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.
In sticking to its plan, the organization has to develop the goalie properly. This doesn't mean platooning the rookie/sophomore with a goalie that has "Career Backup" tatooed on his forehead.
I agree that Elliott looks like the real deal, but there have been lots of first-round picks that looked like the real deal, and ended up doing the "crash-and-burn". It would be imprudent of Murray to not prepare for the season after next, and getting "The Grinch" would nicely do that.
Towards the end of 2010/11, when Elliott has proven himself nicely, and if Ottawa is not a solid contender, then LeClaire can be moved to a contender for picks (or to a bottom feeder, after the season, depending on the situation). In the meantime, Ottawa has two young, generally solid goalies who can drive each other, and they've upgraded (significantly) the play in the crease for a total of about $5m, representing about 8-12% of the total cap hit
after projected reduction (depending on final numbers). 504Heater wrote: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.
What if he hasn't? Can Murray count on Auld to carry the team?
Or if Elliott is injured - can Auld carry the team for an extended stretch?
I'd argue that LeClaire is better insurance, and would work better in a 1a/1b scenario.
504Heater wrote: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.
This is his pattern on every team he's been on. He's a good goalie, just not what I see as the better of the two options.
There's nothing stopping Murray from moving for a UFA next summer irrespective of what happens - you can go over the cap by 10% signing FAs as long as you are back under by training camp. Moving LeClaire won't be hard, given his prior record (although to be fair, I would have thought that about Emery and Gerber, and Bryzgalov from a few yrs ago...)