Confirmed with Link: Talbot for Stolarz

aspin3

Registered User
Oct 31, 2017
694
424
Because regardless of if the pass got through or not, he never sold the shot. It wasn’t even that fast of a pass. Koskinen has tons of time to get across, but he isn’t able to. He needs serious work on his lateral movement. I don’t know if it’s a lack of leg strength, or improper training, but it needs addressing. It’s flat out unacceptable to be that bad laterally at that level
Wrong. That was Larssons bad. The goalie plays the shot the d man takes the pass. If the goalie makes the cross ice pass he bails you out but 8 out of 10 times that is a goal.
 

McBeastMode

Registered User
Dec 29, 2012
3,363
4,881
Beside my neighbor..
From a Philly site...
Flyers trade Anthony Stolarz to Edmonton, acquire Cam Talbot

"Out of the 29 goalies across the league who have played in 30 games or more this season, Talbot is dead last in save percentage and 28th in GAA despite seeing the sixth-fewest shots among the group. At 5-on-5 the numbers don’t get too much prettier for Talbot. Of the 29 goalies who have played 1,300 5-on-5 minutes or more in 2018-19, Talbot is 24th with a .911 save percentage, 21st with a .971 low-danger save percentage, and 27th with a .757 high-danger save percentage. Of the 31 games he’s played in this season, Talbot has posted a save percentage of .900 or lower in 18 of the tilts."

Hopefully he can turn it around with the Flyers...
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,335
7,242
British Columbia
By my eye he seemed quicker laterally earlier in the season, lately I agree he has been painfully slow which is another reason that Larsson should've given up the shot and not the pass.

I can’t honestly say one way or another if he looks slower or not (I’d have to go rewatch some earlier games), but it was still an issue a bunch of us brought up right from the start. I think it’s more that he’s reading the play slower, so he’s starting out slightly behind. He still looked slow in his hot stretch, but he was tracking the puck well, and he didn’t expose his lack of speed nearly as much.

I 100% don’t agree with you that he gave up the pass. He read that correctly. It was a pass all day (Komarov’s head and body were turned to Lee the entire way), and he did give up the potential shot. Komarov just made a really nice saucer pass to get it by him. That happens sometimes.



That’s trying to give up the shot.

I wouldn’t be so fast to want to keep Stolarz around as an RFA. We need to see whether he is at least capable of playing at the level of a quality NHL backup. If he’s not there then we’ll need to find a better backup in UFA and I don’t where Stolarz would fit in that situation. It doesn’t sound like he’s keen to spend more time in the minors and I’m not sure we have room for him down there anyways.

There’s literally no downside to RFA vs UFA. If you get him in enough games to keep him an RFA, and you think he looks bad, and don’t want to keep him, you just simply don’t qualify him.

Wrong. That was Larssons bad. The goalie plays the shot the d man takes the pass. If the goalie makes the cross ice pass he bails you out but 8 out of 10 times that is a goal.

Nope. Blame Larsson all you want, but that was an easily stoppable shot. Like MAYBE a goal 1 out of 10 times, and certainly not 8 out of 10. It was such an obvious pass, hence why Larsson stretched out to try and block a pass. Yet Koskinen didn’t pick up on it, and when he did, he wasn’t able to get over. Players make small mistakes all the time. You can’t have the puck end up in the back of your net every time someone doesn’t play a situation perfectly. Larsson not getting a piece of the puck doesn’t mean Koskinen can screw up even worse, and blame Larsson. I guarantee other scouts have picked up on Koskinen. There’s a reason he was looking pass the entire way in. You don’t shoot when you have another guy because the pass is such an easy goal on Koskinen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panda Bear

destro909

Registered User
Jan 3, 2008
432
250
There’s literally no downside to RFA vs UFA. If you get him in enough games to keep him an RFA, and you think he looks bad, and don’t want to keep him, you just simply don’t qualify him.

Yes but Stolarz hasn't qualified for RFA status yet, and you were suggesting that we need to make sure he plays enough games so he becomes an RFA. If he does not play well for us then I see no reason to force him into games.
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,335
7,242
British Columbia
Yes but Stolarz hasn't qualified for RFA status yet, and you were suggesting that we need to make sure he plays enough games so he becomes an RFA. If he does not play well for us then I see no reason to force him into games.

Well what’s well enough? Because our other goalie can’t post a .900 SV% right now (he’s like .875 in the last ~18 games iirc). If he comes in and plays like a mediocre backup, that’s probably good enough to keep playing him to ensure he hits RFA
 

TopShelfGloveSide

Registered User
Dec 10, 2018
17,658
23,695
Yes but Stolarz hasn't qualified for RFA status yet, and you were suggesting that we need to make sure he plays enough games so he becomes an RFA. If he does not play well for us then I see no reason to force him into games.
Koskinen is playing like garbage. The net is wide open for someone to take control over it.
 

destro909

Registered User
Jan 3, 2008
432
250
Well what’s well enough? Because our other goalie can’t post a .900 SV% right now (he’s like .875 in the last ~18 games iirc). If he comes in and plays like a mediocre backup, that’s probably good enough to keep playing him to ensure he hits RFA

If Koskinen continues to play poorly then we’ll need better than a mediocre backup for next season

Koskinen is playing like garbage. The net is wide open for someone to take control over it.

I agree, however we don’t know yet if Stolarz will be any better
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,335
7,242
British Columbia
If Koskinen continues to play poorly then we’ll need better than a mediocre backup for next season



I agree, however we don’t know yet if Stolarz will be any better

That doesn’t have anything to do with this year though. If Koskinen struggles, and Stolarz plays mediocre, why wouldn’t you let Stolarz play in 10 of the last 24 games? You can also easily extend him, and go into camp with 3 goalies next year.
 

destro909

Registered User
Jan 3, 2008
432
250
That doesn’t have anything to do with this year though. If Koskinen struggles, and Stolarz plays mediocre, why wouldn’t you let Stolarz play in 10 of the last 24 games? You can also easily extend him, and go into camp with 3 goalies next year.

Sure, if Stolarz is playing better than Koskinen then play Stolarz. If he’s not, then don’t. I wouldn’t make any decisions on it one way or another right now.
 

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,498
15,065
Still don't get why Philly was so desperate to make this trade. Who else legitimately was in on Talbot?

Can't really think of any team to be honest. Why they wouldn't make us retain or take Elliott seems a bit odd
 

Ritchie Valens

Registered User
Sep 24, 2007
28,201
38,971
Still don't get why Philly was so desperate to make this trade. Who else legitimately was in on Talbot?

Can't really think of any team to be honest. Why they wouldn't make us retain or take Elliott seems a bit odd

I think it was K.G. standing firm on Stollarz and didn't want Elliott and his cap hit for the remainder of the season. We've all seen how Elliott played behind the St. Louis defense and the Calgary defense, now picture him behind the Oilers' D. Plus he's coming off a long term leg injury and I think he's on a conditioning stint with Lehigh Valley. At the end of the day, I think Philly wanted Talbot for the mentorship of Hart and they finally caved. It wouldn't surprise me to see them extend Talbot once Elliott is dealt either (I don't know what their cap situation is like). Brian Boucher chimed in on the importance of a mentor as a young goalie getting acclimated to the league as well.



It was also reported Talbot had Philly on his "no go" list so he had to waive his NTC to go there, which is admirable of him to do...he knew his time was up in Edmonton.
 

nturn06

Registered User
Nov 9, 2017
3,582
2,855
Still don't get why Philly was so desperate to make this trade. Who else legitimately was in on Talbot?

Can't really think of any team to be honest. Why they wouldn't make us retain or take Elliott seems a bit odd
Toronto Marlies.
 

Ritchie Valens

Registered User
Sep 24, 2007
28,201
38,971

Bryanbryoil

Pray For Ukraine
Sep 13, 2004
85,960
34,082
Or....could it be that they want to see how the guy that is guaranteed to be here for the next three years handles being an undisputed #1?

Maybe they should've done that before giving him that contract? Let's say that he craps the bed, then what?
 

Ritchie Valens

Registered User
Sep 24, 2007
28,201
38,971
Or....could it be that they want to see how the guy that is guaranteed to be here for the next three years handles being an undisputed #1?

He was given the ball to run with quite a bit from November on. If they wanted any goalie on an expiring deal for Talbot, they could have just taken Elliott and still fit Sekera in.
 

BarDownBobo

Registered User
Oct 19, 2012
6,437
3,071
City of Champions
Maybe they should've done that before giving him that contract? Let's say that he craps the bed, then what?
What's done is done, I prefer looking forward at this point.

He was given the ball to run with quite a bit from November on. If they wanted any goalie on an expiring deal for Talbot, they could have just taken Elliott and still fit Sekera in.
They'll eventually give Stolarz some games and if he seems like a fit I'm sure they'll extend him. I think he'd be hard pressed to find a better opportunity than what's here, so even if he's not a RFA I can't see him walking away from an offer if it's extended to him. The extra cap that they saved getting him instead of Elliot could also help them get extra assets at the deadline by retaining salary or taking on an expiring deal from another team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McFuhryous

Ritchie Valens

Registered User
Sep 24, 2007
28,201
38,971
What's done is done, I prefer looking forward at this point.


They'll eventually give Stolarz some games and if he seems like a fit I'm sure they'll extend him. I think he'd be hard pressed to find a better opportunity than what's here, so even if he's not a RFA I can't see him walking away from an offer if it's extended to him. The extra cap that they saved getting him instead of Elliot could also help them get extra assets at the deadline by retaining salary or taking on an expiring deal from another team.

Yep, I don't think Gagner is an Oiler without taking Stolarz back. None of the Condors goalies are ready for nhl backup duty yet and the ufa market is pretty lame...probably could find a decent backup but I think Stolarz will get his games in.

I think Philly had him pegged as their #1 eventually until Hart came along...who has gotten the hook in two straight games and allowed 5 the game before those two.
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,335
7,242
British Columbia
Or....could it be that they want to see how the guy that is guaranteed to be here for the next three years handles being an undisputed #1?

Except we’ve scene what he can do. He freaking sucks.

As you said, what’s done is done. We’re saddled with Koskinen for 3 years. We need to see if we can find a cap friendly way to get get a starting goalie (even a mediocre-bad one). Stolarz probably isn’t that guy, but we still need to see if he can be. Otherwise we’re going to have 3 choices. Buy out Koskinen, give a sizeable add to dump him somewhere, or trade him for an equally bad contract (Darling?) in the hopes the other goalie can bounce back.

Yep, I don't think Gagner is an Oiler without taking Stolarz back

Weird conclusion to draw. Gags/Spooner had almost no effect on the cap (like 15k).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->