 |
 K.McC#24
Messages: 2827
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA
2 Cups
|
|
| GabbyDugan wrote on Mon, 02 November 2020 10:30 |
| inverno76 wrote on Mon, 02 November 2020 09:55 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 02 November 2020 08:16 |
| inverno76 wrote on Mon, 02 November 2020 07:18 |
| clutchlikeeberle wrote on Mon, 02 November 2020 02:42 |
Wonderful job by KH! If we forget the two seconds he moved for AA. I have been loving his moves thus far. Before the goalie haters jump on me. I am much more happy with Smith on on year then Markstrom on that brutal contact.
|
The Smith move was bad. Such a great offseason on paper if you were to minus that transaction. It still does not make sense to me.
|
I don't like the Smith signing either but at the same time, who are they getting for 1.5 mill? I am asking that question because I don't know the answer. This was supposed to be a year when goalies came in cheap because there was a lot of them, I don't think we saw that.
Guys who were better than Smith who signed:
Talbot - 3 yrs, 3.66 per
Khudobin 3 yrs, 3.333 per
Holtby - 2 yrs, 4.3 per
Markstrom - 6 yrs, 6 per
Crawford - 2 yrs, 3.9 per
Griess - 2 yrs, 3.6 per
|
I would have been happier with Dell @ 800K or a trade. Arizona is still in Cap hell/prospect hell/entry draft hell with 3 NHL goaltenders. Truthfully, I would rather run with a <1M backup who is young and can trend up over Smith.
|
Agreed, but when have the Oilers ever developed a young goalie?
|
110 % agree with this. It seems to me many teams go with a largely unheralded young backup (by design or by necessity) that either usurps and forces a move of the starter or if the starter is unmovable, becomes a valuable asset for trade. I'll repeat your question, when was the last time the Oilers did this? Risk aversion by getting aging names as backups is in itself pretty risky.
|
|
|
|
