Goaltending

[JTech780]

Raanta and Grubauer had comparable stats but played on significantly better teams and faced way less shots. Bishop didn't want to come here, Fleury didn't want to come here. This was the best goalie left on the market and we gave up a 2nd or 3rd and a prospect that probably wasn't going to sign here.  

[phoenix66]

what I posted many many pages was definitely correct. No Matter who we get ,  many will hate it and find fault.

 

samples of argument:

 

Bishop was too old and Injury prone

MAF was inconsistent and too old..and injury prone

Elliot and Mason are too inconsistent

Unprovens are too much of a gamble for a team needing to start doing some damage..

Etc...

 

The Guy hasn't even strapped on the pads for us yet and people are already all over the guy .. educate yourselves and stop looking numbers on a screen and you'll see he carried a team that should have given Colorado a serious run for their money this year for futility. I'm actually kind of excited to see what he can do with a real team in front of him , or the fans reaction the first time he springs Johnny on a breakaway as one of the best puck handling goalies in the league.

 

If we hate the price we paid, BT alluded to it in his interview, this should give you some insight to what the others will cost .

Yes Mason was just the cost of the contract , but IMO Smith has the better body of work . and even Hextall said they haven't written off resigning him next year 

 

Is he a saviour?  no .. but I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever heard of him being the reason for a loss.

he wasn't in my top 2 original  choices (Bishop and MAF)  but he brings stability and a track record we haven't brought into the organization from the outside since forever.

He brings the ability to mentor the #2 spot without cutting off the path 

He is an upgrade from last year , yet again.

 

Absolute truth is , it wouldn't matter who we got, we have no way of knowing for sure whether it made sense or not until 1 year from now 

 

 

[JTech780]

The other thing to think about too, is that after the expansion draft we have Philly and Winnipeg to bid against for the likes of Raanta and Grubauer, I don't think either the Rangers or Washington were too eager to trade their backups prior to the expansion draft.

[JTech780]

Just another small note:

 

Mike Smith career playoff stats:

 

 

 

[jjgallow]

15 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

.. educate yourselves and stop looking numbers ...

 

hmm

[phoenix66]

12 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

The other thing to think about too, is that after the expansion draft we have Philly and Winnipeg to bid against for the likes of Raanta and Grubauer, I don't think either the Rangers or Washington were too eager to trade their backups prior to the expansion draft.

Amen to that .. get that first rounder ready ...  Friedman was implying on Friday the Rangers were actually discussing paying LV to NOT pick Raanta

[JTech780]

Career Save% against Pacific teams:

 

Anaheim: .917

Edmonton: .924

LA: .931

Phoenix/Arizona: .908

SJ: .942

Vancouver: .915

[JTech780]

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with you.

 

And I hope you don't change your mind and defend it in a few days.

 

We got smoked on this trade.   Weird.   Our goaltending situation might actually be worse, and we have less prospects and less picks.  Shame.  The only upside is that it didn't involve anything/anyone significant.

 

Like every player we have ever traded for, I will give Smth the benefit of the doubt and support him.  If he can pull off more victories than Elliott did in the same number of games, then we got league average or better tending.  Not great, but average.  Hiller was a great goalie in Anaheim, before he lost the job and became old in a hurry.

 

I don't see this as an upgrade over Elliott.  I don't think Mason would be any worse.  

The cost of the pick isn't the end of the world.  2nd if we make the playoffs.  Let's hope it's a 2nd.  The loss of the prospect is the big cost here.  Whether Hickey was a flight risk or not, his value as potentially a pending FA is still high.  What did Buffalo trade for Vesey rights?  A 3rd.  And that's because they just wanted his rights.     

[Flyerfan52]

50 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

The other thing to think about too, is that after the expansion draft we have Philly and Winnipeg to bid against for the likes of Raanta and Grubauer, I don't think either the Rangers or Washington were too eager to trade their backups prior to the expansion draft.

Caps are hoping LV takes Nate Schmidt (a decent 4/5 D) or Brett Connolly (RW) instead of Grubauer.

There will be lots of 4/5 D & oodles of wingers available to Vegas but few ready/almost ready for prime time backups so McPhee will likely select Grubauer & either use MAF as the tandem until he's proved ready (like I hoped we could with Mason as the other) or get a better D or forward other teams protected or a package of picks/prospects.

Jets are still sold on Hellebuyck & Flyers on Stolarz but BT missed the window to get him in a reasonable trade. Now either Chevy &/or Hex will swoop in & both have more & better assets in the way of prospects & picks. I have a feeling someone will pay big time.

[jjgallow]

28 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Like every player we have ever traded for, I will give Smth the benefit of the doubt and support him.  If he can pull off more victories than Elliott did in the same number of games, then we got league average or better tending.  Not great, but average.  Hiller was a great goalie in Anaheim, before he lost the job and became old in a hurry.

 

I don't see this as an upgrade over Elliott.  I don't think Mason would be any worse.  

The cost of the pick isn't the end of the world.  2nd if we make the playoffs.  Let's hope it's a 2nd.  The loss of the prospect is the big cost here.  Whether Hickey was a flight risk or not, his value as potentially a pending FA is still high.  What did Buffalo trade for Vesey rights?  A 3rd.  And that's because they just wanted his rights.     

 

fair enough.   I can support the player, but that doesn't mean I'll support the trade.  

 

I would love to be proved wrong.  But the Flames goaltending track record doesn't leave me with a lot of optimism there.

[AlbertaBoy12]

45 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

That must be why we traded for him, just so we can win in Anaheim.

[phoenix66]

50 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

That must be why we traded for him, just so we can win in Anaheim.

He's also an Oiler Killer  

 

Thing is.. we talk about the price we paid, and speculate on what a better deal we could have gotten somewhere else..

We know how much BT talks to every team.. do we really believe for one second , he doesn't know the asking price for all these other options ?

Do we believe he paid more for Smith than the asking price for Fleury?  We've seen the end result of Bishop, too Rich for us .. it's already been reported last year it would have cost us Tkachuk for either one .

 

This "buyers market" for goalies never happened.. the price for Raanta from the Rangers is thru the roof because they would rather keep him and lose the next guy instead of losing both , .. Knowing Wsh protected list now,  if they traded Gruabuer then there's a good chance they lose Phoenix Copley too.. so once again .. not a cheap price , regardless of who else was looking .

These other teams may have more to offer , but they weren't able to get a deal done before today either 

 

If he did indeed overpay for Smith , then I commend him for what he didn't pay to get the other ones ,,  it's an almost certainty those players (grubauer, raanta, and likely MAF) all needed to include a goalie prospect back in return.. say goodbye to Gillies (most likely), Parsons or Rittich..

don't believe for one second Smith  was his first choice with blinders on , his iron was in  all 30 other fires as well.

 

 

I'm also not writing off the option of him coming back to Johnson .. he was quick to explain how he called Elliot to let him know and thank him for his service .. in regards to Johnson he was more cryptic. never said we were walking away , just said it was an expansion draft technicality , and a "we'll see".. he obviously cant say any more or he'd be tampering now .. but if he was walking away he could have just as easily said so .. and never said he called him as well.

 

 

 

 

[FueltheFlames1075]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Thought you might enjoy this perspective.  While I don't agree with her at times, she does make a good points about "half measures".

 

 https://flamesnation.ca/2017/06/17/the-flames-are-a-team-of-half-measures/

This article is flawed in a couple of ways, with one more directly connected and the other indirectly connected.

 

The direct connection is that it ignores any and all variables. It ignores the fact that Elliott and Raanta both played on far superior teams to Smith over the last several seasons. Judging based on the teams they played for, it would seem that more often than not Smith was the reason that his team won, where the same cannot be said as often for Elliott or Raanta. The fact is that any of these three, or other goalies, could be products of their environments or maybe it's the other way around. The only way to know with certainty is to see them on either a weaker team or a better team in the case of Smith. I understand the angst that comes with Smith's age as well, but each player is different and we won't know if he is in decline until we see how he does behind what should be a better team in Calgary. Is he better than Elliott or not, which is a question that the numbers on the surface would suggest not. Again this may or may not be related to the teams each player played for. Let's wait and see. It's no bigger risk in my opinion than taking a gamble on whether Raanta or Grubauer's numbers were because of them or because of their team.

 

Indirectly this is ironic because this same writer did an article a week ago, questioning whether the Flames were giving their own homegrown prospects a chance to play. They then make a move that signals that they are putting faith in their own prospect goalies, and it's called a half measure. Does that not seem just a little hypocritical to everyone?

 

Is it an expensive price to pay for Smith. That also depends on some variables that we won't know for awhile, or may never know. Would Hickey have signed here? What will that 2nd/3rd have been drafted as or traded for? What would the 3rd round pick that we theoretically could have gotten for Hickey, have turned out to be? Again these are things that can change the look of this trade. What we do know is that the cost of Raanta or Grubauer would have more than likely been higher, due to age, and those trades could have easily crashed and burned.

[phoenix66]

5 minutes ago, FueltheFlames1075 said:

This article is flawed in a couple of ways, with one more directly connected and the other indirectly connected.

 

The direct connection is that it ignores any and all variables. It ignores the fact that Elliott and Raanta both played on far superior teams to Smith over the last several seasons. Judging based on the teams they played for, it would seem that more often than not Smith was the reason that his team won, where the same cannot be said as often for Elliott or Raanta. The fact is that any of these three, or other goalies, could be products of their environments or maybe it's the other way around. The only way to know with certainty is to see them on either a weaker team or a better team in the case of Smith. I understand the angst that comes with Smith's age as well, but each player is different and we won't know if he is in decline until we see how he does behind what should be a better team in Calgary. Is he better than Elliott or not, which is a question that the numbers on the surface would suggest not. Again this may or may not be related to the teams each player played for. Let's wait and see. It's no bigger risk in my opinion than taking a gamble on whether Raanta or Grubauer's numbers were because of them or because of their team.

 

Indirectly this is ironic because this same writer did an article a week ago, questioning whether the Flames were giving their own homegrown prospects a chance to play. They then make a move that signals that they are putting faith in their own prospect goalies, and it's called a half measure. Does that not seem just a little hypocritical to everyone?

 

Is it an expensive price to pay for Smith. That also depends on some variables that we won't know for awhile, or may never know. Would Hickey have signed here? What will that 2nd/3rd have been drafted as or traded for? What would the 3rd round pick that we theoretically could have gotten for Hickey, have turned out to be? Again these are things that can change the look of this trade. What we do know is that the cost of Raanta or Grubauer would have more than likely been higher, due to age, and those trades could have easily crashed and burned.

 

 

This is a very good article as well in full..

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/06/examining-smith-trade-eight-points-to.html

 

one great point for the Age conscious :

Older than him:

• Ryan Miller
• Craig Anderson
• Henrik Lundqvist

Younger but within a year:

• Pekka Rinne

not sure there are many who would not take at least 3 of those 4 right now and be overjoyed about it

 

And also points out , on Hickey .. we wanted to sign him this year .. he opted for his final College year .. so high risk to become a UFA

yes we maybe could have maybe gotten a 3rd rounder , or worse for him that may or may not have been a bust themselves , a few years down the road..  but instead we got a known entity , Now..

I'll take the known every time

[rickross]

Wow, lots of controversy surrounding this trade. Personally I like Mike Smith, he's a big body and arguably one of the games best stick handling goalies. I get why some are upset over losing a good prospect in Hickey and giving up another potential 2nd rounder but would you be more upset if Treliving sat pat and missed out on an opportunity to secure a future starter? MAF was never a lock to land in Calgary, guys like Raanta/Grubauer were unproven starters with much more risk. 

 

I do think Smith is one of the more under appreciated net minders around and he's won Arizona more games than they likely deserved. I too am not overly excited with his age but I can live with his cap hit of $4.25M, and the 2 yrs gives us some stability. It's not the perfectly ideal trade but I still consider it a good trade overall. Its too early to say who won this trade but for now i can applaud the effort by Treliving. 

[travel_dude]

28 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Thing is.. we talk about the price we paid, and speculate on what a better deal we could have gotten somewhere else..

We know how much BT talks to every team.. do we really believe for one second , he doesn't know the asking price for all these other options ?

Do we believe he paid more for Smith than the asking price for Fleury?  We've seen the end result of Bishop, too Rich for us .. it's already been reported last year it would have cost us Tkachuk for either one .

 

 

What was the asking price for MAF?  I didn't even think he was on the trade market.  They opted to expose him instead of losing key pieces of their future.  Non starter if you ask me.  Last year was an option year for the Pengies so they could keep him or trade him; they needed incentive.  Who knows what other options would cost.

 

Teams will probably lose the player they wanted the most and the goalie that could have brought back assets will still be there.  If Vegas picks Grubauer and Raanta, what are they going to do with them?  Gru is a RFA.  Raanta wants to be a starter.  Neither will get what they want in Vegas and teams may not want to pay a big amount for either. especially a RFA.  Unless they want one as a starter.

 

BT blinked first.  Not the worst decision to make, but not one that had to be done prior to the deadline.  Smith was not going to be protected.  And he wasn't going to be picked by Vegas.  Trade could have been made in the summer.  The only reason to trade before the deadline was for a player that would be scooped.  May not have got anyone from Vegas, but maybe Raanta will still be a Ranger.  Maybe they would like to get something for him after not losing him to Vegas.  

 

A conditional 2nd and Hickey is nothing to sneeze at.  He was an expendable (to us) trade asset.  

 

47 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

And also points out , on Hickey .. we wanted to sign him this year .. he opted for his final College year .. so high risk to become a UFA

yes we maybe could have maybe gotten a 3rd rounder , or worse for him that may or may not have been a bust themselves , a few years down the road..  but instead we got a known entity , Now..

I'll take the known every time

 

SO, he was offered a 2-way NHL contract that pays him $70k or so versus completing a degree and having something to fall back on should he fail to make the NHL.  Purely selfish.  He probably wants to play for the Rangers, like every Alberta born kid.  The high risk is players that have no morals, like Schultz or Vesey, that string along a team.  He didn't come out and say he wasn't going to sign ever.  Maybe he's a douche and would have done that, but that's more rare than not.

 

[redfire11]

Super happy acquiring Mike Smith.

Not only is Smith going to make our team better he will make this guy better

Goaltending Coach: Jordan Sigalet

Which will only translate positively for our young goal tenders coming up.

[phoenix66]

28 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

What was the asking price for MAF?  I didn't even think he was on the trade market.  They opted to expose him instead of losing key pieces of their future.  Non starter if you ask me.  Last year was an option year for the Pengies so they could keep him or trade him; they needed incentive.  Who knows what other options would cost.

 

Teams will probably lose the player they wanted the most and the goalie that could have brought back assets will still be there.  If Vegas picks Grubauer and Raanta, what are they going to do with them?  Gru is a RFA.  Raanta wants to be a starter.  Neither will get what they want in Vegas and teams may not want to pay a big amount for either. especially a RFA.  Unless they want one as a starter.

 

BT blinked first.  Not the worst decision to make, but not one that had to be done prior to the deadline.  Smith was not going to be protected.  And he wasn't going to be picked by Vegas.  Trade could have been made in the summer.  The only reason to trade before the deadline was for a player that would be scooped.  May not have got anyone from Vegas, but maybe Raanta will still be a Ranger.  Maybe they would like to get something for him after not losing him to Vegas.  

 

A conditional 2nd and Hickey is nothing to sneeze at.  He was an expendable (to us) trade asset.  

 

 

SO, he was offered a 2-way NHL contract that pays him $70k or so versus completing a degree and having something to fall back on should he fail to make the NHL.  Purely selfish.  He probably wants to play for the Rangers, like every Alberta born kid.  The high risk is players that have no morals, like Schultz or Vesey, that string along a team.  He didn't come out and say he wasn't going to sign ever.  Maybe he's a douche and would have done that, but that's more rare than not.

 

 

Exactly --    it was confirmed last year JR wanted our 1st rounder in a deal for MAF(tkachuk)--  he confirmed prior to the trade deadline that he would waive ..great , now he got to stay .  So whether the offer was on the table for us at last years draft , and never materialized again , he was either way too rich for our blood.. or not available at all.. so MAF was off the table for us. Once the playoffs were over, he was a lock to get moved . 

Either:

1) MAF said and LV confirmed he was only going to Vegas

2) we were on his no trade and got confirmation he would not waive for us 

3) The deal was again too rich for us from either Pittsburgh or LV and BT moved on 

 

there cant be any other option .. i highly doubt it was cheaper to get MAF and BT chose Smith for more cost 

 

I agree, if Raanta or Grubauer are to be available, then our best avenue is from LV.. and who is to say that's not the end game?

On their respective teams, they are high enough valued that its not unreasonable to assume that one of our top Goalie prospects (and more ) were going back in the deal. Especially in Washingtons case cuz trading Grubaeur could very easily cost them their other top prospect in Copley. Kudos to BT for not coughing that up.

 If we were to get one of them from Vegas I can see a 1st (16 OA)  getting it done. I would gladly pay that , and keep Gillies and Parsons.

I said immediately after the trade that Part 2 will be the time to judge the deal as a whole

 

It was also reported more than once we were not the only team in on him, WPG was one, not sure the other but at least 3 was the report , so he likely didnt have the luxury of waiting til later .

 

 

And I fully agree.. the college kids are a flawed system. Until they close that loophole somehow teams are forced to protect their ASSets.  Aside from the fact we dont know where he ranked in our depth chart in the Flames eyes,  if there is a possibility of losing that player for nothing , they need to move  them. Until the day it's fixed, if they go back for the 4th you have to take the attitude the risk of losing them for nothing is there .

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, FueltheFlames1075 said:

https://twitter.com/Fan960Steinberg/status/876168621604478976

 

Here is an interesting tweet from Steinberg.

 

If losing Hickey for nothing was a real possibility, then using him to get the Coyotes to buy some cap hit is totally fair.  We can still sign Hickey next summer when he goes UFA.

[jaybooitt19]

7 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with you.

 

And I hope you don't change your mind and defend it in a few days.

 

We got smoked on this trade.   Weird.   Our goaltending situation might actually be worse, and we have less prospects and less picks.  Shame.  The only upside is that it didn't involve anything/anyone significant.

I would love it if this site gave me the ability to ignore certain posters. If I never had to read another one of your posts I would be a happy man. 

[cccsberg]

11 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

IMO, Smith is an upgrade on Elliott and the cost was not outrageous.

 

I'd like to see the Flames sign UFA Anders Nilsson to be their backup for 2017/2018.

He had a decent .923 save % on a bad team at $1M per.

 

In 2018/2019, I hope to see one of Gillies or Rattich move up to NHL backup and Parsons move up to the AHL (assumes he starts 2017/2018 in the ECHL).

We don't need another goalie.  If the Flames don't re-sign Elliot or Johnson then bring up Rittich as back-up and run with them.  Smith is the perfect starter for us, right skills, right age and can teach the youngsters as they move in over the next season or two.  It's his big chance, and he's shown in the past he can be exceptional in playoffs so I have high hopes that this season we make the playoffs and do some damage.

[cccsberg]

6 hours ago, rickross said:

Wow, lots of controversy surrounding this trade. Personally I like Mike Smith, he's a big body and arguably one of the games best stick handling goalies. I get why some are upset over losing a good prospect in Hickey and giving up another potential 2nd rounder but would you be more upset if Treliving sat pat and missed out on an opportunity to secure a future starter? MAF was never a lock to land in Calgary, guys like Raanta/Grubauer were unproven starters with much more risk. 

 

I do think Smith is one of the more under appreciated net minders around and he's won Arizona more games than they likely deserved. I too am not overly excited with his age but I can live with his cap hit of $4.25M, and the 2 yrs gives us some stability. It's not the perfectly ideal trade but I still consider it a good trade overall. Its too early to say who won this trade but for now i can applaud the effort by Treliving. 

Seriously I'm at a loss why there is so much angst over this trade.  Calgary has what looks like two potential franchise-level goalie prospects, plus another older one that played the best of the three last year.  Rittich is probably ready to move up this year, and the other two next year or the year after.  Smith has been a very solid goalie for one of the worst teams in the league for the past several years, has a great record against our tough division, and an even better record in the playoffs, plus he's proven he can carry the starter load and thrive.  The Flames haven't had anyone as good for years.  Smith also is a terrific puck handler which should benefit our attack and if he can pass on some of that skill to the youngsters, bonus.

 

As for the price Johnson is UFA so he doesn't even count except as an x-draft number.  So it really is Hickey and (hopefully, likely) a 2nd for Smith on a reduced contract.  How much is that extra $1mm plus worth?  Something, we will see in the coming months after the dust clears.  As for Hickey, I like him, but to be honest he's fallen behind Andersson, Killington, Falkovsky(?), Fox and perhaps others.  Since I don't see Giordano, Hamilton or Brodie going anywhere anytime soon, and Hickey choosing to go back for his senior year rather than battle for an opening this year, there is a very high likelihood he'd go UFA next summer and we'd lose him for nothing since we get no compensatory pick because he wasn't a first rounder.  If that is the case, then it's REALLY a reduced-price Smith for a 2018 2nd rounder that won't be ready for 2-3 years beyond that.

 

Guys, our window is opening NOW, this is a tremendous trade for the Flames, a steal even considering all factors.  It fits our team, it fits our timing, it fits our up-and-coming goalies.  Get ready for a great year.

[kehatch]

It's Christmas morning and we got the 7 year old Honda instead of the new Audi we wanted. Plus mom and dad arguably paid a little too much. Disappointing, but it will get us to work safely in the morning. 

 

The Flames couldn't go back to Elliott. He was the single biggest reason we played catch up all year. He was also the single biggest reason we were out in four. Fair or not, those are the facts. The GM had to make a change. 

 

The Flames couldn't go with a gamble. We are at the point in our build where we can't afford a gamble in net. 

 

I was hoping the Flames would have went with a better temporary fix, or even better a long term fix, but we have seen many of those options disappear and who knows what is actually available and at what cost. 

 

Smith is fine. He is a decent number one and a clear upgrade in net. He gives us a year or two to get a kid in net or find something else. A second and a okay prospect without a contract isn't the moon (even if it is a bit much). 

 

I am meh on the deal. But at the end of the day it is better then biking to work. At the very least he is a solid option for next season. 

[MAC331]

13 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Hiller was a starter too.  BT may in fact go with Smith for the coming year with Rittich as the backup.  He can put McCollum as the BU in Stockton and play Parsons full time in Kansas City.  Or, he may decide to go after Raanta.  Allows you to have a solid NHL backup in case of injury or wean him into the starter job.  No different than Mason/Raanta would have been.  

 

I think Hickey was a 50/50 shot of signing here.  He would be fighting for a spot where we are deep LHS.  But a year can make a big difference.  If he signs with ARI next year, he may get a shot at the NHL sooner.  Or he may not even sign with them.  Depends on his value after another season in college.

 

As I said, it's not so much losing Hickey as it is what we got.  Smith was ok on a bad team.  Elliott was very good on a good team and turned into a questionable goalie on a different team.  If we see Smith looking just okay here, then we are no better off. 

We may be no better off with any goalie currently available. I think the timing for Smith is good for us and him. We have a surplus of good LHSD prospect defensemen, Hickey was expendable whether he was 50/50 to sign or not, he may not sign there either.
BT isn't done yet.