce the immediate cap hit, but the remaining cap hit is stretched out over double the number of years – into the time when they will also have to offer Bennett serious money.

If Raymond stays in the AHL next season, his cap hit is $2.2 million for one year. If they buy him out, his cap hit is $1,050,000 per year for two years. I'd rather take the hit in 2016-17 and have the extra money in 2017-18.

Similarly, I see no chance Bollig will be bought out. That would give him a buyout cap hit (per CapFriendly) of $383,333 in '16-17 and $433,333 the following year. If they simply bury him in the minors, his cap hit is $350,000 in '16-17 and zero the following year. I'd spend the extra bit of cash to have him off the cap a year earlier.

Players like Wideman and Stajan could be buyout candidates, but there you're looking at some serious money. The cap hits for the ‘out’ years on those buyouts could be hard to take. Such players might be tradeable with salary retained. But if they're not traded, I imagine Treliving will grit his teeth until the contracts expire, instead of prolonging the pain.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I find that very unlikely. Yes, they reduce the immediate cap hit, but the remaining cap hit is stretched out over double the number of years – into the time when they will also have to offer Bennett serious money.

If Raymond stays in the AHL next season, his cap hit is $2.2 million for one year. If they buy him out, his cap hit is $1,050,000 per year for two years. I'd rather take the hit in 2016-17 and have the extra money in 2017-18.

Similarly, I see no chance Bollig will be bought out. That would give him a buyout cap hit (per CapFriendly) of $383,333 in '16-17 and $433,333 the following year. If they simply bury him in the minors, his cap hit is $350,000 in '16-17 and zero the following year. I'd spend the extra bit of cash to have him off the cap a year earlier.

Players like Wideman and Stajan could be buyout candidates, but there you're looking at some serious money. The cap hits for the ‘out’ years on those buyouts could be hard to take. Such players might be tradeable with salary retained. But if they're not traded, I imagine Treliving will grit his teeth until the contracts expire, instead of prolonging the pain.

No chance Wideman will be bought out - he could be traded to a contender for a 3rd/4th or more. Stajan... maybe.