[News] Smith: 'Age is just a number

[Itse]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you followed the rumours, he wanted much more from Calgary. 7M+

FYP.

But I'm sure he wanted much more from Dallas too. Has nothing to do with his actual contract.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Itse

FYP.

But I'm sure he wanted much more from Dallas too. Has nothing to do with his actual contract.

It doesn’t really matter what you’re sure of, there was a significant divide between his reported ask from Calgary and the contract he signed in Dallas.

But yeah, bummer, we missed out on paying more for a goalie that had the same SV% as Mike Smith last year. Shucks.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Based on what?

Why would the Flames have been forced a ridiculously higher price than what the actual price ended to be?

Bishop was being shopped around when he went to LA, and the price was something we could have matched.



It was negotiation rights for a trade pick move, no other players involved. What exactly is the trade that didn't happen that stops such a move?



Bishop is signed at $4.95M for 5 years.

You're messing up the timeline.

The Flames were hot after Bishop at the draft but Tampa wanted Calgary's 6th overall pick included. Rumours were all over the place.

His signing expectation in Calgary at the time was 7x7

Later in the year he got hurt, lost the starting job and was moved for way less, but refused to go to Calgary at the time as they were hot after him again. He went to L.A.

In the summer his market value was down and he signed in Dallas.

Pretty much all of that was in the news / rumours of the time.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You're messing up the timeline.

The Flames were hot after Bishop at the draft but Tampa wanted Calgary's 6th overall pick included. Rumours were all over the place.

His signing expectation in Calgary at the time was 7x7

Later in the year he got hurt, lost the starting job and was moved for way less, but refused to go to Calgary at the time as they were hot after him again. He went to L.A.

In the summer his market value was down and he signed in Dallas.

Pretty much all of that was in the news / rumours of the time.

I'm not messing up the timeline. I'm just only talking about 2017, not 2016, which is too far back in hindsight for my liking.

2017 was when first LA bought him from Tampa, and then Dallas bought his rights from LA for a 4th, which is less than what we later paid for Smith later that summer.

And that's just one goalie we absolutely know was available for less than what we paid for. There were a lot of goalies available last season. Smith was neither particularly cheap nor especially good (if not the worst either), and now we're (at least rumoured) to be again considering spending assets for another goalie, because Smith is getting up there in age. Which is of course the one thing was absolutely certain to happen.

While Bishop is signed to a very reasonable contract. Which is not a surprise considering when Dallas bought his rights.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But yeah, bummer, we missed out on paying more for a goalie that had the same SV% as Mike Smith last year. Shucks.

Smith is five years older. The only reason to pay more for a significantly older goalie is if that goalie is better. He's not. That makes Smith clearly the worse choice.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm not messing up the timeline. I'm just only talking about 2017, not 2016, which is too far back in hindsight for my liking.

2017 was when first LA bought him from Tampa, and then Dallas bought his rights from LA for a 4th, which is less than what we later paid for Smith later that summer.

And that's just one goalie we absolutely know was available for less than what we paid for. There were a lot of goalies available last season. Smith was neither particularly cheap nor especially good (if not the worst either), and now we're (at least rumoured) to be again considering spending assets for another goalie, because Smith is getting up there in age. Which is of course the one thing was absolutely certain to happen.

While Bishop is signed to a very reasonable contract. Which is not a surprise.

I suspect the Flames passed on Bishop in 2017 precisely because they were unsure that they could sign him as a UFA. Bishop has a history and roots in Texas, and it was widely believed that that is where he wanted to be. Under those conditions I don't see any good reason why the Flames should have forfeited assets to acquire the rights of a player with whom they most likely could not come to terms.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Yeah I don't think we can assume because that's what Dallas signed him for that Calgary could sign him for the same or for the matter at all.
What we do know is that BT seems to be in on every goalie that has come available. For all we know he inquired and was told Bishop had zero interest in signing here.

[Poe969]

There no use talking about what could have happened, maybe none of the goalies available wanted to come to the Flames.

Who should the Flames target now and what would it cost?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yeah I don't think we can assume because that's what Dallas signed him for that Calgary could sign him for the same or for the matter at all.
What we do know is that BT seems to be in on every goalie that has come available. For all we know he inquired and was told Bishop had zero interest in signing here.

"Being in on" someone is literally an Oilers go-to defense. It's worthless.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm not messing up the timeline. I'm just only talking about 2017, not 2016, which is too far back in hindsight for my liking.

2017 was when first LA bought him from Tampa, and then Dallas bought his rights from LA for a 4th, which is less than what we later paid for Smith later that summer.

And that's just one goalie we absolutely know was available for less than what we paid for. There were a lot of goalies available last season. Smith was neither particularly cheap nor especially good (if not the worst either), and now we're (at least rumoured) to be again considering spending assets for another goalie, because Smith is getting up there in age. Which is of course the one thing was absolutely certain to happen.

While Bishop is signed to a very reasonable contract. Which is not a surprise considering when Dallas bought his rights.



Smith is five years older. The only reason to pay more for a significantly older goalie is if that goalie is better. He's not. That makes Smith clearly the worse choice.

Smith played more games than Bishop last year, and had the same save %. 2.65 vs 2.49 GAA. A big bag of who cares on that front.

Smith makes less than Bishop, and he is a UFA at the end of the year.

It's hard to say he's clearly the worse choice - he's arguably done more with less in his career than Bishop has.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Itse

Smith is five years older. The only reason to pay more for a significantly older goalie is if that goalie is better. He's not.

Good thing we’re not paying more for an older goalie, then. Thanks Arizona!

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Itse

"Being in on" someone is literally an Oilers go-to defense. It's worthless.

Um ok. So what is your point then. I'm not sure what you are looking for here.
You are bringing up these names like you seem to think that BT should have just gone out and made those same deals.

So my point is he more than likely inquired and the price for either signing or acquiring the player was too high.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Smith played more games than Bishop last year, and had the same save %. 2.65 vs 2.49 GAA. A big bag of who cares on that front.

Smith makes less than Bishop, and he is a UFA at the end of the year.

It's hard to say he's clearly the worse choice - he's arguably done more with less in his career than Bishop has.

He's worse by the standard of "I'm tired of us needing to constantly look for a new goalie".

Of course, all my whining will turn out to be pointless if the situation turns out okay. If Rittich or Gillies takes a step forward or Smith has a great season, it'll be fine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

He's worse by the standard of "I'm tired of us needing to constantly look for a new goalie".



Of course, all my whining will turn out to be pointless if the situation turns out okay. If Rittich or Gillies takes a step forward or Smith has a great season, it'll be fine.

You continue to ignore the crucial point that at the time the Flames were in a position to acquire Bishop in 2016 it would most likely have cost them Matthew Tkachuk—one of their most important players. But moreover, by the time Bishop again came available in 2017 ALL THE EVIDENCE AT HAND suggests that he was virtually unobtainable:
- he rejected the possibility of a trade at the TD
- he signed at a lower-than-expected cap hit in a market in which he has a past history and already established roots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PugnaciousIntern]

Like last year, I'm still concerned about our goaltending situation, but am relatively reassured by three things:

1) Smith performed better than I expected last season, especially pre-injury. I'm not confident (as others have pointed out, age always takes its toll) but he certainly had some game in him as of a few months ago.

2) Rittich and Gilles got some legitimate experience last season. They both demonstrated great potential, and although their numbers didn't stand out, the team collapsed around them during that crucial stint as well. With another year of growth, and after seeing them both hold their own in the NHL, I'm more comfortable that either one of them is a legitimate backup.

3) Treleving has assets and willingness to make necessary moves. Compared with last year, we are deeper in forwards, and arguably defensemen (assuming guys like Andersson are ready). Add on more draft picks than previous years (because he has traded so many already!) and he's got a few liquid assets to play with if an in-season goalie acquisition becomes necessary.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm not messing up the timeline. I'm just only talking about 2017, not 2016, which is too far back in hindsight for my liking.

2017 was when first LA bought him from Tampa, and then Dallas bought his rights from LA for a 4th, which is less than what we later paid for Smith later that summer.

And that's just one goalie we absolutely know was available for less than what we paid for. There were a lot of goalies available last season. Smith was neither particularly cheap nor especially good (if not the worst either), and now we're (at least rumoured) to be again considering spending assets for another goalie, because Smith is getting up there in age. Which is of course the one thing was absolutely certain to happen.

While Bishop is signed to a very reasonable contract. Which is not a surprise considering when Dallas bought his rights.



Smith is five years older. The only reason to pay more for a significantly older goalie is if that goalie is better. He's not. That makes Smith clearly the worse choice.

Well if you're not messing up the timeline you're certainly not giving the past the weighting it needs in this.

Bishop was bitter by reports that the draft trade didn't happen, something about ownership blocking it if I remember.

Because of that he didn't want to come to Calgary at the trade deadline and didn't want to sign in Calgary in the summer when he was a UFA.

So what he signed for in Dallas Calgary would never have had a look at.

[カナダ人です]

Pi's just a number

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by カナダ人です

Pi's just a number

Now you're just being irrational.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Now you're just being irrational.

If we don't stop these puns they could keep repeating forever...

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You continue to ignore the crucial point that at the time the Flames were in a position to acquire Bishop in 2016 it would most likely have cost them Matthew Tkachuk—one of their most important players. But moreover, by the time Bishop again came available in 2017 ALL THE EVIDENCE AT HAND suggests that he was virtually unobtainable:
- he rejected the possibility of a trade at the TD
- he signed at a lower-than-expected cap hit in a market in which he has a past history and already established roots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least you seem to cede the point that Bishop is a far better goalie in this point in time than Smith and the reason the Flames have Smith rather than Bishop is because Bishop didn't want to play for the Flames (organization or City).

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

At least you seem to cede the point that Bishop is a far better goalie in this point in time than Smith and the reason the Flames have Smith rather than Bishop is because Bishop didn't want to play for the Flames (organization or City).

Does the shtick ever get tiring to maintain?