Real Smart Sens Fan
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2014
- 4,760
- 4
Waived: Andrew Hammond Nov 19 | Cleared
- Thread starter Rand0m
- Start date
Hockey is a shrewd business. As a GM you can't allow that type of stuff to factor into your decision making. It might be an unpopular opinion, but as a GM its your fiduciary responsibility to ice the best team possible. If that includes not caving in and catering to some popular opinions and player demands, then so be it.
This is a cutthroat business, and Sens management can't keep operating this Hockey Team like the mom and pop shop or this 'exclusive country club' . Its ridiculous.
How many PR nightmares has this team incurred to itself. This would have been a small drop in the bucket compared to Melnyk antics.
Yeah i have to agree that signing Bishop as a rental was great management. But my memory of that time was many fans calling him 5-hole benny. With Andy and Benny both ready for a #1 role, Anderson seems to have proven he was the right choice as the best netminder we've had, and still going strong beating back rookie challengers while on a great contract. Hard to believe that Bishop is a $2mil better use of cap space.
Hammond's great story got a short contract, and now even though we have him signed, we waived him and got someone else. Something many complain that poor old us never get to do like the rich teams.
Hammond's great story got a short contract, and now even though we have him signed, we waived him and got someone else. Something many complain that poor old us never get to do like the rich teams.
danielpalfredsson
youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
- Aug 14, 2013
- 16,575
- 9,269
It is a business. The goal is to engage fans and make as much money as possible. The risks of completely turning off fans who got more into the team than they had in years as a result of a run they all (wrongly but that doesn't matter) attributed to Andrew Hammond by letting Hammond go would not be worth whatever reward you attribute to not signing him to that 3 year deal.
I say this considering that Hammond had NOTHING to do with Lehner being traded. His only part of the trade was that he prevented Ottawa from having to look outside the organization for their number 2 goalie, but even without Hammond's emergence, the writing was on the wall for Lehner. The entire rationale for trading Lehner was that he was never going to get the starts he needed to develop being stuck behind Anderson who was still going strong. Having or not Hammond doesn't relate to that that.
I suspect that the team was unsuccessful in trying to trade him, so they put him on waivers with the hope that some team would take him in order to unload his salary. They appear to value Condon more highly and Condon has a lower contract value too. I do not view this as poor asset management. Signing Hammond was a cost saving move over Lehner's contract value, plus it allowed the team to trade Lehner for an asset they valued more: a first round draft pick. I have no problem with all of these moves.
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 65,348
- 50,011
Murray Pam @PammerHockey was saying Sens would still be on the hook for Hammond NHL salary even if he was loaned out to another AHL team. No liquidity relief in terms of $$$ ... still against out internal budget.
DrEasy
Out rumptackling
My assessment of our goalie decisions:
- Trade for Anderson: possibly missed out on a better 1st round pick by not tanking further, but maybe he doesn't sign here as a FA if he doesn't get to know the team and the city first.
- Bishop for a 2nd: great deal!
- Bishop for Conacher: keeping Anderson and Lehner over Bishop, especially given Bishop's contract situation, was the right decision at the time IMO. The only problem with the deal was the return, which didn't look that bad at the time (I remember Conacher playing really well against us in Tampa) but is looking awful now in hindsight. But not sure what else we could have obtained for him.
- Hammond over Lehner: I was 100% behind this move. Remember how Lehner was playing before his injury. He was horrible. Then Hammond comes in and we can't lose a game. Doesn't mean Hammond is an all-star, but maybe points out something happening with Lehner. Trading Lehner gave us assets back and got us rid of Legwand. Hammond as a FA signing gave us a backup goalie that ideally doesn't get to play much, is good PR, and is a lottery ticket that can also maybe get traded for assets if he really does pan out.
- O'Connor: another good lottery ticket decision. If he pans out he makes Hammond tradable (more assets!) and hopefully provides a long term solution after Anderson.
- Condon: great and necessary pick up given the situation. Adds some much needed depth. Cheaper and probably better than Hammond.
All of Anderson, Bishop and Lehner have turned out to be NHL-caliber goalies, and am perfectly happy that Anderson is the one we have. The return for Bishop could have been better, but that's about the only criticism I have about how goalies have been handled, and then again it's hard to condemn the trade without knowing what else could have been obtained.
- Trade for Anderson: possibly missed out on a better 1st round pick by not tanking further, but maybe he doesn't sign here as a FA if he doesn't get to know the team and the city first.
- Bishop for a 2nd: great deal!
- Bishop for Conacher: keeping Anderson and Lehner over Bishop, especially given Bishop's contract situation, was the right decision at the time IMO. The only problem with the deal was the return, which didn't look that bad at the time (I remember Conacher playing really well against us in Tampa) but is looking awful now in hindsight. But not sure what else we could have obtained for him.
- Hammond over Lehner: I was 100% behind this move. Remember how Lehner was playing before his injury. He was horrible. Then Hammond comes in and we can't lose a game. Doesn't mean Hammond is an all-star, but maybe points out something happening with Lehner. Trading Lehner gave us assets back and got us rid of Legwand. Hammond as a FA signing gave us a backup goalie that ideally doesn't get to play much, is good PR, and is a lottery ticket that can also maybe get traded for assets if he really does pan out.
- O'Connor: another good lottery ticket decision. If he pans out he makes Hammond tradable (more assets!) and hopefully provides a long term solution after Anderson.
- Condon: great and necessary pick up given the situation. Adds some much needed depth. Cheaper and probably better than Hammond.
All of Anderson, Bishop and Lehner have turned out to be NHL-caliber goalies, and am perfectly happy that Anderson is the one we have. The return for Bishop could have been better, but that's about the only criticism I have about how goalies have been handled, and then again it's hard to condemn the trade without knowing what else could have been obtained.
Truth be told, I'm glad Hammond is gone.
Now more and more people can realise that he's not that good...
Now more and more people can realise that he's not that good...
YouGotAStuGoing
Registered User
Could not agree more with this post, especially the point about the Bishop trade. It was viewed fairly favourably at the time – Conacher was tearing it up, and if memory serves the only other serious offer was a 3rd rounder and no player. That deal is only bad with the power of hindsight. I remember being upset because Bish was, and still is, one of my favourite players in the league. But the incessant hand-wringing over that decision is so frustrating.
To the Hammond point, letting him go after the miracle run would definitely have been PR suicide. Similarly, now that he's had the opportunity to replicate the run and hasn't been able to, we lose nothing in sending him back down and keeping up Condon, who very well may be catching lightning in a bottle.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 53,842
- 31,052
At the time of the trade, there were questions of whether Conacher's production was the result of him being on Stamkos' line early in the season, and doubts as to whether he could produce away from him.
Edmonton was apparently offering Jones, and a pick or something, but balked at the Sens demand for a higher pick, and there's also some speculation that Couturier was on the table (I think that was the Bishop deal), but was pulled off last minute.
I wouldn't be shocked if we could have gotten a late 1st or early 2nd for Bishop. There really isn't a lot of quality in that range from the 2013 draft; maybe we'd have gotten Shea Theodore, or Dano had we gone the draft pick route, but the majority of the picks around there have negligible NHL impact so far, and while some might turn out, I don't thing their are any budding superstars, which is probably why Dorion is rumoured to have convinced Murray to take a chance on Conacher instead of a pick.
ZekeA
The Pride is Back...
Icelevel
During these difficult times...
- Sep 9, 2009
- 24,818
- 5,021
Zorf
Apparently I'm entitled?
- Jan 4, 2008
- 4,946
- 1,566
I feel like this post right here is exactly why you should not base everything off statistics.
Because you basically just said the Sens waived the 2nd best goalie in the league.
And you're neglecting the factor that they might lose Bishop for literally nothing
How?
Steve Yzerman is one of the best GMs in the NHL. You're kidding yourself if you think they won't trade him instead of losing him for nothing. There are plenty of teams looking to add a good goalie right now. They'll get fair value for Bishop from a team looking to make a run for ex Dallas.
Caeldan
Whippet Whisperer
- Jun 21, 2008
- 15,459
- 1,046
Yeah, so in the past 2 seasons you're comparing a goalie 26 games and one who has had played 24 games.
Against ones who have 60 plus.
Also, you take away the first five or so games he played and his numbers are pretty sub-standard.
danielpalfredsson
youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
- Aug 14, 2013
- 16,575
- 9,269
If I had to bet, I'd say he keeps Bishop. They tried to trade him to CGY in the summer, but you have to imagine part of that was motivated by shedding his cap hit and getting everybody signed. They no longer have to worry about that issue, so a lot of the motivation for trading Bishop right now might be gone.
TB consider themselves cup contenders. The value of having Bishop going into the playoffs one last time, and the insurance policy of having two starting calibre goalies has a lot of practical value. Contenders don't always trade away UFAs for the same reason that contenders give up assets to "rent" UFAs.
Not to mention, Bishop has value as a chip in the expansion draft. Vegas can negotiate a contract with Bishop if they choose to and if he is willing to play there. Vegas selecting Bishop means TB technically loses nobody int he draft since they weren't going to re-sign Bishop.
Yzerman is a winner and an extremely shrewd guy it seems like. I can't think of too many trades he's made where he's come out on the losing end (maybe he has?) and it was pretty crazy how he stuck to his guns and made the Drouin situation work out for the best. He's had to deal with a couple of pretty high-pressure situations with players and he hasn't even been a GM for that long. If he lets go of Bishop to Vegas, I think he would have had his reasons for doing so and it would be a risk he was willing to take
Caeldan
Whippet Whisperer
- Jun 21, 2008
- 15,459
- 1,046
Well looking at TBs expansion situation, they're going to be forced to do something like expose Namestnikov or Drouin, so dangling Bishop out there unprotected would be a way to protect one of their young big name forwards (unless Callahan or Filpulla waive their nmcs).
That said, I totally had forgot about Bishop's contract status when we traded him. I believe he was due to be RFA Group VI (so basically ufa) unless he played enough games that season, which wasn't guaranteed depending on Anderson's play.
So that also contributed to trading him as well.
So, really not much choice unless you force the coach to play Bishop enough times to qualify him and send Lehner to the AHL despite his pouting.
tony d
Registered User
Getting Condon was good for the team for sure. Wonder if we would expose Hammond in the expansion draft?
