Craig Anderson Info from the Denver Post

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:The fact that they were in no hurry to scoop someone up on the free agent market suggests they may be happy to have Lehner as a backup next season. Not the best move IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The free agent market isn't open yet? Lehner may split games with whoever our other goalie is next year (likely Anderson?), or he might get the majority of starts in Bingo. I think that a full year of being the starter in Bingo would be great for his development, but I don't think that splitting time in the NHL would ruin him either.

What I meant was they could have signed someone who didn't have a contract this year just to fill the hole and let Lehner play in Bingo.

Meh. The whole "playing Lehner in the NHL is GOING TO RUIN HIM AHHHHHH" card has been played so often that I think it's clouding people's judgments. We do still have Leclaire remember -- suppress the laugh; the odds of him getting hurt as a backup are at least reduced -- & he's going to be the backup the moment that he's healthy (which sounds like it will be soon), and Lehner will be sent back down then. So going out & picking up another goalie doesn't make much sense, especially financially. In the meantime, a few games practicing with the Sens, and a few starts here & there, will give Lehner a taste. A whetting of the appetite.

Who knows, the plan may well be to sign Anderson and then pair him with a solid backup (i.e., one signed in July 2011). Plenty of decent options to choose from there, in terms of backups, anyway. Let's wait until it all plays out before we get too excited.

And, let's have a little faith in the collective wisdom of the organization, too, instead of getting too cocksure about "this is the way Lehner should be handled." Nobody is more concerned about his development, and has more knowledge or experience on handling the situation, than BM & the organization collectively. Nobody. We would do well to remember that point.

I can see us sign Anderson and the Leclaire for real cheap as the backup. No one in their right mind is going to sign Leclaire. No one. Murray is in a position of power with Leclaire. $1M for 1 YR as the backup - ala Auld.

That would be a mistake, I'd think. It would mean re-introducing THE destabilizing element. No, there will be plenty of UFA backups worth our pursuing -- ones who can stay healthier and who can 'tend about just as well -- if we choose to go this route.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

Hoags wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
Anderson is the guy who makes the most sense for the Sens to target. Is he The Savior? Who knows. All I know is that we need a #1 goalie coming up this year, because clearly Elliott or Leclaire won't have that role, and Anderson is the best option available to us at the moment, in a variety of senses (because he will more than likely accept a short deal, given his past; because signing Bryzgalov to a long, expensive deal doesn't make sense to the organization, with respect to Lehner; and because trading away valuable assets on a rebuilding team to acquire a goalie makes even less sense). So good for BM in identifying that, and good for BM in getting us a head start on signing him.

He turned down a 2-year extension from Colorado, unless he really hated it there, we're going to have to do significantly better than that in order to keep him me thinks.

One of the reasons he got pissed off is because they offered zero extension and therefore why he was traded.

Yeah, this was the other story I heard. Who knows what to believe. All I know is that the ball is in our court now; let's take it to the hoop.

SensFan71 wrote:hell just bring up Mike Brodeur to be the backup, leaving a Lehner/Brust combo down in Bingo, we are not going to be winning the division or thinking of playoffs next year, so going cheap and affordable is the way to go, provided Mike gets over those concussion symptoms.

I was under the impression that Brodeur is not 100% healthy; am I wrong in thinking that?

I don't think we should keep Leclaire at all, he's horrible and unreliable, even if he plays for free.

He has to be the butt of jokes in that dressing room.

rooneypoo wrote:

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

Hoags wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
Anderson is the guy who makes the most sense for the Sens to target. Is he The Savior? Who knows. All I know is that we need a #1 goalie coming up this year, because clearly Elliott or Leclaire won't have that role, and Anderson is the best option available to us at the moment, in a variety of senses (because he will more than likely accept a short deal, given his past; because signing Bryzgalov to a long, expensive deal doesn't make sense to the organization, with respect to Lehner; and because trading away valuable assets on a rebuilding team to acquire a goalie makes even less sense). So good for BM in identifying that, and good for BM in getting us a head start on signing him.

He turned down a 2-year extension from Colorado, unless he really hated it there, we're going to have to do significantly better than that in order to keep him me thinks.

One of the reasons he got pissed off is because they offered zero extension and therefore why he was traded.

Yeah, this was the other story I heard. Who knows what to believe. All I know is that the ball is in our court now; let's take it to the hoop.

I *think* I remember reading that the extension was during his lights out season last year, which he declined. Since then, (this year) there hasn't been an offer. So, both could be correct. I've heard both versions.

Hoags wrote:I don't think we should keep Leclaire at all, he's horrible and unreliable, even if he plays for free.

He has to be the butt of jokes in that dressing room.

well Fisher is gone now, so its less likely Leclaire could get hurt on the bench, just don't let Carkner or Greening wind up when Leclaire is at practice lol, in all seriousness though, I don't see Leclaire back with the Sens, and unfortunately for him with the run of bad circumstances/luck, I don't see him getting an NHL gig either unless some team is completely desperate.

I personally don't see Leclaire getting an NHL offer that isn't a two-way deal that sees him start in the AHL.

rooneypoo wrote:
Yeah, this was the other story I heard. Who knows what to believe. All I know is that the ball is in our court now; let's take it to the hoop.

I agree, this is our best chance and we should go for it if he pans out.

If he doesn't then we've got a problem because I don't see much else potential backups on that list.

I'd either bring Brust up to be backup or sign another one. If Brust is still in Bingo next year, it's possible Lehner may not get as many starts as he should.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I personally don't see Leclaire getting an NHL offer that isn't a two-way deal that sees him start in the AHL.

I agree, I think he may even have to go the KHL and prove he can play a full season.

Then again Kari Lehtonen got a #1 role.

if he goes to the khl he should bring his own doctor

how did we not win this trade? we wern't going with eliott next year anyways and like everyone said bryz and vokoum were likely to sign with another team. this way we've got a chance to sign him first if we like the results.
i don't expect us to be blown out of the water but i think anderson can be a steady guy for us. kind of like elliott last year when he was hot.

as for leclaire i'm all for offering him a 2 way contract but not much more. i doubt he'll get a better offer then that. maybe for league minimum from a team that wants to carry 3 goalies.
*cough* philly *cough*

Flo The Action wrote:how did we not win this trade? we wern't going with eliott next year anyways and like everyone said bryz and vokoum were likely to sign with another team. this way we've got a chance to sign him first if we like the results.
i don't expect us to be blown out of the water but i think anderson can be a steady guy for us. kind of like elliott last year when he was hot.

as for leclaire i'm all for offering him a 2 way contract but not much more. i doubt he'll get a better offer then that. maybe for league minimum from a team that wants to carry 3 goalies.
*cough* philly *cough*

Dude! Enough! No more Leclaire!

Well, I am not one to say Leclaire should be part of the team going forward... but having Anderson changes a lot. If people want to say "no way Leclaire should be back, get rid of him", it's tough to disagree and that's probably the right way to go about it in all honestly. BUT could signing Leclaire at his lowest value and perhaps building him up to the point he has value again a risk worth taking?

Having an Anderson/Leclaire duo next year would be a small risk, but nothing crazy or totally out of the ordinary. Obviously they would need to sign a guy like Brust or Sandford, someone like that as a little insurance. They need depth in goal and having 2 goalies that are capable of being number 1's (insert Leclaire joke) would not be a bad thing. Having two goalies who have the ability to steal games on any given night might be the way to go.

If they don't resign Leclaire than obviously they really don't want him, but IMO, the risk is minimal if they have a true number 1 and have the ability to lave Lehner down in Bingo to play a large portion of games.

I don't want Leclaire in the organization at all. I don't think he is reliable enough to be a backup and I think it'd be best he'd be forgotten, he's a huge part of why we've had so many problems, putting Elliott in a #1 role and having Lehner up so long.

Sing another backup.

Tampa will be making a run at a free agent goalie, they traded Ellis and now both their goalies are UFA's at year end, except maybe Smith. They might try and keep Roloson but at 41 they might try and get someone younger. Vokoun would be a good choice he wouldn't even have to leave Florida.

So there's one potential competitor for Anderson's services.

I want my backup to be healthy and reliable. We just can't trust Leclaire if Anderson/whoever is #1 went down. Plus, Leclaire is a guy who is only effective if he plays a bunch of games in a row and gets a sold rythym going. I'll respectfully pass on even signing him as the backup, even to a minimum contract.

I'm not sure why the notion of signing Leclaire again was even brought up. It's ludicrous. He's like Hasek, except with half the skills and forty times the injury-risk. You just can't afford to have a goalie that unreliable.

here's a list of low end UFA goalies coming up July 1, would take any of them before Leclaire, even if they have less potential/talent.

Auld, Alex » G MTL 30 $1,000,000 2011 (UFA)
Boucher, Brian » G PHI 34 $925,000 2011 (UFA)
Climie, Matt » G PHO 28 $725,000 2011 (UFA)
Howard, Jimmy » G DET 26 $716,667 2011 (UFA)
Lalime, Patrick » G BUF 36 $650,000 2011 (UFA)
Brodeur, Mike » G OTT 27 $600,000 2011 (UFA)
Nabokov, Evgeni » G NYI 35 $570,000 2011 (UFA)
Leneveu, David » G CLB 27 $550,000 2011 (UFA)
Toivonen, Hannu » G CHI 26 $550,000 2011 (UFA)
Sanford, Curtis » G MTL 31 $550,000 2011 (UFA)
MacDonald, Joey » G DET 31 $550,000 2011 (UFA)
McElhinney, Curtis » G TBL 27 $535,000 2011 (UFA)
Sabourin, Dany » G WAS 30 $525,000 2011 (UFA)
McKenna, Mike » G NJD 27 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Curry, John » G PIT 26 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
MacIntyre, Drew » G ATL 27 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Gerber, Martin » G EDM 36 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Grahame, John » G COL 35 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Karlsson, Henrik » G CGY 27 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Krahn, Brent » G DAL 28 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Emery, Ray » G ANA 28 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Bacashihua, Jason »G COL 28 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Weiman, Tyler » G VAN 26 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Martin, Joel » G NYI 28 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Lawson, Nathan » G NYI 27 $500,000 2011 (UFA)
Schaefer, Nolan » G BOS 31 $500,000 2011 (UFA)

You can scratch Nabokov off that list, but yeah, I'd take ANY of those guys over Leclaire.