[Trade] Flames acquire Mike Smith (25% retained) for Chad Johnson, Brandon Hickey, & cond 3rd

[flamesfan6]

Lets say Hickey didn't want to sign here, and we weren't going to sign johnson .. then this trade really is:

Mike Smith + 25% retained for a cond 3rd

for a 2 year stop gap, and what mike smith can be... this is a pretty decent trade.

How is that our GM got fleeced, or a bad trade? We gave up a 2nd for elliot.. so even if the 3rd moves to a 2nd it's practically the same trade.

[sureLoss]

Flames make trade official:

https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/flam...na/c-289969954

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Zoller

I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of the deal. We've given up second rounders two years in a row for 2 different goalies. I get that Hickey probably wasn't going to sign here because of our lack of faith in young defenceman, but a second should have been enough for Smith. He has worse numbers than Elliott.

Would have rather had Mason for free.

If Johnson comes back then we are no better than last year and down another 2nd and a prospect. Lateral move and gave us assets in the process. Mason was also a lateral move and wouldn't have had to give up anything.

We'll see how it plays out but as of right now I'm not a fan

Mason has more than one option...he signs somewhere else, then what?

[dissentowner]

I am beyond happy with this. Was my guy all along.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by iloveicedhockey

We lose another 3rd to the blues...

Would we have though? I thought the condition was that St. Louis got the 3rd if we signed him.

[burnitdown]

I disagree with those saying Hickey was worthless to us because we think he's going UFA next summer. While Treliving likely has this indication from Hickey's camp, he might still change his mind. Or who knows, maybe we're a high seed heading into the playoffs with some key injuries on D...that could be enticing for him to sign and jump right into the NHL playoffs on a solid team. Including Hickey hurts our prospect pool as it officially closes the door on his time in Calgary. Too bad as he seemed to at least have potential to crack the starting lineup in the next 2 years.

[DomeFoam]

Who cares about his age, if he can stop the damn puck thats good enough for me. At the very least keep his pad on the ice in the first 5 minutes of an elimination game so the team isn't completely deflated and im sold.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Smith has played 19 playoff games, and has a 1.88 GAA and a .945 save % in those games.

Elliiot has played 41 playoff games, has a 2.60 GAA and a .908 save %.

Smith's a good goalie playing on a bad team. Now he's on a team that can make the playoffs with average goaltending. He's better than average.

I'm not sure it's a fair comparison when 16 of Smith's 19 playoff games were in his career high year six seasons ago. He's 35 now and there aren't many 35 year old good goaltenders out there...

Backstrom was great, until he turned 35. Kipper retired at 36.

Do we really want 2 years of a goalie trending down (35-37 year old years) at ~$5M? When there's limited cap space?

[tsquared1967]

Originally Posted by Par

I thought that Brad would be able pull out a Dougie Hamilton trade.

Brad would have to trade Hamilton for Price. Flames need a goalie and Montreal needs a defensemen.

[sureLoss]

[Krovikan]

For those that keep saying this is a 3rd, we had bad goaltending last year and made the playoffs. If this is a lateral move Elliott to Smith then it's a 2nd not a 3rd

Sent from my G3123 using Tapatalk

[Classic_Sniper]

I think people will be surprised this year at how good Mike Smith can be. Bad teams can make goaltenders look bad. Elliott was just an average goaltender on a good team and I don't remember him stealing very many games for us this year whereas Mike Smith stole a lot of games for the Coyotes. Just look at how many 40+ shot games we won for them this season.

His numbers are still better than Elliott's despite playing on a much inferior defensive team and I think playing on a better team next year will help him regain the Team Canada form that he was a few years back. Mike Stone had a great impact on our team when he was acquired so I'm willing to wait and see how Smith does before judging him.

As for the acquisition cost. It was pretty good. Hickey probably was going to sign with us anyway, Chas Johnson was a ufa and at least we didn't give up a 1st.

[Racki]

I have a bold prediction. Mike smith won't allow two of the first three shots he sees as a Flame to get by him. That set the tone for the first two months of the season.

[locsofblu]

Originally Posted by Zoller

I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of the deal. We've given up second rounders two years in a row for 2 different goalies. I get that Hickey probably wasn't going to sign here because of our lack of faith in young defenceman, but a second should have been enough for Smith. He has worse numbers than Elliott.

Would have rather had Mason for free.

If Johnson comes back then we are no better than last year and down another 2nd and a prospect. Lateral move and gave us assets in the process. Mason was also a lateral move and wouldn't have had to give up anything.

We'll see how it plays out but as of right now I'm not a fan

Having no goaltender is by far worse than giving up a second or 3rd round pick lol. Mason's been very inconsistent over the years and what's this free stuff you speak of. Mason would have probably come with $$$$$ and term.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by cannon7

A Smith/Mason tandem is still a possibility.

No it's not.

Flames won't be paying $8+ million for goaltending the next two seasons, and Mason is well know to have zero interest in a tandem situation anymore.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Our over-ripening philosophy just caused us to basically lose Hickey for nothing.

That is false. You don't know why Hickey declined to sign. Flames tried to sign him this spring. And we didn't lose him for nothing, we just traded him for our new starting goalie

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Murph

Would we have though? I thought the condition was that St. Louis got the 3rd if we signed him.

Yes, on the radio last week, Treliving confirmed that it's a third rounder to St Louis if the Flames sign Elliott or trade his rights before July 1.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Murph

Would we have though? I thought the condition was that St. Louis got the 3rd if we signed him.

The condition was if the Flames signed him or if they traded him.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Murph

Would we have though? I thought the condition was that St. Louis got the 3rd if we signed him.

Yeah it was revealed the pick goes to STL if we traded Elliott as well.

[Krynn]

From what I read the Rangers wanted our first & arm & leg our first born for Rantta