All Things Binghamton Senators!

NEELY wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

NEELY wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:It's easy as pie IMO. You wait until Lehner is 100% ready to backstop this NHL team, then you trade Anderson. If it happens to be next year, then so be it, but I think you're looking at summer 2014 for it to happen when Anderson's going into his final year and it's assumable that Lehner has had 40ish games of NHL experience in total.

He is ready.

You know better than to anoint him 'ready' yet. He needs to make the NHL and prove himself, you don't ride the numbers in the AHL and immediately say he's good to go, come on...

He was good to go last year, he proved it by playing lights out in the NHL every chance he got. People seem to forget how solid he was in the NHL last year let alone what he is doing and has already done in the AHL.

Lundqvist was givne the #1, Quick was given the #1, Luongo was given the #1, Fluery was given the #1, hell even back in the day Brodure was given the #1. Pretty sure it's been done before handing the reigns off to a goaltender ready for the show.

Fleury was rushed, it worked out for Pittsburgh in the long run, but it almost destroyed Fleury early on. You don't want to do it unless there's literally no other options IMO.

Point being is not every situation is the same. Price had to learn some hard lessons too. Lundqvist stepped in and became the NHL's best goaltender instantly basically.

Lehner is NHL ready, he has been for a while, and there is no reason he shouldn't be the one to beat out for the job next year. Even then, Bishop is there to push him as the worst case scenario.

We saw what could be the Lehner/Bishop tandem during the month Anderson was out with the hand injury last season. These 2 young guys kept the Sens at .500 winning % I believe.

Lehner has learned that any job will not automatically be handed to him. He worked hard this past off-season to lose weight and get better fit... It has paid off well. You have a motivated young player that wants to get to the NHL (if there is one left that is).

He is playing great. He will be in the NHL next season but the question is.. who will the other goaltender be. Murray has a tough decision.

Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

do you have proof of this? i never saw anything solid.

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

do you have proof of this? i never saw anything solid.

Proof? Nah, but it was all over the net when it happened. It was Zibanejad + Lehner + 1st round pick I believe - and it seemed to be all but done - then Nash nixed it.

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

I'd like to keep Anderson too, but I don't see how electing to keep both of your 20-something, high-pedigree, AHL-dominating goalies is "short sighted." Short sighted would be holding onto a guy whose value has reached its peak, in favour of a guy who stands to surpass that latter guy before too long.

Choosing Bishop over Anderson would be a bunch of things -- a gamble on youth & potential most of all -- but it wouldn't be short-sighted; rather, it would be taking the very long view. Lehner and Bishop could both well turn out to be NHL starters, and with their age and pedigree, they would hold much more value than Anderson would 2-3 years from now.

I don't envy BM this decision, but I can very well understand whatever direction we take, including going with Lehner and Bishop. I agree 100%, tho', that only two of these three guys will be with the Sens at the start of the 2013-14 season.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

I'd like to keep Anderson too, but I don't see how electing to keep both of your 20-something, high-pedigree, AHL-dominating goalies is "short sighted." Short sighted would be holding onto a guy whose value has reached its peak, in favour of a guy who stands to surpass that latter guy before too long.

Choosing Bishop over Anderson would be a bunch of things -- a gamble on youth & potential most of all -- but it wouldn't be short-sighted; rather, it would be taking the very long view. Lehner and Bishop could both well turn out to be NHL starters, and with their age and pedigree, they would hold much more value than Anderson would 2-3 years from now.

I don't envy BM this decision, but I can very well understand whatever direction we take, including going with Lehner and Bishop. I agree 100%, tho', that only two of these three guys will be with the Sens at the start of the 2013-14 season.

I meant more short-sighted in that he's done two things: 1.he has a veteran presence in net - and a guy who won't let success get to him due to his late rise to a starter and 2.He has goaltending depth for the first time in this teams existence.

I understand the point you make, it was probably poorly worded, but Murray didn't acquire Anderson, then sign him to a cap friendly deal, then see him have success in his time here in Ottawa, including the amazing goaltending duel we saw in the playoffs - just to jettison him away after 2 years (1 of which no one played anyway).

I stand by that Murray got Bishop to get us to the playoffs and because he bought really low on him. I'm near positive he'll turn around and include Bishop in a package to get us that high level winger we'll need when this BS lockout ends, not Anderson nor Lehner.

Plus, you of all people realize how delicate it can be bringing in a young goaltender into the NHL, you've touched on it several times IIRC. You don't want to push Lehner into it, you want to ease him into it. If Murray and co. are patient - and they will be - they'll have one of the best starters in the world in about....4-5 years. But if they rush Lehner into it, then all bets are off.

EDIT:
I should also add: from a personal standpoint, I think the Sens will have the best one-two punch in the league in net next year if it's Anderson/Lehner. An experienced vet who's had success and the hungry young goalie who has been getting better and better as a pro and is eager to 'steal' the job. If it's Bishop/Lehner, then it's nowhere near as powerful IMO.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

I'd like to keep Anderson too, but I don't see how electing to keep both of your 20-something, high-pedigree, AHL-dominating goalies is "short sighted." Short sighted would be holding onto a guy whose value has reached its peak, in favour of a guy who stands to surpass that latter guy before too long.

Choosing Bishop over Anderson would be a bunch of things -- a gamble on youth & potential most of all -- but it wouldn't be short-sighted; rather, it would be taking the very long view. Lehner and Bishop could both well turn out to be NHL starters, and with their age and pedigree, they would hold much more value than Anderson would 2-3 years from now.

I don't envy BM this decision, but I can very well understand whatever direction we take, including going with Lehner and Bishop. I agree 100%, tho', that only two of these three guys will be with the Sens at the start of the 2013-14 season.

I meant more short-sighted in that he's done two things: 1.he has a veteran presence in net - and a guy who won't let success get to him due to his late rise to a starter and 2.He has goaltending depth for the first time in this teams existence.

I understand the point you make, it was probably poorly worded, but Murray didn't acquire Anderson, then sign him to a cap friendly deal, then see him have success in his time here in Ottawa, including the amazing goaltending duel we saw in the playoffs - just to jettison him away after 2 years (1 of which no one played anyway).

I stand by that Murray got Bishop to get us to the playoffs and because he bought really low on him. I'm near positive he'll turn around and include Bishop in a package to get us that high level winger we'll need when this BS lockout ends, not Anderson nor Lehner.

Plus, you of all people realize how delicate it can be bringing in a young goaltender into the NHL, you've touched on it several times IIRC. You don't want to push Lehner into it, you want to ease him into it. If Murray and co. are patient - and they will be - they'll have one of the best starters in the world in about....4-5 years. But if they rush Lehner into it, then all bets are off.

I think the same logic you apply to acquiring Anderson applies (or could apply, anyway) to Bishop. It doesn't make a lot of sense to go out and get a young 20-something goalie with an impressive pedigree, a history of dominating in the AHL, and potential NHL starter -- and an RFA, to boot -- just to fill a gap for a season. That kind of move can be read as equally long term.

I don't know the answer on this one, but I am saying that trading either guy (Anderson or Bishop) could make a lot of sense, depending on your perspective. Given the direction of this team in terms of youth, having two young great goalies makes a lot of sense.

rooneypoo wrote:I think the same logic you apply to acquiring Anderson applies (or could apply, anyway) to Bishop. It doesn't make a lot of sense to go out and get a young 20-something goalie with an impressive pedigree, a history of dominating in the AHL, and potential NHL starter -- and an RFA, to boot -- just to fill a gap for a season. That kind of move can be read as equally long term.

I don't know the answer on this one, but I am saying that trading either guy (Anderson or Bishop) could make a lot of sense, depending on your perspective. Given the direction of this team in terms of youth, having two young great goalies makes a lot of sense.

I said the exact same thing at the time we acquired Bishop.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:I think the same logic you apply to acquiring Anderson applies (or could apply, anyway) to Bishop. It doesn't make a lot of sense to go out and get a young 20-something goalie with an impressive pedigree, a history of dominating in the AHL, and potential NHL starter -- and an RFA, to boot -- just to fill a gap for a season. That kind of move can be read as equally long term.

I don't know the answer on this one, but I am saying that trading either guy (Anderson or Bishop) could make a lot of sense, depending on your perspective. Given the direction of this team in terms of youth, having two young great goalies makes a lot of sense.

I said the exact same thing at the time we acquired Bishop.

Hence the conclusion -- there is as good a case for Anderson being the odd man out as there is for Bishop, depending on your perspective. Again, not a decision I envy having to make, but it's frankly a good problem for the organization to have.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:I think the same logic you apply to acquiring Anderson applies (or could apply, anyway) to Bishop. It doesn't make a lot of sense to go out and get a young 20-something goalie with an impressive pedigree, a history of dominating in the AHL, and potential NHL starter -- and an RFA, to boot -- just to fill a gap for a season. That kind of move can be read as equally long term.

I don't know the answer on this one, but I am saying that trading either guy (Anderson or Bishop) could make a lot of sense, depending on your perspective. Given the direction of this team in terms of youth, having two young great goalies makes a lot of sense.

I said the exact same thing at the time we acquired Bishop.

Hence the conclusion -- there is as good a case for Anderson being the odd man out as there is for Bishop, depending on your perspective. Again, not a decision I envy having to make, but it's frankly a good problem for the organization to have.

I'll wait to see exactly what Murray has up his sleeve, but I'll be stunned if I wake up one morning this summer and see Anderson's been traded. Like, really surprised. But if I see Bishop being moved with Prospect X and Prospect Y for Winger A, I won't blink an eye.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:I think the same logic you apply to acquiring Anderson applies (or could apply, anyway) to Bishop. It doesn't make a lot of sense to go out and get a young 20-something goalie with an impressive pedigree, a history of dominating in the AHL, and potential NHL starter -- and an RFA, to boot -- just to fill a gap for a season. That kind of move can be read as equally long term.

I don't know the answer on this one, but I am saying that trading either guy (Anderson or Bishop) could make a lot of sense, depending on your perspective. Given the direction of this team in terms of youth, having two young great goalies makes a lot of sense.

I said the exact same thing at the time we acquired Bishop.

Hence the conclusion -- there is as good a case for Anderson being the odd man out as there is for Bishop, depending on your perspective. Again, not a decision I envy having to make, but it's frankly a good problem for the organization to have.

I'll wait to see exactly what Murray has up his sleeve, but I'll be stunned if I wake up one morning this summer and see Anderson's been traded. Like, really surprised. But if I see Bishop being moved with Prospect X and Prospect Y for Winger A, I won't blink an eye.

I honestly think one is as probable as the other. A lot depends on precisely where Lehner is when the time comes, and what Bishop's attitude might be in terms of being the back up / 1B. If Anderson senses he's slowly being pushed aside, too, he may well want out to be the clear-cut starter elsewhere. Lots of variables there to consider.

Given our history with goalies, I'm sure whatever decision we make will be the wrong one.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

do you have proof of this? i never saw anything solid.

Proof? Nah, but it was all over the net when it happened. It was Zibanejad + Lehner + 1st round pick I believe - and it seemed to be all but done - then Nash nixed it.

I remember reading so many rumours back then about what it could be and there was many scenarios flying around. I doubt that was a definite one. that to me is pure speculation and nothing more.

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

do you have proof of this? i never saw anything solid.

Proof? Nah, but it was all over the net when it happened. It was Zibanejad + Lehner + 1st round pick I believe - and it seemed to be all but done - then Nash nixed it.

I remember reading so many rumours back then about what it could be and there was many scenarios flying around. I doubt that was a definite one. that to me is pure speculation and nothing more.

I believe that one though, sounded like it was done until Nash nixed it.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Murray isn't about to get short-sighted out of the blue. He acquired Bishop to help us get to the playoffs when Andy cut himself - and he also knew that Bishop would garner him back at least the 2nd roudner he paid initially when he was ready to move him.

Unless something happens that we all don't see coming, then I'd as close to guarantee without being in the know that Bishop is gone after this lockout year. Ideally we could keep Bishop in the wings for another year, then trade Anderson when we're comfortable with Lehner taking over, but that can't happen.

Also, people should note the amazing value of a young goaltender with huge upside. People should also note that it was LEHNER that was included in a potential deal to land Nash, so one way or another Murray has cards to play, no one can know how he'll play them, but I'd bet heavily against it being Anderson moving before his final year.

do you have proof of this? i never saw anything solid.

Proof? Nah, but it was all over the net when it happened. It was Zibanejad + Lehner + 1st round pick I believe - and it seemed to be all but done - then Nash nixed it.

I remember reading so many rumours back then about what it could be and there was many scenarios flying around. I doubt that was a definite one. that to me is pure speculation and nothing more.

I believe that one though, sounded like it was done until Nash nixed it.

I believe there was a deal in place but I never heard from a reliable source the actual components of the deal, just alot of speculation. and to be honest after all that's happened afterwards that period, a deal that doesn't include methot and foligno sounds suspicious to me.

tim1_2 wrote:Given our history with goalies, I'm sure whatever decision we make will be the wrong one.

That's why I am not ready to anoint Lehner as the Sens #1, nor do I think they should be dealing Anderson anytime soon. Goalies are way too unpredictable (see Steve Mason). Lehner has yet to show he can be consistently well over the course of a full season at the pro level. I'm sure he's good enough but in that case there's no problem with him demonstrating it at the AHL level now is there ?

Put up or shut up.