Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
Rittich was better than Gillies getting spot starts, but when asked to start consecutive games, Gillies was better than Rittich.
What do the Flames need most?
- Thread starter Lunatik
- Start date
- Status
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Not historically. That's just recency bias, like when people assumed Giordano would never play a full season again after his two freak injuries in two seasons.
If Monahan goes down, there's no centre on this team capable of scoring 30+ goals. If Gaudreau goes down, there's no winger putting up a point per game plus pace (Tkachuk's not there yet).
There's really only so much one can do to mitigate risk; you can't eliminate all of it. Is going with a declining has-been (or never was) in net like Mason or Lehtonen or Pavelec or Lindback really better than a younger goalie with upside like Rittich or Gillies? If you look past the name, you'll see the actual numbers aren't all that different.
There's absolutely no reason to think that Rittich or Gillies can't get better with experience and time.
There's really only so much one can do to mitigate risk; you can't eliminate all of it. Is going with a declining has-been (or never was) in net like Mason or Lehtonen or Pavelec or Lindback really better than a younger goalie with upside like Rittich or Gillies? If you look past the name, you'll see the actual numbers aren't all that different.
There's absolutely no reason to think that Rittich or Gillies can't get better with experience and time.
I would've agreed with this before last season. A groin injury at his age, and with the way he plays...To me, having a conservative mindset, it's troublesome. I'll be pissed if this season goes out the window with Smith's groin.
Rittich and Gillies could take a leap forward, but why risk that based on where our team is at from a roster perspective. We are a playoff team on paper.
I realize anyone can get injured and hurt our chances, but if anyone thinks Monahan and Gaudreau have as much risk built in as Smith does, they're lying to themselves.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,314
- 6,565
Exactly, Missing Monahan and Gaudreau would be bad but bunch of people can step up and help.
Missing Smith is fatal. Rittich or Gillies can step up but that's like relying on the tooth fairy.
CraigsList
In Conroy We Trust
I wonder if the players get stem cell therapy. If they do, I wouldn't worry too much about it as he'll heal like Wolverine. Mind you, I'm not a doctor but I've played one on a date.
Well, at least someone gets it. Smith's position is obviously sensitive, because our next man up is two sophomore goalies who have had minimal success at the NHL level.
Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,973
- 8,453
Yup, I don't have issue with Rittich nor Gilles, but my concern has always been that our plan B is Rittich AND Gilles. If Smith goes down, other GMs can ask for the moon for even a basic backup.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I mean, how many goals did we even score after Monahan was removed from the lineup last year? Hopefully we added enough depth over the offseason that that wouldn't be the case this year.
To your "why risk that?" question, there are many points that need stating, but first and foremost every move in hockey is a risk. Giving assets up for another Edward E. Lack would be a risk. Using up cap space itself on another goalie would be a risk. Pushing both guys down to the AHL and having three prospect goalies sharing the crease in Stockton would risk ruining their development. So making a move for a goalie right now would be risky.
The risk you're talking about with regards to Rittich and Gillies is not just the risk that they are not going to suddenly be solid starters. It's that combined with Smith also getting another significant injury, which itself is unlikely. Rittich and Gillies are good enough to backup for this season, in my opinion. No need to risk making a move.
Rangediddy
The puck was in
- Oct 28, 2011
- 3,710
- 809
I guess the other way of looking at Smith's risk of injury, is Treliving won't stand by and watch Rittich & Gillies throw away our season for very long if they play poorly. It's not like if Smith goes down in January that we'll be stuck with the kids for the rest of the year (I hope).
If Smith goes down, the kids will have a pretty short leash to show they can stop enough pucks to give the forwards opportunities to win. If they can't, I don't think it'll be very long before Treliving makes a trade for a reliable goalie. Unfortunately, we don't have many assets any of us would like to see go, but if we can plug the goaltending hole, you have to give up something.
If Smith goes down, the kids will have a pretty short leash to show they can stop enough pucks to give the forwards opportunities to win. If they can't, I don't think it'll be very long before Treliving makes a trade for a reliable goalie. Unfortunately, we don't have many assets any of us would like to see go, but if we can plug the goaltending hole, you have to give up something.
This doesn't make any sense. You can rank risk, it's not a binary analysis. This is the largest risk to team success, and yes, that includes being higher than if Gaudreau or Monahan go down. In addition, how on earth can you state that Smith isn't a major injury risk? He's older, and plays very hard for a goalie (which makes him good, but still a double edged sword), and it was a groin injury (sometimes a goalies death kiss). And no, Rittich or Gillies cannot handle a starting role based on what we've seen so far. Now there is a slim possibility that one of them takes a massive leap this year, but why take this new promising roster and build in that big of a risk when it can be addressed now. We are no longer a rebuilding team, our time to contend is opening now, we should not be in the business of developing goalies at the NHL level. This team needs more certainty in net because of where our roster is at and team expectations.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
The other thing is that if you wait, an acquisition takes up less effective cap space. So in the unlikely event that Smith gets injured later in the season, acquiring a cheap backup then wouldn't tie up as much room for, say, a deadline acquisition.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Massive risk? Your posts are speaking of it as if it is a certainty, but yet Smith has historically been quite healthy. It would be foolish to make hyper-reactionary moves to a problem that right now is just a whim unless it makes sense now and for the future. Of course we have to hope Mike Smith doesn't get injured again, but you hope that about your starter no matter the situation. Throwing assets into another goalie who may turn out to be better, or may up being just as bad as the current options, and jamming up the development system, would not be smart at the moment, and could absolutely end up doing just as much damage to the organization as the status quo.
By the way, try to keep things in perspective. We had the same silly notions of being "all in" bandied about last year, but take a look at the age of our roster. We are not in any kind of window right now.
Rangediddy
The puck was in
- Oct 28, 2011
- 3,710
- 809
What makes you think Smith has historically been quite healthy? He missed 13 games last season, 12 games the season before, 40 games the season before that, 10 in 2013/2014... he's had injuries all throughout his career, mostly lower body.
We've seen what has happened to this team when Smith gets injured. It's bad. We'd be foolish to not have any plan in place should he get hurt again (which you'd also be foolish not to think is a major risk).
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Because historically, Mike Smith plays at least 55 games in a season. 27 games is not unreasonable for a backup goalie to play, and I think a combination of Gillies and Rittich should be well capable of playing this many games between them. If we're as good as people think we're going to be, we won't be hanging our goalies out to dry nearly as much as we were last year.
I don't know about you guys, but last year I was not just amazed by how hard Smith played and how many big stops he made, but I was shocked by how hard we made him play, and how many big stops we made him make. That needs to change.
You are basing that off of his history prior to last season. A major groin injury at his age is a massive red flag moving forward. I love Mike Smith, he was unreal when healthy last year, but that doesn't change my view of the current situation. If Smith is healthy for the season and gives us 55+ games, I'll be the happiest flames fan around, because he's one of the better goalies in the league. But if he goes down and we don't have a legitimate replacement, we'll be lucky to limp into the playoffs.
Rangediddy
The puck was in
- Oct 28, 2011
- 3,710
- 809
Just because he's played a decent amount of games in a year doesn't mean he's a historically healthy goalie. A guy like him should be looking at playing 60-70 a year through his prime, but hasn't... because of injuries.
Another thing concerning Sam Bennett, the Flames need Sam Bennett to improve his shot and shot more, he took just 157 shots and shot at 7%, if he takes 240-250 shots(he is playing wing, so he should be able to) and shot at 10%, we are golden.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
You make is sound like Bennett has shot that his entire career, Bennett's shooting percentage was down last year, much like many other players on the team. Had he shot his career average, he'd have been pushing 20 goals.
Also, one of the reasons we added depth was so that we didn't have to rely on guys like Bennett breaking out.
Sam Bennett has been in the NHL for 3 years(4 in total but he only played 1 game the first year), in his first year his shooting % was 13.2% and in his 2nd year it was 10.7 %(just averaging it for those 2 years, it is 11.95%), so he has shot over 10%( if you add all 3 years it is at 10.3%.) For the overall shots, Sam Bennett has to increase them, if he is playing wing, he needs to shoot more.
It is nice that all that depth was signed, but if you want to be a contender you need Sam Bennett to break out.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
In my original post(post#69) I said that if Sam Bennett shot at 10%(which is his entire career) we are golden and You said to me "you make is sound like Bennett has shot that his entire career", so in my post #71, I just proved that Sam Bennett has shot at 10% his entire career.
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
I was referring to how you talking about him desperately needing to improve that, chances are he will bounce back to that. That was my entire point.
- Status
