[Rumour] LeBrun: Flames among 3 teams calling about Mike Smith but #1 target is MAF - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Macho0978 · 06-07-2017, 04:06 PM

The only way this makes sense is if the Flames get for nothing or include bad contracts back. Probably a little of both

Smith for Brouwer, Bouma and 4th I may be ok with it. Create cap space for a bigger move and Smith only has 2 years left on his deal where Brouwer has 3

dustygoon · 06-07-2017, 04:08 PM

Omg these goalie options are terribad. Mike smith is not great, 35 and will cost us assets. And isn't he a little unhinged?

Roof-Daddy · 06-07-2017, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Because Mike Smith is making 6M and is a below average starter.

He's average, like pretty much exactly average if you subscribe to advanced goalie statistics. And that's back stopping one of the worst teams in the league year after year.

His numbers would likely be much better with a decent team in front of him.

MAF has slightly better numbers, but that guy has been propped up by back stopping one of the best teams in the league for his whole career.

If you had swapped MAF and Smith out 6 year ago, IMO Smith's numbers would blow the doors off MAF's numbers. Could never prove it now though.

Ashasx · 06-07-2017, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Omg these goalie options are terribad. Mike smith is not great, 35 and will cost us assets. And isn't he a little unhinged?

I'm not a fan of Smith, but if we do trade for him, he will cost very little in terms of assets.

dammage79 · 06-07-2017, 04:16 PM

So Smith, Mason and I suspect we will hear Halak name soon along with a Dallas goalie not named Bishop. This is what is available, this is what we will get. I'm totally okay with Smith or Mason or Halak. All good goalies on worse teams. Logic dictates they'll be great on a good team.

Cycling76er · 06-07-2017, 04:17 PM

I would personally prefer the goalie that played fairly well in front of a piss poor team to the goalie that played fairly well in front of a Stanley Cup winning team. I mean, if they were my only two options...

Stud_McCool · 06-07-2017, 04:18 PM

At this point, Treliving is just blindly throwing darts and hoping for a bulls eye.

Ashasx · 06-07-2017, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stud_McCool

At this point, Treliving is just blindly throwing darts and hoping for a bulls eye.

What would you rather he do?

Mass_nerder · 06-07-2017, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Why would the Yotes do that?

I doubt they would. I was just replying to the poster's assumption that Smith = Elliott.
From a Calgary perspective, if they valued Elliott and Smith equally, the only way it would make sense for Tre to acquire Smith would be if he was cheaper than the 3rd rounder we owe to St.Louis if Elliott is re-signed.

Cycling76er · 06-07-2017, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stud_McCool

At this point, Treliving is just blindly throwing darts and hoping for a bulls eye.

Throwing darts and kicking tires != the same thing. It's a big part of his job. The kicking tires part

Jetfire · 06-07-2017, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stud_McCool

At this point, Treliving is just blindly throwing darts and hoping for a bulls eye.

Who would you acquire then? Say Vegas takes MAF off the table, who are your two alternative goalies that are actually available? For me, Smith would definitely be one of the next best goalies available, he's not a superstar, but he's proven a reliable starter on a completely horrible team for quite some time now, so who knows how he'd play with a way better defensive group in front of him.

Treliving wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't asking about pretty much everyone.

GioforPM · 06-07-2017, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

So Smith, Mason and I suspect we will hear Halak name soon along with a Dallas goalie not named Bishop. This is what is available, this is what we will get. I'm totally okay with Smith or Mason or Halak. All good goalies on worse teams. Logic dictates they'll be great on a good team.

I'd rank those Mason, Halak, Smith. Mason's only 29. Halak is solid IMO. But like Elliott, he's never really been a true number one as far as games per season. Or there's Eddie Lack (and his dad). Or in a good deal - trying to swipe Pickard.

Roof-Daddy · 06-07-2017, 04:31 PM

Don't want Halak unless its to platoon with a younger guy. He's not a full time starter.

Mason is a starter, and a good one too. I've read he's a bit of a head case though. Kind of selfish, and sort of a prima donna.

I'd take Smith, but only for cheap. He can handle the work load though.

Elliott is also not a full time starter, and imploded during the playoffs. Not exactly confidence inspiring.

MAF I feel is very over rated because he's back stopped a Cup contender his whole career. Will cost way more than he's worth.

Just a whole bunch of question marks left to choose from.

IMO get the guy who's cheapest to acquire and can handle a starters work load, and that's Mason I guess.

Stud_McCool · 06-07-2017, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

What would you rather he do?

I'm not opposed to it. I'm sure he'll pull off some wizardry and acquire a good goalie and hoping for the best (like how he got Elliott last year).

dustygoon · 06-07-2017, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I'm not a fan of Smith, but if we do trade for him, he will cost very little in terms of assets.

I don't know. Why would Arizona trade him? Rebuilding team needs decent goaltending or else they go down that road where young team starts thinking it's ok to lose.

Vinny01 · 06-07-2017, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

So Smith, Mason and I suspect we will hear Halak name soon along with a Dallas goalie not named Bishop. This is what is available, this is what we will get. I'm totally okay with Smith or Mason or Halak. All good goalies on worse teams. Logic dictates they'll be great on a good team.

You can add Howard or Mrazek to that list.

I am still holding out hope the Flames convince Jersey to move Schneider

Coach · 06-07-2017, 04:43 PM

Do not want Smith.

Honestly willing to give Elliott another crack and would like to see Gillies push for the backup role and even push Elliott there.

Don't see a lot of options out there that are any better than Elliott except maybe on a coin flip.

Cali Panthers Fan · 06-07-2017, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I'd rather go with Gillies and Parsons next year than spend any assets getting MAF.

I wouldn't. That's a recipe for disaster.

A goalie with 1 year of pro experience, and a goalie with 0 years of pro experience. I'm sure putting both of them into the fire of the NHL will work out just fine.

Suck it up Flames fans, we need a stop gap starter. Unless you're ok with re-signing Elliott (I'm not), then you need to spend some assets to get a guy.

The nice thing is with the expansion draft there are guys available that would never normally be available. Take advantage.

Strange Brew · 06-07-2017, 04:53 PM

I'm not worried. KK will veto any bad trade or simply refuse to answer the phone. Most underrated hockey executive in the league.

mrdonkey · 06-07-2017, 04:57 PM

Really not a fan of Smith. At best we'd be looking at a lateral move from Elliott.

I really think the Flames missed the boat when Bishop went to Dallas, so I'm prepared for a few more years of stinky goaltending and wasted seasons until a goalie comes out of the pipeline ready to take over the #1 spot.