Vermette for Leclaire?

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.

And fall to at best 50 million, though the Leafs are doing their part by raising ticket prices.

If they bring in Leclaire, they have to send Auld out, or else he will have no value in the summer. I can deal with Elliott/Gerber for the rest of the year.

I just don't see the logic in this deal at this moment in time.. The only reason it has any traction is that Leclaire has been mentioned before, and Vermette has been offered around for years. If this is December '09 and the goaltending for the Sens is still simply OK, you can make this trade. Vermette, as good as he has been lately, is an enigma. As is Fisher. As is Spezza.

504Heater wrote:

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.

sure but what if there were some good prospects coming ottawa's way? meaning some players that would cost little and be NHL ready making the opperational costs for those 2(leclaire deals) less costly? a trade looking like vermette+ kuba against leclaire + pick + prospect(s)
(I've got no names as i'm not that familiar with columbus appart from filatov, but they wont part with him)

Flo The Action wrote:
sure but what if there were some good prospects coming ottawa's way? meaning some players that would cost little and be NHL ready making the opperational costs for those 2(leclaire deals) less costly? a trade looking like vermette+ kuba against leclaire + pick + prospect(s)
(I've got no names as i'm not that familiar with columbus appart from filatov, but they wont part with him)

If I do this deal, then Columbus will have to part with a lot more. I would have to insist that one of our 'crap' contracts go as well. Chris Kelly for one - and I would want either a 2nd round pick for taking the contract and taking the chance or Kris Russell.

Vermette's value is at an all time high I would imagine - and Leclaire's might be at an all time low.

Sexy up the offer Columbus, or don't bother.

The reason I'm high on this is because I'm thinking about the possibility of Elliott not panning out. I realize that he's only a rookie and so forth but what happens if he doesn't turn out to be the guy we need? Murray has to have a backup plan because he knows if this team doesn't make the playoffs next year then he's history. Leaving his job in the hands of an untested 24 year old rookie goalie may not be something he wants to do.

So wait, you'd want him to GM in a way that protects his job, rather than doing what's best for the team?

Leclaire is about as proven as Elliott is.

On an incredibly shallow level, he also reminds me of "The Grinch."

Urkie wrote:The reason I'm high on this is because I'm thinking about the possibility of Elliott not panning out. I realize that he's only a rookie and so forth but what happens if he doesn't turn out to be the guy we need? Murray has to have a backup plan because he knows if this team doesn't make the playoffs next year then he's history. Leaving his job in the hands of an untested 24 year old rookie goalie may not be something he wants to do.

Agreed,

Leclaire comes with 2 years remaining. If Murray moved Kelly and Auld in a deal for Leclaire and say a prospect or pick then I think it works for both teams.

Moving Kelly and Auld free up about 3.2 mil while we take in 3.8 but we lose the extra year on Kellys contract. Elliott then can be easied into the starters role while gaining experience behind LeClaire and take over in 2 years when LeClaire is a UFA. Now another thing to remember is that this would be a fresh start for LeClaire and he would want to come out a guns a blazing to show he deserves to be a #1 next season and then would need to play even harder in his contract year. I think its worth a risk unless there is another quality goalie out there. As well, Elliott still needs to get resigned for next season anyways and who knows how those negotiatons are going.

asq2 wrote:So wait, you'd want him to GM in a way that protects his job, rather than doing what's best for the team?

Leclaire is about as proven as Elliott is.

On an incredibly shallow level, he also reminds me of "The Grinch."

No....making the playoffs is the major concern. I don't know if Murray is entirely convinced Elliott can take this team into the playoffs next year.

Now, I don't know if he thinks Leclaire is the answer but you've gotta think he's looking at option B in case Elliott doesn't improve over the next couple of months.

Phoenix30 wrote:Agreed,

Leclaire comes with 2 years remaining. If Murray moved Kelly and Auld in a deal for Leclaire and say a prospect or pick then I think it works for both teams.

Moving Kelly and Auld free up about 3.2 mil while we take in 3.8 but we lose the extra year on Kellys contract. Elliott then can be easied into the starters role while gaining experience behind LeClaire and take over in 2 years when LeClaire is a UFA. Now another thing to remember is that this would be a fresh start for LeClaire and he would want to come out a guns a blazing to show he deserves to be a #1 next season and then would need to play even harder in his contract year. I think its worth a risk unless there is another quality goalie out there. As well, Elliott still needs to get resigned for next season anyways and who knows how those negotiatons are going.

This is the problem. We might need a goalie but there aren't many good ones going around atm and they aren't cheap to boot.

If a young, talented goalie became available then it's something you definitely have to look at and Leclaire is no exception.

Urkie wrote:The reason I'm high on this is because I'm thinking about the possibility of Elliott not panning out. I realize that he's only a rookie and so forth but what happens if he doesn't turn out to be the guy we need? Murray has to have a backup plan because he knows if this team doesn't make the playoffs next year then he's history. Leaving his job in the hands of an untested 24 year old rookie goalie may not be something he wants to do.

There's definitely a possibility that Elliot doesn't pan out, but there's also a really strong indication that he will. For once this organization needs to stick with a plan in goal - and that guy has to be Elliot. Even before The Hockey News list of prospects came out, I think we've all been shown what he can do. Has he blown us away? Not yet, but neither did Schneider in Vancouver and neither do many young goalies first entering the NHL. Especially when the kid is coming into this mess of a team we have.

There's really only a technical to achieve in Bingo - and that's winning a championship. He's done everything else in the AHL that can be done, now it's time to get him in there as a back-up full time. If Leclaire had one more year left at 3.8, then perhaps I'd be excited, but he has two more - and Elliot will have surpassed him by then IMO.

Not to mention that we should probably give credit where it's due. Auld has a 2.44 and a .913 in 33 games this season. If we can hand Auld 50 starts and have Elliot get the other 30, I would bet good $$ that both guys would have a combined GAA in the 2.50 range and a save % of around .912. Auld got burnt out earlier this year, but with a guy who can take every 3rd start, I can see him turning in a good year - ditto Elliot as his back-up. Then you can move Elliot into the 50-60 start range the year after. If something goes radically wrong, then you move on the free agency market next summer, but don't make a move now - especially not when you've invested so much time on Elliot.

Leclaire is injury prone and expensive. He's had one good season.

It's a tremendous risk. Don't act like this will necessarily "solve" our goaltending issue.

I'm more comfortable with Elliott than I would be with Leclaire.

504Heater wrote:

Urkie wrote:The reason I'm high on this is because I'm thinking about the possibility of Elliott not panning out. I realize that he's only a rookie and so forth but what happens if he doesn't turn out to be the guy we need? Murray has to have a backup plan because he knows if this team doesn't make the playoffs next year then he's history. Leaving his job in the hands of an untested 24 year old rookie goalie may not be something he wants to do.

There's definitely a possibility that Elliot doesn't pan out, but there's also a really strong indication that he will. For once this organization needs to stick with a plan in goal - and that guy has to be Elliot. Even before The Hockey News list of prospects came out, I think we've all been shown what he can do. Has he blown us away? Not yet, but neither did Schneider in Vancouver and neither do many young goalies first entering the NHL. Especially when the kid is coming into this mess of a team we have.

There's really only a technical to achieve in Bingo - and that's winning a championship. He's done everything else in the AHL that can be done, now it's time to get him in there as a back-up full time. If Leclaire had one more year left at 3.8, then perhaps I'd be excited, but he has two more - and Elliot will have surpassed him by then IMO.

Not to mention that we should probably give credit where it's due. Auld has a 2.44 and a .913 in 33 games this season. If we can hand Auld 50 starts and have Elliot get the other 30, I would bet good $$ that both guys would have a combined GAA in the 2.50 range and a save % of around .912. Auld got burnt out earlier this year, but with a guy who can take every 3rd start, I can see him turning in a good year - ditto Elliot as his back-up. Then you can move Elliot into the 50-60 start range the year after. If something goes radically wrong, then you move on the free agency market next summer, but don't make a move now - especially not when you've invested so much time on Elliot.

Actually LeClaire has 2 years left after the end of this season. You could bring him in for 1 year with Elliott backs him up then move him after the 2009/10 season. A team maybe willing to trade for him with only 1 year left on his contract by then.

asq2 wrote:Leclaire is injury prone and expensive. He's had one good season.

It's a tremendous risk. Don't act like this will necessarily "solve" our goaltending issue.

I'm more comfortable with Elliott than I would be with Leclaire.

I'm not saying Leclaire will solve our goaltending issues. All I'm saying is that Murray is going to be trying to put a team together that can get us into the playoffs. That's his primary goal for next season. If Elliott doesn't improve over the next 2 months then do you really think he's going to go with him next season? He's gotta have a backup plan in case Elliott just isn't ready.

Phoenix30 wrote:Actually LeClaire has 2 years left after the end of this season. You could bring him in for 1 year with Elliott backs him up then move him after the 2009/10 season. A team maybe willing to trade for him with only 1 year left on his contract by then.

Yeah, I fixed that at the last second.

Why not spend that 3.8 (as well as the money we free up) on our defence. I think that has the potential to win us some games next year if we retool it.

I can see where you'd want to upgrade the G, but why not beat down some doors in the summer (if your really feel it's needed) and try to acquire someone like Vokoun (to use an example).

If Florida was to re-sign Anderson to an attractive package, maybe they feel the need to move Vokoun.

Or Anaheim with Giguere being pressured by Hillier.

Or Backstrom (6 million though I'm sure) being pressured by Harding.

Or Ellis from Nashville (not sold).

Or sign Khabby to a one year, 4 million.

Any of these excites me more than Leclaire to be honest.

Even Fernandez, who was apparently a real arse in Minny would look good here for a year, but I'm sure he gets a long term somewhere.

504Heater wrote:There's definitely a possibility that Elliot doesn't pan out, but there's also a really strong indication that he will. For once this organization needs to stick with a plan in goal - and that guy has to be Elliot. Even before The Hockey News list of prospects came out, I think we've all been shown what he can do. Has he blown us away? Not yet, but neither did Schneider in Vancouver and neither do many young goalies first entering the NHL. Especially when the kid is coming into this mess of a team we have.

There's really only a technical to achieve in Bingo - and that's winning a championship. He's done everything else in the AHL that can be done, now it's time to get him in there as a back-up full time. If Leclaire had one more year left at 3.8, then perhaps I'd be excited, but he has two more - and Elliot will have surpassed him by then IMO.

Not to mention that we should probably give credit where it's due. Auld has a 2.44 and a .913 in 33 games this season. If we can hand Auld 50 starts and have Elliot get the other 30, I would bet good $$ that both guys would have a combined GAA in the 2.50 range and a save % of around .912. Auld got burnt out earlier this year, but with a guy who can take every 3rd start, I can see him turning in a good year - ditto Elliot as his back-up. Then you can move Elliot into the 50-60 start range the year after. If something goes radically wrong, then you move on the free agency market next summer, but don't make a move now - especially not when you've invested so much time on Elliot.

I'm not saying I want this to happen right now and Murray may not either. Columbus is the team that's pushing hard right now to add Vermette for their playoff run. If Murray is smart, he can drive up the price and steal Leclaire and a draft pick away from Columbus on Wednesday.

It's all about making the playoffs though. Murray knows you need a solid goalie to get back into the playoffs and if there is any doubt about Elliott then he's going to look elsewhere this summer if he doesn't add anything before the deadline.