Prospect Info: 71st Overall Leevi Merilainen G, Fin, Karpat Jr

[aragorn]

Sending Merilainen to Belleville was the right move for this team at this time. Ullmark is the #1 for the future as long as he stays healthy. Forsberg is a UFA who Merilainen IMO has outplayed although Forsberg has been good & is playing for his NHL future with someone else. The Sens will keep Forsberg for their playoff run & should one of them get hurt they have Merilainen as an injury callup & IMO he will be the backup next season & Forsberg will move on.

The only asset I can see that they could move at the deadline would be Gregor who makes around $.800K to reduce the cost of anyone that they bring back which will cost more than Gregor & probably a 3rd. I hope they don't trade a 1st or 2nd this trade deadline & hold fast with their picks. IMO they need one tough player for the 4th line to replace Highmore & they may have that in MacEwan if he is healthy.

 

[h2]

Not defending this decision because I think Leevi should get the start, but Green has said a couple times that he leaves the starter decision to the goaltending coach.

I don't have much confidence in our goaltending coach then.

 

[OD99]

I don't have much confidence in our goaltending coach then.

Forsberg played great.

 

[h2]

Forsberg played great.

He's still inconsistent and not as good as Leevi.

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

In his last 5 starts since January 19th Forsberg is 4-1 with a .940 save percentage. Sending Merilainen down is a no-brainer. Merilainen is waiver exempt, Forsberg is not. Keeping 3 goalies creates dysfunction for all 3 of them (there are only two nets in practice), and it costs us a roster spot.

A month ago, there was a legitimate argument to roll with 3 or to paper Merilainen down and recall him when he is going to start - but that was when Forsberg was playing some terrible hockey. I don't know what changed for him, but he is absolutely on fire right now.

I understand that our entire team is clicking defensively, and that is part of it. He has an easier job than he did a month or two ago. But that's not the entire story. He's doing his part.

I'm hyped about Merilainen too, but I don't see how this was the wrong choice.

We're in a very good position right now, because we have two goalies who are more than doing their part, and if Ullmark is healthy and can come close to his Hart level play he exhibited before getting hurt, we're bullet proof in net.

 

[PlayersLtd]

In his last 5 starts since January 19th Forsberg is 4-1 with a .940 save percentage. Sending Merilainen down is a no-brainer. Merilainen is waiver exempt, Forsberg is not. Keeping 3 goalies creates dysfunction for all 3 of them (there are only two nets in practice), and it costs us a roster spot.

A month ago, there was a legitimate argument to roll with 3 or to paper Merilainen down and recall him when he is going to start - but that was when Forsberg was playing some terrible hockey. I don't know what changed for him, but he is absolutely on fire right now.

I understand that our entire team is clicking defensively, and that is part of it. He has an easier job than he did a month or two ago. But that's not the entire story. He's doing his part.

I'm hyped about Merilainen too, but I don't see how this was the wrong choice.

We're in a very good position right now, because we have two goalies who are more than doing their part, and if Ullmark is healthy and can come close to his Hart level play he exhibited before getting hurt, we're bullet proof in net.

These are the facts of the matter.

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

We are only 3 points away from the 9th place team in the East.

Is Ullmark going to come in off a nagging back injury and play 25+ of the last 30 games? Doubtful.

So why wouldn't you have him split some starts with a kid who's been almost unbeatable with a .925 SV% over a guy with a .893 SV% that has no future on this team?

If we had a massive gap on our nearest playoff competitor I could understand this, but that's not the case at all. We need to maximize our chance at winning every night, and there's zero question Merilainen has been better than Forsberg at helping this team win games (just look at their records for god's sake).

Playing with fire here.

Ullmark is going to start playing 60% of the games and Forsberg has actually been pretty good down this stretch.

I think that they don't want to lose the 3rd goalie option in case he gets claimed and Ullmark gets re-injured, we'd be in a shitty situation.

More importantly, this will allow Leevi to shoulder the brunt of the workload in Belleville, hopefully keeping his mojo going. Can't afford for him to go to backup status and lose his good form in case we need him back up right quickly. Forsberg is going to be on a very tight leash.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Keeping Forsberg until the summer is the right move. Ullmark is going to be a question mark for at least the rest of the season (no matter how much or how well he plays for the rest of the year). And while Leevi looks amazing, there's no benefit in rushing him at all.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

If he'd played like this all year and last year had gone a little better, nobody would be concerned. Kudos to Forsberg for stepping up the last 6 or so games. It bodes well to have a competent backup with Ullmark's health being a question mark.

Feel bad for Leevi, but them's the breaks in the NHL.

 

[Puikiou]

0-3-0 since his demotion.

That's what happens when:

- A goalie wins 8 out of 12 games
- Posts 3 shoutout in the process
- Has the best save % of all netminders to suit up for the organization in 8+ years
- Comfortably leads you to 3rd place in an hyper competitive division... Yet you decide to galaxy brain it and send him down because of "the plan" and in order to protect your sub-900 sv%, losing, career backup.

Imagine if Hammond was sent down after 12 games (despite the run he was on in 2015) for the same reasons. It would have been indefensible and likely would have meant no playoffs. The goalies Cameron decided to play Hammond over were no clear AHL-fodder like Forsberg either. They were Craig Anderson and Robin Lehner.

Sure, Leevi is young and his quick rise/success was unexpected. However, winning is all that matters at the end of the day and he does that a lot while looking the par. Despite our thin scoring depth and Staios' refusal/snail pace to help, we barely lost in January BECAUSE of Leevi. So instead of running with him, we decide to add to our problems by subtracting from the goaltending.

If we miss the playoffs this season, it's on management.

 

[bicboi64]

0-3-0 since his demotion.

That's what happens when:

- A goalie wins 8 out of 12 games
- Posts 3 shoutout in the process
- Has the best save % of all netminders to suit up for the organization in 8+ years
- Comfortably leads you to 3rd place in an hyper competitive division... Yet you decide to galaxy brain it and send him down because of "the plan" and in order to protect your sub-900 sv%, losing, career backup.

Imagine if Hammond was sent down after 12 games (despite the run he was on in 2015) for the same reasons. It would have been indefensible and likely would have meant no playoffs. The goalies Cameron decided to play Hammond over were no clear AHL-fodder like Forsberg either. They were Craig Anderson and Robin Lehner.

Sure, Leevi is young and his quick rise/success was unexpected. However, winning is all that matters at the end of the day and he does that a lot while looking the par. Despite our thin scoring depth and Staios' refusal/snail pace to help, we barely lost in January BECAUSE of Leevi. So instead of running with him, we decide to add to our problems by subtracting from the goaltending.

If we miss the playoffs this season, it's on management.

In the 3 games that we sent Leevi down, we've scored 5 goals in 3 games. Forsberg and Ullmark are doing their job, but our forwards suck ass without Pinto and Norris

 

[Puikiou]

In the 3 games that we sent Leevi down, we've scored 5 goals in 3 games. Forsberg and Ullmark are doing their job, but our forwards suck ass without Pinto and Norris

From January 12, 2025 to January 16, 2025, Leevi played every other day.

We won 3-2 vs Dallas, then won 2-0 vs the Isles and lost 1-0 in OT vs the Caps.

3 games (including two against top teams), with exactly the the same goals support (5) and we came out with a 2-0-1 record.

When a team struggles to score, defense and goaltending become paramount. In what world does it make sense to have the best performing goalie in the organization playing down in the AHL?

 

[PlayersLtd]

0-3-0 since his demotion.

That's what happens when:

- A goalie wins 8 out of 12 games
- Posts 3 shoutout in the process
- Has the best save % of all netminders to suit up for the organization in 8+ years
- Comfortably leads you to 3rd place in an hyper competitive division... Yet you decide to galaxy brain it and send him down because of "the plan" and in order to protect your sub-900 sv%, losing, career backup.

Imagine if Hammond was sent down after 12 games (despite the run he was on in 2015) for the same reasons. It would have been indefensible and likely would have meant no playoffs. The goalies Cameron decided to play Hammond over were no clear AHL-fodder like Forsberg either. They were Craig Anderson and Robin Lehner.

Sure, Leevi is young and his quick rise/success was unexpected. However, winning is all that matters at the end of the day and he does that a lot while looking the par. Despite our thin scoring depth and Staios' refusal/snail pace to help, we barely lost in January BECAUSE of Leevi. So instead of running with him, we decide to add to our problems by subtracting from the goaltending.

If we miss the playoffs this season, it's on management.

So you think:

A/ Forsberg should have been put on waivers.
B/ Leevi should have played in place of Ullmark? (Ullmark being responsible for two of the losses)

You're saying galaxy brain but have you thought this stuff through?

Its entirely possible that Green / SS wanted to keep Leevi but there hands were tied. How would you have managed it?

 

[Puikiou]

So you think:

A/ Forsberg should have been put on waivers.
B/ Leevi should have played in place of Ullmark? (Ullmark being responsible for two of the losses)

You're saying galaxy brain but have you thought this stuff through?

Its entirely possible that Green / SS wanted to keep Leevi but there hands were tied. How would you have managed it?

It's really not that complicated.

I'm saying we should play the goalie that's winning us games and has the best save percentage in the organization while doing so.

Not demote him after a shutout when we're 8 years into missing the playoffs.

 

[PlayersLtd]

It's really not that complicated.

I'm saying we should play the goalie that's winning us games and has the best save percentage in the organization while doing so.

Not demote him after a shutout when we're 8 years into missing the playoffs.

So youre unwilling to answer the question. I guess its easy playing GM if you're going to ignore half of the variables.

 

[Puikiou]

So youre unwilling to answer the question. I guess its easy playing GM if you're going to ignore half of the variables.

Not sure how much simpler I can make this.

A) You keep playing Merilainen, your best goaltender statistically, until he gives you a reason not to.

B) You sort the rest out. Be it waiving Forsberg, sending him down on a conditioning stint, sitting Ullmark, explaining the situation and giving him the green light to play at the 4 Nations if he does get a game before the break, etc.

 

[Ice-Tray]

0-3-0 since his demotion.

That's what happens when:

- A goalie wins 8 out of 12 games
- Posts 3 shoutout in the process
- Has the best save % of all netminders to suit up for the organization in 8+ years
- Comfortably leads you to 3rd place in an hyper competitive division... Yet you decide to galaxy brain it and send him down because of "the plan" and in order to protect your sub-900 sv%, losing, career backup.

Imagine if Hammond was sent down after 12 games (despite the run he was on in 2015) for the same reasons. It would have been indefensible and likely would have meant no playoffs. The goalies Cameron decided to play Hammond over were no clear AHL-fodder like Forsberg either. They were Craig Anderson and Robin Lehner.

Sure, Leevi is young and his quick rise/success was unexpected. However, winning is all that matters at the end of the day and he does that a lot while looking the par. Despite our thin scoring depth and Staios' refusal/snail pace to help, we barely lost in January BECAUSE of Leevi. So instead of running with him, we decide to add to our problems by subtracting from the goaltending.

If we miss the playoffs this season, it's on management.

Respectfully, sometimes goalies do better in the NHL because it’s a much more structured game. This is fine for Leevi, because it doesn’t put the season’s pressure on the kid. He can just have his awesome stretch, and maybe another, and never have to carry the weight of the team this year.

The problem with not sending down the rookie is that someone else would have to be sent down.

If that person was Forsberg, who has also been playing really well, that would put us in a situation where we could lose him in waivers.

If we lose him in waivers, we are screwed when Ullmark has his next back tweak before surgery in the off season (if it’s a herniated disk).

We would have to play Soogard as back up, and have two rookie goalies, and that would be the dumbest move of all.

It’s Ullmark we are riding, and Merri will be back if/when he goes down again, but we
need Forsy here as well for now.

Let Levi develop like a normal rookie, outside of us needy fans wanting playoffs and looking to point blame everywhere it fits. Lots of time for that next season

We didn’t lose to TBL due to goaltending, Forsberg has been good for us for a while now. Goaltending isn’t our issue, and I’d rather the team focus on our players up front.

 

[thinkwild]

Leevi sure is an exciting young prospect. His great play a little out of nowhere. Calm like Ullmark. But it didnt feel to me that we won because of him. The team played really well around giving him a chance and he did his job making some nice saves too. Im hoping he's the next one. But i will know better after seeing him face adversity and overcome it, and that is surely still to come.

 

[Mr Hat]

Respectfully, sometimes goalies do better in the NHL because it’s a much more structured game. This is fine for Leevi, because it doesn’t put the season’s pressure on the kid. He can just have his awesome stretch, and maybe another, and never have to carry the weight of the team this year.

The problem with not sending down the rookie is that someone else would have to be sent down.

If that person was Forsberg, who has also been playing really well, that would put us in a situation where we could lose him in waivers.

If we lose him in waivers, we are screwed when Ullmark has his next back tweak before surgery in the off season (if it’s a herniated disk).

We would have to play Soogard as back up, and have two rookie goalies, and that would be the dumbest move of all.

It’s Ullmark we are riding, and Merri will be back if/when he goes down again, but we
need Forsy here as well for now.

Let Levi develop like a normal rookie, outside of us needy fans wanting playoffs and looking to point blame everywhere it fits. Lots of time for that next season

We didn’t lose to TBL due to goaltending, Forsberg has been good for us for a while now. Goaltending isn’t our issue, and I’d rather the team focus on our players up front.

If we lost Forsberg on waivers we would free up $2.75m of cap space to spend to improve a position of weakness. His stronger play makes him being claimed 50/50 where at the start of the year would have to package a pick to dump him. Should “sell high” on him and let him walk. Know when to fold em type idea.

Every team has some bad contracts, but it was poor decision to resign Hamonic with a NMC, dumb even for Dorion, and to sign Perron at $4.0 was questionable at the time and has only gone downhill. Staois definitely missed on that one.

That’s combined nearly $8M of cap hit that each are being outperformed by players on ELC that could go towards a rental FA or upgrade.

 

[PlayersLtd]

Not sure how much simpler I can make this.

A) You keep playing Merilainen, your best goaltender statistically, until he gives you a reason not to.

B) You sort the rest out. Be it waiving Forsberg, sending him down on a conditioning stint, sitting Ullmark, explaining the situation and giving him the green light to play at the 4 Nations if he does get a game before the break, etc.

You haven't thought this through which makes the original statement and your doubling down pure fantasy. Let me explain what you haven't considered and why simply yelling about Merilainen playing adds nothing to the discussion:

1 / You can't send a player on a conditioning stint to evade the cap. Even if you could, a player also needs to consent which Forsberg wouldn't amidst his best hockey in a long time for him in a contract year. So conditioning stint is out, not feasible on two fronts.

2 / That means you're advocating for putting Forsberg on waivers and doing so BEFORE our back spasm'd starter has even seen a pre game warm up. We all know how unpredictable back injuries are and Ullmark going out again is a real possibility. In that scenario you have created a situation where you're riding Merilainen and Sogaard for potentially the rest of the year. Is that worth it to you?

Everything you say is predicated on another fantasy which is that Merilainen is a guaranteed saviour. I know it's easy and fun to romanticize a rookie coming in and carrying the team but it's not a realistic expectation in those three road games with the depleted lineup. Doesn't matter how good he was playing.

And here's the thing. You act like everything is thrown away whereas the truth is we can play out both scenarios, what youre advocating for and what I am advocating for. We are still in a playoff spot, there is no need to go with the nuclear option, yet. BUT- as we get deeper into the season maybe the Forsberg / Ullmark situation forces our hand and we truly are left with only one option.

Hammond came in on February 18th and played 23 games. We are in a significantly better spot now than we were in the 2015 season. So if we are going nuclear and waiving (or trading) Forsberg, playing a rookie ahead of our starter and risking Sogaard as the back up then you do that in a couple weeks once we are truly out of options. We aren't at that point. Despite your panic attitude SS has the luxury of taking a measured approach. So he, unlike you, is looking at all the factors and implications and came to the very obvious conclusion that ditching Forsberg isn't the right decision at this point.

 

[Puikiou]

You haven't thought this through which makes the original statement and your doubling down pure fantasy. Let me explain what you haven't considered and why simply yelling about Merilainen playing adds nothing to the discussion:

1 / You can't send a player on a conditioning stint to evade the cap. Even if you could, a player also needs to consent which Forsberg wouldn't amidst his best hockey in a long time for him in a contract year. So conditioning stint is out, not feasible on two fronts.

2 / That means you're advocating for putting Forsberg on waivers and doing so BEFORE our back spasm'd starter has even seen a pre game warm up. We all know how unpredictable back injuries are and Ullmark going out again is a real possibility. In that scenario you have created a situation where you're riding Merilainen and Sogaard for potentially the rest of the year. Is that worth it to you?

Everything you say is predicated on another fantasy which is that Merilainen is a guaranteed saviour. I know it's easy and fun to romanticize a rookie coming in and carrying the team but it's not a realistic expectation in those three road games with the depleted lineup. Doesn't matter how good he was playing.

And here's the thing. You act like everything is thrown away whereas the truth is we can play out both scenarios, what youre advocating for and what I am advocating for. We are still in a playoff spot, there is no need to go with the nuclear option, yet. BUT- as we get deeper into the season maybe the Forsberg / Ullmark situation forces our hand and we truly are left with only one option.

Hammond came in on February 18th and played 23 games. We are in a significantly better spot now than we were in the 2015 season. So if we are going nuclear and waiving (or trading) Forsberg, playing a rookie ahead of our starter and risking Sogaard as the back up then you do that in a couple weeks once we are truly out of options. We aren't at that point. Despite your panic attitude SS has the luxury of taking a measured approach. So he, unlike you, is looking at all the factors and implications and came to the very obvious conclusion that ditching Forsberg isn't the right decision at this point.

"Oh no! What would we possibly do if our 8-10-1, .893 sv%, career backup got claimed... Freeing up 2.75M in cap space to find an upgrade and/or improve the team in the process?"

Who cares if Forsberg's in a contract year? Why do we always feel obligated to cuddle our fringe, overpaid, marginal NHL players in Ottawa? Want to play and get paid in a contract year? How about you find some consistency in your game and play like an NHL goalie from the start of the season?

If Ullmark's back acts up, we should all feel more comfortable running with Leevi than Forsberg, since one has the best stat line in the organization while the other would have long been playing in the AHL if he was part of an organization the values winning above all (say Vegas).

With that being said, all the above is hypothetical. The point I'm making first and foremost is that Leevi should have never been taken out of the net to begin with.

- Not with a .666% win percentage.
- Not with the best stat line in the organization (what message does demoting him send to the rest of the team btw? So much for "best players play"?).
- Not coming off of a shutout.
- And especially not when we're 8 years into a playoffs drought, in part due to perennial bad goaltending.

 

[PlayersLtd]

"Oh no! What would we possibly do if our 8-10-1, .893 sv%, career backup got claimed... Freeing up 2.75M in cap space to find an upgrade and/or improve the team in the process?"

Who cares if Forsberg's in a contract year? Why do we always feel obligated to cuddle our fringe, overpaid, marginal NHL players in Ottawa? Want to play and get paid in a contract year? How about you find some consistency in your game and play like an NHL goalie from the start of the season?

You're ignoring how it works. I didn't say coddle him, I said he wouldn't agree to a conditioning stint and it's up to him. You fundamentally don't understand the variables. You said conditioning stint and haven't explained how that would work, nor are you willing to listen why it was an uninformed suggestion.

If Ullmark's back acts up, we should all feel more comfortable running with Leevi than Forsberg, since one has the best stat line in the organization while the other would have long been playing in the AHL if he was part of an organization the values winning above all (say Vegas).

...AND running with Sogaard you mean? You're operating in some tunnel where Leevi is guaranteed to shoulder the load and do it successfully. Again, you're falling for this romantic notion that a rookie can carry us for some indefinite period and you're conveniently ignoring the what ifs. If anything goes wrong, Sogaard is next up. Ending up in that situation with everything on the line would be a fireable offence for SS. You can make that call in the comfort of your armchair, real GM's can't. At least not just past the midpoint in the season when you're sitting third in the division.

With that being said, all the above is hypothetical. The point I'm making first and foremost is that Leevi should have never been taken out of the net to begin with.

No kidding that is your point, you don't need to repeat it and circle yourself back to the start of your uninformed opinion. It's a point that ignores several variables which you don't seem capable of processing.

SS' hands were tied. Sending Leevi down for the time being was the only viable option. Actually, that's not true. There was another option and it would have been refreshing if your 'galaxy brain' had thought of it. We could have kept all three up and run 11,6,3 for a short period. This is the only way we could have hedged our bets without shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[Hale The Villain]

I really think people are overestimating Forsberg's value around the league and the likelihood he'd be picked up if we sent him down.

He's an average backup that hasn't had the greatest year, although he's been improving after a terrible start, and makes 2.75M.

Most teams already have their two goalies in place and wouldn't consider adding Forsberg as a third option, and there's very few teams out there that can or would spend 2.75M of their valuable cap space on Forsberg with the deadline coming up.

Having said this, I can understand why they sent Merilainen down given Ullmark has played 2/3 games since then, and with the Four Nations coming up there'll be a big break.

But assuming no further injury or setbacks for Ullmark at the Four Nations (which he really shouldn't be going to), once the NHL is back they definitely need to call Merilainen up to play as Ullmark's backup. He's simply been far better than Forsberg and in a tight playoff race we need every possible advantage.

Keeping Forsberg over Merilainen once the Four Nations is over would be akin to us sending the Hamburglar back to the AHL in 2015 if Anderson came back from injury earlier.

 

[Alex1234]

It was the right move to not lose him to waivers since Ullmark is so fragile
But saying Forsberg is playing great is a stretch

Season: .893 44th in the NHL
Last 3: 893
Last 5 : .921
Last 10 :889
Last 15: 876

There was basically 5-6 games the entire season when he was elite
Rest is not good
He is what he is
A sub .900 goalie
But we had no other choice

 

[PlayersLtd]

I really think people are overestimating Forsberg's value around the league and the likelihood he'd be picked up if we sent him down.

He's an average backup that hasn't had the greatest year, although he's been improving after a terrible start, and makes 2.75M.

Most teams already have their two goalies in place and wouldn't consider adding Forsberg as a third option, and there's very few teams out there that can or would spend 2.75M of their valuable cap space on Forsberg with the deadline coming up.

Having said this, I can understand why they sent Merilainen down given Ullmark has played 2/3 games since then, and with the Four Nations coming up there'll be a big break.

But assuming no further injury or setbacks for Ullmark at the Four Nations (which he really shouldn't be going to), once the NHL is back they definitely need to call Merilainen up to play as Ullmark's backup. He's simply been far better than Forsberg and in a tight playoff race we need every possible advantage.

Keeping Forsberg over Merilainen once the Four Nations is over would be akin to us sending the Hamburglar back to the AHL in 2015 if Anderson came back from injury earlier.

NYI
VAN
TB
NYR

All in the fight, have lost their starter or back up and could take a flyer on Forsberg at this point in the season. You're right, it is far from a sure thing but we as sens fans undervalue Forsberg whereas other teams pro scouting might see him as game ready and in the midst of bouncing back (after surgery no less) and thus one of the more viable options out there for G depth. Yes, making $2.75M work is a different story if no LTIR relief to tap into. Not worth the risk. You don't build up depth only to go and neuter it the second some other option comes up. Can't be knee jerky that way.