Cam Talbot - Mod warning #251

[surGeon]

Why would you ever trade the best goalie in the league for picks?

Trade Lundquist. He is older, it would clear cap space and he probably has more trade value. Screw the sentimental crap.

Start the Talbot the usurper.

 

[haveandare]

Why would you ever trade the best goalie in the league for picks?

Trade Lundquist. He is older, it would clear cap space and he probably has more trade value. Screw the sentimental crap.

Start the Talbot the usurper.

Are you serious?

Talbot is the best goalie in the league?

He's played very well, but he's been getting sheltered starts and his entire career is a small sample size.

Hank isn't here for sentimentality. He's been one of the most consistent goalies in the world over a huge sample size. He has more than twice as many shutouts as Talbot has games played.

 

[TheTakedown]

if he keeps up the stats then it's going to be much more expensive if we wait

true, but how sure are you that he'd be open to extending with so much time on his contract left?

I suppose there is a middle ground somewhere

 

[surGeon]

Are you serious?

Talbot is the best goalie in the league?

He's played very well, but he's been getting sheltered starts and his entire career is a small sample size.

Hank isn't here for sentimentality. He's been one of the most consistent goalies in the world over a huge sample size. He has more than twice as many shutouts as Talbot has games played.

All right, he may not be the best in the league, but you can't put up numbers like he has in the NHL even over a small 20 game sample of (somewhat) sheltered starts unless you're really good.

He is good enough to be a starter in the NHL and probably good enough to be in the top half. Having two excellent goaltenders is nice, but wasteful. Since Lundquist has greater trade value because of his super stardom and track record, which you point out, and because his impact on the cap is far greater and because he is older with less upside potential, it makes far more sense to trade him than it would make to trade Talbot.

Bold moves like going with Talbot and trading Lundquist in this situation is what separates the hairy men with testicles and vision from the boys.

 

[Fitzy]

All right, he may not be the best in the league, but you can't put up numbers like he has in the NHL even over a small 20 game sample of (somewhat) sheltered starts unless you're really good.

Oh,

2013- Craig Anderson, 24 games played .941 sv%, 1.69 GAA
2012- Brian Elliot, 38 games played, .940 sv%, 1.56 GAA
2010 Ty Conklin, 26 games played, .921 sv%, 2.48 GAA

 

[aufheben]

Who was that goalie for the Kings this year that went on an insane tear? And people thought Quick's job was in trouble.

 

[Killem Dafoe]

In my humble opinion, there may be just a little too much Talbot appreciation going on in this thread.

 

[aufheben]

In my humble opinion, there may be just a little too much Talbot appreciation going on in this thread.

Yeah, last night was honestly the easiest shutout I've ever seen.

 

[Fitzy]

Yeah, last night was honestly the easiest shutout I've ever seen.

Cam's 17 save shutout vs Nashville, where he wasn't even named one of the 3 stars takes the cake, for me.

 

[Beacon]

I'd trade him for a quality #2C... and I mean a guy that can put up 60-70 points, plus a prospect, possibly another goalie

Anything else? No thanks, he's worth that much to us

A 60-70 point center may have been a second liner in the 1980s when every first liner scored a point per game and a bunch of players were getting 100-120 points, but not today.

The 31st best center has 49 points. The 60th has 39 points. There are a few games left, but a second line center is someone who scores 45-50 points per season. A guy who scores 60-70 points is in the 10-15 range in scoring among centers.

Honestly, if we get a player like Brassard or Hagelin for Talbot, it's worth doing for us. To answer the question why we would do it: because another Hagelin would help us while we can still sign a quality backup goalie like Biron in his first season with us.

 

[Cake or Death]

I'd trade him for a quality #2C... and I mean a guy that can put up 60-70 points, plus a prospect, possibly another goalie

Anything else? No thanks, he's worth that much to us

60-70 pts is a #1C. Nothing personal, but we are not getting a top line center (especially with a prospect) for an unproven backup. Especially considering the quantity of goalies that flashed one good season and never went anywhere near replicating it any time in their career.

 

[RangerBoy]

The Rangers should look into re-signing Talbot. They don't have a goaltender in the system ready to play in the NHL. Talbot is signed for next season. How much for a 2-3 year extension? $1.5M per? The Rangers need assets. Sign Talbot and maybe look into trading him in a year or two or just keep him.

 

[Chimpradamus]

All right, he may not be the best in the league, but you can't put up numbers like he has in the NHL even over a small 20 game sample of (somewhat) sheltered starts unless you're really good.

Yes you can. There's that word consistency that is so ridiculously important. There are dozens of goalies who have played extremely well, more dozens of players, only to be forgotten just as quickly. 20 games is nothing. If 20 games was a sure fire way to know who will be good, Alexandre Daigle would be a Hall of Famer. Daigle who? Exactly. Jim Carrey, the Vezina goalie. Carrey who, the actor? Do I need to go on? Should I say, given a 20 game sample, Anderson is just as good - or better - than Lundqvist?

Should I re-post the "Chad Johnson should be the NYR starter instead of Lundqvist" thread? Or the "Al Montoya will be our starter" thread?

He is good enough to be a starter in the NHL and probably good enough to be in the top half. Having two excellent goaltenders is nice, but wasteful. Since Lundquist has greater trade value because of his super stardom and track record, which you point out, and because his impact on the cap is far greater and because he is older with less upside potential, it makes far more sense to trade him than it would make to trade Talbot.

Bold moves like going with Talbot and trading Lundquist in this situation is what separates the hairy men with testicles and vision from the boys.

Yes, let's pull a Vancouver, give Lundqvist away for nothing, realize Talbot is not good enough to be a consistent starter and start looking for lotto picks. Yes, I realize Talbot has had a fantastic season as a backup, but let's not get carried away, shall we? Small sample size, sheltered minutes, disciplined team in front. I can't remember a single "fight for your life" game that Talbot has had to perform in, where the team in front has looked completely lost.

 

[Algernop Kreider]

The first one was Scrivens, and he's been even better for the Oilers.

 

[GordonGecko]

Yes you can. There's that word consistency that is so ridiculously important.

I think he's got the exact right mental makeup for that consistency

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Have to get something off my chest here. I know he got another shut out against Edmonton, but he did not have a great game. Several moments where I really was afraid of them scoring, including the open net miss by Eberle.

I'm happy with him as our back-up, but against Edmonton he was not that great.

 

[GordonGecko]

Have to get something off my chest here. I know he got another shut out against Edmonton, but he did not have a great game. Several moments where I really was afraid of them scoring, including the open net miss by Eberle.

I'm happy with him as our back-up, but against Edmonton he was not that great.

He had an easy game but was in position all night and did what had to be done. I don't think you being "afraid of them scoring" qualifies as something wrong with cam

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Not saying something's wrong, but he just didn't look as secure as he usually does

 

[Crazed Beaver]

This thread is disturbing. Instead of recognizing the outstanding play of our backup it is being used to undermine his solid contributions. As if Hank has never benefited from solid d in front of him. Talbot got start in montrael in part due to hanks inneffective play there. Hanks a great goalie but that's not the point. We have another goalie who is opening some eyes and might bring real value in trade if his play stays strong next yr.

Player A is playing inconsistent Based on humongous contract yet should not be called on it in any shape or form. However, player B has put up outstanding numbers while massively outplaying measly contract which evidently has won him the privilege of diminishment and disrespect primarily Because his play makes player A look bad.

Is it not possible a college goalie might be older due to, wait for it........college? Or might the team playing d in front of him have hurt development as well? Our rangers have one of top d's in league yet are continually thrown under bus by many for culpability for every goal player A gives up. However, this doesnt apply to player B nor does it apply to his development on a horrible team.

So get with the program people, player B's success obviously has nothing to do with his play and he's overrated because stats and save % and shutouts don't matter for him because player a is goat.

 

[haveandare]

This thread is disturbing. Instead of recognizing the outstanding play of our backup it is being used to undermine his solid contributions. As if Hank has never benefited from solid d in front of him. Talbot got start in montrael in part due to hanks inneffective play there. Hanks a great goalie but that's not the point. We have another goalie who is opening some eyes and might bring real value in trade if his play stays strong next yr.

Player A is playing inconsistent Based on humongous contract yet should not be called on it in any shape or form. However, player B has put up outstanding numbers while massively outplaying measly contract which evidently has won him the privilege of diminishment and disrespect primarily Because his play makes player A look bad.

Is it not possible a college goalie might be older due to, wait for it........college? Or might the team playing d in front of him have hurt development as well? Our rangers have one of top d's in league yet are continually thrown under bus by many for culpability for every goal player A gives up. However, this doesnt apply to player B nor does it apply to his development on a horrible team.

So get with the program people, player B's success obviously has nothing to do with his play and he's overrated because stats and save % and shutouts don't matter for him because player a is goat.

What's disturbing to me is the reoccurring trend of saying whatever flavor of the season goalie is better than Hank, who has been tops in the league for almost a decade - which is the real test of modern NHL goalies. Many otherwise forgettable goalies have good stretches. The true test of quality in today's NHL is a goalie's consistency over multiple seasons. Even Quick, arguably the best in the world, comes and goes from game to game, season to season, regular season to post, etc. It's hard to be good for a long period, and it's also the most important aspect of a goalie's game. You want to know what your goalie is going to do before the game starts. You don't want to be praying that tonight is one of his good nights.

The player A and B part is pretty loaded. Hank isn't on his new contract yet, which seems to be forgotten ten times a day, and he was called on subpar play to start the season constantly. He's not being called on his play recently because he's been playing well. Talbot has been good for his role, but his role is a small one and a comparatively easy one compared to Hank's. That isn't something people say to make Hank look good, that is 100% established fact. Talbot's accomplishments are being diminished because some people are comparing them favorably to Hank's which is bananas. Again, Hank has more than twice as many shutouts as Talbot has games played. There is no favorable comparison for Talbot to Hank. None. And it's not because he's not good, it's because that's a silly comparison to make, and any number of Chad Johnson/Al Montoya threads can and did prove that.

How can you be complaining about people diminishing Talbot, who has played 20 good games, when you're diminishing Hank, who is the franchise leader in wins and shutouts, and who has had many times more incredible performances than Talbot has over a huge period of time?

Talbot has been very good in his role. That doesn't mean he's a starter, it doesn't mean he's as good as Hank, and it doesn't even approach meaning that he's better than Hank. How many times does this have to happen before people realize the pattern?

 

[Crazed Beaver]

What's disturbing to me is the reoccurring trend of saying whatever flavor of the season goalie is better than Hank, who has been tops in the league for almost a decade - which is the real test of modern NHL goalies. Many otherwise forgettable goalies have good stretches. The true test of quality in today's NHL is a goalie's consistency over multiple seasons. Even Quick, arguably the best in the world, comes and goes from game to game, season to season, regular season to post, etc. It's hard to be good for a long period, and it's also the most important aspect of a goalie's game. You want to know what your goalie is going to do before the game starts. You don't want to be praying that tonight is one of his good nights.

Excellent points, no argument here. I have only criticized hanks consistency this year which is relevant because it's this year ........ Hank is surefire hof but his greatness is reflected in his massive salary which brings with it expectations of a level of consistency which has fallen short of mark.

The player A and B part is pretty loaded. Hank isn't on his new contract yet, which seems to be forgotten ten times a day, and he was called on subpar play to start the season constantly. He's not being called on his play recently because he's been playing well. Talbot has been good for his role, but
his role is a small one and a comparatively easy one compared to Hank's. That isn't something people say to make Hank look good, that is 100% established fact. Talbot's accomplishments are being diminished because some people are comparing them favorably to Hank's which is bananas. Again, Hank has more than twice as many shutouts as Talbot has games played. There is no favorable
comparison for Talbot to Hank. None. And it's not because he's not good, it's because that's a silly
comparison to make, and any number of Chad Johnson/Al Montoya threads can and did prove that.

So a 950 save % is easy? Your giving career stats to prop an argument designed to deminish the play of a first yr goalie in a thread for his appreciation.., I go by what I see and talbot deserves Praise not a history lesson.

How can you be complaining about people diminishing Talbot, who has played 20 good games, when you're diminishing Hank, who is the franchise leader in wins and shutouts, and who has had many times more incredible performances than Talbot has over a huge period of time?

Hanks play is subject to responsibilty which comes with his salary. The fact of the matter is that he's been short of the mark. He's still a great goalie but here you are in a talbot appreciation thread avoiding facts and giving history lessons to deminish the stellar play of talbot.

Talbot has been very good in his role. That doesn't mean he's a starter, it doesn't mean he's as good as Hank, and it doesn't even approach meaning that he's better than Hank. How many times does this have to happen before people realize the pattern?

It's his first yr so you have no idea what his future holds. The chances of him being as good as Hank are slim to none but he might become a starter. As a fan I can see no legitimate reason for criticism of talbot due to factual evidence based on this seasons play. Therefore, I feel sad that some might push a misguided agenda into a thread designed for appreciation of our rookie goaltender.

 

[haveandare]

It's his first yr so you have no idea what his future holds. The chances of him being as good as Hank are slim to none but he might become a starter. As a fan I can see no legitimate reason for criticism of talbot due to factual evidence based on this seasons play. Therefore, I feel sad that some might push a misguided agenda into a thread designed for appreciation of our rookie goaltender.

In a Talbot appreciation thread, I was responding to a comment that suggested trading Hank because Talbot is the "best goalie in the league." I'm not really sorry if pointing out the absurdity of that somehow offends you or is an affront to Talbot. I don't Talbot himself would even agree with that.

.950 SV% isn't easy, but playing 20 games that are literally hand picked for a backup goalie is way easer than playing all the other games. I'm giving career stats to "prop up" the argument that long-term consistency is the most important part of modern NHL goalies. It is. Talbot has been great in 20 starts. I've said this numerous times. That's not diminishing his play, that's putting it in proper context and not blowing it up into something that it very clearly isn't.

Hank's contract hasn't even started yet. How many times does this need to be said? We can all whine about him not living up to it next year, when he's actually playing under it. This year, he's not. And if this is "falling short" I'd suggest that you look around the league at what other goalies do, because save for the start of the season, when the entire team looked lost, Hank has been excellent.

Nobody has any idea what Talbot's future holds. That's my point. Naming him as something he isn't based on 20 games is foolish. I don't see any reason to criticize him with no context either. I do see, and I have reacted to, people comparing him favorably to a goalie who is among the greatest this franchise has ever seen because he's had a very good season as a backup.

People could have used history lessons when they were talking about Chad Johnson and Al Montoya too. History is important. It teaches us lessons and stops us from making the same mistakes again and again and again.

 

[Crazed Beaver]

In a Talbot appreciation thread, I was responding to a comment that suggested trading Hank because Talbot is the "best goalie in the league." I'm not really sorry if pointing out the absurdity of that somehow offends you or is an affront to Talbot. I don't Talbot himself would even agree with that.

My original post was mainly in response to the negative nature of multiple posts in an appreciation thread. Im not sorry either

Hank's contract hasn't even started yet. How many times does this need to be said? We can all whine about him not living up to it next year, when he's actually playing under it. This year, he's not. And if this is "falling short" I'd suggest that you look around the league at what other goalies do, because save for the start of the season, when the entire team looked lost, Hank has been excellent.

Is he not paid as a top goalie already even before the absurd contract kicks in? Maybe you should look around at what most goalies get paid? Once again, the start of the season comment infers your reluctance to admit hank has been inconsistent. Yet you have no problem blaming everyone else.

Nobody has any idea what Talbot's future holds. That's my point. Naming him as something he isn't based on 20 games is foolish. I don't see any reason to criticize him with no context either. I do see, and I have reacted to, people comparing him favorably to a goalie who is among the greatest this franchise has ever seen because he's had a very good season as a backup.

This happens because of the inherent double standard that is constant. Hank is never to blame and Talbot never deserving. Talbot's play seems to create the need for some people to provide their diminishing context. When I see reoccurring soft goals, flopping and losing goalie stick once a game as well as other things that aren't hank like their will be criticism and it is justified.

 

[GordonGecko]

everybody needs to chill the **** out.

all people are saying is Cam has been a great asset to the team and has huge potential, let's leave both out the "Cam's not that great" and "hank should be traded" talk

 

[haveandare]

My original post was mainly in response to the negative nature of multiple posts in an appreciation thread. Im not sorry either




Is he not paid as a top goalie already even before the absurd contract kicks in? Maybe you should look around at what most goalies get paid? Once again, the start of the season comment infers your reluctance to admit hank has been inconsistent. Yet you have no problem blaming everyone else.



This happens because of the inherent double standard that is constant. Hank is never to blame and Talbot never deserving. Talbot's play seems to create the need for some people to provide their diminishing context. When I see reoccurring soft goals, flopping and losing goalie stick once a game as well as other things that aren't hank like their will be criticism and it is justified.

Hank's hit is 6.8 this year. Quick's is 5.8. Rinne's is 7. Varlamov is about to have a cap hit of 5.9. What most goalies get isn't really relevant when you're talking about the best goalies. The best goalies get paid a lot. Hank is one of them, and he gets paid a lot as well.

You're taking the arguments of a dozen different people and putting them in my mouth. I don't agree with a bunch of those statements.

Hank has been inconsistent if you take the entire year in scope. "The start of the season comment" is me saying that.

Hank is to blame when Hank is bad. He's has more bad games than Talbot this year because he played almost 3 times as many games.

Talbot is deserving of praise. But he's deserving of praise relative to his accomplishments. He's been an excellent backup so far, and if he can keep this up, he'll very likely get a chance to be a starter somewhere else down the line.

Criticize Hank when he deserves it. That's fine. I do it too. Again, I'm not sure who made some of the points you're countering, but it wasn't me.