Lyon-Hart! Lyon-Hart! Lyon-Hart!A healthy Lyon is probably as good as many backup goalies, .905 S% a year ago in 11 NHL games, .913, .944 in 11 PO games, .916 S% including a slow start in the AHL as he got healthy. If we can stash him in the AHL with Sandstrom, then we're about as deep as almost any team at goalie.
Lyon isn't a potential starter, but he has possibilities as a solid backup.
I agree that that trade was useless, and mostly served to show a tendancy towards roster churn that Comcast felt was part of their path to $$$.He played like 3 games here and then they apparently parted ways because Cam wants to start somewhere (duh). The trade was ****ing stupid.
I’d do that trade again for sure. It made sense and had the potential to be good for us.
The problem was everything that happened after the trade because it made no sense that they used him so little and didn’t give him a chance to prove anything.
I don't think 3 starts out of 25 is enough.Talbot played enough to prove he was not worth signing.
They saw 2 years of Elliott and 3 starts of Talbot.
Seems pretty clear which one should've played more in those last handful of games.
They weren't learning anything about Elliott that they didn't already know, meanwhile it was important to get the best possible picture of whether Talbot's problem was Edmonton or just himself. We still don't know, due to a tiny sample size.
Given how simultaneous injuries to all the goalies at NHL and AHL levels led to waiver pick ups like Pickard and McKenna, if it was my team, I would have found the most durable goalie available to be Hart's backup. I wouldn't count on Elliott or Lyon to save my job. Heaven help us if Hart does down.
They saw 2 years of Elliott and 3 starts of Talbot.
Seems pretty clear which one should've played more in those last handful of games.
They weren't learning anything about Elliott that they didn't already know, meanwhile it was important to get the best possible picture of whether Talbot's problem was Edmonton or just himself. We still don't know, due to a tiny sample size.
They saw 2 years of Elliott and 3 starts of Talbot.
Seems pretty clear which one should've played more in those last handful of games.
They weren't learning anything about Elliott that they didn't already know, meanwhile it was important to get the best possible picture of whether Talbot's problem was Edmonton or just himself. We still don't know, due to a tiny sample size.
It’s relevant because they didn’t know that at the time and it’s just another example of poor decision making.None of that is even relevant. According to Custance they offered Talbot a deal to be backup which he declined because he wants to be a starter. Sayonora Cam. We have a new and improved Cam anyway.
I do enjoy Harry Potter. Only saw the movies, very impressed with the story, and the community developed around it.More like a de-mentor, right guys.
More like a de-mentor, right guys.