I'd take Anderson only if we gave up almost nothing give them Greiss, to offset Anderson's $4.75M cap hit, and something like a 3rd or 4th round pick. Having two years left on his deal is a perfect bridge to Sorokin, it's just a question of "how much does he have left in the tank?" I'm not sure if last year was just the product of playing for a dogpoop team or the beginning of the end for him. Too much risk/money for me to give up anything of even remotely-significant value. It's definitely not a crazy thought though and he'd be a good fall-back option if Grubauer's price shoots through the roof and they couldn't pry Lehner out of BUF. - eichiefs9
I think he's a good goalie. I think the Sens sucking and also the situation with his wife's cancer was the cause of his bad season. Think he'd be a good fit for you. Not that I want that to happen. I honestly think Lehner sucks.... so please take him!
Lehner has been considered below avg for all the goalie advanced metrics. - Feds91Stammer
Not saying he's a lock to be some sort of undiscovered hidden talent, but I'm willing to give him a chance with a halfway decent team before I write him off.
Great blog Jan. I agree with you for the Rangers to first target Zadina for his creativity and sniper ability, and then Wahlstrom for his sniper ability. So the question is, will it be necessary to move up from the 9th pick to guarantee that one or the other will still be available then? For Zadina, I believe yes, and for Wahlstrom, possibly not. But is it worth it to waste an asset(s) of any type to move up from #9? I only would do so should Zadina be their actual first target, if his value hasn't fallen from a top 5 pick, to as low as a #9 on one source's mock draft mentioned on a blog of your's earlier this week.
But generally speaking, after Buffalo selects Dahlin as #1 overall, the question of moving up from #9 will depend on teams drafting from 2nd to 6th or even 7th, as to whether those teams will be doing so for either the best player available, or to first fill their own critical position need. That's why a trade to move up from #9 may not be in the cards until after the first two to four picks are selected. But the drawback is that Zadina could be gone by after pick #5 as was originally expected, prior to the Combine held in Buffalo. If so, I would shift instead to targeting Tkachuk in whatever means necessary.
In addition, under their rebuild/retool mode, it makes no sense to trade Skjei or Hayes, without knowing they can be replaced with the same in some means. If they want to include alone picks #'s 26 &/or 28, or those up to their 48th to either move up in Round One, or acquire a significant current young player, then if it will fill a huge need, they may just have to do so. - RangerSaver
He's gonna get way too much money. I can't see him taking a paycut from the $4M he was making this year. That would be an expensive backup. - eichiefs9
We just don't agree on how much money he gets. I think most of the league will think he is bum that just got poopcanned by the Sabres, and will offer him $1.5-2 million a year as a backup on a prove it contract. And the Rangers are a good fit because they have some money to pay him on a short term deal, and he can play 30 or some games there.
And he will be with a coach that resurrects keepers.
Oh wow, they didn't give him a qualifying offer so he might be a UFA July 1st. I didn't see that, good call.
BUF is not expected to give goaltender Robin Lehner his qualifying offer and he should be added to the list of UFA goalies available this summer as Sabres are likely to look elsewhere for a partner for Linus Ullmark.
He's gonna get way too much money. I can't see him taking a paycut from the $4M he was making this year. That would be an expensive backup. - eichiefs9
We just don't agree on how much money he gets. I think most of the league will think he is bum that just got poopcanned by the Sabres, and will offer him $1.5-2 million a year as a backup on a prove it contract. And the Rangers are a good fit because they have some money to pay him on a short term deal, and he can play 30 or some games there. - Pete V
I'm not digging my heels in on that one, you may be entirely right. I just feel like it's rare that you see guys take a significant pay cut like that unless they're like a 37 year old vet coming off a long-term deal. But it's wholly possible that he does lose some money, I really have no idea.
I'm not digging my heels in on that one, you may be entirely right. I just feel like it's rare that you see guys take a significant pay cut like that unless they're like a 37 year old vet coming off a long-term deal. But it's wholly possible that he does lose some money, I really have no idea. - eichiefs9
I will be the simple law of supply and demand. You may be right. Or I may be right. We will know soon enough.
Edit: The more I think about it Chiefs, I really kind of think that the Rangers are the perfect spot for him on a 1-2 year deal.
An interesting piece of news by Dreger was that the league may be requiring that goalie's chest/arm protectors be "anatomically proportionate" to the goalie's body. Depending on how much proportionate will change the looks of some goalies difference between their bare chest size, and how huge they looked wearing them through last season under their over goalie sized jerseys, like a Matt Murray or an Anders Nilsson to name two.
However, the density of the chest, shoulder floaters, and arm portion's "blocks" is still necessary to protect the goalies from the force, rise, and how fast pucks are released by the hard shooters in the game today, with the lightest of feather weight forward sticks ever used. They only should not be making the goalie look wider in size always, and especially taller in size when going down in the butterfly position.
An interesting piece of news by Dreger was that the league may be requiring that goalie's chest/arm protectors be "anatomically proportionate" to the goalie's body. Depending on how much proportionate will change the looks of some goalies difference between their bare chest size, and how huge they looked wearing them through last season under their over goalie sized jerseys, like a Matt Murray or an Anders Nilsson to name two.
However, the density of the chest, shoulder floaters, and arm portion's "blocks" is still necessary to protect the goalies from the force, rise, and how fast pucks are released by the hard shooters in the game today, with the lightest of feather weight forward sticks ever used. They only should not be making the goalie look wider in size always, and especially taller in size when going down in the butterfly position. - RangerSaver
An interesting piece of news by Dreger was that the league may be requiring that goalie's chest/arm protectors be "anatomically proportionate" to the goalie's body. Depending on how much proportionate will change the looks of some goalies difference between their bare chest size, and how huge they looked wearing them through last season under their over goalie sized jerseys, like a Matt Murray or an Anders Nilsson to name two.
However, the density of the chest, shoulder floaters, and arm portion's "blocks" is still necessary to protect the goalies from the force, rise, and how fast pucks are released by the hard shooters in the game today, with the lightest of feather weight forward sticks ever used. They only should not be making the goalie look wider in size always, and especially taller in size when going down in the butterfly position. - RangerSaver
Sounds like the equipment we had when I played in net. The chest protector was approximately 35% of your chest area!! And made from nothing but cotton.
Sounds like the equipment we had when I played in net. The chest protector was approximately 35% of your chest area!! And made from nothing but cotton. - Tonybere
