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

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Mike Smith's game starts after a loss in the regular season:

Oct: 2
Nov: 1
Dec: 0
Jan: 0
Feb: 1
Mar: 0
Apr: 0

Consecutive games played by Smith and Rittich:

Oct: 9–2
Nov: 2–4
Dec: 5–6
Jan: 2–6
Feb: 5–5
Mar: 5–5
Apr: 0–2

The only month that Smith started more consecutive games than Rittich was in October. From November to January Rittich started more consecutively than Smith, in February and March they were even and in April Rittich started 2/3 remaining games.

The Flames handled the workload distribution between both goalies just about perfectly.

I don't doubt your Googling skills, so if I was wrong then I was wrong. I'm a bit surprised by the first set of numbers there, that Smith only ever had 4 starts after a loss. Sure felt like more. But I'd also be interested in seeing the number of starts Smith got AFTER Rittich won. I seem to recall an uproar here just about every time Smith was confirmed a starter. And I definitely remember some hate sent his way when Smith got the start after Rittich won a game. Maybe that's why I mentioned in my post why I never felt that Rittich got into a solid groove and his time in net was constantly broken up, even after a win. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'm curious to see how many starts Smith got after Rittich won a game, or only let in a goal or 2.

While the Flames handled the 1A/1B scenario well, the point I was trying to get at was that IMO Rittich should be in net for more games then 45. I think he's proven he's ready to handle the task of additional games. He's also at the age when goalies tend to breakout after doing their time.

[cracher]

They were serving tall-boys at the STH info meeting, please feel free to correct me if you drank fewer than me.


Tre made the comment that he didn't see Rittich as a 60 game goalie, and that many teams are going towards the tandem. Is this going to work with Talbot's preference of being a starter?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I don't doubt your Googling skills, so if I was wrong then I was wrong. I'm a bit surprised by the first set of numbers there, that Smith only ever had 4 starts after a loss. Sure felt like more. But I'd also be interested in seeing the number of starts Smith got AFTER Rittich won. I seem to recall an uproar here just about every time Smith was confirmed a starter. And I definitely remember some hate sent his way when Smith got the start after Rittich won a game. Maybe that's why I mentioned in my post why I never felt that Rittich got into a solid groove and his time in net was constantly broken up, even after a win. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'm curious to see how many starts Smith got after Rittich won a game, or only let in a goal or 2.

Game starts lost after a win for Smith and Rittich:

October: 1–1
November: 1–2
December: 1–0
January: 2–1
February: 2–1
March: 1–3
April: 1–0

I'm a sucker for doing your work for you, but your recollection has once again failed you. Over the course of the season Smith started games after a Rittich win 8 times, while Rittich started after a Smith win 9 times. It would have been an even 9 times for each player, but I intentionally disqualified the nine day All Star Break, which ended with a Rittich win in Carolina, and a Smith start in Washington.

While the Flames handled the 1A/1B scenario well, the point I was trying to get at was that IMO Rittich should be in net for more games then 45. I think he's proven he's ready to handle the task of additional games. He's also at the age when goalies tend to breakout after doing their time.

I agree, but I fail to see what that has to do with rehearsing what happened last year. The Flames did not short-change Rittich, and while there was a slight deference toward Smith because of his experience, the coaches also amply demonstrated a tremendous level of confidence and support for Rittich in his second NHL season, and after a total of 16 NHL starts.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cracher

They were serving tall-boys at the STH info meeting, please feel free to correct me if you drank fewer than me.


Tre made the comment that he didn't see Rittich as a 60 game goalie, and that many teams are going towards the tandem. Is this going to work with Talbot's preference of being a starter?

I think there are two things to extrapolate from Treliving's comments:

1) The current direction of the NHL is towards the disappearance of 60-game goalies, and more squarely towards team splits in the 30/35–50/55 range.

2) If Talbot signs in Calgary, the ideal outcome will see him start ±30 games, play well, and then sign a long-term contract to be a starting goalie with another team with Rittich more firmly established as Calgary's #1 goalie.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by cracher

They were serving tall-boys at the STH info meeting, please feel free to correct me if you drank fewer than me.


Tre made the comment that he didn't see Rittich as a 60 game goalie, and that many teams are going towards the tandem. Is this going to work with Talbot's preference of being a starter?

Depends how you define it.

Only 17 G's started 50 or more games last year.

So if a starter is a guy that plays 50 ish and his tandem plays 30ish, then Talbot should have no issue coming to Calgary. He will get those games as long as he earns them. Thing is I believe Rittich will be given the same opportunity, so ultimately they will decide who the starter is in my mind.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

I think if Talbot signs, it will be a 'win and you're in' type of thing. I could see him starting anywhere from 30-55 games depending on performance. There is no way they are penciling in Rittich for 50-55 starts. Unless of course he's winning a ton.

[LiquidX]

Originally Posted by cracher

Tre made the comment that he didn't see Rittich as a 60 game goalie, and that many teams are going towards the tandem. Is this going to work with Talbot's preference of being a starter?

This is what teams without a proven high caliber goalie would say. If we had better options available, the statement would be different.

[dammage79]

I'd much rather be making a sacrifice somewhere on the roster and go big dog hunting for a goalie but it's just not
in the cards. I dont like being pigeon holed into relying on the belief that Rittich is the guy. Reeks of Ramo 2.0 to me still to this very moment.

Said it all season while reading the incessant winjing about Smith, I want a total blank slate in net next year. No one comes back.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I'd much rather making a sacrifice somewhere on the roster and go big dog hunting for a goalie but it's just not.in the cards. I dont like being pigeon holed into relying on the belief that Rittich is the guy. Reeks of Ramo 2.0 to me still to this very moment.

Ramo was 27-years-old already when he first suited up for the Flames, and he never won more than 17 games in any one of his three seasons here.

Rittich doesn't turn 27 for another two months, and he is only twelve wins away from Ramo's Calgary total of 47, but in only two seasons played. Rittich has already equaled or bettered Ramo's career highs in starts (42 v. 37), wins (27 v. 17), GAA (2.61 v. 2.60), and SP (0.911 v. 0.912).

Said it all season while reading the incessant winjing about Smith, I want a total blank slate in net next year. No one comes back.

It is strange that you would not be more optimistic about a young goalie who is entering his third NHL season, and shown consistent progression each year that he has played in North America. Rittich may end up no better than a NHL backup, but I don't see why anyone would count him out so early, and after such a promising start to his career.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I'd much rather be making a sacrifice somewhere on the roster and go big dog hunting for a goalie but it's just not
in the cards. I dont like being pigeon holed into relying on the belief that Rittich is the guy. Reeks of Ramo 2.0 to me still to this very moment.

Said it all season while reading the incessant winjing about Smith, I want a total blank slate in net next year. No one comes back.

Ramo wasn't even that bad, though. He was always respectable in the crease. Seasons of .911, .912, and .909 save-percentages in Calgary.

I see no reason to abandon Rittich at this point in time.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Ramo wasn't even that bad, though. He was always respectable in the crease. Seasons of .911, .912, and .909 save-percentages in Calgary...

It is also worth remembering that Ramo was in the midst of an excellent run of games, and looked like he was starting to establish himself as a bona fide starter when he suffered what ended up being a NHL career ending leg injury.

[TheScorpion]

Yeah, that crazy game against the Sharks where Hiller came in and played out of his mind! I'll never forget that one.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is also worth remembering that Ramo was in the midst of an excellent run of games, and looked like he was starting to establish himself as a bona fide starter when he suffered what ended up being a NHL career ending leg injury.

Ramo was better than a lot of people gave him credit for.

If his career didn't go off the rails because of injury, I would have rather kept him than go with what we did after that.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by LiquidX

This is what teams without a proven high caliber goalie would say. If we had better options available, the statement would be different.

This is absolutely correct. Treliving was going after a big name goalie hard in previous seasons.

Now we have a goalie more suited to a tandem, so what else is he going to say.

[ricosuave]

Last year, at any time prior to the playoffs, I think everyone would have been thrilled with a Smith for Talbot trade...

[---Hatrick---]

We have seen that Talbot can be a pretty good starter in the NHL. He’s been over worked and played behind some crappy teams recently. Can he get back to his form with a better team in front of him, or is his confidence shot? That is the question

[Calgary4LIfe]

This is why I am more than fine with Talbot:


Fact: Talbot HAS been a good goalie in the past. More ore less a proven commodity, albeit just for a couple of seasons + very good backup services.


Fact: Talbot sucked the big one last year on Edmonton AND Philadelphia.


Was Talbot just a 'couple of seasons' type, or no?


Talbot is no Dubynk (I liked Dubynk as a prospect and especially so as a young starter way back in the day and always thought he was going to be a good goalie eventually - probably have stated that once or twice on this forum years back). However, there could be some similarities here below the surface.


Remember when Dubynk went to Nashville, and Trotz stated that Dubynk picked up some bad habits? Well, he didn't exactly correct himself there, but that was the start of his turnaround. What happened to Dubynk could very well have happened to Talbot, and it really sounds very similar.


So what did happen?


Dubynk started getting lit up suddenly. Why? Well, the Oilers were horrible at defence (were? still are more accurately). So what impact did this have on Dubynk? Was it being 'shell shocked'? Not exactly. What he ended up doing was not trusting the players in front of him, so he started cheating more, getting out of position more, getting ready for that cross-crease pass more since the coverage was probably lost on the guy who is probably streaking down the wing. After those started going in too often, his whole confidence was lost, and then he became a cast-off. It took time with a couple of goalie coaches for him to start making the correct changes again in his game, and 'poof!' - Mr. Vezina was born.


Now, I don't for an instant believe that Talbot = Dubynk. There is simply no evidence that this is the case, or was ever the case. However, I think unquestionably his confidence has been eroded with playing in Edmonton, he probably also felt the need to over-compensate as the defence (and even defensive effort, never mind simple positioning and ability) was sub-par. It becomes a downward spiral.


Can Talbot be 'saved'?


Tough call. I think his off-ice issues were also to blame for decreased ability. There's something else to point at. For me, I think it is worth a gamble. 1 year, ~2million for him is a great gamble in my opinion.


I also prefer Talbot over Elliott. Why? Elliott was so up and down his whole career. The Blues have been a very good defensive team for years, and yet Elliott was constantly up and down.



The best goalie that this organization has had, IMO, since Kipper retired is Ramo. He had probably the longest stretches of good play, and up until his injury, was really getting better and starting to really perform like a consistent #1 goalie. Too bad that injury cost him so dearly.


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. What I thought was the Flames' biggest weakness, turned into (by far) the biggest strength on the team.


Talbot makes sense. Rittich isn't proven yet, but he is getting there. I think you can afford to gamble on Talbot. I would rather the Flames not be gambling at all with who is going to be filling the crease most nights, but there just isn't anyone available who is a clear-cut easy choice, that they can fit under the cap, or that they could even afford through a trade.



Talbot seems to have enough of a history to make me think that he was a very good option once, and enough of a rationale for me to conclude that there is a very good possibility that he can turn his game around in Calgary.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This is why I am more than fine with Talbot:


Fact: Talbot HAS been a good goalie in the past. More ore less a proven commodity, albeit just for a couple of seasons + very good backup services.


Fact: Talbot sucked the big one last year on Edmonton AND Philadelphia.


Was Talbot just a 'couple of seasons' type, or no?


Talbot is no Dubynk (I liked Dubynk as a prospect and especially so as a young starter way back in the day and always thought he was going to be a good goalie eventually - probably have stated that once or twice on this forum years back). However, there could be some similarities here below the surface.


Remember when Dubynk went to Nashville, and Trotz stated that Dubynk picked up some bad habits? Well, he didn't exactly correct himself there, but that was the start of his turnaround. What happened to Dubynk could very well have happened to Talbot, and it really sounds very similar.


So what did happen?


Dubynk started getting lit up suddenly. Why? Well, the Oilers were horrible at defence (were? still are more accurately). So what impact did this have on Dubynk? Was it being 'shell shocked'? Not exactly. What he ended up doing was not trusting the players in front of him, so he started cheating more, getting out of position more, getting ready for that cross-crease pass more since the coverage was probably lost on the guy who is probably streaking down the wing. After those started going in too often, his whole confidence was lost, and then he became a cast-off. It took time with a couple of goalie coaches for him to start making the correct changes again in his game, and 'poof!' - Mr. Vezina was born.


Now, I don't for an instant believe that Talbot = Dubynk. There is simply no evidence that this is the case, or was ever the case. However, I think unquestionably his confidence has been eroded with playing in Edmonton, he probably also felt the need to over-compensate as the defence (and even defensive effort, never mind simple positioning and ability) was sub-par. It becomes a downward spiral.


Can Talbot be 'saved'?


Tough call. I think his off-ice issues were also to blame for decreased ability. There's something else to point at. For me, I think it is worth a gamble. 1 year, ~2million for him is a great gamble in my opinion.


I also prefer Talbot over Elliott. Why? Elliott was so up and down his whole career. The Blues have been a very good defensive team for years, and yet Elliott was constantly up and down.



The best goalie that this organization has had, IMO, since Kipper retired is Ramo. He had probably the longest stretches of good play, and up until his injury, was really getting better and starting to really perform like a consistent #1 goalie. Too bad that injury cost him so dearly.


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. What I thought was the Flames' biggest weakness, turned into (by far) the biggest strength on the team.


Talbot makes sense. Rittich isn't proven yet, but he is getting there. I think you can afford to gamble on Talbot. I would rather the Flames not be gambling at all with who is going to be filling the crease most nights, but there just isn't anyone available who is a clear-cut easy choice, that they can fit under the cap, or that they could even afford through a trade.



Talbot seems to have enough of a history to make me think that he was a very good option once, and enough of a rationale for me to conclude that there is a very good possibility that he can turn his game around in Calgary.

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.

[getoverit]

Fair enough but don’t think other goalies were taking 50+ shots a night. You can spin any stat u want. Time to move on from him but he stood on his head in playoffs. One bright spot

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.

[Patek23]

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.

I understand that he was phenomenal in the playoffs. But it’s funny I really felt like he was still a negative on the team. He had been so shaky all season long that even thought he literally stood on his head and was lights out. Every time they had the puck I was afraid it was going on. Team confidence is huge and it felt like we played scared which caused a lot of bobbled plays. I know I’m probably in the minority but even though he stood tall the fact he fell apart so many times I felt was a major cause the team in front of him wound up falling apart. The team always just played different with a different swagger with Rittich in net.

I also don’t like Smith and his constant wandering. I get that he’s able to clear the puck a lot quicker then the defender. But it’s the defenders job for a reason. With him in net it just seemed like we never really got any momentum going. Tough to blame a series loss on a guy who had a historical run in net statistically but it’s just the way it seemed to me.