Confirmed with Link: Oilers sign Mikko Koskinen

[Drivesaitl]

History says he'll probably fail. But what would you peg his chances at? How good of a chance does he have to have in order for this to be a worthwhile bet? How much does him failing hurt the franchise, vs. how much does him succeeding help? Who (other than Francouz, who I don't remember anyone mentioning before the Avs signed him) is a better bet?

I never mentioned Francouz.

I read your previous post. I don't agree that this being a 10 percent chance that this Koski contract pans out being a good thing. Really at this point or any point Chia should be playing 50-50 ball and particularly at 2.5M. Its moved far beyond the point of taking long shots. The reason that this is getting so roundly criticized though is due to Chia's past record here of getting goalie backups. He's struck out at least 4 times and the team has suffered through 3 seasons of Talbot not having adequate backup. That IS the context.

Myself I see this as maybe a 25 % chance Koski will be good here. Less that he will cover his contract pay in games or worth. If he hits 25 games at this price he's maybe covering the bet but only if those games are getting good goaltending.

I see not even a 10% chance that he pushes Talbot or replaces him.

 

[McDNicks17]

I never mentioned Francouz.

I read your previous post. I don't agree that this being a 10 percent chance that this Koski contract pans out being a good thing. Really at this point or any point Chia should be playing 50-50 ball and particularly at 2.5M. Its moved far beyond the point of taking long shots. The reason that this is getting so roundly criticized though is due to Chia's past record here of getting goalie backups. He's struck out at least 4 times and the team has suffered through 3 seasons of Talbot not having adequate backup. That IS the context.

Myself I see this as maybe a 25 % chance Koski will be good here. Less that he will cover his contract pay in games or worth. If he hits 25 games at this price he's maybe covering the bet but only if those games are getting good goaltending.

I see not even a 10% chance that he pushes Talbot or replaces him.

I guess the question comes down to what backup goalie out there would have more than that 10% to push to or replace Talbot(since I think we can agree that's why Chia went this route)?

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I guess the question comes down to what backup goalie out there would have more than that 10% to push to or replace Talbot?

Miller if you can pry him out of Anaheim would be a reasonable bet. He was good for the Ducks last year.

 

[joestevens29]

Miller if you can pry him out of Anaheim would be a reasonable bet. He was good for the Ducks last year.

He isn't going to leave ANA. Pretty clear he wants to stay in California due to his wife

 

[McDNicks17]

Miller if you can pry him out of Anaheim would be a reasonable bet. He was good for the Ducks last year.

I would assume we'd be looking at a decent asking price since Anaheim doesn't really have anything in the wings to replace him.

Would giving up assets for a soon-to-be 38 year old be better?

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I would assume we'd be looking at a decent asking price since Anaheim doesn't really have anything in the wings to replace him.

Would giving up assets for a soon-to-be 38 year old be better?

We could float them another Gernat I'm sure.

 

[PerformanceMcOil]

I never mentioned Francouz.

I read your previous post. I don't agree that this being a 10 percent chance that this Koski contract pans out being a good thing. Really at this point or any point Chia should be playing 50-50 ball and particularly at 2.5M. Its moved far beyond the point of taking long shots. The reason that this is getting so roundly criticized though is due to Chia's past record here of getting goalie backups. He's struck out at least 4 times and the team has suffered through 3 seasons of Talbot not having adequate backup. That IS the context.

Myself I see this as maybe a 25 % chance Koski will be good here. Less that he will cover his contract pay in games or worth. If he hits 25 games at this price he's maybe covering the bet but only if those games are getting good goaltending.

I see not even a 10% chance that he pushes Talbot or replaces him.

So who's better? Also, I don't understand the thinking that Chia has to hit a home run here. Why? We gave up zero prospect capital for him. Any established backup is going to be $1M, and I don't see any way that Koskinen stays on the books if he flames out. Are the Oilers a 1.5M winger away from contending this year? Which goalie out there is 50-50 to be able to push Talbot?

More than that, I don't get the weird obsession with the backup. The Oilers didn't suck this year because their backups sucked, they sucked because their starter sucked. Generally backups are going to be as good as their team's defense at best (which was poor this year). If they could outplay their team's defense consistently, they'd be starters, not backups.

As far as money's worth, again who cares? If this was the price to get a guy who has some non-zero chance of being a good NHLer, then in my view it is worth it, given what Talbot did.

 

[CupofOil]

You mean the media likes to stir things up and try and create controversy to get website hits? That's crazy talk.

I have yet to see a valid reason, or better available backup suggested.

Valid reasons....

1) The Oilers don't have enough cap space to afford overpaying a backup goalie. It restricts them from improving other problem areas, every million counts especially for a cap strapped team.

2) He hasn't proven anything at the NHL level and is approaching 30 years old.

3) Chia hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt since all his previous backup experiments (3 years worth of them) have been failures.

Are these not valid reasons for complaints about the signing?
Of course I hope it works out but it's not unreasonable to be critical of this signing.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Valid reasons....

1) The Oilers don't have enough cap space to afford overpaying a backup goalie. It restricts them from improving other problem areas, every million counts especially for a cap strapped team.

2) He hasn't proven anything at the NHL level and is approaching 30 years old.

3) Chia hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt since all his previous backup experiments (3 years worth of them) have been failures.

Are these not valid reasons for complaints about the signing?
Of course I hope it works out but it's not unreasonable to be critical of this signing.

fair enough, what kind of goalie should the Oilers be looking for then?

 

[PerformanceMcOil]

fair enough, what kind of goalie should the Oilers be looking for then?

Whichever one we don't get, obviously!

 

[CupofOil]

fair enough, what kind of goalie should the Oilers be looking for then?

I don't know, it's up to Chia to figure that out. I'd rather have somebody who is more proven as an NHL backup if I'm using 2.5M to address it.

This is his 4th offseason and he still hasn't found a solution and this appears to be another "hope and pray" signing so skepticism is warranted IMO. Might be worth the risk but the risk is higher than usual with this one.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I don't know, it's up to Chia to figure that out. I'd rather have somebody who is more proven as an NHL backup if I'm using 2.5M to address it.

This is his 4th offseason and he still hasn't found a solution and this appears to be another "hope and pray" signing so skepticism is warranted IMO. Might be worth the risk but the risk is higher than usual with this one.

The thing is, if this signing is successful... Then what? If you sign him going forward he's going to want more than 2.5.

 

[nabob]

Valid reasons....

1) The Oilers don't have enough cap space to afford overpaying a backup goalie. It restricts them from improving other problem areas, every million counts especially for a cap strapped team.

2) He hasn't proven anything at the NHL level and is approaching 30 years old.

3) Chia hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt since all his previous backup experiments (3 years worth of them) have been failures.

Are these not valid reasons for complaints about the signing?
Of course I hope it works out but it's not unreasonable to be critical of this signing.

1) you get what you pay for. Might as well keep Montoya then, would the doubters be happy then?

2) he has proven himself on the world stage and the next highest level below the NHL. He was also a former high draft pick so it's not like he came out of nowhere. True it isn't the NHL but how can you criticize someone for not doing something they have never had the opportunity to do? It doesn't make sense.

3) those signings and other players have absolutely nothing to do with Koskinen. But then again it's the same people saying that who also think Larsson is a bum, not based off his own play but rather the play of a winger in New Jersey.

I get the reason for some doubt. But for people to be figuratively flinging themselves off buildings over us signing a potentially very good goalie seems a bit much.

 

[nabob]

If the oilers defense doesn’t get upgraded, Koskinen won’t have to be worried about being bored

If our top 3 Dmen aren't injured for most of the season it should help as well. Also a PK setup that isn't Swiss cheese should help too.

 

[McDNicks17]

I don't know, it's up to Chia to figure that out. I'd rather have somebody who is more proven as an NHL backup if I'm using 2.5M to address it.

This is his 4th offseason and he still hasn't found a solution and this appears to be another "hope and pray" signing so skepticism is warranted IMO. Might be worth the risk but the risk is higher than usual with this one.

If you want to get a backup with a chance at pushing Talbot, I think you have to hope and pray.

A cheap, proven backup with a shot at playing 20+ games and pushing a starter is basically a unicorn unless it's a young guy you've drafted.

 

[PerformanceMcOil]

I don't know, it's up to Chia to figure that out. I'd rather have somebody who is more proven as an NHL backup if I'm using 2.5M to address it.

This is his 4th offseason and he still hasn't found a solution and this appears to be another "hope and pray" signing so skepticism is warranted IMO. Might be worth the risk but the risk is higher than usual with this one.

There's another name for a proven backup - starters. Goaltenders are a very high-variance position in general, and like the majority of relievers in baseball, I don't think you ever really know what you are going to get with backups. Most of the very good backups are either guys that are pushing to become starters (unlikely to be available), playing on teams with very good team D (hopefully the Oilers improve in that regard, but no guarantees), or guys that have been starters in the past - like Miller, who I think would be a good short-term solution, but again is probably unavailable.

Consistency is what separates backups from starters.

 

[soothsayer]

The thing is, if this signing is successful... Then what? If you sign him going forward he's going to want more than 2.5.

It's an awkward signing for so many reasons. Your question is a good one. Really, what if he does put up great numbers. Do the Oilers sign him to a starting goalie contract after one year of good play? As the saying goes, no one is a starting goalie until they put up starting numbers for two consecutive years. The end goal here is murky, to say the least. They've had two years to address this issue and now their plan is as unclear as ever.

 

[Cypress]

fair enough, what kind of goalie should the Oilers be looking for then?

We need to wait until after the season to find that out so the perpetual compainers can use the power of hindsight to say what Chia should have done.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

I don't know, it's up to Chia to figure that out. I'd rather have somebody who is more proven as an NHL backup if I'm using 2.5M to address it.

This is his 4th offseason and he still hasn't found a solution and this appears to be another "hope and pray" signing so skepticism is warranted IMO. Might be worth the risk but the risk is higher than usual with this one.

there really isn't anyone available...and the above-average ones would cost more money or assets to acquire

 

[CupofOil]

1) you get what you pay for. Might as well keep Montoya then, would the doubters be happy then?

2) he has proven himself on the world stage and the next highest level below the NHL. He was also a former high draft pick so it's not like he came out of nowhere. True it isn't the NHL but how can you criticize someone for not doing something they have never had the opportunity to do? It doesn't make sense.

3) those signings and other players have absolutely nothing to do with Koskinen. But then again it's the same people saying that who also think Larsson is a bum, not based off his own play but rather the play of a winger in New Jersey.

I get the reason for some doubt. But for people to be figuratively flinging themselves off buildings over us signing a potentially very good goalie seems a bit much.

1) Doesn't have to be Montoya but at least one capable backup in 4 seasons would be nice.

2) I'm not criticizing him and I know that he has a good international resume but it's still not NHL proven. Goaltending is a whole lot different in the KHL than it is in the NHL as far as style of game and level of player that he faces on a daily basis is concerned.

3) Those other signings establish a pattern of failing to fill the need so naturally, the fanbase will be skeptical again especially when it's an NHL unproven player. If it was a 22-25 year unproven, that would be one thing, but it's a 30 year old unproven.

It's not the end of the world or anything but, on the surface, that's a good chunk of money (money the Oilers really don't have the luxury of throwing around) for a big risk.
What I do like about the signing is it seems that he has the tools to potentially be starter material as opposed to most backups so the upside is there.

 

[PerformanceMcOil]

1) Doesn't have to be Montoya but at least one capable backup in 4 seasons would be nice..

If Montoya is a failure as an NHL backup, who isn't? The guy has stuck around for 9 NHL seasons, producing numbers ranging from quite good to quite bad. He seems like the very definition of a quality NHL backup, because again, a guy who consistently puts up good numbers year after year is called a starter.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

It's an awkward signing for so many reasons. Your question is a good one. Really, what if he does put up great numbers. Do the Oilers sign him to a starting goalie contract after one year of good play? As the saying goes, no one is a starting goalie until they put up starting numbers for two consecutive years. The end goal here is murky, to say the least. They've had two years to address this issue and now their plan is as unclear as ever.

no it isn't...it's a 1-year "show me" contract on a proven starting KHL goalie who coming in to push Talbot and play 25 games

if he works out great...maybe they re-sign him
if he flops, no big deal..its a 1-year deal and back to the KHL he goes

 

[McGoMcD]

there really isn't anyone available...and the above-average ones would cost more money or assets to acquire

Ya, no one at all on this list.

NHL Free Agents, Free Agents List - NHL Numbers

sigh, tons of options.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Ya, no one at all on this list.

NHL Free Agents, Free Agents List - NHL Numbers

sigh, tons of options.

and would require a lot more money to acquire..

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Ya, no one at all on this list.

NHL Free Agents, Free Agents List - NHL Numbers

sigh, tons of options.

Lehtonen and Lehner would've been my picks of those guys but do you think either signs for $2.5 million or less? I don't. IMO it's premature to call this a good or bad signing. If he comes in and sucks then it will clearly be a bad signing. If he comes in and does well then we have another option if Talbot struggles. Best case scenario he becomes a starter for us and outplays Talbot, worst case he sucks and we send him down and he eats ~$1.5 million in cap space.