GAME DAY: Ottawa Senators @ Buffalo Sabres - 5:00pm ET - SUN. Mar. 13, 2011

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:PS The Goalie Guild did reply to me and said he is sure the Sens will give more more than a 1 year contract but he is curious what amount of $ they offer him, as he believes $3.5 is too much. Granted, he probably doesn't keep track of teams' cap space around the league as he just focuses on goalies, so he prob isn't thinking that we have a lot of space coming up.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Why caution 'don't sign him to a 1-year deal' and then turn around and acknowledge that the Sens would never be able to do so? Sounds like ripping a team for not being able to have its cake and eat it too.

I don't understand this expression. Please explain.

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Big Ev wrote:PS The Goalie Guild did reply to me and said he is sure the Sens will give more more than a 1 year contract but he is curious what amount of $ they offer him, as he believes $3.5 is too much. Granted, he probably doesn't keep track of teams' cap space around the league as he just focuses on goalies, so he prob isn't thinking that we have a lot of space coming up.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Why caution 'don't sign him to a 1-year deal' and then turn around and acknowledge that the Sens would never be able to do so? Sounds like ripping a team for not being able to have its cake and eat it too.

I don't understand this expression. Please explain.

Proverb

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle

1. (colloquial, vulgar, humorous) It is fruitless to speculate about counterfactual situations.

NEELY wrote:Honestly, now knowing he is an Avs fan he just sounds like a bitter homer, like it was mentioned above. Not impressed with any of his takes from Anderson to Emery. Sounds pretty ignorant to me.

Yeah a bit, but trust me, this guy is usually spot on. He may be caught up in emotions on this one, but I think Rooney can attest to his great knowledge of goalies and goaltending in general.

He's no CockRoche lol

All I am saying is the two comments that caught my attention were the ones about Anderson and Emery because of total ignorance. He ignored both situations and put his own feelings and views in place of the real situation at hand.

I don't know, is the Emery suggestion really that bad? I mean, the Ducks signed him so they should consider playing him if Ellis gets cold. Plus GG meantions that the Ducks have a ton of B2B games coming up so Emery will have to get some playing time one day.

Big Ev wrote:I don't know, is the Emery suggestion really that bad? I mean, the Ducks signed him so they should consider playing him if Ellis gets cold. Plus GG meantions that the Ducks have a ton of B2B games coming up so Emery will have to get some playing time one day.

Yeah, Goldman usually is pretty spot on. He does seem to be a little conflicted on Anderson, tho'. I don't understand why you say "sign him to a 1-year deal only," only to turn around and acknowledge the Sens' situation, which pretty much dictates that they'll have to overpay in dollars and term.

I didn't realize he was affiliated with COL. That does change things, in my mind.

Big Ev wrote:I don't know, is the Emery suggestion really that bad? I mean, the Ducks signed him so they should consider playing him if Ellis gets cold. Plus GG meantions that the Ducks have a ton of B2B games coming up so Emery will have to get some playing time one day.

He literally says Emery looked shaky like he hasn't been in a game for over a year then goes on to suggest he should replace a guy next game who has looked good the last month while winning games for his team. What's not totally ignorant about that? To me it sounds like he doesn't like Ellis and he really loves Emery based on nothing but personal feelings.

Fact of the matter is they went out and got Ellis so they didn't have to play Emery when Hiller is out. Emery looked awful last night.

Very surprised by the GG's take on Anderson. I didn't realize he was affiliated with the Avs until now, but still, he sounds very bitter and it sounds like that's affecting his views.

I think GG is somewhat biased on Anderson, Adrian Dater an Avs Reporter for a Denver paper also seems to feel very strongly on the Anderson trade as well. Andy seems to have really riled up fans and journalists alike in Denver. Is GG officially affiliated with the Avs ? I think he is just based out of Denver, their page says they run an independent service.

That being I don't think he expects a 1 year contract to happen.

But he seems to be implying that Anderson is prone to losing confidence and motivation resulting in some uncharacteristic bad games. Everything went well for Colorado last year and he was great.

This year something happened and Colorado fell apart and Anderson was nowhere near the same player. Obviously the trade reinvigorated him.

But he seems to be cautioning (the Sens) that he needs some special attention to keep him happy and motivated. Almost all of Anderson's comments since he arrived comment on how he is feeling and how he's been treated so this may be an indirect shot at how Colorado treated him vs. Ottawa. It may be a nonissue if the Sens have a history of treating their players well.

Hoags wrote:I think GG is somewhat biased on Anderson, Adrian Dater an Avs Reporter for a Denver paper also seems to feel very strongly on the Anderson trade as well. Andy seems to have really riled up fans and journalists alike in Denver. Is GG officially affiliated with the Avs ? I think he is just based out of Denver, their page says they run an independent service.

Dater thinks they gave up on him too quickly.

Also, I think Anderson might not have liked the fact that Colorado's owner wouldn't spend money to hire a real, full-time goalie coach

Big Ev wrote:
Dater thinks they gave up on him too quickly.

Also, I think Anderson might not have liked the fact that Colorado's owner wouldn't spend money to hire a real, full-time goalie coach

Yeah Colorado sounds like a real cheap penny pinching franchise. Walmsley is a full-time coach for Ottawa I believe ?

But it seems anyone from Colorado who writes on Anderson seems to have real strong feelings on what happened.

I think Colorado knew they were not going to sign Anderson in the off season. So they traded him for Elliott with the idea of heading for the bottom of the standings.

At least that is my view.

Why else would they do that trade?

Hoags wrote:
Yeah Colorado sounds like a real cheap penny pinching franchise. Walmsley is a full-time coach for Ottawa I believe ?

But it seems anyone from Colorado who writes on Anderson seems to have real strong feelings on what happened.

What the heck has happened to the Avs' franchise, they were once so proud and so powerful, now they're becoming the laughing stock by making stupid moves and trying to pinch their pennies.

On the other hand, we'd be pissed too if we felt a goalie quit on us, we'd roast him - and that's what it sounds like happened in Colorado. They wanted him to rush back from surgery, he sucked when he did, Sacco used Budaj as much or more as him and suddenly Anderson was in a dogfight for his position where he felt he absolutely shouldn't be.

In many ways, this is similar to the Ray Emery situation where he didn't rehab properly or hard enough (although, I can't comment on Anderson's rehab), then sucked for us, then became a distraction because he felt he should have retained his number one goaltender position.

sandysensfan wrote:I think Colorado knew they were not going to sign Anderson in the off season. So they traded him for Elliott with the idea of heading for the bottom of the standings.

At least that is my view.

Why else would they do that trade?

Because they have a poor GM - I don't see any other reason. Anderson had a crap year, but he couldn't have gotten a 2nd round pick for him? I understand getting an asset under your control in Elliott, but that's simply not enough to receive back for a top goaltender from just the year before.

If they got Elliott back just to tank, that's pretty pathetic to the fans and the people who are trying to support and work within the franchise - and frankly not really fair to Elliott who may now have an uphill battle to even make the NHL next year.

sandysensfan wrote:I think Colorado knew they were not going to sign Anderson in the off season. So they traded him for Elliott with the idea of heading for the bottom of the standings.

At least that is my view.

Why else would they do that trade?

They may have intended to tank but I think they figured Elliott as a cheap potential backup to sign, and he is an RFA as well.

Anderson was clearly not resigning there so they had to trade him.

Tanking is a likely option, they've clearly given up on a good part of their team, trading for EJ signifies there's a big change in direction occurring there. They're definately looking to draft a top forward to replace Stewart.

Hoags wrote:
They may have intended to tank but I think they figured Elliott as a cheap potential backup to sign, and he is an RFA as well.

Anderson was clearly not resigning there so they had to trade him.

Tanking is a likely option, they've clearly given up on a good part of their team, trading for EJ signifies there's a big change in direction occurring there. They're definately looking to draft a top forward to replace Stewart.

I think they might have moved Stewart because they like David Jones' game a lot and think he can fill most of that role left by Stewart.

Hoags wrote:

sandysensfan wrote:I think Colorado knew they were not going to sign Anderson in the off season. So they traded him for Elliott with the idea of heading for the bottom of the standings.

At least that is my view.

Why else would they do that trade?

They may have intended to tank but I think they figured Elliott as a cheap potential backup to sign, and he is an RFA as well.

Anderson was clearly not resigning there so they had to trade him.

Tanking is a likely option, they've clearly given up on a good part of their team, trading for EJ signifies there's a big change in direction occurring there. They're definately looking to draft a top forward to replace Stewart.

I think they will want Larsson 1st, Landeskog 2nd.

Big Ev wrote:
I think they will want Larsson 1st, Landeskog 2nd.

I would assume the same actually. That goes for any team though, I wouldn't not take Larsson if the opportunity came up.