SensBuzz is "reporting" Elliott will get signed this weekend

I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

He's a smart kid, and he'll have a good agent.

Given the circumstances, he's going to know that the future looks bright, so the two-year option may be a better one from a financial standpoint. Only problem is that if he gets hurt, or things don't work out quite the way everyone hopes (Price comes to mind), then a big payday in two years isn't such a sure thing. And he may not get the exposure he wants if he is stuck behind Leclaire.

The flip side is that if he takes the three year option, he is contracted beyond Leclaire. He then becomes the default #1 when Leclaire's contract runs out, or if he's traded at the deadline of the final year (which incidentally may be the better option, as there is some return). He then has another year to really show his stuff, and by then, he knows that Karlsson, Cowan, and perhaps some of the others, such as Wiercioch, will be shaking off the rookie mistakes, and will help him to look good. It becomes a strong, young back end, oozing with talent, mostly on cheap contracts, so they are especially motivated to earn their big payday still.

I think you could make an argument either way, but if he is at all inclined to stay in Ottawa, the three year option may in fact be a reasonable one. If I'm in Murray's place, I push hard for this, even at the expense of a higher cap hit, as I have no doubt that he will be our franchise goalie for many years (see my blog entry from last Sept: http://GMHockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm)

Acrobat wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

He's a smart kid, and he'll have a good agent.

Given the circumstances, he's going to know that the future looks bright, so the two-year option may be a better one from a financial standpoint. Only problem is that if he gets hurt, or things don't work out quite the way everyone hopes (Price comes to mind), then a big payday in two years isn't such a sure thing. And he may not get the exposure he wants if he is stuck behind Leclaire.

The flip side is that if he takes the three year option, he is contracted beyond Leclaire. He then becomes the default #1 when Leclaire's contract runs out, or if he's traded at the deadline of the final year (which incidentally may be the better option, as there is some return). He then has another year to really show his stuff, and by then, he knows that Karlsson, Cowan, and perhaps some of the others, such as Wiercioch, will be shaking off the rookie mistakes, and will help him to look good. It becomes a strong, young back end, oozing with talent, mostly on cheap contracts, so they are especially motivated to earn their big payday still.

I think you could make an argument either way, but if he is at all inclined to stay in Ottawa, the three year option may in fact be a reasonable one. If I'm in Murray's place, I push hard for this, even at the expense of a higher cap hit, as I have no doubt that he will be our franchise goalie for many years (see my blog entry from last Sept: http://GMHockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm)

There you go again! Gloating about the blog we already gave you your N4L award for!!!

As far as being our franchise goaltender of the future, I'd have to say while it's very possible, I think Leclaire, and down the road, Lehner are going to have something to say about that. Good problem to have though, even though the goalie market is in the toilet right now (except on Long Island apparently).

Zoolander wrote:

Acrobat wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

He's a smart kid, and he'll have a good agent.

Given the circumstances, he's going to know that the future looks bright, so the two-year option may be a better one from a financial standpoint. Only problem is that if he gets hurt, or things don't work out quite the way everyone hopes (Price comes to mind), then a big payday in two years isn't such a sure thing. And he may not get the exposure he wants if he is stuck behind Leclaire.

The flip side is that if he takes the three year option, he is contracted beyond Leclaire. He then becomes the default #1 when Leclaire's contract runs out, or if he's traded at the deadline of the final year (which incidentally may be the better option, as there is some return). He then has another year to really show his stuff, and by then, he knows that Karlsson, Cowan, and perhaps some of the others, such as Wiercioch, will be shaking off the rookie mistakes, and will help him to look good. It becomes a strong, young back end, oozing with talent, mostly on cheap contracts, so they are especially motivated to earn their big payday still.

I think you could make an argument either way, but if he is at all inclined to stay in Ottawa, the three year option may in fact be a reasonable one. If I'm in Murray's place, I push hard for this, even at the expense of a higher cap hit, as I have no doubt that he will be our franchise goalie for many years (see my blog entry from last Sept: http://GMHockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm)

There you go again! Gloating about the blog we already gave you your N4L award for!!!

As far as being our franchise goaltender of the future, I'd have to say while it's very possible, I think Leclaire, and down the road, Lehner are going to have something to say about that. Good problem to have though, even though the goalie market is in the toilet right now (except on Long Island apparently).

I thought that the N4L award meant I had to go on and on and on and ....

Did I mention my blog? From 10 months ago? I got it right you know...
[keep in mind that if Leclaire goes, then I'd expect Lehner to push Elliott the way I expect Elliott to push Leclaire now - wow, you are right, that's not a bad problem to have. Especially considering where we were a year ago.]

EDIT: oh, ya, and don't forget my blog...

Acrobat wrote:

Zoolander wrote:

Acrobat wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

He's a smart kid, and he'll have a good agent.

Given the circumstances, he's going to know that the future looks bright, so the two-year option may be a better one from a financial standpoint. Only problem is that if he gets hurt, or things don't work out quite the way everyone hopes (Price comes to mind), then a big payday in two years isn't such a sure thing. And he may not get the exposure he wants if he is stuck behind Leclaire.

The flip side is that if he takes the three year option, he is contracted beyond Leclaire. He then becomes the default #1 when Leclaire's contract runs out, or if he's traded at the deadline of the final year (which incidentally may be the better option, as there is some return). He then has another year to really show his stuff, and by then, he knows that Karlsson, Cowan, and perhaps some of the others, such as Wiercioch, will be shaking off the rookie mistakes, and will help him to look good. It becomes a strong, young back end, oozing with talent, mostly on cheap contracts, so they are especially motivated to earn their big payday still.

I think you could make an argument either way, but if he is at all inclined to stay in Ottawa, the three year option may in fact be a reasonable one. If I'm in Murray's place, I push hard for this, even at the expense of a higher cap hit, as I have no doubt that he will be our franchise goalie for many years (see my blog entry from last Sept: http://GMHockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm)

There you go again! Gloating about the blog we already gave you your N4L award for!!!

As far as being our franchise goaltender of the future, I'd have to say while it's very possible, I think Leclaire, and down the road, Lehner are going to have something to say about that. Good problem to have though, even though the goalie market is in the toilet right now (except on Long Island apparently).

I thought that the N4L award meant I had to go on and on and on and ....

Did I mention my blog? From 10 months ago? I got it right you know...
[keep in mind that if Leclaire goes, then I'd expect Lehner to push Elliott the way I expect Elliott to push Leclaire now - wow, you are right, that's not a bad problem to have. Especially considering where we were a year ago.]

EDIT: oh, ya, and don't forget my blog...

Hahaha priceless.

Oh, yeah, imagine where Price (and the Habs) would be if Gainey had kept Huet a little while longer. And, by the way, playing behind Leclaire he just might get all the exposure he can handle.

This whole situation with the Sens goaltending likely deserves a topic of its own.

We have a #1 with some pedigree and a penchant for getting hurt. Our back up has shown in the past that he could one day be a #1. Small problem is he is not yet signed; slightly bigger problem is he is not ready yet (his stats went down toward the end of his 30 game "tryout" last year, and he got pulled a few times).

We have a guy playing junior who has some solid potential but, at this point, it's just potential. Although given his age, I'd say that's a ton of potential.

So what do we do w.r.t. Elliott's contract? He'd take a 1 year if he had an opportunity to prove himself, but since he is the backup, who knows how that will go. I've already explained why he wouldn't take a 3 year. I'm sure I could make arguments for and against a 1, 2 or 3 year contracts; both from the team's p.o.v. and from Elliott's.

What do we do with Leclaire next year? Extend? Trade at the deadline? Sign and trade? Let him walk? Of course the only answer right now is "Wait to see how he and Elliott perform, first." That famous hurry-up-and-wait.

And what about Lehner? Hopefully he gets an invite to Team Sweden in January. But what about his development here? When do we expect him to make the jump to the AHL, or does he follow Cowen's path instead?

So many questions that cannot begin to be answered until we see some rubber hit the leather. When's puck drop anyway?

Acrobat wrote:
He's a smart kid, and he'll have a good agent.

Given the circumstances, he's going to know that the future looks bright, so the two-year option may be a better one from a financial standpoint. Only problem is that if he gets hurt, or things don't work out quite the way everyone hopes (Price comes to mind), then a big payday in two years isn't such a sure thing. And he may not get the exposure he wants if he is stuck behind Leclaire.

The flip side is that if he takes the three year option, he is contracted beyond Leclaire. He then becomes the default #1 when Leclaire's contract runs out, or if he's traded at the deadline of the final year (which incidentally may be the better option, as there is some return). He then has another year to really show his stuff, and by then, he knows that Karlsson, Cowan, and perhaps some of the others, such as Wiercioch, will be shaking off the rookie mistakes, and will help him to look good. It becomes a strong, young back end, oozing with talent, mostly on cheap contracts, so they are especially motivated to earn their big payday still.

I think you could make an argument either way, but if he is at all inclined to stay in Ottawa, the three year option may in fact be a reasonable one. If I'm in Murray's place, I push hard for this, even at the expense of a higher cap hit, as I have no doubt that he will be our franchise goalie for many years (see my blog entry from last Sept: http://GMHockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm)