Mike Smith's... woes? He blows? Eating crows? Who knows! (Also David Rittich exists!)

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

If we blow a 6 point division lead it won’t be because of Mike Smith.

Thats not necessarily accurate. It might not be exclusively down to him but a slight injury to Rittich that keeps him down for a few games at a crucial moment in the schedule and it could be a more significant issue.

As Flames fans we of all people should be more than aware of the tenuous and fleeting nature of divisional leads and should do everything possible to protect them.

We've mostly exhausted the number of games we play against Arizona, eventually we're going to need a backup goalie that can win against another team.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

Why not? Would Smith refuse? I suppose if that happens they can call security.

I don't know why not, but these are the sorts of things that almost never happen in the NHL, and I suspect there are reasons for that that go beyond what the rules allow.

If this is about hurt feelings we've got to be beyond that.

According to whom? I wouldn't characterize the concern about "hurt feelings"—to me it is more about Smith's role in the room, his relationship with his team mates—and especially with Rittich. Like Jiri pointed out, there is a legitimate concern about what is being communicated.

For the entire season, including playoffs? Thankfully the Flames seem to have higher expectations than that.

At what cost, though? I think the Flames certainly have lofty expectations—and rightfully so, but I also would not expect them to expend themselves to do so. Like I said, they are in an excellent position to win the West and almost certain to win the Division.

[Northendzone]

this issue has to be keeping the flames management team up at night.

it would be interesting to know what the flames players really think of smith. trading a skater off the roster for a goalie position is fraught with issues as i think you don't want to disrupt team chemistry.

if the flames make a trade you don't want to overpay, but then if they need some starts from a new goalie and he plays well, then you likely did not overpay, but most GM's are likely going to try and extract a lot from the flames to address a problem area

yikes......

[Fuzz]

Crazy, he is actually improving...maybe by playoffs he'll be a #1 again...That's how this works, right? Trendlines!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats not necessarily accurate. It might not be exclusively down to him but a slight injury to Rittich that keeps him down for a few games at a crucial moment in the schedule and it could be a more significant issue...

Have you looked at the goaltending situation in both SJ and Vegas? It is no better than what Calgary is dealing with.

[nik-]

That doesn't negate what a stretch of Smith games would likely do to our playoff seeding though.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

When you say push hard - what are you willing to give up?

That's a very good question, and one I was hoping no one would ask.

For me, it comes down to whether or not you believe replacing Smith with "a Bobrovsky" gives us a real shot at winning a Cup. I believe this to be the case, and therefore I'm willing to give up more than others might.

In terms of current roster players that I wouldn't be adverse to trading for "a real shot at winning a Cup," I would say:

- Jankowski (this hurts)
- Hathaway (also hurts, but less)

In terms of draft picks, I have no concerns about trading picks. I believe our picks aren't going to be very valuable over the next few years, and I personally subscribe to the idea of keeping picks while you suck, and they're high enough to help, but trading them when you don't suck and they can help you get over a specific hump.

In terms of prospects, I would say:

- A lot of them. Pretty much just "not Valimaki."

[theslymonkey]

What i think people aren't considering enough is how he is perceived in the room. None of us have any clue how the team actually views him or how they would react to him being shoved out of there. If he is looked upon as a leader/father-figure then the worst thing to do would be to push him out.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

That's a very good question, and one I was hoping no one would ask.

For me, it comes down to whether or not you believe replacing Smith with "a Bobrovsky" gives us a real shot at winning a Cup. I believe this to be the case, and therefore I'm willing to give up more than others might.

In terms of current roster players that I wouldn't be adverse to trading for "a real shot at winning a Cup," I would say:

- Jankowski (this hurts)
- Hathaway (also hurts, but less)

In terms of draft picks, I have no concerns about trading picks. I believe our picks aren't going to be very valuable over the next few years, and I personally subscribe to the idea of keeping picks while you suck, and they're high enough to help, but trading them when you don't suck and they can help you get over a specific hump.

In terms of prospects, I would say:

- A lot of them. Pretty much just "not Valimaki."

Thanks. So would you do Janko+1st?
Edit: I do worry about Bob being a distraction. I think he wants to be a #1 and won't take a back-up role
My backup targets would be more like Howard, Talbot (hard b/c of the Edmonton factor), Anderson maybe.
Interesting that in TSN's current trade board there are only 3 goalies in the 50 - Bob, Howard and Talbot.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

What i think people aren't considering enough is how he is perceived in the room. None of us have any clue how the team actually views him or how they would react to him being shoved out of there. If he is looked upon as a leader/father-figure then the worst thing to do would be to push him out.

I think it's just as likely he's looked at as the guy that puts them in a hole with a soft goal or two in the majority of games he starts.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

That's a very good question, and one I was hoping no one would ask.

For me, it comes down to whether or not you believe replacing Smith with "a Bobrovsky" gives us a real shot at winning a Cup. I believe this to be the case, and therefore I'm willing to give up more than others might.

In terms of current roster players that I wouldn't be adverse to trading for "a real shot at winning a Cup," I would say:

- Jankowski (this hurts)
- Hathaway (also hurts, but less)

In terms of draft picks, I have no concerns about trading picks. I believe our picks aren't going to be very valuable over the next few years, and I personally subscribe to the idea of keeping picks while you suck, and they're high enough to help, but trading them when you don't suck and they can help you get over a specific hump.

In terms of prospects, I would say:

- A lot of them. Pretty much just "not Valimaki."

And we are confident that Bob is better than BSD?

I don't think he is. So we give up all that for a guy who won't play in the playoffs, barring injury?

No thanks

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think it's just as likely he's looked at as the guy that puts them in a hole with a soft goal or two in the majority of games he starts.

Yeah, the "we need to be better" starts to wear thin when the team is putting up 4 goals/game and he can't stop a beach ball.

[transplant99]

So now we are giving up the necessary assets to get Bobrovsky so he can be..... a backup?

What?

And no.....low picks, Jankowski and Hathaway are not going to get him out of Colombus who is also in a playoff spot. Why would they part with their starting G for that?

[Robbob]

The way I see it is, what would you rather have Treliving spend assets on? A lateral backup goalie will probably cost similar to a depth D or F. A significant improvement at that position would probably cost a substantially more (good picks and prospects) where those same assets would probably fetch a player that could improve the starting roster.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think it's just as likely he's looked at as the guy that puts them in a hole with a soft goal or two in the majority of games he starts.

That very well may be. But if the team looks to Smith and Neal as the Leaders/Vets and they get shoved out for a rental, would they be pissed? Would the room change? The grease have done that for years now and they continue to flounder because the are aweful, but they lack leadership (if you take what Ference's word for it).

As a Yankees fan I have seen this sentiment with CC and Gardner. They were signed again because of what they bring to the room, even though they may be less productive than other options on the market. I would fear that taking the Vets out of the Flames room and leaving it a team basically made up of kids, would hurt the current makeup of the team.

Maybe I'm way off, but I just don't see anyone complaining of Smith or even alluding to it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

He hasn't been better lately. The insanity needs to stop.


Other teams backups at least give them a fighting chance. Smith requires four goals a game to win. This laissez-faire attitude towards an important position among some of you in confusing.

Calgary will be a team that rides Rittich in the post season but you need a strong capable back-up. Last season the Capitals didn't start the playoffs with Holtby. The Penguins switched Fleury and Murray two years ago, rode Murray mostly the year before. Scott Darling got five starts for the Hawks in 2015.

The contenders this year are not in much, if any better shape than Calgary in net. Ignoring Subban's 9 shot 20 minute shutout in relief, he's sub-.900. Aaron Dell has a sparkling .891 save%. His last full game he lost badly against the same AZ team that Smith beat. I don't think Domingue is that good either. Broissoit has decent stats but only 13 starts. I doubt the Jets would be very comfortable with him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nik-

That doesn't negate what a stretch of Smith games would likely do to our playoff seeding though.

Here is the thing, though:

Mike Smith's best stretch of the season occurred between 23 November to 8 December. He started five games, and won 6. It happened at a time when Rittich was struggling:

David Rittich 4 GP 4 GS 0W 2L 1 OTL 0.900SP 3.05 GAA
Mike Smith 6 GP 5 GS 6W 0 L 0 OTL 0.936SP 1.59 GAA

It makes me wonder about how much the pressure and responsibility of the situation contributed to Mike Smith's performance. I am not confident, but I am also not ready to write him off down the stretch or even in the playoffs. The playoffs are an entirely different type of game where pressure matters a lot, and players will often come through with surprising performances. Who knows? Maybe being "the guy" is a part of what makes Smith perform better. He came through when the team needed him the most earlier this season. Why couldn't he do it again?

Yeah, we are all cherry-picking numbers in this discussion to make some dramatically different points; but doesn't that just go to show that playing and succeeding or failing in the position is a hell of a lot more than just stopping pucks?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

That very well may be. But if the team looks to Smith and Neal as the Leaders/Vets and they get shoved out for a rental, would they be pissed? Would the room change? The grease have done that for years now and they continue to flounder because the are aweful, but they lack leadership (if you take what Ference's word for it).

As a Yankees fan I have seen this sentiment with CC and Gardner. They were signed again because of what they bring to the room, even though they may be less productive than other options on the market. I would fear that taking the Vets out of the Flames room and leaving it a team basically made up of kids, would hurt the current makeup of the team.

Maybe I'm way off, but I just don't see anyone complaining of Smith or even alluding to it.

Oh Jesus, here we go. The team doesn't need Mike Smith to be a leader. Now you're lumping Neal in too for what reason? If he's in the room pumping up the guys, that's great. I bet they'd be fine if he wasn't saying much and could make a save.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Here is the thing, though:

Mike Smith's best stretch of the season occurred between 23 November to 8 December. He started five games, and won 6. It happened at a time when Rittich was struggling:

David Rittich 4 GP 4 GS 0W 2L 1 OTL 0.900SP 3.05 GAA
Mike Smith 6 GP 5 GS 6W 0 L 0 OTL 0.936SP 1.59 GAA

It makes me wonder about how much the pressure and responsibility of the situation contributed to Mike Smith's performance. I am not confident, but I am also not ready to write him off down the stretch more even in the playoffs. The playoffs are an entirely different type of game where pressure matters a lot, and players will often come through with surprising performances. Who knows? Maybe being "the guy" is a part of what makes Smith perform better. He came through when the team needed him the most earlier this season. Why couldn't he do it again?

Yeah, we are all cherry-picking numbers in this discussion to make some dramatically different points; but doesn't that just go to show that playing and succeeding or failing in the position is a hell of a lot more than just stopping pucks?

You don't think playing to keep your job as a starting NHL goaltender is pressure? He sure wilted under that. I'm not willing to experiment on him rising to the occasion in playoff games, and I bet Treliving isn't either.

The goaltending as a whole is a scary scary issue this season. Rittich is doing fine, but he's still unproven. The entire tandem could sink us at any point really.

[EldrickOnIce]

My idea of trying to fix it would be something like a 5th in 2020 for Talbot, not Jankowski and 1st for Bob