[Rumour] UPD: Flames sign Cam Talbot (1yr, $2.75mil)

[Inferno]

The team played scared but it wasn't because of Smith. They weren't prepared for Colorado to push back the way they did and folded like a cheap tent.

Overall Smith had a bad season but he was actually playing pretty well the last 2-3 months besides a couple of games. And any doubt they still had in him should have been erased after game 1. That should have gave them a huge boost going into game 2 but they came out flat like they just figured they needed to show up to win.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Brick

Smith is just getting old. However, after what we have seen this past playoffs, I would hate to face him in a playoff series. He was dynamite.

This is somewhat exaggerated. His GAA in the playoffs was 3.20 (19th out of 22 goalies that played in the playoffs) His save percentage was .917 (10th out of 22) He did some grandstanding and was okay but I wouldn't call it dynamite. He did show up to play though. Too bad most of the rest of the team didn't.

That's only because the team left him out to dry defensively once Colorado was finally able to muster a lead or come back.

In a couple games it was 30+ shots after two periods but with the game extremely close and low scoring because of Smith standing on his head. Once they gave up the back breaker later in the game on a ten-beller that would be impossible for a goalie to stop, then they just folded and the Avs could then run up the score in the third with odd man breaks and guys getting shots from high danger spots unchallenged.

He was much more than okay. If there was a team competing in front of him for a full 60 (not hang their head and stop playing late in the game), most of those games would have been 0-2 GA, easily. His SV% behind a team that even still lost but didn't give up on defensive duties would probably be over .950. He was just that good.

[dissentowner]

Smith was fantastic in last year's playoffs. That being said I think that was clearly him having a hot streak that all goalies get occasionally. His regular season work at times was the worst I have ever seen a pro goalie play.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Smith was fantastic in last year's playoffs. That being said I think that was clearly him having a hot streak that all goalies get occasionally. His regular season work at times was the worst I have ever seen a pro goalie play.

Brent Krahn on 960 this morning was discussing how Smith is a "busy" goaltender and thrives on getting a lot of action and in regular season games. During the regular season the Flames weren't giving up many shots so he doesn't get a chance to get in rhythm hence the soft goals and mediocre play. The Flames were badly out-shot and outplayed against the Avs and Smith flourished. Seems like the style of hockey that suits Smith is not conducive to success for the Flames as they need a more even keel guy. I don't know if Talbot is that guy but considering both Talbot and Smith are coming off down seasons I'm going to put my money on the 32 year old goaltender rebounding over the 37 year old goaltender.

[Split98]

He'll love Edmonton then

[The Yen Man]

I'll be real upset if Smith somehow comes back to the Flames. Yes, he had a great 4 games in the playoffs. But I'd argue by the 5th game, he was already coming back to Earth, and I'm sure if that series dragged on, he'd just get worse. Just because he had a good 4 game stretch in the playoffs does not erase a whole regular season where at times, dude looked like a beer league goalie. And now with another year on the oddometre, you're risking him looking even worse in the upcoming season.

Let Edmonton deal with that problem. I'd much rather gamble on Talbot having a bounceback season than Smith TBH.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Yes, he had a great 4 games in the playoffs. But I'd argue by the 5th game, he was already coming back to Earth, and I'm sure if that series dragged on, he'd just get worse.

I don't want him back either, but I wouldn't use this as justification, personally. Hard to stay sharp when you're facing a zillion shots a game.

[Sutter_in_law]

Steinberg just said on The FAN that he believes that it’s a 1 year, reasonably priced deal for Talbot that will be announced on Monday morning

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Sutter_in_law

Steinberg just said on The FAN that he believes that it’s a 1 year, reasonably priced deal for Talbot that will be announced on Monday morning

That would be ideal. Nothing wrong with a guy playing for his next contract. More salary cap room the following year if he delivers and we want to keep him around longer.

[djsFlames]

I very much like the sound of a 1 year cheap deal. Low risk. Saves you 2-3 mil buying low on a guy as opposed to going after a big name.

It's okay if he moves on next summer if that means he upped his value this season by playing well with us. Rittich is still where the future may lie after all.

[PepsiFree]

A cheap 1 year deal is perfect. You end up with a few likely scenarios.

1. Talbot emerges as a bonafide starter, who you then re-sign
2. Both Talbot and Rittich emerge as bonafide starters, you definitely win the Stanley Cup, you then keep one and shift your focus to a backup to repeat
3. Rittich emerges as a bonafide starter and Talbot doesn’t, so he moves on
4. Neither Rittich or Talbot emerge as starters and you go scorched earth, burning everything to the ground and trading everyone because all hope is once again lost

I’m really happy with any outcome.

[GioforPM]

This fits with Rittich's development IMO. Year one: a rookie callup as a backup. Year two: a rookie regular as backup to a vet, moving into a starter role over time. Year three, starter with a veteran backup. Then, year four, perhaps well established starter?

[topfiverecords]

Or Rittich falters, Talbot comes in and plays lights out and you try to re-sign him next year but he gets more dollar and term somewhere else and we're back to square one.

Still good with 1 year though. No risk, no reward. Although you could classify 2 years as a better risk & reward scenario.

[djsFlames]

nm

[Reggie Dunlop]

"We expect David Rittich will be our starter" - Brad Treliving on Sportsnet960

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A cheap 1 year deal is perfect. You end up with a few likely scenarios.

1. Talbot emerges as a bonafide starter, who you then re-sign
2. Both Talbot and Rittich emerge as bonafide starters, you definitely win the Stanley Cup, you then keep one and shift your focus to a backup to repeat
3. Rittich emerges as a bonafide starter and Talbot doesn’t, so he moves on
4. Neither Rittich or Talbot emerge as starters and you go scorched earth, burning everything to the ground and trading everyone because all hope is once again lost

I’m really happy with any outcome.

I will order combo #2 please. With a large heroin beer.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

"We expect David Rittich will be our starter" - Brad Treliving on Sportsnet960

I am okay with this as long as there is a strong backup.

[Strange Brew]

“Tim Tebow has earned the right to come into camp as our starter” - John Elway, 2012 NFL offseason.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Rittich as a starter and Talbot on a 1 year cheap contract? Yeah, I'm fine with that.

Mike Smith was the #1 guy in the playoffs, played fantastic and the team got dominated for the most part. I'm much more concerned with how the skaters look and how they respond going into next season. Not concerned at all if it's a Rittich/Talbot duo to start the year. Much more concerned how the rest of the team looks as the season goes along.

[Sandman]

So it's basically a sure thing? Talbot for one year?