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

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by tsquared1967

Mike Smith and Brian Elliott are not pretty much the same level of goalie. Mike Smith has stolen games for his team because of the poor defense in front of him. Brian Elliott has played behind stellar defense in front of him and didn't steal any games last year. Brian cost the Flames games last year with soft goals even during his winning streak he gave up soft goals. Mike Smith can handle the puck and will help the defensemen. Brian Elliott was brutal last year causing so many giveaways in his zone.

Smith is better than Elliott handling the puck I will give you that.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Going to use the wait and see approach, but it does seem cost was high...I understand Hickey wasn't going to sign with the Flames, but including him should have moved the pic down a round at least. Conditional 4th, not 3rd.

One thing people don't seem to be factoring in when analyzing the cost of the move is that the Yotes retained salary. Your proposal of moving the pick down a round is probably correct if the Flames were getting Smith for his full contract. How much do you think getting the Yotes to eat a quarter of his contract is worth?

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I hope the tandem next year is:
Smith
Gillies

Give Gillies a look with some sheltered starts while Smith has a proven ability to carry a starters workload (unlike Elliott).
This also gives Parsons a spot, and hopefully a good amount of starts, in the AHL alongside Rittich.

I like Johnson, but I'd rather give Gillies a try at this point.

Agreed, but you can't gift it to him. But if he earns it out of camp, I'm 100% comfortable with it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

*Rather have Elliott at $1.5-2M

Don't think he'd ever sign for that little. And we'd have to give up a 3rd rounder to re-sign him.

Way rather have Smith

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

He's earned my trust by making more good moves (IMO) than bad. AND he knows the incoming guy well. I wouldn't say that Elliott/Johnson was a bad combo, but both happened to struggle at points in the year. Having said that, the Flames struggled as a team for the first couple of months under GG. Until the famous beer trip indeed.

I don't see even a Smith/Johnson tandem as bad for Rittich or Gillies. Both need time and development yet IMO, so a second stopgap year where either or both get to play "some" is fine by me (likely due to injury).

I'm not ripping this deal or Smith like some others but this move is really just treading water. In my opinion, signing Johnson would be a step back. There's only so much developmental playing time available. Gillies was given the chance to be the guy carrying the load in Stockton last year but Rittich outperformed him. Ideally one of the two should be playing 50 games next year which means one of them should be up here. Based on last season, that should be Rittich. We need to spend what's left of our cap filling other holes.

[sureLoss]

If they do decide to go with a kid as a backup, it will likely rotate between Gillies and Rittich where they will take turns as backup in the NHL and starter in the AHL.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

One thing people don't seem to be factoring in when analyzing the cost of the move is that the Yotes retained salary. Your proposal of moving the pick down a round is probably correct if the Flames were getting Smith for his full contract. How much do you think getting the Yotes to eat a quarter of his contract is worth?

Yeah I am OK with Smith given the options out there. But the cost sure seems a little high and given Flames don't look to be a contender, it kind of bugs me we are giving up assets so other teams retain salary.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

For anyone tbat loves this trade Convince me how a 35 year old Elliott goalie is a better situation than a 32 year old Elliott calibre of goalie?
Mike Smith and Brian Elliott are pretty much the same level of goalie that is a fact.

These 2 goaltenders are not equal. Elliott had a ton of question marks before the Flames even acquired him. Then blues traded him after going deep into the playoffs. Doesn't that ring a bell at all? The blues also lost confidence in him and acquired Ryan Miller and Martin Broduer to play over him.

Mike Smith made the 2014 Olympic mens team, so clearly some high level executives thought he was pretty good. He outperformed Elliott despite being on a much inferior roster. He also steals a lot of games for his team whereas Elliott stole almost none for us. He sank us in the playoffs and he almost cost us our season with his poor play early on. Smith was the MVP of his team last year and Elliott wasn't even close. I'd say the 2 are quite different and I haven't even delved deep into the stats.

[Jiggy]

I like the trade. Seems to really battle even when he is down and out. Had some good stats (posted in this thread) even though he played on an awful team. Remember how people thought Stone was an awful pick up cause his numbers were not great playing for a bad yotes team. When he played for the Flames he looked solid. Have a feeling Smith will turn out the same.

Anyone know how his rebound control is?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

*Rather have Elliott at $1.5-2M

Doesn't matter what the cost is, bad goaltending is bad goaltending. Elliott had 1 year to prove that he could be a #1 goalie and he mucked it up royally.

Getting a bad goalie on a cheap deal still leaves you with a bad goalie, so I don't get your thought process at all.

[Manhattanboy]

Whelp this is the start of an interesting off-season!!

[burn_this_city]

Smith went 10-0 in the 2015 world championship and had a shutout during the entire medal round.

[Cycling76er]

I am happy with this trade. I feel better taking a goalie with heart (his getting upset at the Coyotes's piss poor play in front of him is what I mean by "heart") that played well in front of a pretty terrible team. I like that he moves the puck well. I think a change of pace to a hockey loving city will also be a big factor for him. Maybe a bit jittery at first with the change but I'm excited to see his body of work after 20 starts.

[Anduril]

Rather than Elliot, isn't Mason a better option as a UFA? Haven't heard or looked at what he would cost given his solid 3 out of 4 years and last year's poor showing.

[sureLoss]

960 will break down the trade after the Jays game.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If they do decide to go with a kid as a backup, it will likely rotate between Gillies and Rittich where they will take turns as backup in the NHL and starter in the AHL.

Go with one or the other, if that's the case.

I suspect Johnson finds his way back to Calgary.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

For anyone tbat loves this trade Convince me how a 35 year old Elliott goalie is a better situation than a 32 year old Elliott calibre of goalie?
Mike Smith and Brian Elliott are pretty much the same level of goalie that is a fact.

The age difference between the two is pretty much irrelevant as both are stop gaps and their age difference isn't likely to mean anything over the next two years.

I actually agree with you, both would be the same type / caliber of solution, neither are ideal, both could end up working out very well, both could be big downers like Elliott was last year.

I'm happier we are trying something different than Elliott, but I'm also aware this isn't a slam dunk upgrade in goal (but didn't think that would be available at a palatable price). Cost of acquisition wasn't that high, and Elliott would have cost a 3rd as well. Not that huge of a gamble to try something different.

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

For anyone tbat loves this trade Convince me how a 35 year old Elliott goalie is a better situation than a 32 year old Elliott calibre of goalie?
Mike Smith and Brian Elliott are pretty much the same level of goalie that is a fact.

The 32 year old Elliott goalie put us in a hole that the team had to dig it self out of to start the season, was horrible at the end of the season and is the single biggest reason the team got swept in four playoff games.

No way do you bring that guy back. Had to move on.

Mike Smith is a stop gap for 2 years until Gilles and Parsons become the best goalie tandem in the history of the NHL. Mike Smith can steal games. Mike Smith has greasy long hair. Mike Smith will feed Johnny breakaways. Johnny likes breakaways. I like Johnny breakaways.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Doesn't matter what the cost is, bad goaltending is bad goaltending. Elliott had 1 year to prove that he could be a #1 goalie and he mucked it up royally.

Getting a bad goalie on a cheap deal still leaves you with a bad goalie, so I don't get your thought process at all.

This.

Elliott could never come back after that season.

He blew it. Plain and simple.

He almost recovered after that terrible start and had redeemed himself, but he seemed to burn out and lose it mentally, and after that playoff performance how could a GM ever bring that guy back?

[robertsfanatic]

I don't mind this trade and will wait to see how next season goes...like others, I am just waiting on Parsons.

Also, I like when a goalie shows emotion in certain circumstances, maybe because I would be breaking tons of sticks too if I was a goalie