Quote:
Originally Posted by tvp2003
^^ Nailed it. Smith is probably only a slight upgrade on Elliott, but the key is that Smith has the reputation as being capable of starting 55+ games and being a consistent, number one guy. Elliott has NEVER done that and would be coming back with last year's playoff meltdown looming over his head.
I also think Smith was the best "fit" in terms of organizational need given our goalie prospects. A guy like Raanta may have better/longer term upside, but that's not what the team needs or is prepared to pay for at this stage (especially if there is a risk that he'll flop -- another step back in 2017/18 would be devastating for the organization IMO, so better to go with a safer, more sure bet).
|
I'll preface all of this by admitting it's conjecture. But Brian Elliott was a complete frontrunner. When things are going his way, he's a very good NHL goalie. And in the regular season, with a good team in front of you, that can lead to a lot of wins.
I can't think of a game this season where it looked like things were getting away from us, and Elliott rallied from a bad goal to slam the door. In the magical Hartley season, a big reason for all the comeback wins was the ability of Hiller and Ramo to avoid giving up the NEXT next goal to put the game out of reach. Elliott never gave the team the saves they needed when they needed them.
Mike Smith is a scrappy SOB. He yells at his bench during TV timeouts. He was also traded for Brad Richards once upon a time - the talent has always been there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm way happier with Smith and the 16th overall pick instead of Raanta and nothing. Or seven years of Ben Bishop. Those that feel there's a true franchise number 1 available among this cast of characters, I applaud your convictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Remember when Smith was actively in the conversation to be the third goalie for Team Canada? Good times.
|
What's this 'actively in the conversation'? He WAS the third goalie for Team Canada in 2014. He has a gold medal to prove it.