10,660 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, phoenix66 said:

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/

 

 

Well considering I never said it was a guarantee, no im not suggesting that. You make it seem like Talbot was a massive gamble ala Scrivens of Fasth. I'm saying it was a much more calculated gamble than that. The expectation of Talbot was he was going to be a starter who cokld carry the load. That was not then expectation of trades like Scrivens and Fasth. I would argue giving up a pretty comparable package for a 35 year old smith is a bigger gamble than what the Oilers did with Talbot.  

 

I guess if you think 1 blogger speaks for all the oilers ok. But anyway you look at it Talbot was pretty good his first year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Well considering I never said it was a guarantee, no im not suggesting that. You make it seem like Talbot was a massive gamble ala Scrivens of Fasth. I'm saying it was a much more calculated gamble than that. The expectation of Talbot was he was going to be a starter who cokld carry the load. That was not then expectation of trades like Scrivens and Fasth. I would argue giving up a pretty comparable package for a 35 year old smith is a bigger gamble than what the Oilers did with Talbot.  

 

I guess if you think 1 blogger speaks for all the oilers ok. But anyway you look at it Talbot was pretty good his first year. 

Despite my hypothetical, I would agree that Talbot was solid in his first season with the Oilers. My main point is you don't know how a trade will pan out until you know. It could go either way with Smith, the same way it could with Raanta or Grubauer.

 

I am not overly happy with the price, but what's done is done. BT will have to own up to the results of this trade if it goes bad. Let's hope that this does not happen and Smith provides us with great goaltending. Either way, it was a gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't know what to say.  When it was reported that the asking price for Smith was high, I chuckled.  Choke on him.

BT seems to have a habit of paying Arizona whatever they want in a trade.  

I'm guessing that BT had discussed the situation with Hickey, and had some inkling that he was going to go UFA next year.

Or perhaps there is a hidden handshake for part 2 of this deal.  Brouwer for Reider?  Stajan for Schenn?  Bouma for Duclair?

 

I'm annoyed at losing a D prospect for a old goalie.  Had this been a trade for Grubauer or Raanta, I would have been happier.

The conditional 2nd is whatever.  Hope he has to play x number of games to achieve that. 

 

Bottom line is that this is no better than signing Elliott for a 3rd or Mason for just cash.  Unless Smith is the 1a/1b guy to mentor Raanta or Grubauer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I just don't know what to say.  When it was reported that the asking price for Smith was high, I chuckled.  Choke on him.

BT seems to have a habit of paying Arizona whatever they want in a trade.  

I'm guessing that BT had discussed the situation with Hickey, and had some inkling that he was going to go UFA next year.

Or perhaps there is a hidden handshake for part 2 of this deal.  Brouwer for Reider?  Stajan for Schenn?  Bouma for Duclair?

 

I'm annoyed at losing a D prospect for a old goalie.  Had this been a trade for Grubauer or Raanta, I would have been happier.

The conditional 2nd is whatever.  Hope he has to play x number of games to achieve that. 

 

Bottom line is that this is no better than signing Elliott for a 3rd or Mason for just cash.  Unless Smith is the 1a/1b guy to mentor Raanta or Grubauer.

Smith is a workhorse and not a 1A goalie. He is a bonafide starter that can carry the load and this team. There was no certainy with Hickey ever playing for us, ask zima sowe really may have gotten him for a conditional 3rd or firm 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes 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).

 

420,

 

i agree, but the price was a bit higher than it would've been to re-sign smith. We added Hickey to the price. 

 

For me, it's too much when you account for what we paid last year as well.

 

i am ok with Smith, but it is the accumulation of both deals, everything we've paid for when we could've done these deals for more return in a Talbot, maybe an Anderson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

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

Yes its a conditional 3rd and the condition is we make the playoffs, if we make the playoffs it becomes a 2nd.

 

It was reported by elliotte friedman on twitter, I just cant link the tweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so torn on this trade....

 

On the bright side, Mike Smith is a bonafide #1 starter in the league, he is no doubt our #1 from here on out, he seems to be a battler who absolutely hates to lose, he also has the ability to absolutely steal games which we have kind of lacked since Kipper left.

 

My apprehensions lie in him being an older guy for the league at 35 and his numbers are mediocre, albeit being on an also mediocre Arizona team for the last 6 years.

 

I still wouldn't mind seeing if we can snag a legit backup, Mike Smith being the age that he is you need to worry about injuries and have a backup in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Well considering I never said it was a guarantee, no im not suggesting that. You make it seem like Talbot was a massive gamble ala Scrivens of Fasth. I'm saying it was a much more calculated gamble than that. The expectation of Talbot was he was going to be a starter who cokld carry the load. That was not then expectation of trades like Scrivens and Fasth. I would argue giving up a pretty comparable package for a 35 year old smith is a bigger gamble than what the Oilers did with Talbot.  

 

I guess if you think 1 blogger speaks for all the oilers ok. But anyway you look at it Talbot was pretty good his first year. 

Ok , lets put it in a better example.. Vesa Toskala.. he was kept over Kipper after all, then bombed in Toronto.

Darling is now getting a shot in Carolina , because they have the luxury of surviving the failure if it happens.

 

Point is not the names, its the fact it was a blind gamble.. calculated ?  Sure .. but blind nonetheless..

Can he handle a workload?  dunno

Can he handle lower defense?.. dunno

Can he carry a team?    dunno

How is he in the playoffs ?..  dunno

Can he be the Number 1?...  dunno

Fact is when you now HAVE TO make the playoffs , you need an answer to all those questions.

We needed to get a goaltender who checked all those boxes 

 

Of course there is no guarantee, just look at Rinne in the finals. (PS he's also only a year older than Rinne)

The basis of the question was,   when just making the playoffs is not enough.. do you go with someone who has done it before and has a track record , or do you roll the dice on an unknown of any degree and just hope you are right .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously Treliving isn't prepared to pay the price for other goalies. I tend to believe in our goalie prospects and think at least one will turn into a legit #1 in a couple of years. So I'm very happy with this deal. It's a stop gap and if he just plays well and makes all the save he should, we could make the playoffs and maybe win a round or two in each of the next two years. He has the potential to be a significant upgrade this year for us. That's really all I want plus we only lose a pick, a UFA and a prospect who might not have signed with us. With rumours of what other teams were asking for their goalies, this is a great deal IMO. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#Coyotes receive rights to goalie Chad Johnson, Brandon Hickey and a third-rounder that becomes a second-rounder if CGY makes playoffs.

— Sarah McLellan (@azc_mclellan) June 17, 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frigen nuts so we make playoffs and if we go out in 4 again we lose a 2nd nice looks like we are back in the Sutter era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah not a fan of this trade or Smith either. This is about right up there with Brouwer signing. You sign an over aged player prone to injury as a stop gap plus you just traded the backup ( under stand he was not signed). Nothing like throwing crap agisnt the wall and hope it creates art, sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Smith is a workhorse and not a 1A goalie. He is a bonafide starter that can carry the load and this team. There was no certainy with Hickey ever playing for us, ask zima sowe really may have gotten him for a conditional 3rd or firm 2nd.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I just don't know what to say.  When it was reported that the asking price for Smith was high, I chuckled.  Choke on him.

BT seems to have a habit of paying Arizona whatever they want in a trade.  

I'm guessing that BT had discussed the situation with Hickey, and had some inkling that he was going to go UFA next year.

Or perhaps there is a hidden handshake for part 2 of this deal.  Brouwer for Reider?  Stajan for Schenn?  Bouma for Duclair?

 

I'm annoyed at losing a D prospect for a old goalie.  Had this been a trade for Grubauer or Raanta, I would have been happier.

The conditional 2nd is whatever.  Hope he has to play x number of games to achieve that. 

 

Bottom line is that this is no better than signing Elliott for a 3rd or Mason for just cash.  Unless Smith is the 1a/1b guy to mentor Raanta or Grubauer.

I get the familiary with the Coyotes roster but do we really want to become the northern version?

 

I would have happily gived up that package for Grubauer (maybe a bit less for Raanta) but unless Vegas selects Grubauer that's out the window & if they do the price likely higher. As you said Elliott was less acquisition cost & Mason just the contract. I expect 1 or both signing @ a cap hit =/< 4.25.

 

I guess Smith is marginally better than starting with 2 backups but it sure looks like we're going with hope, a wing & a prayer in goal again. Given Smith's age I hope the backup isn't some bargain bin career backup. Given the lack of demand for possible starters in the league maybe bring in Pavalev @ 2-2.5 since he was a decent (not great) starter & good team guy that didn't even moan when sent to the AHL for Chevy's ill-fated gamble.

 

I guess I'm disappointed because the thought of Grubauer & Mason as a tandem fighting for starts (both are proud & want starts) caused great hope. For that with Grubauer it was the fact he's only 25 & Mason because I saw how he worked well with Neuvirth (helping him try to be better like an extra coach).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was the target then I agree Mason would have been better. Sign him and don't give up any assets and then you have the same level goaltending as smith will give you imo. 

That's the route I wanted them to go. If they were going to go the trade route go bigger than Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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

 

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith is good at playing the puck but doesn't that burn him sometimes? That might stress me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to capfriendly, the Coyotes eat some cap on Smith. So, $4.25 for 2 years helps us get to Gillies/Parsons.  A more affordable option to MAF and based on all rumors, the Flames were on MAF's no trade list.

 

Smith will now help us do what Elliott failed to.  Bridge us to our young G.  If all goes well, Smith will be our starter next season and then be a 1A/B to Gillies in year two.

 

Yes, the second rounder hurts.  Also, Hickey was trending well and is closer to NHL ready than Kylington, in my opinion.  It's a high price to pay but at least we got ourselves a starter for next season who's name is not Elliott and we don't give up one of Backlund or Bennett who we can use as trade bait for a RHS D or RW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

I just don't know what to say.  When it was reported that the asking price for Smith was high, I chuckled.  Choke on him.

BT seems to have a habit of paying Arizona whatever they want in a trade.  

I'm guessing that BT had discussed the situation with Hickey, and had some inkling that he was going to go UFA next year.

Or perhaps there is a hidden handshake for part 2 of this deal.  Brouwer for Reider?  Stajan for Schenn?  Bouma for Duclair?

 

I'm annoyed at losing a D prospect for a old goalie.  Had this been a trade for Grubauer or Raanta, I would have been happier.

The conditional 2nd is whatever.  Hope he has to play x number of games to achieve that. 

 

Bottom line is that this is no better than signing Elliott for a 3rd or Mason for just cash.  Unless Smith is the 1a/1b guy to mentor Raanta or Grubauer.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lost a pick next yr and perhaps a better trade partner for Hickey who was not coming here any way and No I not a family member. He will have a better chance of playing for Yote than here because we don't give our kids the opportunity any more any how. we have become a trade away or kids for experience that may or may not do any better. And we just gave BT another 2 yrs ouch he will drag this team down to the ground trade all our future and then when he is done get Hired back by yotes thanking him for all the great prospect he will give him in the next 2 yrs. Risebrough syndrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith is a much better goalie than Elliott. This is much more than a slight upgrade. I am really getting the sense that Calgary felt that signing Hickey was a long shot.

 

 

 

 

Mobile.png

Mobile (1).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess after doing more reading it could have been worse he could have traded away 1 of our top 6 for a has been so thanx BT maybe next week you can give up our 1st for a second and a third and a bag of pucks .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.