Confirmed with Link: Condon signs 3-year extension (AAV 2.4M)

Sun God Nika

Palestine <3.
Apr 22, 2013
19,861
8,246
Look around guys. The options were limited. If it isn't Condon at 2.4M X 3 years, these are the realistic alternatives:

Steve Mason: Wants more money over a longer term. Could cause a goalie controversy. Older than Condon. Wants to be a starter, not a 1A or 1B.

Jonathan Bernier: If he is even willing to sign with us. Likely a lot of suitors. More term and more money.

Chad Johnson: Much older than Condon, coming off a worse year. Might have taken one less year, but will command similar cash.

Anders Nilsson: Played 1/2 the games of Condon the last two years. Same age. Better year than Condon in a much small sample. Could be cheaper, but will have a lot of suitors, and much riskier, IMO.

Keith Kinkaid. Decent option, Same issues as Nilsson, hasn't had a starter's workload. Could be cheaper, but will have a lot of suitors. Still a lot of risk.

I think Enroth would have a been a good add, cheaper higher potential and would be the first time he plays in front of a real structured defence.
 

Larionov

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
4,394
2,085
Ottawa, ON
Look around guys. The options were limited. If it isn't Condon at 2.4M X 3 years, these are the realistic alternatives:

Steve Mason: Wants more money over a longer term. Could cause a goalie controversy. Older than Condon. Wants to be a starter, not a 1A or 1B.

Jonathan Bernier: If he is even willing to sign with us. Likely a lot of suitors. More term and more money.

Chad Johnson: Much older than Condon, coming off a worse year. Might have taken one less year, but will command similar cash.

Anders Nilsson: Played 1/2 the games of Condon the last two years. Same age. Better year than Condon in a much small sample. Could be cheaper, but will have a lot of suitors, and much riskier, IMO.

Keith Kinkaid. Decent option, Same issues as Nilsson, hasn't had a starter's workload. Could be cheaper, but will have a lot of suitors. Still a lot of risk.

Solid post.:handclap: I had originally thought that there would be a glut of possible backups out there, but when you break it down more closely as you have the quality is questionable.

It's also worth noting that we aren't just signing a 10-15 game backup here. As others have noted, our starter has missed significant time every year he has been here. That's not a slam on Andy, but rather just a cold fact. Condon has proven that he can handle a heavier workload on short notice quite easily, and the same cannot be said for the rest of the goalies on that list. Therefore, Dorion sucked it up and overpaid a bit in order to lock that position down and get it off his to-do list...
 

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
25,658
13,243
If Condon had another team interested enough in him to offer a similar deal and it was a match it or Condon walks type scenario, would you prefer the Senators release him or proceed with signing this contract?

Good question.

If Condon walking means we go into the season with 36YR old Andy and Hamburglar goalie tandem, I'll give Condon that contract any day of the week, as I think it could very easily be the difference between making and missing the playoffs. Still doesn't make it a good contract though.

Look around guys. The options were limited. If it isn't Condon at 2.4M X 3 years, these are the realistic alternatives:

Steve Mason: Wants more money over a longer term. Could cause a goalie controversy. Older than Condon. Wants to be a starter, not a 1A or 1B.

Jonathan Bernier: If he is even willing to sign with us. Likely a lot of suitors. More term and more money.

Chad Johnson: Much older than Condon, coming off a worse year. Might have taken one less year, but will command similar cash.

Anders Nilsson: Played 1/2 the games of Condon the last two years. Same age. Better year than Condon in a much small sample. Could be cheaper, but will have a lot of suitors, and much riskier, IMO.

Keith Kinkaid. Decent option, Same issues as Nilsson, hasn't had a starter's workload. Could be cheaper, but will have a lot of suitors. Still a lot of risk.

These are just UFA options. I think the best option was to buy-low on Mrazek. Would have cost a pick/prospect, but probably could have got the Wings to take on Hammond to even out salary. Grubauer is another promising young goalie that could also be available. Just speculation though.

Goalie options are limited, but so are destinations. Only teams out there that need a 1A or 1B goalie are Philly, Winnipeg, us, and maybe Vancouver?

Philly might have Bernier locked up already
Winnipeg is looking for an established guy in Mason or Elliott to split starts with Hellebuyck
Vancouver has Markstrom, but Miller looks like he's off to Anaheim so they might be in the market for a guy like Mason/Mrazek

The only choices I see that would have been better for this team than Condon were Mason and Mrazek. Could see those guys performing well in the #1 role should Andy regress due to old age or have another more serious accident making chicken. Condon seems like more of a good backup to me that a legitimate #1 goalie in the making. I'm not all that confident in an Anderson-Condon tandem, and it's going to cost this team 4.8M in salary and 6.6M in cap space this season.
 

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,471
9,001
Good question.

If Condon walking means we go into the season with 36YR old Andy and Hamburglar goalie tandem, I'll give Condon that contract any day of the week, as I think it could very easily be the difference between making and missing the playoffs. Still doesn't make it a good contract though.

These are just UFA options. I think the best option was to buy-low on Mrazek. Would have cost a pick/prospect, but probably could have got the Wings to take on Hammond to even out salary. Grubauer is another promising young goalie that could also be available. Just speculation though.

Goalie options are limited, but so are destinations. Only teams out there that need a 1A or 1B goalie are Philly, Winnipeg, us, and maybe Vancouver?

Philly might have Bernier locked up already
Winnipeg is looking for an established guy in Mason or Elliott to split starts with Hellebuyck
Vancouver has Markstrom, but Miller looks like he's off to Anaheim so they might be in the market for a guy like Mason/Mrazek

The only choices I see that would have been better for this team than Condon were Mason and Mrazek. Could see those guys performing well in the #1 role should Andy regress due to old age or have another more serious accident making chicken. Condon seems like more of a good backup to me that a legitimate #1 goalie in the making. I'm not all that confident in an Anderson-Condon tandem, and it's going to cost this team 4.8M in salary and 6.6M in cap space this season.

Mason has had numerous opportunities with Philly even when they had a decent team & has never been able to carry them. Signing him would have been okay as a backup although he might have cost a lot more than Condon but it would be after Andy leaves that would become the problem & Ottawa would still be looking for a #1. I just don't see Mason carrying a good team to a SCF, while he may be a #1 on a weaker team I don't see him carrying a team to a cup.

The same can be said about Mzarek. While most teams are going with bigger goalies who take up a lot more space, Mzarek is a small goalie who depends on athleticism more. He has only had one good season that I can remember when Howard first got hurt but has not been able to carry the team. I don't think he is a #1 either over a long stretch of games. Condon may not be either but he is a decent backup we know that & he is relatively cheap this yr. Andy probably has at least another yr or two & Hogberg should be NHL ready at that point to back up Condon or Ottawa will need to look around for a #1 then. It might be too early to make a deal for Andy's replacement now since he still thinks he can still play & just came off a pretty good playoff run & I doubt anyone is really comfortable trading him at this point. I assume now that Hammond gets bought out if they can't find someone to take that contract.
 

Cheapseats

Cigars N F-Bombs
Mar 2, 2004
1,068
139
If he plays as well as I think he will we'll have no problem dealing him to Boston should the 3rd year be a problem. Him and Anderson get along well and thats worth extra. Im just glad to see things going better between the pipes than it is on the blue line. Great extension. Now PD needs to make some deals and get us a real center. Defensive will be fine. Everyone talking like we just lost a young Ray Bourque.
 

gonnaneedsomewine

Registered User
Jun 19, 2010
593
0
Thought a Condon extension should've been more in line with what Kinkaid got in New Jersey. 2 years, $2.5M ($1.25 AAV).

Thought a 2 year, $3M ($1.5M AAV) is what Condon should be offered. If other teams were coming at him with higher numbers, thank him for his service and move along to other comparable UFA's. These type of goalies are a dime a dozen.

I don't see Condon as a starting caliber goalie or even a 1B goalie, so the notion of him growing into the starting role as Andy fades is unappealing to me. I'd understand the move much more if our backup was a young guy like Jon Gillies - early twenties, people still high on his potential to develop into a starter in this league - and you wanted to pay him a little extra on a bridge deal to lock him and keep him happy as Andy ages and he continues to develop.
 

Langdon Alger

Registered User
Apr 19, 2006
24,777
12,912
Thought a Condon extension should've been more in line with what Kinkaid got in New Jersey. 2 years, $2.5M ($1.25 AAV).

Thought a 2 year, $3M ($1.5M AAV) is what Condon should be offered. If other teams were coming at him with higher numbers, thank him for his service and move along to other comparable UFA's. These type of goalies are a dime a dozen.

I don't see Condon as a starting caliber goalie or even a 1B goalie, so the notion of him growing into the starting role as Andy fades is unappealing to me. I'd understand the move much more if our backup was a young guy like Jon Gillies - early twenties, people still high on his potential to develop into a starter in this league - and you wanted to pay him a little extra on a bridge deal to lock him and keep him happy as Andy ages and he continues to develop.

Kinkaid didn't assume the starters role in New Jersey and lead them to the playoffs. Condon was going to get a pretty good deal here or somewhere else. I think the money is too high, and I would have preferred 2 years, but I'm not shocked at what he got. I hope he starts 25-30 games next season.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
I think it comes down to any guy you could sign for 800k to 1.5 mil doesn't typically have starter potential, and the Sens feel as though Condon might have starter potential. If he never becomes a starter, or at the very least, an excellent backup, the deal is overpayment, but if he ends up becoming Anderson's replacement as the team's starter, that's a solid deal.
 

Langdon Alger

Registered User
Apr 19, 2006
24,777
12,912
I think it comes down to any guy you could sign for 800k to 1.5 mil doesn't typically have starter potential, and the Sens feel as though Condon might have starter potential. If he never becomes a starter, or at the very least, an excellent backup, the deal is overpayment, but if he ends up becoming Anderson's replacement as the team's starter, that's a solid deal.

Andy has been injury prone since he's been here, so if that happens again, at least we have a backup who is used to playing a lot. If Andy got hurt for a while and we had to go with Hammond, we'd be entering a world of pain.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
Thought a Condon extension should've been more in line with what Kinkaid got in New Jersey. 2 years, $2.5M ($1.25 AAV).

Thought a 2 year, $3M ($1.5M AAV) is what Condon should be offered. If other teams were coming at him with higher numbers, thank him for his service and move along to other comparable UFA's. These type of goalies are a dime a dozen.

I don't see Condon as a starting caliber goalie or even a 1B goalie, so the notion of him growing into the starting role as Andy fades is unappealing to me. I'd understand the move much more if our backup was a young guy like Jon Gillies - early twenties, people still high on his potential to develop into a starter in this league - and you wanted to pay him a little extra on a bridge deal to lock him and keep him happy as Andy ages and he continues to develop.

The Senators clearly see Condon as starting goalie material if they gave him this deal.

I agree that a more "fair" contract or what I would have expected would have been something in the 1.5M-1.75M range over two years, but teams could talk to free agents since last Sunday and it's entirely plausible a different team drove up the price. If that is the case, the Senators would be morons if they walked away.

Let's lay out the situation, Craig Anderson will be 37 at the end of this season. The Senators don't have anybody in the pipeline who will be ready to start at that time. It's plausible that they see Condon as an NHL starter. Maybe they don't see him as a top 10 starter, but his play last year suggested he can be a solid middle of the road stop gap for us. Why would we walk away from him when he is willing to sign for backup money this year, and then very low money in year's 2 and 3. For reference, even in his more expensive years of this contract he is not likely to crack the top 30 paid goalies list.

On the topic of Keith Kinkaid, his numbers are similar to Mike Condon last year but there are two big factors.

1) He didn't play as many games as Condon.

2) He got choice games as a backup. Because of rest+easier opponents, backups tend to have better numbers than starters. Not to mention Condon played something like 25 straight games which likely deflated his numbers.

3) Teams throughout the league may not have perceived Kinkaid to be a potential starter. We know about a dozen teams were in on Condon. At least one or two might have pegged him as a starter or future starter like we must have.
 

gonnaneedsomewine

Registered User
Jun 19, 2010
593
0
Kinkaid didn't assume the starters role in New Jersey and lead them to the playoffs. Condon was going to get a pretty good deal here or somewhere else. I think the money is too high, and I would have preferred 2 years, but I'm not shocked at what he got. I hope he starts 25-30 games next season.

My general feeling is a guy like Kinkaid or someone of a similar caliber to him could've come here and done the same thing Condon did for us. I didn't think what Condon did was anything extraordinary. Condon was solid but unspectacular, and was insulated by a coach and system that preaches shot suppression. Kinkaid was on one of the worst teams in the league and still had essentially the same SV % as Condon. I'm pretty confident a guy like Kinkaid could have come in and replicate what Condon gave us, especially given the system we play. It's like how all the backup goalies on the LA Kings post good numbers and seem to hold the fort down admirably behind Quick, but then go to other teams and see a huge drop off in performance (Enroth, Scrivens, Budaj, Bernier). And no I don't see Condon as the Martin Jones type of backup that emerges into a good starter. He's much more in line with the other guys I mentioned, Just my honest opinion.

I think it comes down to any guy you could sign for 800k to 1.5 mil doesn't typically have starter potential, and the Sens feel as though Condon might have starter potential. If he never becomes a starter, or at the very least, an excellent backup, the deal is overpayment, but if he ends up becoming Anderson's replacement as the team's starter, that's a solid deal.

Basically exactly how I feel about the deal. I just disagree with the Sens on the starting potential of Condon, so I see the deal ending up as an overpayment. I think his ceiling is a solid backup goalie. I don't even particularly see him as a 1B type of goalie.

The Senators clearly see Condon as starting goalie material if they gave him this deal.

I agree that a more "fair" contract or what I would have expected would have been something in the 1.5M-1.75M range over two years, but teams could talk to free agents since last Sunday and it's entirely plausible a different team drove up the price. If that is the case, the Senators would be morons if they walked away.

Let's lay out the situation, Craig Anderson will be 37 at the end of this season. The Senators don't have anybody in the pipeline who will be ready to start at that time. It's plausible that they see Condon as an NHL starter. Maybe they don't see him as a top 10 starter, but his play last year suggested he can be a solid middle of the road stop gap for us. Why would we walk away from him when he is willing to sign for backup money this year, and then very low money in year's 2 and 3. For reference, even in his more expensive years of this contract he is not likely to crack the top 30 paid goalies list.

On the topic of Keith Kinkaid, his numbers are similar to Mike Condon last year but there are two big factors.

1) He didn't play as many games as Condon.

2) He got choice games as a backup. Because of rest+easier opponents, backups tend to have better numbers than starters. Not to mention Condon played something like 25 straight games which likely deflated his numbers.

3) Teams throughout the league may not have perceived Kinkaid to be a potential starter. We know about a dozen teams were in on Condon. At least one or two might have pegged him as a starter or future starter like we must have.

I don't dislike the player, I dislike the contract. Condon did a solid job for the Sens, but I do not agree with the notion that he has starting potential, hence I think the deal is an overpayment.

I agree that the Sens need to start zeroing in on Anderson's successor. I just don't see Condon as the answer. To me he is a solid backup, nothing more. He's not a 23 year old who is going to continue to grow and develop - what you see is basically what you get at this point.

I'm pretty confident a guy like Kinkaid or Nilsson or Chad Johnson etc could have come in and done the same Condon did while providing similar value going forward at a more reasonable cost.

I was using Kinkaid as an example because he signed today. I think you leave out an important factor when discussing his numbers though - he was on a far worse team that gave up the sixth most goals in the NHL with a wretched D-corps and still posted similar SV %. Condon was insulated by a team whose approach is clearly rooted in defense first, shot suppression, etc and had a far better D corps.

With the way the Senators emphasize D under Boucher, It's like how all the backup goalies on the LA Kings post good numbers and seem to hold the fort down admirably behind Quick, but then go to other teams and see a huge drop off in performance (Enroth, Scrivens, Budaj, Bernier). And no I don't see Condon as the Martin Jones type of backup that emerges into a good starter. He's much more in line with the other guys I mentioned, Just my honest opinion.
 

jason2020

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
5,596
1
gonnaneedsomewine

Chad Johnson is likely going to get a 3 year deal with Buffalo at around 1.9 per now the question could he handle being the starter for long periods like Condon.
 

jason2020

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
5,596
1
Thought a Condon extension should've been more in line with what Kinkaid got in New Jersey. 2 years, $2.5M ($1.25 AAV).

Thought a 2 year, $3M ($1.5M AAV) is what Condon should be offered. If other teams were coming at him with higher numbers, thank him for his service and move along to other comparable UFA's. These type of goalies are a dime a dozen.

I don't see Condon as a starting caliber goalie or even a 1B goalie, so the notion of him growing into the starting role as Andy fades is unappealing to me. I'd understand the move much more if our backup was a young guy like Jon Gillies - early twenties, people still high on his potential to develop into a starter in this league - and you wanted to pay him a little extra on a bridge deal to lock him and keep him happy as Andy ages and he continues to develop.

Thing is there not a dime a dozen you would be hard pressed to find a back up that can play 30-40 games.
 

gonnaneedsomewine

Registered User
Jun 19, 2010
593
0
Thing is there not a dime a dozen you would be hard pressed to find a back up that can play 30-40 games.

gonnaneedsomewine

Chad Johnson is likely going to get a 3 year deal with Buffalo at around 1.9 per now the question could he handle being the starter for long periods like Condon.

I just think Condon's performance last year is being romanticized based on the way the season turned out. He did a solid job, but nothing extraordinary, and played behind a very structured and defensive minded team. He has been a fringe NHLer his whole career, I don't expect him to all of a sudden develop into a starting caliber goalie at age 27-28. He's a solid backup to me, nothing more nothing less, and his contract should resemble that.

Chad Johnson has played 30-40 games the past two seasons at a relatively effective level that is comparable to what Condon did this past season. Plus Johnson has always been a solid backup. So I'm confident he could replicate what Condon gave us and will give us going forward. I actually think Johnson is a better goalie than Condon, so if the Sabres are getting him at $1.9M AAV, then it just further reinforces my belief that we overpaid for Condon.

Let's see what some of these goalie deals start coming in at over the next few days. I have no problem with the team paying a little more for a "super backup" with starting potential who may play up to 40 games and eventually take over for Andy.

Problem is, I don't see Condon as that type of guy. Quite honestly, I don't see much difference between the talent level and potential of guys like Condon, Johnson, Kinkaid, etc. - I think they're all just standard backups.
 

jason2020

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
5,596
1
I just think Condon's performance last year is being romanticized based on the way the season turned out. He did a solid job, but nothing extraordinary, and played behind a very structured and defensive minded team. He has been a fringe NHLer his whole career, I don't expect him to all of a sudden develop into a starting caliber goalie at age 27-28. He's a solid backup to me, nothing more nothing less, and his contract should resemble that.

Chad Johnson has played 30-40 games the past two seasons at a relatively effective level that is comparable to what Condon did this past season. Plus Johnson has always been a solid backup. So I'm confident he could replicate what Condon gave us and will give us going forward. I actually think Johnson is a better goalie than Condon, so if the Sabres are getting him at $1.9M AAV, then it just further reinforces my belief that we overpaid for Condon.

Let's see what some of these goalie deals start coming in at over the next few days. I have no problem with the team paying a little more for a "super backup" with starting potential who may play up to 40 games and eventually take over for Andy.

Problem is, I don't see Condon as that type of guy. Quite honestly, I don't see much difference between the talent level and potential of guys like Condon, Johnson, Kinkaid, etc. - I think they're all just standard backups.

Condon is the upper tier there is a reason 100 teams were interested in him and 1 in Chad.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->