Cam Talbot - Mod warning #251

[OnlyTruth]

Only someone incredibly biased would believe #3 is the best option.

Talbot is a good backup and has a chance to be a decent NHL starter. He's not elite by any means. Lundqvist is the best at his position. He's the kind of netminder you win championships with.

Talbot is not. He's not consistent enough. Consistency is what separates the best from the rest. Talbot is in "the rest."

I have no idea how you came up with a conclusion that he is not elite and that he is not consistant.

 

[Hire Sather]

I have no idea how you came up with a conclusion that he is not elite and that he is not consistant.

Yeah, such a crazy line of thinking that Cam Talbot isn't an elite goaltender. He has proven so much.

Its hard to believe people are serious with this stuff.

 

[Siddi]

I have no idea how you came up with a conclusion that he is not elite and that he is not consistant.

You should look up the word "sample size".

 

[OnlyTruth]

You should look up the word "sample size".

Exactly my point. So how can u tell that he is not?

 

[Hire Sather]

Exactly my point. So how can u tell that he is not?

You don't get to be elite until you prove you aren't.

Its the other way around.

 

[Siddi]

Exactly my point. So how can u tell that he is not?

Why am i even trying

 

[Matt4776]

Only someone incredibly biased would believe #3 is the best option.

Talbot is a good backup and has a chance to be a decent NHL starter. He's not elite by any means. Lundqvist is the best at his position. He's the kind of netminder you win championships with.

Talbot is not. He's not consistent enough. Consistency is what separates the best from the rest. Talbot is in "the rest."

Eh, to be fair, I think Talbot is better than a good backup. He is one of the best, and will be an NHL starter in this league.

How good of a starter? That will remain to be seen.

 

[Khelvan]

I have no idea how you came up with a conclusion that he is not elite and that he is not consistant.

His stint as a starter has lasted less than 20 games. In those 20 games he has had some real stinkers, and some real excellent games.

Eliteness and consistency are labels that are earned, not assumed. Talbot has not earned them.

 

[OnlyTruth]

His stint as a starter has lasted less than 20 games. In those 20 games he has had some real stinkers, and some real excellent games.

Eliteness and consistency are labels that are earned, not assumed. Talbot has not earned them.

Did Hank?

 

[Khelvan]

Eh, to be fair, I think Talbot is better than a good backup. He is one of the best, and will be an NHL starter in this league.

How good of a starter? That will remain to be seen.

Fair enough. I'd go so far as to call him an excellent backup, and a likely NHL starter.

Which is the main reason I advocate trading him. There's no way he settles for being a backup after next year.

 

[Khelvan]

Did Hank?

I'm assuming you're asking this in all seriousness, and not rhetorically.

The man was a Vezina trophy finalist in each of his first three seasons. He has since won the trophy. He is recognized league wife as probably the best, most consistent goaltender since he came into the league.

So the answer is not only yes, but yes more so than ANYONE ELSE.

But why ask that in a Talbot thread?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Only someone incredibly biased would believe #3 is the best option.

Talbot is a good backup and has a chance to be a decent NHL starter. He's not elite by any means. Lundqvist is the best at his position. He's the kind of netminder you win championships with.

Talbot is not. He's not consistent enough. Consistency is what separates the best from the rest. Talbot is in "the rest."

Eh he doesn't have to be biased. Some people, despite their love for a sport, really just don't get the sport. A lot of what Only Truth has been saying is ignorant as hell. It's hard to really even comment because a lot of it is just too silly. But I don't see a bias I just see someone who doesn't get it.

Talbot can win because it's a team game and he's been a part of way too many victories against top teams in the league for me to say he can't be a part of a winner. He's helped carry the NYR to wins against some of those really good teams in his career so far. The sample size provides evidence that he could be a winner. Obviously the same sample size provides evidence that he's nothing more than a very good backup/low end starter. The key is not to overemphasize one piece of evidence over the other without good cause. Nothing definitive can be concluded right now although I feel the evidence points to him being able to win.

 

[OnlyTruth]

Not so long ago I was bashed for Talbot suport. Now he is on the NHL star list. Way to go guys!!!

 

[Matt4776]

Not so long ago I was bashed for Talbot suport. Now he is on the NHL star list. Way to go guys!!!

No, you really weren't. You're making stuff up again.

You were bashed for saying that signing Lundqvist was a mistake, we should trade Lundqvist because Talbot is just as good because adjusted save percentage says so.

You were not bashed for supporting Talbot. Everyone here thinks Talbot is a great hockey player.

 

[OnlyTruth]

No, you really weren't. You're making stuff up again.

You were bashed for saying that signing Lundqvist was a mistake, we should trade Lundqvist because Talbot is just as good because adjusted save percentage says so.

You were not bashed for supporting Talbot. Everyone here thinks Talbot is a great hockey player.

It wasn't me. That save % comparison was by another poster for whom I have a lot of respect. But even then, anybody is entitled to his individual opinion, even if you completely don't agree with. So my point still stands.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

No more personal attacks or steering the conversation off topic. The back and forth is done now. Thanks.

 

[Khelvan]

Talbot can win because it's a team game and he's been a part of way too many victories against top teams in the league for me to say he can't be a part of a winner. He's helped carry the NYR to wins against some of those really good teams in his career so far. The sample size provides evidence that he could be a winner. Obviously the same sample size provides evidence that he's nothing more than a very good backup/low end starter. The key is not to overemphasize one piece of evidence over the other without good cause. Nothing definitive can be concluded right now although I feel the evidence points to him being able to win.

To me the only thing that matters to this argument is that Talbot is signed only until the end of the 2015-2016 season, while the Rangers' starting, elite goaltender is in the beginning of a 7-year contract.

Talbot has shown enough to want (and deserve) a starting role somewhere. It can't be the Rangers, and shouldn't be the Rangers. So both to maximize his value as an asset and his opportunity elsewhere I suggest he be traded this offseason (assuming a buyer can be found willing to give up an asset of good value to the Rangers) and a vet backup signed to handle the light load as Lunqvist's backup.

Talbot hasn't played enough to show consistency. Who knows what he'll end up being. The Rangers right now have had the best, most consistent goaltender in the world since he entered the league. There's no room to promote Talbot, sadly for him.

But having an excellent backup who is ready to start is a good problem to have. If by some stroke of luck Talbot indicates to management that he's willing to stay as a backup for another year or two, by all means sign him again, but in any other scenario it's time to trade him. And that trade is well deserved.

Talbot has been a good soldier and a well-loved teammate. He deserves a shot to show what he can do as a team's starter.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Why is our backup so divisive? Can't we just acknowledge that he's been outstanding for us and move on?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Why is our backup so divisive? Can't we just acknowledge that he's been outstanding for us and move on?

Because he continues to needlessly be compared against the injured hall of fame starter/one of the best Rangers of all time.

If it wasn't for the 2 guys making the ridiculous comparison, this wouldn't be a divisive discussion. Talbot has done everything that could possibly be asked of him, especially lately

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Because he continues to needlessly be compared against the injured hall of fame starter/one of the best Rangers of all time.

If it wasn't for the 2 guys making the ridiculous comparison, this wouldn't be a divisive discussion. Talbot has done everything that could possibly be asked of him, especially lately

Yeah, but there's also been a ton of people ******** on him in GDTs. It was really ridiculous. Thankfully those guys have been shut up as of late with his play.

It's not just one side. It's both extremes making outrageous comments.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yeah, but there's also been a ton of people ******** on him in GDTs. It was really ridiculous. Thankfully those guys have been shut up as of late with his play.

It's not just one side. It's both extremes making outrageous comments.

I don't go into the game day threads because they are a cesspool. That said, he was good for a softie or two per game up until a few games ago

 

[pld459666]

Did Hank?

2005-06 NY Rangers NHL (gms)53 (w)30 (L)12 - (OTL)9 (Mins)3112 (SO)2 (GA)116 (SA)1485 (GAA)2.24 (SvPct).922

That is Hanks stat line from his rookie season.

That is after taking over the starters job from Weeks in December of 05.

He also won the Gold Medal in the 2006 games in Turin

This is also after putting up some ridiculous numbers in the SEL

03-04 - 48 games he posted a 2.17 GAA and a .927 SvPct
04-05 - 44 games he posted a 1.79 GAA and a .935 SvPct

He was an elite level goalie for 2 years before coming to NY.

So yes. Yes, Hank EARNED the Elite his status, he earned it VERY early in his career.

 

[Matt4776]

Yeah, but there's also been a ton of people ******** on him in GDTs. It was really ridiculous. Thankfully those guys have been shut up as of late with his play.

It's not just one side. It's both extremes making outrageous comments.

A ton of people **** on every player on this roster in every GDT. Talbot is FAR from unique in that sense.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

A ton of people **** on every player on this roster in every GDT. Talbot is FAR from unique in that sense.

Talbot is relatively unique in that he was playing well and still getting it. With, say, Hank, you'd have him getting it on a game he was letting up more than a couple of goals. With Cam, it would start even before a goal ("oh, guess we will need to score 3 or more!" despite the fact he is a sub 3 GAA goalie).

He's gotten it far more than a freaking back up ever should.

It's one thing to bash the stars when they aren't playing well. It's another to go after the guys thrust into a starting job and performing well.

 

[Siddi]

Talbot is relatively unique in that he was playing well and still getting it. With, say, Hank, you'd have him getting it on a game he was letting up more than a couple of goals. With Cam, it would start even before a goal ("oh, guess we will need to score 3 or more!" despite the fact he is a sub 3 GAA goalie).

He's gotten it far more than a freaking back up ever should.

It's one thing to bash the stars when they aren't playing well. It's another to go after the guys thrust into a starting job and performing well.

Talbot was a 3GAA just a couple of games back. He deserved the flack he was getting during the stretch where couldnt stop a beachball to save his life. Since then he has however reedem himself with excellent play.