Craig Anderson Info from the Denver Post

As much as I'd like to think that Anderson's 47-save performance meant:
a) he likes us, he really likes us
b) he's going to play 70+ games like that for us next year

The truth of the matter is that this is a guy who is playing for his next contract. He is trying to impress 29 GMs (well, probably a lot fewer, but at least I'm fairly confident he's not headed back to Colorado), not just one. All he have is a bit of a head-start in marketing this team and the city.

wprager wrote:As much as I'd like to think that Anderson's 47-save performance meant:
a) he likes us, he really likes us
b) he's going to play 70+ games like that for us next year

The truth of the matter is that this is a guy who is playing for his next contract. He is trying to impress 29 GMs (well, probably a lot fewer, but at least I'm fairly confident he's not headed back to Colorado), not just one. All he have is a bit of a head-start in marketing this team and the city.

Sure. I don't see a problem with any of that, tho'. The two best pending-UFA goalies, Vokoun & Bryzgalov, are not coming here; they're going to want to play on teams with a legitimate chance to win (or in cities that at least have lots of sunshine & beach). The next best two (both RFAs, I believe) are Howard & Niemi, and I just don't see them going anywhere. So that leaves Anderson, who I definitely put ahead of Giguere, Turco, Theodore, Smith, Osgood, etc., etc.

Anderson is the guy who makes the most sense for the Sens to target. Is he The Savior? Who knows. All I know is that we need a #1 goalie coming up this year, because clearly Elliott or Leclaire won't have that role, and Anderson is the best option available to us at the moment, in a variety of senses (because he will more than likely accept a short deal, given his past; because signing Bryzgalov to a long, expensive deal doesn't make sense to the organization, with respect to Lehner; and because trading away valuable assets on a rebuilding team to acquire a goalie makes even less sense). So good for BM in identifying that, and good for BM in getting us a head start on signing him.

Let's not talk about 'ruining Lehner' until we at least see what the plan is once Leclaire's healthy (if such a thing is possible), once we make a decision on Anderson, and once we hit the UFA period. If we sign a backup, we have an answer; and if we don't sign a backup, then we also have an answer. Everything before that is conjecture.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:The fact that they were in no hurry to scoop someone up on the free agent market suggests they may be happy to have Lehner as a backup next season. Not the best move IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The free agent market isn't open yet? Lehner may split games with whoever our other goalie is next year (likely Anderson?), or he might get the majority of starts in Bingo. I think that a full year of being the starter in Bingo would be great for his development, but I don't think that splitting time in the NHL would ruin him either.

What I meant was they could have signed someone who didn't have a contract this year just to fill the hole and let Lehner play in Bingo.

Meh. The whole "playing Lehner in the NHL is GOING TO RUIN HIM AHHHHHH" card has been played so often that I think it's clouding people's judgments. We do still have Leclaire remember -- suppress the laugh; the odds of him getting hurt as a backup are at least reduced -- & he's going to be the backup the moment that he's healthy (which sounds like it will be soon), and Lehner will be sent back down then. So going out & picking up another goalie doesn't make much sense, especially financially. In the meantime, a few games practicing with the Sens, and a few starts here & there, will give Lehner a taste. A whetting of the appetite.

Who knows, the plan may well be to sign Anderson and then pair him with a solid backup (i.e., one signed in July 2011). Plenty of decent options to choose from there, in terms of backups, anyway. Let's wait until it all plays out before we get too excited.

And, let's have a little faith in the collective wisdom of the organization, too, instead of getting too cocksure about "this is the way Lehner should be handled." Nobody is more concerned about his development, and has more knowledge or experience on handling the situation, than BM & the organization collectively. Nobody. We would do well to remember that point.

I'm suggesting that they don't think it will ruin him or they would have done something to prevent him from being with the big club. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise from what I wrote there. They had to play Lehner as a backup and the moment that happened (how long has that been now?) they could have signed someone to a two way deal. They obviously didn't think it was necessary. I had been predicting for months that we'd start next season with a capable veteran goalie and Elliott unlike some on here who figured we'd do a one season turn around and pick up a guy like Vokoun or Bryzgalov (not suggesting you said that because I know you didn't). I was wrong about Elliott obviously. I figured they'd keep Elliott since he'd be a cheap RFA re-signing. It would appear that the organisation figured he wouldn't be able to regain his confidence here in Ottawa so they shipped him off.

So we have a capable veteran goalie in Anderson so hopefully he gets re-signed and then pickup a decent backup and Lehner can play in Bingo. I just wonder if the organisation has decided that they'll try hard to sign Anderson and keep Lehner with the big club next season as a backup.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

I'm suggesting that they don't think it will ruin him or they would have done something to prevent him from being with the big club. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise from what I wrote there. They had to play Lehner as a backup and the moment that happened (how long has that been now?) they could have signed someone to a two way deal. They obviously didn't think it was necessary. I had been predicting for months that we'd start next season with a capable veteran goalie and Elliott unlike some on here who figured we'd do a one season turn around and pick up a guy like Vokoun or Bryzgalov (not suggesting you said that because I know you didn't). I was wrong about Elliott obviously. I figured they'd keep Elliott since he'd be a cheap RFA re-signing. It would appear that the organisation figured he wouldn't be able to regain his confidence here in Ottawa so they shipped him off.

So we have a capable veteran goalie in Anderson so hopefully he gets re-signed and then pickup a decent backup and Lehner can play in Bingo. I just wonder if the organisation has decided that they'll try hard to sign Anderson and keep Lehner with the big club next season as a backup.

I was arguing two points there, Cap'n -- one yours, one not yours -- and the two got mixed up. I didn't intend that you apply the "we'll ruin Lehner ahhh!" argument to yourself.

The reason we didn't sign another goalie (instead of calling up Lehner back in December/January, when Leclaire was injured) was that we have stupid Leclaire. His timeline for return was & is uncertain. If we would have know it would be months, maybe we do make that deal you mention. I doubt it, tho'. That would leave us with three goalies. Even with a two-way deal, well, then you have three goalies in Bingo (four, if you count the injured Brodeur). So, adding another goalie would have been problematic.

On your final musing, re: who will be backup? -- that's precisely the thing we have to wait until July 2011 to learn. No sense speculating. We'll either get a UFA backup, or we won't; when that happens (or doesn't happen), we'll have our answer in terms of how the organization has decided to handle Lehner.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

I'm suggesting that they don't think it will ruin him or they would have done something to prevent him from being with the big club. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise from what I wrote there. They had to play Lehner as a backup and the moment that happened (how long has that been now?) they could have signed someone to a two way deal. They obviously didn't think it was necessary. I had been predicting for months that we'd start next season with a capable veteran goalie and Elliott unlike some on here who figured we'd do a one season turn around and pick up a guy like Vokoun or Bryzgalov (not suggesting you said that because I know you didn't). I was wrong about Elliott obviously. I figured they'd keep Elliott since he'd be a cheap RFA re-signing. It would appear that the organisation figured he wouldn't be able to regain his confidence here in Ottawa so they shipped him off.

So we have a capable veteran goalie in Anderson so hopefully he gets re-signed and then pickup a decent backup and Lehner can play in Bingo. I just wonder if the organisation has decided that they'll try hard to sign Anderson and keep Lehner with the big club next season as a backup.

I was arguing two points there, Cap'n -- one yours, one not yours -- and the two got mixed up. I didn't intend that you apply the "we'll ruin Lehner ahhh!" argument to yourself.

The reason we didn't sign another goalie (instead of calling up Lehner back in December/January, when Leclaire was injured) was that we have stupid Leclaire. His timeline for return was & is uncertain. If we would have know it would be months, maybe we do make that deal you mention. I doubt it, tho'. That would leave us with three goalies. Even with a two-way deal, well, then you have three goalies in Bingo (four, if you count the injured Brodeur). So, adding another goalie would have been problematic.

On your final musing, re: who will be backup? -- that's precisely the thing we have to wait until July 2011 to learn. No sense speculating. We'll either get a UFA backup, or we won't; when that happens (or doesn't happen), we'll have our answer in terms of how the organization has decided to handle Lehner.

That clears it up a bit for me. I still think that signing a guy to a two way deal would not have been a big issue because Brodeur was injured at the time and even when he came back he could have been sent to Elmira based on his poor play so that would have put newly signed FA and Brust in Bingo and Brodeur in ECHL which is probably where he belongs right now anyway.

I just think that it was a reasonable course of action if they really felt Lehner shouldn't be playing any games in the NHL. It would seem that they didn't see a problem with it and hope that Anderson plays well for us, signs in Ottawa and is a reasonable stop gap until Lehner is ready to take over. I'll leave it in the land of musings though for now.

In addition to a guy like Anderson (or Anderson himself), we pretty much have to sign another goalie anyway. It would make sense to have that goalie be an NHL-proven backup, and then Lehner will start the year in Bingo. If things go awry for one of the goalies with the big club, then Lehner is the logical call-up.

This is, of course, barring an unreal training camp by Lehner, which could lead to him being our #1 next year.

rooneypoo wrote:
Anderson is the guy who makes the most sense for the Sens to target. Is he The Savior? Who knows. All I know is that we need a #1 goalie coming up this year, because clearly Elliott or Leclaire won't have that role, and Anderson is the best option available to us at the moment, in a variety of senses (because he will more than likely accept a short deal, given his past; because signing Bryzgalov to a long, expensive deal doesn't make sense to the organization, with respect to Lehner; and because trading away valuable assets on a rebuilding team to acquire a goalie makes even less sense). So good for BM in identifying that, and good for BM in getting us a head start on signing him.

He turned down a 2-year extension from Colorado, unless he really hated it there, we're going to have to do significantly better than that in order to keep him me thinks.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:The fact that they were in no hurry to scoop someone up on the free agent market suggests they may be happy to have Lehner as a backup next season. Not the best move IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The free agent market isn't open yet? Lehner may split games with whoever our other goalie is next year (likely Anderson?), or he might get the majority of starts in Bingo. I think that a full year of being the starter in Bingo would be great for his development, but I don't think that splitting time in the NHL would ruin him either.

What I meant was they could have signed someone who didn't have a contract this year just to fill the hole and let Lehner play in Bingo.

Meh. The whole "playing Lehner in the NHL is GOING TO RUIN HIM AHHHHHH" card has been played so often that I think it's clouding people's judgments. We do still have Leclaire remember -- suppress the laugh; the odds of him getting hurt as a backup are at least reduced -- & he's going to be the backup the moment that he's healthy (which sounds like it will be soon), and Lehner will be sent back down then. So going out & picking up another goalie doesn't make much sense, especially financially. In the meantime, a few games practicing with the Sens, and a few starts here & there, will give Lehner a taste. A whetting of the appetite.

Who knows, the plan may well be to sign Anderson and then pair him with a solid backup (i.e., one signed in July 2011). Plenty of decent options to choose from there, in terms of backups, anyway. Let's wait until it all plays out before we get too excited.

And, let's have a little faith in the collective wisdom of the organization, too, instead of getting too cocksure about "this is the way Lehner should be handled." Nobody is more concerned about his development, and has more knowledge or experience on handling the situation, than BM & the organization collectively. Nobody. We would do well to remember that point.

I can see us sign Anderson and the Leclaire for real cheap as the backup. No one in their right mind is going to sign Leclaire. No one. Murray is in a position of power with Leclaire. $1M for 1 YR as the backup - ala Auld.

Hoags wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
Anderson is the guy who makes the most sense for the Sens to target. Is he The Savior? Who knows. All I know is that we need a #1 goalie coming up this year, because clearly Elliott or Leclaire won't have that role, and Anderson is the best option available to us at the moment, in a variety of senses (because he will more than likely accept a short deal, given his past; because signing Bryzgalov to a long, expensive deal doesn't make sense to the organization, with respect to Lehner; and because trading away valuable assets on a rebuilding team to acquire a goalie makes even less sense). So good for BM in identifying that, and good for BM in getting us a head start on signing him.

He turned down a 2-year extension from Colorado, unless he really hated it there, we're going to have to do significantly better than that in order to keep him me thinks.

One of the reasons he got pissed off is because they offered zero extension and therefore why he was traded.

You’ve lost your mind if you think Leclaire will be back in an Ottawa uniform next year. As has been discussed to death in other threads, having him here screwed a lot of things up (i.e. having to juggle goalies). It just won’t happen. We don’t want him being injured, and then have Lehner/someone else sitting on the bench to fill his roster spot.

hell just bring up Mike Brodeur to be the backup, leaving a Lehner/Brust combo down in Bingo, we are not going to be winning the division or thinking of playoffs next year, so going cheap and affordable is the way to go, provided Mike gets over those concussion symptoms.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

I'm suggesting that they don't think it will ruin him or they would have done something to prevent him from being with the big club. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise from what I wrote there. They had to play Lehner as a backup and the moment that happened (how long has that been now?) they could have signed someone to a two way deal. They obviously didn't think it was necessary. I had been predicting for months that we'd start next season with a capable veteran goalie and Elliott unlike some on here who figured we'd do a one season turn around and pick up a guy like Vokoun or Bryzgalov (not suggesting you said that because I know you didn't). I was wrong about Elliott obviously. I figured they'd keep Elliott since he'd be a cheap RFA re-signing. It would appear that the organisation figured he wouldn't be able to regain his confidence here in Ottawa so they shipped him off.

So we have a capable veteran goalie in Anderson so hopefully he gets re-signed and then pickup a decent backup and Lehner can play in Bingo. I just wonder if the organisation has decided that they'll try hard to sign Anderson and keep Lehner with the big club next season as a backup.

I was arguing two points there, Cap'n -- one yours, one not yours -- and the two got mixed up. I didn't intend that you apply the "we'll ruin Lehner ahhh!" argument to yourself.

The reason we didn't sign another goalie (instead of calling up Lehner back in December/January, when Leclaire was injured) was that we have stupid Leclaire. His timeline for return was & is uncertain. If we would have know it would be months, maybe we do make that deal you mention. I doubt it, tho'. That would leave us with three goalies. Even with a two-way deal, well, then you have three goalies in Bingo (four, if you count the injured Brodeur). So, adding another goalie would have been problematic.

On your final musing, re: who will be backup? -- that's precisely the thing we have to wait until July 2011 to learn. No sense speculating. We'll either get a UFA backup, or we won't; when that happens (or doesn't happen), we'll have our answer in terms of how the organization has decided to handle Lehner.

That clears it up a bit for me. I still think that signing a guy to a two way deal would not have been a big issue because Brodeur was injured at the time and even when he came back he could have been sent to Elmira based on his poor play so that would have put newly signed FA and Brust in Bingo and Brodeur in ECHL which is probably where he belongs right now anyway.

I just think that it was a reasonable course of action if they really felt Lehner shouldn't be playing any games in the NHL. It would seem that they didn't see a problem with it and hope that Anderson plays well for us, signs in Ottawa and is a reasonable stop gap until Lehner is ready to take over. I'll leave it in the land of musings though for now.

On the bolded above: so where does that leave Lehner? LOL. You still end up with an extra goalie, on a two-way / NHL-AHL contract, no? And, btw, I don't think Brodeur can even be demoted to Elmira. If he can play in the NHL, then he must be signed to a two-way deal, and so Elmira isn't an option. In fact, I think the only goalie we have who could be demoted to Elmira is Brust, and I don't think that's happening (or would go over well with Bingo if it did happen).

Again, I don't see why giving Lehner a brief taste of NHL life is such a bad thing. That point has been blown waaaay out of proportion. It's not like a Carey Price or MA Fluery situation here; he's started a few games, & is practicing with the big team on a regular basis, facing NHL shooters (a few of them, anyway) everyday. Who's to say the plan isn't to give him a taste, and then to send him back to Bingo for a year+ to become a real NHL goalie & someone who can push for the #1 spot down the road?

If we sign Anderson & a veteran backup, we'll have our answer. Personally, I think that that's how it will play out. But time will tell. If guys like BM and Wamsley think Lehner is ready for more, and so we don't sign a backup, again, we need to put some faith in the collective experience of the people making that decision. I hope we take the former route, for sure, but if we go the latter, I'm sure there's a rationale for it, one that is the product of many hockey minds, much smarter and in the know on this subject than any one of us, who have come together, discussed the subject, and come to a consensus decision as to what's best for both the organization and Lehner.

tim1_2 wrote:In addition to a guy like Anderson (or Anderson himself), we pretty much have to sign another goalie anyway. It would make sense to have that goalie be an NHL-proven backup, and then Lehner will start the year in Bingo. If things go awry for one of the goalies with the big club, then Lehner is the logical call-up.

This is, of course, barring an unreal training camp by Lehner, which could lead to him being our #1 next year.

This is, largely, how I think it will play out.

Hoags wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
Anderson is the guy who makes the most sense for the Sens to target. Is he The Savior? Who knows. All I know is that we need a #1 goalie coming up this year, because clearly Elliott or Leclaire won't have that role, and Anderson is the best option available to us at the moment, in a variety of senses (because he will more than likely accept a short deal, given his past; because signing Bryzgalov to a long, expensive deal doesn't make sense to the organization, with respect to Lehner; and because trading away valuable assets on a rebuilding team to acquire a goalie makes even less sense). So good for BM in identifying that, and good for BM in getting us a head start on signing him.

He turned down a 2-year extension from Colorado, unless he really hated it there, we're going to have to do significantly better than that in order to keep him me thinks.

I read that story, too, and I'm not sure I buy it. Certainly there are conflicting reports, anyway, and we need to treat the one you reference with some caution.

I would easily pay Anderson more than $3.3mil or whatever was offered, as long as the deal is short-term. We'll have tons of cap space and 1 bad contract, if that's what it turns out to be, won't hurt us if it's short.

Again, Anderson is OTT's best bet in terms of available UFA goalies this year. If you have to, give him $3.5-4 mil for two years, and move ahead from there, getting another UFA veteran to backup. We have to address this goaltending issue as best we can this offseason.

Rooney: I've already said that they didn't see bringing Lehner up as a problem or they would have signed someone. Good point about where does it leave Lehner though. As for Brodeur in ECHL he was playing down there this year already. I guess it was just a conditioning stint and not a demotion.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:The fact that they were in no hurry to scoop someone up on the free agent market suggests they may be happy to have Lehner as a backup next season. Not the best move IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The free agent market isn't open yet? Lehner may split games with whoever our other goalie is next year (likely Anderson?), or he might get the majority of starts in Bingo. I think that a full year of being the starter in Bingo would be great for his development, but I don't think that splitting time in the NHL would ruin him either.

What I meant was they could have signed someone who didn't have a contract this year just to fill the hole and let Lehner play in Bingo.

Meh. The whole "playing Lehner in the NHL is GOING TO RUIN HIM AHHHHHH" card has been played so often that I think it's clouding people's judgments. We do still have Leclaire remember -- suppress the laugh; the odds of him getting hurt as a backup are at least reduced -- & he's going to be the backup the moment that he's healthy (which sounds like it will be soon), and Lehner will be sent back down then. So going out & picking up another goalie doesn't make much sense, especially financially. In the meantime, a few games practicing with the Sens, and a few starts here & there, will give Lehner a taste. A whetting of the appetite.

Who knows, the plan may well be to sign Anderson and then pair him with a solid backup (i.e., one signed in July 2011). Plenty of decent options to choose from there, in terms of backups, anyway. Let's wait until it all plays out before we get too excited.

And, let's have a little faith in the collective wisdom of the organization, too, instead of getting too cocksure about "this is the way Lehner should be handled." Nobody is more concerned about his development, and has more knowledge or experience on handling the situation, than BM & the organization collectively. Nobody. We would do well to remember that point.

I can see us sign Anderson and the Leclaire for real cheap as the backup. No one in their right mind is going to sign Leclaire. No one. Murray is in a position of power with Leclaire. $1M for 1 YR as the backup - ala Auld.

That would be a mistake, I'd think. It would mean re-introducing THE destabilizing element. No, there will be plenty of UFA backups worth our pursuing -- ones who can stay healthier and who can 'tend about just as well -- if we choose to go this route.

Number Twenty Nine wrote:

Hoags wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
Anderson is the guy who makes the most sense for the Sens to target. Is he The Savior? Who knows. All I know is that we need a #1 goalie coming up this year, because clearly Elliott or Leclaire won't have that role, and Anderson is the best option available to us at the moment, in a variety of senses (because he will more than likely accept a short deal, given his past; because signing Bryzgalov to a long, expensive deal doesn't make sense to the organization, with respect to Lehner; and because trading away valuable assets on a rebuilding team to acquire a goalie makes even less sense). So good for BM in identifying that, and good for BM in getting us a head start on signing him.

He turned down a 2-year extension from Colorado, unless he really hated it there, we're going to have to do significantly better than that in order to keep him me thinks.

One of the reasons he got pissed off is because they offered zero extension and therefore why he was traded.

Yeah, this was the other story I heard. Who knows what to believe. All I know is that the ball is in our court now; let's take it to the hoop.

SensFan71 wrote:hell just bring up Mike Brodeur to be the backup, leaving a Lehner/Brust combo down in Bingo, we are not going to be winning the division or thinking of playoffs next year, so going cheap and affordable is the way to go, provided Mike gets over those concussion symptoms.

I was under the impression that Brodeur is not 100% healthy; am I wrong in thinking that?