WrinkledPossum
Play Dead
- Apr 23, 2016
- 3,367
- 1,068
If we did move Smith I'd like to also move on from Domingue and go with two 1B's. Elliot+Mason/Grubauer or something.
Rumor: Mike Smith Trade Rumor from Kypreos
- Thread starter XX
- Start date
I'd disagree there. While Domingue hasn't been stellar, he hasn't been given the "right" chances/situations with the over-reliance on Smith. I'd recommend a 2nd tier starter (who would play around 40-50 games depending on how Domingue does in better situations) and give Domingue a better chance to shine in the backup role. I'd give Condon a shot in the West if we ended up having to sign a UFA.
Of course, if Domingue is dealt, I would be disappointed, but only for a month or three.
I would think if Smith is dealt we would head in the direction of a young goalie. Elliott and probably Mason would be a no go for me.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
LeBrun said 3 teams have asked about Smith. He didn't say which but I'd guess Calgary, Philadelphia, Winnipeg. Maybe Buffalo if they walk from Lehner.
Have also seen some rumors that Fleury has Calgary on his NTC. Really limits the options for the Flames.
Have also seen some rumors that Fleury has Calgary on his NTC. Really limits the options for the Flames.
Anyone who has a NTC has to provide the list by a certain date. Normal business. It's the same as saying "timecards were submitted".
Leaving Smith exposed is plain stupid.
What would be stupid is passing on any actual return on Smith. If there's not, then that shows his actual value, so why wouldn't you expose him?
Smith is worth a bucket of pucks. Send him to at the draft so we don't have to pay his stupid contract anymore.
The only way I expose Smith is if we have a trade lined up to get a young goalie, otherwise I keep him for the next two years or until the trade deadline. There have been reported that three teams are interested in Smith so there is interest, and I would rather keep Smith than get a 7th rounder for him as was suggested on these boards.
Well, we clearly disagree. There are a glut of goalies available right now. He is completely replaceable.
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,443
- 11,067
Smith is eminently replaceable.
BUT, he has value. Legitimate trade value. There is someone out there who will be just as fished in by his 2011-2012 season as so many of us on this forum have been, and if they decide to move, we could end up getting a haul for him.
So no, I don't think exposing him is a good idea, because we'd lose him for nothing. And if we can't get value back in a trade for him, we're gonna need that terrible, awful, no-good, very bad contract to help us reach the cap floor.
BUT, he has value. Legitimate trade value. There is someone out there who will be just as fished in by his 2011-2012 season as so many of us on this forum have been, and if they decide to move, we could end up getting a haul for him.
So no, I don't think exposing him is a good idea, because we'd lose him for nothing. And if we can't get value back in a trade for him, we're gonna need that terrible, awful, no-good, very bad contract to help us reach the cap floor.
True, but how many good ones who can be part of our core, and will they be available and at what cost. Goal is the least of our problems right now, but if the right deal or deals come available, I would not hesitate to deal Smith.
Yup. Mind you, if we can find a taker for Smith that is agreeable to the Coyotes, we might be able to afford and trade for that #1 or 2 RD or an upgrade at C or RW. The expansion draft is going to be interesting.
I'm not sure if he's #1 material either, but there is a chance that he could develop into one. I just mentioned that without a FT inconsistent starter he would have more opportunity to shine. He has been played poorly in my opinion when both goalies were healthy and seems to be the kind of goalie that requires multiple games to get into a groove.
I also think that he has been poorly coached (by Elkin) during his time in the NHL the last few years. I can't remember if it was this season or last, but didn't Elkin pretty much disappear when Smith was injured long term? I'm going from the memory of Nash/McConnel saying something like "As Smith returns to the lineup, Elkin has re-joined the team." I don't know how that played out last season, but if Smith is moved, I'm guessing Elkin is released as well. Don't get me wrong, Elkin seems awesome at developing young goalies (I'd love for him to spend more time in Tucson to help develop Hill and Miska if he wanted to stay with the club), but would prefer to move on to a new Goaltending Coach for the NHLers. I'm guessing he had double duty (Tucson and Coyotes) since there is no goalie coach listed on the Roadruneers site, but wish we could go back to having someone spending more time working with our NHL goalies (I'm assuming Elkin spent more time in Tucson or at his school than with Domingue during Smith injuries--but I could easily be wrong on that front since Schwab is listed as a prospect goalie coach)
Smith is not part of the core. He's 35. Several lateral moves available for less money who are no older. That means it is a better than lateral change.
I know Smith is no longer part of the core, but you want to trade him to save a few $$ even if it a lateral move, which could backfire. Smith's contract is not hurting us now, so unless we can get a good young goalie back in a trade somewhere I hang onto Smith. I don't want the Elliot's of the world signing with the Coyotes.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Quickly looking at the list of Goalies on Capfriendly, it seems anyone who can play a starters role in terms of # of games doesn't get less than 2.5m regardless of performance.
He was at 2.7 last season so not much difference probably. Maybe he chooses his ideal destination he wants to play at a discount though.
Do you have any stats to back up this idea that Smith is a better goalie than Elliot?
