Confirmed with Link: Flames Create Goaltending Department

[Johnny Hoxville]

Based on examples, though, what argument is there that "Sigalet has been a big part of" the struggles? What evidence is there to suggest that he's been a negative influence on any goalie, let alone all of them?

There are at least a few examples which if anything would suggest the opposite.

He doesn’t deserve all the flack, for the reasons you mentioned. But there still needs to be accountability, which is why a change was made. After a while, when there’s such a lack of success, some criticism is absolutely warranted.

 

[Anglesmith]

He doesn’t deserve all the flack, for the reasons you mentioned. But there still needs to be accountability, which is why a change was made. After a while, when there’s such a lack of success, some criticism is absolutely warranted.

I reject that line of reasoning for the same reason I reject "_____ didn't win a Cup, so he can't have been that good."

This is conventional wisdom that you are referring to in the hockey world, of course, and it's never going to change. But from the approach of pure, objective logic, it isn't technically correct.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I reject that line of reasoning for the same reason I reject "_____ didn't win a Cup, so he can't have been that good."

This is conventional wisdom that you are referring to in the hockey world, of course, and it's never going to change. But from the approach of pure, objective logic, it isn't technically correct.

Sigalet is an interesting case, because by all indications the Flames really like him. However when you look at the performance overall that we’ve had since Kipper left, I’d probably give the Flames a -C as a grade. We haven’t been good enough, I think change is a good thing.

 

[DFF]

I reject that line of reasoning for the same reason I reject "_____ didn't win a Cup, so he can't have been that good."

This is conventional wisdom that you are referring to in the hockey world, of course, and it's never going to change. But from the approach of pure, objective logic, it isn't technically correct.

It's a business, how many people get to keep their job if it's constantly failing regardless if it's their fault?

Sigalet is at least part of the problem. He is accountable for the flames goaltending. He was given long enough time and it's not working. I am sure the Flames agreed, hence this move ...the only puzzling part is they promoted instead of fired him.

Maybe there is some quality that we don't see but working directly with goalies and getting them ready for battle is not one of them

 

[DFF]

Can we stop for a second and realize the best goalie in franchise history was a fluke trade? Sutter wanted Toskala and SJS said no, sending us instead Kipprusoff. We also traded up to get Trevor Kidd instead of drafting Brodeur.

Someone broke a mirror or stepped on a leprechaun when it comes to goalies since the inception of the org.

I have been saying for over 10 yrs, todd button and the flames scouting staff has no idea what a good goalie supposed to look like ...

 

[NinjaTurtle]

Let’s hope that with another perspective and set of experience, Labarbera can create positive results in the day-to-day performance of our pro goalies. As mentioned, maintaining a high level of performance throughout the last half/quarter of a season and into the playoffs has been a struggle in recent years. Maybe Labarbera’s journeyman experience will be valuable in relating to our goaltenders.

I like the change and am optimistic of better results. I ended up having a negative opinion of Sigalet over recent years, which may not entirely be justified. It’s possible that the organization is aware of his strengths and weaknesses, and this position is better suited to him.

 

[Anglesmith]

Sigalet is an interesting case, because by all indications the Flames really like him. However when you look at the performance overall that we’ve had since Kipper left, I’d probably give the Flames a -C as a grade. We haven’t been good enough, I think change is a good thing.

Yes, but is it Sigalet who is earning that grade?

Speaking of grades, every year I'll have students in my class with some kind of serious knowledge gaps or apathy. Every year, I'll therefore have students who do poorly. Maybe even worse than a C-.

How long should the school give me before making a change? Are my days numbered?

Again, this is conventional wisdom in hockey, but it's silly to me. If you aren't correctly identifying the problem, the change you make is pointless. It's like replacing your tires when you have engine failure.

 

[Anglesmith]

It's a business, how many people get to keep their job if it's constantly failing regardless if it's their fault?

Based on my experience, the overwhelming majority of jobs are like this. If you are actively performing your duties and there is nothing negative that specifically falls on you, you are mostly safe in most lines of work. Most employers don't want to make a change if there is no guarantee that it will have a positive impact.

 

[FLAMESFAN]

Based on my experience, the overwhelming majority of jobs are like this. If you are actively performing your duties and there is nothing negative that specifically falls on you, you are mostly safe in most lines of work. Most employers don't want to make a change if there is no guarantee that it will have a positive impact.

But for anyone in management, it's part of their job to get the most out of their employees. If they can't then I'd say they are not performing their duties. As for your teacher reference, I'd say that if those students with poor educational backgrounds didn't show some signs of growth during their time with you, then yes that would reflect on you.
And it's not just a hockey thing, it's a sports thing. Professional sports is a results driven buisness. If you don't get results, you get replaced.

 

[Fig]

I have been saying for over 10 yrs, todd button and the flames scouting staff has no idea what a good goalie supposed to look like ...

I dunno, maybe? I think it's kind of a fair comment, but IMO, I don't feel like we have enough info to know for sure.

What I don't get is how a guy like Gilles, whom even other orgs felt like should have been a Jonathan Quick lite calibre back up at minimum, fizzles into nothing. Demko over McDonald for instance, there was a legit reason why not to choose Demko. But that draft looked like it was covered in Burke override paw prints. Kipper/Toskala had nothing to do with the goalie crew, that was pure Sutter because he know of those guys while working in SJ.

Then there's all the rumors of the goalies we were in on that fizzled out (Murray, Andersen, Bishop etc.). It feels a little like the goalie coaching crew has always been given bad situations and asked to act out of a paper bag.

Weirdly, while the scouting is a little part of it, there seems to be some more significant and serious issue with the support and development systems of our goalies that IMO go well beyond the goalie coaching staff... and I have no clue what it is. Kipper is hands down by far the best we've had with a significant margin in like 40 years of history and that was an accident. How the heck does that happen?

 

[Mazatt]

But for anyone in management, it's part of their job to get the most out of their employees. If they can't then I'd say they are not performing their duties. As for your teacher reference, I'd say that if those students with poor educational backgrounds didn't show some signs of growth during their time with you, then yes that would reflect on you.
And it's not just a hockey thing, it's a sports thing. Professional sports is a results driven buisness. If you don't get results, you get replaced.

I feel like I have semi-relevant 'history' here since I just finished up a management course at university.

When motivating and getting the most out of employees, there are a set of processes you undertake and stand by as an organization, that should help in aligning the work done by employees to the organizational goals. One of the bigger ideas in this is the control process, where you establish standards for performance, measure performance, compare the two, and then 'correct deviations'. Conventionaly you look at Sigalet, and say you expect an NHL level goaltender, he didn't do it, you need to correct the deviations there. But part of correcting deviations is taking a look the cause of the split between expectations and reality, and adjusing the expectations based upon that.

So if we look at what Sigalet has done, he failed to meet the initial expectations of reforming Hiller and all them, but it was based on the assumption that we are giving him a complete product to work with. So when we see a split of Sigalet getting them to work for a short period of time with no sustained success, we also need to look at the supply of those goaltenders which is what Fig is doing. So for the stretch following Kippursoff the NHL-ready goaltenders brought in have already been discussed, and Gillies and Parsons were hit by injuries (Gillies especially with hip surgery early on in his career iirc) so we can't consider those complete products under his care, and MacDonald was just a yikes pick from the get-go. So the criteria where we expect Sigalet to turn these players into future starters is unreasonable, and it's unfair to judge him off of his ability to work with NHL level goaltenders based upon that. Then we look to more recent history where he has had Talbot, Smith, and Rittich. All NHL-calibre goaltenders. Smith was successful and almost drove us to the playoffs before getting injured and even when he wasn't successful the fact that he bounced back could in part be due to coaching help, Talbot credits Sigalet with rejuvenating his career, Rittich has shown flashes of being a starter but keeps getting injured. By the criteria of helping NHL-level talent it is hard to argue Sigalet hasn't been successful.

Giving a baseline criteria for Sigalet to fill in for every single goalie we get into the organization is a flawed idea, in management you need to set goals with nuance built in, instead of making the assumption that the product he gets is perfect. I think we should judge his contributions with some goalies under the frame that he is extending their career to give the Flames some form of net-presence between prospects hitting the scene (Hiller, Ortio, Ramo), while when getting NHL-calibre talent that is healthy he should be judged for their performance the way we try to do for the guys who left the league shortly after being in the system. Getting results is always valued above all else but there is nuance to what reasonable results and expectations are.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Yes, but is it Sigalet who is earning that grade?

Speaking of grades, every year I'll have students in my class with some kind of serious knowledge gaps or apathy. Every year, I'll therefore have students who do poorly. Maybe even worse than a C-.

How long should the school give me before making a change? Are my days numbered?

Again, this is conventional wisdom in hockey, but it's silly to me. If you aren't correctly identifying the problem, the change you make is pointless. It's like replacing your tires when you have engine failure.

I hear what you’re saying, but the analogy doesn’t totally work. You’re analogy is better suited towards a head coach. If you’re solely teaching math, and your students are consistently failing, then yes you deserve to be fired because it’s likely you’re the problem. If at your job though, if you have a handful of students underperforming but the majority are at least average or better, that’s a positive trend and I think you deserve to stay in that position.

In Calgary we have had subpar goaltending for years, Sigalet 100% deserves to share in part of that criticism.

 

[Anglesmith]

I hear what you’re saying, but the analogy doesn’t totally work. You’re analogy is better suited towards a head coach. If you’re solely teaching math, and your students are consistently failing, then yes you deserve to be fired because it’s likely you’re the problem. If at your job though, if you have a handful of students underperforming but the majority are at least average or better, that’s a positive trend and I think you deserve to stay in that position.

In Calgary we have had subpar goaltending for years, Sigalet 100% deserves to share in part of that criticism.

That really depends on what you view as par. Is par league average goaltending? If so, is that fair when you are consistently picking up below average goaltenders?

To me, par should be defined based on reasonable expectations for the goalies Sigalet was working with. I think that makes more sense than the assumption that our goalies should be as good as every other team's goalies. And as long as we use that version of par, Sigalet hasn't really done a subpar job.

This isn't a foreign concept when it comes to coaching. We don't award the Jack Adams to the coach of the best team. We generally assess a coach by how well their team performed relative to that team's expectation. Applying that same philosophy to Sigalet seems fair to me.

 

[Mobiandi]

Most of the goalies we signed over the years were given auditions to take over the starting role full time. The only stopgaps I can think of were Hiller and Smith

Ramo, Elliott, Johnson, Talbot, and to some extent Rittich were all expected to push on and take the starters job. None of them did and all of them failed when we needed them most despite the presence of some very positive periods of form. That's a mentality issue. Can't place that all on Sigalet but he's not innocent. He wasn't able to help keep them focused and even-keeled in anticipation of some very important weeks.

If we want to use the teacher's analogy, it's as if our students were going into a 60% final exam with a B- and then set their exams on fire and ran around the room yelling and screaming for the duration of the test. Is it the student's fault that they had a total meltdown? Partly. But why couldn't the teacher keep them focused and calm?

At least Rittich still has the potential to be a starter even though it won't be here. I'm interested to see how he approaches the new season with LaBarbara. Flames brass were not happy at all with his conduct in the bubble (also part of why I think Sigalet left his coaching duties)

 

[DFF]

That really depends on what you view as par. Is par league average goaltending? If so, is that fair when you are consistently picking up below average goaltenders?

To me, par should be defined based on reasonable expectations for the goalies Sigalet was working with. I think that makes more sense than the assumption that our goalies should be as good as every other team's goalies. And as long as we use that version of par, Sigalet hasn't really done a subpar job.

This isn't a foreign concept when it comes to coaching. We don't award the Jack Adams to the coach of the best team. We generally assess a coach by how well their team performed relative to that team's expectation. Applying that same philosophy to Sigalet seems fair to me.

Every year, the Flames are looking for a new goalie, either the guy bringing them in or the guy coaching them is at fault. Probably both.

 

[Anglesmith]

Every year, the Flames are looking for a new goalie, either the guy bringing them in or the guy coaching them is at fault. Probably both.

I think that the goaltending is significantly more a result of Treliving than Sigalet. That said, in a cap world it's impossible to prioritize every position. Treliving's approach has been to cheap out on goaltending and hope for the best, because he'd rather use valuable assets and cap space for other priorities. The fact that we're looking for a new goalie every year is something that I think isn't surprising given the guys we have signed along the way. When was the last time we expected any goalie to be a long-term solution?

All in all, we've gotten decent return-on-investment when it comes to goaltending. We've consistently avoided throwing any actual assets or cap space at it, and as a result we've gotten mediocre results, and sometimes better than that.

The problem is, if you're going to live with that in terms of goaltending, it becomes very important to not swing and miss on the stuff you are prioritizing, like a top six winger.

 

[Anglesmith]

But for anyone in management, it's part of their job to get the most out of their employees. If they can't then I'd say they are not performing their duties. As for your teacher reference, I'd say that if those students with poor educational backgrounds didn't show some signs of growth during their time with you, then yes that would reflect on you.
And it's not just a hockey thing, it's a sports thing. Professional sports is a results driven buisness. If you don't get results, you get replaced.

Definitely. I agree with all of this. As long as a student is trying to improve, a teacher can be evaluated based on whether they do or not. And I think it can be assumed that all goalies in the NHL are trying their hardest to get better every day.

Sports is, as they say, a results-oriented business, and those sorts of business are the exception, not the rule. What I was pointing out was that the vast majority of jobs do not belong to this category, and for good reason. Most of the time, results-based decisions without proper analysis of all variables have a massive margin for error.

There is no doubt that Sigalet, like any coach, should be evaluated on his ability to optimize their performance. My point is: what way do we have to evaluate whether Sigalet did or did not get the most out of these goalies? As I went through each of the goalies he's worked with, there are very few who did not show improvement during their time with him. And there is not one case that we can point to where they achieved a higher level away from Sigalet than while working with him. So if you are going to criticize Sigalet for not getting the most out of these goalies, what is the support for that?

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

That really depends on what you view as par. Is par league average goaltending? If so, is that fair when you are consistently picking up below average goaltenders?

To me, par should be defined based on reasonable expectations for the goalies Sigalet was working with. I think that makes more sense than the assumption that our goalies should be as good as every other team's goalies. And as long as we use that version of par, Sigalet hasn't really done a subpar job.

This isn't a foreign concept when it comes to coaching. We don't award the Jack Adams to the coach of the best team. We generally assess a coach by how well their team performed relative to that team's expectation. Applying that same philosophy to Sigalet seems fair to me.

Can’t say I really agree. Ramo was sold as the best goalie not currently in the NHL. Elliott was sold as a legit starter and he was never really that guy for us. It’s been 7 years since we can say we have had a goalie that is a legit starting goaltender. Treliving absolutely deserves criticism as well, but Sigalet rightly should get some of that blame to share in. Calgary is known as a destination that goaltenders come to have their careers ended in. The only time we have had great play is usually when we’re riding hot streaks of a specific net minder and that’s been sustained or extended through multiple seasons.

I think this change reflects that the Flames feel the same way. And the fact that our development has failed over and over for multiple quality prospect should speak to that.

 

[Anglesmith]

Can’t say I really agree. Ramo was sold as the best goalie not currently in the NHL. Elliott was sold as a legit starter and he was never really that guy for us. It’s been 7 years since we can say we have had a goalie that is a legit starting goaltender. Treliving absolutely deserves criticism as well, but Sigalet rightly should get some of that blame to share in. Calgary is known as a destination that goaltenders come to have their careers ended in. The only time we have had great play is usually when we’re riding hot streaks of a specific net minder and that’s been sustained or extended through multiple seasons.

I think this change reflects that the Flames feel the same way. And the fact that our development has failed over and over for multiple quality prospect should speak to that.

Ramo was constantly injured, but he was good while healthy. Not exactly something Sigalet can be blamed for.

Elliott, in his one season with us, started out really poorly, but improved through the season and was one of the best and most consistent goalies in the league through the second half. I'm not sure how this works as a criticism of Sigalet, in spite of how the playoffs went. In addition, regardless of how he was billed, Elliott had a long career without ever proving to be a starter. We were hoping to get a starter for cheap, but there was serious reason for doubting that he would be one. He wasn't a solid starter before we signed him, and he hasn't been one since.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Ramo was constantly injured, but he was good while healthy. Not exactly something Sigalet can be blamed for.

Elliott, in his one season with us, started out really poorly, but improved through the season and was one of the best and most consistent goalies in the league through the second half. I'm not sure how this works as a criticism of Sigalet, in spite of how the playoffs went. In addition, regardless of how he was billed, Elliott had a long career without ever proving to be a starter. We were hoping to get a starter for cheap, but there was serious reason for doubting that he would be one. He wasn't a solid starter before we signed him, and he hasn't been one since.

Let me simply ask then what evidence is there that Sigalet has done excellent work with any of our budding young talented prospects or experienced vets that point to he’s above average at his job? I think the product we have seen, the results, suggest that he’s average or even below that which is why the Flames made a change after signing what they feel is an elite goaltender.

At the end of the day the Flames internally have the best intell on this and I believe that is why he was placed in a different role.

 

[Mobiandi]

Ramo was constantly injured, but he was good while healthy. Not exactly something Sigalet can be blamed for.

Ramo was an average goalie at best. If he was any good, he would have been re-signed by the Flames to back-up our expected long-term fix in Elliott. In 14/15, we were a team with zero expectations and Ramo struggled to steal the net from a Jonas Hiller who was struggling with vertigo and on the precipice of a total decline.

In fact he was so unconvincing, that we ended up with a 3-headed mess the next season

 

[Fig]

Ramo was an average goalie at best. If he was any good, he would have been re-signed by the Flames to back-up our expected long-term fix in Elliott. In 14/15, we were a team with zero expectations and Ramo struggled to steal the net from a Jonas Hiller who was struggling with vertigo and on the precipice of a total decline.

In fact he was so unconvincing, that we ended up with a 3-headed mess the next season

I agree he was pretty average, but most of the failed goaltenders between 2015 and Smith were mainly due to the fact they were below average, wasn't it?

Also, wasn't his knee obliterated by Gio (basically career ending), he spent a crap ton of time rehabbing and then ended up on a PTO with Toronto but just wasn't quite right anymore?

 

[Khrox]

Also, wasn't his knee obliterated by Gio (basically career ending), he spent a crap ton of time rehabbing and then ended up on a PTO with Toronto but just wasn't quite right anymore?

It was Russel. On two separate occasions, he had his knee blown out by Russel diving to block a shot.

 

[Nanuuk]

I guess one of my issues with Sigalet was the seeming inability to correct certain technical faults of various goaltenders. One that come to mind is the short side over the shoulder freebie that Flames goalies seem to be notorious at over the years. Now I don't know if that it a characteristic of very tall goaltenders playing the butterfly style or what, but you would think it would be fairly easy to correct. Or failing to cut down the angle by playing too deep in the crease. Or going wandering to play the puck.

It is a fine line between having a higher Sv% and GAA. A couple of miscues a game or every other game is all the difference unless you are consistently bad or your team quits on you.

So, I am hoping Labarbera can eliminate or spot flaws in technique before it becomes habit forming.

 

[Mobiandi]

I agree he was pretty average, but most of the failed goaltenders between 2015 and Smith were mainly due to the fact they were below average, wasn't it?

Also, wasn't his knee obliterated by Gio (basically career ending), he spent a crap ton of time rehabbing and then ended up on a PTO with Toronto but just wasn't quite right anymore?

I was under the impression that Ramo was brought in to be mentored by Hiller and help usher us into a contention window alongside Ortio/Gillies. The injury was unfortunate (i honestly forgot how serious it was) but I was ready to move on from Ramo before it even happened.

We also paid St. Louis a 2nd for Elliott. After his playoff heroics, he was brought in to be THE guy, not a 50 game #1A. He was just extremely poor mentally and was never able to shake off giving up an early goal. Chad Johnson had to singlehandedly save our season with an ridiculous hot stretch that saw him steal the net. But then he quickly fell apart once other teams realized that his high glove was a significant weakness.

Lack is the only below average goalie that I think was brought in