Yeah, all this 'the Talbot deal is better than the Hamilton deal' talk is absolute bunk, IMO.
Goalies are extremely fickle. He has had one season as a starter. The goaltending graveyard is full of guys that were unbeatable for a short period of time.
Hamilton is very likely to be a stud for years. Talbot is far less certain.
Plus, as FTW said, we have several good goalie prospects. Getting a player like Hamilton is much, much harder.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Jones cost SJ a first round pick, prospect and a 3 year deal at $3 million per.
Talbot costs Oilers 3 picks and ultimately a 3 year contract at $4 million per.
Andersen and Reimer were UFA's as I recall, signed for slightly longer term.
Elliott and then Smith have likely cost the Flames 2 seconds and a prospect, and 3 years total in contract.
Obviously we have yet to see how Smith will play for us, but given options that were out there a year ago, Treliving has given up quite a few assets and really has no more flexibility compared to some other options. This flexibility thing is a bit of a red herring if you're not able to get good goalie play.
Smith really needs to work out or else this is a rather dramatic failure.
Tre has done a great job and it is the goalies themselves who have let him down. It isn't Tre's fault that he brings in high-quality goaltending that plays low-quality hockey. I am sure he exhausted every possible option on the goalie market, sat with all sorts of management and they agreed on who was going to be the next goalie. The critique of Elliot was that he never was a true number 1 in terms of games played but his talent level was there. Smith is without question a true number 1 and plays the games. Sure he isn't a top 10 number 1 but I would say he is in the 11-20 range and this is with a poor team.
__________________ OFFICIAL CP REALTOR & PROPERTY MANAGER
Travis Munroe | Century 21 Elevate | 403.971.4300
Yeah, all this 'the Talbot deal is better than the Hamilton deal' talk is absolute bunk, IMO.
Goalies are extremely fickle. He has had one season as a starter. The goaltending graveyard is full of guys that were unbeatable for a short period of time.
Hamilton is very likely to be a stud for years. Talbot is far less certain.
Plus, as FTW said, we have several good goalie prospects. Getting a player like Hamilton is much, much harder.
Well it's really kind of irrelevant. I just don't care for the argument that because of the Hamilton trade, Treliving's hands were tied in acquiring more than a stop gap goalie. He has sent both $'s and picks with his current approach so let's judge the results with Smith now.
I don't really see how anyone could be really critical of this trade. Very short contract, manageable money, will be motivated, clearly a stopgap but gives the team a chance to win now.
It's better than the alternatives: signing a 7 year deal for Bishop, giving up a core player for Raanta, or bringing back a 1B goalie who completely let the team down when they needed him most.
I'm with you on Smith being a better option than Elliott, but nobody knows if this is actually better than the Bishop or Raanta.
Personally I'm reserving judgment until I see who the backup/1B is. A lot of people were hoping we'll have one proven and one promising goalie, and I think if we also get the latter it will change how people feel about the overall goaltending situation.
I'm with you on Smith being a better option than Elliott, but nobody knows if this is actually better than the Bishop or Raanta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoJetsGo
Sorry but when we have Bishop's length of contract as a known variable, we can absolutely say that.
That's absurd to suggest contract length could invalidate a goalie from being the better option. Cap management is a critical component of building a hockey team, but ultimately if Bishop played better than Smith would have for three years and during that three years the Flames were cup contenders and maybe even win one then Bishop would be the better option.
That's absurd to suggest contract length could invalidate a goalie from being the better option. Cap management is a critical component of building a hockey team, but ultimately if Bishop played better than Smith would have for three years and during that three years the Flames were cup contenders and maybe even win one then Bishop would be the better option.
Disagree. With the two young goalies we have in the system signing a goalie that age to a six year contact would be extremely disadvantageous, and everything Treliving said yesterday about Gilies and Parsons echos that. It's clear lenght of contract was a big key to the current situation in acquiring a goalie.
The Following User Says Thank You to GoJetsGo For This Useful Post:
Jones cost SJ a first round pick, prospect and a 3 year deal at $3 million per.
Talbot costs Oilers 3 picks and ultimately a 3 year contract at $4 million per.
Andersen and Reimer were UFA's as I recall, signed for slightly longer term.
Elliott and then Smith have likely cost the Flames 2 seconds and a prospect, and 3 years total in contract.
Obviously we have yet to see how Smith will play for us, but given options that were out there a year ago, Treliving has given up quite a few assets and really has no more flexibility compared to some other options. This flexibility thing is a bit of a red herring if you're not able to get good goalie play.
Smith really needs to work out or else this is a rather dramatic failure.
The Flames were in on Talbot and it has been strongly implied that it came down to Sather not wanting to move him to Calgary to help them out - choosing the Oilers instead.
So the Flames, it seems, would have had to pay a premium to get him.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
Jones cost SJ a first round pick, prospect and a 3 year deal at $3 million per.
Talbot costs Oilers 3 picks and ultimately a 3 year contract at $4 million per.
Andersen and Reimer were UFA's as I recall, signed for slightly longer term.
Elliott and then Smith have likely cost the Flames 2 seconds and a prospect, and 3 years total in contract.
Obviously we have yet to see how Smith will play for us, but given options that were out there a year ago, Treliving has given up quite a few assets and really has no more flexibility compared to some other options. This flexibility thing is a bit of a red herring if you're not able to get good goalie play.
Smith really needs to work out or else this is a rather dramatic failure.
when teams dont have a number 1 goalie.. they tend to go fishing for it.. elliott wasn't traded for in hopes hed be a stop gap.. id imagine treliving wants two eyars out of smith.. but will take more if he can get it.. ramo was in the same boat as any goalie too.. a hopefuly number 1..
edmonton spent a 2nd and third on talbot.. but they also spend 15 million of khabibulin, a first on devan dubnyk, a 3rd round pick on ben schrivens... and a 4th and 5th on viktor fasth..
none of those moves matter anymore since they finally got a low cost upgrade that worked.. thats happened to lots of teams.. hopefully smith works out for cgy and it gives time for our guys to develop
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to IrishSpring2013 For This Useful Post:
I think there's more frustration from Flames fans than many other teams because we had one of the best to ever play in net for a decade. We were spoiled so badly that I don't think we have the perspective that goaltending is a flakey, almost incalculable position to draft for, and almost as hard to trade for.
A large percentage of the NHL is throwing picks every couple of years at goaltending because it's that tough of a position to fill. We've now spent two picks on goaltending since 2014. It's not that bad asset wise. Our bigger problem is that we've been spending picks on everything the last two years so two goaltending picks stands out.
No, it's because we had nothing but junk, followed by a nice break of one of the best goalies in the league, back to constant junk again. Other teams at least find a way to find reasonable goaltending.
No, it's because we had nothing but junk, followed by a nice break of one of the best goalies in the league, back to constant junk again. Other teams at least find a way to find reasonable goaltending.
2014-15 Hiller/Rämö was not junk, and it's only been four seasons since Kipper quit. 2013-14 was a throwaway essentially.
Not to downplay how frustrating bad goaltending is, but really it's just the last couple of seasons that have been the problem.
