Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey
For one thing, let's see what happens with Bobrovsky and the Jackets. My understanding is that there's a reasonable chance he hits UFA. At the end of the day it's not really my job to speculate on what's out there and who might be available a year from now. It's a futile exercise. But it's a results-oriented business, you find a way to solve the goaltending problem or you don't. And if you don't, well, your ass should rightfully be on the hot seat.
|
I suspect that Bobrovsky's next contract is a minimum of six years and likely to be at least a $7 m AAV, but more probably closer to $8. Certainly, it is something that the GM needs to look into, but within the current salary structure I am not sure how plausible it is to add a top UFA goalie to this team.
As for the "goaltending problem," I don't think Treliving has the luxury of viewing it in isolation apart from the several other critical elements of building a NHL team. Moreover, I don't believe it was ever feasible for him to realize his vision for this team within even a five-year timeframe. The Flames's goaltending situation remains an open question because Treliving has prioritized other parts of the roster, but also because every General Manager is confronted by situational and circumstantial realities that make building a team non-linear. Had he opted for a better solution in goal earlier it almost certainly would have come at the expense of upgrades and improvements he has made elsewhere. This means that one or perhaps two of the Hamilton trade, the Tkachuk acquisition, the Hamonic trade, the Lindholm/Hanifin trade never happen. So, while the goaltending hole would be filled already, there would be other holes in the roster that still require filling.
Quote:
|
If the Flames miss the playoffs again and the goaltending didn't hold water, would you be satisfied to just shrug your shoulders and re-sign the same tandem that couldn't get it done two years in a row? Something tells me I'm not the only one who would be pissed about going back to the 37-year-old Mike Smith well in that scenario. Even if the Flames barely scrape into a wildcard spot and have another mediocre finish, it would still suck.
|
Sure.
IF the Flames miss playoffs, or
IF they just barely scrape in and disappoint, then I would think a change in goal is something that will need to be addressed. But we are not there yet. Not even close. The other side of this discussion is
IF Smith, Rittich and the Flames have an excellent year, and
IF they play a couple of playoff rounds then I think there is a very strong case to be made for extending Smith.
PepsiFree has correctly pointed out that you seem at the outset to have limited the options moving forward by an insistence that Smith needs to be replaced. Period. I think that is shortsighted.