Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Recommended Posts

No I don't. Of course I am assuming you read the entire post and didn't take that comment out of context.

The plan isn't to get mediocre goal tending. The plan is to have a young goalie challenging for starts and a veteran who has the capacity to be good. But it's a much better worst case scenario then loading camp with a bunch of goalies with zero experience and hope you get lucky.

 

I did read your entire post.  And I understand that their is context.  But ultimately, your solution is a massive compromise that favours risk aversion over any realistic possibility of the exceptional performance required.

 

Terror of missing the playoffs, combined with complacency over Zero hope for success in the playoffs.

 

I want the best, and would be willing to pay the price,  and the time, and take the risk, to get it.

 

You want the best, but you know we can't afford it now, you don't want to wait, and you're afraid of the risk.  So you'll settle for mediocre and rather than saying "can this win a cup", you're saying, "it's not a total failure".

 

"it isn't a total failure if they are just mediocre" - is Going to be something that some take issue with, and regardless of context, I would like to see that this is something you can understand/comprehend.   Whether you agree or not.   

 

It comes down to what's more important, the fear of failure or the price of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read your entire post. And I understand that their is context. But ultimately, your solution is a massive compromise that favours risk aversion over any realistic possibility of the exceptional performance required.

Terror of missing the playoffs, combined with complacency over Zero hope for success in the playoffs.

I want the best, and would be willing to pay the price, and the time, and take the risk, to get it.

You want the best, but you know we can't afford it now, you don't want to wait, and you're afraid of the risk. So you'll settle for mediocre and rather than saying "can this win a cup", you're saying, "it's not a total failure".

"it isn't a total failure if they are just mediocre" - is Going to be something that some take issue with, and regardless of context, I would like to see that this is something you can understand/comprehend. Whether you agree or not.

It comes down to what's more important, the fear of failure or the price of success.

Bringing in 3 rookie goalies is a great way to extend our rebuild indefinitely, and has zero chance of success.

You keep saying that bringing in an experienced goalie is going to lead to mediocrity and no success, but I would argue that it has much higher chance of success than bringing in 3 rookies which will certainly lead to failure and ruin the careers of 3 young goalies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read your entire post. And I understand that their is context. But ultimately, your solution is a massive compromise that favours risk aversion over any realistic possibility of the exceptional performance required.

Terror of missing the playoffs, combined with complacency over Zero hope for success in the playoffs.

I want the best, and would be willing to pay the price, and the time, and take the risk, to get it.

You want the best, but you know we can't afford it now, you don't want to wait, and you're afraid of the risk. So you'll settle for mediocre and rather than saying "can this win a cup", you're saying, "it's not a total failure".

"it isn't a total failure if they are just mediocre" - is Going to be something that some take issue with, and regardless of context, I would like to see that this is something you can understand/comprehend. Whether you agree or not.

It comes down to what's more important, the fear of failure or the price of success.

Throwing a bunch of rookies in the shark tank isn't good for their their development. Having unstable goaltending isn't good for team development. You make a lot of assumptions and spend a lot of time on the poles. Just because someone doesn't agree with the wacky notion of having a camp with no NHL experienced goalies doesn't mean we are aiming for mediocrity.

I say again, it's easy to jump on a soap box but where is your evidence. Show me a credible example where an NHL team has actually done this and it has actually worked. Because I have given you many examples where NHL teams have done the alternative and that worked very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throwing a bunch of rookies in the shark tank isn't good for their their development. Having unstable goaltending isn't good for team development. You make a lot of assumptions and spend a lot of time on the poles. Just because someone doesn't agree with the wacky notion of having a camp with no NHL experienced goalies doesn't mean we are aiming for mediocrity.

I say again, it's easy to jump on a soap box but where is your evidence. Show me a credible example where an NHL team has actually done this and it has actually worked. Because I have given you many examples where NHL teams have done the alternative and that worked very well.

 

Where is your evidence?   My solution at this point is to see what we have in Ortio.    Everything else is suggestions, because we don't have enough information to make the decisions needed.

 

Bringing in another prospect is just one example of outcomes, that is dependant on what we see in Ortio.   And maybe Gillies too, depending on his recovery.   

 

I understand your concern with my position.  I've stated as much.   I'm just surprised that you see no issue in yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is your evidence?   My solution at this point is to see what we have in Ortio.    Everything else is suggestions, because we don't have enough information to make the decisions needed.

 

Bringing in another prospect is just one example of outcomes, that is dependant on what we see in Ortio.   And maybe Gillies too, depending on his recovery.   

 

I understand your concern with my position.  I've stated as much.   I'm just surprised that you see no issue in yours.

Even if ortio finishes the season strong, I wouldnt put all my eggs in one basket hoping hes going to be a solid starter next year. I would bring a veteran goalie to tandem with ortio at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throwing a bunch of rookies in the shark tank isn't good for their their development. Having unstable goaltending isn't good for team development. You make a lot of assumptions and spend a lot of time on the poles. Just because someone doesn't agree with the wacky notion of having a camp with no NHL experienced goalies doesn't mean we are aiming for mediocrity.

I say again, it's easy to jump on a soap box but where is your evidence. Show me a credible example where an NHL team has actually done this and it has actually worked. Because I have given you many examples where NHL teams have done the alternative and that worked very well.

 

I got stuff to do right now, but it's not hard to find it.     For the most part, just pick a Stanley Cup Winning team, and look at the first year they really developed their winning goaltender.

 

Ie., Jonathan Quick in 08/09.    They used the 3-rookie system.  One from AHL, one from Europe, and Quick.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Los_Angeles_Kings_season

 

I really don't understand the fascination with coddling on here.  To be completely honest.   I think it must be some habits we all picked up from the Kipper era where there was him and everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got stuff to do right now, but it's not hard to find it.     For the most part, just pick a Stanley Cup Winning team, and look at the first year they really developed their winning goaltender.

 

Ie., Jonathan Quick in 08/09.    They used the 3-rookie system.  One from AHL, one from Europe, and Quick.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Los_Angeles_Kings_season

 

I really don't understand the fascination with coddling on here.  To be completely honest.   I think it must be some habits we all picked up from the Kipper era where there was him and everyone else.

 

I think you are looking at a stats page and thinking it's a 3-goalie system.

 

They used two goalies until they brought up Quick and traded LaBarbera in December.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got stuff to do right now, but it's not hard to find it. For the most part, just pick a Stanley Cup Winning team, and look at the first year they really developed their winning goaltender.

Ie., Jonathan Quick in 08/09. They used the 3-rookie system. One from AHL, one from Europe, and Quick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Los_Angeles_Kings_season

I really don't understand the fascination with coddling on here. To be completely honest. I think it must be some habits we all picked up from the Kipper era where there was him and everyone else.

The Kings started the year with Ersberg who was a 26 year old goalie in his 2ND year in North America and a 28 year old LaBarbera who was going into his 9th professional season.

LaBarbera went down with a sports hernia and missed 20 games, in the meantime Quick came up and stole the crease and never gave it back.

So not really the 3 rookie goalies situation that you are describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kings started the year with Ersberg who was a 26 year old goalie in his 2ND year in North America and a 28 year old LaBarbera who was going into his 9th professional season.

LaBarbera went down with a sports hernia and missed 20 games, in the meantime Quick came up and stole the crease and never gave it back.

So not really the 3 rookie goalies situation that you are describing.

 

It was exactly the 3 rookie situation I was describing, because for all 3, it was their rookie year.

 

More importantly, all 3 were either drafted/developed in-house (Quick), or signed as free agents to cheap deals.

 

Yes the other two were older, and I don't actually see that as ideal, but they had no mentionable NHL experience, and no bloated contracts.

 

It was a risk.  One we might take, and I'd be fine with.   What I'm not fine with, is giving up assets, or considerable cap space, for bandaid solutions.   Yes, I would prefer if they were younger.   Simply put, because I'm not sure we have Jonathan Quick in our system right now.

 

I can find more.   You're just not going to see rebuilding teams take on massive contracts or give up big assets for older experienced goaltenders, and then go on to win a cup out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was exactly the 3 rookie situation I was describing, because for all 3, it was their rookie year.

More importantly, all 3 were either drafted/developed in-house (Quick), or signed as free agents to cheap deals.

Yes the other two were older, and I don't actually see that as ideal, but they had no mentionable NHL experience, and no bloated contracts.

It was a risk. One we might take, and I'd be fine with. What I'm not fine with, is giving up assets, or considerable cap space, for bandaid solutions. Yes, I would prefer if they were younger. Simply put, because I'm not sure we have Jonathan Quick in our system right now.

I can find more. You're just not going to see rebuilding teams take on massive contracts or give up big assets for older experienced goaltenders, and then go on to win a cup out of it.

The part is where we will forever have to disagree. I think if this team wants to move forward, then the "rebuild" has to end this year.

My thought process is that we have a very solid core in place right now, let's not waste anymore years of that core.

We can still develop goalies while we have a guy like Varlamov in place to give this team playoff level goaltending.

If Ortio or another young goalie can't over take and preform a "band aid" goalie then probably don't have what it takes to be a starting goalie in the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part is where we will forever have to disagree.

 

I disagree that we will forever disagree, lol.

 

We don't know enough yet.  We will know more in 14 games.  Still more in the summer.  Still more in training camp.

 

All I ever wanted was to give our prospects a chance.  By the end of this season, I feel we'll have done that for Ortio.  Next, I'll be causing a raucus over Gillies.  And if you think I made a scene over Ortio....man.....

 

Maybe I will change my opinion.  Maybe you will change yours.

 

Opinions have not been static on here, and are unlikely to be static over the next year.

 

Maybe, just maybe, we will find entirely new and exciting things to disagree about :)

 

 

p.s....If our core is so solid, than why aren't we doing better?   Can't blame it all on the goaltender.   Our offense is not up there yet.  Our shots against are good, but not great, with our best defenceman exiting his prime.   We get bullied in the late regular season and playoffs.   After many promotions, our prospect cubboards are relatively bare.

 

"Win Now" created this rebuild.   "Win now" could prolong it too, if we don't learn from that.  Coming out of the rebuild, however you want to define that, doesn't mean going back to short-term decisions. 

 

This team was incredibly damaged by making short term decisions.   I would Hope....that if anything, we realized the value of doing what's best for our future.   If we're in the running for the cup, fine.    But....that's not even part of the conversation yet.

 

Denying where we're really at, with short-term bandaids, isn't going to get us where we need to go imho.

 

flesh-wound.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, I hope I have my math in order here....

 

We're at about $49mil in cap next year on 15 players (General Fanager), so if we sign JG & Monahan at a realistic $14mil, we're at $63 mil on 17 (10 forwards/7 dmen/0 goalies).

That leaves us at about $8mil.

If my math is wrong, please let me know, because it could well be, I'm not being facetious.

What would Mason take? Conservatively, half I would assume.

$4mil needing a backup (Ortio @ 1). What will Colborne want? Likely 2.

We are up against the cap.

I'm not sure General Fanager keeps Raymond's 3 buried, I'd assume not.

But even then, I hope someone can spell this out to me in that I'm wrong.

Because man oh man, I see a really downside year next year because it looks like cap jail to me without drastic measures.

I KNOW we need a #1, but can we trade Smid's contract for it? lol

1) BT could ask Gaudreau & Monahan to take bridge contracts for 2-3 years with the big $s waiting @ the end to surround them with better players including a goalie that gives them a fighting chance to win.

2) I like both players too but really what have they done to earn a bump from EL to $7 million? We also did Johnny a heck of a good turn by burning the 1st year of his EL by playing him in that 1 game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw a lot of posts about Trouba calling him down over a rumor (denied by both him & his agent) he wanted 6-7 long term as his 2nd contract. Does it make a difference if the $s are expected by a Flame?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can still develop goalies while we have a guy like Varlamov in place to give this team playoff level goaltending.

If Ortio or another young goalie can't over take and preform a "band aid" goalie then probably don't have what it takes to be a starting goalie in the NHL.

Exactly. Plus Varlamov is a very solid goalie in his own right and would be a significant step up on anything we have right now. He is also in his prime and young enough to continue to improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know enough yet. We will know more in 14 games. Still more in the summer. Still more in training camp.

All I ever wanted was to give our prospects a chance. By the end of this season, I feel we'll have done that for Ortio.

This is where most people seem to be fundamentally disagreeing with you.

First, there is nothing Ortio can do over the remainder of the season that will convince most of us he is ready to anchor the goal position with an unproven backup.

Second, giving a rookie goalie a chance does not require giving him the undisputed reigns. He can get his chance playing tandem with another goalie.

Third, the team will not and should not gamble an entire season just to give Ortio a chance. Even if he had earned that level of trust (and he certainly hasn't done that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where most people seem to be fundamentally disagreeing with you.

First, there is nothing Ortio can do over the remainder of the season that will convince most of us he is ready to anchor the goal position with an unproven backup.

Second, giving a rookie goalie a chance does not require giving him the undisputed reigns. He can get his chance playing tandem with another goalie.

Third, the team will not and should not gamble an entire season just to give Ortio a chance. Even if he had earned that level of trust (and he certainly hasn't done that.)

 

Well, if he got 14 straight shutouts.... :P

 

But no, I agree. Much though I like Ortio, and think he deserves a chance to be evaluated as a starter if he continues his current level of play consistently, Its insane to trust him with the keys to the kingdom. 

 

We didn't trade Iggy, dump all our vets and hand the keys to Monahan, Gaudreau, Beartschi and Bennett.  

 

We brought in a few vets who could give us relatively competitive, though not top end play, and kept them around until the kids were ready to shoulder the load on their own. 

 

Right now Ortio is where Monahan was after 9 games his first season. Promising, very promising, but not someone you put in the top role YET.

 

Monahan and Gaudreau earned top line minutes within their first seasons. 

 

Ortio COULD earn starting goaltender within next season. 

 

But you don't just ASSUME he will.

 

If he earns the job, you have a veteran mentor and backup who the flames can have faith in. 

 

If he doesn't, you still have a starting goaltender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are looking at a stats page and thinking it's a 3-goalie system.

 

They used two goalies until they brought up Quick and traded LaBarbera in December.  

 

I think you are assuming Quick=Ortio in my example.

 

Maybe Quick=Gillies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few of my thoughts on the matter:

 

1- I still don't undertand why it has to be an either or scenairo. It seems like peole either wants prospects developed, or want the Flames to get a proven starter and yet no one has answered why can't they just do both? Just becuase you bring in a Varlamov doens't mean you stop playing Ortio. If Ortio truly is the goalie then he will out play Varlamov and win the job. If he can't, well then he wasn't your goalie in the first place. I dont' know of a starting goalie in the NHL that was just handed a job. 

 

2- This build off of point 1, but the vast majority of teams that develop goalies did excactly what I just described in point 1. Chicago spent a lot of money to bring in both Huet/Boulin and then traded for Marty Tuco until Crawford proved to be the better option. Rask beat out Tim Thomas in Boston, gigeurre allowed the Ducks to move on from Guy Hebert, Cam Ward stole the job from Martin Gerber etc. So basiclaly every cup winner in the modern era had a goalie who end up having to outplay a veteran to earn the job so why exactly should the Flames not be bring in veterans?

 

3 - How exactly do people plan to acqurie these "high ceiling" rookies? Are we talking guys like Vasilevsky, Matt Muraay or Suban? Well then you are talking about trading first round picks or more to get them. Are we prepared to talk about giving up potentially high draft picks for people who have never played in the NHL or proven they can? Are teams really linining up to ship out their high ceiling prospects? We shouldn't pay that much for someone to come in and help us win games, but we should give up more for goalies who arn't in the NHL?

Take a look at what the Avs had to give up to get Varlamov, Blue to get Halak. Yes every once in a while you hit it big with a Bishop style trade (Bolts stole him IMO) but more often than not getting young goalies is expensive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that we will forever disagree, lol.

We don't know enough yet. We will know more in 14 games. Still more in the summer. Still more in training camp.

All I ever wanted was to give our prospects a chance. By the end of this season, I feel we'll have done that for Ortio. Next, I'll be causing a raucus over Gillies. And if you think I made a scene over Ortio....man.....

Maybe I will change my opinion. Maybe you will change yours.

Opinions have not been static on here, and are unlikely to be static over the next year.

Maybe, just maybe, we will find entirely new and exciting things to disagree about :)

p.s....If our core is so solid, than why aren't we doing better? Can't blame it all on the goaltender. Our offense is not up there yet. Our shots against are good, but not great, with our best defenceman exiting his prime. We get bullied in the late regular season and playoffs. After many promotions, our prospect cubboards are relatively bare.

"Win Now" created this rebuild. "Win now" could prolong it too, if we don't learn from that. Coming out of the rebuild, however you want to define that, doesn't mean going back to short-term decisions.

This team was incredibly damaged by making short term decisions. I would Hope....that if anything, we realized the value of doing what's best for our future. If we're in the running for the cup, fine. But....that's not even part of the conversation yet.

Denying where we're really at, with short-term bandaids, isn't going to get us where we need to go imho.

flesh-wound.jpg

As far as knowing more about Ortio, this run right now isn't telling us much. Right now we know he can play well when the games don't matter and when he is playing for contract. Next year will tell us everything we need to know about Ortio.

I fine with giving him some of the games next year, but I still need that vet back there.

If Ortio doesn't work and Gillies is dominating the AHL then we can give him a look, but we still need that vet.

As far as why aren't we doing better, I would say goaltending has cost us between 5-10 games this year and coaching has cost us a couple others. Change those two things and we are playoff team this year.

It is time for our core to learn how to win, so let's give them a chance to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few of my thoughts on the matter:

1- I still don't undertand why it has to be an either or scenairo. It seems like peole either wants prospects developed, or want the Flames to get a proven starter and yet no one has answered why can't they just do both? Just becuase you bring in a Varlamov doens't mean you stop playing Ortio. If Ortio truly is the goalie then he will out play Varlamov and win the job. If he can't, well then he wasn't your goalie in the first place. I dont' know of a starting goalie in the NHL that was just handed a job.

2- This build off of point 1, but the vast majority of teams that develop goalies did excactly what I just described in point 1. Chicago spent a lot of money to bring in both Huet/Boulin and then traded for Marty Tuco until Crawford proved to be the better option. Rask beat out Tim Thomas in Boston, gigeurre allowed the Ducks to move on from Guy Hebert, Cam Ward stole the job from Martin Gerber etc. So basiclaly every cup winner in the modern era had a goalie who end up having to outplay a veteran to earn the job so why exactly should the Flames not be bring in veterans?

3 - How exactly do people plan to acqurie these "high ceiling" rookies? Are we talking guys like Vasilevsky, Matt Muraay or Suban? Well then you are talking about trading first round picks or more to get them. Are we prepared to talk about giving up potentially high draft picks for people who have never played in the NHL or proven they can? Are teams really linining up to ship out their high ceiling prospects? We shouldn't pay that much for someone to come in and help us win games, but we should give up more for goalies who arn't in the NHL?

Take a look at what the Avs had to give up to get Varlamov, Blue to get Halak. Yes every once in a while you hit it big with a Bishop style trade (Bolts stole him IMO) but more often than not getting young goalies is expensive.

I think most people agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few ideas: 

Grubauer- no future in Washington, great numbers going back to his junior days.

Greiss- may not be available depending on how he does with Halak out. Great career numbers, never carried a starters workload until this season.

Kuemper- similar to Grubauer, he is stuck behind one of the best goalies in the league.

 

All of these guys are affordable, going into a year where the team is up against the cap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people agree with this.

Its really the only course of action that makes sense. Last season we screwed it up by having 3 goalies, and really only giving two of them an opportunity. If we bring in ortio and someone else to compete for the job, I would love to see grubauer, halak, varlamov etc compete with ortio in training camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few of my thoughts on the matter:

 

1- I still don't undertand why it has to be an either or scenairo. It seems like peole either wants prospects developed, or want the Flames to get a proven starter and yet no one has answered why can't they just do both? Just becuase you bring in a Varlamov doens't mean you stop playing Ortio. If Ortio truly is the goalie then he will out play Varlamov and win the job. If he can't, well then he wasn't your goalie in the first place. I dont' know of a starting goalie in the NHL that was just handed a job. 

 

2- This build off of point 1, but the vast majority of teams that develop goalies did excactly what I just described in point 1. Chicago spent a lot of money to bring in both Huet/Boulin and then traded for Marty Tuco until Crawford proved to be the better option. Rask beat out Tim Thomas in Boston, gigeurre allowed the Ducks to move on from Guy Hebert, Cam Ward stole the job from Martin Gerber etc. So basiclaly every cup winner in the modern era had a goalie who end up having to outplay a veteran to earn the job so why exactly should the Flames not be bring in veterans?

 

3 - How exactly do people plan to acqurie these "high ceiling" rookies? Are we talking guys like Vasilevsky, Matt Muraay or Suban? Well then you are talking about trading first round picks or more to get them. Are we prepared to talk about giving up potentially high draft picks for people who have never played in the NHL or proven they can? Are teams really linining up to ship out their high ceiling prospects? We shouldn't pay that much for someone to come in and help us win games, but we should give up more for goalies who arn't in the NHL?

Take a look at what the Avs had to give up to get Varlamov, Blue to get Halak. Yes every once in a while you hit it big with a Bishop style trade (Bolts stole him IMO) but more often than not getting young goalies is expensive. 

Why is Varlamov's name being tossed around so much ? he is signed for big bucks for about 4 more years.

If we were to fall out of 1 thru 5 in the draft, would you use your 1st to try and get someone like Vasilevskiy TB or Murray PIT ?

Our biggest need is having two quality goaltenders competing to be top dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Varlamov's name being tossed around so much ? he is signed for big bucks for about 4 more years.

If we were to fall out of 1 thru 5 in the draft, would you use your 1st to try and get someone like Vasilevskiy TB or Murray PIT ?

Our biggest need is having two quality goaltenders competing to be top dog.

Varlamov gets thrown out a lot because there is a good chance he will be available in the off-season. Colorado has to re-sign MacKinnon and Barrie this off-season, add in the fact that they are a budget team and that is why he would be available.

He is signed to $5.9m for the next 3 years, which isn't that much for a quality goaltender.

He is having a down year this year so we would be buying low.

I really like both Vasilevsky and Murray but a top 10 pick is pretty rich for an unproven goalie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Varlamov gets thrown out a lot because there is a good chance he will be available in the off-season. Colorado has to re-sign MacKinnon and Barrie this off-season, add in the fact that they are a budget team and that is why he would be available.

He is signed to $5.9m for the next 3 years, which isn't that much for a quality goaltender.

He is having a down year this year so we would be buying low.

I really like both Vasilevsky and Murray but a top 10 pick is pretty rich for an unproven goalie.

OK but I have a hard time seeing the Avs trade him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Varlamov gets thrown out a lot because there is a good chance he will be available in the off-season. Colorado has to re-sign MacKinnon and Barrie this off-season, add in the fact that they are a budget team and that is why he would be available.

He is signed to $5.9m for the next 3 years, which isn't that much for a quality goaltender.

He is having a down year this year so we would be buying low.

I really like both Vasilevsky and Murray but a top 10 pick is pretty rich for an unproven goalie.

 

Which is about 2 mil more than we can afford for a goaltender this coming season...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...