Sens about to sign MIKE Brodeur?

504Heater wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:On top of all that, Elliott is the RFA, not Auld. I would rather lose Auld then risk an offer sheet for Elliott or him going over to Europe where the money is a lot better than in the AHL.

23 year old goalie with tons of upsdie vs 30 year old goalie who has probably peaked.

I believe (don't quote me though), that Elliott does NOT have arbitration rights and this cannot be issued an offer sheet.

Again, don't quote me on that though. Either way, it's in the best interest of both Elliott and the Sens to go at this maturely and figure out what's best to be done.

I believe that Elliott can be offered an RFA sheet from another team. The arbitration rights just means that he can take the sens to an arbitrator to decide his worth if at an impasse on contract negotiations.

not sure where it is exactly in this document, but I found the CBA PDF, the RFA section starts on page 29 for all those CBA gurus we have to find out about Elliott's rights/Ottawa's rights.

http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf

An RFA is an RFA is an RFA.

Any team can offer an RFA an offer sheet, just as any team can offer a UFA a contract. They're both "free agents," remember. The only difference is that, with an RFA, the team who holds that player's rights has the option to match the offer or receive compensation if they don't match (providing a qualifying offer was made beforehand, which is always done just in case for precisely this reason).

Arbitration rights just entitle the RFA to salary arbitration (i.e., a third party judges on the salary the player is worth based on past performances after hearing arguments from opposing sides), in the event that he and the organization can't come to terms. It's totally independent of the issue of offer sheets, which can be offered to any class of RFA.

rooneypoo wrote:An RFA is an RFA is an RFA.

Any team can offer an RFA an offer sheet, just as any team can offer a UFA a contract. They're both "free agents," remember. The only difference is that, with an RFA, the team who holds that player's rights has the option to match the offer or receive compensation if they don't match (providing a qualifying offer was made beforehand, which is always done just in case for precisely this reason).

Arbitration rights just entitle the RFA to salary arbitration (i.e., a third party judges on the salary the player is worth based on past performances after hearing arguments from opposing sides), in the event that he and the organization can't come to terms. It's totally independent of the issue of offer sheets, which can be offered to any class of RFA.

I was afraid you say that, and well, even though I know its kind of an unwritten rule not to do that to another GM, unless your K lowe and Burkie, but I can imagine a few teams that didn't get the goalie they wanted would take a chance on Elliott. Mind you once Emery signing in Philly becomes official, Biron is available, Khabibulin is available, as I am sure there are a few others as well, so we may be safe.

rooneypoo wrote:An RFA is an RFA is an RFA.

Any team can offer an RFA an offer sheet, just as any team can offer a UFA a contract. They're both "free agents," remember. The only difference is that, with an RFA, the team who holds that player's rights has the option to match the offer or receive compensation if they don't match (providing a qualifying offer was made beforehand, which is always done just in case for precisely this reason).

Arbitration rights just entitle the RFA to salary arbitration (i.e., a third party judges on the salary the player is worth based on past performances after hearing arguments from opposing sides), in the event that he and the organization can't come to terms. It's totally independent of the issue of offer sheets, which can be offered to any class of RFA.

But in Elliott's situation don't they simply have to give him a qualifying offer in order to avoid having offer sheets tendered?

^ No, the qualifying offer entitles the team to maintain the right to match or receive compensation.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:An RFA is an RFA is an RFA.

Any team can offer an RFA an offer sheet, just as any team can offer a UFA a contract. They're both "free agents," remember. The only difference is that, with an RFA, the team who holds that player's rights has the option to match the offer or receive compensation if they don't match (providing a qualifying offer was made beforehand, which is always done just in case for precisely this reason).

Arbitration rights just entitle the RFA to salary arbitration (i.e., a third party judges on the salary the player is worth based on past performances after hearing arguments from opposing sides), in the event that he and the organization can't come to terms. It's totally independent of the issue of offer sheets, which can be offered to any class of RFA.

But in Elliott's situation don't they simply have to give him a qualifying offer in order to avoid having offer sheets tendered?

I believe you are thinking of arbitration. If the team or the player take the other to arbitration, then there can be no offer sheets from outside parties.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:An RFA is an RFA is an RFA.

Any team can offer an RFA an offer sheet, just as any team can offer a UFA a contract. They're both "free agents," remember. The only difference is that, with an RFA, the team who holds that player's rights has the option to match the offer or receive compensation if they don't match (providing a qualifying offer was made beforehand, which is always done just in case for precisely this reason).

Arbitration rights just entitle the RFA to salary arbitration (i.e., a third party judges on the salary the player is worth based on past performances after hearing arguments from opposing sides), in the event that he and the organization can't come to terms. It's totally independent of the issue of offer sheets, which can be offered to any class of RFA.

But in Elliott's situation don't they simply have to give him a qualifying offer in order to avoid having offer sheets tendered?

Nope. The Sens have to give Elliott a qualifying offer in order to receive compensation in the event that another team signs to an offer sheet that they don't want to match. If they don't make the qualifying offer, then they get squat in return as compensation if/when another team signs him.

There's nothing anyone can do to stop another team from tendering, or an RFA from signing, an offer sheet -- barring, of course, signing or trading him before the offer sheet comes in. Again, RFAs are "Free Agents," too, just of a different class.

RobbyJ wrote:^ No, the qualifying offer entitles the team to maintain the right to match or receive compensation.

Ahh. Ok. I personally would be surprised if an offer sheet was put forward for Elliott unless it was purely to try screwing with BM. He's not THAT good yet IMO.

SensFan71 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:An RFA is an RFA is an RFA.

Any team can offer an RFA an offer sheet, just as any team can offer a UFA a contract. They're both "free agents," remember. The only difference is that, with an RFA, the team who holds that player's rights has the option to match the offer or receive compensation if they don't match (providing a qualifying offer was made beforehand, which is always done just in case for precisely this reason).

Arbitration rights just entitle the RFA to salary arbitration (i.e., a third party judges on the salary the player is worth based on past performances after hearing arguments from opposing sides), in the event that he and the organization can't come to terms. It's totally independent of the issue of offer sheets, which can be offered to any class of RFA.

I was afraid you say that, and well, even though I know its kind of an unwritten rule not to do that to another GM, unless your K lowe and Burkie, but I can imagine a few teams that didn't get the goalie they wanted would take a chance on Elliott. Mind you once Emery signing in Philly becomes official, Biron is available, Khabibulin is available, as I am sure there are a few others as well, so we may be safe.

To be honest I don't think Elliott is safe. With the big tickets on the market he could be a commodity for a team that wants to save some money in net. Elliott could do very well behind an experienced defence. Here's a thought and its a stretch but what if SJ was able to secure Elliott on an RFA contract at half the cost of Nabokov. They could then move Nabokov for a decent return. The question is would Murray match any contract to Elliott in the 2 to 2.5+ range. Would Elliott sign a contract to go to a legitimate cup contender to be a starter.

2 to 2.5 is a reasonable number if you compare him to Price.

Price is at 2.2/yr cap hit.

Prices stats.
GP W L OT GA S/O SV% GAA
52 23 16 10 143 1 0.905 2.83

Elliotts stats.
GP W L OT GA S/O SV% GAA
31 16 8 3 77 1 0.902 2.77

With all the cap trouble and a young guy who has proven he can play in the NHL, there is no doubt in my mind the threat is there. I dont think a team like San Jose would offer him the starters job but who is to say that a 1 million dollar, 1 way contract is offered to Elliott for the backup role in a place like San Jose or Anahiem (if Giguere leaves)

Then you have a team like Colorado who may very well be looking for 2 new goaltenders. Edmonton might have a hole they need to fill, maybe even Chicago if they have trouble filling the backup role.

There are a lot of team who need a decent backup and if they can get a young one with starter potential, then the threat is def there.

It would be an enormous mistake if Ottawa didnt lock Elliott up in short order to a 1 way deal. Again, he has earned a 1 way deal. Shannon got his and had less of an impact than Elliott so why would Elliott be exempt from his one way deal? Fair is fair.

Neely4Life wrote:With all the cap trouble and a young guy who has proven he can play in the NHL, there is no doubt in my mind the threat is there. I dont think a team like San Jose would offer him the starters job but who is to say that a 1 million dollar, 1 way contract is offered to Elliott for the backup role in a place like San Jose or Anahiem (if Giguere leaves)

Then you have a team like Colorado who may very well be looking for 2 new goaltenders. Edmonton might have a hole they need to fill, maybe even Chicago if they have trouble filling the backup role.

There are a lot of team who need a decent backup and if they can get a young one with starter potential, then the threat is def there.

It would be an enormous mistake if Ottawa didnt lock Elliott up in short order to a 1 way deal. Again, he has earned a 1 way deal. Shannon got his and had less of an impact than Elliott so why would Elliott be exempt from his one way deal? Fair is fair.

I just through SJ out there as it could help them get out of a cap crunch they are in, while looking to the future. Elliott could be a starter in the right enviroment. Heck Aneheim is another. I think they would be more inclined to move JS and have Hiller and if they chose Elliott as the starter. Murray needs to get him resigned before he gets snookered. Then again the extra picks would be nice and Auld would be a very capable back up to Leclaire.

Well look at it like this... there were 3 guys on the team that stood out during the time when the season "turned around" and I use that term very loosly. It was Clouston, Shannon, and Elliott.

Now, why is it fair for Clouston to get a new deal, Shannon to get a 1 way deal, and then Elliott gets burried in the minors? How, in any aspect, is that a fair deal for Elliott. Elliott signle handedly won games for Ottawa during that stretch, he gave The Sens a chance to win on almost every night, and he was the teams MVP the last 1/2 of that season. Hell, he was the Molson Cup winner for The Sens in Feb and March I believe.

Again, its about whats right and if I'm Elliott and this wasnt offered to me, then deal me, because there is a job somewhere in the NHL with his skill set and potential.

well if BM messes this up and does not get him locked up, he will never be forgiven in my books, because if Leclaire goes down to injury, then we have Auld and Brodeur (if signed) to man the pipes, we went from deep in goal to very untalented just like that.

Phoenix30 wrote:
To be honest I don't think Elliott is safe. With the big tickets on the market he could be a commodity for a team that wants to save some money in net. Elliott could do very well behind an experienced defence. Here's a thought and its a stretch but what if SJ was able to secure Elliott on an RFA contract at half the cost of Nabokov. They could then move Nabokov for a decent return. The question is would Murray match any contract to Elliott in the 2 to 2.5+ range. Would Elliott sign a contract to go to a legitimate cup contender to be a starter.

2 to 2.5 is a reasonable number if you compare him to Price.

Price is at 2.2/yr cap hit.

Prices stats.
GP W L OT GA S/O SV% GAA
52 23 16 10 143 1 0.905 2.83

Elliotts stats.
GP W L OT GA S/O SV% GAA
31 16 8 3 77 1 0.902 2.77

I love Elliott, he's got a big future...but not 2-2.5 per year big. If SJ did that, Murray would walk(run) away and take the picks.

Then he would poach (and get) Ryan Clowe. Not a bad trade IMO.

SensFan71 wrote:well if BM messes this up and does get him locked up, he will never be forgiven in my books, because if Leclaire goes down to injury, then we have Auld and Brodeur (if signed) to man the pipes, we went from deep in goal to very untalented just like that.

Brodeur is an excellent goaltender. Perhaps not with the pedigree of Elliott, but he's a very sound goaltender from all accounts. If we were to sign him, he'd be to Bingo what Elliott was to them last year - a rock solid tender.

It shouldnt even get to that. Everything can be solved without a headach if Elliott gets that 1 way deal. League min, 1 or 3 year deal, 1 way, simple.

A 2 year deal would just kill any leverage The Sens have with their 2 goalies contracts expiering.

Neely4Life wrote:It shouldnt even get to that. Everything can be solved without a headach if Elliott gets that 1 way deal. League min, 1 or 3 year deal, 1 way, simple.

A 2 year deal would just kill any leverage The Sens have with their 2 goalies contracts expiering.

If there's one thing Bryan Murray is, it's pretty true to his word (unless we're talking about the safety of players, then, not so much), so when he said last year that he wanted to see if Elliott was NHL ready - and he was - I expect him to do the right thing. Again, I think when the chips are down and the arguements for and against are presented, he deals Auld ( ) and Elliott is the Ottawa Senators back up goalie for the next couple of years, then the starter if all goes according to plan.

When and if the acquisition of Brodeur goes down, then you know it's done. There's no way they would have two all-star AHL goalies in Bingo. You know that once Brodeur is signed (I guess IF he's signed), that's the end of Auld right then and there.