Waived: Andrew Hammond Nov 19 | Cleared

[ChocolateLeclaire]

What an awesome fanbase we have. We take Hero to zero at supersonic speed.

We also take in Sabres fans who love to take potshots at the fan base based on a small segment of HF Board posters too.

 

[ChelFan31]

1.5hrs until we find out if the hamburglers time is over with the Sens... I doubt anyone wants to claim a goalie who's already been injured twice this year and has a sub .800 save % in the 2 games he's played in.

Not sure he was very smart refusing the conditioning stint. It's not like a conditioning stint is permanent, it can only last up to 14 consecutive days. Honestly, he probably needed to start a bunch of games in a row to get back into game shape as he's seen very little action this year due to injury. Weird decision for sure.

I keep on hearing the argument. However if he would have accepted the conditioning stint he would have just been avoiding the inevitable ... in two weeks time we would have been in the same argument/situation: 3 goalies and what to do. Mgmt already tried to trade and ended up banking nothing. He just fast tracked the process.

 

[Engineer]

I've heard the team was disgruntled with him, and that his teammates and the coaching staff didn't like him personally. We'll never know.

Source?

 

[Caeldan]

Source?

I believe that whole line of talk was regarding Lehner.
Which it was known that there was definite clashes of personality between Lehner, the team and the coaching staff.

 

[Engineer]

I believe that whole line of talk was regarding Lehner.
Which it was known that there was definite clashes of personality between Lehner, the team and the coaching staff.

OH. Thought he meant Hammond, which all I ever heard was all of the players liked him and his quiet but focused personality

 

[Caeldan]

OH. Thought he meant Hammond, which all I ever heard was all of the players liked him and his quiet but focused personality

Yeah I had to jump back a few quotes, but it did eventually line up to be a Lehner reference.
As far as I know as well, Hammond's well-liked.

 

[jbeck5]

20% ? That seems high.

That's what i thought when reading this thread but then realized that means 6 guys play atleast one nhl game in their career while 24 guys don't even get a sniff. Sounds accurate.

With the sens alone we've drafted Guerard, Arvedsson, Zanon, Borowiecki, Hoffman,and Claesson with our 5th rounders in the first 20 drafts of the franchise. 6 of 19 5th round picks in 20 seasons played a game in the NHL.

32% of the senators draft picks up until 2011 have played atleast one game in the NHL. Now the 20% doesn't seem too outlandish.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I keep on hearing the argument. However if he would have accepted the conditioning stint he would have just been avoiding the inevitable ... in two weeks time we would have been in the same argument/situation: 3 goalies and what to do. Mgmt already tried to trade and ended up banking nothing. He just fast tracked the process.

It still doesn't make sense. He has a 1-way contract, so he'd still be making his full salary in the AHL (according to CapFriendly). NHL contracts are guaranteed, so it's not like he's losing his big payday....unless the team buys him out or calls foul do to breach of contract if he doesn't report. And if he doesn't report and his contract is void, there's no way he gets another contract that big from any pro team.

 

[ChelFan31]

It still doesn't make sense. He has a 1-way contract, so he'd still be making his full salary in the AHL (according to CapFriendly). NHL contracts are guaranteed, so it's not like he's losing his big payday....unless the team buys him out or calls foul do to breach of contract if he doesn't report. And if he doesn't report and his contract is void, there's no way he gets another contract that big from any pro team.

He'll report. No way he'll forfeit NHL contract [as much as Senators brass would certainly wish that to happen in order to open $ and have more liquidity].

All I'm saying is if he took the 2 week conditioning stint, it just would have delayed this action from taking place, not altered it.

 

[God Says No]

He'll report. No way he'll forfeit NHL contract [as much as Senators brass would certainly wish that to happen in order to open $ and have more liquidity].

All I'm saying is if he took the 2 week conditioning stint, it just would have delayed this action from taking place, not altered it.

Sure, but a lot of things can happen in 2 weeks. It was dumb of Hammond to refuse the conditioning stint. He was going to the AHL one way or another.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

He'll report. No way he'll forfeit NHL contract [as much as Senators brass would certainly wish that to happen in order to open $ and have more liquidity].

All I'm saying is if he took the 2 week conditioning stint, it just would have delayed this action from taking place, not altered it.

Where is this talk about him not reporting coming from? Someone said it in the main board thread as well. I haven't heard anything about him being unwilling to report, so I am guessing it is just people mixing up the very different scenarios of a player refusing to be sent down for a conditioning stint, and refusing to report.

As far as why he might have refused to a conditioning stint. There are only 30 backup jobs. A big part of being a backup in the NHL is keeping your foot in the door once it is in. He could probably see the writing on the wall. Although I do not think he'll get claimed if no one bit the bullet and traded for him because teams usually prefer to dump a contract over taking a guy on waivers for free, it made sense in his shoes to take a risk and force waivers or an earlier trade if it kept him in the NHL as a #2 goalie and not as the third wheel to the Anderson/Condon pairing.

If he ends up barely playing in the NHL this year, and gets bought out by Ottawa next year, his career as an NHLer is probably done next off season. If he goes to another team who is in need of a goalie right now, he gets a change of scenery and maybe a chance to improve his stock.

 

[ChelFan31]

Another NHL type salary contract stashed in the minors. Terrible asset allocation of limited/ scarce budget room by this management group once again. Not putting money they have $$$ to good use.

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

Cleared.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Another NHL type salary contract stashed in the minors. Terrible asset allocation of limited/ scarce budget room by this management group once again. Not putting money they have $$$ to good use.

Nobody wants Andrew Hammond. They acquired Condon because they needed an NHL goalie while Hammond was injured and Craig Anderson was expected to miss significant time in a situation that they didn't quite have a full grasp on while they also had a **** show with both O'Connor and Driedger in the NHL.

Rather than just making vague criticisms, what do you suggest they do to remedy the situation oh guru of asset management?

 

[Real Smart Sens Fan]

Hammond + McCormick + 4th
for
Dwight King + 6th

Any chance the Kings do it? They looked into Hammond and couldn't make it work with the cap. King's contract is 1.9 and he's a UFA.

 

[ChelFan31]

Rather than just making vague criticisms, what do you suggest they do to remedy the situation oh guru of asset management?

Not vague, but rather truth. You can spin this many which ways, reality is however that they have NHL contract in the minors, and this team has a LIMITED internal budget for player salary....that's not good asset allocation. Money is not being put to good use.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Not vague, but rather truth. You can spin this many which ways, reality is however that they have NHL contract in the minors, and this team has a LIMITED internal budget for player salary....that's not good asset allocation. Money is not being put to good use.

Yes let's completely ignore the situation that lead to the contract being in the minors.

Tell me, instead of putting Hammond on waivers, how would you have solved this situation? Would you have not traded for Condon initially? How do you get out of Hammond's contract to please your god asset management? Do you sacrifice a sealed box of old David Legwand shirzeys in a strange occult ritual while rumbling about how you can easily trade star players for draft picks and then sign similar star players for free?

You're avoiding the question. How would you have fixed this situation? You are clearly a better GM than Pierre Dorion and I want the Senators to win. He might be reading this so I really want you to share, how would you fix this 3 goalie carousel? How would you have approached it? Or is it just easy to slag the Sens and yell "omg asset management" without having an actual unique idea about how you would fix the situation?

 

[ChelFan31]

Yes let's completely ignore the situation that lead to the contract being in the minors.

Tell me, instead of putting Hammond on waivers, how would you have solved this situation? Would you have not traded for Condon initially? How do you get out of Hammond's contract to please your god asset management? Do you sacrifice a sealed box of old David Legwand shirzeys in a strange occult ritual while rumbling about how you can easily trade star players for draft picks and then sign similar star players for free?

You're avoiding the question. How would you have fixed this situation? You are clearly a better GM than Pierre Dorion and I want the Senators to win. He might be reading this so I really want you to share, how would you fix this 3 goalie carousel? How would you have approached it? Or is it just easy to slag the Sens and yell "omg asset management" without having an actual unique idea about how you would fix the situation?

easy, trade Condon. He's actually got value which could fetch a return. That way least you wouldn't have Hammond $$$ working for nothing; at least get some return from the contract.

Personally If I was GM, I wouldn't even have signed Hammond to a contract. Would have kept Lehner, instead of labelling and billing up & placing so much weighting on OConnor [and his future translation from College Hockey to the Nhl ]as the hier apparent to Craig Anderson automatically. And I would have kept Bishop over Anderson. At the time we traded Bishop, Andersons trade value was at its peak and we could have netted a massive return, while also maintaining two great goaltenders of the future in Bishop and Lehner who could have battled it out. Now we have a declining asset who isn't getting any younger with no hier apparent in sight. Such great asset management by this regime .... lol.

 

[starling]

easy, trade Condon. He's actually got value which could fetch a return. That way least you wouldn't have Hammond $$$ working for nothing; at least get some return from the contract.

Personally If I was GM, I wouldn't even have signed Hammond to a contract. Would have kept Lehner, instead of labelling and billing up & placing so much weighting on OConnor [and his future translation from College Hockey to the Nhl ]as the hier apparent to Craig Anderson automatically. And I would have kept Bishop over Anderson. At the time we traded Bishop, Andersons trade value was at its peak and we could have netted a massive return, while also maintaining two great goaltenders of the future in Bishop and Lehner who could have battled it out. Now we have a declining asset who isn't getting any younger with no hier apparent in sight. Such great asset management by this regime .... lol.

What made you think there is market for Condon? He was waived and cleared a few weeks ago.
Don't kid yourself. If Dorion didn't sign Hammond you would still be whining about this terrible asset management till this day.

 

[Xspyrit]

There's still people who don't understand how easy it is to talk in hindsight with the benefit of best case scenarios.... Gosh, how many decades will it take until they figure this out?

I have more faith in the Hamburglar than in Condon (who is ok). Waiving a decent goalie seems dumb, even if he's not quite a #1. If anybody needs waiving it's Mac (maybe some other team would like an albatross contract towards their cap?!)

Wait... Is this a serious post?

 

[ChelFan31]

There's still people who don't understand how easy it is to talk in hindsight with the benefit of best case scenarios.... Gosh, how many decades will it take until they figure this out?



Wait... Is this a serious post?

Those were my thoughts at the time, and I'm sure the thoughts of a good portion of the fanbase as well AT THE TIME. No hindsight here. Just common sense ... to trade the aging veteran and keep the young studs [ ie: Prime example this year: Steve Y choosing to keep Vashilevsky over the older Bishop]. its just common sense here, nothing world shocking yet somehow our management team isn't as astute.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

easy, trade Condon. He's actually got value which could fetch a return. That way least you wouldn't have Hammond $$$ working for nothing; at least get some return from the contract.

Personally If I was GM, I wouldn't even have signed Hammond to a contract. Would have kept Lehner, instead of labelling and billing up & placing so much weighting on OConnor [and his future translation from College Hockey to the Nhl ]as the hier apparent to Craig Anderson automatically. And I would have kept Bishop over Anderson. At the time we traded Bishop, Andersons trade value was at its peak and we could have netted a massive return, while also maintaining two great goaltenders of the future in Bishop and Lehner who could have battled it out. Now we have a declining asset who isn't getting any younger with no hier apparent in sight. Such great asset management by this regime .... lol.

From various rumblings, it's pretty obvious Lehner did not get along with various members of management and guys in the locker room. He wasn't going to stick around very long regardless of Hammond. On another note, Hammond also really clicked with the casual fans. The Sens pretty much had to give him a contract (although, yes, it was one year too many).

Just speculating on my part, but I think the big move happening now, is because of the amazing coincidences the last year and a bit where Hammond would get a mysterious injury every time the team handed him the job for an extended period of time. I get it...it's impossible to live up to that miracle run, and the two playoff games really killed his confidence...but....you still have to answer the call when it happens. I'd be willing to bet the team is wondering how much of these injuries are between the ears. It's unfortunate...Hammond is a decent backup.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Those were my thoughts at the time, and I'm sure the thoughts of a good portion of the fanbase as well AT THE TIME. No hindsight here. Just common sense ... to trade the aging veteran and keep the young studs [ ie: Prime example this year: Steve Y choosing to keep Vashilevsky over the older Bishop]. its just common sense here, nothing world shocking yet somehow our management team isn't as astute.

That's because Stevie y is in cap trouble and cannot afford Bishop. Also he can only protect 1 goalie.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

easy, trade Condon. He's actually got value which could fetch a return. That way least you wouldn't have Hammond $$$ working for nothing; at least get some return from the contract.

The entire goal is to win as many hockey games as possible and make the playoffs. If they've gone with Condon, they clearly feel he gives them a better chance to do this than Hammond. This is especially important because of Anderson's uncertain situation which means the Senators number 2 goalie might be relied on to play a greater amount of games than your average backup goalie. With this in mind, trading Condon to prevent having "Hammond $$ working for nothing" is pointless. The extra 600k the Sens spend on having Condon versus trading Condon is being spent wisely if they think it gives them a greater chance to win than relying on Hammond in an expanded role.

Personally If I was GM, I wouldn't even have signed Hammond to a contract.

No fans who were plugged in at the time thought Hammond was going to be anything more than maybe a good back up goalie, but are you really telling me you think you could get away with letting a cult hero who for a very short period of time was the Senators most popular player walk when his asking price was 3 years at backup goalie money? The Hamburglar run was the biggest thing fan engagement wise to happen to the Sens since the Cup final. Ditching Hammond would have been a PR nightmare.

Would have kept Lehner, instead of labelling and billing up & placing so much weighting on OConnor [and his future translation from College Hockey to the Nhl ]as the hier apparent to Craig Anderson automatically.

Yes, O'Connor was intended to be the goalie of the future, but there was no intention to make O'Connor the automatic heir apparent to Anderson. All the talk was that he signed with Ottawa because they intended not to rush him. He was pegged as being 2-3 years away from the NHL.

Not to mention, I don't understand how you can stress asset management so strongly and be so against the Lehner trade. Trading Lehner is one of the best examples of positive asset management in recent Senators history. By trading Lehner they were able to convince O'Connor to sign, they got the 21st overall pick (Colin White) in a very good draft, 3.5M via dumping Legwand to BUF, and kept a backup goalie/cult hero in Andrew Hammond. Look at what Brian Elliott went for after a career year, it is hard to imagine that if they went with the alternative of trading Craig Anderson they'd get anywhere near the amount of that as a return. Not to mention the stupidity of trading Anderson after he went toe to toe with the best goalie in the world Carey Price in the playoffs.

And I would have kept Bishop over Anderson. At the time we traded Bishop, Andersons trade value was at its peak and we could have netted a massive return, while also maintaining two great goaltenders of the future in Bishop and Lehner who could have battled it out. Now we have a declining asset who isn't getting any younger with no hier apparent in sight. Such great asset management by this regime .... lol.

There's no way to know that Anderson's value would have been huge at the time of the Bishop trade. From a practical standpoint, trading Anderson would have been asinine. After years of struggling to find stability in net, the Senators would have been foolish to move Anderson who was providing it. If you were genuinely telling people trading Bishop was a mistake and that he was going to be a Vezina contender you were ahead of the curve because very few people thought that at the time which is evidenced by teams like Edmonton being unwilling to meet Ottawa's very modest trade demands.

I'm not sure how you can peg Bishop as bad asset management, the Sens gave up a second for him, made good use of him for a year, then turned around and were able to get back what they paid for him (but instead chose Conacher when they could have had a second). It is a terrible trade now that we know what Bishop has become, but at the time it wasn't bad asset management. As I pointed out previously, if you think the Lehner trade was bad asset management, I don't think you know what asset management is. Trading Lehner was one of the best examples of asset management in current Sens history.

Appreciate you offering your thoughts instead of just vague grr asset management even if I don't agree with them.

 

[ChelFan31]

That's because Stevie y is in cap trouble and cannot afford Bishop. Also he can only protect 1 goalie.

your also neglecting the factor that supports my argument Vashilevskiy is 9 years younger than Bishop... don't kid yourself that's a big factor in making decisions or at least should be [cept Sens management somehow mishandled the wonderful situation they once had]