We know the Edmonton Oilers need an upgrade in goal and we’ve been led to believe there might be a masked man to be had in Cam Talbot of the New York Rangers or Eddie Lack of the Vancouver Canucks capable of filling that need.

While neither Talbot, who was impressive this season filling in for an injured Henrik Lundqvist, nor Lack, playing back-up to fading Ryan Miller with the Canucks, have long enough track records to be considered proven starters, many consider them to be upgrades on incumbent Ben Scrivens.

Whether either is capable of getting the job done behind an Edmonton defensive corps that isn’t nearly good enough is up to debate, but they’re the names most often mentioned in a “could-be” group that also includes Robin Lehner of Ottawa and Jacob Markstrom of the Canucks.

Given that neither one of them would command big returns in a trade or have disagreeable salaries, and that Oiler GM Peter Chiarelli has draft picks to work with – the 16th pick in the first round and a second-rounder at 33rd – it’s no surprise that Chiarelli is kicking the tires on both of them.

Is there a deal worth making for Lack or Talbot?


Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 11.23.18 PM

Vancouver GM Jim Benning has three goaltenders for two jobs. He’s keeping Miller, and will decide between Lack and Markstrom as to who gets the back-up job and who gets moved. Canuck beat writer Ben Kuzma of the Vancouver Province recently gave his take on Talbot and on what the ask for Lack and Markstrom will be.

“The Canucks want to recoup second- and third-round picks for the draft next weekend in Florida. Cam Talbot of the New York Rangers and Vancouver’s Eddie Lack top the puck-stopper wish list for teams with real needs — especially Edmonton, Buffalo, San Jose and Dallas.

“Talbot and Lack are 27, have a year remaining on palatable contracts and filled in admirably this season for the injured Henrik Lundqvist and Ryan Miller, respectively. So, you can understand the level of interest and the consensus that it would be easier for the Canucks to land at least a second-round pick for the more proven Lack. The 25-year-old Markstrom? Maybe a third-rounder. Maybe even a second with his progression.”

If Kuzma is right, Lack falls into Edmonton’s wheelhouse in terms of the ask. Will Benning ask for Edmonton’s selection at 16th for Lack? Sure. Might he take the 33rd pick? Maybe. As for Markstrom, he could be worth a look if Benning opts to keep Lack. I’m not as sold on him as I am on Lack, not that either one is a lock to be the answer.


Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 11.24.50 PM

As for the Rangers, Talbot, stuck behind Lundqvist, has long been the subject of speculation he’ll be traded, possibly in a package deal, despite a reasonable $1.45 million salary. GM Glen Sather has to cut payroll. According to several sources, including TSN’s Darren Dreger, Edmonton, Dallas and Buffalo have inquired about Talbot.

Is the 16th pick too much for Talbot straight up? If Chiarelli thinks so, there might be room to expand the deal to include, speculation goes, a bona fide blueliner like Kevin Klein. Would Chiarelli move the 16th pick for Talbot and Klein? A snippet from Sean Harnett of CBS:

“It would be hard to imagine the Oilers trading away the pick straight up for Talbot. This year’s draft features a very deep first round, so a package of Talbot and top-four quality defenseman Kevin Klein could be tempting to Edmonton, as it would fill two needs.

“For the Rangers, dealing away Talbot and Klein would free up $4.35 million in cap space. Klein will be paid an average annual salary of $2.9 million through the 2017-18 season.”

For me, Lack and Talbot look like Chiarelli’s best bets if we’re talking about getting an available goaltender for the 16th or 33rd picks. Lack’s career stats are here. Talbot’s career numbers are here. Then again, what I think matters little – I thought Jeff Deslauriers would be an NHL goaltender.


Jason Gregor and I interviewed Kevin Woodley, a former goaltender who has made a living analyzing and writing about the men in the crease for over a decade for Sports Illustrated, the Associated Press, The Hockey News and on Thursday and we asked him about Lack and Talbot.

Q: If you had to choose between Talbot and Lack, who would be the best goaltender for the Oilers, considering return and everything else?

“I would go with Eddie Lack, and again, it’s probably not fair to Cam Talbot,” said Woodley, who has covered Lack and the Canucks more extensively than Talbot and the Rangers for the outlets he writes for. “He (Talbot) made steps this year.

“Do not underestimate the steps he took learning what it takes to be a No. 1. That is a stride that a lot of goalies talk about and he struggled with it. When Henrik Lundqvist first went down, go back and watch his first four or five games. He was not good at all. You lose the ability to manage your game in practice that you have as a back-up goaltender.

“When something goes wrong, you don’t get to go four half-an-hour on the ice with Benoit Allaire before your next start to fix it because you’re just managing your fatigue level. He went through that learning curve, struggled with it early after Lundqvist went down but got better over time. That was a big step for him. It’s another step to be a 65-game goaltender.

“I think Lack’s closer to that step than Cam Talbot is. You add that to what I’ve been able to see of Eddie as a character, the personality and the way he would be able to handle a Canadian marketplace . . . again, not knowing that Talbot can’t, but not knowing him well enough to say honestly right now, I would pick Eddie Lack.”

Listen to Robin Brownlee Wednesdays and Thursdays from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on the Jason Gregor Show on TSN 1260.

  • CaptainLander

    Who is the best puck handler? That alone puts you ahead of Scrivens. Man did he trow up some turnips last year. I remember at least 4 that immediately turned into goals.

  • JackB

    33rd and Marincin for Lack and Bieksa.

    Vancouver want an early 2nd round pick for a center they have targeted. They want to trade Bieksa. AND THEY NEED CAP RELIEF.

    Seems to me that we are dealing from a position of strength here.

    We get a veteran D who can help our young D develop. Bieksa has a 4.5 cap hit for one year (2.5 actual salary) He is a UFA in one year, and may re-sign with us (at a reasonable salary in a year) if he likes what is happening here! And we get a good goalie prospect (sure he’s not a proven veteran starter! but people who supposedly know say he is one of the best back-up goalie risks available right now)

    Vancouver gets a pretty good D prospect, 3.6 in cap relief, a chance at the center they covet, and gets rid of the defenceman they want to move.

  • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

    The absolute only way I’m giving up that 33rd or 16th in this years draft is if it’s for a package deal for a number one defensmen or a package deal for a Rask or a Schneider.

    Point is, none of those teams would do that so why would the Oilers be dumb enough to trade those picks for an unproven goalie……..

    To me the convo starts at the 57th pick.

    • JackB

      I agree – there is no way we should trade #16 for a goalie!! But #33?

      I’m not too confident in our scouting staff when it comes to picks in the second round or later:

      2013 – #56 Marco Roy
      2012 – #32 Mitch Moroz
      2011 – #30 David Musil (and we left Brandon Saad on the board !!!)
      2010 – #31 Tyler Pitlick (though he might yet turn out???)

      I thought my proposal of #33 plus Marincin for Lack and Bieksa seemed reasonable.

      However a shrewd GM might first try #57 and Marincin?

      • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

        Well, first I think you’re giving way to much away.


        Niemi – Nuevirth – Enroth – Dubnyk – Greiss

        All on the market as UFA’s there’s a lot of capable goalies right there.

        To some degree those goalies all have starter experience.

        Now, take into consideration the teams wanting to unload goalies.

        Talbot – Lack – Gibson – Bernier

        all at some point been in the MSM as potential trades.

        Point is, you don’t have to sacrifice a high pick to get a good goalie.

      • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

        Part of the negative response may be due to the proposal to give up a valuable pick in a deep draft plus a decent prospect who is still under team control for years in exchange for 2 players who will both be UFA in 1 year.

    • “To me the convo starts at the 57th pick.”

      Then the conversation starts with you being laughed out of the room by the GM you’re trying to screw over.

      Short of an “I’ll bet my career on it” endorsement of Lack or Talbot from one of my scouts, I’d resist offering the 16th pick. That’s a leap away from starting at 57th. You’re not trying to cut a deal on a new car here.

      • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

        Normally,I’d agree with that but in this draft there’s to much talent to be drafted at 33.

        like I mentioned before, there are many capable goalies out there with a far more experience then the potential thats being talked about with regards to Lack and Talbot.

        you’re willing to give up that 33rd for a potential goalie who’s also a UFA in a year (Talbot) then you are willing to give up potential on a very good player as well. That has double whammy written all over it

        Not to mention that the pick has even more value if you combine it in a deal.
        to move up
        to potential use it for a number one defensmen.

        What was Bishop traded for again?

        • Bishop was traded for a player, Cory Conacher, who was 23 and further along in his development than a 2015 draft pick is and a fourth-rounder. That aside, it was a bad trade for Ottawa. None of which matters. Different teams. Different players. Different needs.

          As for risk and reward, double whammys, the depth of any particular draft and what-ifs, I kind of understand those concepts, but thanks for pointing them out.

          • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

            How is that different needs?

            TB needed a goalie, as do the Oilers, TB gave a 4th rounder and a middling prospect who still isn’t established, for a goalie with potential, it would the same as the Oilers giving the 57 plus a player like Pitlick….or Jones…

            So what did the Oilers pay for Scrivens?

            Were talking about goalie potential, not a starting net minder here.

            At the very east I’m glad you understand giving away the 33rd pick for one year of service is completely insane.

            I appreciate your opinion on the matter and the article is a good one, like you however I am set in my stance and dug in, I’m totally against giving away the 33rd pick for risk/reward.

      • With respect, would you rather be the guy doing the screwing with the offer of #57 or the one being screwed by the other GM asking for #33 ? There is no law that says you should pay more than what you believe to be fair market value for an asset.

        No way would i give the #33 straight up for 1 year of service from either Talbot or Lack. The way i see it, during the year they either prove to be a #1 goalie or they become a backup to Scrivens. If it’s the latter, you gave away #33 for 1 year of a backup goalie. If it’s the former, you’ll have to win another bidding competition with several other teams in the summer of 2016 to sign them as a free agent. If i’m using #33 for Talbot or Lack, there will have to be some mitigating factor coming with him…like a 3rd or 4th round pick this year (at Least).

        If i can’t land Talbot or Lack for what i consider a fair deal, i would try to get Gibson (very unlikely) or else settle on free agency this year, letting Talbot or Lack prove themselves somewhere else, then join the bidding war next summer. For this summer, i would try to sign Neuvirth (or, worse option, Enroth) on a reasonable 2-year contract. Neuvirth has said he wants someone who will give him a good shot at being a # 1 goalie; that’s the Oilers to a T. We may get him for 2 x $2.5/3 million which would leave us no worse off than we were with Scrivens annd Fasth. If Neuvirth (Enroth) doesn’t work out he will be traded or become a 1 year backup to the free agent i sign in 2016.

        • You don’t consider trading the 33rd pick for Lack or Talbot a “fair deal.” I do, allowing for the caveats I’ve mentioned multiple times.

          You can write 100 paragraphs outlining possible scenarios and what-ifs and it’s not going to change my position. Like I told the other poster, I understand the risks and possibilities you are wasting words on.

          • JackB

            Robin, I know we can’t negotiate with Lack before Jan 1/16, and he becomes a UFA at the end of one year . . . but would someone (on the “hush-hush”) be able to ask his agent if he would be aminable to an extension?

            I guess, if we could get Lack, we would just hope that he would want to keep playing on a team with McDavid, R-N-H, Hall, Eberle an Draisaitl???

            I sure as heck hope Dubnyk doesn’t get a bid “overpayment” !!! That could make other tenders pine for their coming free agency.

      • Zarny

        Laughed out of the room? How so?

        Schneider went for the 9th overall but none of Talbot, Lack etc have that kind of value. Scrivens had similar numbers and went for a 3rd.

        Bernier was younger with better draft pedigree and went for a 2nd + Scrivens and Frattin. That 2nd ended up being the 34th overall this year, but the Kings made the trade after the Leafs finished 9th overall in 2013 and likely expected something ~ 45th.

        57th is probably light even though it’s like the 45th in most drafts, but it’s a better starting point for goalies like Talbot and Lack than the 16th.

        It’s nice that GMs in Ott, Van and NYR think their backups will yield a windfall, but there are two goalies for every spot up for grabs this summer.

        I suppose if GMs want to hold out for top dollar in a depressed market then they can keep their G. Especially Murray and Benning. They can hold onto their backups nice and tight all through the summer until they lose them for nothing when someone has to go on waivers.

  • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

    Take Lack in exchange for the 5th and one of Musil or Davidson, then Draft Samsonov (16/33) and when Lack starts to wane in three years you have a bona-fide no.1 waiting in the wings, with a decent no.2 (Brossoit) in the minors.

  • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

    Lack!! or a FA goalie.

    sure you can start with #57, but it would probably require #33.

    Vancouver is tight against the cap, and needs to shed a defenceman, and a goalie, or they will lose Markstrom (RFA , and assuming he signs with Van) in October when he has to go on waivers.

    Bieksa, has commented he will only look at opening his NTC, if an extension is signed. He is a great character Dman, but is slowing with age.

    Besides if we got Lack, it would tick off every Canuck fan, as he is a fan favourite. He is incredibly popular in Van, and with teammates.

  • 5 Cups

    I don’t see the Canucks trading a goalie to a divisional rival. Who ever they trade will end up in another division or, even more likely, conference.

    When the Flames got kipper from the Sharks they weren’t in the same division but the we’re in the same conference. I don’t think the Sharks were to happy about that deal for a long time. Had kipper gone east it may not have stung so bad.

    • I’m pretty sure the Canucks are more than willing to trade a goalie to the Oilers. They traded Kesler to Anaheim, a #1 center to a divisional rival. If they were willing to trade a centre of Kesler’s caliber to a divisional rival, I’m pretty sure they’re willing to trade a backup goaltender.

      • 5 Cups

        It’s a possibility. Trading players within a division is a bit different that trading a tender. Trading a goalie to a divisional rival can be devestating. A player is one man on the ice and Kessler is great in his role, but he is only one man out there for 15min a night. A goalie is out there the whole game and if, a big if, they turn out to be a stud it can ruin a teams chances for years.

        I guess i am trying to say is: a good player can steal a game every so often and generational players even more so, but good goalies can steel 10-15 a year.

  • 5 Cups

    In the past year, Canucks GM Jim Benning has traded with Anaheim – Kesler deal, LA Kings – Linden Vey, and Calgary – Sven Baertschi.

    The Canucks do not have a problem trading within their division. If it gets the Canucks a 2nd, or 3rd round pick, GM JB has stated that is their goal.

    Now with #33, I think we can ask for a prospect as well, as it is essentially a first round pick in this year’s draft.

  • I suspect as the week goes that 16th overall pick is going to be of real value and could fetch us a proven defenceman.

    That would be the only way I would get rid of that pick………say 16th pick packaged with Yaks should be able to fetch a Subban, throw in a prospect if you have to.

    Having Subban on the back end would be sweet……….I have read enough articles in Montreal papers to know he is a devisive figure there, sort of like Phenuuf in Toronto.


    • Rama, give your head a shake get the blood flowing again ! 16th and Yak for Subban… get real. You could throw Hall into the deal and Montreal would still laugh at you.

      Where an how to they replace Subban with your deal?

      Bergevan might have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.!

      • I knew I would get trashed……..I dont put out a lot of trade scenarios but my natural position is never trade draft picks unless someone absolutely blow your socks off.

        That was my attempt at identifying what ” blowing your socks off”, looks like.

          • I don’t owe you zip for an explanation, but I’ll say this much:

            The poster you refer to has been here a long time. You have not. He’s made lots of good posts, some so-so and others off the wall — just like the writers here. That trade proposal was a screw job in favour of the Oilers. He knew it. My response was to poke fun at his “blow the socks off” explanation for it in a light-hearted way because it was so obvious.

            If Rama Lama doesn’t like the response or thinks it’s a cheapshot, he’ll gets lot of latitude if he chooses to tell me so because, like I said, he’s been around a long time and I’d like to think he gets the spirit in which it was meant.

            As for you, directing advice and a lecture at me over a comment that was not directed at you is a good way to find yourself unable to comment on my future articles. Congratulations.

          • I take your point regarding your long relationship with Rama Lama and good-natured ribbing. I apologize for not having seen it through that veil.

            Whether or not you see fit to accept my posts is entirely up to you, but (like you) i feel i owe some explanation.

            My critique was linked to that particular post only because it was the nearest link in what i perceived to be a long line of disparaging comments in this as well as previous blogs. The trigger was the passing of my own tipping point in the shame of sitting on my hands and being a non-factor when seeing bullying behavior. I admit that making a comment in the darkness of an online identity is not very courageous, but it’s a start.

            # Never again is now

  • toprightcorner

    Rangers don’t need to trade Talbot so he will cost more. Vancouver needs to trade a goalie and Markstrom won’t get them anything in return so Lack is likely the guy they move.

    Between the two, I would prefer Lack, he has way more experience and has shown over the past 2 off seasons a guy who is committed to becoming a #1 goalie ans will do what it takes to get there. He worked with the same coach that Dubnyk worked with already this year to work on his puck angles. He is a guy I could see being a top 15 starter in a couple years.

  • Quicksilver ballet

    Peter will be the first one to make his decision. Like he did with Todd McLellan, while everyone seems to be getting in on the bidding war for Talbot. Chiarelli’s probably grown tired of Sathers driving up the price and has decided to make a more concentrated effort on Gibson. That would be just like Peter to stray from the beaten path and get someone most teams figured wasn’t even available.

    We await your decision Peter. Talbot, Lack or Gibson, either of these will do.

  • Sather traded Gretzky… He has cap issues and an aging #1. (33 years old) Who is to say PC doesn’t try Yak and Dri and a pick for the King… If Talbot can do what Crawford has done Sather looks like a genius and they add scoring and youth to take another shot at the cup next year. If not he retires and leaves it to someone else to clean up… (I actually hope we don’t end up with a 33 year old number 1)
    The other thing is we could do very little and trade a center in a year or two when we see what we have in Dri/Oscar/Nurse. If Dri turns out to be a player it could be Nuge on the move… That would get a heck of a return… And it would be after some of the young guys have shown their colors and you know what holes you really have… Thus you would not chase a number one D this year… Just add a steadying influence that is a slight up grade from today and an average goalie.

  • paul wodehouse

    I love reading up on the Oilers daily and all this goalie talk is funny because the real issue here is defence. I don’t know why there’s all this hubbub about having a proven goalie or someone who can stand tall in net for the season. Are any of these goalies going to be able to stop 15-20 point blank chances a night?

    • paul wodehouse

      The Oil need to get better both on D and in goal to become competitive. Addressing one doesn’t mean you can’t do the other as well.

      This off season there are a number of free agents, headed by Niemi and at least 3 teams (Nucks, Sens and Rangers) who are looking to move goalies that have shown some potential. So there is lots to talk about on this front.

      It would seem a given that PC will do something in goal. If he stands pat with Scrivens/Bachman we might as well start talking Austin Mathews.

      Getting a significant upgrade in D (I mean a legitimate top pair guy) will be much more difficult to accomplish.

    • Nobody is suggesting goaltending is the only issue.

      Virtually very item that’s written about the blue line group mentions that the goaltending has to be better. Virtually every item written about the goaltending makes the point the blue line has to be much better. The same observations are made in the comments section of these items.

      From this item: “Whether either is capable of getting the job done behind an Edmonton defensive corps that isn’t nearly good enough is up to debate, but they’re the names most often mentioned in a “could-be” group that also includes Robin Lehner of Ottawa and Jacob Markstrom of the Canucks.”

      So, where’s the “hubbub?” What’s the funny part?

    • Zarny

      Umm no.

      Fun fact – Scrivens and Fasth had the two worst SV % for all G with 20 GP or more. The absolute worst.

      Defense is undoubtedly a problem. So is goaltending. An upgrade for Fraser is in order too.

      It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

      • I sorta agree with you, but didnt Dubnyk have around a .920% year and the team still finished at or near the bottom?

        Im kinda with that guy, in the sense that I would rather the oilers use these 2 high picks to get a defenceman rather then to get a goalie.

  • Zarny

    I basically don’t love any of the rumoured available goalies. Are any of them really gonna turn into a top 10-15 starter in the league? I have my doubts to say say the least. Combine that with the fact there is so many available, giving up anymore than the 57th would be a mistake.

    And if a team laughs at you for offering the 57th as brownlee suggest’s, you simply let them laugh. Then when one of them is still holding onto a goalie they don’t want with nowhere to trade him to, maybe you’re only willing to offer up a third by that point.

    If you strike out with a trade, then you can sign a neuvirth, Ramo, Enroth or a Niemi and probably wind up with just as good of a goalie without giving up any asset.

    • Let’s be clear about my initial response to the 57th reference. That pick alone won’t get you Talbot or Lack. If that’s as high as you’ll go with the pick, you will have to throw something else in or take back a contract in a salary dump.

      My opinion is that the 16th pick is too much give up for any of the available goaltenders and that the 57th on its own gets laughed off. That leaves the 33rd.

      As for striking out on a trade, it’s easy to say you can just sign a UFA. It’s more difficult to do without offering too much money or term to get them to sign. Aside from Dubnyk, who is not coming back, that UFA group doesn’t do much for me.

      • Zarny

        You think you’ll have to overpay on term or dollar for a guy this year? It seems like there’s alot more goalies then there are spots.

        Maybe I’m reading it wrong, and I fully admit to knowing nothing about goalies other then how to yell at them when they let a softie in, but I think this year you’re gonna have a couple guys just wanting the chance to play alot of games.

        Trades, Lack, Talbot, Lehner, Jones

        UFA, Niemi, Neuvirth, Ramo, Enroth

        That’s just 8 guys right there all wanting to be a starter without listing them all. How many teams are gonna be looking for a goalie this year?

      • Also I don’t think you have to get a Talbot or a Lack. I’d be looking at them first for sure, but if the bidding war starts getting a little carried away i would Bow out early. I don’t think anyone can say with certainty that these guys are stone cold locks to be solid starters in the league.

        Again, I admit to knowing nothing about goalies.

        • Quicksilver ballet

          Cameo I think you’re bang on with your analysis. Some of the commentators are looking for the perfect solution to all the Oilers problems to be taken care of before the start of next season.

          I agree with you in that they should look for the long term fix potentially in Lack,Talbot . But even though today these 2 might be the best bet for success. If the price is to prohibitive (I.e. #16) Then they should explore any # of the other good bet options out there.

          Gibson- Real Deal imo but if he’s the get I would look to get on of the other UFA G options out there as well. Maybe add Jones as well?

          Niemi-will cost too much.

          Neuvirth-Good bet.

          Ramo- Good Bet

          Enroth= Good Bet.

          I would even consider Anderson if I wasnt giving up too much.

          Point being there are plenty of options for what I would call “good bets” Take 2 and roll til xmas. This trend of having more goalies then starting positions is here to stay in the NHL. I see this position as an area i’m saving on cap space year after year.

      • The Last Of Barrett's Privateers

        Not to high jack your post here..

        Allow me to also clarify from “the convo starts at 57”..

        that doesn’t mean an additional draft pick, a prospect for example I’ve mentioned Pitlick (one way contract or waiver wire player) gets thrown in or even taking back salary..

        I absolutely concede that most teams are asking for the 16th hoping to settle for the 33rd.

        Point is at the end of the day when PC sits down and examine whats on the table for a 33rd OV pick

        A) a goalie trending down with concussion issues

        B) two goalies one year away from UFA status

        like you mentioned the risk/reward has to be to large.

        I think the one thing I can take out of this article is that it’s not who the best fit might be for the Oilers but is PC willing to pony up?

        ether way it makes for great conversation and debate.

  • At 57th you will probably get a backup that is not very good. We have already tried that with Fasth and Scrivens. Why give up a 57th pick, when you can pick one up with NHL experience in the UFA market? Chiarelli and the other GMs have a lot of respect for each other. He is not going to lowball another GM. This is not buying a used car. It’s funny that teams need a starting goalie but don’t want to pay for one.

  • Quicksilver ballet

    So, as we circle the wagons on this issue again it looks as though Talbot is a little on the popular side.

    If Chiarelli won’t part with that first rounder. How can he increase his bid without bumping up that draft pick, can he take back a bad contract to give it more curb appeal?

    ….searches Ranger roster for possibilities.

  • JackB

    Here is another option if we are trading for a goalie, rather than trying the free agent market.

    See how much Ottawa would want in assets for Craig Anderson. He is definitely a proven starter, he would be a 4.2M cap hit for three years.

    And three years would be about the time to tell in Brossoit could be starter . . . he could back up in a year (after Scrivens is gone) maybe platoon 50/50 his second year (and Anderson could mentor him.) Anderson would then be a hell-uv-a 37 year old back-up in the last year of his contract (OR EVEN OUR STARTER TO TAKE US DEEP INTO THE PLAYOFFS 3 YEARS FROM NOW if Bossoit turns out to be only a good back-up) Just a thought – as long as the asking cost isn’t too high!

    Ottawa isn’t up against the cap (have 11M cap space) but aren’t they subject to an owner’s budget or something like that? BUT . . . they do have to get rid of one of their goalies, or risk losing Lehner or Hammond to waiver (I think.)

    Murray has been pumping the tires for Robin Lehner (hoping no one will make an issue with the concussions issue); they LOVE the Hamburglar; and if Murray believes in the potential of Lehner and the new college goalie (forgot his name), maybe he will be reasonable in the assets he wants for Anderson???

    Just a thought . . . Anderson sure was STELLAR in this year’s playoffs for Ottawa.

    • JackB

      I think that Anderson would be the best fit with the Oil for all the reasons you state. The down side is that he will cost the most assets to get. That might prevent things from happening.