[News] Flames recall Gillies

[Stanley]

I completely agree with Doug Maclean...never liked the Lack signing, probably Treliving's most predictably dumb signing as a Flames GM.

My guess is Parsons will be the only one to actually pan out as a #1 NHLer

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Stanley

I completely agree with Doug Maclean...never liked the Lack signing, probably Treliving's most predictably dumb signing as a Flames GM.

My guess is Parsons will be the only one to actually pan out as a #1 NHLer

Well...it was a trade, not a signing.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Stanley

I completely agree with Doug Maclean...never liked the Lack signing, probably Treliving's most predictably dumb signing as a Flames GM.

My guess is Parsons will be the only one to actually pan out as a #1 NHLer

Lack was never a UFA signing. He traded for him.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Lack was never a UFA signing. He traded for him.

And predictable or not, he fit into the budget and there weren't a ton of options out there. Allows Smith to play as many games as he wants, and allows our 3 solid goalie prospects to get a ton of starts in various junior leagues.

It was pretty much a no brainer.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by 868904

If you start Gillies over Lack next game, you might as well send Lack home because he'll be done after that.

If Smith can't go, you have to give Lack at least the Philly game to prove that he is an NHL goalie. If he fails again, that should be it.

I pretty much agree with this. I would also add that i highly doubt flames management wants Gillies to be the back-up this year and play only 10-15 games.

[joejoe3]

Originally Posted by 868904

If you start Gillies over Lack next game, you might as well send Lack home because he'll be done after that.

If Smith can't go, you have to give Lack at least the Philly game to prove that he is an NHL goalie. If he fails again, that should be it.

Agreed, what Lack lacks is a lack of starts. Give Lack some slack until Smith is back.

[lazypucker]

Treliving is prone to 1 dumb signing a year - Setoguchi, Mason Raymond, Grossman, and Lack this year.
It is like the cost of doing business...

[sa226]

A dumb signing would be seeing if Phil Sauve wants another crack at it

I thought the Lack trade was pretty savvy. A guy with experience as a number one, with a forced style change as the theorized reason for his poor play last year. As well as a coach that knows him.

Ridiculously small sample size. Definitely not very good so far, but can you really evaluate him on 2 and a half games, where he got hung out to dry?

If Lack is not the answer, I think it should go to Rittich. Gillies and Parsons need to play, and play a lot. They're the ones with the fanfare. Rittich just kinda showed up and turned out to be pretty good.

[Stanley]

Sign/Trade whatever
a "savvy" move would have been to get a dependable back-up
There's nothing savvy about Lack

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by sa226

A dumb signing would be seeing if Phil Sauve wants another crack at it

I thought the Lack trade was pretty savvy. A guy with experience as a number one, with a forced style change as the theorized reason for his poor play last year. As well as a coach that knows him.

Ridiculously small sample size. Definitely not very good so far, but can you really evaluate him on 2 and a half games, where he got hung out to dry?

If Lack is not the answer, I think it should go to Rittich. Gillies and Parsons need to play, and play a lot. They're the ones with the fanfare. Rittich just kinda showed up and turned out to be pretty good.

I agree it's a small sample size and I was defending him last night as he was hung out to dry but I just don't see how he was ever a good option to begin with.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am not a fan of the Lack signing, but I am also not willing to write him off so quickly either.

We all knew that when the Flames acquired him, that Lack had to work on his game. Like Gulutzan has stated, Lack has worked his butt off, and has improved since his time in Carolina.

Lack was good against St. Louis.

Against Detroit, he was neither good nor did I think he was necessarily bad. You hope that your goalie can make a couple of big saves, but at least he didn't let any bad goals in. The entire team didn't show up last night for the most part anyway, so it isn't like he lost Calgary that game.

Sample size is way too small for me to agree with one side or another when it comes to Lack. I personally will judge him when the sample size is a bit larger. He may yet prove to be a very savvy signing that helps propel the Flames into the playoffs. Who knows? Maybe he will have the inverse season to Johnson - maybe he will start off poorly (or maybe not poorly, but a bit underwhelming) and then finish strong.

At this point in the season, the Flames haven't needed him yet. The schedule has been fairly light, and most teams would ride their #1 goalie. Lack was a decent goalie for Vancouver before going to Carolina, and then Carolina decided to change his game up, and he ended up having a terrible time there. Takes a while to work out those kinks in his game. Maybe he will, or maybe he won't, but the schedule allows him that time, and if it works out, then the Flames are looking pretty strong. Too early to tell, and I don't think he has been bad, even with letting in those 5 goals. That's what happens when you let a goalie out to dry. Against a much better and much more dangerous team in St. Louis, he was good, and the team supported him. That to me shows that he is probably able to perform as a decent backup, but I still want to see a larger sample size before deciding for myself.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Stanley

Sign/Trade whatever
a "savvy" move would have been to get a dependable back-up
There's nothing savvy about Lack

At the price they got Lack for what can you get a dependable backup for? The Flames are pretty close to the cap, if we went out and spent $$ on a backup Jagr wouldn't have been a Flame.

Jagr is showing the youngsters a lot of tips, you can already see Johnny & Mony are better at protecting the puck. Have to think Jaromir is a part of that.

[bax]

Why are so many posters sayin we signed Lack? We traded for him and had Carolina pay part of his salary.

Whatever fits your agenda though

[Brick]

Big gamble on Eddie Lack.

Failing to get a solid backup goaltender could result in the Flames not making the playoffs.

It is a very important position.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by Stanley

Sign/Trade whatever
a "savvy" move would have been to get a dependable back-up
There's nothing savvy about Lack

Who?

[tvp2003]

Treliving bought low on Lack, partly because we have two goalies in the AHL who could be close to making the jump. Between the three of them, I think somebody will step up. Unfortunately, so far Lack has not.

The bigger mistake would have been to not get anyone, or to give up significant assets/cap space for someone who might only play 10-15 games. I think Lack was a good fit (both as insurance for Smith and the possibility of a bounce-back season) -- he just needs to play a little better (as do the guys in front of him).

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

Who?

Retain Chad Johnson?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

Retain Chad Johnson?

Too much dough, not good enough for the dough he got.

[Azhouse]

Eddie Lack was the better option to save a couple hundred grand.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

Retain Chad Johnson?

Eddie Lack's cap hit is $1,350,000 to the flames. What did Chad Johnson sign for?

Lack was a calculated risk, a guy who struggled but who has shown in the past to shoulder some of the number 1 load. During his time in Vancouver, and other than the playoff series, Lack always played well against the Flames. He was a good goalie in Vancouver. It was worth a shot.

Some of you wanted an experienced backup goalie who would have cost more, see Chad Johnson.

Or you wanted a young goalie who has as much if not greater risk than Lack. But guess what? The Flames still have that option in Gillies and Rittich.

Treliving always has a back up plan. Lack, Gillies and Rittich are pro depth. Lack will be giving an opportunity, if he fails, they will try the other two or find another option.

There is nothing wrong with how Treliving played this. He still has a lot of options. There was no need to overspend on a Chad Johnson or some other experienced back up goalie.