Kinkaid didn't assume the starters role in New Jersey and lead them to the playoffs. Condon was going to get a pretty good deal here or somewhere else. I think the money is too high, and I would have preferred 2 years, but I'm not shocked at what he got. I hope he starts 25-30 games next season.
My general feeling is a guy like Kinkaid or someone of a similar caliber to him could've come here and done the same thing Condon did for us. I didn't think what Condon did was anything extraordinary. Condon was solid but unspectacular, and was insulated by a coach and system that preaches shot suppression. Kinkaid was on one of the worst teams in the league and still had essentially the same SV % as Condon. I'm pretty confident a guy like Kinkaid could have come in and replicate what Condon gave us, especially given the system we play. It's like how all the backup goalies on the LA Kings post good numbers and seem to hold the fort down admirably behind Quick, but then go to other teams and see a huge drop off in performance (Enroth, Scrivens, Budaj, Bernier). And no I don't see Condon as the Martin Jones type of backup that emerges into a good starter. He's much more in line with the other guys I mentioned, Just my honest opinion.
I think it comes down to any guy you could sign for 800k to 1.5 mil doesn't typically have starter potential, and the Sens feel as though Condon might have starter potential. If he never becomes a starter, or at the very least, an excellent backup, the deal is overpayment, but if he ends up becoming Anderson's replacement as the team's starter, that's a solid deal.
Basically exactly how I feel about the deal. I just disagree with the Sens on the starting potential of Condon, so I see the deal ending up as an overpayment. I think his ceiling is a solid backup goalie. I don't even particularly see him as a 1B type of goalie.
The Senators clearly see Condon as starting goalie material if they gave him this deal.
I agree that a more "fair" contract or what I would have expected would have been something in the 1.5M-1.75M range over two years, but teams could talk to free agents since last Sunday and it's entirely plausible a different team drove up the price. If that is the case, the Senators would be morons if they walked away.
Let's lay out the situation, Craig Anderson will be 37 at the end of this season. The Senators don't have anybody in the pipeline who will be ready to start at that time. It's plausible that they see Condon as an NHL starter. Maybe they don't see him as a top 10 starter, but his play last year suggested he can be a solid middle of the road stop gap for us. Why would we walk away from him when he is willing to sign for backup money this year, and then very low money in year's 2 and 3. For reference, even in his more expensive years of this contract he is not likely to crack the top 30 paid goalies list.
On the topic of Keith Kinkaid, his numbers are similar to Mike Condon last year but there are two big factors.
1) He didn't play as many games as Condon.
2) He got choice games as a backup. Because of rest+easier opponents, backups tend to have better numbers than starters. Not to mention Condon played something like 25 straight games which likely deflated his numbers.
3) Teams throughout the league may not have perceived Kinkaid to be a potential starter. We know about a dozen teams were in on Condon. At least one or two might have pegged him as a starter or future starter like we must have.
I don't dislike the player, I dislike the contract. Condon did a solid job for the Sens, but I do not agree with the notion that he has starting potential, hence I think the deal is an overpayment.
I agree that the Sens need to start zeroing in on Anderson's successor. I just don't see Condon as the answer. To me he is a solid backup, nothing more. He's not a 23 year old who is going to continue to grow and develop - what you see is basically what you get at this point.
I'm pretty confident a guy like Kinkaid or Nilsson or Chad Johnson etc could have come in and done the same Condon did while providing similar value going forward at a more reasonable cost.
I was using Kinkaid as an example because he signed today. I think you leave out an important factor when discussing his numbers though - he was on a far worse team that gave up the sixth most goals in the NHL with a wretched D-corps and still posted similar SV %. Condon was insulated by a team whose approach is clearly rooted in defense first, shot suppression, etc and had a far better D corps.
With the way the Senators emphasize D under Boucher, It's like how all the backup goalies on the LA Kings post good numbers and seem to hold the fort down admirably behind Quick, but then go to other teams and see a huge drop off in performance (Enroth, Scrivens, Budaj, Bernier). And no I don't see Condon as the Martin Jones type of backup that emerges into a good starter. He's much more in line with the other guys I mentioned, Just my honest opinion.