jjgallow

SeniorMembers
  • Content count

    4,632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

jjgallow last won the day on November 12 2016

jjgallow had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

449 Excellent

About jjgallow

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I love this forum
  2. So.....we have good goalie coaching because....our goalies don't run away when they are asked to go in net? I know you're just playing devil's advocate, but....
  3. Can we still do this Bennett deal you brought up? Bennett issues aside (we shoulda already traded him), Valimaki continues to look strong. Even more complete.
  4. Agreed. We have a goalie coaching problem. Not this much talent can do this poorly this consistently. The goalie coach should also be asking to give Smith a break here and there. That never happens. Having said that, we got problems everywhere. Lack was never a good pick (but no, this isn't all his fault). So we also have a GM problem, and a goalie problem. But if I were to pick just one problem, yeah. Might be looking hard at the goalie coach.
  5. Well we'll see. That would be nice to see Parsons/Gillies in the AHL at this point. I have my doubts but fingers crossed there.
  6. I honestly don't think that's a debate with anyone but yourself. I have a hard time believing most on here are happy with our development record or current situation beyond the current pleasant surprise of Mike Smith.
  7. Mostly agree, but two hesitations. 1. Will they actually disappear Lack, and have him split his time with Gillies? I see this as more likely. And the #1 reason I didn't like the trade. So much clogging. 2. Parsons....hate to say it but he may need another 10 games in the ECHL before we know if he's ready for the jump. He's struggled early. Has shown signs of improvement. And 10 games probably works nicely...but if I think he needs at least another 10, some on here surely want him in the ECHL for another two years
  8. Just because we have a lot of goalies signed doesn't mean we've met expectations. Also, you have everything backwards. You think that just because I think Gillies/Rittich should be given NHL opportunities means that the Flames are doing a good job with their G prospects Actually, one of my top reasons for giving them NHL opportunities is so that they can either SH**** or get off the pot and clogging up our development system. A run-down of the success story you speak of: Parsons: May be our best hope right now but is currently struggling in the ECHL and under .900. Not looking like a saviour at all right now, definitely worth following. Gillies: Not sure if you noticed but I'm actually his biggest cheerleader. Having said that, if you look at things objectively, we are hardly in a position to assume he will even be a backup for the Flames in the future. He has shown some improvement this year but so far not enough. Rittich: Having a 25 year old goalie that's 10th in the AHL is hardly something to get worked up about. Again, hoping the best for him but let's be serious. Could fill in for Lack, but that's likely his ceiling. McDonald: Unless a miracle occurs we will likely release him at the end of the season. Not even sure why you mentioned him (but since you did, maybe spell his name right). Schneider: Same as McDonald There are No White horses above. None. Gillies and Parsons both looked like potential white horses at points in time, neither do now. Next year Schneider and McDonald will be gone, and Rittich will either be our NHL backup, or hopefully gone (because it's a waste keeping a 26 year old in the AHL IMHO). Our prospects will likely consist of Gillies and Parsons next year. Neither of which are off to perfect starts right now. I don't see how anyone can be happy with that right now. To me, that's a big gap which needs to be addressed.
  9. Ortio for Monahan....
  10. Then you will inevitably re-live it. If you want something better, or different, you may not want to ignore the past.
  11. Conditional or not, we'll lose that 3rd. Moreso, that it seems to be a 2nd or 3rd every year. And that is the issue imho with the rent-a-goalies. Were Smith the only way to achieve wins, then ok. But, not the case at all. I see it as lack of foresight, lack of planning, and laziness. We could have acquired an actual long term solution and gotten similar results. If Smith leads us deep into the playoffs, my apologies. But that aside (and very unlikely), we had better options to achieve the same success this year.
  12. I'm just saying, if we look at our "needs" over the last 30 years, none of them were actually weren't "needs" as defined by winning us a Stanley Cup. And MOST of them weren't even "needs" with regards to significantly better performance in a given year. Yet they all felt like "needs" at the time. Has Mike Smith won us some games? Yes. Will he be the difference maker this season? That's a huge assumption. Was he the only way of achieving that? Highly, highly unlikely. Was he a good long term solution? No. Were there solutions available with better long term outcomes? Almost definitely. Did we have the same Love-in with Brian Elliot at times last year? Definitely Did it last? Absolutely not. Does it ever last? Almost never. Maybe with Kipper. But Still not enough. Because...again, we kept sacrificing out future, and basically used up his entire career without assembling a good enough team in front of him. Lots of short term acquisitions that cost us big within 3-5 year windows (Kipper's career) Overplayed him too. So I'm saying flat out: Are the odds good that we will look favorably on the Mike Smith acquisition? No, those odds are historically very poor. Same or worse than they were with Brian Elliot and many before him. They all lacked foresight.
  13. You are dealing with much greater hypotheticals the moment you say that Smith is a "need" right now.
  14. True, lots of other teams never ever win the Stanley Cup. As we've gone through many times on here, there is clear favoritism towards contenders who don't overplay their top goalie, or somehow manage to have a relatively fresh goalie in the playoffs. They simply have better odds of winning the big one. Not 100% true, but a very clear indisputable correlation. I would argue that a lack of that thinking is why we're always on the verge of doing lousy. If the goal is the Stanley Cup, and we are more likely to win the cup some Other year in the next 10 years than this particular year, we just reduced our odds. So, assuming all years equal, 10% of the next decade's opportunity to win the cup is this year. (Except we know we're not a contender yet. So it's really more like 3-5%) The other 90% (or more) of our opportunity to win the cup is compromised by our short term "need", acquiring a goalie who is extremely unlikely to have a significant impact past this year. Now, if your goal is just to "win now", then maybe it looks like a good trade. But, if you have any intentions of "winning now" next year, and the year after, and the next 10 years....again.... we reduced our overall odds over the next decade with that trade. the only arguement is that "we had no choice". I disagree there too. I think there were equally acceptable ways of succeeding this year that didn't involve sacrificing our future. I want long term solutions, not quick fixes.
  15. Can't blame Lack for starting cold. This is a combination of things and truths. The Lack acquisition never made sense (but wasn't really Lack's fault either) Lack hasn't been given a chance (the Flames typically latch onto one goalie and ride them into the ground) The Smith trade looks good right now, but for it to stay that way Smith will have to Keep doing more good things, and the draft picks we gave up will have to Not do good things in their careers. The Flames sucked the other night. Not just the goaltending. The whole team. We spend a lot of time on this thread talking about problems and not a lot talking about solutions. The Flames are very good at running goalies out of town. They're not so good at acquiring something which is actually better. Which is the actual reason we're having this convo.