2018/2019 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Reasoning, more like. He would be giving Rittich attention, but not to the amount of the effort he puts into the starter. Wouldn't you allocate your working time such?

If his teammates find Smith's attitude to be a problem, and that seems to be the hot topic on the rumor mill, I point instead at the guy in his ear telling him about how good he's doing and shying away from criticism like it's a disease.

Where has his attitude been rumoured? And in what world are we suddenly blaming the goalie coach for attitude issues?

This Sigalet thing is going well beyond the veil. It’s actually funny to read the posts at this point. They’re so far gone that you just have to laugh.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Can we hire Hasek to be our new goalie coach and get the Czech trifecta going?

Heck yeah!

Seriously though, I think Mrazek would do well here. If we don’t like him, his contract ends this year of 1.5m. If he plays super well, we can sign him to a 2-3 year short term deal at a low price, allowing us some more time with Rittich/Gillies/Parsons to figure out who has the potential to take over.

While i arre that we need to give Rittich starts, I think picking up on another 26 year old with upside would be ideal.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This Sigalet thing is going well beyond the veil. It’s actually funny to read the posts at this point. They’re so far gone that you just have to laugh.

Totally agree.

Still can't believe he's survived this long. At least I think that's what you mean.

The team is on the third coaching staff, yet this bozo has kept his job. It defies logic.

[dino7c]

Pretty sure Sigalet doesn't tell Smith to lay on his stomach, throw his stick, and put his blocker in the air to save close in shots.

Shame in all this is that I think his puck skills do help the team overall...Leafs were dumbfounded when they couldn't dump the puck. But if you can't make a save obviously its not gonna work.

[Mr.Coffee]

The logic of defending Sigalet is the same logic and pie eyed homerism that brought out those valiant knights to defend Gulutzan.

A coach is paid to get results from an asset. Asset’s not performing. People look to either the asset (which they are here) or the management of the asset (coach).

Is the coach getting the most from the player? No, doesn’t seem like it.

Have any of the goalies performed well under the manager of the position? No, they haven’t.

Does it seem like the asset / goalie is improving? No.

Do we have confidence things will improve? No, not really.

Lastly I leave with this. If the goalie coach is not to blame, why have a goalie coach? Are coaches absolved of accountability? If so, why are you paying him when he isn’t getting results, has never gotten results and we don’t think he will get results in the future? Why have a goalie coach if nothing can ever be credited to them right or wrong? How do you even know then what value they bring to the table?

Sigalet should 110% be evaluated very critically here just like Gulutzan was last year. And the posters that were questioning Gulutzan last year were absolutely obviously and unequivocally correct in their assessment that coaching was the problem.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ That’s a nice post.

Sigalet might be good. He may be sharp, he may be nice.

The thing that matters at the top level are results.

Any net positive review of Sigalet involves a lot of inference and rationalization, maybe some hops, and less emphasis on actual measurable results.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

At this point is doesn't even matter how good or bad he is, there needs to be a change because the results are not there, nor have they ever been. If Chicago can cut ties with Quenneville, I'm sure we can manage to let Sigalet go.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Pretty sure Sigalet doesn't tell Smith to lay on his stomach, throw his stick, and put his blocker in the air to save close in shots.

Of course not but Sigalet's job is to maximize good habits and minimize the bad ones.

The fact that Smith has developed such grotesque habits in his time under Sigalet suggests to me that Sigalet has failed to perform the duties of his job.

I have no doubt Jordan Sigalet is a great person. And I am sure there may be a goalie out there who responds consistently well to Sigalet's techniques. But the Flames do not have the margin for error to hope that 'fourth time's the charm'.

[TheoFleury]

Lol at blaming sigalet for the string of bad goalies treliving has acquired. I don't care if they fire him or not really but this is 100% the fault of BT and the scouts. Stop trading for bad goalies and maybe we'll see some results. BT has no problem paying a fortune for a guy like hamonic but won't up the ante when an actual good goalie becomes available. BT will be remembered as the guy who couldn't acquire a goalie, the history books wont give a #### about sigalet.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Of course not but Sigalet's job is to maximize good habits and minimize the bad ones.

The fact that Smith has developed such grotesque habits in his time under Sigalet suggests to me that Sigalet has failed to perform the duties of his job.

I have no doubt Jordan Sigalet is a great person. And I am sure there may be a goalie out there who responds consistently well to Sigalet's techniques. But the Flames do not have the margin for error to hope that 'fourth time's the charm'.

Or that hot head Smith doesn’t take advice from nobody.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Lol at blaming sigalet for the string of bad goalies treliving has acquired. I don't care if they fire him or not really but this is 100% the fault of BT and the scouts. Stop trading for bad goalies and maybe we'll see some results. BT has no problem paying a fortune for a guy like hamonic but won't up the ante when an actual good goalie becomes available. BT will be remembered as the guy who couldn't acquire a goalie, the history books wont give a #### about sigalet.

When Elliott and Johnson were signed, their numbers suggested that they would be a well above average goaltending duo. Once they got here, they were a disaster, and the longer they were here, the worse they got.

Our many highly-touted goaltending prospects (I know this is getting into voodoo territory, but just the sheer numbers suggest that this is a significant trend) have also declined significantly.

Obviously there is something in the system that causes goalies' performance to decline rather than improve. You can't get rid of all of the players, so sometimes a coaching change is necessary.

We still have some promising prospects, and it would be a waste when they are eventually brought up to the parent team if they underperform like every other goaltender in the current system and are lost as a result.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Obviously there is something in the system that causes goalies' performance to decline rather than improve.

This is not an obvious cause. It doesn’t even make sense.

I’m not even defending Sigalet. Bring in anyone to do the job, but the main difference maker is going to be who is actually wearing the pads.

[Toonage]

How are the Hitmen doing goaltending wise? Jason Labarbera is the coach there, has a connection to Smith/Treliving (i think) and might be a better fit.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Toonage

How are the Hitmen doing goaltending wise? Jason Labarbera is the coach there, has a connection to Smith/Treliving (i think) and might be a better fit.

Hell, throw him a pair of pads and see if he’s not an improvement himself!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Totally agree.

Still can't believe he's survived this long. At least I think that's what you mean.

The team is on the third coaching staff, yet this bozo has kept his job. It defies logic.

Why is he a bozo? Can you give some context? Why should he be fired along with the rest of the staff? What’s your understand of the responsibilities of the position and how do you weigh results when looking at the goalie and the coach?

I mean, Sigalet isn’t above questioning, but the variety of criticisms is what is funny. He’s responsible for Smith’s well established attitude? Really?

I just look at it and think (especially connected to the amount of changeover in the past 5 years) that Treliving isn’t afraid to make moves. He isn’t afraid to change what isn’t working, so perhaps, our understanding of that position might not mesh with reality.

It’s be different if gold was coming through the pipes and turning into coal. But it’s mostly been garbage in garbage out.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The one who speaks choppy English is my guess.

All he asks from Sigalet is to ding him in the mask. Takes Sigalet roughly 6 shots to hit him twice.

Let's see - who's more likely to not listen to a young goalie coach? A sophomore with some pressure from below, or a long time NHL vet who is pretty much the same age as said goalie coach and has a pretty independent streak from all accounts?

[Samuelsson]

I'll just bring this out again.

Originally Posted by Samuelsson

All of this goalie talk reminds me of my football (soccer) team. For years, we (Liverpool) have had the same goalie coach, John Achterberg. When he first came in, our goalkeeper back then, Pepe Reina, appeared to regress to the point that he was shipped out. We then bought another 'keeper in Simon Mignolet. He seemed to have a good couple of seasons at his former club, Sunderland, before he again, seemed to regress to the point that we bought another 'keeper in Loris Karius.

At this point I should point out that Mignolet cost us I think £12m, and Karius maybe £5m. Relatively low amounts for a goalkeeper.

Mignolet and Karius shared duties for a year, before last season Karius took over full-time. The season was OK at best for Karius; sometimes he was good, sometimes he was bad. But people always pointed to the coach, Achterberg, and said 'well 3 keepers have stayed the same or gotten worse under him - he's the common denominator, therefore he needs to go'.

And then the Champions League final came around, where Liverpool played Real Madrid. If you know, you know, but for those who don't, Karius had an absolute stinker. Completely bottled it. Our manager, Jurgen Klopp, had had enough. He shipped Karius out on a 2-year loan to Turkey, the relative arse-end of footballing ability, and a figurative graveyard where bad footballers spend their last days.

This summer, he spent £65m on a goalkeeper, Alisson from Roma. The most expensive goalkeeper ever signed (until Chelsea broke the record again a couple of weeks later).

Since then, in the league (because they're the only stats I can be arsed to look up), we've played 10, and conceded 4 goals. That's 6 games where he didn't let any goals in. Put simply, he's one of the best goalkeepers in the world.

Blame the coaches all you like, but they can only work with whatever talent is there; they can't polish a turd. Sure, obviously some coaches are better than others; but the gulf in ability is not that stark. Quite simply, sometimes you just have to stop shopping around the bargain bin and go out and buy top-shelf.

Anyone who says that any 'keeper we've had since Kipper has had the ability to take #1 and run with it - save for maybe Ramo if he didn't get injured and wasn't involved in the '3 headed goalie monster' or whatever that crap was - is fooling themselves.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sigalet isn’t above questioning, but the variety of criticisms is what is funny. He’s responsible for Smith’s well established attitude? Really?

I just look at it and think (especially connected to the amount of changeover in the past 5 years) that Treliving isn’t afraid to make moves. He isn’t afraid to change what isn’t working, so perhaps, our understanding of that position might not mesh with reality...

This is exactly the issue I have with how this entire discussion has unfolded. I really have no idea whether or not Sigalet is a good coach, but I suspect that he probably is given how proactive this GM has been about making changes. It is very weird to me that Sigalet would survive TWO wholesale coaching changes and frequent roster overhauls under the same GM unless he is doing something right. Someone above said that this “defies logic.” Well, maybe this is all the evidence we need to show that our thoughts about coaching goaltenders are probably well off. It seems a good bet to surmise that our “logic” in this instance is flawed.

The thing about questioning the goaltending coach is that his entire job occurs inside of a black box, which makes any and all criticism and praise nothing more than grasping at straws. It’s completely different from arm-chair assessing the head coach, or the special teams coaches because at least the variances in on ice performance, positioning, and tactics are much less subtle and nuanced.

What I see is a lot of justifiable frustration with the Flames recent history of goaltending combined with faint hopes that the problem is as simple as coaching. This is almost certainly wishful thinking, and the angst with which it manifests causes posters sensibilities to devolve into anecdotal pejoratives and revisionist histories like this bit of nonsense:

Originally Posted by Macindoc

When Elliott and Johnson were signed, their numbers suggested that they would be a well above average goaltending duo. Once they got here, they were a disaster, and the longer they were here, the worse they got.

I get it. People are terrified that Mike Smith might actually be just this bad, and there may not be any goalie coach on earth who is capable of making him better. But that anxiety does not provide unchecked license for posters to speculate in a vacuum or outright make up stories to assuage their fears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Lol at blaming sigalet for the string of bad goalies treliving has acquired. I don't care if they fire him or not really but this is 100% the fault of BT and the scouts. Stop trading for bad goalies and maybe we'll see some results. BT has no problem paying a fortune for a guy like hamonic but won't up the ante when an actual good goalie becomes available. BT will be remembered as the guy who couldn't acquire a goalie, the history books wont give a #### about sigalet.

Chad Johnson .920 in 45 games played in Buffalo a bottom dweller
.910 in his last year as a Flame

Brian Elliott .930 in 41 fames with the Blues
.910 in his last year as a Flame

Mike Smith .914 in 55 games in Arizona a bottom dweller
Sitting at .872 today

Bonus under Sigalet
Hiller .911 in 50 games in Anaheim
.879 in his last year as a Flame

Every single goalie has regressed under Sigalet, despite coming from much worse teams then the Flames at times.

Chad Johnson and Brian Elliott on paper was a great duo. .930 from Brian Elliot would have put him on the very top of the league in save percentage last year, higher than Crawford, Luongo, Rinne, Miller, MAF and tied with Raanta. Elliot was a quality goalie with some question marks at the time he was signed. He was certainly not a stop gap.

Let's stop blaming Treliving for underperforming goalies Just get rid of the goalie coach. He might not be the cause of these declines, but he clearly is not getting improvements, and has to go. I just laughed when we heard how Smith had a solid session with Sigalet, and the very next game lets in a softie in Anaheim.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The logic of defending Sigalet is the same logic and pie eyed homerism that brought out those valiant knights to defend Gulutzan.

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.