GAME DAY: Vancouver Canucks @ Ottawa Senators - 7:30PM - Thursday Nov. 11, 2010

“We needed to get Pascal into a game,” said Clouston. “There is a strategy at times to predicting who is going to play well against certain teams. Brian has played well against Boston and in Boston.

“It was just time to give him a bit of a rest. He had started 11 games in a row. If you can anticipate a little bit of fatigue setting in before he has an average — or poor — game, it’s a bonus. I thought we could see a few things creeping into his game that we wanted to kind of take a step back.”

http://www.ottawasun.com/sports/hockey/2010/11/14/16139866.html

Are you kidding me? You put Leclaire in vs. Vancouver because you needed to get him a game? This was a case of Clouston setting Leclaire up to fail so he can say to Murray - Told ya so, Now I'm going with "MY" guy.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Are you kidding me? You put Leclaire in vs. Vancouver because you needed to get him a game? This was a case of Clouston setting Leclaire up to fail so he can say to Murray - Told ya so, Now I'm going with "MY" guy.

He put him because Vancouver isn't in our conference so it's not as big of a deal if we lose.

Again I'm not trying to suggest Leclaire is nor should be our number 1 goalie but they should have started him vs. the Isles or vs. the Thrashers. How often do you see a goalie go into a game vs. a Cup contender after being off for a month? There was a strategy here alright and it stinks.

There was also Elliott's nagging injury that they wanted to try to rest.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Again I'm not trying to suggest Leclaire is nor should be our number 1 goalie but they should have started him vs. the Isles or vs. the Thrashers. How often do you see a goalie go into a game vs. a Cup contender after being off for a month? There was a strategy here alright and it stinks.

Clouston places winning and making the playoffs over saving Leclaire's NHL career. If we were comfortably in the top of the conference then perhaps he could have done that. But since those were relatively easy opponents we badly needed the points to make up for our poor start.

It's unfortunate it was the Canucks but what can you do ?

Still there was nothing stopping Leclaire from rising to the challenge against a tough opponent, that's why we got him.

Hoags wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Again I'm not trying to suggest Leclaire is nor should be our number 1 goalie but they should have started him vs. the Isles or vs. the Thrashers. How often do you see a goalie go into a game vs. a Cup contender after being off for a month? There was a strategy here alright and it stinks.

Clouston places winning and making the playoffs over saving Leclaire's NHL career. If we were comfortably in the top of the conference then perhaps he could have done that. But since those were relatively easy opponents we badly needed the points to make up for our poor start.

It's unfortunate it was the Canucks but what can you do ?

Still there was nothing stopping Leclaire from rising to the challenge against a tough opponent, that's why we got him.

If it was all about the value of a win then he wouldn't have put Leclaire in that game and given his clear number one the night off. If he wanted to give his team the best chance to win he would have rested Elliott earlier and given Leclaire the easier opponent for his first game back from injury.

either way, it certainly looks like we got fleeced in that trade....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/33148942/ns/sports-player_news/

but it will all work out in the long run due to the pick that turned out to be Lehner

SpezDispenser wrote:There was also Elliott's nagging injury that they wanted to try to rest.

Wouldn't have been an issue had they rested him earlier vs. the Isles or Thrashers IMO.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:either way, it certainly looks like we got fleeced in that trade....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/33148942/ns/sports-player_news/

but it will all work out in the long run due to the pick that turned out to be Lehner

Not at all, I'll take a potential number one goalie over Vermette any day of the week.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:leclaire...
goodnight.

No comment.

Probably best to say that because you'd be ripped apart trying to pin this loss on Leclaire.

You will see the light someday. I won't wait for it, but you will see it.

Maybe next year when he can't find a contract; I'm sure he might be willing to play in your beer league. I will give you a hint; fake a shot and watch Leclaire bite, then move laterally and bury it in the open net.

The point was that the entire team played like crap for the last 30 to 40 minutes of that game and would have lost badly regardless of who was in net. In other words YOU CAN'T PIN THIS LOSS on Leclaire. As marakh so keenly pointed out - you can't use the argument that they play differently in front of Elliott over Leclaire when the team is playing fantastic for the first 20 to 30 minutes then sucks arse after that.

And you think I am the one with the Leclaire obsession? Didn't you ask me to stop talking about Leclaire?

I talk about goalies in general in about 25% of my posts and most of the time at the request of someone else.

You speak of Leclaire and Leclaire only, while driving your car, making dinner and in your dreams.

I feel sorry for you.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Number Twenty Nine wrote:either way, it certainly looks like we got fleeced in that trade....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/33148942/ns/sports-player_news/

but it will all work out in the long run due to the pick that turned out to be Lehner

Not at all, I'll take a potential number one goalie over Vermette any day of the week.

The ONLY good part of that trade was the pick. Most people knew Leclaire would get injured and prove to not be a #1.

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:leclaire...
goodnight.

No comment.

Probably best to say that because you'd be ripped apart trying to pin this loss on Leclaire.

You will see the light someday. I won't wait for it, but you will see it.

Maybe next year when he can't find a contract; I'm sure he might be willing to play in your beer league. I will give you a hint; fake a shot and watch Leclaire bite, then move laterally and bury it in the open net.

The point was that the entire team played like crap for the last 30 to 40 minutes of that game and would have lost badly regardless of who was in net. In other words YOU CAN'T PIN THIS LOSS on Leclaire. As marakh so keenly pointed out - you can't use the argument that they play differently in front of Elliott over Leclaire when the team is playing fantastic for the first 20 to 30 minutes then sucks arse after that.

And you think I am the one with the Leclaire obsession? Didn't you ask me to stop talking about Leclaire?

I talk about goalies in general in about 25% of my posts and most of the time at the request of someone else.

You speak of Leclaire and Leclaire only, while driving your car, making dinner and in your dreams.

I feel sorry for you.

Notch? Just kidding...

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:leclaire...
goodnight.

No comment.

Probably best to say that because you'd be ripped apart trying to pin this loss on Leclaire.

You will see the light someday. I won't wait for it, but you will see it.

Maybe next year when he can't find a contract; I'm sure he might be willing to play in your beer league. I will give you a hint; fake a shot and watch Leclaire bite, then move laterally and bury it in the open net.

The point was that the entire team played like crap for the last 30 to 40 minutes of that game and would have lost badly regardless of who was in net. In other words YOU CAN'T PIN THIS LOSS on Leclaire. As marakh so keenly pointed out - you can't use the argument that they play differently in front of Elliott over Leclaire when the team is playing fantastic for the first 20 to 30 minutes then sucks arse after that.

And you think I am the one with the Leclaire obsession? Didn't you ask me to stop talking about Leclaire?

I talk about goalies in general in about 25% of my posts and most of the time at the request of someone else.

You speak of Leclaire and Leclaire only, while driving your car, making dinner and in your dreams.

I feel sorry for you.

You're getting the Admin on here mixed up. I've never asked you to stop talking about Leclaire.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:leclaire...
goodnight.

No comment.

Probably best to say that because you'd be ripped apart trying to pin this loss on Leclaire.

You will see the light someday. I won't wait for it, but you will see it.

Maybe next year when he can't find a contract; I'm sure he might be willing to play in your beer league. I will give you a hint; fake a shot and watch Leclaire bite, then move laterally and bury it in the open net.

The point was that the entire team played like crap for the last 30 to 40 minutes of that game and would have lost badly regardless of who was in net. In other words YOU CAN'T PIN THIS LOSS on Leclaire. As marakh so keenly pointed out - you can't use the argument that they play differently in front of Elliott over Leclaire when the team is playing fantastic for the first 20 to 30 minutes then sucks arse after that.

And you think I am the one with the Leclaire obsession? Didn't you ask me to stop talking about Leclaire?

I talk about goalies in general in about 25% of my posts and most of the time at the request of someone else.

You speak of Leclaire and Leclaire only, while driving your car, making dinner and in your dreams.

I feel sorry for you.

You're getting the Admin on here mixed up. I've never asked you to stop talking about Leclaire.

No big deal, but it was you. You said "enough already, we know how you feel about Leclaire"

SpezDispenser and I are great and same goes for WPrager.

I'm actually fine with everybody on here, I just find it amusing that you keep bringing Leclaire up after what you said to me. You are going to have to go through an extensive withdrawal rehab when Leclaire's contract is over and he can't buy himself an NHL contract ever again.

I wonder if a team will take chance on Leclaire next summer. Something around a 1.5 million + bonuses. I bet someone does.

SpezDispenser wrote:I wonder if a team will take chance on Leclaire next summer. Something around a 1.5 million + bonuses. I bet someone does.

Not a chance; he brings nothing to your team.

I won't expand any further, unless asked of course.

I think he'll get league minimum for 1 year and they'll go from there. He in no way warrants more than that, he hasn't played enough with us these past 2 years for me to even know what his style is and I watch every single game. He's hot and cold, but we haven't seen much of the hot in him yet. If we haven't no other team has either. 500x1.

Leclaire will get some chances to show he can be #1, probably not many as Elliott is playing well but who knows. I personally don't think he can do it, not to mention he doesn't have too many chances left. Murray could ship him to Bingo at the deadline and grab another goalie if he's still a huge liability.

I don't think the team has any confidence in him, the Sens seem to magically play like Dung whenever he's in nets, Elliott goes in and we're suddenly playing well.

I think Leclaire could possibly still be a #1 goalie(hey you never know) but I severely doubt it'll be in Ottawa. The Sens will be in a tough fight to lock down a playoff spot this year, I don't think we can afford to put him in nets very much and hope he doesn't Dung the bed. We need every win we can get.

I seriously doubt he'll get an NHL contract at this rate, but then again Keri Lehtonen did in Dallas .....