Are the Sens mishandling the goalie situation?

All I'm trying to say is the Sens should be trying to get Leclaire back in the net and there's little to nothing he's shown this season to suggest he won't be good in net for us. Elliott has been great lately and I'm quite happy with his play. It can only be a good thing to have both of them playing and playing well right? I don't see bringing Lehner up after the Trade deadline (Assuming Leclaire is gone) to back up Elliott as a good thing nor do I see it as at all likely.

Leclaire is injury prone I get that but, leaving him on the bench potentially until the 17th vs. the Canes or even later doesn't help the Sens. You need two goalies that can play and leaving Leclaire on the bench could lead to a situation like last season where Leclaire gets a shot out of pure desperation.

wprager wrote:Now that that's all out of the way, care to add your take on the Sens' handling of the goalie situation?IMO the biggest mishandling was trading for Leclaire with that contract. And I said so right from the start. He had *one* season that could be considered good, getting 9 shutouts as a rookie on an average (at best) team. He did not come close to a repeat performance after that, and was sidelined for most of a year following what amounted to a surgical reconstruction of hit ankle. It was a mistake by Columbus to give him that contract, and a bigger mistake by Murray to take it on.

I know others have said it before, but Murray has a great track record with drafting, but pretty close to terrible with trades. Although, I suppose that means a trade involving picks coming our way is, then, not a bad trade (Lehner).

I won't comment on the past and the trade because I don't think that was the intent of Cap'n Clutch's original blog; I think he wants to know our thoughts more on what is currently happening with the starting rotation. Plus, I think we all know Leclaire was damaged goods at the time we traded for him, with no idea what that draft pick could turn into. The past is the past.

I have no problems with the way Elliott is being handled right now. He is absolutely known for being a very streaky goalie both good and bad. Elliott is going to get us a bunch of wins and we have to take advantage of that while we can. That is what you are seeing right now. When Elliott has one bad game, but most likely two, Leclaire will get a game in.

In saying that, Leclaire is the kind of goalie, with his injury history and style of play that needs to get into a groove to play well. With what Wamsley has been working on style-wise with Leclaire, this is even more pressing for Pascal. When he does finally get into a game, there will be no middle ground; he will be on his game or off. I don't think, and I say this honestly, I don't think the Sens really care how Leclaire will play when he gets in. There is no way to prepare for a game with him in the net. He is there at this point to give Elliott a rest, that is it. Leclaire is so unpredictable on the ice and it shows with the way the players play with him in the goal crease. Leclaire is done with the Senators after this season and I will even go as far as saying he is done in the NHL. You can't count on him for anything anymore and he isn't even worth paying minimum salary. You will need a third goalie to call up for the same salary throughout the year to cover for him when he goes down.

I am happy Lehner did not get to see NHL action this round of being called up. Practicing with the team was enough. Is it ideal? No, but you can't change the fact that he is where he is. He is the first callup and we will see him up a couple more times. I predicted he would play 4-5 games in the NHL this year once I found out he wasn't going back to the Soo and I stand by that.

So Wprager, I didn't get into the trade like you did as I tried to answer the original blog question. I think you can tell how I feel about the Columbus trade anyway.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I personally don't think the ship has sailed on Leclaire but I've been very happy with the play of Elliott lately. The guy is in the zone. Some of those stops vs. the Habs were off the charts good. What a way to follow up stopping two breakaways in the previous game.

I can't believe I read this. The ship has sailed, hit and iceberg, sunk and destroyed a lot of lives in the process. You are forgetting that Lehner is being rushed because of Leclaire correct?

Shocking that you have this view, I'm at a loss for words. Almost.

wprager wrote:
IMO the biggest mishandling was trading for Leclaire with that contract. And I said so right from the start. He had *one* season that could be considered good, getting 9 shutouts as a rookie on an average (at best) team. He did not come close to a repeat performance after that, and was sidelined for most of a year following what amounted to a surgical reconstruction of hit ankle. It was a mistake by Columbus to give him that contract, and a bigger mistake by Murray to take it on.

The team needed a #1 goalie, those types of players are almost never available. The best you could hope for is a 1a and 1b goalie situation where one has to go due to the cap. I'm not sure who else was available at the time but I'd say it was a risk Murray had to take, we couldn't do nothing. People were pretty excited at the time as I recall.

All in all it was only 2 years on that contract (nothing like DiPietro say) so we're free to go in another direction after this year.

Clutch...when are you going to realize that Elliott's simply better. Better technically, better competitor, a winner at every level.

Mishandled would be giving Leclaire a start while this is Elliott's team. Even if Leclaire took over, do you trust him with all the injury issues? I don't.

Clutch makes good point about the risks of riding one guy almost exclusively. A coach can have the best intentions ie. start the backup every so many games on a regular basis but winning can be like a runaway train and it's probably pretty tough to consider change when those critical points in the standings keep piling up.

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I personally don't think the ship has sailed on Leclaire but I've been very happy with the play of Elliott lately. The guy is in the zone. Some of those stops vs. the Habs were off the charts good. What a way to follow up stopping two breakaways in the previous game.

I can't believe I read this. The ship has sailed, hit and iceberg, sunk and destroyed a lot of lives in the process. You are forgetting that Lehner is being rushed because of Leclaire correct?

Shocking that you have this view, I'm at a loss for words. Almost.

Lehner was "rushed" because Brust needed an NHL contract and Mike Brodeur had a concussion. Lehner started zero NHL games while called up. Lehner has all the time he needs to develop as long as Mike Brodeur is around. Regardless of how you feel about Leclaire it's flat out stupid to play Elliott 15 plus games in a row and potentially have him get injured or simply exhausted.

I agree with that sentiment that you have to get Leclaire in there at some point so he doesn't spoil completely, but when?

As for Lehner, I think Roche meant he was rushed into the pros.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I personally don't think the ship has sailed on Leclaire but I've been very happy with the play of Elliott lately. The guy is in the zone. Some of those stops vs. the Habs were off the charts good. What a way to follow up stopping two breakaways in the previous game.

I can't believe I read this. The ship has sailed, hit and iceberg, sunk and destroyed a lot of lives in the process. You are forgetting that Lehner is being rushed because of Leclaire correct?

Shocking that you have this view, I'm at a loss for words. Almost.

Lehner was "rushed" because Brust needed an NHL contract and Mike Brodeur had a concussion. Lehner started zero NHL games while called up. Lehner has all the time he needs to develop as long as Mike Brodeur is around. Regardless of how you feel about Leclaire it's flat out stupid to play Elliott 15 plus games in a row and potentially have him get injured or simply exhausted.

Elliott is in a zone and he is known for his streaks. No way does he come out right now, that would be foolish. I know how those streaks feel and you want to ride the wave through any exhaustion that you don't even feel anyway.

As far as Lehner goes, I meant to the AHL. He is here now, so I agree with what they have done with him since he became a pro. I don't agree with him turning pro, but meh.

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I personally don't think the ship has sailed on Leclaire but I've been very happy with the play of Elliott lately. The guy is in the zone. Some of those stops vs. the Habs were off the charts good. What a way to follow up stopping two breakaways in the previous game.

I can't believe I read this. The ship has sailed, hit and iceberg, sunk and destroyed a lot of lives in the process. You are forgetting that Lehner is being rushed because of Leclaire correct?

Shocking that you have this view, I'm at a loss for words. Almost.

When it comes to Leclaire, I find that hard to believe

TheAvatar wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I personally don't think the ship has sailed on Leclaire but I've been very happy with the play of Elliott lately. The guy is in the zone. Some of those stops vs. the Habs were off the charts good. What a way to follow up stopping two breakaways in the previous game.

I can't believe I read this. The ship has sailed, hit and iceberg, sunk and destroyed a lot of lives in the process. You are forgetting that Lehner is being rushed because of Leclaire correct?

Shocking that you have this view, I'm at a loss for words. Almost.

When it comes to Leclaire, I find that hard to believe

Haha. It's so funny that I have that reputation already. I can think of about 5 posters that are just as passionate about other players or things as I am about goalies in general.

I really have nothing against Leclaire, just strong views.

SpezDispenser wrote:I agree with that sentiment that you have to get Leclaire in there at some point so he doesn't spoil completely, but when?

As for Lehner, I think Roche meant he was rushed into the pros.

The Atlanta game would have been a good time or the Islander game before that. Now we face Vancouver, Boston, Philly. No way they put Leclaire in against those teams for his first game action since his injury. Does he go in against Carolina next week? I have my doubts that Leclaire even plays this month unless Elliott blows chunks or gets injured (knock on wood). That is all I'm saying about potential mishandling of the goalies. If Elliott is our number 1, and it's looking pretty clear he is, then you don't play the dung out of him until he falls over, craps the bed, or gets injured do you?

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I agree with that sentiment that you have to get Leclaire in there at some point so he doesn't spoil completely, but when?

As for Lehner, I think Roche meant he was rushed into the pros.

The Atlanta game would have been a good time or the Islander game before that. Now we face Vancouver, Boston, Philly. No way they put Leclaire in against those teams for his first game action since his injury. Does he go in against Carolina next week? I have my doubts that Leclaire even plays this month unless Elliott blows chunks or gets injured (knock on wood). That is all I'm saying about potential mishandling of the goalies. If Elliott is our number 1, and it's looking pretty clear he is, then you don't play the dung out of him until he falls over, craps the bed, or gets injured do you?

You don't take Elliott out when he is playing this well. Period. I don't care if he plays 30 in a row. Elliott is streaky, let him ride the wave.

If you would have put Leclaire in against Atlanta or the Islanders as you say, we would have lost those games. Like it or not, the players play differently in front of Leclaire. There is no consistancy to Leclaire's style and the players don't know how to play in front of him (ie. where the rebounds will go, to play the shooter or the pass) and they don't like playing in front of him. Putting Leclaire in net, would give the players and excuse an excuse to take the night off. Don't believe me? You watch.

I stand by my views that it will take a terrible game by Elliott, but most likely two poor outings in a row, before Leclaire sees action again.

PS, I know you don't like my thoughts for whatever reason about Leclaire, I can't help that; a lot of people do want to hear my opinion on mostly goalies, my PM box says so. If you keep asking about Leclaire, I will keep publishing my opinion.

Thing is (and this is related to Clutch's post listing Vancouver and Boston and Bears, oh my) I really don't think it matters who Leclaire faces in his first game back. He is capable of playing well-enough to beat any of those teams; or poorly enough to get lit up by the Isles or Thrashers.

It's pretty clear that Elliott is Clouston's unoffical number 1 netminder for Ottawa. There's no way you pull your goalie out after a performance like the one Leclaire put on vs. the Penguins regardless of the fact that it would have been back to back nights and it would have been his 4th straight start. This should have been Leclaire's game. A big stage vs. a big rival and Pascale played stellar and earned the start. I realize, in hindsight, it was a good decision because Elliott got the shut out victory but the table was set for this to happen for either goalie and you can't convince me the result would have been different with Leclaire in the net. I don't buy into the garbage about Elliott is getting the results. The team played extremely well in front of Leclaire on Friday afternoon and deserved a better fate for sure.

For those that think there's a goalie contraversy it's pretty clear there isn't one. Elliott is Clouston's guy boom or bust regardless of what Leclaire does.

Maybe Clouston is just afraid of playing Leclaire on back-to-back games; given his fragility.

TheAvatar wrote:Maybe Clouston is just afraid of playing Leclaire on back-to-back games; given his fragility.

I would be surprised if that was his thinking. This was a case of you win your in if you're Leclaire regardless of your play or the play of the team in front of you and regardless of the ridiculous 43 save performance by the opposing goalie. The loss vs. the Pens was not a result of poor play by the Sens nor was it poor play by Leclaire. The game on Saturday should have been Leclaire's and it would have been a win IMO. Not putting him in says, to me at least, you're not our guy Leclaire but thanks for trying.

hmm I've stayed away from this topic for a bit but I definitely feel that Leclaire gets the short end of the stick most of the time or for some reason doesn't receive the benefit of goal support from his teammates whenever he plays. I really don't know why that is.

That being said, I don't think Clouston outrightly favors Elliott (hear me out). Yes he has a little more confidence in Ells (as do I, just look at his record), and you can't just chalk it up to bad luck that Leclaire still does not have a single shutout as a senator over his 1+ season. Very few games have been under 2 goals for him. But Clouston showed lots of confidence by playing Leclaire 3 games in a row last week, and for all intents and purposes, it shows that Leclaire is back to form from the playoffs.

you HAVE to go with Elliott though against the Oilers (just coming off a shutout) but I think we'll get to see more starts for Leclaire as well (i.e. split duty). I wouldn't be surprised, win or lose against the Oil, that Leclaire starts against Dany and the Douches. That buffalo game though, is all reserved for Elliott