pilldoc Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 http://thehockeywriters.com/goalie-controversy-in-ottawa-who-stays-and-who-goes/ So with the signing of Matt O'Connor, what do you think the Sens do with their respective goalies? You now have in the fold:Craig AndersonRobin LehnerAndrew HammondMatt O'ConnorPersonally, I could see the Sens trading Anderson, Start Hammond, keep Lehner as a back-up and give O'Connor a year in the AHL. Then readdress the situation next spring. Ultimately, I think Anderson will be the odd man out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 I think Lehner needs to go. I was rather high on him until this season, but this past season was just bad, and I don't really foresee things getting any better. Anderson is at worst solid, and I think his play in the playoffs should prove to the team once and for all that he can come through for them. I like him as the #1 guy and Hammond getting significant time as the #2 (or #1A if you prefer). I'm one that thinks Hammond may have hit on something this year and can keep it going, but I don't want to risk everything on that yet. We have the potential for a great season ahead, but if the goaltending doesn't play out, it may not matter how much we can score. Anderson gives the only definite security, with Hammond as a wildcard. Lehner, on the other hand, doesn't add much. We won't get much for him, but we should get what we can. One other thing about Anderson: we just signed him to a big deal. Anyone who takes him will have to have some cap space. That doesn't eliminate everyone, obviously, but it might reduce our options of who to trade him to a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 @ScottM I'm with you Scott. The past season made me think I was wrong about Lehner. He looked real shaky a lot of times. I don't know if Anderson will be the starter moving forwards....but he's a solid goalie...and really, with the Sens injury history at that position...it would be wise to keep Anderson to either start or provide depth. I think Hammond is the best goalie there right now, but Anderson is solid enough to steal the job back...so Hammer will have his work cut out for him. Either way, the Sens goaltending is in a position of strength....with O'Connor only adding to an already good situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Either way, the Sens goaltending is in a position of strength....with O'Connor only adding to an already good situation. That would be a first, eh? I mean, even when we had Hasek, he got hurt, and then the management was dumb enough not to resign him when he volunteered to take a minimum salary. We might've blown a chance at a Cup there. Imagine 2007 with him in net... *end pining for the past* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 @ScottM Well, this *is* the management group that got Conacher back for a franchise goalie in Bishop. I'd take Ben over any of the Sens goalies right now....so there is that....LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 @ScottM Well, this *is* the management group that got Conacher back for a franchise goalie in Bishop. I'd take Ben over any of the Sens goalies right now....so there is that....LOL! And it's the management group that I've been griping about for at least a decade. C'est la vie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Now that I say that, it makes me think... They probably will keep Lehner and deal one of the other guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 @ScottM I'm not sold AT ALL that Murray is a championship GM.....not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 @jammer2 I'm convinced he's not. It's time for a fresh face in there. From what I understand, he'll be naming his successor, though, so I'm not sure how much confidence that gives me. I'd like to see Alfredsson get a shot. He always struck me as a very intelligent player, and he was a good leader on the ice. Plus, in keeping with the premise of the thread, he'll have a good understanding of the goaltending issues the Sens have always had having lived through it. I've got to think that his history with the team on the ice rather than in the team's box would help steer the way he looks at issues like this one. It may not happen, but I can dream, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 @ScottM The one huge advantage Alfie would have...he's played with most of these guys...he knows who has substance abuse problems....who comes home late on game nights.....who does not give full effort in practice etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 http://thehockeywriters.com/goalie-controversy-in-ottawa-who-stays-and-who-goes/ So with the signing of Matt O'Connor, what do you think the Sens do with their respective goalies? You now have in the fold:Craig AndersonRobin LehnerAndrew HammondMatt O'ConnorPersonally, I could see the Sens trading Anderson, Start Hammond, keep Lehner as a back-up and give O'Connor a year in the AHL. Then readdress the situation next spring. Ultimately, I think Anderson will be the odd man out.It would be beyond moronic to start Hammond after a 20+ game sample size and an unimpressive playoff performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 @JagerMeister Hammond had a few off periods, but for the most part, he went toe to toe with Price, one of the games greats and did not lose by much. I'd say unimpressive is pushing the envelope of negativity. If I was the Sens, I'd be thrilled with how he played in his first of many playoff appearances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 @JagerMeister Hammond had a few off periods, but for the most part, he went toe to toe with Price, one of the games greats and did not lose by much. I'd say unimpressive is pushing the envelope of negativity. If I was the Sens, I'd be thrilled with how he played in his first of many playoff appearances. This. The Senators didn't lose a single game in the series by more than a goal. He may not have been perfect, but as you said he dueled Price quite well. I can't help but wonder how many people thought the same thing about Dominik Hasek in 1994. Before anyone puts words in my mouth, I'm not putting Hammond in the same class as Hasek, but it shows that a late-bloomer isn't necessarily a "no-bloomer." We won't really know what's going to happen with Hammond until next season, but I think it's very unfair to him to say there's no way he has success. He's already proven that wrong. He might not have another good season, but nonetheless, he has proven that he's capable of playing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 This. The Senators didn't lose a single game in the series by more than a goal. He may not have been perfect, but as you said he dueled Price quite well. I can't help but wonder how many people thought the same thing about Dominik Hasek in 1994. Before anyone puts words in my mouth, I'm not putting Hammond in the same class as Hasek, but it shows that a late-bloomer isn't necessarily a "no-bloomer." We won't really know what's going to happen with Hammond until next season, but I think it's very unfair to him to say there's no way he has success. He's already proven that wrong. He might not have another good season, but nonetheless, he has proven that he's capable of playing well.Nice try, but Hasek was already a well accomplished goalie in Europe before he came over to the NHL. Hammond however, was a mediocre goalie during his time in the AHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Nice try, but Hasek was already a well accomplished goalie in Europe before he came over to the NHL. Hammond however, was a mediocre goalie during his time in the AHL Nice try, but every accomplished European player doesn't hack it in the NHL. There are a reason for the Jiri Dopita jokes around here, after all. Besides that, Hasek's numbers in the NHL weren't good until his breakout season in 1993-94. He had a sub .900 save percentage. Again, I'm not putting Hammond in the same class as Hasek. If he wants to end up there, he's got a world of work ahead of him, but the fact remains that Hasek was a late-bloomer, and his NHL play didn't inspire awe at first. As I said, Hammond may never put up another good season, but my point that Hammond showed he CAN play well stands. It can't be argued because it's now a fact of history. Edit: I don't have a problem with someone saying they don't think he'll do well, but stating it as an undeniable fact is just plain wrong. That's all I'm trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Nice try, but every accomplished European player doesn't hack it in the NHL. There are a reason for the Jiri Dopita jokes around here, after all. Besides that, Hasek's numbers in the NHL weren't good until his breakout season in 1993-94. He had a sub .900 save percentage. Again, I'm not putting Hammond in the same class as Hasek. If he wants to end up there, he's got a world of work ahead of him, but the fact remains that Hasek was a late-bloomer, and his NHL play didn't inspire awe at first. As I said, Hammond may never put up another good season, but my point that Hammond showed he CAN play well stands. It can't be argued because it's now a fact of history. Edit: I don't have a problem with someone saying they don't think he'll do well, but stating it as an undeniable fact is just plain wrong. That's all I'm trying to say.Yes he CAN play well, like every other goalie in the NHL....He showed us that even a sub par .900 AHL goalie can become a one hit wonder in the NHL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Yes he CAN play well, like every other goalie in the NHL....He showed us that even a sub par .900 AHL goalie can become a one hit wonder in the NHL... I've openly acknowledged before that he wasn't good in the AHL. That's also a fact of history. The only comments I've really taken issue with concerning Hammond are those that say or suggest that continued good play is an impossibility. As I said before, we'll find out what next year holds next year, but in the meantime, he deserves credit for what he did, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt that comes along with that. If he proves to have a bad year next year, call it bad, but don't call it until it that unless/until it happens. Will he be a one-hit wonder? Maybe. Maybe not. The guy deserves a chance to show us, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yave1964 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 @ScottM IF the decision is based solely upon actual hockey skill Obviously Anderson and Hammond are the one two punch with Lehner playing in the KHL or Edmonton or some other far off outpost. Ottawa has a poor man budget and I see them listening to offers for Anderson and going Hammond/Lehner. Not bad, if they use the money freed to fix other problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I've openly acknowledged before that he wasn't good in the AHL. That's also a fact of history. The only comments I've really taken issue with concerning Hammond are those that say or suggest that continued good play is an impossibility. As I said before, we'll find out what next year holds next year, but in the meantime, he deserves credit for what he did, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt that comes along with that. If he proves to have a bad year next year, call it bad, but don't call it until it that unless/until it happens. Will he be a one-hit wonder? Maybe. Maybe not. The guy deserves a chance to show us, though.Your right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I've openly acknowledged before that he wasn't good in the AHL. That's also a fact of history. The only comments I've really taken issue with concerning Hammond are those that say or suggest that continued good play is an impossibility. As I said before, we'll find out what next year holds next year, but in the meantime, he deserves credit for what he did, and he deserves the benefit of the doubt that comes along with that. If he proves to have a bad year next year, call it bad, but don't call it until it that unless/until it happens. Will he be a one-hit wonder? Maybe. Maybe not. The guy deserves a chance to show us, though. Hell yeah....the guy won 23 of his teams final 24 games....that is incredible....especially when you factor in how many teams they beat were straight up desperate for points in a playoff run of their own. Under that pressure packed context, to come out smelling like roses....not something a flash in the pan could accomplish. Sure, other goalies have slumped after a great first year....but none posted stats like 23/24....so we are dealing with an historic anomaly....that alone sheds light on his upcoming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Hammond extends, 3 years, 1.35 million per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 @AJgoal Wow, 1.35 per, huh? This should allow the Sens to keep Anderson as a emergency fall back and a tutor for young Hammond. If Hammond were to win the job outright, it's a ton to pay for a back up....but the actual money they would be allocating to goalies would be about average league wide for both goalies. Plus, Anderson's veteran presence will be good for the whole team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I really like that deal. It's good for cap space, but it's also a big raise for Hammond. No loser that I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.