While it'd be great to get a major upgrade in net, they aren't exactly growing on trees.
And really, all the Flames need is a steady presence back there as they made the playoffs with below average goaltending as it is.
And what they REALLY need is a goalie who isn't going to drop a big smelly deuce in the crease in the playoffs next spring.
Precisely, this is a stop-gap measure to buy time for our prospects while not completely tanking.
Lets be honest, if Smith is just decent for the year then this is a good trade. We made the playoffs last year after watching Elliott basically piss away two months of our season.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Smith represents a marginal upgrade net from Elliott. From my perspective this trade is one big yawn.
I wouldnt even mind elliott as the backup. Throw 6 or 7 million at 2 meh goalies and hope they can each get hot when you need them to. Gillies can #### off and stay in the ahl. Parsons wont be rushed.
Smith Elliott combo anyone? Im only half kidding...
I actually like both goalies i just dont think either or both can give this team what they need to be a serious contender. If you arent contending you are pretending. So why not just trade gio, move brouwer, clear cap, gamble on 2 young high potential goalies like pickard and raanta. We made a lot of questionable moves for a rebuilding team over the past few years.
Watch Smith win a vezna and get a 4 year 7 million per contract from treliving. Im going to have a heart attack.
Okay correct me if I am wrong, but that conditional pick that went to Arizona was the pick that the flames tied to Elliott was it not? So that's a pretty clear sign Elliott won't be back. Because I'm assuming that third still goes to STL even after July 1st. Or does the stipulation die on the 1st.
The Following User Says Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
I wouldnt even mind elliott as the backup. Throw 6 or 7 million at 2 meh goalies and hope they can each get hot when you need them to. Gillies can #### off and stay in the ahl. Parsons wont be rushed.
Smith Elliott combo anyone? Im only half kidding...
I actually like both goalies i just dont think either or both can give this team what they need to be a serious contender. If you arent contending you are pretending. So why not just trade gio, move brouwer, clear cap, gamble on 2 young high potential goalies like pickard and raanta. We made a lot of questionable moves for a rebuilding team over the past few years.
Watch Smith win a vezna and get a 4 year 7 million per contract from treliving. Im going to have a heart attack.
God, you are all over the map today. I am usually able to fairly easily track peoples' trains of thought here, but you are like the Schrödinger's cat of internet discussion in this thread.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I see this as the continuation of what they were trying to do when they acquired Elliott. While scrambling to replace the guy that crapped the bed.
Even though the rumours surrounding Bishop seem to be true, I think the preferred method is a decent stopgap until one of the kids is ready. I think the team would have loved to give up that 3rd round pick to re sign their #1 goalie. But things didn't turn out that way, so Treliving had to improvise.
If you believe that we were going to lose Hickey for nothing, then the cost to improvise was hopefully, turning that 3rd round pick into a 2nd.
If we double back, I would have loved to sign our above average, but not elite #1 goalie to a 2 year extension.
The parts are different, but the original intention of a year ago is still the same. With minimal assets given up.
Flames acquire Mike Smith (25% retained) for Chad Johnson, Brandon Hickey, & ...
As for the trade, it's fine. Smith was not my first or second choice, but the numbers indicate that he should be an upgrade on Elliott. I am concerned about his age, but quite like the fact that Arizona retained salary, also that the Flames avoided a long term commitment. I also like that Smith is good at moving the puck.
All things considered, there is not a lot to complain about here. Those that are losing their minds are doing so irrationally.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Not really. He's coming off a .917 season. Granted, fewer games, but the problem is that it's not totally obvious that he'd be a worse option, and you could have him at about 1/5th the cost.
But that's just a random name, really, there are half a dozen guys you could sign for less and be in better shape. Hell, sign Bernier then. Would still cost you next to nothing. This is my point, you don't trade for liabilities, and at 4.5 million Mike Smith is a liability.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Flames acquire Mike Smith (25% retained) for Chad Johnson, Brandon Hickey, & ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Not really. He's coming off a .917 season. Granted, fewer games, but the problem is that it's not totally obvious that he'd be a worse option, and you could have him at about 1/5th the cost.
But that's just a random name, really, there are half a dozen guys you could sign for less and be in better shape. Hell, sign Bernier then. Would still cost you next to nothing. This is my point, you don't trade for liabilities, and at 4.5 million Mike Smith is a liability.
I think you are wrong about pretty much everything.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
After some reflection and reading through the reactions on various websites I am okay with this trade. Smith was not my first choice in the list from the poll. I had him at 8 or 9. But I can deal with it.
Here is some of my thinking.
1 Maybe this is not over. What the Flames have now is a goalie they will protect in the Expansion draft. No one believed it would be McCollum. This summer goalies are in play more than they ever have been. There are still possibilities that someone else opens camp as our probable starter.
I don't think McCollum was signed to be protected, he was signed because he met the criteria to be exposed....
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sleepingmoose For This Useful Post:
Pretty meh on this trade. Never been a huge fan of Smith's. Can play the puck, but gets burned a few times per season. Bit of a hot-head, tends to get rattled, diver. Numbers are decent on a lousy team, but he's getting older. Can definitely see him having a good season next year, but I wouldn't put money on it.
At least he's been a legit #1 in the past, unlike Elliott. Fingers crossed he can keep it up. Roll the dice on a young backup or roll the dice on an aging #1... Flames desperately need to develop their first legit goalie since MIKE FRICKIN' VERNON.
I would have preferred to overpay for someone like... I dunno, Schneider? Raanta? It'll be interesting to see the price tags for the other available goalies.
Not really. He's coming off a .917 season. Granted, fewer games, but the problem is that it's not totally obvious that he'd be a worse option, and you could have him at about 1/5th the cost.
But that's just a random name, really, there are half a dozen guys you could sign for less and be in better shape. Hell, sign Bernier then. Would still cost you next to nothing. This is my point, you don't trade for liabilities, and at 4.5 million Mike Smith is a liability.
Mike Smith's career GAA and save % are barely worse than Craig Anderson's. Smith plays for a Terrible team. If he played on a good team, he'd have much better numbers. The one year the Coyotes were good, he was unbeatable.
This is going to be fine. Oiler fans probably weren't unanimously thrilled when they got Roloson. Old, crazy goalies seem to have success.
