[News] Dube and Gillies assigned to Stockton. Mangiapane activated off IR

[DeluxeMoustache]

Agree with all above (two posts up)

Originally Posted by Textcritic

We can in fact remain optimistic about Gillies's future while simultaneously also recognising that he is having a bad year. Some of this has to do with the defensive ####-show he plays behind on a nightly basis, but not all of it. You appear incapable of nuance.

And you appear to have challenges comprehending my posts at times

Still think it is a simple as this. Mike Smith lets in too many easy shots regularly and Gillies was generally fine up here. (Except the stinker by MacKinnon from Center ice.). A defensible position is that a goalie that can stop basic shots reliably arguably has a leg up in that regard.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

And you appear to have challenges comprehending my posts at times

For the amount I’ve seen you say this and similar remarks to a variety of posters, I have to suspect the problem might not be them.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think it is pretty obvious. Jon Gillies has been really terrible this year. On a short recall and with no practice-time with the Flames it seems patently obvious to me why the coaches would not choose to start a struggling AHL goalie in a very tough building in an NHL game.

Yup, addressed.

And, as addressed (considering we love pointing out how often we run ourselves in circles), there is reason to look past AHL stats.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am well aware of that, and it's a response that has been repeated numerous times in this thread. Jon Gillies is part of the Flames organisation because the Flames continue to believe that he could become an NHL player.

You were confused earlier. I pointed it out for a reason:
"The Flames's starting goalie was injured and they needed a second goalie with no-days-notice on a road trip. How is it you do not understand this?"

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This has been answered, but I suspect that having the team's backup goalie with 12 wins on the season start two games in a row does not exhibit "too much trust," nor is the start following a win "unearned." These are your interpretations of the situation, but I am abundantly confident they are not shared by anyone in the Flames organisation.

And that game went really well, didn't it? It's almost as if their interpretation is exactly what I thought we could discuss.

Are you having an honest conversation anymore when you tell me that B2B games isn't a goaltending decision for a team? One that you could say... involves trust?

And the Detroit win was great, but he's been ####. A B2B is unearned.

You can hold your opinion of how much Smith earned that awesome Boston game all you want. But I'll bet a lot in the Flames organization think he's pretty #### too.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are you suggesting that the Flames should have pulled the trigger on a trade in order to save Smith from playing the Boston game?

I can't tell if you're confused about the pages of responding to one person, or are you just making something up to belittle an opinion?

I think my point is pretty damn clear about who should have started in Boston, and you know damn well that my thought wasn't a rush trade to get a goalie to play. I would like you Smith fans to stop connecting whatever dots you can get your hands on to support your decision. When your side of the fence has to shove so many words in our mouths, it's probably an indication that you're speaking nonsense.

I get it. You think Smith is the best option, and everything else is a waste to try. I think you're wrong. I think Gillies should have been tried. NHL ready, NHL capable, NHL star, I don't care. Our goaltending sucks that bad, that it's a missed opportunity that he wasn't started.

Mike Smith is a bad goalie. Most goalies are better options. Until proven otherwise, EVEN GILLIES WITH HIS AHL STATS COULD have been a better option - it would have been nice to try. I don't think his confidence is hurt more by playing like crap than it is to sit behind crap, and know your coaches don't think you can do better.

As far as starting in Boston, I am hopeful that GILLIES DUE TO HIS POSITION AT THE TIME could play better than Smith. Smith getting the easier start makes sense for multiple reasons:
1. He's the worse goalie compared to whoever (whomever? is this the time?) will be taking over his backup duties
2. He's the goalie that will still be on this roster if Gillies fails, so best to have a building block if anything.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I bet it is not a montage comprised of cherry-picked samples that exaggerates the high- or low-points of a player's body of work.

If you read the Sigalet thing earlier in the year... that might actually be what they look at

Originally Posted by Textcritic

We can in fact remain optimistic about Gillies's future while simultaneously also recognising that he is having a bad year. Some of this has to do with the defensive ####-show he plays behind on a nightly basis, but not all of it. You appear incapable of nuance.

Get off your damn high-horse and understand that the lense you put on things doesn't make everyone else an idiot.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For the amount I’ve seen you say this and similar remarks to a variety of posters, I have to suspect the problem might not be them.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

I rarely address other posters directly, rather focus on content.

And when I just did, you will notice it was as a direct response to someone who addressed me, and disappointingly inaccurately.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

Well, you've just recently accused me of the same thing. I don't think Pepsi is confusing you with anyone else.

In this case, as in many others, what your words actually meant was not what you thought you were saying.

Before you try to deflect that, you might consider that among other things, I am a professional editor. Reading comprehension is my particular strong suit. If I'm not interpreting your writing the way you want, and neither is Textcritic, and neither are a number of other posters, maybe all of us are not the problem. I suggest you work on expressing your point of view more clearly and accurately.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Well, you've just recently accused me of the same thing. I don't think Pepsi is confusing you with anyone else.

In this case, as in many others, what your words actually meant was not what you thought you were saying.

Before you try to deflect that, you might consider that among other things, I am a professional editor. Reading comprehension is my particular strong suit. If I'm not interpreting your writing the way you want, and neither is Textcritic, and neither are a number of other posters, maybe all of us are not the problem. I suggest you work on expressing your point of view more clearly and accurately.

Sorry. I accused you of what, precisely?

Hang on. Hold that.

I am not particularly paying attention to your specific posts (no offence) and really don’t have the interest or time to do the legwork to guess at what your point or interest is.

I have a generally consistent viewpoint on many issues. Generally, the nature of these forums is such that you make a post at a time, of limited scope, and sometimes have to rely on the reader to understand the context. (Surely you understand that). That is hit and miss but it is absurd to think you are going to satisfy every member of the audience, given the nature of the medium.

I appreciate that you feel the need to advise me of whatever profession you have, and am, respectfully, not familiar with your work, as far as I know. I hope you are one of the people who is truly excellent at your job, and wish you the best with that. If the publications you receive come out the other end with Sigalet’s success rate, well... I don’t know. (Just kidding, and I trust you understand that).

I can offer for your consideration (and leave you to figure out why I offer it) as an issue that I see a lot of unnecessarily argumentative behaviour here related to hyperbole. I have a friend who is a self described antisocial pedant, and sometimes tends to derail discussions by getting focused on hyperbolic statements and their merit as fact when they are used as illustrative devices. When I see similar behaviour here, I chuckle. Surely when someone says they would be as good of a starter as Smith, that is not a point worth arguing seriously. I trust you agree but can’t be bothered to ask.

With respect to my statement about TC and his or her comprehension, there was a specific example of which I made him or her aware, and he or she knows it. I used the phrase ‘far, far away’ to describe the location of an overturned stone under which they found Rittich. He or she took that to agree with an assessment of Sigalet’s impact on Rittich’s development. I acknowledge that you technically could potentially read the sentence that way, but given the context and expression, I think it would be much more inelegantly expressed in that manner. I trust you agree but am not bothered if you do not.

I don’t know. Perhaps you are reading things between the lines that are not there.

Feel free to pm me, if it means that much to you. I don’t feel it is a good use of the time of others to indulge a discussion of your perception of my intent.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Generally, the nature of these forums is such that you make a post at a time, of limited scope, and sometimes have to rely on the reader to understand the context. (Surely you understand that).

...Just kidding, and I trust you understand that...

...I have a friend who is a self described antisocial pedant, and sometimes tends to derail discussions by getting focused on hyperbolic statements and their merit as fact when they are used as illustrative devices. When I see similar behaviour here, I chuckle...

... I trust you agree but can’t be bothered to ask...

...I acknowledge that you technically could potentially read the sentence that way, but given the context and expression, I think it would be much more inelegantly expressed in that manner. I trust you agree but am not bothered if you do not.

Alrighty then.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Agree with all above (two posts up)



And you appear to have challenges comprehending my posts at times

Still think it is a simple as this. Mike Smith lets in too many easy shots regularly and Gillies was generally fine up here. (Except the stinker by MacKinnon from Center ice.). A defensible position is that a goalie that can stop basic shots reliably arguably has a leg up in that regard.

I was marginally a bigger Gillies fan than a Rittich fan. But he let in more than one stinker during their more extended runs in 17-18. Gillies had trouble down low on scrambly plays when he should have had the puck frozen and didn't. The puck would just get shoved in. I don't know if it was positioning or leg strength.

TBF, Rittich also had "early soft goal-itis" at the beginning of that year. But he got over it.