Follow me on Twitter @ToddCordell
Sportsnet's Nick Kypreos recently reported the Arizona Coyotes may be willing to trade goaltender Mike Smith.
Teams are already calling about the 35-year-old's services and, according to TSN's Pierre LeBrun, the Calgary Flames are among that group.
LeBrun mentioned while the Flames like Smith, he probably isn't their No. 1 target.
I know Smith hasn't played behind a good team in a few years, but he is not a guy I'd be targeting.
He owns a .912 save percentage over the last four seasons, which is below league average, his best days are behind him, he's expensive ($5.66 million cap hit), and the Flames would have to give up assets to get him.
Would he post better numbers in Calgary than Arizona? Likely, but
the Flames could sign someone like Steve Mason for less money and keep all their assets while doing so.
I'm not crazy about buying high on Fleury following a good showing in the playoffs, either, but I do prefer Fleury to Smith. Fleury is younger and has posted a better overall save percentage than Smith in four of the last five years.
The Pittsburgh Penguins also have an expansion problem so they're dealing from a position of weakness in that they have to trade Fleury (they're not protecting him over Matt Murray), whereas the Coyotes aren't forced to do anything with Smith.
Again, I'd prefer signing a free agent like Mason -- he is younger than both, has posted better 5v5 numbers than both, and wouldn't cost any assets -- but if the Flames are going to trade for one of Smith or Fleury, I think the latter is the better choice.
Recent posts:
Flames lose out on Rutta sweepstakes
Flames shouldn't be interested in Mike Smith
Mason an ideal solution in goal for the Flames
Treliving comments on expansion draft, addressing the defense, and more
The Flames should stay away from Alzner in free agency
Could the Flames and Ducks become trade partners?
Report: Flames getting new jerseys for 2017-18 season
Giordano-Hamilton the NHL's best pairing in 2016-17
Calgary Flames Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»