Confirmed with Link: Cam Talbot Signed To 3-Year Extension (AAV: $4.17M, Limited NMC)

[McPuritania]

heh, I hope so for the sake of your patience and peace of mind.

But wouldn't bet on it.

Bet on it. If I post there again, you can give me an avatar of your choosing for a year.

 

[GMofOilers]

Im not a big fan of the NMC at all. I dont mind the term, the dollars are pretty high with the NMC attached to it.

 

[GoldenTicket]

Talbot has potential. He's doesn't make me want to lose my #$%^ every game like Dubynk or Ty Conklin used to.

 

[PaPaDee]

Pretty bad contract IMO, Talbot is not worth anything more than $3M per.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

Management making bad bets doesn't change the fact that good bets are available for pennies almost every single year.

I'll say it again: Cam Talbot's contract has the biggest risk factor of any contract signed by an Oilers GM since at least Andrew Ference, but probably all the way back to Shawn Horcoff. If it goes bad next year, the Oilers will probably not be able to escape it.

Every year your getting goalies off the scrap bin and your taking risk - no offense to you or your post but its wrong in about 5 ways.

95% of the goalies who get traded and are successful is because the goalie in essence can be interchangeable within that respective organization for the reason that systems account for everything.

For the miniscule difference you get from one goalie to the next in the same echelon is a lateral or backwards trade at best.

If you could acquire a Quick/Price type guy who can in lots of ways still be successful when there team is playing well you try to identify that with pro clubs and with your amateur scouting.

Going up an echelon in goaltending - with a team that is defensively horrible is hard enough. Its equally harder to say lets go get Bishop or Neuvirth or all these guys who were given up by other teams that's hindsight and for every player we say we knew he would be good, there is about 10 that we look at as a total disappointment.


I'm not even a fan of Talbot (consistency issues)
but if you took 100 goalies in his same Tier (not a Price, Quick) there all going to perform the same way.

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

Chia Petes take on the contract....http://video.oilers.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=4&id=931252

 

[Del Preston]

Pretty bad contract IMO, Talbot is not worth anything more than $3M per.

Zero chance anyone was signing him for around that. Martin Jones got $3M/season last summer and he was an RFA.

 

[Draiskull]

Pretty bad contract IMO, Talbot is not worth anything more than $3M per.

maybe but what are the other options? Hiller? LB? Nilsson? or spending a 1st+ for a Bishop?

Talbot gained the trust of players and management. Considering the D in front of him and his play of late he is easily worth over 3M..
3M is RFA money these days... see Martin Jones.

These are all UFA years he would be burning.

 

[McBaevid]

Way to early to give this guy 4m a year.

 

[Beerfish]

Not a great fan of it, no sin on overpaying on a short term deal that you can get away from. I totally detest nt and nm clauses. Chia has laid his rump out on the line with this one as with his other moves so he better be right. It will be well worth it if talbot plays really well the vast majority of the time but if he is up and down like he has been this year then we will have another Scrivenza on our hands.

 

[Mr Sakich]

goatenders have a way of making everyone around them look better or worse than they actually are. The best example is Kipper and Dion. With Kipper playing all world, Dion looked like a decent dman. Once Kipper got human, the Flames couldn't trade Dion quick enough.

Currently, we can look at Petry. Playing in from of Scrivens and Fasth, he got us a 2nd round pick. Playing in front of Price, he is the best dman ever. 6 years, 5.5 mill is a bargain. Price gets hurt and Petry is -6, 5 points in the last 20 games. He looks a lot like last years Petry.

 

[Pointteen]

Way to early to give this guy 4m a year.

Are we all so used to **** goaltending that we are gonna hate on an average deal?

Talbot is the best tender since Roloson. Could be better. Maybe best since Cujo (I don't think Salo was as good as I remember him as a kid).

He is posting okay numbers with this putrid D. With no Klefbom since he took the reigns back. There are nights were Sekera is the only guy who looks like he belongs.

A hair over 4 million isn't bad. At all.
Talbot is a starter. A number one. Only reason he didn't take over New York in between seasons is because their other goal is arguably the best in the league. Corey Crawford makes 6. He's great, but isn't a top 5 starter. Maybe top 10. Still making 2 million more than Talbot.


I thought it was steep at first. Then I remembered who else the team has utilised in recent years. We as fans were impressed with Richard ****ing Bachman

 

[Up the Irons]

All the groaning. Do some posters ever approve of anything?

We just signed a decent/solid/good goalie (not great) to a 3 year deal, that is a bit pricey but not crippling.

What the ---- is the problem?

 

[shoop]

I thought it was steep at first. Then I remembered who else the team has utilised in recent years. We as fans were impressed with Richard ****ing Bachman

How about Scrivens. 3.77 GAA and a stellar .882 save percentage for the Habs this year?

Although wth are the Habs doing giving him the start against Chicago? Talk about a sacrificial lamb.

All the groaning. Do some posters ever approve of anything?

We just signed a decent/solid/good goalie (not great) to a 3 year deal, that is a bit pricey but not crippling.

What the ---- is the problem?

Seems like the comments are running five or six to one in favour of this deal. Is there really a problem with a little dissent? Most of the comments agree that it was a bit pricey.

 

[Pointteen]

Also a NMC doesn't mean much for goalies compared to skaters. If he doesn't perform in Edmonton and an NHL team wants to give him a chance, he'll waive it.

 

[Jumptheshark]

All the groaning. Do some posters ever approve of anything?

We just signed a decent/solid/good goalie (not great) to a 3 year deal, that is a bit pricey but not crippling.

What the ---- is the problem?

1 mill too much is the problem

term was good-but money wise 1mill to much--considering how long it has taken him to sort of come around. For what he has done in an oiler uniform it is not worth 4mill a year

take a look at Scrivens first 26 games as an oiler then look at Talbot--GAA is a little better but as we know save % is something we now have a better understanding of

 

[McFlyingV]

1 mill too much is the problem

term was good-but money wise 1mill to much--considering how long it has taken him to sort of come around. For what he has done in an oiler uniform it is not worth 4mill a year

take a look at Scrivens first 26 games as an oiler then look at Talbot--GAA is a little better but as we know save % is something we now have a better understanding of

Eh, Scrivens' technical skills were always god awful in comparison to Talbot. There's only so many times you can get away with poor body positioning and movement control in your crease, and unfortunately for Scrivens he wasn't athletic enough to make up for it.

 

[Replacement*]

Every year your getting goalies off the scrap bin and your taking risk - no offense to you or your post but its wrong in about 5 ways.

95% of the goalies who get traded and are successful is because the goalie in essence can be interchangeable within that respective organization for the reason that systems account for everything.

For the miniscule difference you get from one goalie to the next in the same echelon is a lateral or backwards trade at best.

If you could acquire a Quick/Price type guy who can in lots of ways still be successful when there team is playing well you try to identify that with pro clubs and with your amateur scouting.

Going up an echelon in goaltending - with a team that is defensively horrible is hard enough. Its equally harder to say lets go get Bishop or Neuvirth or all these guys who were given up by other teams that's hindsight and for every player we say we knew he would be good, there is about 10 that we look at as a total disappointment.


I'm not even a fan of Talbot (consistency issues)
but if you took 100 goalies in his same Tier (not a Price, Quick) there all going to perform the same way.

Actually Quick despite how amazing he can play is also notorious for playing bad periods that cost the Kings games. When Quick is bad he'll let a few in quickly. 4 against Ottawa just this weekend to blow the game. All 3rd period.

People have this idea that this only happens here. All goalies have funks. The thing is how much is it limited, what is the proportion of quality games and how well can they play at their best.

We finally got what looks like a #1 goalie here. As we can see that makes a big difference in winning games we shouldn't.

 

[Rafters]

So he is being paid like a bottom 5 starting goalie?.....

 

[Del Preston]

take a look at Scrivens first 26 games as an oiler then look at Talbot--GAA is a little better but as we know save % is something we now have a better understanding of

Scrivens: 3.13 GAA
Talbot: 2.58

That's not just a little better.

 

[CanmoreMike]

Had the NHL owners thought through their issues they might have been able to propose a contract with an option which would be great so team owners aren't saddled with unproven players they have to overpay and overcommit to so they sign.

If there was an opportunity to offer Talbot an option contract, say $3.25M a season for 1 and 2 and $6M for season 3, which would be a team option.

If Talbot reaches certain performance scores his option year is guaranteed (eg. placing in top 10 for Vezina voting). Otherwise, it's a team option.

The team is charged the full cap hit over the two years, in this case $4.167M a season, but they can walk away from the 3rd year if he doesn't perform. Player has incentive to earn 3rd year of deal with the security that if he gets injured he's covered.

The final year of the contract can't be less than the first two and place a cap on term a team can option (2 and 3 year deals) and it's only available to players who fulfill certain criteria (older Europeans coming over, inexperienced players who are approaching UFA status before they've played a set milestone number of games, etc).

 

[Jumptheshark]

Eh, Scrivens' technical skills were always god awful in comparison to Talbot. There's only so many times you can get away with poor body positioning and movement control in your crease, and unfortunately for Scrivens he wasn't athletic enough to make up for it.

in the month of october save % .897
November .867
December .934
So far in Jan .942

hopefully the guy that has shown up that last 2 months is the guy we signed and not the guy from the first two months

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

Had the NHL owners thought through their issues they might have been able to propose a contract with an option which would be great so team owners aren't saddled with unproven players they have to overpay and overcommit to so they sign.

If there was an opportunity to offer Talbot an option contract, say $3.25M a season for 1 and 2 and $6M for season 3, which would be a team option.

If Talbot reaches certain performance scores his option year is guaranteed (eg. placing in top 10 for Vezina voting). Otherwise, it's a team option.

The team is charged the full cap hit over the two years, in this case $4.167M a season, but they can walk away from the 3rd year if he doesn't perform. Player has incentive to earn 3rd year of deal with the security that if he gets injured he's covered.

The final year of the contract can't be less than the first two and place a cap on term a team can option (2 and 3 year deals) and it's only available to players who fulfill certain criteria (older Europeans coming over, inexperienced players who are approaching UFA status before they've played a set milestone number of games, etc).

Why can't they do that now?

Interesting idea btw.

 

[oobga]

Not a fan of us giving such good AAV and NMC, I feel we should have got the better end of at least one of those, but we got neither.

Still, people want to compare Scrivens and Talbot, but there is one big difference between then. Scrivens only got worse the longer he was an Oiler. He came in red hot from LA, had a good month and it was all downhill from then on. Talbot actually managed to turn his game around after a bad stretch. I was honestly not sure he was going to be able to do it, but he did. It's encouraging because it takes a heck of a lot of willpower to keep your game together behind this garbage defence. Some goalies just don't have the mental fortitude to make it on a team like ours. We saw a number of them come through here over the last couple years.

I hope he can keep his confidence up playing behind a crap team, because he's going to have to for the rest of this season at least still. If he can survive it, hopefully we have a more respectable D group next year and it should be easier for him to do well. He has to do all of that of course to come close to earning his new contract.

 

[Up the Irons]

1 mill too much is the problem

term was good-but money wise 1mill to much--considering how long it has taken him to sort of come around. For what he has done in an oiler uniform it is not worth 4mill a year

take a look at Scrivens first 26 games as an oiler then look at Talbot--GAA is a little better but as we know save % is something we now have a better understanding of

Omg! An NHLER is overpaid by 1mil! That's gotta be a first. They're screwed now. No hope.