Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Recommended Posts

Well, that's the thing....it's a Two-way signing (not just an AHL contract). You only get 50 of those. I Have to assume there are hopes.

For what it is, the Flames Should by rights see some potential in him to be more then we all do. Let's hope they're right, and we're wrong. Which would ....be... a deviation from their track record for goalies.

I don't think there needs to be NHL upside. I think the flames needed a goalie who could play on the A to backup Gilles, be ok with long stretches on the bench while Gilles plays, be ok to call up to the NHL and sit on the bench if an injury strikes and ideally be waiver exempt. The market out there is really thin on guys in NA that can fill that roll and most require waivers.

The flames picked up a piece they needed and that checked all the boxes for free. I'm sure they like him but I don't think he needs to have NHL upside to make this move good or worthwhile. They needed the depth and options with that depth piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there needs to be NHL upside.......I'm sure they like him but I don't think he needs to have NHL upside to make this move good or worthwhile. They needed the depth and options with that depth piece.

 

We have had countless arguements over the years about signing guys to two-way deals, and how there are only 50 spots, and we can't just gamble those spots on players who have no real likelihood of making the NHL.

 

I feel like you are taking the other side of that arguement at a time where we have Considerably better prospects, and more to lose in our pipeline.   4-5 years ago, I might be inclined to agree with you (in a position other than goal), because frankly we Didn't have that much.

 

But every minute played in Stockton's net, is an investment in this organization's future.   Every minute.   We have seen Sooo many of those minutes squandered over the years, I am surprised the you see nothing wrong with a continuation of that.

 

The fact that he is waiver inelligible, in my mind, is extremely poor logic, if they have no NHL future (because nobody would claim him anyway, if true).

 

I am Assuming that the Flames see NHL upside, and on that point, I disagree with them but look forward to him proving me wrong.

 

What I can't and won't accept, is that any of the reasons you listed above justify squandering our prospect development in net.   All 50 of those contracts should have NHL upside, and if there are exceptions to be made, they should Not be made in net.  Ever.   I have to assume they see more in him, right or wrong.   There is no arguement to justify signing a goalie with Less potential, when there are an extremely limited number of spots and minutes to develop them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

 

JJ, you constantly throw out names of goalies you want us to take a chance on, but are unwilling to give any credence to a player the Flames have scouted.  Understood that you have other goalies ranked higher, but this is the guy they think may have NHL upside.  I would rather take a look at a someone they believe in over Poulin.  MacDonald is going to be in the ECHL so he can get 40+ starts, while Gillies takes the majority in Stockton.

 

If you have scouted this guy, and have a poor opinion, then fine.  If you have scouted all the others you have listed as better, then I tip my hat to you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

 

JJ, you constantly throw out names of goalies you want us to take a chance on, but are unwilling to give any credence to a player the Flames have scouted. 

 

Pretty sure you're the one that's thrown the most names out, and pretty sure you're the one least likely to give credence to players they've scouted (ie., Ortio, Gillies, etc).

 

So it's exactly like you said, except...the opposite.

 

I've already said I'll cheer him on and hope to be wrong about him.   I've done that with a lot of odd choices they've made in the past, to the point of sometimes being the last one standing to defend them. 

 

My issue isn't whether I'm right or wrong about the goalie.   Most of what you wrote above, you don't know, couldn't possibly know, and won't be right on.  Even in terms of whether they'll be Flames players.  And that's fine.    It's fine, as long as the Flames Legitimately see NHL upside in this guy.

 

But if they see no future with him and are fitting a "hole" when it's clear that our entire goaltending system needs to, and likely will, get turned upside down before the start of the season and then some more after....then I take issue with that, and anyone who thinks this is a good time to fill minor league holes with 2-way contracts in net right now, with no thought or consideration to upside, development, or our future.

 

My issue isn't with the signing (only a disagreement)....my issue is with those who Agree with me that the signing has little or no upside, and are Totally cool with that because they think we should totally pursue goalies with no upside, since we have such a clear vision of how our goaltending will look next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you rather have McDonald in that role playing sparingly behind Gilles? If you would fine but I don't. I want Gilles and McDonald playing the most that they can so IMO that means both can't be in the NHL so j don't agree at all that by signing someone to play in the AHL it takes away from a prospect. The opposite In fact.

Yes I do believe yo can't waste contract space but as I've said twice in this thread now he fits a need. What o am against is taking a bunch of flyers on your 50 contracts on players that you are hoping pan out. This is 1 contract that fills a need so I don't view it as a waste but he's other players I wojld. If they signed a center bound for the AHL with minimal or no NHL upside I would call that a waste.

Also yk clarify I am not saying he doesn't have NHL upside because I don't know if he does. What I am saying is that if this guy gives them dept for a year and allows Gilles and Macdonald to get playing time they need and they release him next year then IMO it's a solid move. It's unrealistic that all 50 players under contract are going yk play in the NHL it become nhlers. Reality is the majority of every teams reserve list won't play in the NHL but te depth they provide is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you rather have McDonald in that role playing sparingly behind Gilles? If you would fine but I don't. I want Gilles and McDonald playing the most that they can.......

Also yk clarify I am not saying he doesn't have NHL upside because I don't know if he does.

 

Neither you nor I have any idea where Gillies or MacDonald will play next year.   

 

It's painfully clear that the Flames feel he has NHL upside and I CANNOT believe they would sign him to a 2-way deal otherwise.  

 

The need you describe is a need that can be filled with a 1-way minor league deal, and altered IF needed, on an emergency basis.  It is not the kind of need you fill with a 2-way contract in the summer, or bring someone in from Europe for.  That is, by definition, a waste of a 2-way contract, to bring in a career minor leaguer from the other side of the globe because they "might", potentially need to get called up in some weird situation where no other goalie in their oraganization was trusted to be called up, in which case, they could Still call him up if they needed to, with an emergency adjustment.  It would, by definition, be a waste of a 2-way.

 

The 2-way contract, by definition, describes a player they feel has NHL upside, and there are already leaked reports of as much from the Flames side.   No doubt we are hours/days away from a full report on how amazing the Flames truly feel he is.

 

This is Really straightforward imho, and I just don't see the sense of spinning it otherwise.

 

Now, you and I can both have trouble seeing his NHL upside, and that's fine.   But the Flames clearly don't.   And I hope we are surprised in training camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we see this guy play we won't know what level he is at, all we have to go by is his eliteprospects page (or hockeydb if you prefer) and some youtube videos. For us to sit here and say he has no NHL upside is really absurd.

 

At the end of the day we were in need of an AHL goalie after Gillies and now we have one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure you're the one that's thrown the most names out, and pretty sure you're the one least likely to give credence to players they've scouted (ie., Ortio, Gillies, etc).

 

So it's exactly like you said, except...the opposite.

 

I've already said I'll cheer him on and hope to be wrong about him.   I've done that with a lot of odd choices they've made in the past, to the point of sometimes being the last one standing to defend them. 

 

My issue isn't whether I'm right or wrong about the goalie.   Most of what you wrote above, you don't know, couldn't possibly know, and won't be right on.  Even in terms of whether they'll be Flames players.  And that's fine.    It's fine, as long as the Flames Legitimately see NHL upside in this guy.

 

But if they see no future with him and are fitting a "hole" when it's clear that our entire goaltending system needs to, and likely will, get turned upside down before the start of the season and then some more after....then I take issue with that, and anyone who thinks this is a good time to fill minor league holes with 2-way contracts in net right now, with no thought or consideration to upside, development, or our future.

 

My issue isn't with the signing (only a disagreement)....my issue is with those who Agree with me that the signing has little or no upside, and are Totally cool with that because they think we should totally pursue goalies with no upside, since we have such a clear vision of how our goaltending will look next season.

 

Just a couple of points.  Murray isn't going anywhere.  That leaves us with some limited options in trade or FA.  Or it means paying a tidy sum in trade on a guy that could become the next Talbot/Jones.

 

I think I have been pretty consistent on my first choices.  Anderson and Elliott.  I'm at least willing to look beyond the obvious stats to see how a goalie does in some situations.  Vasilevskiy has trouble with low and medium danger chances.  Fine.  Doubt he would be available, but you don't know.  But I am posting opinions on the goalies presented, so if you think my list is very long, then you are mistaken.  

 

The 2-way deal is what deal is available to a player in Rittich's situation.  It's no more or less than you can offer.

 

MacDonald needs a large workload to get better.  It's either him or Gillies in the ECHL.  Both need to be starters.  Rittich as a backup is not a bad use for a goalie coming from overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 2-way deal is what deal is available to a player in Rittich's situation.  It's no more or less than you can offer.

 

 

So yeah, I'm not here to criticize your selections, just point them out.    

 

Anyway, totally agree with you that the Flames HAD to sign Rittich to a 2-way.   Even if it was a projected position, that Doesn't require a 2-way at all.

 

Which is exactly my point, they went completely out of their way, and across the world, and used up a 2-way, to get him, for a position that doesn't need one.  And for a position (backup AHLer) that could be filled by Dozens if not hundreds of goalies on this continent, for less.   And all of which, have actually Proven themselves in AHL and/or NHL games.

 

So putting two and two together....   

 

Yeah, they like him.

 

Fair?

 

That's all I'm saying, and I think it's...pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would it's clear at this point, they Flames see NHL caliber in this kid.

 

Does he have it ?.. only one way to find out.

Could they be wrong ?.. yes

 

Did they burn a contract on a kid just simply to give Gillies  the night off now and then ?..No  they could have just flown him in for the Evaluation camp if that were the case and offered him a PTO

 

I think its silly to insinuate they project him as an AHL backup ..no , they see something in him that says he can be an NHL starter, and a one year contract says they are willing to be wrong 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither you nor I have any idea where Gillies or MacDonald will play next year.

It's painfully clear that the Flames feel he has NHL upside and I CANNOT believe they would sign him to a 2-way deal otherwise.

The need you describe is a need that can be filled with a 1-way minor league deal, and altered IF needed, on an emergency basis. It is not the kind of need you fill with a 2-way contract in the summer, or bring someone in from Europe for. That is, by definition, a waste of a 2-way contract, to bring in a career minor leaguer from the other side of the globe because they "might", potentially need to get called up in some weird situation where no other goalie in their oraganization was trusted to be called up, in which case, they could Still call him up if they needed to, with an emergency adjustment. It would, by definition, be a waste of a 2-way.

The 2-way contract, by definition, describes a player they feel has NHL upside, and there are already leaked reports of as much from the Flames side. No doubt we are hours/days away from a full report on how amazing the Flames truly feel he is.

This is Really straightforward imho, and I just don't see the sense of spinning it otherwise.

Now, you and I can both have trouble seeing his NHL upside, and that's fine. But the Flames clearly don't. And I hope we are surprised in training camp.

Well Gilles has to play in the AHL so yes we do. McDonald you have some choice and options but I don't think sending him back to junior is a a very attractive one.

You are incorrect on the contract issue but I'm won't go through this anymore. It's a depth signing that fills a need that I like irregardless of whether he ever plays in the NHL or not and I don't think it's necessary that he play on the NHL or be an NHL calibre goalie to make it successful.

Best case wth depth is to create options. With an NHL deal this gives the flames the most amount of options with the lowest cost/ lowest acquiring cost. When it comes to goalies have options is really important IMO. And to be clear I am not saying norr have I said that I think he doesn't have NHL potential. All I am saying is that at the end of the day that may not be the most important thing here b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: Rittich

 

This move changes nothing, as the Flames still need a starter and a backup...   Rittich is not a consideration for either...

 

It's a depth signing that fills a need that I like irregardless of whether he ever plays in the NHL or not and I don't think it's necessary that he play on the NHL or be an NHL calibre goalie to make it successful.

 

That's the same way I look at it cross...

 

Another way for some to look at it is the Flames filled a void without using a draft pick to do it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, I'm not here to criticize your selections, just point them out.    

 

Anyway, totally agree with you that the Flames HAD to sign Rittich to a 2-way.   Even if it was a projected position, that Doesn't require a 2-way at all.

 

Which is exactly my point, they went completely out of their way, and across the world, and used up a 2-way, to get him, for a position that doesn't need one.  And for a position (backup AHLer) that could be filled by Dozens if not hundreds of goalies on this continent, for less.   And all of which, have actually Proven themselves in AHL and/or NHL games.

 

So putting two and two together....   

 

Yeah, they like him.

 

Fair?

 

That's all I'm saying, and I think it's...pretty obvious.

 

Unless it's another 2-way deal, I can't see it being for less.  I'm just guessing but it's about $70k per year in the AHL, right?  I think Poulin was earning about $275k.

 

Sure there are a myriad of goalies they could have signed to play backup in the AHL.  Maybe Irving or Dave Taylor is available.  Or one of a number of older AHL backups with no upside.  Or an aging NHL backup.  

 

They must have seen something they like to sign him.  Or they have no idea what they are doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must have seen something they like to sign him.  Or they have no idea what they are doing.

 

Well yeah.    That's all I'm saying.

 

.....without totally eliminating the second possibiity ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah.    That's all I'm saying.

 

.....without totally eliminating the second possibiity ;)

 

Either way, it's a cheap option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: Rittich

 

This move changes nothing, as the Flames still need a starter and a backup...   Rittich is not a consideration for either...

 

 

That's the same way I look at it cross...

 

Another way for some to look at it is the Flames filled a void without using a draft pick to do it...

Hmmmm... thinking Rittich may be the back-up.  Stay tuned folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... thinking Rittich may be the back-up.  Stay tuned folks.

 

It could be possible at some point down the road, but I just don't see Treliving taking the risk of depending on Rittich as a backup going into the season...

 

Treliving is under pressure to deliver on finding a solid starter and backup combo...   If he fails do do so, it would be a huge mistake he can`t afford to make...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... thinking Rittich may be the back-up.  Stay tuned folks.

 

The backup in Stockton, yes.

 

We are getting a new starter, maybe a new NHL backup.  Ortio has not been re-signed yet, so I wonder if they are only thinking about him as a fallback plan.  Qualify him June 30th if you haven;t signed a backup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there's a deal to be had for Fleury, now that he's had his 2nd cup, and with Murray stealing his spot.

 

I could see Pitts looking to shed some salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there's a deal to be had for Fleury, now that he's had his 2nd cup, and with Murray stealing his spot.

I could see Pitts looking to shed some salary.

I agree it makes a lot of sense. We were talking about that a bit earlier.

Take it for what it is, but Eklund has jumped on this and is rating Fleury to Calgary ad E4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it makes a lot of sense. We were talking about that a bit earlier.

Take it for what it is, but Eklund has jumped on this and is rating Fleury to Calgary ad E4.

Doesnt he also have Cam Ward coming here? Haha

In all seriousness and my own preferences aside.. I totally believe MAF is our target, and the cost wont be high.

BT on fan960 had a few insights this morning

In terms of Rittich, they scouted him all year.like his skill and atleticism, but hes"raw". He stressed a few times it was a 2 way deal and that they "see a lot of upside in the kid".

Also, spoke that Ortio is very much in the conversation "with the right tandem or partner"

Didnt sound very committal on Colborne tho..kept coming back to "right price"

And in terms of a coach just, "he has his guy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAF wouldn't be my first choice, but he'd be a decent stop-gap until one of our prospects emerges.

 

I think Colbourne is a good example of "sell high".  I think he's a decent trade chip right now.

 

Phoenix, are you saying that BT said he knows who the next coach will be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAF wouldn't be my first choice, but he'd be a decent stop-gap until one of our prospects emerges.

 

I think Colbourne is a good example of "sell high".  I think he's a decent trade chip right now.

 

Phoenix, are you saying that BT said he knows who the next coach will be?

Yup, he said in his fan 960 interview this morning he knows who he wants, theyre just doing final due dilligence and said "we will" have the ciach in place before the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAF wouldn't be my first choice, but he'd be a decent stop-gap until one of our prospects emerges.

 

I think Colbourne is a good example of "sell high".  I think he's a decent trade chip right now.

 

Phoenix, are you saying that BT said he knows who the next coach will be?

 

I think the MAF talk is Eklund trying to just generate traffic.  It's a logical assumption, nothing more.  There is some belief that Anaheim would move Andersen for a 2nd.  That makes sense because it doesn't bring back salary.  It's not the same as last year where a goalie gets you a 1st in the next year's draft.  Boston got a 29th overall for Jones, but it was a sellers market.

 

Andersen may not be the best available goalie, but he has the most years ahead of him.  CGY needs at minimum a goalie that can play 3-4 great years, and that might be too little.  Gillies (or MacDonald) may be ready before that, but you can't be certain either will be a starter.  You need that great goalie through the prime years.

 

If we have a few options, then I hope we get the best one money (and smart asset management) can buy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the MAF talk is Eklund trying to just generate traffic.  It's a logical assumption, nothing more.  There is some belief that Anaheim would move Andersen for a 2nd.  That makes sense because it doesn't bring back salary.  It's not the same as last year where a goalie gets you a 1st in the next year's draft.  Boston got a 29th overall for Jones, but it was a sellers market.

 

Andersen may not be the best available goalie, but he has the most years ahead of him.  CGY needs at minimum a goalie that can play 3-4 great years, and that might be too little.  Gillies (or MacDonald) may be ready before that, but you can't be certain either will be a starter.  You need that great goalie through the prime years.

 

If we have a few options, then I hope we get the best one money (and smart asset management) can buy.

This is why I keep coming back to Anderson not being in our plans. I disagree on the 2nd, , I believe talks with us begin and end with our 6th OA. Our cost to aquire will not make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...