Lack on Waivers

[Fig]

I still can’t believe we traded for him

Gillies or Rittich make more sense anyway.

Personally I would go with Rittich. He’s a little further along and Gillies needs to play more this year so we really need to know what we have before we graduate parsons.

Me too. One of the few moves by Trevliving that I do not like. Lack can't be gone soon enough.

Keegan Kanzig and downgrading a 6th to 7th and buying out Murphy for Lack salary retained is a good gamble deal. Too bad Lack didn't pan out, but that's gamble trade we won IMO.

I think Lack's value like Pickard is much higher if he's in the AHL. He could spend time there to regain his Vancouver form. I think Carolina broke him. I don't know where Lack ends up next, but IMO, I think Treliving is not looking at the farm for our backup.

 

[Mobiandi]

Rittich is 25, and if we don't give him a chance then why did we even bother re-signing him? Especially when he's been posting good numbers too.

I'm also sure Gillies' ego isn't fragile enough that he'll be bothered by Rittich getting a callup especially when he was the first call-up both times and lasted almost all of training camp this year.

It's clear the organization favours Gillies more than it does Rittich, but successfully developing goalies comes down to random chance. Why not cover all our bases?

 

[SmellOfVictory]

So Gillies' 53 AHL games and NCAA National Championship experience isn't enough, but Rittch is after 37 AHL games and a couple seasons in a 5th rate European league is. Makes perfect sense to me. Rittich is the Nakladal.

It's not about Rittich's development, in my opinion. That's why I'd put him in over Gillies. I see Gillies as a guy with a legitimate shot at being an NHL starter, and it won't do him a ton of good to spend all year on the bench. He needs games so he can continue developing.

Rittich, as you said, is Nakladal (or something similar) where he's probably not going to make a significant impact in the NHL. But he might be good enough to replace Lack as a backup for the rare occasions that Smith doesn't play.

 

[Lunatik]

It's not about Rittich's development, in my opinion. That's why I'd put him in over Gillies. I see Gillies as a guy with a legitimate shot at being an NHL starter, and it won't do him a ton of good to spend all year on the bench. He needs games so he can continue developing.

Rittich, as you said, is Nakladal (or something similar) where he's probably not going to make a significant impact in the NHL. But he might be good enough to replace Lack as a backup for the rare occasions that Smith doesn't play.

A few things.

1. Nakladal wasn't good enough for the NHL, I don't think Rittich will be either
2. Gillies is waiver exempt, he can be moved up and down to make spot starts for Stockton if he is sitting too long in the NHL
3. Look at Matt Murray, he has the same type of pedigree as Gillies. He played 71 games in the AHL before getting the call to the NHL. And before anyone brings up differences in AHL numbers between Murray and Gillies, you have to factor in that The baby Penguins were a very very veteran heavy squad (11 regulars were 24 and older and the young players on that team are mostly NHLers now)

 

[CamPopplestone]

Once Lack clears he can be sent down and recalled without waivers again for a while right? Maybe they recall Gillies to play, and send him back to the AHL to keep playing and bring Lack back up to sit on the bench.

I'd say go with Gillies first. If after a couple starts Gillies isn't playing well, by all means, send him back and give Rittich a shot, but I'd at least give Gillies the shot first.

 

[Anglesmith]

Once Lack clears he can be sent down and recalled without waivers again for a while right? Maybe they recall Gillies to play, and send him back to the AHL to keep playing and bring Lack back up to sit on the bench.

I'd say go with Gillies first. If after a couple starts Gillies isn't playing well, by all means, send him back and give Rittich a shot, but I'd at least give Gillies the shot first.

Yeah, that's what seems likely to me, if this isn't being done for the purposes of trade. We've seen this before with Henrik Karlsson. After we lost confidence in him, we'd have him as the backup and bring Leland Irving up to play on back-to-backs IIRC.

 

[Kahvi]

I wonder if there's been any trade talks and/or a handshake agreement depending on whether Lack clears or not.

 

[Lunatik]

I think a trade is unlikely unless we are taking a contract back. Perhaps if Fleury is out long term Vegas might take Lack if we take Garrison (50% retained)

 

[Internazionale]

Rittich is 25, and if we don't give him a chance then why did we even bother re-signing him? Especially when he's been posting good numbers too.

I'm also sure Gillies' ego isn't fragile enough that he'll be bothered by Rittich getting a callup especially when he was the first call-up both times and lasted almost all of training camp this year.

It's clear the organization favours Gillies more than it does Rittich, but successfully developing goalies comes down to random chance. Why not cover all our bases?

Gotta go with Gillies. You gotta see what you have in Gillies before giving someone else a shot. Organization should favor Gillies because it would make scouting look bad if some FA just comes in and takes his job away. Gillies has been delevoping for a long time, so it's time to see what he can do.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Lack is a great young man, I wish him all the best! It’s to bad it didn’t work out for him.

 

[CamPopplestone]

We should at least keep Lacks dad

 

[tyflames]

I was a fan of the lack trade. I though he’d turn it around back in the West. Especially since canes fans said he seemed to turn a corner after January last season. It’s too bad he hasn’t but as mentioned it doesn’t mean he’s done here yet.
Anyway I feel like our organization is taking the back up goalie thing too lightly. Smith is not a young goalie, I am sort of concerned about how he will look late in the season if he continues to carry the load as he has. It would of been nice to have a Ramo type goalie who could play 25-30 games behind Smith.

 

[Snazu]

Maybe the Flames are preparing to get on the Niemi train when Montreal puts him back on waivers next week.

 

[Fig]

I think a trade is unlikely unless we are taking a contract back. Perhaps if Fleury is out long term Vegas might take Lack if we take Garrison (50% retained)

I was thinking this exact idea a few weeks ago. Trade Lack+ for an IR 1B goalie (ie: Fleury or whoever), let goalie recover at his own pace and then bring Rittich or Gilles up as backup. When goalie recovers theres the tandem with smith, but you know whether you tender offers to the young guys. Plus you get a great option if there are injuries late season.

IMO goalie interference and injury has been obscene this season. I'm sad Lack didn't pan out. I wish him the best.

I'm seriously hoping for some time kicking on some young guys like Grubauer and Mrazek. I was sad we missed out on Condon.

 

[Lunatik]

I was thinking this exact idea a few weeks ago. Trade Lack+ for an IR 1B goalie (ie: Fleury or whoever), let goalie recover at his own pace and then bring Rittich or Gilles up as backup. When goalie recovers theres the tandem with smith, but you know whether you tender offers to the young guys. Plus you get a great option if there are injuries late season.

IMO goalie interference and injury has been obscene this season. I'm sad Lack didn't pan out. I wish him the best.

I'm seriously hoping for some time kicking on some young guys like Grubauer and Mrazek. I was sad we missed out on Condon.

I was more thinking Lack's contract for a similar one that may be buried

 

[Fig]

I was more thinking Lack's contract for a similar one that may be buried

Oh, right. Same root, forked concept? I think both ideas involve trading Lack for non roster players. I just prefer to acquire someone who may play on the roster and you prefer the acquired piece doesn't play or think that's all he's worth?

 

[Lunatik]

Oh, right. Same root, forked concept? I think both ideas involve trading Lack for non roster players. I just prefer to acquire someone who may play on the roster and you prefer the acquired piece doesn't play or think that's all he's worth?

I don't have a preference, It's simple logic. I know Lack has zero value, there is a reason we got him for 50% retained for Kanzig and a swap of late picks. The only value Lack might have is an an AHL goaltender and the only way someone will pay him the 1.375 million (pro-rated) to play in the AHL is if they are giving back a similar sized buried contract.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Last time the Flames sent their backip goalie down on waivers, he almost saved the season when called back up.

 

[Lunatik]

Ortio couldn't save anything, not the puck or his job, let alone our season

 

[Kahvi]

I think he meant Rämö

 

[Ace Rimmer]

I was thinking Mike Vernon back in '86

 

[Flames Fanatic]

 

[Calculon]

Excellent.

The chronicles of Rittich begins now

 

[Skobel24]

Joey MacDonald

 

[Volica]