Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,301
- 10,124
I don't buy the notion that one of our players is going to get offersheet'd
Especially since it stems from Hockeybuzz
Especially since it stems from Hockeybuzz
Where did Murray say he wants a top 6 forward and a pick for a goalie straight up?Man i love BM ,says he wants a top6 forward a high draft and a prospect for one of his goalies.Doesnt say which one though.Then tweets that the return may be a bit less than what he hoped for.
Where did Murray say he wants a top 6 forward and a pick for a goalie straight up?
Where did Murray say he wants a top 6 forward and a pick for a goalie straight up?
On NHL.com Murray says he expects to lose the trade and that he'll likely get less than what he hoped for.
He also says he feels like whether he trades Lehner or Anderson people will still look back in a few years and say his move was dumb.
I think we're going to get a 2nd and a 4th from BUF for Lehner.
That could set up a deal:
18th OVA + Ott 2nd + Dal 2nd + 2nd (BUF deal)
For
3rd OVA from Phoenix
I'm expecting a bad trade from Murray. I don't even understand what the point is for releasing a statement saying he's expecting to lose it ... great way to up the value. Atleast go into the draft with an open mind and see what's out there.
Why is the market for goalies so poor?
If Murray ships out Lehner for anything less just to get rid of Greening's contract, then he will have failed as a general manager.
Because there are plenty of goal-tenders available, and not as many teams in need of one. Supply, demand and what-not.
So you will blame a flooded goalie market on Murray? And the fact that historically, goalies almost never ever EVER fetch anything even close to full value?
That doesn't sound fair at all. I mean, Murray doesn't have a flawless trade record or anything, but there is a lot of context involved in making this kind of trade.
So you will blame a flooded goalie market on Murray? And the fact that historically, goalies almost never ever EVER fetch anything even close to full value?
That doesn't sound fair at all. I mean, Murray doesn't have a flawless trade record or anything, but there is a lot of context involved in making this kind of trade.
Murray put himself in a bad market.
Yep.
The only time you ever see goalies go for anything close to full value is when a specific team is desperate, and the market us unusualy thin with available goaltenders. .. but teams are rarely desperate for goalies because there is usually a flooded market of them. It's almost always a buyer's market.
He was going to be lambasted regardless of what he did.
He'll hear it from the pro-Andy part of the fanbase if Anderson gets moved, he'll hear it from the pro-Lehner part of the fanbase if he trades Lehner, and he would have heard it from the pro-Hamburglar part of the fanbase if he hadn't re-signed Hammond. There isn't an option out there that doesn't have part of the fanbase angry at him regardless of what decision he makes, and the only reason he's even in the position he was in in the first place was because we unexpectedly had "too many good goalies".
So he put himself in a bad market... how, exactly? By having too many goalies? I don't understand this argument. I mean, it would certainly be more convenient if we had 3 goalies during a period where the rest of the league is being stingy at the position, but Murray can't control the market.
Funny how it was never a buyers market when we went through years of Lalime, Emery, Gerber, Auld and Leclaire.
Just don't sign Hammond. Pretty simple.
There was always good goalies available back then. It was always a buyer's market.
Lalime - we thought we had "the guy". We didn't get a better one because we didn't want to pay for an established elite guy, plus we made an error in talent assessment.
Emery - we thought we had "the guy". We didn't get a better one because we didn't want to pay for an established elite guy, plus we made an error in talent assessment.
Gerber - we thought we had "the guy". We didn't get a better one because we didn't want to pay for an established elite guy, plus we made an error in talent assessment.
Auld - he was never supposed to be anything more than an average backup during his stints in Ottawa. We got what we paid for.
Leclaire - we thought we had "the guy". We didn't get a better one because we didn't want to pay for an established elite guy, plus we made an error in talent assessment.
There is a consistent pattern to Ottawa's past goalie failures: an organizational refusal to pay top market dollars for a top market goalie, and an inability to forecast goalies at the pro level.
**** if it's only a third why even bother just waive Hammond and stay the course.
At this point it just sounds bleak as ****.
Pretty simple to YOU, because you're a pro-Andy/Lehner guy.
I can guarantee that a massive part of the casual fanbase would be irate at Murray if he's let Hammond walk after all of the Hamburglar craze last season.
To a pro-Hammond guy (which I'm sure there are tons of in Ottawa after our stretch run last season), they would probably say "Just trade Lehner. Pretty simple".
Pretty simple to YOU, because you're a pro-Andy/Lehner guy.
I can guarantee that a massive part of the casual fanbase would be irate at Murray if he's let Hammond walk after all of the Hamburglar craze last season.
To a pro-Hammond guy (which I'm sure there are tons of in Ottawa after our stretch run last season), they would probably say "Just trade Lehner. Pretty simple".
If this is true than he's a terrible GM for making moves based on fan reaction.