Around The NHL - Back in the Saddle Again

[Ebb]

I definitely won't miss Smitty either. At least now, the team can play around with current in-system goalies and can also look outside if necessary without taking a major hit (buyout-wise).

Of course, I hope Raanta does well, but if not, so be it...

 

[TheLegend]

You're such the wordsmith (no pun intended), thanks for the visual

Imagine the tsunami created if it were a waterbed.

 

[Jakey53]

Even if they are awful this season, moving on from a problem and trying to fix it was still the right move.

Just because Smith was a problem for you and a couple others does not mean he was a problem in the dressing room. In fact, I believe he was well liked. If you are talking about his contract, it was also no big deal as we have lots of cap room. At the end of the day, I'm fine with him moving on.

 

[Sinurgy]

I wasn't a big Smith fan either but it seems a bit silly to insinuate it's still a good move even if Raanta results in a disaster. Man I know some of you have a hate hard-on for the old guard but it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

I wasn't a big Smith fan either but it seems a bit silly to insinuate it's still a good move even if Raanta results in a disaster.

Why is it silly? You can call it a terrible move in hindsight if, say, Raanta posts numbers as bad as Smith's or Tellqvist's or someone like that, but hindsight won't come until the end of the season. For RIGHT NOW, it's not just a good move, but a GREAT move, because either a) we have a goaltender of the future or b) and easily-escapable failed short term gamble. We're not locked up for a couple more years with a declining asset in Smith, and we haven't spent a ransom in dollars or term for one of the UFA goalies out there (which, I'm sure you'd agree, is a tremendously underwhelming group of players).

From an asset management standpoint, the deal for Raanta is about as good as it gets - a low-risk, high-potential-reward situation that doesn't hamstring the organization in any significant way.

 

[Ebb]

I much prefer the "switch goalies every couple of seasons" approach unless they happen upon a gem. Even then, I say 3-4 seasons is aplenty for any goalie contract.

To me, it's more important to stabilize the forwards and D-men and have the goalie adjust to them rather than the other way around.

 

[_Del_]

You can call it a terrible move in hindsight if, ...

Even if Raanta doesn't work out, the "terrible move" was picking Raanta as a replacement, not moving the bad contract and disgruntled goaltender. They should be looked at separately. There were lots of plug-in goaltenders, and I'd have preferred to go with the more-proven, less-inspiring UFA route that didn't cost extra assets, to be honest. But that's completely a different decision.
We made a good move by moving a bad asset and a unhappy member of the country club for actual assets and flexibility instead of paying to do so. Whether we made a bad choice to replace him or not is completely irrelevant.
Just like if Tocchet bombs out behind the bench, it doesn't mean firing that one guy was a bad move. It's just that we made a bad hire after a good firing.

 

[cobra427]

Even if Raanta doesn't work out, the "terrible move" was picking Raanta as a replacement, not moving the bad contract and disgruntled goaltender. They should be looked at separately. There were lots of plug-in goaltenders, and I'd have preferred to go with the more-proven, less-inspiring UFA route that didn't cost extra assets, to be honest. But that's completely a different decision.
We made a good move by moving a bad asset and a unhappy member of the country club for actual assets and flexibility instead of paying to do so. Whether we made a bad choice to replace him or not is completely irrelevant.
Just like if Tocchet bombs out behind the bench, it doesn't mean firing that one guy was a bad move. It's just that we made a bad hire after a good firing.

If the team plays poorly and is on a 70 point pace, only ahead of Vegas, and Raanta's GAA goes way up, while Smith has a great year, losing Tip and trading Smith will look really stupid.

 

[_Del_]

No, it won't. If you fire a guy for stealing and your replacement hire is useless, it doesn't mean you shouldn't have fired the first guy and that it was stupid to fire them. It just means the replacement hire was a bad hire.

 

[Sinurgy]

Why is it silly? You can call it a terrible move in hindsight if, say, Raanta posts numbers as bad as Smith's or Tellqvist's or someone like that, but hindsight won't come until the end of the season. For RIGHT NOW, it's not just a good move, but a GREAT move, because either a) we have a goaltender of the future or b) and easily-escapable failed short term gamble. We're not locked up for a couple more years with a declining asset in Smith, and we haven't spent a ransom in dollars or term for one of the UFA goalies out there (which, I'm sure you'd agree, is a tremendously underwhelming group of players).

From an asset management standpoint, the deal for Raanta is about as good as it gets - a low-risk, high-potential-reward situation that doesn't hamstring the organization in any significant way.

It's silly because if Raanta ends up sucking, it should be fairly obvious that's not a good thing. I get that many agree with the gamble Chayka has made, myself included, but I'm willing to admit that if it goes south it wasn't a good move.

 

[Sinurgy]

No, it won't. If you fire a guy for stealing and your replacement hire is useless, it doesn't mean you shouldn't have fired the first guy and that it was stupid to fire them. It just means the replacement hire was a bad hire.

A much more apt analogy would be firing a guy you didn't think was doing a good job and replacing him with a guy you think will do a good job. Only it turns out the new guy appears to be doing an even worse job than the old one. In that case, it will indeed look bad.

 

[_Del_]

You don't keep a bad employee because you're afraid you might make another different mistake later.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

It's silly because if Raanta ends up sucking, it should be fairly obvious that's not a good thing. I get that many agree with the gamble Chayka has made, myself included, but I'm willing to admit that if it goes south it wasn't a good move.

That's all hindsight, though, and you can't run a franchise on hindsight. This is a move that shows foresight, and if it doesn't pan out then the damage is limited and doesn't have long-term repercussions.

...losing Tip and trading Smith will look really stupid.

"Losing" Tippett and trading Smith will never look stupid except to people whose superfandom of the two allows for no logic. This team had to try something new after half a decade of ineptitude.

 

[Jakey53]

That's all hindsight, though, and you can't run a franchise on hindsight. This is a move that shows foresight, and if it doesn't pan out then the damage is limited and doesn't have long-term repercussions.



"Losing" Tippett and trading Smith will never look stupid except to people whose superfandom of the two allows for no logic. This team had to try something new after half a decade of ineptitude.

I agree. The team wanted a change and they got it, good or bad. Coaches have a shelf life and always get fired. Onward and hopefully upward.

 

[Sinurgy]

You don't keep a bad employee because you're afraid you might make another different mistake later.

You also don't make excuses for yourself if your new employee ends up even worse. Sure maybe you don't regret getting rid of the old employee but you still own up to hiring yet another ****** one.

That's all hindsight, though, and you can't run a franchise on hindsight. This is a move that shows foresight, and if it doesn't pan out then the damage is limited and doesn't have long-term repercussions.

I think you're confusing calculated risk with actual results. Sure most all of us get why Chayka made the move in the first place and as I said I agree with it. However if Raanta ends up being horrible, it wasn't a good move. I honestly don't understand why you're arguing this at all.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

I think you're confusing calculated risk with actual results. Sure most all of us get why Chayka made the move in the first place and as I said I agree with it. However if Raanta ends up being horrible, it wasn't a good move. I honestly don't understand why you're arguing this at all.

I'm not confusing anything. The reason I'm pursuing this discussion is because there are some around here who feel that the possibility of a poor result should have kept Chayka from taking a calculated risk. I'm trying to outline for these folks that even a bad result on the ice does not inevitably lead to a bad result for the franchise, or retroactively make a decision based on calculated risk terrible. Perhaps it's simply semantics but it's important for fans to realize this.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

Perhaps Smith had to be moved because he didn't fit the culture (to put it gently) that the team was trying to foster with the young players.

If that was a major reason to move Smith then the success of the trade would have to be measured in more than the cap savings and the play of Raanta v Smith.

 

[TheLegend]

I'm not confusing anything. The reason I'm pursuing this discussion is because there are some around here who feel that the possibility of a poor result should have kept Chayka from taking a calculated risk. I'm trying to outline for these folks that even a bad result on the ice does not inevitably lead to a bad result for the franchise, or retroactively make a decision based on calculated risk terrible. Perhaps it's simply semantics but it's important for fans to realize this.

I am of the opinion Chayka saw something in Raanta that meets or exceeds what he is looking for in a goalie which made Smith an asset to be used for another purpose.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Perhaps Smith had to be moved because he didn't fit the culture (to put it gently) that the team was trying to foster with the young players.

Maybe, but what I've heard about Smith's room presence has been apocryphal. I honestly think it simply came down to asset management - Smith is a declining asset that requires more financial commitment; Raanta represents a speculative gold mine in best-case at a bargain price.

That said, perhaps moving Smith was a more acceptable prospect given the country-club purge that Chayka undertook.

I am of the opinion Chayka saw something in Raanta that meets or exceeds what he is looking for in a goalie which made Smith an asset to be used for another purpose.

Agreed - but I also like the way Chayka gave himself some cushioning on the Raanta deal by going after Miska and Madsen. We now have five "prospect" goalies in the system (Hill, Langhamer, Miska, Madsen, and Kallgren) and we know at least one is showing some pretty encouraging potential.

 

[rt]

It's stupid for budget teams to spend a lot on goalies. We corrected that.

 

[_Del_]

It's stupid for budget teams to spend a lot on goalies. We corrected that.

Bottomline, that's the biggest one. Then you add: aging, injury-prone, inconsistent, malcontent

And we picked up a 2nd/3rd in the process. No brainer.

Did we get the next part wrong? Who knows, but it doesn't make the Smith move bad.

You also don't make excuses for yourself if your new employee ends up even worse. Sure maybe you don't regret getting rid of the old employee but you still own up to hiring yet another ****** one.

Why are you shifting the argument to a strawman? I already said that. In fact that's the whole point.

Even if Raanta doesn't work out, the "terrible move" was picking Raanta as a replacement, not moving the bad contract and disgruntled goaltender. They should be looked at separately.

*It just means the replacement hire was a bad hire.

There's several others, too

 

[Sinurgy]

Why are you shifting the argument to a strawman? I already said that. In fact that's the whole point.

Oh I don't think you want to play the fallacy game buddy, you'd never be allowed to post again! haha Anyway nevermind, the conversation is pointless as usual. You think what you want to think and I'll think what I want to think.

 

[cobra427]

I hope Smith/Hanzal/ don't have great years, and when Tip gets a new gig, he doesn't lead his new team deep into the playoffs this year. I also hope Stepan/Raanta have great years, and Tocc has the team in the playoff hunt the final 10 games. I HOPE this is what happens, but it could be the reverse too. I like Chayka and like his moves, but there is some risk, and he doesn't have a magic wand.

 

[_Del_]

I hope Smith has a great year. It'd probably be enough to bump the third to a second. If he flops (pun), it's still all smiles from me because he is gone and someone else's problem.
I hope Marty finally gets some recognition in a more visible market. Love him, and I'm still a little sad he's not here.
I hope Vrby tears up the east and gets some love, too.
I don't care what Tippett does. There are teams he'd be a good fit for, and they're all not here. He can ride his bike into the sunset or go coach somewhere else. Maybe he'll go to a young team filled with skilled guys just breaking into the league, and you can show me his top five offense as proof that he can adapt.
There's risk in every decision, and sitting pat again and keeping the country club together for another bottom-5 finish was not inherently less risky.

 

[ClassLessCoyote]