Goaltending

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

So 25% off = 3.75 mil. for 1 year. Theres some interesting options.

 

Resign Elliot @ 2.0 - 2.5 mil and we have 2 goalies that probably thrive better in a 1a 1b tandem. MAF was going to be 5.75 himself. Only problem is does anyone honestly believe any of the prospects will be ready next year?

 

Go after someone that is 1a 1b ready with possible starter potential. Grubauer/Raanta?

 

See who's ready to make the jump to the bigs in a backup role.

[phoenix66]

8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

This is a very poor trade. 

I do think Smith is an upgrade but at 35 years old and you gave up a very good D prospect and potentially a 2nd rounder only if they make the playoffs? you just gambled a ton in trade and salary on an aging goalie. 

 

Not good.... hope I'm wrong but this really looks like the flames panicked. 

I'm thinking Elliot would have , or still will for somebody else, comes in around 4M.. we now have Smith for 4.2.. even if we roll our 1st rounder and get Grubauer or Raanta  from LV.. that to me turns the win our favor...    part 2 is gonna be the key to how good this trade looks 

 

and you had to know I was gonna check ... if nothing else, He doesn't Suck against Anaheim !! LOL 

 

Opponent	Anaheim Ducks	25	12	8	3	59	708	649	.917	2.55	3	6	1387:38	36	16	3

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

Just now, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

So 25% off = 3.75 mil. for 1 year. Theres some interesting options.

 

Resign Elliot @ 2.0 - 2.5 mil and we have 2 goalies that probably thrive better in a 1a 1b tandem. MAF was going to be 5.75 himself. Only problem is does anyone honestly believe any of the prospects will be ready next year?

 

Go after someone that is 1a 1b ready with possible starter potential. Grubauer/Raanta?

 

See who's ready to make the jump to the bigs in a backup role.

EDIT:  TSN is showing a 5.667 mil hit.  NHL numbers.com shoes 5 mil flat. the hockey news shows 4.25 mil.   So take ant of my calculations with a grain of salt.

[Flyerfan52]

So 2 years of Smith @ 4.25 for conditional 2nd, Hickey & rights to C Johnson (so Coyotes have someone to expose).

 

Why BT? If the idea is still to tandem a Grubauer/Raanta with a vet Mason/Elliott were there for free.

 

I'm not much liking what I'm seeing as the idea looks more like we'll go with Smith as the starter & a cheap b/u (UFA or promote 1 of the kids too soon).

[robrob74]

If we re-sign Elliott, we lose another 3rd rounder, so he is basically gone. 

 

So, if we did, that's all we give up, and then we could've had recouped that in a deal if we traded Hickey. What could we get in a deal trading just him if that happened and we were worried about losing him after his season?

[Thebrewcrew]

Now the Flames will be looking for a backup, any chance Johnson signs back July 1, or maybe he will be mad about having his rights traded?

 

Makes sense for ARI to trade Smith as he doesn't fit with their current timeline. I can see them dangling their MIN 1st for any of Korpisalo, Grubauer and Raanta.

 

From a Flames standpoint my backup target is now Anders Nilsson.

[Flyerfan52]

4 minutes ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

EDIT:  TSN is showing a 5.667 mil hit.  NHL numbers.com shoes 5 mil flat. the hockey news shows 4.25 mil.   So take ant of my calculations with a grain of salt.

Capfriendly is showing him on our roster @ 4.25. Makes sense as 5.667 x 75% = 4.25. Arizona retains 1.417.

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

So 2 years of Smith @ 4.25 for conditional 2nd, Hickey & rights to C Johnson (so Coyotes have someone to expose).

 

Why BT? If the idea is still to tandem a Grubauer/Raanta with a vet Mason/Elliott were there for free.

 

I'm not much liking what I'm seeing as the idea looks more like we'll go with Smith as the starter & a cheap b/u (UFA or promote 1 of the kids too soon).

 

Ya, I don't get it. I guess Smith is a better goalie than Elliott, but we gave up what we would have lost in re-signing him. 

 

Plus, if Dallass is better this year, that makes making the playoffs harder.

[robrob74]

1 minute ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Now the Flames will be looking for a backup, any chance Johnson signs back July 1, or maybe he will be mad about having his rights traded?

 

Makes sense for ARI to trade Smith as he doesn't fit with their current timeline. I can see them dangling their MIN 1st for any of Korpisalo, Grubauer and Raanta.

 

From a Flames standpoint my backup target is now Anders Nilsson.

 

 

I think the flames have to go UFA for their backup for sure now. There have already been too many assets wasted on goaltending the last few seasons.

[phoenix66]

Just now, robrob74 said:

 

 

I think the flames have to go UFA for their backup for sure now. There have already been too many assets wasted on goaltending the last few seasons.

Unless we have a deal worked out with LV already 

[robrob74]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

Unless we have a deal worked out with LV already 

 

I really hope we don't give up anymore picks or prospects for a goalie. We aren't too far out of a rebuild, if we are out of it that is, that we should be all-in on goalies and giving up as many assets as we have over the last few years.

[phoenix66]

8 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

So 2 years of Smith @ 4.25 for conditional 2nd, Hickey & rights to C Johnson (so Coyotes have someone to expose).

 

Why BT? If the idea is still to tandem a Grubauer/Raanta with a vet Mason/Elliott were there for free.

 

I'm not much liking what I'm seeing as the idea looks more like we'll go with Smith as the starter & a cheap b/u (UFA or promote 1 of the kids too soon).

update too.. just recalled they still can't protect Domingue, your exposed goalie has to be signed..  so CJ must be insurance if they lose Domingue

[cross16]

I thin for sure you rule out anyone like a Raanta or Grubaeur coming here. No way flames spend that on Smith AND giving up quality assets for those two. Plus it sounds like the price on raanta is very high anyway. 

 

This is is a sign to me the Flames fully expect Gilles or parsons to be in the mix in 2 years so there isn't a younger guy on his way other than those. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, robrob74 said:

 

I really hope we don't give up anymore picks or prospects for a goalie. We aren't too far out of a rebuild, if we are out of it that is, that we should be all-in on goalies and giving up as many assets as we have over the last few years.

Agreed.. but personally , I'd give our #16 for either of those 2 (Raanta, Grubauer)  both young, for Goalies.. either have #1 potential 

[manu11]

3 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

So 2 years of Smith @ 4.25 for conditional 2nd, Hickey & rights to C Johnson (so Coyotes have someone to expose).

 

Why BT? If the idea is still to tandem a Grubauer/Raanta with a vet Mason/Elliott were there for free.

 

I'm not much liking what I'm seeing as the idea looks more like we'll go with Smith as the starter & a cheap b/u (UFA or promote 1 of the kids too soon).

 

Agree, I think Smith is not a good target as far as trading for a goalie goes. He might be a little upgrade over Elliott, but his age combined with his injury problems is concerning.

As for the deal, I'm not happy with it. I would've prefered to deal one of our overpaid 4th liners instead of the salary retention and I don't like that we gave up another 2nd round pick.

It really looks like we're going back to the D.Sutter era, where 2nd round picks were traded on a yearly basis. The only difference is that we aren't even a close contender yet!

 

 

[Flyerfan52]

5 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Agreed.. but personally , I'd give our #16 for either of those 2 (Raanta, Grubauer)  both young, for Goalies.. either have #1 potential 

Same here.

We have high hopes for our young goalies (seems even more so than the other prospects) but really how well they translate to the NHL is rolling the dice.

[zima]

I knew Hickey was not coming to Calgary hence the trade of Hickey we gave away a player that would have gone into the free agent group any way so no lose there Chad no lose so we lose a third if we make the playoffs so the way Smith played for Coyotes we will not lose the third as well. I think we could have possible got something better for Hickey like perhaps a bag of pucks and a 7th rounder but time to move on. Glade Oilers never got him so far any way.

 

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, manu11 said:

 

Agree, I think Smith is not a good target as far as trading for a goalie goes. He might be a little upgrade over Elliott, but his age combined with his injury problems is concerning.

As for the deal, I'm not happy with it. I would've prefered to deal one of our overpaid 4th liners instead of the salary retention and I don't like that we gave up another 2nd round pick.

It really looks like we're going back to the D.Sutter era, where 2nd round picks were traded on a yearly basis. The only difference is that we aren't even a close contender yet!

 

 

I dont see Injury problems.. he was injured 2 seasons ago and bounced back with an All star / Vezina quality season ..  since 2011 he has had 2 seasons where he didnt play at least 55 games..usually 60+

 

I will say this tho, he's a competitor and not above ripping his own Dmen new ones  if they mess up 

VERY rare you can point at him as a reason for a loss too..

[robrob74]

I am tired of spending assets on short term fixes. In an era when picks are currency, we spend freely on these goalies who last a season or two. Elliott and now Smith... I'd have preferred to trade them for possibly longer term goalies.

[manu11]

3 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

I dont see Injury problems.. he was injured 2 seasons ago and bounced back with an All star / Vezina quality season ..  since 2011 he has had 2 seasons where he didnt play at least 55 games..usually 60+

 

I'm pretty sure he was injured last season as well, though he played 55 games so it wasn't anything major.

[cross16]

3 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I am tired of spending assets on short term fixes. In an era when picks are currency, we spend freely on these goalies who last a season or two. Elliott and now Smith... I'd have preferred to trade them for possibly longer term goalies.

 

Nailed it. 

Flames have spent now 2 2nds, we hope, and a good young prospect to get Elliot for a year and smith for two. Irregardless of how you view smith this was exactly the type of behavior the flames needed to start avoiding and it appears Treliving won't. That's quite dissapointing. 

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Nailed it. 

Flames have spent now 2 2nds, we hope, and a good young prospect to get Elliot for a year and smith for two. Irregardless of how you view smith this was exactly the type of behavior the flames needed to start avoiding and it appears Treliving won't. That's quite dissapointing. 

 

Plus whatever we could've gotten in a Hickey trade. Maybe not much, but that's what, another 3rd rounder? All currency we could've used on a better longer term fix.

[cross16]

The only caveat I will add is if Hickey told the Flames he wasn't going to sign, then I would be ok with this. I have no reason to believe thst is the case, but if it is I would not feel as negatively about this as I do. 

[phoenix66]

10 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Nailed it. 

Flames have spent now 2 2nds, we hope, and a good young prospect to get Elliot for a year and smith for two. Irregardless of how you view smith this was exactly the type of behavior the flames needed to start avoiding and it appears Treliving won't. That's quite dissapointing. 

Perspective.. if we had spent 2 2nds and a prospect in one transaction for a bona fide #1 for 3 years.. we'd likely see it as a win 

We gave up a 1st and 2 2nds for Hamilton, so if we were to parlay that 1st into a solid young 1b/Backup with potential.. thats  basically the Dougie Hamilton trade but this time for 82 games of solid goaltending 

 

We (especially me ) all want a goalie thats going to win games on his own night after night ..  being able to just not say we lost them because of them is win enough for me 

[AlbertaBoy12]

26 minutes ago, zima said:

I knew Hickey was not coming to Calgary hence the trade of Hickey we gave away a player that would have gone into the free agent group any way so no lose there 

 

You know? do you have the inside track on hickey, or is he your friend/family? 

 

Hickey was a great young d man and all indications were that he was coming here, this way too much to pay for a stop gap.

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

The only caveat I will add is if Hickey told the Flames he wasn't going to sign, then I would be ok with this. I have no reason to believe thst is the case, but if it is I would not feel as negatively about this as I do. 

It would make me feel less negative, but still giving up hickey and a 2nd(im going to assume we make the playoffs), is beyond frustrating for a stop gap. But if smith comes here and shows well, maybe we will all be less upset.