Is there already a goalie controversy in Ottawa?

Jordo wrote:Totally agreed with Shabbs. Give Gerber the month of October to prove his worth. If he can't hack it, he's outta here. It's pretty simple. And guys, Auld played one game. I think it's a little early to be praising his high horse. Was he legitimately challenged in Game 2? I think as a whole, the team played much better in the second game (nothing against their performance in the 1st, which was also strong).

Give Gerber a few weeks before you throw him under the bus. I remember what he did last year at this time, doesn't anybody else?

I agree with some of what you said. Auld has played only one game, I still think he may be inconsistent, maybe not as much as Gerber, but still. He let in 5 goals against Montreal, and some of them weren't pretty.

I do however think that he was challenged in game 2, there were some pretty scary moments, and he totally kept his cool, and made some pretty crazy saves.

I think he's definitely a very capable backup, not sure how he would do as a starter though.

there's no controversy..... neither one is that good.

Gerber has the nerves of a two year old. Gerber's biggest problem is his confidence. He can't handle criticism or pressure. You know when you shake that off? Pee-wee. At worse, Junior. He has no consistency, and lets in goals at the worst times.

Auld should never be a starter on any potential playoff team.

Tukker wrote:there's no controversy..... neither one is that good.

Gerber has the nerves of a two year old. Gerber's biggest problem is his confidence. He can't handle criticism or pressure. You know when you shake that off? Pee-wee. At worse, Junior. He has no consistency, and lets in goals at the worst times.

Auld should never be a starter on any potential playoff team.

Agreed, but I still think on the average Auld represents the best chance the Sens have for right now... IMO he's not great, but he's solid and that is all you ask for....

Fine, this is my take on this once and for all.

These two are capable goaltenders. Gerber will give you 35 wins, a 2.70 GAA and a .910 save %, it's already pre-determined. It doesn't matter if he gave up 4 against the Pens and it won't matter if he gives up 100 against the Wings, when the season officially ends, his numbers will be what's listed above. That's just fine if you have the scoring to support it. Last year we did, this year we might not, it's hard to say.

Auld will give you 30 starts and usually lose half of them. It's not really his fault, but the better the team's system, the better he plays (2.30 GAA and a .920 Save% in Boston vs a 3.50 and .880 in Phoenix - no coincidence). He's capable, but he might be the guy that can actually improve his numbers if he can string together 8 or 9 straight starts. What you see with Gerber is what you get.

To me, there's no question Gerber's the better tender, but Auld is almost the perfect back-up. So when talking about a controversy, what the media is talking about (and they don't know it) is replacing Gerber. Auld won't be your guy to play 60 games, he can play 30 though, so someone has to step up and play 50 games. Is that Gerber? For sure, he'll win 30 of those games. Would it be reversed and be Auld? No way. I know he won 30+ in Vancouver, but that's not happening any time soon.

So the answer is...the minute there's actual controversy, is the minute we have no choice but to replace Gerber either via trade - or with Brian Elliot (which BTW, I think would be perfect).

That's the controversy.

504Heater wrote:Fine, this is my take on this once and for all.

These two are capable goaltenders. Gerber will give you 35 wins, a 2.70 GAA and a .910 save %, it's already pre-determined. It doesn't matter if he gave up 4 against the Pens and it won't matter if he gives up 100 against the Wings, when the season officially ends, his numbers will be what's listed above. That's just fine if you have the scoring to support it. Last year we did, this year we might not, it's hard to say.

Auld will give you 30 starts and usually lose half of them. It's not really his fault, but the better the team's system, the better he plays (2.30 GAA and a .920 Save% in Boston vs a 3.50 and .880 in Phoenix - no coincidence). He's capable, but he might be the guy that can actually improve his numbers if he can string together 8 or 9 straight starts. What you see with Gerber is what you get.

To me, there's no question Gerber's the better tender, but Auld is almost the perfect back-up. So when talking about a controversy, what the media is talking about (and they don't know it) is replacing Gerber. Auld won't be your guy to play 60 games, he can play 30 though, so someone has to step up and play 50 games. Is that Gerber? For sure, he'll win 30 of those games. Would it be reversed and be Auld? No way. I know he won 30+ in Vancouver, but that's not happening any time soon.

So the answer is...the minute there's actual controversy, is the minute we have no choice but to replace Gerber either via trade - or with Brian Elliot (which BTW, I think would be perfect).

That's the controversy.

I think Elliott should be starter soon. If we can't trade for a Backstrom or a Lehtonen, or pick up Khabbibulin on 1/2 price re-entry waivers, than we should go for a 3 Goalie system until we find the weakest link. if Elliott shines, than we go with Elliott/Auld. if Elliott looks decent, than we go with Gerber/Elliott. If Elliott blows it, than we stick with Gerber/Auld.

504Heater wrote:To me, there's no question Gerber's the better tender, but Auld is almost the perfect back-up.

Great point.

A "great backup" does not always translate to a "great #1".

I guess we'll find out eventually...

According to the Ottawa Citizen, there is indeed a goalie controversy brewing in Ottawa.

I mean, good Lord, second game of the year and we are starting the controversy Dung already. Let's leave it to the coaches to figure everything out.

smash88 wrote:
Agreed, but I still think on the average Auld represents the best chance the Sens have for right now... IMO he's not great, but he's solid and that is all you ask for....

I really don't know how you can say that. Would you have said that after his pre-season game against the Jr. Habs? Or are you saying that was just one game?

I am concerned with Gerber giving up the first shot (3 times in five games including pre-season, I believe). But I have to take the pre-season games with a grain of salt due to the lineup. Which all points to my vote: too early to tell.

wprager wrote:

smash88 wrote:
Agreed, but I still think on the average Auld represents the best chance the Sens have for right now... IMO he's not great, but he's solid and that is all you ask for....

I really don't know how you can say that. Would you have said that after his pre-season game against the Jr. Habs? Or are you saying that was just one game?

I am concerned with Gerber giving up the first shot (3 times in five games including pre-season, I believe). But I have to take the pre-season games with a grain of salt due to the lineup. Which all points to my vote: too early to tell.

Yeah it dosen't really matter... We aren't getting out of the 1st round with either of these guys... i've just happened to have watched Gerber a little more than Auld, that's probably why i dislike Gerber a little more

It was said before, and I'll repeat it:
The fact that we are discussing it indicates that there is a controversy.

The real question is "should there be a controversy". From the sounds of things - probably not. But the reasoning is all over the map.

The reality is that we haven't had a true (consistent) number one goalie (Hasek excepted; Lalime couldn't do it in the playoffs, Emery was a flash in the pan) since the first incarnation of the Senators. And I don't think any of us were around to enjoy sitting on the sidelines to watch them play. I don't think there is any doubt that Murray would take the opportunity to upgrade our goaltending, if someone was available, but every intelligent GM in the league knows what he needs, and will do whatever they can to block him, unless they get a king's ransom in return (Milbury, why can't you still be a GM somewhere? Maybe take over in Florida or Vancouver?).

So the best (or perhaps the only) answer is to wait. Wait until the right deal comes along, and it is on Murray's terms. And we all know that Murray is a master of the deal. Perhaps that is why the cap room was kept.

Until then, Gerber needs to be our main goalie, as Heater (I think) detailed the reasons for.

Tukker wrote:

504Heater wrote:Fine, this is my take on this once and for all.

These two are capable goaltenders. Gerber will give you 35 wins, a 2.70 GAA and a .910 save %, it's already pre-determined. It doesn't matter if he gave up 4 against the Pens and it won't matter if he gives up 100 against the Wings, when the season officially ends, his numbers will be what's listed above. That's just fine if you have the scoring to support it. Last year we did, this year we might not, it's hard to say.

Auld will give you 30 starts and usually lose half of them. It's not really his fault, but the better the team's system, the better he plays (2.30 GAA and a .920 Save% in Boston vs a 3.50 and .880 in Phoenix - no coincidence). He's capable, but he might be the guy that can actually improve his numbers if he can string together 8 or 9 straight starts. What you see with Gerber is what you get.

To me, there's no question Gerber's the better tender, but Auld is almost the perfect back-up. So when talking about a controversy, what the media is talking about (and they don't know it) is replacing Gerber. Auld won't be your guy to play 60 games, he can play 30 though, so someone has to step up and play 50 games. Is that Gerber? For sure, he'll win 30 of those games. Would it be reversed and be Auld? No way. I know he won 30+ in Vancouver, but that's not happening any time soon.

So the answer is...the minute there's actual controversy, is the minute we have no choice but to replace Gerber either via trade - or with Brian Elliot (which BTW, I think would be perfect).

That's the controversy.

I think Elliott should be starter soon. If we can't trade for a Backstrom or a Lehtonen, or pick up Khabbibulin on 1/2 price re-entry waivers, than we should go for a 3 Goalie system until we find the weakest link. if Elliott shines, than we go with Elliott/Auld. if Elliott looks decent, than we go with Gerber/Elliott. If Elliott blows it, than we stick with Gerber/Auld.

No offense, but bad idea.

Bring in the kid too soon, and he could be destroyed. This may be our only (next) chance at bringing up a real franchise goalie. He has to be nurtured. Right now, he is playing behind a fairly strong Binghamton team, so he will develop confidence. He can be brought up like last year, for a couple of games against "weaker" opponents (careful, because Ottawa is being considered one of these by some experts) - again to build his confidence. Also, give him a bigger taste of life in the big leagues, and he'll get hungry.

My guess is two years to be our starter, unless we pick up a superstar next year, or his development accelerates.

Acrobat wrote:

No offense, but bad idea.

Bring in the kid too soon, and he could be destroyed. This may be our only (next) chance at bringing up a real franchise goalie. He has to be nurtured. Right now, he is playing behind a fairly strong Binghamton team, so he will develop confidence. He can be brought up like last year, for a couple of games against "weaker" opponents (careful, because Ottawa is being considered one of these by some experts) - again to build his confidence. Also, give him a bigger taste of life in the big leagues, and he'll get hungry.

My guess is two years to be our starter, unless we pick up a superstar next year, or his development accelerates.

That's certainly one take on it. Another is this:

1. Ottawa is good enough to compete on a nightly basis in the East. League standing aside, we are not the Leafs.
2. He has already played a game in the NHL and did well. That was almost a year ago and the team defense has gotten better since that time.
3. Does he really have anything else to learn/prove in the AHL?

I get your point about developing confidence but, frankly, I want a kid in goal who has it from day one. If he doesn't have it now he never will, just like Gerber. Maybe it's best to find that out sooner rather than later.

Just another take on it.

The one game he played, he did win. But it was one game. Let's not get like Habs fans and start announcing our new "saviour" after he wins one game against a non-playoff team. I would disagree about our defense being better since then, though. It is certainly different, and plays with a different philosophy (for one, we now see body contact instead of stick checks). However this is also a defense that has a rookie (Lee), one who played only 24 games last year and 95 games total (Picard), and whose seventh defenseman is slated to be either Bell or Richardson (enough said there). This is a defense who will succeed because they work hard, and they play a system to perfection; you would be hard-pressed to convince me that the skill level is equal to last year's corps.

Ottawa is certainly good enough to compete in the East. However, we are certainly not a Cup favourite. Develop a star goalie, and perhaps we can be. But goalies are strange birds (those who are bringing up goalie kids understand...) Their skills develop slower, and they need to be treated differently from other players (not just want, need). Screw up his mindset, and you end up with a very talented Gerber. That's just ugly.

Despite what you may believe, he will learn lots in the AHL - even if he doesn't have anything to prove. Technical skills can always be refined further; speed/agility/quickness can always be improved; his ability to read the game can always be refined.

I'm beginning to think that the best thing that could happen is if Gerber sustains a very minor injury, keeping him out of say, 2 weeks worth of games. Then we recall Elliott and we can see what he can do for a couple of games. And then Gerber won't get all whiny and insecure about his job if it is because he was injured.

When i say minor injury i mean like a deep paper cut. Or he cut himself shaving, something like that.

dirtydirtynorth wrote:I'm beginning to think that the best thing that could happen is if Gerber sustains a very minor injury, keeping him out of say, 2 weeks worth of games. Then we recall Elliott and we can see what he can do for a couple of games. And then Gerber won't get all whiny and insecure about his job if it is because he was injured.

When i say minor injury i mean like a deep paper cut. Or he cut himself shaving, something like that.

Sadly, that might be enough to damage his confidence - he may never shave again...(maybe he uses an electric now, just in case?)

And deep paper cuts hurt. A lot.
That's just mean.
But he'd never read the press clippings about himself, so it might be a good thing...

Oh, what a sad state we find ourselves in

From the start of last season, we lost Redden, Corvo and Richardson, replaced with Lee, Picard and Smith. Redden's skill and pre-tential aside, this is a better *defensive* set of defensemen and not by a little. We are also playing better team defense. So I stand by my original point.

I'll accept that they are better defensively, although I'm not as enthusiastic about the improvement as you are. I think the defensive improvement, though, if offset by the loss in offense, so I'm calling it a wash at best. The exception to this is the removal of those players who weren't committed to the team, but again I reserve judgment on Picard, Kuba, and even Lee to a certain extent. It was certainly a necessary change, though, and by the end of the season, my opinion of both offense and defense may have changed markedly, as Lee and Picard develop, and as Kuba settles in to the system.

The original point, though, was one of mental maturity. The step from the AHL to NHL is huge; several players have had careers cut short because of being pushed into big-league service too early.

The reality is that if he were ready, and the situation truly called for it, there is more than enough cap space to carry all three goalies all year, and still pick up a very good player at the deadline; the choices that Hartsburg/Murray/Wilson make if/when Gerber next stumbles will go a long way towards telling us how ready Elliot is to take the big step for real.