"necessarily imply", no. Usually implies, yes. But I keep forgetting you use a different dictionary to me.
Perhaps naively, I like to think of talented as an unbiased description. To allow for my own bias I am forced to admit other people's opinions, so - for example - if you tell me author x writes what you think are good stories then I am satisfied that the author is talented whether I agree the stories are good or not. I am not naturally inclined to use the phrase "good story teller" except as a subjective description. But if you did mean "Some writers are simply good story tellers." in an unbiased (as far as this is possible) sense, then yes that fits with talent better than voice (as I understand those terms).
But with "Some writers are simply good story tellers" as a synonym for talented we are then forced to discuss whether natural talent can be improved upon. I am on the side that thinks it can be (wishful thinking, perhaps
), so it's no longer "simply good story tellers" it is "have learned to be good story tellers". Can anyone learn? Maybe not, but I think some can.