Vermette for Leclaire?

Via Spector:

http://www.spectorshockey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=603:sunday-evening-update-march-1-2009&catid=34:articles&Itemid=55

I hope this isn't the case... doesn't sound right, value-wise, considering how much Leclaire is getting paid and how long his contract is... I'd much rather just keep Vermette...

Leclaire is a really good goalie. He's posted near league leading shutouts and numbers, doing so while missing quite a bit of games to injury and sharing duties with Norrena.

Mason is the clear cut #1 right now and likely going forward for Columbus. It's tough to determine how much of Columbus goalie success is based on team defence, considering they've had Leclaire and Mason putting up Vezina numbers. Coincidence or is the defence just that good? If Leclaire can stay healthy (hopefully he's just had some misfortune and things will look up) he is a much better goalie than what we got.

Id rather have Vermette to be honest with you, this was a rumour last year as well too... I dont buy it unless there is more coming the Sens way.

Dash wrote:Leclaire is a really good goalie. He's posted near league leading shutouts and numbers, doing so while missing quite a bit of games to injury and sharing duties with Norrena.

Mason is the clear cut #1 right now and likely going forward for Columbus. It's tough to determine how much of Columbus goalie success is based on team defence, considering they've had Leclaire and Mason putting up Vezina numbers. Coincidence or is the defence just that good? If Leclaire can stay healthy (hopefully he's just had some misfortune and things will look up) he is a much better goalie than what we got.

Leclaire has had 1 good, 1/2 season in the NHL... thats it. Leclaire hasnt proven a thing in the NHL, wasnt able to keep his starting job, and is ALWAYS injured.

Dash wrote:Leclaire is a really good goalie. He's posted near league leading shutouts and numbers, doing so while missing quite a bit of games to injury and sharing duties with Norrena.

Mason is the clear cut #1 right now and likely going forward for Columbus. It's tough to determine how much of Columbus goalie success is based on team defence, considering they've had Leclaire and Mason putting up Vezina numbers. Coincidence or is the defence just that good? If Leclaire can stay healthy (hopefully he's just had some misfortune and things will look up) he is a much better goalie than what we got.

Dan Lacosta had a shut-out in his second career start for Columbus.

Hitchc0ck's system has a lot to do with it.

I still think Leclaire would be better than what we have.

Interesting scenario...in principle Howson would move $8.2MM in salary (3.6 and 4.8 in 09/10 and 10/11 respectively) for 3MM (as Vermette is a UFA after next year).

This would also mean Howson feels comfortable with LaCosta as a backup to Steve Mason.

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

Dash wrote:I still think Leclaire would be better than what we have.

I dont, not even close. Collectivly Elliott and Auld are better, also cheaper. Elliott has loads of potential and give him some defense and get his confidence back, the Sens might have one of the top goaltending duo's in the league.

Im not against getting Leclaire, but for Vermette, 100% I am. That actually weekens the Sens IMO.

How can you say that about Elliott? He's yet to play half a season, let alone an entire one? Yet you judge Leclaire on his 1 1/2 really good season.

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.

Because Elliotts has proven everywhere he has gone that he can win. Doesnt matter where he played, he won. He has shown the potential he has, he has shown that he might indeed, one day be a number 1. Id rather give him a shot at less than a million dollars a year than Leclaire and get the exact same result.

Taking on Leclaire at 3.8 mil for mulitple years over Elliott (who has basically proven the same amount at the NHL level, nothing) at less than a million dollars. I'll take the question mark with the least amount of risk and lowest cap hit. Auld IMO is a better goalie than Leclaire right now anyways.

EDIT: On top of that, we lose Vermette... the deal is garbage IMO and has been a rumour that has been put out there for over a year now... not gonna happen.

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.