Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 53,863
- 31,086
I severely doubt he walks if we offer him that.
That contract would set him for life. 2 mil guaranteed and free hamburgers for the rest of his life is a pretty sweet deal for ~25 games.
I severely doubt he walks if we offer him that.
That contract would set him for life. 2 mil guaranteed and free hamburgers for the rest of his life is a pretty sweet deal for ~25 games.
Wouldn't it make more logical sense to get rid of Hammond? His value has never been higher than it is now and he's never going to be this successful in his NHL career again. His potential is a career NHL backup goalie and nothing more imo. We might be able to get atleast a couple of more draft picks with letting him go
You trade Hammond, send O'Connor down to the AHL and roll with Anderson/Lehner again. There's no doubt that Lehner had an off year but to be honest we've been absolutely awful defensively in front of Anderson/Lehner at times over the past few seasons
Check on the status of Anderson/Lehner in 2 years time and make a decision then
playoffs proved that you need a very strong #1 goalieThe playoffs proved that Hammond can lose and lose big.
The playoffs proved that Hammond can lose and lose big.
2 years is still risky, what if he regresses back to AHL **** next year, yes its still only 1 mill being wasted but on a budget team where every mill counts....
It was his first ever playoff game and it was at the bell center, which is a hard arena to play in if you are a rookie playing your first playoff game ever.
Regardless of the point you are arguing here, I'd just like to point out that a 3.5 GAA and 7 goals on 81 shots (1 goal every 11.6 shots) is pretty awful. That's like... Tokarski bad. I'm not saying Lehner would have fared better or anything like that, but he crumbled, and you shouldn't downplay it.
Hammond was playing in his first game in the playoffs in his career at the Bell Centre + His teammates were not playing very well in front of him = recipe for disaster... It seems a little short-sighted to think it was completely his fault and that he won't be a very good goalie in the NHL anymore... the guy deserves to be on this team, for a reasonable contract of course.
The playoffs proved that Hammond can lose and lose big.
Regardless of the point you are arguing here, I'd just like to point out that a 3.5 GAA and 7 goals on 81 shots (1 goal every 11.6 shots) is pretty awful. That's like... Tokarski bad. I'm not saying Lehner would have fared better or anything like that, but he crumbled, and you shouldn't downplay it.
That contract would set him for life. 2 mil guaranteed and free hamburgers for the rest of his life is a pretty sweet deal for ~25 games.
And the fact you think that Hammond is going to be great again next season also doesn't equate to the facts. Montreal showed that some background work through video, etc can expose Hammond and the deficiencies in his game. Team's aren't going to be surprised by Hammond anymore. They gave a whole off season of video to look at to break his game down and take it from there.
How sure are you that Hammond is going to be great again next season? It's a real possibility he loses the magic he had this season. Montreal exposed him in the playoffs and theres no doubt other teams can do the same