Friedman: Sens testing market on Andrew Hammond (UPDATE: On Waivers, Nov. 19)

[KingCanadain1976]

David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod 5m5 minutes ago
My understanding: Kings explored Hammond briefly via trade. Could make work if maneuver cap, but unlikely. With that, I'm off to NJ/LA game

 

[edguy]

At Hammonds 1.2Mil caphit. Its unlikely he gets claimed. Only doing Ottawa a favor if they do really.

 

[Agent Zub]

Why the **** did we let Lehner go.

 

[Booba]

Why the **** did we let Lehner go.

Easy to say in hindsight!

Hammond just had his amazing stretch, Anderson was coming off from a strong season and Ottawa had just signed Matt O'Connor who, according to many, had the potential to play immediately in the NHL.

If one goaltender among Condon, Driedger or O'Connor pans out, Lehner for a 1st round pick (Ottawa) could turn to be a great trade for the Sens.

 

[backburner]

i could see flyers claiming as a backup while neuvitth is hurt

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.....From Hammond's side of things, not being a "team player" and forcing the Sens to either deal him or put him on waivers could end up paying off as a smart choice if he is claimed. Had he agreed to go on a conditioning stint, the Sens would have been able to buy time, and ultimately he'd be stuck in a 3 goalie carousel.

If he's a realistic guy, it is pretty obvious that his time in Ottawa might be up with Condon coming in and playing well so far, so forcing a change of scenery sooner rather than later would be beneficial.

There are only 30 backup jobs in the entire league, and there are probably more than 30 goalies in the world who can do an adequate job of being an NHL backup goalie. Getting one of those spots is a lot of the time about being in the right place at the right time, and keeping your foot in the door once it is in there. Let's say he accepts the conditioning stint, a lot of the teams needing goalies right now likely move on from their situations, he toils around as Ottawa's third goalie for the rest of the year, gets bought out and loses 400k that he'll never get back, and then is out of the league for good. He forces waivers, if someone picks him up who needs a short term solution, he gets a chance to play in a fresh situation and possibly improve his situation the same way that Condon did when he came in and stole Hammond's job.

Would I be happy as a Sens fan if we lose Hammond for almost nothing to waivers (Don't the Sens get 50k in cash if he gets claimed lolmelnyk?) rather than dealing him for a pick? No. But I can understand in his situation why he would play things this way.

Although, it could just be that he is a lazy guy who doesn't want to ride the busses anymore, understands he lucked into getting 4 million dollars to retire on, and is just trying to coast his way through the rest of his contract knowing he isn't good enough to be a starter. WHO KNOWS.

 

[Moskau]

Why the **** did we let Lehner go.

You got good value for him at least. At least you didn't give Ben Bishop away.

Oh...

 

[Caeldan]

Why the **** did we let Lehner go.

So we could sign O'Connor and because the entire team was fed up with his antics? (ie tossing his defense under the bus on every goal against)

Plus we got a good return on Lehner. And it's not like Lehner's suddenly a superstar in Buffalo either, he'd still be the backup here. And still be pouting about it all.

 

[VanJack]

The 'Hambuglar" was a nice story for three months, but is he even an NHL-level goaltender anymore?.....doubt even the Kings would be interested.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Why the **** did we let Lehner go.

Letting Lehner go had nothing to do with Andrew Hammond. It had more to do with the team feeling that Anderson still could be good throughout the rest of his contract and having Matt O'Connor, who at the time was supposed to be a great goalie prospect fall into their lap.

They had to move one of Lehner or Anderson sooner or later because Lehner was never going to develop sitting on the bench behind Anderson. Lehner had a lot of value, and the Sens in turn got the 21st pick in a very deep draft.

Hammond's relation to the deal is that he allowed Ottawa to get a number 2 goalie internally and not have to trade for one or sign a free agent. If you think it was ever Lehner VS Hammond you either weren't following the team at the time or are being intellectually dishonest to try and paint the "oh great the Sens are waiving the guy they chose instead of Lehner" narrative which is false.

I liked Lehner. He had a classic personality which as a fan is something fun to see in a goalie. But the Sens made the right move. Anderson has been as good or better than Lehner would have been over the last few years behind the Senators, and there were some very high value prospects available at 21. Plus they got to dump 3.5M which allowed them to keep more players (budget), and Anderson likely would not have commanded the 21st overall pick because getting a pick that high was mostly a consequence of Tim Murray being familiar and very high on Lehner. (Not painting this as a bad trade, I have defended the trade for BUF from day 1 as a good move. Good move for both sides.)

 

[Langdon Alger]

Not really hindsight so much as good asset management.

Buy low sell high.

Sell high on Bishop? How many games had he played at that point? Look, trading Anderson in 2013 would have made no sense. You want to go with Bishop and Lehner? Two young, unproven guys? Ottawa had been looking for a solid number one for many years and finally found it in Anderson. Why would they trade him then?

Now, if you want to argue they should have traded Lehner instead of Bishop, ok, but at the time Lehner was seen as the heir apparent to Anderson.

Also, we were t the only team to give up on Bishop. Don't you think St. Louis would like a do over on that one?

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Can't they just expose Fucale?

Nope, as he's currently on his 2nd pro year. Same for Lindgren.

They can expose Fucale.

He doesn't have to be, as he's exempted, but the Canadiens have the option of making him available.

 

[LowSodium]

Wow I didn't realize they gave him a 3 year contract lmao. 4M earned for 24 good games.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Wow I didn't realize they gave him a 3 year contract lmao. 4M earned for 24 good games.

He was a UFA and was a cult hero in Ottawa after that run. It was one of the most positive things to happen to the Sens in YEARS and fans were extremely engaged. Unless he was asking for absurd money, like 4M per, the Sens didn't have an excuse to just let him walk in free agency.

Anybody watching the Sens at the time who wasn't drunk on emotion knew that there was more than just Hammond that contributed to that run. He was the catalyst in the initial West Coast road trip, but after that, almost everybody was firing on all cylinders and the team was at a completely different level. But the majority of the fans who aren't hardcores taking the time to discuss the team on an outdated message board wouldn't have seen it that way so not re-signing Hammond would have been an unimaginable marketing mistake. They got away with giving him slightly high backup goalie money with a lot of term.

It is hard to gauge Hammond because he has been injured a lot, but as a whole his numbers in the NHL post run aren't bad for a backup goalie. I don't think he is long for he league, but with a change of scenery and a chance to play some extended time without getting hurt he might be a decent backup goalie for someone else.

 

[LowSodium]

But the majority of the fans who aren't hardcores taking the time to discuss the team on an outdated message board wouldn't have seen it that way so not re-signing Hammond would have been an unimaginable marketing mistake. They got away with giving him slightly high backup goalie money with a lot of term.

Serious question because I don't follow Ottawa enough to know, do you think he earned the Sens 4m in revenue?

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Serious question because I don't follow Ottawa enough to know, do you think he earned the Sens 4m in revenue?

They probably don't get to the playoffs with Driedger or Greenham in those early games instead of Hammond. I don't think you can simplify things to say one player was solely responsible, but Melnyk doesn't get those 3 playoff gates if Hammond doesn't come out of the gate in the west coast road trip and steal Ottawa a few games to get the ball rolling. Not to mention, the Sens probably sold a lot more tickets/merch/hot dogs down the stretch as a result of how big of a deal that run was compared to what they would have sold if they were deemed dead in the water with 20 games to go.

But my main point is that you can't just have your fans get engaged in the team and have something overtake them to a level not seen since the Sens were a contender, and then slap them in the face by not extending the guy who they see as responsible for it. This is why he got the extension that he did, and ultimately I think the Sens got off pretty easy since he was a UFA. He has proven to be an alright backup goalie since then but injuries have derailed him.

 

[nhlfan9191]

The 'Hambuglar" was a nice story for three months, but is he even an NHL-level goaltender anymore?.....doubt even the Kings would be interested.

It wasn't even 2 months. Flash in the pan. Fact he wasn't going to report is a joke. He had his 5 minutes of fame.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

It wasn't even 2 months. Flash in the pan. Fact he wasn't going to report is a joke. He had his 5 minutes of fame.

Where/When was it reported that Hammond won't report to Binghamton? Did that just happen tonight?

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Sell high on Bishop? How many games had he played at that point? Look, trading Anderson in 2013 would have made no sense. You want to go with Bishop and Lehner? Two young, unproven guys? Ottawa had been looking for a solid number one for many years and finally found it in Anderson. Why would they trade him then?

Now, if you want to argue they should have traded Lehner instead of Bishop, ok, but at the time Lehner was seen as the heir apparent to Anderson.

Also, we were t the only team to give up on Bishop. Don't you think St. Louis would like a do over on that one?

Don't forget, there was also supposed to be major equipment changes the following summer that was (in theory) supposed to affect bigger goalies the most. Sens were also gambling Bishop wouldn't be quite as effective after those changes.

 

[lanceuppercut75]

Who grabs him (if anybody)?

- PHI? (eventually goes back on waivers)
- NAS? (Mazanec to AHL, waiver exempt)
- ARZ? (eventually goes back on waivers)
- LAK? (insider reporting "no")
- SJS? (and Sharks put Dell on waivers)

Maybe Sharks? Have not heard one person say anything positive about Dell. Haven't heard much about him at all though to be honest.

 

[airbus220]

NYI should claim Hammond, he's more proven than Berube.

Then trade Berube to LAK.
Finally trade/waive Halak.

Of course it's crazy to have 4 goalies, but that's on Snow for not trading/waiving Halak earlier, instead Snow played Halak 8 consecutive games to show how bad Halak is..

 

[Tripod]

Who grabs him (if anybody)?

- PHI? (eventually goes back on waivers)
- NAS? (Mazanec to AHL, waiver exempt)
- ARZ? (eventually goes back on waivers)
- LAK? (insider reporting "no")
- SJS? (and Sharks put Dell on waivers)

Maybe Sharks? Have not heard one person say anything positive about Dell. Haven't heard much about him at all though to be honest.

Don't see Philly grabbing him because once Neuvirth is back healthy, we have no spot for Hammond because Stolarz and Lyon will be in the AHL.

 

[Caeldan]

Serious question because I don't follow Ottawa enough to know, do you think he earned the Sens 4m in revenue?

We got 3 playoff home games out of it (which I think in the past were considered to be 1M or 2M profit minimum per game), so that plus the hype leading up -- yes I could see his play contributing to over 4M in profit (not just revenue).

Basically the two games that created all the injuries that led to the run -- we were playing Edmonton in the McDavid bowl (and won a lopsided game), and then got blown out by Carolina the next home game.

The biggest talk about the team was how good our chances to win the lottery were. So to go from that to playoff considerations, was huge.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

We got 3 playoff home games out of it (which I think in the past were considered to be 1M or 2M profit minimum per game), so that plus the hype leading up -- yes I could see his play contributing to over 4M in profit (not just revenue).

Basically the two games that created all the injuries that led to the run -- we were playing Edmonton in the McDavid bowl (and won a lopsided game), and then got blown out by Carolina the next home game.

The biggest talk about the team was how good our chances to win the lottery were. So to go from that to playoff considerations, was huge.

What's your definition of a blowout? I say that was a shootout, not a blowout. Blowout is winning by 4 or more goals to me. Also that game was super unlucky. The game winning goal took out Lehner, and it was but an inch away from interference, probably one of the most unluckiest goal of the decade (2010-now).

 

[Caeldan]

What's your definition of a blowout? I say that was a shootout, not a blowout. Blowout is winning by 4 or more goals to me. Also that game was super unlucky. The game winning goal took out Lehner, and it was but an inch away from interference, probably one of the most unluckiest goal of the decade (2010-now).

Well a 6-3 loss isn't really pretty at least. Especially at home. Mostly just remember it because I had the choice of picking the Edmonton or Carolina game to go see that weekend and was glad that I chose to see the Oilers (and I proposed that weekend too, so anything after the Sunday to about the Wednesday is a bit of a blur )