55
Photo Credit: Sergei Belski-USA TODAY Sports

Report: Calgary Flames trading for Mike Smith

Mike Smith’s name has been coming up in connection to the Calgary Flames for some time now. The reason? The Flames do not have any NHL goalies signed for the 2017-18 season, and presumably, they may like one. Smith, it would seem, has been a target of theirs – and with the expansion draft trade deadline approaching fast at 1 p.m. MT today, if a deal is to be made, it is to be made very, very soon.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Smith is a 35-year-old goalie who has another two years left on his deal. He carries a cap hit of $5,666,667. In other words, he is both old and expensive.

Targeting Smith kind of makes sense in the sense that the Flames have lacked stability in net for several seasons now, and Smith could, in theory, be the answer. He’s signed for another two years, after all, and he has history of being a starter ever since he joined the Arizona-then-Phoenix Coyotes back in 2011-12. Through the six seasons he’s played for them, he has started 310 games, and posted a .916 save percentage.

Sounds good, right? He’s coming off of a .914 save percentage for one of the worst teams in the NHL this past season, and had an even strength save percentage of .924 – tied for 13th in the NHL among goalies who played at least half the season.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Two seasons ago, he posted a save percentage of .904, with an even strength save percentage of .912. That was the last time he started 60+ games in a season.

So targeting Smith is a pretty big gamble, made even bigger by the fact that he is both old and expensive. Are the Flames going to get the Smith who was decent, but not stellar, for a bad team this past season? Or are they going to get the inconsistent player who has already shown cracks, all while committing to him for a rather sizeable cap hit?

Of course, this could be contingent on just who the Flames are giving up, or what they may be getting back. If Troy Brouwer is headed to Arizona, then that offsets a fair bit of Smith’s incoming cap hit, all the while freeing up a forward spot for a better player. If the Flames are able to recuperate some picks in this trade, or even a decent prospect (Anthony Duclair?) then it looks a whole lot different.

But in the meantime, the idea of targeting Smith is strange, especially considering where the Flames are as they start to enter their window of contention. And if this risk doesn’t pay off, then the consequences could be rather bad.


  • Newbietwo

    One has to think duclair is part of this deal otherwise it makes absolutely no sense.. but then duclair shoots left so what’s the point because where would he play..

    Perhaps we get a 2nd rounder as part of this? Even that makes zero sense as it’s not like Arizona has cap issues at all..

    Perplexed

  • The Sultan

    At first I was like? Hello darkness my old friend…

    Then I remembered how brutal Edmonton has been against Arizona and I like it more.

    And then I remembered how absolutely terrible Elliot and Johnson were and I could live with Smith/Gillies.

  • Newbietwo

    What is the flames are getting smith as a side deal with Vegas for fluery? I just don’t see Smith being the end result here folks because it makes no sense

      • McRib

        Hickey is a FA at the end of his year if he goes back to BU, which it appears he is going to do (even though his team is all leaving for greener pastures in Arizona, Boston and even Portland in the WHL). Hickey’s offensive game hasn’t developed at all, really at this point best case he is a third pairing mobile shutdown defender. I don’t even know how many offensive minutes he is going to get as a senior, as Fabbro is sure to pass him on the depth chart as PP Quarterback.

  • Baalzamon

    Let’s be honest guys, we were never going to like this trade. Desperate for a goalie two summers in a row? Maybe we should just be happy it’s not Antti Niemi.

  • Newbietwo

    So we get Smith for $4 million a year for two years.. I just don’t know about this.. Tre what the hell are you thinking man.. while the acquisition cost ain’t bad you just gave up a ton of cap space.. you either have to justify and explain this as the cost for other goalies were much higher or I am totally lost.. you could have had Johnson and Elliot for that

  • RKD

    I’m really not a fan of this move, a 35 year old goalie when you need need deals for Bennett etc. He’s just a stop game guy until Gillies is ready. I was so hoping for Raanta or someone of that age and calibre. Sure the price maybe steep but you can’t cheap out on a goalie.

  • Cfan in Van

    Well, this was last on my list of possibilities. I’d be happier with Elliot and a Riddich/Gillies backup. That would be cheaper too. Optimism… Fading…