Goaltending

[phoenix66]

"I'll be thrilled to pull that sweater on for the first time," said Smith. "To be a Calgary Flame...it sounds kind of surreal right now. I'll do everything in my power to help this team succeed."

 

Translation :

"OMG I get to play behind a defense and win some games maybe ??"

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

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 

 

Not in my books. 

 

Here is more perspective, it cost the Oilers a 2nd, a 3rd and a late rounder for talbot. Flames just spent more on Smith and Elliott. 

 

I actually think smith will be good here I do. But is he good enough to get them out of the 2nd round? Not imo, not unless he really surprises. You could have gotten another goalie of that ilk and spent less. That's why I don't like the deal. 

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

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.

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.

In this day and age , assuming you see them as a decent prospect.. any player who doesn't sign into their 4th year is trade bait.

I was on record as saying if Johnny entered his 4th year , he needs to be on the block..

 

Look at Jimmy Vesey .. told them right up to the trade deadline he was 100% planning on signing ..in the end they lost him for nothing .

Obviously only the Flames know for sure,  but if he was even the slightest wishy washy  about his intentions, they had no choice .. then there's also where they see him in the organization ,   is he ahead of Andersson? Kyllington and Kulak?.. 

[DirtyDeeds]

1 hour 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. 

The Flames are running out of quality choices unless they want to go full out trade for someone expensive.

 

I fall into the expensive for an aging goaltender who isn't much of an upgrade if at all, group

[AlbertaBoy12]

Just now, phoenix66 said:

In this day and age , assuming you see them as a decent prospect.. any player who doesn't sign into their 4th year is trade bait.

I was on record as saying if Johnny entered his 4th year , he needs to be on the block..

 

Look at Jimmy Vesey .. told them right up to the trade deadline he was 100% planning on signing ..in the end they lost him for nothing .

Obviously only the Flames know for sure,  but if he was even the slightest wishy washy  about his intentions, they had no choice .. then there's also where they see him in the organization ,   is he ahead of Andersson? Kyllington and Kulak?.. 

I dont really agree with that, just because a player goes back for his 4th year doesnt mean hes not going to sign, bill arnold is a recent example for the flames. 

 

1 minute ago, DirtyDeeds said:

The Flames are running out of quality choices unless they want to go full out trade for someone expensive.

 

I fall into the expensive for an aging goaltender who isn't much of an upgrade if at all, group

The flames could have easily brought back elliott in my opinion, while smith is an upgrade, giving up hickey and a 2nd just doesnt make sense to me either.

[phoenix66]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Not in my books. 

 

Here is more perspective, it cost the Oilers a 2nd, a 3rd and a late rounder for talbot. Flames just spent more on Smith and Elliott. 

 

I actually think smith will be good here I do. But is he good enough to get them out of the 2nd round? Not imo, not unless he really surprises. You could have gotten another goalie of that ilk and spent less. That's why I don't like the deal. 

Right and they were gambling .. for every Talbot and Jones, there's a Fasth , Scrivens and Bernier..  gambling was not an option. Now you can take that gamble and put them behind a solid guy 

 

Who did you have in mind ?  Great numbers on an awful team..  faced the heaviest workload of high danger shots in the league.

Right now I'll settle for getting IN to the 2nd round without pointing at goaltending when its over 

[cross16]

The one positive I will say about smith I'm really intrigued by is his puck handing. He's like another dman back there and for a team that wants to play fast in transition the flames struggled to get the puck up the ice last year. I am very intrigued to see if smith can make a difference in that area and even allow the flames to bring the stretch pass back a little. 

[phoenix66]

6 minutes ago, cross16 said:

The one positive I will say about smith I'm really intrigued by is his puck handing. He's like another dman back there and for a team that wants to play fast in transition the flames struggled to get the puck up the ice last year. I am very intrigued to see if smith can make a difference in that area and even allow the flames to bring the stretch pass back a little. 

actually that is true, I forgot about that ... that's a bonus we haven't enjoyed for years

 

not to mention , maybe get a few of those Goalie Interference calls to go our way for a change.. seems very good at selling them  

[MAC331]

Just now, cross16 said:

The one positive I will say about smith I'm really intrigued by is his puck handing. He's like another dman back there and for a team that wants to play fast in transition the flames struggled to get the puck up the ice last year. I am very intrigued to see if smith can make a difference in that area and even allow the flames to bring the stretch pass back a little. 

I see this deal as twofold, they want to be playoff contenders and in order to do so they are going with a proven experienced goaltender better than Elliott. They believe in their goalie prospects for their future now need a 2 year bridge. I could actually see them bringing back Johnson.

[Cowtownguy]

It seems like we paid quite a bit more to obtain a goaltender slightly better than Elliott. I suppose it is easy to criticize the deal when I don't have a clue what Treliving is dealing with. Maybe Bishop had issues with Calgary, I was never entirely sold on Darling, and maybe others were just crazy expensive. It does feel a little Sutterish firing off all of these prospects. This is a risky move for Treliving. If Smith plays poorly, ownership has to take a hard look at what we have given up for goalies who are not panning out.

[DirtyDeeds]

18 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Right and they were gambling .. for every Talbot and Jones, there's a Fasth , Scrivens and Bernier..  gambling was not an option. Now you can take that gamble and put them behind a solid guy 

 

Who did you have in mind ?  Great numbers on an awful team..  faced the heaviest workload of high danger shots in the league.

Right now I'll settle for getting IN to the 2nd round without pointing at goaltending when its over 

Thing is most here said just get us into playoffs and we would be happy when we picked up Elliott and Johnson. We weren't happy as it turns out.

 

Stats for goalies are the hardest to make quality judgments from. The 1 stat that really means anything is wins.. 

[phoenix66]

10 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I see this deal as twofold, they want to be playoff contenders and in order to do so they are going with a proven experienced goaltender better than Elliott. They believe in their goalie prospects for their future now need a 2 year bridge. I could actually see them bringing back Johnson.

not out of the question .. 

 

Now, obviously we can surmise that Rutherford's price for MAF was absurd .. .. For S&Giggles.. if I were BT I'd flip a pick to LV to have them Not take MAF ..LOL.. Take Maata and stick them with a goalie demanding a trade now and nowhere to realistically send him  

[FlameFan4Life]

I know his numbers don't look good but coming from the team he was on he is a huge upgrade in my mind. Good things is see are age and experience to mentor Gillies as a true number one goalie. At 4.25mil for 2 years I am happy to have a big, competitive, guy that is trust worthy in net. The added puck handling skill and a chance to show what he can do on a team that has a way better D core and one of the best defensively responsible lines in the league, IMO (?/Backs/Frolik) I think he does great, better than most will expect. I know we all can see this as similar to going out last year and getting Elliott, but it is not. Elliott is a career back-up that has had the luxury of good Dmen in front of him for a bulk of his career. Smith has not been so lucky.

 

Sum it all up, this is a chance for Smith, a career 1A goalie, to be number one on a competitive team, a chance he must have been dying for at this point in his career. By the time ARZ is competitive he would be done.          He will do well.

[phoenix66]

12 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Thing is most here said just get us into playoffs and we would be happy when we picked up Elliott and Johnson. We weren't happy as it turns out.

 

Stats for goalies are the hardest to make quality judgments from. The 1 stat that really means anything is wins.. 

Yup.. and then we raised the bar . and decided what we had wasnt good enough to take us further as the team got better 

 

Really?  I'd say wins is the last thing I look at .. again , very bad team..  26 wins in 55 starts and I'll almost guarantee he was the reason for most of them .. and a star in many losses.

the best stats nowadays are what was posted earlier.. where from  and when are they allowing them .. if you got a goalie on a good team , thats only facing low danger shots? ..well he better be getting a ton of wins and have a high SV%

 

I'll also add, again , who we put behind him is a critical piece of this puzzle.. the only place I factor his age is we dont want him 60+ games and then roll him in the playoffs .. the right  25-30 game #2 guy is crucial

[zima]

46 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

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

No of course I don't but saying that I said from start since he decided to finish his college career I in my little mind knew he was not going to come to Calgary. Why do I think this it's because we do not bring up our kids any more we bring in experienced D he has seen that and probably asked where they seen him on the Flames prospect list and I think thats right I think what they told him didn't sit well. JMO  (AB12 ) 

[flames-fan-in-jets-land]

20 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

not out of the question .. 

 

Now, obviously we can surmise that Rutherford's price for MAF was absurd .. .. For S&Giggles.. if I were BT I'd flip a pick to LV to have them Not take MAF ..LOL.. Take Maata and stick them with a goalie demanding a trade now and nowhere to realistically send him  

That would be pure evil.......I love it!

[FueltheFlames1075]

This is just an interesting thought that I had. I know that a lot of our members on this board wanted us to go out and get a Raanta or Grubauer (sp?), which would have been a "gamble" on an unproven backup. This is obviously what the Oilers did, and it worked out for them. There are cases where this type of gamble has worked out (ie. the Oilers), and cases where it hasn't.

 

My hypothetical is let's put the Oilers in the same spot as us, with the opportunity to trade for Talbot or Smith. Let's just say that that choice was in front of them in this offseason, instead of a couple of seasons ago, and after they made a playoff appearance. Does everyone think that they still would have traded for Talbot, or do you think that they would trade for the more proven commodity, to try and capitalize on the good team that they have?

 

Now I realize that there are a few different moving parts. Let's just base it on the teams being in similar spots and as a hypothetical. Thoughts?

[phoenix66]

10 minutes ago, FueltheFlames1075 said:

This is just an interesting thought that I had. I know that a lot of our members on this board wanted us to go out and get a Raanta or Grubauer (sp?), which would have been a "gamble" on an unproven backup. This is obviously what the Oilers did, and it worked out for them. There are cases where this type of gamble has worked out (ie. the Oilers), and cases where it hasn't.

 

My hypothetical is let's put the Oilers in the same spot as us, with the opportunity to trade for Talbot or Smith. Let's just say that that choice was in front of them in this offseason, instead of a couple of seasons ago, and after they made a playoff appearance. Does everyone think that they still would have traded for Talbot, or do you think that they would trade for the more proven commodity to try and capitalize on the good team that they have?

 

Now I realize that there are a few different moving parts. Let's just base it on the teams being in similar spots and as a hypothetical. Thoughts?

this has been my point the whole time. I believe , using the 2 examples you gave, they take Smith .

We had the window last year ... non playoff team,  many resolving/accepting  to likely not see the playoffs this year ,  great time to take a chance on a kid and let him play and grow with the team. I was against going after a Bishop, cuz in my mind we were not good enough to take advantage of what he brings for that term and price tag 

Instead we split the difference , brought in a guy with a great track record who had just never been given the ball as a number one..  higher quality gamble .Not many complained.

Remember the people begging that we get Kuemper?  kinda glad we didn't do that now .

 

Like I posted earlier .. people look at the Jones, the Talbots.. and forget that there have also many times been Scrivens's, Fasth's and Bernier's

 

People also forget Talbot wasn't stellar his first year .. there was still questions whether he could take ownership going into this , his second season .

[Cowtownguy]

I think that Smith is a solid goalie. He is a little on the old side, but goalies can have a long shelf life. He does stick handle well and can come up with the big save at times. I cannot recall many games when he played particularly poorly, and he was on a weak club. It just seems a little costly to me. Then again, I find everything expensive at my age! 10 bucks for a freaking 20 oz beer!?!?

[cross16]

12 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

 

Like I posted earlier .. people look at the Jones, the Talbots.. and forget that there have also many times been Scrivens's, Fasth's and Bernier's

 

People also forget Talbot wasn't stellar his first year .. there was still questions whether he could take ownership going into this , his second season .

 

Cam Talbot was very good two seasons ago. In fact he improved only marginally this season but the team improved significantly so more attention was paid. Underlying stats were similar. 

I think you are crazy if anyone think that giving the same deal someone would take Smith over Talbot. Talbot was not near the gamble people make him out to be. Talbot was the prize goalie acquisition that offseason because many teams were convinced he was ready to be a starter and he sure looked like one when lunqvost went down. Scrivens and Fasth were depth picks and brought on as backups and 1B guys not as starters so to compare them with Talbot isn't accurate. Yes the idea of acquiring a backup and assuming he will be a starter is risky but to what degree depends on the individual. 

 

I think it's also misguided to suggest Talbot was this massive gamble but acquiring a 35 year old goalie, when's numbers show you are in decline by now, doesn't come with equal amount of risk. There is a huge possibility this is Jonus Hiller all over again. 

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:

It seems like we paid quite a bit more to obtain a goaltender slightly better than Elliott. I suppose it is easy to criticize the deal when I don't have a clue what Treliving is dealing with. Maybe Bishop had issues with Calgary, I was never entirely sold on Darling, and maybe others were just crazy expensive. It does feel a little Sutterish firing off all of these prospects. This is a risky move for Treliving. If Smith plays poorly, ownership has to take a hard look at what we have given up for goalies who are not panning out.

I'm reading the cost was UFA Johnson (accommodation) Hickey ( a maybe signing) and a conditional 3rd with ARZ retaining enough salary so Smith is 4.2 to us. Is this the real deal ? if it is we got a slightly better goalie than Elliott for fair starter money and a conditional pick. Make one wonder what Elliott is asking for in the market or if BT wanted a change. Wonder what the condition is surrounding the pick ?? making the play off or Hickey not signing ?

[phoenix66]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Can Talbot was very good two seasons ago. In fact he improved only marginally this season but the team improved significantly so more attention was paid. Underlying stats were similar. 

I think you are crazy if anyone think that giving the same deal someone would take Smith over Talbot. Talbot was not near the gamble people make him out to be. Talbot was the prize goalie acquisition that offseason because many teams were convinced he was ready to be a starter and he sure looked like one when lunqvost went down. Scrivens and Fasth were depth picks and brought on as backups and 1B guys not as starters so to compare them with Talbot isn't accurate. 

 

I think it's also misguided to suggest Talbot was this massive gamble but acquiring a 35 year old goalie, when's numbers show you are in decline by now, doesn't come with equal amount of risk. There is a huge possibility this is Jonus Hiller all over again. 

You're saying it was guaranteed , that Talbot would parlay his 2 seasons in NY as backup (57 games), into just as many games in one season (56) with a way lesser club? That he'sd show to be elite and handle 73 games and a playoff run the next season ?   seriously ?

 

You should get a job as a scout..   even the Oilers themselves weren't sure after his first year .

https://www.todaysslapshot.com/nhl-west/edmonton-oilers/cam-talbot-proven-can-oilers-starter/

 

and actually Jones was the #1 prize that year ..  Oilers tried to get him first .  Flames were in on, and missed on both .. we spent our Picks on Hamilton instead 

 

Any goalie has risk.. but at least this time we are checking off more boxes than ever before ..  Im not gonna stand here and say he's a saviour, but if BT rolled the dice on say , Grubauer now, and he soiled the bed.. BT would be fired ...  if PC were in the same boat and he brought in Talbot now and got even the 1st year version of  Talbot? Fans would want his head 

This is where I say again , the next move is critical.. who's playing behind him

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:

It seems like we paid quite a bit more to obtain a goaltender slightly better than Elliott. I suppose it is easy to criticize the deal when I don't have a clue what Treliving is dealing with. Maybe Bishop had issues with Calgary, I was never entirely sold on Darling, and maybe others were just crazy expensive. It does feel a little Sutterish firing off all of these prospects. This is a risky move for Treliving. If Smith plays poorly, ownership has to take a hard look at what we have given up for goalies who are not panning out.

 

I would've been ok with this deal a year ago. But it's the accumulative costs that are adding up.

[AlbertaBoy12]

21 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

making the play off or Hickey not signing ?

IT was reported the condition is on the flames making the playoffs, so unless we collapse it will be a 2nd.

[MAC331]

Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

IT was reported the condition is on the flames making the playoffs, so unless we collapse it will be a 2nd.

I haven't seen anything about a 2nd, only the conditional 3rd.