Game Day - Ottawa @ Boston, 7:00PM, Tuesday, November 1, 2011

tim1_2 wrote:

Dash wrote:But he still has to pay him, and it's not his money.

If he doesn't play this year, his development is ruined, and he will be out of shape. Then you have a much harder time trading him.

Unfortunately for Phoenix they should cut and run. I don't like what Turris is doing, nor what Erixon did, or Lindros, or Berard, or Gleason, or Jack Johnson, etc. All similar events.

Players refusing to play for the team after drafted by them, or refusing to re-sign after only 3 years.

Well, Berard and Lindros got theirs in the end!!! Eh fellas?!

Dash wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

Dash wrote:But he still has to pay him, and it's not his money.

If he doesn't play this year, his development is ruined, and he will be out of shape. Then you have a much harder time trading him.

Unfortunately for Phoenix they should cut and run. I don't like what Turris is doing, nor what Erixon did, or Lindros, or Berard, or Gleason, or Jack Johnson, etc. All similar events.

Players refusing to play for the team after drafted by them, or refusing to re-sign after only 3 years.

Well, Berard and Lindros got theirs in the end!!! Eh fellas?!

Karma.

wprager wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:Anderson has played well, despite his GAA and save %. He's a better goalie than Lehner, right now, and he gives us the best chance to win. Although, of course I'm in favour of giving Lehner a couple more games while he's up here.

It's very easy to say "Hey, Anderson gave up 5 goals, he must've played bad." If doesn't stand on his head in the 2nd period last night, we're coming out of that period down a lot more than one goal. We gave up 41 shots last night, including 17 in the first and 16 in the second. Our defense needs to be better, but it might be a slow road to improvement.

Getting Rundblad out (to the AHL), and inserting Carkner might be a good start, actually.

Ironically, while he stopped all but two of the 33 shots in the first two periods, he let in two of 7 in the third.

If they were down 4-2 after 2 periods and lost nobody would be saying he needs to be better. Thing is, he kept them in the game early, but collapsed in a 32 second span *after* they tied it up. Those kinds of losses could be damaging because regardless of how he played through 40, it looks like he let them down. IOW, it's true that they shouldn't have been in the game, only down by 1 going into the third, but the fact is that they *were* only down by 1, and they scored early enough to tie it up. Losing like that is worse than if Anderson had given up 4-5 goals on 33 shots through 40.