Vermette for Leclaire?

davetherave wrote:

Dash wrote:That's an odd way of looking at it... why not just say you trade $3.8 for $2.7?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The remainder of Leclaire's contract (per NHLnumbers.com) is 8.2MM. Vermette's is 3MM. That's the committment that would go on the books, apart from the remaining 08/09 salary.

Cap hit is the number you look at. He's making $3.8/year, not 8.2. They do not shed 8.2, they shed 3.8 because they will not have gained an extra 4.4 in cap space. With this trade they will have saved approx. 1.1 mil.

Dash wrote:

davetherave wrote:

Dash wrote:That's an odd way of looking at it... why not just say you trade $3.8 for $2.7?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The remainder of Leclaire's contract (per NHLnumbers.com) is 8.2MM. Vermette's is 3MM. That's the committment that would go on the books, apart from the remaining 08/09 salary.

Cap hit is the number you look at. He's making $3.8/year, not 8.2. They do not shed 8.2, they shed 3.8 because they will not have gained an extra 4.4 in cap space. With this trade they will have saved approx. 1.1 mil.

Tell that to Melnyk buddy. Its also 2 years committed to another marginal goalie... I thought we just got rid of Gerber. At least he had a cup ring coming here.

Dash wrote:

davetherave wrote:

Dash wrote:That's an odd way of looking at it... why not just say you trade $3.8 for $2.7?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The remainder of Leclaire's contract (per NHLnumbers.com) is 8.2MM. Vermette's is 3MM. That's the committment that would go on the books, apart from the remaining 08/09 salary.

Cap hit is the number you look at. He's making $3.8/year, not 8.2. They do not shed 8.2, they shed 3.8 because they will not have gained an extra 4.4 in cap space. With this trade they will have saved approx. 1.1 mil.

We're not talking about the same thing.

Cap hit is cap hit, and budget is budget.

If he makes this trade, Howson can delete an 8.2MM contract as he takes on a 3MM contract.

So he has 5.2MM to allocate to another area, at his discretion, assuming he has that in his budget...or he has reduced his operating expenditures by 5.2 million dollars.

This speaks directly to the much-discussed anticipated drop in revenues over the next two years.

No way. Leclaire is a project goalie with one good year and a big salary.

Big no.

Why are we discussing this, we all know Bryan MUrray will not do that deal.

Leclaire is better then you guys are giving him credit for. If he didn't get injured during the pre-season then he would currently be the #1 and not Steve Mason. Leclaire tried to play through injury and played horribly. When healthy he is a top goalie in the NHL.

If we could somehow get him with Kelly then that would make my day.

Leclaire never stays healthy, ever.

Neely4Life wrote:Leclaire never stays healthy, ever.

He did last year and played very well. In fact, he earned a spot on the Canadian World Championship team. He's a good goalie, better then anything we currently have.

I dont think Leclaire is better than what we have right now to be honest with you. I'll Take Auld at 1 mil for next year over a huge unknwon in Leclaire for 3.8 over the next two years. I also think Auld is a better goaltender than LEclaire on top of that.

Why not just resign Gerber, he was all the rage when we signed him too. People are always looking for something new in Ottawa, not something calculated or smart.

Leclaire has had 1 good 1/2 season, thats it.

Neely4Life wrote:I dont think Leclaire is better than what we have right now to be honest with you. I'll Take Auld at 1 mil for next year over a huge unknwon in Leclaire for 3.8 over the next two years. I also think Auld is a better goaltender than LEclaire on top of that.

Why not just resign Gerber, he was all the rage when we signed him too. People are always looking for something new in Ottawa, not something calculated or smart.

Leclaire has had 1 good 1/2 season, thats it.

Leclaire is nothing like Gerber or Auld. He got 9 shutouts last season in front of a very poor team. That doesn't just happen by accident.

If we go with what we've got right now then there's no chance we make the playoffs next year....no chance.

It doesn't have to be Leclaire that we go after but we need a better goalie. Hoping a rookie can carry us into the playoffs is not a smart thing to do.

Neely4Life wrote:Leclaire never stays healthy, ever.

Can't say that based on a couple of years. There are players who were injury proned in their 1st few years and went on to be very successful.

Urkie wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:I dont think Leclaire is better than what we have right now to be honest with you. I'll Take Auld at 1 mil for next year over a huge unknwon in Leclaire for 3.8 over the next two years. I also think Auld is a better goaltender than LEclaire on top of that.

Why not just resign Gerber, he was all the rage when we signed him too. People are always looking for something new in Ottawa, not something calculated or smart.

Leclaire has had 1 good 1/2 season, thats it.

Leclaire is nothing like Gerber or Auld. He got 9 shutouts last season in front of a very poor team. That doesn't just happen by accident.

If we go with what we've got right now then there's no chance we make the playoffs next year....no chance.

It doesn't have to be Leclaire that we go after but we need a better goalie. Hoping a rookie can carry us into the playoffs is not a smart thing to do.

No goalie can carry that defense into the playoffs, none. The team has a lot of issues, right now, goaltending is one of the last worries. The goaltending this year for the most part has been good, both Auld and Elliotts numbers are decent, no where near the bottom of the league and have both been ok.

There are no proven goalies that are on the market, none. Instead of the quick fix (which never works in Ottawa) they will develope Elliott and split time with Auld next year. There is absolutly nothing wrong with that. Put a better defense in front of those two and actually score some goals, the Sens will be alright next year.

Phoenix30 wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:Leclaire never stays healthy, ever.

Can't say that based on a couple of years. There are players who were injury proned in their 1st few years and went on to be very successful.

There are also lots who never stay healthy. Why would you give up Vermette who's contract is less, is one of the Sens most complete players, for a guy who has hasnt done a thing in the NHL.

It doesnt make sense, the cap will be going down next year in a big way, and we have two goalies who have been ok on a bad team...

If people think that everything is going to be solved in one year, wow, unreal expectations. Defense is where you start when the season is done.

No Hitchc0ck team is poor defensively.

asq2 wrote:No Hitchc0ck team is poor defensively.

Leclaire was good before Hitchc0ck ever became coach of the Jackets. Injuries have prevented him from becoming an amazing goalie.

As I said before. If we could somehow get him with Kelly then that is a big time steal.

Not sure why Bryan Murray would trade for Pascal Leclaire until, or unless, he knows Leclaire has fully recovered from his ankle injury.

The last time Leclaire played was in mid-December. He has been more or less out with the ankle injury since late October, playing just five games in those two months. Obviously his performance has suffered as a result.

http://forecaster.canada.com/faceoff/hockey/player-gbg.cgi?2572

The rumoured deal--as it has been explained so far--would appear to favour Howson from a financial perspective, as he could jettison the balance of Leclaire's 8.2MM contract while acquiring a solid center/faceoff/PK man in Vermette; and being able to cut $5MM from his budget in the process.

The source, Aaron Portzline of the Columbus Dispatch, is generally reliable.

However we can only guess how far the discussions have or haven't progressed.

Neely4Life wrote:

Phoenix30 wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:Leclaire never stays healthy, ever.

Can't say that based on a couple of years. There are players who were injury proned in their 1st few years and went on to be very successful.

There are also lots who never stay healthy. Why would you give up Vermette who's contract is less, is one of the Sens most complete players, for a guy who has hasnt done a thing in the NHL.

It doesnt make sense, the cap will be going down next year in a big way, and we have two goalies who have been ok on a bad team...

If people think that everything is going to be solved in one year, wow, unreal expectations. Defense is where you start when the season is done.

I'm not saying give up Vermette. I have been a big fan and supporter of his for a very long time. If we keep him beyond this season we are going to reap his rewards with him going into another contract year.

Now that being said Leclaire could be a good addition to this team for the right price. Instead of Vermette I'd be open to moving Kelly who has 3 more years and Auld 1 more after this season for LeClaire's 2 more years and a pick in order to spread the money around. In the process it also opens up a forward spot for a player in the minors.

Neely4Life wrote:
It doesnt make sense, the cap will be going down next year in a big way, and we have two goalies who have been ok on a bad team...

I agree with you on the Leclaire issue, too much $$ too much risk.

However, this is a common misconception that I just found out was not true. The projected salary cap for next year is between 55 and 57 million. It's the year after that it will fall.