Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,591
- 2,587
This claim makes the Smith trade pretty much useless. Bad for the Flames.
Confirmed Trade: [CGY/ARI]Mike Smith (25%) for Chad Johnson, Brandon Hickey & 2018 2nd or 3rd rnd pick
- Thread starter hockeykicker
- Start date
This claim makes the Smith trade pretty much useless. Bad for the Flames.
What are you going on about? A recurring injury is an injury to the SAME location. That's a huge cause for concern. Two separate injuries to two different areas is not a recurring injury issue.
As for the trade, I think it is a good one.
Calgary couldn't bring back Elliott after that horrendous start and that horrendous end (including the playoffs). Not only that, it would have cost a 3rd round pick to re-sign Elliott. I just can't see that the Flames were willing to do that. You can't reinvest in a goalie that let you down. I think it was a good play originally as he had some of the best underlying stats in the league at the time, but it just didn't work out.
Fleury didn't want to come to Calgary, but can anyone really say he is an upgrade? I don't think so.
Grubauer/Raanta/Pickard/etc - none of these guys are PROVEN starters either right now. After 2 straight years of getting horrible goaltending, the Flames made sure to go out and get the best starter they could. Besides, Treliving discussed the other available options (not naming any names) that were going to be exposed in this expansion draft, and the prices were high. He made the comment that the Flames have 3 very solid goalie prospects and they didn't feel it would make sense to use a lot of assets and end up blocking a prospect.
This is a stop gap. Smith is not intended to be a savior. Just provide reliably consistent starts. I think based on his history - even his most recent season in Arizona - and the Flames have that now. Who knows how it really works out, but I think it is a rather safe play.
So Smith has injury concerns? Maybe, maybe not. Just gives Gillies and Rittich a bit more NHL exposure. Rumor is that Johnson is returning to be the backup anyways, and that's about as reliable a backup as you can get.
I don't really see what the fuss is about. Flames didn't want to lock-up a guy like Mason long-term (anyone think he would have signed a 2 year deal?), and there was nobody else available that was a proven starter, and Calgary didn't have to spend a ridiculous amount of assets on a young goalie when they have a number of them in the pipeline (didn't even count MacDonald, Schneider and McCollum - though these are definitely longer-shot guys at best).
From an asset point of view, this was a good move.
From a long-term vision point of view, this was a good move.
From a win-now point of view, this is most likely an upgrade over last season.
Hardly anything to complain about.
The term really is the key in this deal. The Flames didn't want a starter beyond 2-3 years and decent FAs aren't going to sign for that short a term.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,591
- 2,587
MAF who was sensational against the Blue Jackets and Caps at age 32 with two years remaining and isn't an upgrade for Calgary? All year the same nonsense from the Calgary fans and what does your sparkling management do? They trade for a going on 36 year old with a temper tantrum mindset who is making 1.5 million per less the next two years. A goalie who has done nothing for his career as to SC championships, big game experience and no where near the pedigree of MAF. Little wonder the Flames continue to make decisions on goal tending that bites them every time. MAF is a class act and the Flames took this loser over him, incredible.
blueberrie
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2010
- 2,733
- 404
The entire thing more or less rests on Gillies/Parson being ready ASAP. I'm not sure why they are such sure things, it seems for goalie prospects it's extremely difficult to gauge how long off they are/how good they will be.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,591
- 2,587
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,591
- 2,587
Yeah, but I just want to know the reason for acquiring Smith over other available goaltenders like Fleury.
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2003
- 8,719
- 982
It's only been mentioned a million times, Fleury didn't waive his NMC to Calgary and by all accounts wouldn't.
Vancouver Canucks
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 14,591
- 2,587
blueberrie
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2010
- 2,733
- 404
Johnnybegood13
Registered User
- Jul 11, 2003
- 8,719
- 982
Treliving said the cost was too high or other goalies were a longer term solution, stated he loves his goalie prospects and is confident at least one will compete for an NHL job very soon, said he worked on getting Smith for a "long time" and isn't worried one bit about his age as he works out extremely hard with Gary Roberts and has low miles for his age.(he's played 246 less games than Fleury for example)
And remember Treliving knows Smith very well as he was the A-GM in Phoenix when they got him from Tampa.
Ashasx
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 4,558
- 137
Raanta or Grubauer have a solid future ahead of them but for two years I'll take Smith. We can't afford to waste another year by throwing someone new into a starting position. We've tried that 4 times in the last 4 years.
If Smith can play 50-60 games and be consistently average(.910-9.20) with no huge swings like Elliot this trade will be a giant win for Calgary. League average goaltending sounds fantastic to me.
Plus we get to keep our first.
If Smith can play 50-60 games and be consistently average(.910-9.20) with no huge swings like Elliot this trade will be a giant win for Calgary. League average goaltending sounds fantastic to me.
Plus we get to keep our first.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,320
- 6,567
No, it's not a useless trade. Smith is the best available goalie they can get. He is not a long term solution but he is not a bad goalie.
They paid almost nothing for him. If they make the playoff, the 2nd is more than worth it. If they do not, a 3rd is insignificant. They cant sign Hickey so it''s no loss for them.
Also considering Pheonix retains 25%. That's worth a pick in itself. That money can go into resigning Backlund or a role player.
I am beginning to like the deal more everyday
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,250
- 8,384
