[News] Smith: 'Age is just a number

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

then you have to hope that the flames are in a position they can afford to throw games out there for goalie development and the young guys do run with it.
If there's a dogfight for the playoffs, I can see them riding smith as long as they can and worrying about the playoffs if they get there.

The usual story with the usual results. Longer term thinking is required. ANd you have to show some faith in the kids at some point, or you stunt their development. Also (last year):

Record with Smith: 25-22-6, .528
Record with the others: 11-11-4, .500

It isn't a huge step in their development to close that gap.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The Flames best case scenario is one of Rittich or Gillies looking like they're ready to take on 41 starts next year, and Smith coming back on a one year deal with reduced pay.

That buys Parsons more time, and avoids the team having to take another swing for the fences with assets.

Doesn't this presuppose that Parsons is some sure thing starting goaltender of the future? I see it thrown around a lot around here that we need to buy time until Parsons is ready. In reality it's just as likely, if not moreso, that you end up spinning your wheels for several years with mediocre stopgaps, buying time for a kid who was never good enough to be worth that kind of patience.

Comes across as wishful thinking in the absence of a better solution. If Parsons busts out and becomes this young, great starting goaltender I would hope it happens in a scenario where the Flames have to make a choice between him and another great goalie. Not in a scenario where we're re-signing 37 or 38 year old Mike Smith types to one-year deals, essentially banking our entire future between the pipes on this kid.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

then you have to hope that the flames are in a position they can afford to throw games out there for goalie development and the young guys do run with it.

I don't think so. At least, I do not think that games for either Rittich or Gillies qualify as "goalie development." They have both now played at the NHL level, and both have demonstrated to one degree or another that they can win NHL games. There is no good reason to think that any game in which Rittich or Gillies plays this year is a "throw away."

If there's a dogfight for the playoffs, I can see them riding smith as long as they can and worrying about the playoffs if they get there.

You are likely right about this, which is why it is all the more important that Smith's starts be managed in the first half of the season. I thought one of the failings of last year was that Smith played too many games before January (in large part because Eddie Lack was awful). Ideally, Smith starts around 25 games before the end of December. Last year he started in 32 by 1 Jan.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Doesn't this presuppose that Parsons is some sure thing starting goaltender of the future? I see it thrown around a lot around here that we need to buy time until Parsons is ready. In reality it's just as likely, if not moreso, that you end up spinning your wheels for several years with mediocre stopgaps, buying time for a kid who was never good enough to be worth that kind of patience.

Comes across as wishful thinking in the absence of a better solution. If Parsons busts out and becomes this young, great starting goaltender I would hope it happens in a scenario where the Flames have to make a choice between him and another great goalie. Not in a scenario where we're re-signing 37 or 38 year old Mike Smith types to one-year deals, essentially banking our entire future between the pipes on this kid.

You have to buy goalies time to see if they're going to be the goalie of the future. But yeah I agree he's far from a sure thing.

I guess his mental make up and resume have me thinking he's a better bet than most.

But imagine signing a then 30+ year old Babrovsky to a six year deal paying him $8M per season, and then have him falter and be untradable and suddenly you have one of Gillies or Parsons demanding the net and you're stuck?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Doesn't this presuppose that Parsons is some sure thing starting goaltender of the future? I see it thrown around a lot around here that we need to buy time until Parsons is ready. In reality it's just as likely, if not moreso, that you end up spinning your wheels for several years with mediocre stopgaps, buying time for a kid who was never good enough to be worth that kind of patience.

Which is why it is important for a team to keep re-stocking goalies. The high regard a number of fans have for Parsons is based on his showing in Juniour and at the WJHC, and with how goalies develop I think it is likely that he is still two or three years from the NHL. In that time, I expect the Flames to continue to add more young goalies. By the same token, projecting Parsons as the best goalie in the system does not preclude the possibility that one of Rittich or Gillies ends up being better. I don't believe anyone is presupposing any "sure things" here, only that between Parson, Rittich, and Gillies there could be a starting goaltender.

Comes across as wishful thinking in the absence of a better solution. If Parsons busts out and becomes this young, great starting goaltender I would hope it happens in a scenario where the Flames have to make a choice between him and another great goalie. Not in a scenario where we're re-signing 37 or 38 year old Mike Smith types to one-year deals, essentially banking our entire future between the pipes on this kid.

I don't understand why it makes any difference how Parsons breaks out, or who happens to be ahead of him on the depth-chart when he does. If it happens, it happens. If not, then not. There is not a set programme for goalie development—it happens under all sorts of different scenarios.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You have to buy goalies time to see if they're going to be the goalie of the future. But yeah I agree he's far from a sure thing.

I guess his mental make up and resume have me thinking he's a better bet than most.

But imagine signing a then 30+ year old Babrovsky to a six year deal paying him $8M per season, and then have him falter and be untradable and suddenly you have one of Gillies or Parsons demanding the net and you're stuck?

How is this any different than signing, say, James Neal to the deal he just got? If he falters then the Flames are kind of screwed for a top line winger once again and have another Troy Brouwer situation on their hands. A guaranteed contract structure like the NHL demands that you sometimes have to take risks in order to put yourself over the top and improve your team. Bob is consistently one of the best in the league and is still young enough that you're not necessarily worried about a substantial drop-off in production in his early 30s.

Having said that, I have no idea if a young starter becomes available and what the cost of that might be. Other teams have made these kinds of deals, why does it seem like the Flames are consistently left the bridesmaid?

All I know is that chaining these short-term stop gaps together has consistently provided us horrible to average results, and in the case of Elliott cost the Flames a pick that became a top-flight prospect in Kyrou. So the risk is still real but the reward has been uninspiring to say the least. Why not shoot for the fences rather than hope and pray this unproven prospect becomes the solution with no plan B in place?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Having said that, I have no idea if a young starter becomes available and what the cost of that might be. Other teams have made these kinds of deals, why does it seem like the Flames are consistently left the bridesmaid?

Because if they’re available they’re either:
A. Not a sure thing
B. Very expensive

And, again, the Flames have been in on these types of goalies for the past 5 years. It hasn’t worked out, but putting that on the feet of Treliving alone is kind of crazy.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Why not shoot for the fences rather than hope and pray this unproven prospect becomes the solution with no plan B in place?

Why do you think there's no "plan B"?

[868904]

Smith will get injured at some point this season, i'm sure of it. Hopefully one of Gillies or Rittich can develop into a 1B here and carry the load during that time.

It's a huge gamble for Treliving to go this route, but I also understand that all the other issues that play into it (cost, cap space, development investment in young goalies, etc.).

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by 868904

Smith will get injured at some point this season, i'm sure of it. Hopefully one of Gillies or Rittich can develop into a 1B here and carry the load during that time.

It's a huge gamble for Treliving to go this route, but I also understand that all the other issues that play into it (cost, cap space, development investment in young goalies, etc.).

It would’ve been a huge gamble to not address the offence deficiency of the team. It would’ve been a huge gamble to not address the depth of the team. Treliving can only mitigate so many issues. Quite frankly, I feel he dealt with the glaring issues this summer with his moves. The fact that we’re now concerned about the goaltending is a by-product of that. Us fans always need something to be concerned with!

[868904]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You have to buy goalies time to see if they're going to be the goalie of the future. But yeah I agree he's far from a sure thing.

I guess his mental make up and resume have me thinking he's a better bet than most.

But imagine signing a then 30+ year old Babrovsky to a six year deal paying him $8M per season, and then have him falter and be untradable and suddenly you have one of Gillies or Parsons demanding the net and you're stuck?

I'm not keen on signing a UFA goalie for big dollars or acquiring one on a long contract. The fear is all about the decline in their game as they age, much like Smith.

However, I don't think blocking the young goalies should really factor into it. All players are just assets. If Gillies, Rittich and / or Parsons really develop into what you hope, then they will have value and you trade them. Blue chip goalie prospects or seasoned backups looking for a no. 1 job have great value.

Schneider landed a top 10 pick in a strong draft for the Canucks. Grubauer got the Caps a 2nd and cap relief. I'm guessing the asking price for Matt Murray before he became their no. 1 was likely a 1st round pick in the top half of the draft.

At this stage, none of the Flames goalie prospects are blue chippers. Ideally, one of them would have already become one this year, giving the flames a clear succession plan after Smith.

[Bandwagon Surfer]

I have trouble finding fault in the goalie situation, because even with hindsight I think the team would be in a worse position if we had landed one of the goalies which were moved in the last few years.

The team makeup the Flames have now looks very good heading into the season. A lot of young good players throughout the forward and defensive ranks, with a lot of potential to break out and put them in a strong position. Nothing guaranteed to turn out, but a lot of decent chances for it to go well, makes for a great entertainment product.

Every way I play through alternative histories where the Flames paid enough to sign a free agent goalie or traded enough to acquire one, the result is gaping hole in their forward/defensive lineup. Especially taking into account things like if they had acquired Cam Talbot in the 2015 off season, beyond the acquisition cost, they would most like have finished higher and missed Matthew Tkachuk on the 2016 draft.

[Strange Brew]

Playing what if is hard. But would Flames be better off if the picks used for Hamonic were used to trade for a goalie and the picks used for Elliott and Smith were used to acquire a second pairing defenseman? The Leafs got Andersen a year before the Hamonic deal for a late first and a second. Treliving obviously believes you can scrape together a solution in net easier than on the back end.

[Erick Estrada]

I know Ottawa was bad last season but really they weren't that great defensively the year they got to the finals and Craig Anderson bailed them out with a stellar 2.28 GAA and 0.926 SV% at 35 years old. A season later his play took a massive nose dive to 3.32 GAA and 0.898 SV% and while you can't paint every player by the same brush this is likely going to happen to Smith and it could be any time. We just have to hope he can hold it off one more season but personally I feel the team needs to move on from him after this season regardless.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Flames never passed on Bishop. Tried landing him 3 times.

Originally Posted by Locke

The prices on those two were way, way too high.

Ben Bishop cost Dallas a 4th round pick.
Before that he cost LA a 7th rounder and Erik Cernak (and a replacement goalie in Budaj).

That's way, way too high?

We passed on Bishop in the sense that we didn't want to pay what it took. Which really wasn't that much.

Instead we spent the same assets or more (3rd + 3rd round prospect in Hickey) on an older, lesser goalie who just happens to be from Trelivings old team.

(Not to mention spending 1st and two 2nds on Hamonic.)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

How is this any different than signing, say, James Neal to the deal he just got? If he falters then the Flames are kind of screwed for a top line winger once again and have another Troy Brouwer situation on their hands. A guaranteed contract structure like the NHL demands that you sometimes have to take risks in order to put yourself over the top and improve your team. Bob is consistently one of the best in the league and is still young enough that you're not necessarily worried about a substantial drop-off in production in his early 30s.

Having said that, I have no idea if a young starter becomes available and what the cost of that might be. Other teams have made these kinds of deals, why does it seem like the Flames are consistently left the bridesmaid?

All I know is that chaining these short-term stop gaps together has consistently provided us horrible to average results, and in the case of Elliott cost the Flames a pick that became a top-flight prospect in Kyrou. So the risk is still real but the reward has been uninspiring to say the least. Why not shoot for the fences rather than hope and pray this unproven prospect becomes the solution with no plan B in place?

There is one starting goaltender, and six wingers in a club's top nine.

If Neal slips you slide him down the roster for years 3, 4, and 5 of his deal or you move him.

A 7 year deal with a starting goalie that can no longer start is a lot harder to get out from under.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

Ben Bishop cost Dallas a 4th round pick.
Before that he cost LA a 7th rounder and Erik Cernak (and a replacement goalie in Budaj).

That's way, way too high?

We passed on Bishop in the sense that we didn't want to pay what it took. Which really wasn't that much.

Instead we spent the same assets or more (3rd + 3rd round prospect in Hickey) on an older, lesser goalie who just happens to be from Trelivings old team.

(Not to mention spending 1st and two 2nds on Hamonic.)

Bishop would have cost Calgary Tkachuk when the initial deal was on the table.

They tried again at the deadline but it fell through because the other trade fell through.

My fear was never acquisition cost any way, it was 7 x 7 with a brittle goaltender.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by 868904

However, I don't think blocking the young goalies should really factor into it. All players are just assets. If Gillies, Rittich and / or Parsons really develop into what you hope, then they will have value and you trade them. Blue chip goalie prospects or seasoned backups looking for a no. 1 job have great value.

I don't mind blocking the pipeline with a good fit, just not an older goaltender on too much term and dollars.

When the Flames got Smith I had Smith, Howard and Fleury on my list because they all had term left and wouldn't break the bank to acquire them. We know he tried on two of the three and landed one.

Sounds like the Flames were in on Raanta too but couldn't get it done, that would have been a good acquisition because of age and readiness.

I just don't see that guy out there right now, so fingers crossed that Smith can do the job, and be brought back cheaply for another year to share the duties again.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Bishop would have cost Calgary Tkachuk when the initial deal was on the table.

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.

They tried again at the deadline but it fell through because the other trade fell through.

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?

My fear was never acquisition cost any way, it was 7 x 7 with a brittle goaltender.

Bishop is signed at $4.95M for 5 years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Itse

Bishop is signed at $4.95M for 5 years.

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