Analyzing the Craig Anderson contract extension
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 7:00 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintAs mentioned yesterday, the Ottawa Senators re-signed goaltender Craig Anderson to a four-year contract extension worth $12.75M. The average annual value gives him a $3.1875M cap hit. Immediate reaction to the signing was largely shock at the term; four years for a goaltender in Ottawa seemed, to most, like far too much considering the team's reputation and Anderson's fairly short resume.
Looking at the deal, though, it does appear that Anderson gave up some money on the deal in order to get long-term security in the four-year term. People have fairly pointed out that this summer will offer a buyer's market for teams looking at goaltending free agents, but if Anderson was the player the Senators organization wanted, kudos to them for getting him signed. As with any deal, time will tell how it works out.
In analyzing the signing, it's important to consider both term and dollars in order to reach conclusions as to whether it's a fair one for the player. So I'll break my analysis down in those categories, before taking a look at the overall picture.
The Term
Without a doubt, the term is longer than most people expected. Generally, people were looking at between two and three years, and would likely have praised that term, but for whatever reason that fourth year has soured a good number of fans. Perhaps there is good reason: Ottawa has a very extensive resume in failed goaltending projects, and people are concerned that if Anderson's name is added to that list, the length of the contract will tie Ottawa's hands and impede the rebuilding of the franchise.
One of the primary concerns with the term some have is how if affects the development of Robin Lehner. This is less of a concern with me. Lehner has, as of yet, not proven to be a capably reliable AHL goaltender; to think the Senators would reserve him a spot in the NHL in the event he becomes an NHL-calibre goalie is laughable. In the small sample size this season, Anderson has offered the Senators the best goaltending they have seen in a long time, perhaps in the history of the new franchise; to think we would risk losing that player for a far from proven commodity like Lehner is flawed thinking. (Granted, the assumption is that he can continue playing at or near this level for the whole term. That remains to be seen, and I can't and won't venture a guess as to whether he can). If and when Lehner is ready for the NHL, he will have to steal the starting role from an established goaltender. I would much rather that scenario than the one where he's simply offered the position.
Even if four years seems like a long time right now, it's remarkable how much can change in that time. Four years ago, Ottawa's two goalies were Martin Gerber and Ray Emery. Since then, those two have been released (Gerber waived, Emery bought out), while the team has also dismissed Alex Auld (trade), Brian Elliott (trade), and Pascal Leclaire (pretty much just dismissal). Player movement is inevitable and common. Should the cynics and pessimists turn out right and this deal not work out, four years isn't too handcuffing.
The Money
The money hasn't been nearly as controversial as the term, but it's still a good raise: His cap his this year only $1.8125M, and will almost double to $3.1825M. It sets him up as the 16th-highest-paid goaltender in the league next season (although that's likely to fall to 18 once Tomas Vokoun and Ilya Bryzgalov get their next contracts). So it's certainly not chump change.
It is, however, less than an offer he's previously rejected. During negotiations last summer, the Colorado Avalanche reportedly offered a two-year extension worth $7.5M (or $3.75M per season) to Anderson, which he rejected. He's lost out on a bit of money on a per-year basis, but Anderson did gain some long-term security in getting a term twice as long.
The number also seems fair--if a little low--considering Anderson's play in the last few seasons. Among goalies with at least 50 games played since the 2006-07 season, Anderson has the seventh-best save percentage (although his goals-against average isn't nearly as impressive at 2.69, 37th in the aforementioned class).
The Sum Total
It would seem, in looking at the contract, that Anderson gave up a little money in order to secure term, and the Senators gave some extra term in order to save some money. Both of them seem fair compared to similar goaltenders across the league. Does that mean the deal will work out? If you can tell me for sure, you've got a more effective crystal ball than I do. The Senators saw a goalie they liked, and let their money do the talking in showing him how highly they felt. Anderson found a team that wanted him, and a city thirsting for a competent goaltender, and signed on long-term to stay on board.
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Speaking of Gerber
He was signed to a three-year deal worth $11.1 million. Anderson’s contract is only one year longer, $1.65 million more expensive, and its cap hit/year is about half-a-million less than Gerber’s was.
In four years, the salary cap will be a few million dollars higher, so Anderson’s cap hit will be even less onerous, not that it is all that bad right now.
I think the controversy about the Anderson deal is how it will affect the team’s rebuilding process, and that raises the question of how one defines success in rebuilding.
yeah, I think that a rebuild requires a competent goaltender that is beyond what we have had the last little while. He doesn’t have to steal every game, but he just has to make sure that we don’t “rebuild” an emotionally broken defensive core of 20 year olds who have no confidence when )hopefully) Lehner gets to the level where he is ready to take over…
I would have preferred 3 years, but if they front load a 4 year and make sure he has no NMC then it’s all good. Of course, I’m assuming that the 4th year was what was needed to get the deal done.
I would have liked to see less years - even at the cost of more money
I would have been happier even with 2 years $9 million. Four years was way too long given his resume.
But without an NMC, I guess he can be traded/dumped in minors if he sucks after 2 years. I am okay with the first two years.
That said, I really don’t like Murray negotiating contracts.
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
by Adnan on Mar 22, 2011 8:11 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
What specifically is your problem with Murray negotiating contracts?
Realistically, most players out there will be looking for either stability or a raise (or both). And especially given the state of the team, we’re not exactly a prime destination right now. I know you don’t like the Phillips extension or this deal, both because of the term. Leaving aside opinions on Philly going forward (since I know you don’t think we need him), both players could have gotten more money and potentially longer terms in the free agent market.
I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect them to sign Andy for 2 years and $9M on a rebuilding team. When he turned down the 2/$7.5M in Colorado, I think he made it clear that he wanted some stability going forward. Besides, what happens if we sign for 2 years and at the end of that deal Lehner’s not ready? I’d rather definitely have a goalie (and one we’ve seen and are happy with so far) than put pressure on Lehner to get NHL ready by the end of a deal that’s too short.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
My problem is the term like you said
The only players I would give long term deal to are core players. Jason Spezza for 7 years, I still have no problem with, even though his production declined, but we couldn’t know that.
Mike Fisher 5 years $21 million? Probably not a good idea. 4 year deal to a goalie who has had one good year as a starter in his career? Not a good idea. Note, I think Anderson will be good or at least decent next year, but 4 years is a long time.
I am not against all long term deals. Alexander Semin, if he is available next season, I would have no problem giving him 5 years. Zach Parise for 5 years? Sure.
Erik Karlsson, if he gets another 50ish points next year, he will likely get 4 or 5 years at 3-3.5. Murray might give him 4.5.
My problem with this deal is not about Robin Lehner. Craig Anderson isn’t the only goalie in the world, and if he wanted to walk at 2 years $9 million…well let him.
I hope it works out. It is not an awful deal, money is very reasonable, he can be traded. Still don’t like 4 years.
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
by Adnan on Mar 22, 2011 8:40 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Andy may not be the only goalie, but I don't think they should have risked him walking.
He’s the kind of goalie this team needs – he does best when he sees 40+ shots, and he can calm down a shaky team by making clutch saves. That, and every now and then he steals a game that they had no business winning.
Sure there are other goalies out there, and sure a bunch of them will be on the market this summer. But how many of them are as good of a fit for this team going forward? And how many of them would come here? A 2 year contract on a rebuilding team doesn’t sound appetizing at all, IMO – at least with 4 years, there’s a good chance you’ll see some good seasons by the end. But I’m happy with a 4th year because the alternative could easily have been having someone like McElhinney as our starter next year. I’m pretty sure Bryzgalov and Vokoun and Varlamov would all have turned down a 2 year deal on a rebuilding team and would have gone somewhere where they have a shot instead.
The way I look at it, the choice was a longer term, or a crappier goalie. Murray picked the right one.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Bryzgalov would make me more comfortable with 4 year deals
But he would have been hard to convince to come here. I am not sure Anderson would turn down 2 years $9 milliopn though, he just needed to make 2 years $4 million after to beat this contract.
It wasn’t an awful contract, but still too long. I will leave it at that.
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
by Adnan on Mar 22, 2011 8:56 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
2 yrs $9M
Adnan, I think your negotiating philosophy would be highly likely to cost the Senators a significant amount of money. There is a chance that Lehner will be ready for the NHL in two years, but there is probably a similar chance that he will not. If it is the latter and Anderson has played two years of decent hockey for his $9M then what do you do? Sign him for another 2 years @ $9M while Lehner finishes polishing his game(resulting in $5M+ overpayment compared to the deal he just signed)? Throw Lehner to the wolves while he is still maturing and hope he goes the Price route rather than the Pogge route?
I think the 4 year term not only gives Anderson security it also gives Lehner security because it allows him a nice runway to develop. It also saves the Senators money and gives the rest of the line-up stability. I am just not persuaded by your arguments in favour or a shorter term.
This
and also, 4 years to Bryzgalov? No doubt a better goalie, but one used to playing behind defense-first system, and a couple years older than Andy. Also, Andy wants to be here, and I;m down for that. He took less money to play here when he didn’t have too, he owes us as little as we owe him. Rather that than throwing out BIG money offers to someone like Bryzgalov to try to make him come here.
http://ottawasconsensus.blogspot.com/
Okay but there is also a chance that Craig Anderson won't be reliable for 4 years
It would cost the Senators the money in the short term, where they won’t spend to the cap. But it would allow the Senators more flexibility 3-4 years from now when they are closer to/at the cap.
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
That is a chance with any player you sign, though
You can’t predict the future. Or at least I can’t… can you? If so, awesome!
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Of course not
My point was exactly that. A player with such a short resume as a starting goaltender, 4 years was a big gamble.
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
Agree
A 4 year contract for any goalie is a sizeable gameble, especially one as unproven in the #1 roll as Anderson.
This contract seems like a Bryan Murray special. A player that he likes, a guy that says all the right things in media – and Murray rewards him with $12.75M.
I’m not sure how Mark sees $12.75M as “less than” the Avs offer of $7.5M, but there you have it. I guess some people think the Sens are getting this guy at a deal, but I’m highly skeptical he would have gotten this much on the open market.
Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em. Cant do it.
This is true, but
Having Anderson at 3.2 and another goalie, presumably Lehner coming off his rookie deal and signing for somewhere between 1.5 and 2, is still a solid goalie situation. 5.2 at most for your goalie tandem, I call that a bargain. Even if Lehner over takes Anderson the length isn’t prohibitive to Lehner moving into the starter’s role. Lehner is at least two seasons away from being an NHL goalie, and won’t be a starter in his first year. This means we deal with one year, at most, of having a 3.2 mil backup.
I really don't mind the term - in fact, I kind of like it.
Assuming the contract is meant to give Lehner time to develop, I like the idea of a fourth year in case we need it. And if not, good on Murray for locking Andy down rather than squabbling about term and potentially letting him walk over the summer because someone would have given him 4 years. Plus in Andy’s interview after the announcement, he was saying all the right things about wanting to be here.
For the Lehner proponents, there’s no way he’ll be NHL ready for at least two years IMO, and more likely longer than that. Looking at this deal, there’s no way it’s untradeable in two to three years if the need arises. If by some miracle Lehner is ready that early and steals the starter job, good on him – but I also think Lehner can learn from backing Andy up. Andy’s been showing a lot of leadership on the ice, and I would love nothing more than for Lehner to pick up the habit.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
“Looking at this deal, there’s no way it’s untradeable in two to three years if the need arises.”
If the reason is he’s sucking (rather than “too many goalies!”), it likely will be untradeable.
Right, but that's true of just about every player
I don’t think we need to keep repeating the point. I think everyone’s aware that sucky players don’t get traded, and those who are talking about trading him are including an unspoken “if he doesn’t suck” in there.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Mar 22, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess the Elliot for Anderson trade is the exception that proves the rule
that sucky players don’t get traded…
I thought the deal would be 3 years at around 3.5 per, so the price is good and the term is not unbearable. I hope Lehner turns out to be what many think he will become. But if he doesn’t, he’ll by no means be the first player that didn’t live up to expectations.
Anderson showed team leadership on the ice from the first game he played. With a bunch of young players coming in, that intangible is almost as valuable as his net minding…
Yeah, there's always some GM who's going to think they can turn a player's career around
It doesn’t always happen, though.
And I totally agree about Anderson’s leadership. I think it’s going to make a big difference for all of our young defensemen. Think about Karlsson, Lee, Cowen, MechaKarlsson, and even Weircioch being in the lineup over the next four years. They’re all going to benefit from playing with a guy as vocal as Anderson. He makes making the simple play pretty easy.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I don't mind the term...
Anderson has all the makings of a really good (if not great) goaltender in the league. If, for whatever reason, he shits the bed, and it isn’t working out in Ottawa, then Murray (or whoever the GM at the time is) can trade him away, since there’s no NMC or NTC in his contract. Let’s not forget, we traded away Brian Elliot for this guy, and Elliot does NOT have the pedigree that Anderson comes with. A couple years down the road, teams might see Anderson as a really good goalie who struggled behind a really crappy team. Hopefully, it won’t come to that, because I honestly don’t think the Sens will be crappy for very long, but still…
And like AlfieGirl said above me, someone would have given him the fourth year, and he probably would have just walked away in July if Murray didn’t just add it in.
We don’t need a Luongo right now… we’re not taking the cup home next year. What we DO need is a goalie who is confident, and inspires confidence in his young defensemen. They need that confidence to do their thing, without having to worry that every single mistake would end up in the back of our net (a la Gerber, Elliot, etc.) That, coupled with the obvious leadership that Anderson exudes an only mean good things.
We may not win many games next year, but hopefully, we won’t get blown out very often, either. A close loss is a lot more exciting to watch than a 6-1 romp.
GO SENS GO!
I don't know if you can really rely on the Elliott trade
I’m pretty sure that was the result of voodoo or something. But I agree that it’s a very tradeable deal if it comes to that – it’s not just the lack of NTC, but the cap hit is entirely reasonable and it’s not like we’ll be trading before half of the contract has elapsed. 2 years at just under $3.2M per? Someone will take that – if the day comes where we need to move it, that is.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
But it's only a tradeable deal if Anderson doesn't suck
To get traded, he’s going to have to play at least steadily for the duration of the contract. If he’s awful, no one will take the contract, just like no one was interested in the last year of Leclaire.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
33 years old is prime time for keepers
Sure, something could happen, but this isn’t an unnecessarily risky deal. Goalies are usually still in their prime in their early to mid thirties. At 32/33 their no reason to expect Anderson to perform badly in the last couple of years of this deal. He is a guy that relies on positioning, fundamentals, communication with the defense, angles. Those are not things that go out the window the way reflexes do for a guy like LeClaire when he is not fully fit.
I love his communication
Seeing a goalie out there yelling and telling his D-men what they need to do and where they need to be is terrific.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
We don't know what's going to happen with the last year of Kuba yet
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Mar 22, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Well I meant at this deadline
So I guess last year + 2 months
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
That's a pretty big difference
I don’t think Kuba will be on our team after next year’s deadline passes, myself.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Mar 22, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
That means he will be for most of the season
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
If I meant that, I would have said it.
It’s also possible that he could get moved in the offseason, though I think it’s more likely that he needs a full healthy season of play to convince teams to take him on as a rental.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Mar 22, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I'd be surprised if someone took him this summer
Though you never know what will happen. He might be packaged into something.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
It's not like it's starter or trade, though
I think if he’s bad enough that we don’t even want him as a backup, we should be considering a buyout anyway. Not that we should do it, but hypothetically. Buyout or Bingo.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
The bottom line
" It sets him up as the 16th-highest-paid goaltender in the league next season (although that’s likely to fall to 18 once Tomas Vokoun and Ilya Bryzgalov get their next contracts)."
This the bottom line for me. The Senators will be receiving above average goaltending at a below average price. That sounds like a good deal to me. Is there a chance that Anderson’s play nose-dives in the future. No moreso than any other player in the league.
yes. this.
http://ottawasconsensus.blogspot.com/
Is there a chance that Anderson’s play nose-dives in the future. No moreso than any other player in the league.
Really? No moreso than players that have proven they can consistently perform at a high level? No moreso than players that are playoff proven? C’mon now that’s total hyperbole. The guy’s never even won a single playoff series.
Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em. Cant do it.
He's only played one play-off series.
I don’t think we can take him to task for that. He may have lost the series, but he also got a shut-out and had a GAA of 2.62 and a save percentage of.933.
The fact remains he's proven nothing in the post-season
Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em. Cant do it.
I don't think he could prove anything in six games, good or bad.
I agree that there are reasons to doubt the value of the deal, but I disagree that Anderson’s play-off performance is one of them.
For that matter, we don’t even know how many times the Senators will make the play-offs during Anderson’s tenure in net, Melnyk’s hopes notwithstanding, or even if they’ll make them at all during that time.
You’re arguing he hasn’t had the opportunity to prove himself in the playoffs. I’m not arguing against that point at all. I’m saying regardless of opportunity, he hasn’t proven his game in the playoffs.
The circumstances surrounding this don’t matter, the fact is that he doesn’t have that experience. That experience. Is. Missing.
A lot can change in 4 years and if we’re stuck with this guy for the duration, his ability to perform in the post-season matters.
Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em. Cant do it.
We are talking about a contract that pays him an average to below average salary for a starting netminder (17th out of 30 at present). That seems reasonable for a guy that has 200+ games of NHL experience (approx. 4 seasons worth of work for a goalie). If his play is even average then we are getting reasonable value for money. To this point his play has been better than average, so I don’t see why you would think the Sens got a bad deal.
What better goalie are the Sens going to get for the same money?
I don't want them to give 12.75M to any goalie
Given the current state of the team it’s absurd to tie up that kind of money over 4 years – for any goalie currently or soon to be on the market.
Cannot play with 'em, cannot win with 'em, cannot coach with 'em. Cant do it.
Down the road
Regarding the term, I am happy that the Senators have competent goaltending in their future for the next four years. If Lehner turns into a superstar in the meantime then the Sens can upgrade from good to great and trade Anderson to some other team looking for an effective and reasonably priced netminder. I am sure there will be suitors if that happens.
Alternatively, there is no reason that Anderson couldn’t be the Senators “goalie of the future”. At 29 he could have a very decent 6 to 8 year run ahead of him. If Lehner turns into a beast then there is also the option that the Senators could turn him into a Seguin/Couturier/Backstrom/(other young high scoring forward) down the road if they need a scoring forward more than a goaltending upgrade.
True
But I don’t think you’ll convince people to give up on Lehner. I’ve been hearing about Lehner for at least two years from people. There’s been too much hype about him to not at least give him the chance to beat out Andy for the starter role someday.
Who knows? Maybe when that day comes Andy will win and the fans will turn to his side, but for now I think a large part of the fanbase is thinking of Lehner as the franchise goalie that we’ve been looking for since 1992.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Love it, to be honest
I have a lot of faith in Craig Anderson and kinda feel like he go thrown under the bus for Colorado’s shite defence and epic lack of goaltending depth (when you have to lean on Budaij when your starter gets injured, its a problem). Four years of Anderson means the pressure is of the organization to rush Lehner and the kid is free to develop. I think he’ll be platooning with Anderson in the last couple years of his contract, maybe even stealing it in the fourth.
This deal give us time, keeps a lot of cap space and settles our goaltending woes before July 1st, the day of glorious overpayment
Scholar, Gentleman, Shameless Sens Homer with a Heart of Gold.
by Johnny_Spectacular on Mar 22, 2011 9:44 AM EDT reply actions
I’ve always liked Craig Anderson, so good for him on landing the deal. I felt like he was much better than his record indicated in Florida, never really got his footing in Colorado and has since really impressed in Ottawa. Huge opportunity for the Sens on this one.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com, twitter and now on the official Pensburgh Facebook page
And just to clarify, by record I meant that of the team. To the best of my knowledge he never had a year in which his win percentage was below .500 with Florida. Plus, he had to work twice as hard on a team that for two years in a row gave up the most shots in the league.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com, twitter and now on the official Pensburgh Facebook page
“If Anderson was the player the Senators organization wanted, kudos to them for getting him signed. As with any deal, time will tell how it works out.”
This is probably the most reasonable, and fair, distillation of the deal I’ve seen. Everything else is kind of window dressing.
Speaking of window dressing: I wish this deal was a little more front-loaded rather than, uh, rear-loaded? The lack of a NTC is nice, but if they’re in a position where we want to trade Anderson in his fourth year – let’s say, if he’s had a couple bad, or injury plagued seasons – it will be harder to trade $3.5M.
But other than that, the Sens didn’t let him get to market, and that’s huge. If he had hit July 1st, I could see a few teams going after him. I don’t know about a buyer’s market – there are only a couple of top end players, both way too expensive and who will probably re-sign with their teams, and the rest are all projects. Anderson represented one of those potentially solid goalies, and probably would have attracted some interest. So great job getting him signed.
Let’s just hope Murray knows something that we don’t, because when he traded for Leclaire (who was injured at the time) he said “I talked to some hockey people who said he’s legit” and that’s not very convincing.
I just said it was a buyer’s market because there are very few teams without starting goaltenders already, and there are also very few teams that have the cap space to offer Anderson even just $3M a year.
As I see it, the teams looking for a starter next season include Florida and Colorado (neither of which Anderson would re-sign with) and then Ottawa and Phoenix. Who else is looking for a starter, and has money for one?
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
well thats right now.
what if Washington bombs in the playoffs due to bad goaltending. They’d be in the market. same with the flyers and any other team!
http://ottawasconsensus.blogspot.com/
I don’t see Washington giving up on Varlamov, Neuvirth, and Holtby after one season, and even if they do, they’ve got a lot of other holes to fill and only about $13M to do so.
As for Philly, they’ve got to be high on Bob, and they’ve still got Leighton on contract. And they have hardly any cap space at all for next season, and have holes to fill of their own.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
touche Raaymakers
guess what I was saying is, teams decide on their needs after the playoffs. but you are right, overall, there aren’t many holes.
http://ottawasconsensus.blogspot.com/
Yeah, you're right
And Varada pointed out a few more teams that do have holes, and could very well be looking for help. Many of them will wait until after the playoffs to make their decisions, like you said.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
And Philly's not really a goalie team.
They’re kind of like Detroit that way – they just don’t really spend much on goalies or draw big names.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
I could see any of Washington, Philly, Chicago, Toronto, Florida, Colorado, Columbus, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, the Islanders or Edmonton wanting to get in on a new goaltender, though obviously some more than others. I get your point though. The market has been rough for free agent goaltenders lately.
Dunno about that
You seem to be including a lot of teams with young goaltenders that they will lean on. I think Chicago wants to stick with Crawford, Detroit doesn’t seem to be giving up, Philly loves Bobrovsky, Washington has 3 young and very good goaltenders… and Columbus? Steve Mason has been much better this year, they aren’t going to change.
O Magnus....
by Irish_Human on Mar 22, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I doubt Detroit's looking with the extension they just signed for Howard
Though maybe I’m wrong.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
I'd have to agree
The back-loading of the contract definitely makes it more difficult to trade. I’m not sure why either side wouldn’t have wanted a front-loaded contract instead.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Mar 22, 2011 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Might be an ownership idea
Melnyk might be wanting to keep his actual payout low for the next few seasons, so he keeps his expenses low while also expecting revenue to take a hit. Since the bottom line is the same for Anderson, he might have been fine with it.
Just an idea, though.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
you are on fire right now.
another good point.
http://ottawasconsensus.blogspot.com/
It's a plausible one
I can’t find a reason to disagree.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I also think it’s sort of funny that everyone keeps saying “If he sucks, we can just trade him because there’s no NTC,” as if a goalie who sucks on a four year deal paying $3M per isn’t it’s own NTC.
I think what people mean is,
if Lehner comes along and is legit, takes over the starting job, Anderson becomes a tradeable asset.
http://ottawasconsensus.blogspot.com/
+1
If Anderson sucks then this deal won’t be great(although not as bad as the Gerber and Leclaire deals). But really, who signs a player that sucks? Clearly, the Sens feel that Anderson won’t suck and there is reasonable evidence to back that up. He has a 200+ game track record in the league and management has seen first hand that he gets along well with the players and staff. Sure, he might suck, but we aren’t talking about a totally unkown quantity here.
That is my line of thinking
If he is playing well but Lehner is playing better, absolutely this is a tradeable contract.
But I have also heard "If he sucks, we can just trade him" talk, and that talk is stupid. If he bombs, he becomes hard to trade. But hey – they managed to move Elliott.
“If he bombs, he becomes hard to trade.”
Sure, but tell me a player in the league that this does not apply to?
Not the point
The point is not that this statement applies equally to other players.
The point (and I think this is what Varada was trying to get at) is that some people are talking like it doesn’t apply to Anderson, which is just foolish.
I don't think that's the case
I feel like everyone knows if he puts up numbers like he did in Colorado, we’re stuck with him.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Mar 22, 2011 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I've seen a few comments indicating people think that
Not many, and not so much on this site – but they are out there.
Usually in the form of “If he starts to suck, we can trade him” and often from people who thought we should have gotten a 1st round pick for Kovalev (or something similar), so I’m not exactly talking about the brightest of people.
Hah! Probably
And probably the same people that screamed for years that Fisher should be traded, and then yelled that we should have got more for him when he was traded.
As for Chara, I still say Muckler got the short end of hindsight on that one. It would have taken a crystal ball to know that Redden was going to implode and that Chara still had a break-out season in him. I have yet to hear a good argument in favour of Chara over Redden that doesn’t rely on information from after Chara was gone.
Hossa-Chara connection
A theory has been put forward that once Muckler traded Hossa that Chara made up his mind to leave. Who knows. That is getting into the realm of conspiracy. Either way, Muckler was clearly the guy that made the call one way or the other (not Murray, obviously).
Didn't Hossa get dicked around though?
I can see why that might convince Chara to go. Although he’s said in interviews since that he wanted to stay here.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Hossa got massively dicked around
Stonewalled on his salary requests, then signed & traded lightning fast. I’ve never been happy with how he was treated. I thought it was classless.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Me neither.
Totally shitty move. Gave the Senators organization a black eye that it’s taken a while to make up for.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions
That's because there isn't one
Redden and Chara were both high-end defensemen at the time and Muckler guessed wrong. It sucks, but it happens. That’s all there is to it.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Depth is essential
Tomas Vokoun and Ilya Bryzgalov will either resign for ridiculous amounts of money or they will get even more ridiculous offers from other clubs. Either way the pickings are slim for goalies right now, so we rolled the dice. IMO, neither of them are worth the money they will make.
My biggest hope is that Anderson plays so well that he becomes a bargain at the price we are paying. And with the four-forward offence we are apparently developing, great goaltending is essential.
And on top of that even two goalies is not enough in this day and age, so if Lehner gets NHL-ready quickly, that’s great… and I hope that we draft two more prospect goalies with at least one of our third or fourth round picks and another one with a seventh round pick.
The organization needs depth at goaltending for the inevitable injuries and the inevitable ups and downs of fragile self-confidences. Having alot of competition is good for goalies. We ran out of options quickly this year when Leclaire got injured again and again. And it only helps to have great goaltending at the AHL level as well.
My question now is who'll be backing Andy up.
McElhinney? Not Lehner – that’s pretty clear. So who?
Oh Captain, my Captain!
There are lots of backups on the market
McElhinney is one, but there are many: Hedberg, Garon, Theodore, Auld, Sanford, Mike Smith, Giguere, Turco… lots of names, in any case. Plus the possibility of giving Brust or Brodeur a shot as an NHL backup (which seems less likely, and less desirable, but still possible).
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Mar 22, 2011 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't mind having Auld back if he's down with that
But please not Theodore.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
I don't get why everyone is so excited about Lehner.
We have a good goalie right here, vs a 19 year old who has the potential to be great, but has yet to show it. In 4 years we can have this conversation, right now we don’t have options and Anderson has been a solid dude.
I'm excited about the potential he has
I believe he has the size, skills, and most importantly, the mental makeup to be a great goaltender. I think he’ll develop into one now that the Sens organization has the chance to develop him correctly.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Mar 22, 2011 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
And the Lundqvist connection
I’m a huge fan of the fact that he spends his summers training with King Henrik under his father’s supervision.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
Because him succeeding means the Leclaire-Vermette trade wasn't a total wash
Ha! Kidding. Though it’s true.
But really, he’s shown a lot of talent, although it has yet to be developed really. I think it’s just the first time in a long time that Ottawa has had a good goalie prospect. I really can’t remember the last one, to be honest. But I’ve been hearing about Lehner the Future Franchise Goalie for like two years.
Oh Captain, my Captain!
My biggest worry...
… is that fresh off his newly signed contract Anderson goes on a tear and finishes the season on an 8-0-2 run and Ottawa rises several spots in the standings. As a result of our late surge and some bad luck in the lottery we end up with number 7 or 8 pick and miss out on some of the studliest studs of this year’s draft. Maybe not even getting a good consolation prize like Strome or Huberdeau.
There is only so much Karlsson can do ;)
Even he has limits.
Trying to be Erik Karlsson's agent since October, 2010.
Love it
Love the term. It is perfect to allow for the development of Lehner plus the Sens get a REALLY good goaltender in the meantime and maybe a guy to keep longer if he keeps playing like he has lately.
A two-year term would be a horrible idea – especially at a higher price. That is likely when Lehner should come in as a back-up. Who do you sign as the starter then? Re-up Anderson? Do you get such a good deal at that time?
Love the money. Definitely less than the guy is worth.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Silver Seven
Related FanShots on Silver Seven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Peter DeBoer’s Devils: How coach’s philosophy, rivalry with Tortorella have defined New Jersey’s playoff run
- Los Angeles Kings give Rainn Wilson, a.k.a. Dwight Schrute, free playoff tickets in a Jell-O mold
- Monday’s Three Stars: Parise scores, Brodeur saves in Game 4 Devils win
- Zach Parise, Devils respond after a quiet Game 3 to even series with Rangers in Game 4
- Mike Rupp shoves Brodeur, sparks Game 4 chaos as Devils, Rangers coaches squabble (VIDEO)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Brodeur, Parise lead Devils to 4-1 Game 4 win over rattled Rangers; East Finals tied, 2-2
- Brodeur, Parise lead Devils to 4-1 win over rattled Rangers; East final tied 2-2
- Brodeur, Parise lead Devils to 4-1 win over rattled Rangers; East final tied 2-2
- Wild prospects lead Saint John past Edmonton
- Labrie stars in Admirals 1-0 overtime win over IceCaps; Norfolk leads series 3-0
