why's everyone freaking out, 4.5 mil is nothing for what is currently their starter. It also obviously wasn't Chia's call unless Edmonton is totally hopeless.
Thats not how you evaluate players. You don't go starting goalies are worth x amount and therefore since we are paying this starter less it is okay. You evaluate players based on how their actual contributions and worth to the organization. Koskinen comparables and small sample size makes this a risky contract and one that he probably didn't deserve. When you give a guy a NTC, he's suppose to give up something else of value in return. In this case, I'm not quite sure what the exchange was for the NTC. It didn't seem like anything of significant value was sacraficed. Chiarelli or whoever negotiated this deal caved in every aspect of the contract: term, money, and player control for trades.
Someone explain to me how this player is significantly better than Casey DeSmith, who just signed with the Pens for 1.25m? Similar save percentage, GAA, games played etc. DeSmith is even 3 years younger. Neither has significant starting experience before this season. What gives?
Amazing that Chi lasted in this league as long as he did. So much talent and yet they continue to stink. HOW
I don't have a problem but I still think it's more than what I expected.
Why?I'd certainly have a problem.
Why?
He's a good goalie. Isn't he?
906SV% including an early hot streak, and talbot is now "the guy" according to hitchock.
No, this is an awful deal, and he isn't good.
If Hitchcock really believes that Talbot is "the guy" then he needs to gtfo now. The org chose between the 2 goalies and while you are crapping on his 0.906 sv%, Talbot has a 0.893% while also having 4 less wins in 1 more game started.
But Talbot has a career .915 and 2.59 even while factoring in this year. Not that Talbot has been good but do 30 games on a bad team negate his 6 year career faster than 30 marginally better games cement Koskinnen as the new starter?
Can the Talbot only been bad for 30 games narrative die?But Talbot has a career .915 and 2.59 even while factoring in this year. Not that Talbot has been good but do 30 games on a bad team negate his 6 year career faster than 30 marginally better games cement Koskinnen as the new starter?
Can the Talbot only been bad for 30 games narrative die?
He sucked his first year and lose the job to Nilsson. He got his head on straight and finished his first year average after a bad first half.
Second year he was very good and big reason why team made playoffs.
Last year he was bad.
This year he was complete and utter trash.
He has kind of rebounded and played a bit better lately. But going from trash to below average isnt anything to write home about.
Thats more then 30 games.