[Trade] Oilers trade Smid and Olivier Roy to Flames for Horak and Brossoit

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by moon

Except the deal was talked about 3 weeks before the discussions with Brygalov had started and indications from Edmonton media are that MacTavish had talked about moving Smid since the start of the season since he wanted a more mobile, puck moving defense group.

The Bryzgalov aspect and salary cap concerns seem to not have been an issue at all. There are a lot other guys that make sense to move for cap issues that if is their concern.

I'm not sure it was originally meant for salary concerns on Bryz, but they were aweful close to the cap and so were other teams. My bet is that they wanted to take the least amount of salary back so they could make trades in the future without having to go $ for $.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by moon

It has nothing to do with being disagreeable at all and everything to do with Feaster himself saying they have been discussing Smid for 3 weeks now. I guess it is possible that for 3 weeks MacTavish has been negotiating with Bryzgalov and it took that long for him to work out a deal with a goalie with zero other options and on a deal that is worth 1.75 million but that seems unlikely.

Here is a Dan Tencer said on the trade:
Moving on to the Ladislav Smid trade, I think Craig MacTavish identified this as a contract he was likely to move as soon as he took the job. MacTavish is definite in his desire to build a blue-line with more puck movers and I’m not sure he saw Smid as a Top 4 defenseman over the course of the 4 year deal that he signed. When the opportunity came about to sign Andrew Ference for the same term, I think it sealed this fate.

Tencer is an idiot but he is connected with the Oilers being one of their media spokemen.

Most "reputable" media sources connected the dots because they saw the two moves happening at the same time and thought Bryzgalov was getting paid more than he got, but looking at the timeline Feaster outlined and the statements by Tencer it sure looks like the Bryzgalov contract was a very small part of moving Smid and likely just a timing coincidence with a guy they were looking to move bryzgalov or not.

Again, you're wrong. And at a very simple and base level the very phrase "pending the competition of the EDM-CGY trade" indicates that the signing does not happen unless the trade is complete.

It's simple stuff man. Not saying they hadn't chatted before, but no evidence you have presented suggests it had nothing to do with cap issues or Bryzgalov.

Even Feaster said talks had pretty much shut down until recently.... until.... what's that? Oh yeah, Edmonton wanted to sign Bryz.

The signing of Bryz was dependant on the trading of Smid.

[kyuss275]

I have not gone through every post, but has it been talked about that this is the 2nd move the flames have made this season with a player with Burke connection's?

I wonder if it's just coincidence, or if Burke is pulling more strings than originally said?

[moon]

Originally Posted by strombad

Again, you're wrong. And at a very simple and base level the very phrase "pending the competition of the EDM-CGY trade" indicates that the signing does not happen unless the trade is complete.

It's simple stuff man. Not saying they hadn't chatted before, but no evidence you have presented suggests it had nothing to do with cap issues or Bryzgalov.

Even Feaster said talks had pretty much shut down until recently.... until.... what's that? Oh yeah, Edmonton wanted to sign Bryz.

The signing of Bryz was dependant on the trading of Smid.

The signing of Bryz may be waiting for the trading of Smid sure, but them trading Smid was not dependent on them signing Bryzgalov which is my point.

They talked about moving Smid before they entered into to talks with Bryzgalov. They, supposedly, identified Smid as a guy they wanted to move. They didn't say we need Bryzgalov who can we get rid of because of salary reasons they already had Smid on the trading block prior to this.

Smid wasn't moved because they liked him as a player and needed to dump salary he was moved because they identified him as a guy they saw as expendable and now made sense to pull the trigger on that move.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by moon

I disagree he is very poor at moving the puck or playing it in general but since it was supposedly MacT that made the assessment it doesn't really matter what you or I think because MacTavish thought he wasn't good enough and was the one who moved him.

Well anyone can say that MacT supposedly made that assessment. I didn't see/hear anything to that effect. A source would be helpful - otherwise it looks like random speculation to me. Like I said I might have missed it but I don't recall anything of that sort. Also -thinking that a player isn't good enough isn't the only reason to trade him. Given that MacT's team is dead last in the Western Conference, you probably shouldn't put a lot of weight on his assessments either.

[moon]

Originally Posted by GettinIggyWithIt

Well anyone can say that MacT supposedly made that assessment. I didn't see/hear anything to that effect. A source would be helpful - otherwise it looks like random speculation to me. Like I said I might have missed it but I don't recall anything of that sort. Also -thinking that a player isn't good enough isn't the only reason to trade him. Given that MacT's team is dead last in the Western Conference, you probably shouldn't put a lot of weight on his assessments either.

Dan Tencer as I said in my post above.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...monton-oilers/

As I said not definitive as it isn't a quote from MacTavish (although no GM is going to say we identified player X as a guy we are going to trade) but Tencer is an Oiler shill and pretty in tune with what is going on with the team. I wouldn't trust him to accurately analyze anything hockey related but would believe the news he provides about the Oilers.

[sureLoss]

MacT had a press conference in June stating that Horcoff and Hemsky were the ones he identified he needed to move:

"Sometimes change is good for both the organization and the player, but at the same time they're valuable players and we're not in a position where we're able to move them without getting something substantial in return...I have a lot of allegiance and a lot of loyalty to 'Horc' and to Ales. I have a lot of respect for both those players. But from both those perspectives, I think the ideal scenario would be to move them on and wish them the best in their next destination."

Had to hold a press conference to mend bridges with Hemsky when he could find no takers.

[ramizle]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I have not gone through every post, but has it been talked about that this is the 2nd move the flames have made this season with a player with Burke connection's?

I wonder if it's just coincidence, or if Burke is pulling more strings than originally said?

I personally think that he is doing just that and that simply means that he's doing his job. He's not paid to twiddle his thumbs.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ramizle

I personally think that he is doing just that and that simply means that he's doing his job. He's not paid to twiddle his thumbs.

He is the president of hockey operations, after all. This is different than him actually negotiating the deals themselves, but I have no doubt that he is heavily involved in identifying and targeting players from other teams for the Flames to pursue in trades.

[moon]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I have not gone through every post, but has it been talked about that this is the 2nd move the flames have made this season with a player with Burke connection's?

I wonder if it's just coincidence, or if Burke is pulling more strings than originally said?

Isn't his connection that he came in and traded him away after about 1 year in the job?

Now he got Pronger back so understandable why he dealt him but it doesn't seem like a guy he identified, drafted/traded for and then integrated into his team.

Seems more like coincidence than a guy Burke would have identified as a guy the Flames should get.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by moon

The signing of Bryz may be waiting for the trading of Smid sure, but them trading Smid was not dependent on them signing Bryzgalov which is my point.

Sure, but that's not the same as:

Originally Posted by moon

The Bryzgalov aspect and salary cap concerns seem to not have been an issue at all.

The two are absolutely connected. The trade may very well have happened without Bryz being in the picture, but that you you simply guessing based on prior conversations which don't indicate the same thing you seem to think.

Yes, they talked about Smid, yes there was an offer on the table. From both accounts, it was put to rest days and days ago and the Flames said "call me if things change." This should indicate that the Oilers were NOT willing to part with Smid, at very least for that price, until it became apparent with the entry of Bryz, that they needed the cap space.

Yes, they may have identified Smid as a moveable asset, but they did not move him until Bryz was in the picture and they required the space to sign Bryz, thus, the two are very directly connected. Smid moving WAS dependant on Bryz. MIGHT they have moved him at some point anyways? Yeah, maybe, you can guess all you want, but fact is he was moved in large part because they wanted to sign Bryz, and there is absolutely zero evidence to refute that.

Move on.

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by moon

Dan Tencer as I said in my post above.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...monton-oilers/

As I said not definitive as it isn't a quote from MacTavish (although no GM is going to say we identified player X as a guy we are going to trade) but Tencer is an Oiler shill and pretty in tune with what is going on with the team. I wouldn't trust him to accurately analyze anything hockey related but would believe the news he provides about the Oilers.

I was reading your response to my question so I didn't look at the reference to Dan Tencer from another response. This just confirms my assumption that this is based on pure speculation. I think "not definitive" is being way too kind.

Also, in reference to the bold, please read SureLoss' post - MacT basically did that when he spoke about Hemsky and Horcoff earlier in the year.

[moon]

Originally Posted by GettinIggyWithIt

I was reading your response to my question so I didn't look at the reference to Dan Tencer from another response. This just confirms my assumption that this is based on pure speculation. I think "not definitive" is being way too kind.

Also, in reference to the bold, please read SureLoss' post - MacT basically did that when he spoke about Hemsky and Horcoff earlier in the year.

I read that quote and it tells us about zero on the Smid situation.

I think that the Feaster comments about them talking for 3 weeks prior to the deal and the Tencer comments indicate that the Smid trade was about Smid as a player and not them dumping him for salary concerns (especially since they didn't really have any) but if people think it was a salary dump that didn't have to do with Smid as a player they are free to think that.

[moon]

Originally Posted by strombad

there is absolutely zero evidence to refute that.

Move on.

There is zero evidence to support it either. They could sign Bryzgalov without moving Smid.

Not really a big deal but people have to make it one for some reason. I think Smid is traded from the Oilers whether they sign Bryzgalov or not. Not really a big deal and doesn't change anything.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by moon

There is zero evidence to support it either. They could sign Bryzgalov without moving Smid.

Not really a big deal but people have to make it one for some reason. I think Smid is traded from the Oilers whether they sign Bryzgalov or not. Not really a big deal and doesn't change anything.

I agree with you as well. I think Smid is dealt either or. Which boggles the mind when you listen to Mctavish after the fact describing Smid as a player that embodied their philosophy as a team going forward. Mind bottling stuff really.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by moon

There is zero evidence to support it either. They could sign Bryzgalov without moving Smid.

Not really a big deal but people have to make it one for some reason. I think Smid is traded from the Oilers whether they sign Bryzgalov or not. Not really a big deal and doesn't change anything.

Maybe, but he wasn't. He was traded in direct conjunction with the Bryzgalov signing, and the deal that had Smid moving was not carried out until Bryz was in the picture.

So again, it's ok to be a bit wrong, just let it go.

[Ring of Fire]

Originally Posted by moon

Isn't his connection that he came in and traded him away after about 1 year in the job?

Now he got Pronger back so understandable why he dealt him but it doesn't seem like a guy he identified, drafted/traded for and then integrated into his team.

Seems more like coincidence than a guy Burke would have identified as a guy the Flames should get.

Disagree. Burke was quite high on Smid making the Ducks knowing he would be a good NHL defenceman but had to give up Smid and Lupul + to get Pronger. Toronto reacquired Lupul so it's not as if he didn't like the players he traded. The Pronger trade was a case of giving up value to get value. Smid is a big defenceman and if Burke didn't like Smid you can bet they would not be making this trade.

[moon]

Originally Posted by strombad

So again, it's ok to be a bit wrong, just let it go.

LOL

Of course disagreeing with you means someone is wrong.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I have not gone through every post, but has it been talked about that this is the 2nd move the flames have made this season with a player with Burke connection's?

I wonder if it's just coincidence, or if Burke is pulling more strings than originally said?

Burke said all along that Feaster will act with his guidance. It's Feaster's job to find out who might be available and tell Burke about it. Burke has full authority to tell Feaster to negotiate a trade for Smid.

Originally Posted by moon

Isn't his connection that he came in and traded him away after about 1 year in the job?

Now he got Pronger back so understandable why he dealt him but it doesn't seem like a guy he identified, drafted/traded for and then integrated into his team.

Seems more like coincidence than a guy Burke would have identified as a guy the Flames should get.

Considering that Burke traded Lupul in the same deal and apparently targeted him when he was a Flyer and ended up trading for him years later, the fact that Burke traded Smid in a deal for Pronger does not preclude Smid from being a guy Burke identified and targeted.

Originally Posted by moon

I think that the Feaster comments about them talking for 3 weeks prior to the deal and the Tencer comments indicate that the Smid trade was about Smid as a player and not them dumping him for salary concerns (especially since they didn't really have any) but if people think it was a salary dump that didn't have to do with Smid as a player they are free to think that.

It's a bit of both. Tencer suggests that MacT identified Smid as a guy who wasn't going to fit in as part of the team's top 4 defense going forward and wanted to dump his salary. It's like Tallon trading David Booth a few years back. It's both about Booth the player and the trade being a salary dump.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

I wonder if it's just coincidence, or if Burke is pulling more strings than originally said?

It's a coincidence. Burke has been working in the NHL since 1987 at this point he's probably to the NHL what Kevin Bacon is to Hollywood. Let's be honest here everybody and their mother thought the Flames should put in an offer for Joe Colborne and Smid's link to Burke is mild at best.