Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Ivrnet

View Poll Results: Trade verdict?
Good 164 50.31%
Bad 44 13.50%
Indifferent 118 36.20%
Voters: 326. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-17-2017, 05:01 PM   #21
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson View Post
Cost to acquire was probably the conditional pick.

Cost to retain salary was probably Hickey
This is what I don't understand. The Flames aren't cap strapped, so why ask a poor team to retain and pay the necessary premium. For two seasons of a measly 1.2 million in savings? Just buy out Stajan and keep a good asset.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 05:05 PM   #22
Karl
Franchise Player
 
Karl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
This is what I don't understand. The Flames aren't cap strapped, so why ask a poor team to retain and pay the necessary premium. For two seasons of a measly 1.2 million in savings? Just buy out Stajan and keep a good asset.
Yo. Wait until after the expansion draft if you wanna go that route. There'll still be 10 more days after the Vegas thing to buyout Stajan or whoever.
Karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 05:08 PM   #23
Jason14h
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

The flames are capped strapped though .... Or will be if they want to improve the team
Jason14h is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 05:10 PM   #24
Roof-Daddy
Franchise Player
 
Roof-Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h View Post
The flames are capped strapped though .... Or will be if they want to improve the team
Flames are not cap strapped.
Roof-Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 05:31 PM   #25
Fire
Franchise Player
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post

If Treliving doesn't fire Sigalet, and after the season we summarize that Smith didn't work out as planned, then I think Treliving should answer the bell.
Only a fool would blame a possible bad season by Smith on Sigalet. You think he's going to try to change how he plays?
__________________

Fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 05:53 PM   #26
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
Only a fool would blame a possible bad season by Smith on Sigalet. You think he's going to try to change how he plays?
Sigalet is the evil suck demon of goalie coaches. All he has to do is show up for training camp, and every goalie on the team turns into toxic waste. It doesn't matter if he works with them or not. Just being in the same room is enough to trigger it.

Why, I was an NHL goalie myself once. (Bona-fide starter for the Banff Fighting Squirrels!) Then I saw Jordan Sigalet's reflection in a funhouse mirror, and poof! I turned into a newt.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2017, 06:54 PM   #27
Strange Brew
First Line Centre
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
This is what I don't understand. The Flames aren't cap strapped, so why ask a poor team to retain and pay the necessary premium. For two seasons of a measly 1.2 million in savings? Just buy out Stajan and keep a good asset.
19 minute interview with Treliving and they didn't think to ask him that question. Irritating.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:05 PM   #28
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
This is what I don't understand. The Flames aren't cap strapped, so why ask a poor team to retain and pay the necessary premium. For two seasons of a measly 1.2 million in savings? Just buy out Stajan and keep a good asset.
Maybe they have information that Vegas plans to take Stajan, in which case his cap hit disappears entirely.

Maybe they don't want to purchase cap savings now at the expense of a cap hit extending further into the future.

Maybe Arizona wanted to retain salary to help them stay above the floor during what looks rather like a scorched-earth rebuild. Or at least they did not mind doing so.

And maybe, just maybe, killer_carlson is wrong, and the Flames could not have got Smith straight up (no salary retained) for the draft pick alone.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:12 PM   #29
Flames Draft Watcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
This is what I don't understand. The Flames aren't cap strapped, so why ask a poor team to retain and pay the necessary premium. For two seasons of a measly 1.2 million in savings? Just buy out Stajan and keep a good asset.
The Flames have cap issues just like most teams. Treliving is limited by the cap and therefore the amount he spends on goaltending subtracts from the amount he can spend on forwards/defensemen. Getting goaltending at a cheaper rate allows him to spend elsewhere. Pretty elementary. That 1.2 million is not insignificant.

Buying out Stajan saves us pretty much nothing on the cap, I'm confused as to why you'd suggest that. Suggests to me that you don't really understand the implications of the salary cap. The Flames have a 23 man roster. If you buyout Stajan's 3.5 million his cap hit is 1.8 million next season (as per https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout_c...or/matt-stajan) but you still have to ice the same amount of people on your roster. Guess what the average NHL salary is? A lot more than the difference between 3.5 million and 1.8 million. You'd have to pay Stajan not to play for you while also paying a player to replace him. Unless the player was making league minimum you're not really saving anything.

I doubt the salary retained equated to half the value of the trade as killer carlson suggest. I think it more likely that the trade could have been Smith (full salary) for Hickey + conditional 3rd/4th and that saving the 1.2 million merely cost us a move down of a round in the draft into a 2nd/3rd. But obviously merely speculation on my part.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2017, 07:28 PM   #30
gvitaly
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Exp:
Default

Its a bad deal. The assets involved in this trade are low risk, especially if the Hickey rumours are true; however, Smith comes with too many question marks for my liking. Even if Smith's play doesn't drop off a cliff due to age, the Flames will have the worst goaltending out of any team they will meet in the playoffs.

If the goal is just make the playoffs it is all well and good, but then we could've just went with a goalie like Elliott. The way I see it we spent future assets and didn't address that glaring weakness(yet).
__________________

gvitaly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:36 PM   #31
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
The Flames have cap issues just like most teams. Treliving is limited by the cap and therefore the amount he spends on goaltending subtracts from the amount he can spend on forwards/defensemen. Getting goaltending at a cheaper rate allows him to spend elsewhere. Pretty elementary. That 1.2 million is not insignificant.

Buying out Stajan saves us pretty much nothing on the cap, I'm confused as to why you'd suggest that. Suggests to me that you don't really understand the implications of the salary cap. The Flames have a 23 man roster. If you buyout Stajan's 3.5 million his cap hit is 1.8 million next season (as per https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout_c...or/matt-stajan) but you still have to ice the same amount of people on your roster. Guess what the average NHL salary is? A lot more than the difference between 3.5 million and 1.8 million. You'd have to pay Stajan not to play for you while also paying a player to replace him. Unless the player was making league minimum you're not really saving anything.

I doubt the salary retained equated to half the value of the trade as killer carlson suggest. I think it more likely that the trade could have been Smith (full salary) for Hickey + conditional 3rd/4th and that saving the 1.2 million merely cost us a move down of a round in the draft into a 2nd/3rd. But obviously merely speculation on my part.
Jankowski would not cost 1.8 million and would be better than Stajan. The fact that you think the Flames need to replace Stajan with a 1.8 million dollar player suggests to me you don't know what the current minimum salary is.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:39 PM   #32
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random View Post
Maybe they have information that Vegas plans to take Stajan, in which case his cap hit disappears entirely.

Maybe they don't want to purchase cap savings now at the expense of a cap hit extending further into the future.

Maybe Arizona wanted to retain salary to help them stay above the floor during what looks rather like a scorched-earth rebuild. Or at least they did not mind doing so.

And maybe, just maybe, killer_carlson is wrong, and the Flames could not have got Smith straight up (no salary retained) for the draft pick alone.
Yeah and maybe they have information on the next nuclear holocaust? I mean, since we're tossing out outlandish hypotheticals.

Vegas would take a number of players before they take Stajan.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 07:41 PM   #33
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Yeah and maybe they have information on the next nuclear holocaust? I mean, since we're tossing out outlandish hypotheticals.
Teams have had months to work out deals with Vegas over the expansion draft. The only thing outlandish here is your flat denial of the possibility that Treliving has some information.

Quote:
Vegas would take a number of players before they take Stajan.
Such as? Set 'em up, I'll shoot 'em down.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 08:42 PM   #34
Flames Fan, Ph.D.
First Line Centre
 
Flames Fan, Ph.D.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Underground
Exp:
Default

I ask only two things of Smith:

1) Please don't give up goals from shots along the goal line at the half-wall.

2) Don't let a soft wrister float by your recently closed glove hand (which you're intently staring at).

If you can reasonably achieve 1 and 2 above, we'll be fine.
Flames Fan, Ph.D. is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2017, 08:51 PM   #35
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kingston
Exp:
Default

I picked "bad", but only because I think there were better options. What we gave up is pretty inconsequential IMO. It is like the Elliott trade. The price was low, but also a reminder that you often get what you pay for.


Kind of OT, but I wonder if Treliving might look for a "Joey MacDonald" type of back-up. One that has NHL experience, but could also pass through waivers so that guys like Rittich and Gillies can rotate in and out of the line-up to get some experience.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 09:21 PM   #36
CSharp
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

I voted indifferent because looking back, the Flames had capable goalies. It's just that the Flames are just horrific in how they start and end the seasons. I'll have to see if the Flames actually ruin Smith as well. I still believe that if the Flames are built properly and if the plays are in the opposition zones 80-90% of the time, they won't have a goalie problem. With Smith being 35 years old, this is truly another stop gap in an attempt to find a way to get into the playoffs for one or two rounds only. You don't go to any finals with only a good goalie to support the whole team. You know that's BS, right?
CSharp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 11:02 PM   #37
Jay Random
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSharp View Post
You don't go to any finals with only a good goalie to support the whole team. You know that's BS, right?
How unfortunate that the Flames have such a horrible roster, and need their goalie to support the whole team. Amirite?
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Jay Random is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 07:34 AM   #38
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Great article - sums things up very well. I wish I had read it before I made my last (very similar but nowhere near as thorough or as good) post in the trade thread!

One really good point was with respect to the risk of signing a Raanta or Grubrauer type. After acquiring Hiller and that falling off a cliff, and then acquiring Elliott and Johnson and even that didn't work, the Flames really couldn't risk signing an unknown (as far as being a starter).

With Smith, they know exactly what they are getting. Not elite goaltending, but solid goaltending for a couple years while they see what they have in Parsons and Gillies.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 08:57 AM   #39
Bingo
Owner
 
Bingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I'd never suggest a blind faith in a GM or in a team, but I honestly trust Treliving to really beat the details to death when he makes a decision. Doesn't mean he makes the right one every time, as no GM does, but I know it's not haphazard or reckless.

I think landing at Smith likely says a few things ...

1) they couldn't get another option (MAF)
2) the cost to acquire other goaltenders was way too high
3) they couldn't be sure an untested goalie would be an upgrade
4) they didn't want the uncertainty of waiting until after the freeze
5) they feel their young stable of goaltenders is solid and will be ready in 2 years
6) they didn't want to make a decision on trading one of those young goaltenders without another season to sort out their order

As a guy that had MAF/Howard/Smith all along, I like where they went with this. If I could keep the 2nd at a 3rd I'd be happier, but I'm glad they shored up the goaltender position without moving Gillies, Andersson, Jankowski, Kylington or their 1st
Bingo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 09:18 AM   #40
edslunch
First Line Centre
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

I'm not a fan of the deal - seems too rich to me, but I think the Flames were ultimately over a barrel. Funny how things turned out when early predictions were for a buyers market on goaltenders.

I'm not worried about Smith - the Flames brass know him very well.
edslunch is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016