2018/2019 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Same place corsi came from? nowhere?
You're relying too much on the number I said, instead of the general meaning it. make it whatever number you want. 99/100 on the players 1/100 on the coach, whatever makes you happy. It doesnt matter. Coach has influence, if he didn't the title wouldnt exist.

Yeah, I agree with this, but again, given the disparity between the information we have and beliefs about the goaltending coach I still don't understand why people think their strong feelings constitute some sort of obvious proof about Jordan Sigalet's job performance.

PepsiFree summarized my thoughts on this very nicely:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To a man, you’ll find not one poster who genuinely thinks Sigalet is an unfireable godsend as a goalie coach. Not one. What you will find, and which you and others should probably stop ignoring, is that the issue stems not from “seeing the writing on the wall” but instead from suggesting a long list of borderline ridiculous critiques is based on anything but pure guesses. The level of certainty that everything is his fault, the “Sigalet is responsible for Smith’s attitude,” the over reliance on a trend that may or may not be his responsibility as proof of his ineptitude, is dumb. It looks bad. It’s kind of embarrassing to read.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, I agree with this, but again, given the disparity between the information we have and beliefs about the goaltending coach I still don't understand why people think their strong feelings constitute some sort of obvious proof about Jordan Sigalet's job performance.

PepsiFree summarized my thoughts on this very nicely:

Or, you could just accept the fact that people can form thoughts and opinions AND be right without data to form such a thought.

Like you posted before, You don't understand how people came to form their conclusions on gully without backing it with hard proof and yet they were right.

Because not everyone is an intellectual and needs numbers and math to see things a certain way.

It's akin to being book smart vs. street smart or whatever you want to call it or defer to.

People need the fancy stats to enjoy hockey, other just want to watch it without percentages and go with their gut on what they're seeing and feeling about the game. Sometimes one side is right sometimes they're wrong. But 100% of the time, we all enjoy the sport in our own way.

I'm convinced that Sigalet is NOT a part of the solution despite not being a major part o the problem. But if you cannot help solve the problem, you need someone who can.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think Textcritic and I see this similarly, so I am going to take a risk and attempt to speak for him as well, but this does NOT have anything to do with “hackles” being up.

To a man, you’ll find not one poster who genuinely thinks Sigalet is an unfireable godsend as a goalie coach. Not one. What you will find, and which you and others should probably stop ignoring, is that the issue stems not from “seeing the writing on the wall” but instead from suggesting a long list of borderline ridiculous critiques is based on anything but pure guesses. The level of certainty that everything is his fault, the “Sigalet is responsible for Smith’s attitude,” the over reliance on a trend that may or may not be his responsibility as proof of his ineptitude, is dumb. It looks bad. It’s kind of embarrassing to read.

I’m fully willing to admit Sigalet is probably on the hot seat, or should be, because regardless of what he’s had to work with, the results aren’t good, and eventually the coach goes because of them. But everything Sigalet is being critiqued on as being “obvious” or his firing being long overdue because he’s not a good goalie coach, are just poorly reasoned fits from people looking for something to blame.

People are acting like they know a lot more than they know, more than they could possibly know, because they’re forming an opinion backed by very little evidence. It’s silly, so people aren’t afraid to call it silly.

Well said. I have unfortunately run out of thanks but my opinion is similar to yours and TC's

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Or, you could just accept the fact that people can form thoughts and opinions AND be right without data to form such a thought.

Why should I accept that your opinion on this matter is the right one?

I am happy to accept another opinion as correct when it has been sufficiently demonstrated as such. I am not satisfied by any of the arguments thus far for why Sigalet is obviously bad at his job.

Like you posted before, You don't understand how people came to form their conclusions on gully without backing it with hard proof and yet they were right.

Because not everyone is an intellectual and needs numbers and math to see things a certain way.

It's akin to being book smart vs. street smart or whatever you want to call it or defer to.

A couple of things, although this is starting to get far afield:

First, a number of posters were right about the fact that Guliutzan was not performing well as a coach, but that is different from being right about WHY.

Second, there is some truth to being "book smart" v. "street smart," and I do accept that someone can form viably true gut instincts about various situations. Is this one of them? Maybe. However, there comes a point in time in which "street smarts" require external validation. When one publicizes her or his opinion on a subject she or he is not absolved of the requirement to show the validity of the point regardless of the strength of conviction.

So, if this is your way of saying, "Trust me. I just know," then I am sorry, but no, I do not. I don't think it is untoward at all to expect those who harbour strong feelings to inspect them and to justify their convictions with useful evidence. I don't think I should have to apologize for not feeling as strongly as others when the evidence to support such feelings is fatuous.

I'm convinced that Sigalet is NOT a part of the solution despite not being a major part o the problem. But if you cannot help solve the problem, you need someone who can.

I am honestly interested to know how strongly you are convinced about this.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Last time I checked, Sigalet isn’t the one performing out there. He gives out pointers, he assists the goalie in being prepared. It’s not entirely on him if the goalie plays poorly. I’m no expert on goaltending, but what I do know is that you stop the puck.

Since Sigalet’s hiring (8/15/14), we’ve had awful goaltending.

Ramo
Hiller
Ortio
Johnson
Elliott
Smith
Rittich

1) We haven’t had an elite goaltender since Kiprusoff
2) Treliving has been looking for an elite goaltender (Bishop, Fleury, Murray) but didn’t want to pay the price.

We can definitely say that Sigalet hasn’t been doing as well as we thought. But, can we put the full blame on him when we’ve received goalies listed above? None of them scream elite.

We’re going to have to see what we’ve got in Rittich for a stretch of games. Maybe even until the calendar year is over. That’s the only logical direction at this point because what team is going to sell their goalie 20% into the season?

If we do fire Sigalet I won’t be shocked. The results haven’t been there. We’ve had him for 4 years now and want better than what we’ve seen. With all of the goaltending changes, you have to start pointing the finger at him.

My stance is 50/50 on Sigalet. It’s not the end of the world if he stays or if he goes. I do know that goaltending changes will be made in or before 2019. Treliving fixes the D with prospect-ready players, fixed the forward this season, now he’s just got the goaltending to look at.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why should I accept that your opinion on this matter is the right one?

I am happy to accept another opinion as correct when it has been sufficiently demonstrated as such. I am not satisfied by any of the arguments thus far for why Sigalet is obviously bad at his job.


A couple of things, although this is starting to get far afield:

First, a number of posters were right about the fact that Guliutzan was not performing well as a coach, but that is different from being right about WHY.

Second, there is some truth to being "book smart" v. "street smart," and I do accept that someone can form viably true gut instincts about various situations. Is this one of them? Maybe. However, there comes a point in time in which "street smarts" require external validation. When one publicizes her or his opinion on a subject she or he is not absolved of the requirement to show the validity of the point regardless of the strength of conviction.

So, if this is your way of saying, "Trust me. I just know," then I am sorry, but no, I do not. I don't think it is untoward at all to expect those who harbour strong feelings to inspect them and to justify their convictions with useful evidence. I don't think I should have to apologize for not feeling as strongly as others when the evidence to support such feelings is fatuous.


I am honestly interested to know how strongly you are convinced about this.

Well, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am and have been saying your stout defense against those who believe Sigalet should be canned is akin to your run with Gully. People can justify firing sigalet freely and without constantly having to defend their position just because you don't think there's any evidence. When theres obviously a path of breadcrumbs. Even pepsifree concedes in his overall statement that it is likely he is or at least should be on the hot seat. But when I or anyone who has been saying it, "It's not good enough"

And you're misreading it yet again by the bolded statement. I'm saying "I believe" . Not that "I know" So don't accept it, it's not what I've been saying.

I don't need to justify my conviction that I believe Sigalet should be fired. You need to justify why you're continually defensive of anything Flames and going after those that are critical of certain things.

Deal with the idea that I cannot defend my feeling to your heighty standards and leave it at that.

And for your last line. I am strongly convinced that Sigalets tenure has run it's course with little to no success overall. you can point to a myriad of external reasons as to why he has not had success, but the overall outcome of the Flames goaltending is not one he gets a pass on.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why should I accept that your opinion on this matter is the right one?

I am happy to accept another opinion as correct when it has been sufficiently demonstrated as such. I am not satisfied by any of the arguments thus far for why Sigalet is obviously bad at his job.


A couple of things, although this is starting to get far afield:

First, a number of posters were right about the fact that Guliutzan was not performing well as a coach, but that is different from being right about WHY.

Second, there is some truth to being "book smart" v. "street smart," and I do accept that someone can form viably true gut instincts about various situations. Is this one of them? Maybe. However, there comes a point in time in which "street smarts" require external validation. When one publicizes her or his opinion on a subject she or he is not absolved of the requirement to show the validity of the point regardless of the strength of conviction.

So, if this is your way of saying, "Trust me. I just know," then I am sorry, but no, I do not. I don't think it is untoward at all to expect those who harbour strong feelings to inspect them and to justify their convictions with useful evidence. I don't think I should have to apologize for not feeling as strongly as others when the evidence to support such feelings is fatuous.


I am honestly interested to know how strongly you are convinced about this.

I don't agree with everything you're saying, but you do make a very good point.

Remember when people were saying Gulutzan is a terrible coach because he he looked at the iPad after goals against? These types of things aren't cut and paste.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by bax

I don't agree with everything you're saying, but you do make a very good point.

Remember when people were saying Gulutzan is a terrible coach because he he looked at the iPad after goals against? These types of things aren't cut and paste.

Most of us said a lot more than that. The iPad thing was just another very annoying quirk.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Not to re-start this argument but wanting to more fully understand someone's contributions or admit where one doesn't even have much visibility into what a person's role is - is "pie eyed homerism"
This labeling of different perspectives doesn't make this site better.

I understand where you’re coming from and in fairness (and I agree) blanket statements about “all posters” being a certain way are kinda BS.

But let’s be perfectly honest here. The people that frequent this site, post and lack objectivity because of fan based emotion (and let me clear there is nothing wrong with that), are absolutely pie eyed homers. Again there’s nothing wrong with it and this is a Flames fan website, but if you think objectivity isnt lacking you are kidding yourselves and from my perspective I’m merely calling a spade a spade.

People were right to question Gulutzan and people challenged that because “we aren’t experts” or “we aren’t in the room” or “but none of us really know”.

But people were right to question then and people are right to question now and if that lands a label on the deniers then it’s just being honest.

I have always struggled with people’s inability and insecurity with critiques to the team that are warranted. We went through it when Iginla should have been traded 2 years before he was and we went through it with Gulutzan and it looks like the same kinda story with this.

[Jiri Hrdina]

It seems like people are using Gully’s firing to justify having not well backed up views on a go forward basis. We were right about Gully so now we surely must be right about Sigalet
Perhaps an over simplification but isn’t that kinda what’s going on here?

[bax]

Originally Posted by redforever

Most of us said a lot more than that. The iPad thing was just another very annoying quirk.

I’m not disputing that people said more than that, although there was a fair share of drive bye stating exactly that, but how is that an annoying quirk?

God forbid the coach watches a replay of the goal. The worst was uniformed posters stating he was lowering his head in shame.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by bax

I’m not disputing that people said more than that, although there was a fair share of drive bye stating exactly that, but how is that an annoying quirk?

God forbid the coach watches a replay of the goal. The worst was uniformed posters stating he was lowering his head in shame.

I think the annoyance about the iPad was more about the fact that a coach should maybe be more immediately available to his players to minimize the emotional letdown after a goal is allowed and prevent doubt from creeping in too much. Replays can be and are analyzed in detail later; there's not much you can do immediately after a goal to change with your system or game plan that will make an immediate difference. At best, you may be able to make adjustments during an intermission, with the exception of stapling a player to the bench for an exceptionally bad play (which Gulutzan rarely did, anyway). The whole thing just gives the impression that you don't really care that a goal was scored against your team.

Having said all of that, this was not one of the things that bugged me about Gulutzan.

[Gaskal]

It's quite discouraging of debate or discussion to be told that the rebuttal for our points is not how sound it is, but how valid it is based on factual evidence.

Case in point. So, instead of debating, say.. my points about Sigalet's coaching habits of being a typecast 'yes-man' coach, I am not told not why his behavior or mannerisms should be interpreted as being this particular typecast. I am told that it's not good enough to even warrant a passing reply on the subject.

This is what pisses people off.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

It's quite discouraging of debate or discussion to be told that the rebuttal for our points is not how sound it is, but how valid it is based on factual evidence.

Case in point. So, instead of debating, say.. my points about Sigalet's coaching habits of being a typecast 'yes-man' coach, I am not told not why his behavior or mannerisms should be interpreted as being this particular typecast. I am told that it's not good enough to even warrant a passing reply on the subject.

This is what pisses people off.

^ this. Any time it comes to anything critical said about Flames anything.

It's belittling and condescending simply because a formed opinion is not met to the lofty standards of some.

My points earlier were that the insane amount of blind defending by TC during the Gully thing is painfully similar to that now. That does not make me right or wrong on my thoughts. Just makes it so you feel awful for posting a thought.

[Jiri Hrdina]

But you are doing the same by referring to tc’s opinin as blind defending
Both sides are guilty of it

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But you are doing the same by referring to tc’s opinin as blind defending
Both sides are guilty of it

Tit for tat then I suppose.

[monkeyman]

And I didn't think this thread could get any worse.

[Shazam]

I remember when all the threads were about Bennett.

[Resolute 14]

The interesting thing about TC's position is the suggestion that there is a lack of evidence to suggest Sigalet should go. Frankly, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that Sigalet should stay. He has absolutely zero track record of success as an NHL goaltending coach.

So my question is, why is he even still here? How does a guy who has done F all at the NHL level survive three head coaches?

[PegCityFlamesFan]

Is there any chance the goalie debate can stay in the Smith thread?