HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

OT: Pascal Leclaire's Contract

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2008, 10:23 AM
  #1
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
OT: Pascal Leclaire's Contract

So Leclaire signed a three year $11.4MM deal. Is anyone else surprised at the low dollar amount of this deal? Or the shortness of it? It is so out of whack with other top goaltenders in the league, and I do believe Leclaire will continue to be a top 10 goaltender.

I thought the numbers would be north of $4MM, if not $5MM, and a MUCH longer deal. Interesting strategy on both sides.

Forechecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 10:25 AM
  #2
Mr Bojanglez
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Mr Bojanglez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: From Jersey w/ Love
Country: United States
Posts: 10,939
vCash: 500
He only has one solid established year. It seems like a nice raise considering. He is young, so 3 years is nothing and he has the chance to cash-in then

Mr Bojanglez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 10:31 AM
  #3
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
So Leclaire signed a three year $11.4MM deal. Is anyone else surprised at the low dollar amount of this deal? Or the shortness of it? It is so out of whack with other top goaltenders in the league, and I do believe Leclaire will continue to be a top 10 goaltender.

I thought the numbers would be north of $4MM, if not $5MM, and a MUCH longer deal. Interesting strategy on both sides.
sweetheart deal for both sides and I think it was the correct strategy. Keep goaltending costs low so you have cap space to spend on supporting players. W/o good players in front your goalie will not be as effective. W/ better players in front a goalie is more likely to overperform. Wish we could've gotten a sweetheart deal like that and by sweetheart i mean a deal for $5mm not $6.75.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 10:46 AM
  #4
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyH2O View Post
He only has one solid established year. It seems like a nice raise considering. He is young, so 3 years is nothing and he has the chance to cash-in then
He's actually played well in earlier years, the team in front of him just stunk up the joint.

Rags, I guess it's nice deal for both sides, but there's something about these middle of the road deals that seem like they backfire. The potential for animosity on both sides seems to be the greatest with these. When expectations are murky, and I do believe that contracts help to set expectations, the conversation tends to become "PL: well, I took $XXMM over Y years because I was being a team guy, so now I want that plus 100%. GM: Well, you didn't lead the team the way we though so we'll give you that plus 10%".

Sometimes the bold deal/statememt, in either direction, is the better avenue. In this case it's sort of "meh, we like you, but not enough to pay you on par with the top in the league nor do we have the confidence in you to earn the big deal by signing a one year deal with the potential payout in the end." From Leclaire's view it reads "wow, I got some security, because I don't believe I can earn the big reward contract by taking the risky one year deal". Or something to that effect.

Forechecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 10:54 AM
  #5
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,975
vCash: 500
no vezina nominations

1 solid year(stats-wise)

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 10:55 AM
  #6
bogans
Registered User
 
bogans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
Great deal for the Jackets, I like what they have done in the offseason actually. They clearly lost their deal with us, but they badly needed some NHL defenseman and Tyutin will prob be a top pairing guy on their team. We'll see if he can really settle into that role there. But getting Leclaire cheap is great for them, the defenseman in front of him are more solid now and I think Umberger and Huselius were good additions. Not sure if this is the year yet, but they might be a playoff team sooner than later. I think Brassard may break into the NHL in a big way this year too, he has just enough creativity to be a center for Rick Nash, then you pair Umberger with Huselius on the second line. No idea if they have any RWs at all, but they are def getting better.

bogans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 10:56 AM
  #7
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
He's actually played well in earlier years, the team in front of him just stunk up the joint.

Rags, I guess it's nice deal for both sides, but there's something about these middle of the road deals that seem like they backfire. The potential for animosity on both sides seems to be the greatest with these. When expectations are murky, and I do believe that contracts help to set expectations, the conversation tends to become "PL: well, I took $XXMM over Y years because I was being a team guy, so now I want that plus 100%. GM: Well, you didn't lead the team the way we though so we'll give you that plus 10%".

Sometimes the bold deal/statememt, in either direction, is the better avenue. In this case it's sort of "meh, we like you, but not enough to pay you on par with the top in the league nor do we have the confidence in you to earn the big deal by signing a one year deal with the potential payout in the end." From Leclaire's view it reads "wow, I got some security, because I don't believe I can earn the big reward contract by taking the risky one year deal". Or something to that effect.
I think that this deal was also done this way b/c they have a great prospect in Steve Mason. they want to make sure that LeClaire really is a franchise goalie, or just buy a little more time to get Mason in there. Also by keeping the deal so low it makes LeClaire have incredible trade value if Mason is ready to make the jump and prove to be better.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 11:01 AM
  #8
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
Ah, forgot about Mason. But you as you say Rags this clearly is a show of at best middling confidence by the BJ's front office in Leclaire. They're lucky he was a RFA, because with teams needing goalie help right now I am sure he would've commanded a lot more on the open market.

Forechecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 11:09 AM
  #9
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
Ah, forgot about Mason. But you as you say Rags this clearly is a show of at best middling confidence by the BJ's front office in Leclaire. They're lucky he was a RFA, because with teams needing goalie help right now I am sure he would've commanded a lot more on the open market.
you are right about that and you know what from Cbs' point of view it should be. he hasn't proven that he can handle 65+ games a year yet, and realistically he had almost no leverage against columbus.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 11:18 AM
  #10
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
I guess a 10 shutout season only buys you so much these days. What is this world coming to?

Forechecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 11:25 AM
  #11
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
I guess a 10 shutout season only buys you so much these days. What is this world coming to?
he "only" had 9... but 5 were in the first 9 games. That means he had 4 in the next 43 games he started. Which is still on pace for about 8 a season. but still there are questions of his stamina. as there were a bunch of games he started where he didn't finish either. i mean Lundy played about 1400 more minutes last year.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 11:25 AM
  #12
bogans
Registered User
 
bogans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
I guess a 10 shutout season only buys you so much these days. What is this world coming to?
With no NHL defenseman playing in front of you

bogans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 11:38 AM
  #13
DubiDubiDoo
Registered User
 
DubiDubiDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Garden City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DubiDubiDoo
while he was certainly impressive, it was only one season that was impressive..

the guys going to be 27 and he's got 113 nhl games under his belt, you cant compare that to guys like lundqvist, fluery, dipietro, miller, who are around the same age and have played more games and shown more consistency...

DubiDubiDoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 11:38 AM
  #14
Eagle20
Registered User
 
Eagle20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
he "only" had 9... but 5 were in the first 9 games. That means he had 4 in the next 43 games he started. Which is still on pace for about 8 a season. but still there are questions of his stamina. as there were a bunch of games he started where he didn't finish either. i mean Lundy played about 1400 more minutes last year.
But Lundqvist wasnt worked nearly as hard as Leclaire was when he played. There D was no where near the Rags last season. Didn't Leclaire get injured as well?

Eagle20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 12:00 PM
  #15
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle20 View Post
But Lundqvist wasnt worked nearly as hard as Leclaire was when he played. There D was no where near the Rags last season. Didn't Leclaire get injured as well?
Leclaire: 52 gs 1379 shots against = 25.5 per game
Lundqvist: 72 gp 1823 shots against = 25.3 per game

not much of a difference.

now I do realize that LeClaire left a about 5 games w/o playing 2 full periods so this will skew it a little. but by how much maybe 3 shots per game. Still not a huge difference. As lundy only left 2 games early.

but on the other hand Lundy played in many many more overtimes than Leclaire which means that Lundy had to play more therefore work harder.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 12:04 PM
  #16
FutureGM97
Registered User
 
FutureGM97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FutureGM97
Bryzgalov had a solid season for the Coyotes but they didn't rush and sign him to $5 million per year for 6 years...put them on a shorter contract for less money to prove themselves. Very smart move by the Jackets.

FutureGM97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 02:13 PM
  #17
Eagle20
Registered User
 
Eagle20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
Leclaire: 52 gs 1379 shots against = 25.5 per game
Lundqvist: 72 gp 1823 shots against = 25.3 per game

not much of a difference.

now I do realize that LeClaire left a about 5 games w/o playing 2 full periods so this will skew it a little. but by how much maybe 3 shots per game. Still not a huge difference. As lundy only left 2 games early.

but on the other hand Lundy played in many many more overtimes than Leclaire which means that Lundy had to play more therefore work harder.
3 shots through 2 periods? highly doubt that.

Now when i say worked im not talking quantity as consistency of shot totals and also the amount of time a goaltender sees action, shot or not, as well as shot quality. the more action a goalie sees in there zone also makes a huge difference. Lundqvist didnt see anywhere near the amount of high quality scoring chances as Leclaire did on a game by game basis. (im not saying that he didnt see good scoring chances so dont come at me with that...also theres a whole thread on your board saying that his success is influenced by the rangers Defense). The quality of the shots Leclaire faces effects his stamina through out a season.

Also your initial post states that Lundqvist played 1400 more minutes then Leclaire. Leclaire played 20 less games.

Leclaire stats:

2007-2008 CLS 54 52 2986:27 24 17 -- 6 112 2.25 1379 1267 .919 3 9 26.52 shots per game

Lundy's shot total average number to me seem off simply b/c of the sheer number of games he played. To get the true picture of how hard a goalie is worked you need to look not at the average shots per game...more at how consistenly the goalie was peppered....Lundqvist had a pretty lax game log up until the end of the season a lot of high teens low low 20's with a few games where he was peppered. Leclaire consistently saw higher numbers through out the season.


Dont get me wrong dude...im not trying to discredit at all...i just want to show how i am veiwing being worked through out a season.

Eagle20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 02:36 PM
  #18
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle20 View Post
3 shots through 2 periods? highly doubt that.
I mean his shots/game. There were 5 games in which he didn't make it through 2 periods. I figure that in a period and a half thats 15 shots. 15 x 5 = 75. 75/54 (the games he played. is actually about 1 1/3 more shots per game. Still not a big difference. So my original guestimate was a little high. but there was like a game or two there where he didn't complete 1 period. so that total shots would be higher. More than likely the # would be around 2 more shots/game over lundy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle20 View Post
Now when i say worked im not talking quantity as consistency of shot totals and also the amount of time a goaltender sees action, shot or not, as well as shot quality. the more action a goalie sees in there zone also makes a huge difference. Lundqvist didnt see anywhere near the amount of high quality scoring chances as Leclaire did on a game by game basis. (im not saying that he didnt see good scoring chances so dont come at me with that...also theres a whole thread on your board saying that his success is influenced by the rangers Defense). The quality of the shots Leclaire faces effects his stamina through out a season.
First off I need to know how many Columbus games you have watched. Also, the Rangers gave up pleny of high quality scoring chances this year also on a game by game basis.

and Lundy's defense wasn't the greatest. While we blocked a lot of shots, usually when shots got through they were high quality. We gave up alot of high quality scoring chances this year, and alot of rebounds. In fact one could say that Lundy actually affected his defense to be more lax and take more risks b/c he could bail them out. but on the PK especially his defense around him tightened up to make him an even better goalie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle20 View Post
Also your initial post states that Lundqvist played 1400 more minutes then Leclaire. Leclaire played 20 less games.

Leclaire stats:

2007-2008 CLS 54 52 2986:27 24 17 -- 6 112 2.25 1379 1267 .919 3 9 26.52 shots per game

Lundy's shot total average number to me seem off simply b/c of the sheer number of games he played. To get the true picture of how hard a goalie is worked you need to look not at the average shots per game...more at how consistenly the goalie was peppered....Lundqvist had a pretty lax game log up until the end of the season a lot of high teens low low 20's with a few games where he was peppered. Leclaire consistently saw higher numbers through out the season.


Dont get me wrong dude...im not trying to discredit at all...i just want to show how i am veiwing being worked through out a season.
but he still faced on avg. 25 shots per game. an average means that some games will be less than 25 some games will be more. leclaires was also on avg. The fact that Lundy still played at such a high level while playing over 1400 more minutes is made even more amazing, as he was not nearly as fresh as leclaire.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 03:23 PM
  #19
FlaggerX
Registered User
 
FlaggerX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,172
vCash: 500
I think the two reasons Leclaire's contract was quite good for us (CBJ fans) is that he's been in the NHL 3 seasons but relatively healthy only one of them. While his skills were not in doubt, and we think he may be a franchise goalie, he has to be on the ice to make that difference.

Second, Mason is really, really highly regarded here, especially after his oustanding performance in the world's. He played well enough in camp last year to give people second thoughts about keeping him in the NHL despite his youth.

Besides, although I think the Jackets a good defensive team last year we stunk offensively, so we do need money to spend up front. Frankly, I think the contract is good for everyone. If Leclaire stays healthy and plays as he did last season, he'll be in for real money at the end of this contract.

Not that 3+ million isn't real money.

FlaggerX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 03:35 PM
  #20
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
He's actually played well in earlier years, the team in front of him just stunk up the joint.

Rags, I guess it's nice deal for both sides, but there's something about these middle of the road deals that seem like they backfire. The potential for animosity on both sides seems to be the greatest with these. When expectations are murky, and I do believe that contracts help to set expectations, the conversation tends to become "PL: well, I took $XXMM over Y years because I was being a team guy, so now I want that plus 100%. GM: Well, you didn't lead the team the way we though so we'll give you that plus 10%".

Sometimes the bold deal/statememt, in either direction, is the better avenue. In this case it's sort of "meh, we like you, but not enough to pay you on par with the top in the league nor do we have the confidence in you to earn the big deal by signing a one year deal with the potential payout in the end." From Leclaire's view it reads "wow, I got some security, because I don't believe I can earn the big reward contract by taking the risky one year deal". Or something to that effect.
He only had 59 career NHL games played before this season... and in the season where he played the most of those games (2006-07), his save % was less than .900. I'm sure the team he played for had something to do with that, but not enough to justify paying him $5M/year. This is a fair contract, and it's only three years, so he'll get his money if he keeps it up.

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2008, 04:21 PM
  #21
ThirdEye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle20 View Post
3 shots through 2 periods? highly doubt that.

Now when i say worked im not talking quantity as consistency of shot totals and also the amount of time a goaltender sees action, shot or not, as well as shot quality. the more action a goalie sees in there zone also makes a huge difference. Lundqvist didnt see anywhere near the amount of high quality scoring chances as Leclaire did on a game by game basis. (im not saying that he didnt see good scoring chances so dont come at me with that...also theres a whole thread on your board saying that his success is influenced by the rangers Defense). The quality of the shots Leclaire faces effects his stamina through out a season.

Also your initial post states that Lundqvist played 1400 more minutes then Leclaire. Leclaire played 20 less games.

Leclaire stats:

2007-2008 CLS 54 52 2986:27 24 17 -- 6 112 2.25 1379 1267 .919 3 9 26.52 shots per game

Lundy's shot total average number to me seem off simply b/c of the sheer number of games he played. To get the true picture of how hard a goalie is worked you need to look not at the average shots per game...more at how consistenly the goalie was peppered....Lundqvist had a pretty lax game log up until the end of the season a lot of high teens low low 20's with a few games where he was peppered. Leclaire consistently saw higher numbers through out the season.


Dont get me wrong dude...im not trying to discredit at all...i just want to show how i am veiwing being worked through out a season.
Eh... This is mostly BS and not very convincing.

Columbus played probably the most defensive game in the league last year, which helped Leclaire more than you think.

For what it's worth, in a recent Popular Science issue Leclaire was listed as the goalie whos stats were inflated the most by his team. It was based on a formula (take that as you will).

The contract is fair. 3 years is enough time for him to build up his resume and then get paid when it's time (if he deserves it)

(By the way, did you really watch every single Rangers and Columbus game that you know which goalie had to work harder? I hardly believe that)

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 06:11 PM
  #22
Reydin
Registered User
 
Reydin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
I hope Ranger fans are not thinking they overpaid for Lundqvist, in my mind he's one of the top 5 goalies in the league. Hitchcock makes his goalies look good even Esche and Cechmanek. It's not shots that matter but scoring chances. I saw Leclaire play 2 games, on one of them he was ordinary CBJ lost on the other he had a shotout but I don't think he faced more than 20 shots and most of them from way out. Not enough for me to give a good opinion on how good he is but I've seen Lundqvist several times and I don't think he played a bad game on any of them. Still can see the save he made on Tucker who had an open net, his lateral movement is awesome.

Reydin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 06:41 PM
  #23
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,463
vCash: 500
I believe he is winless in the playoffs.

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 07:02 PM
  #24
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle20 View Post
... Lundqvist didnt see anywhere near the amount of high quality scoring chances as Leclaire did on a game by game basis. (im not saying that he didnt see good scoring chances so dont come at me with that...also theres a whole thread on your board saying that his success is influenced by the rangers Defense). The quality of the shots Leclaire faces effects his stamina through out a season...


Yes, it is indeed a manure spreader. Although you are correct in your statement that a season affects Leclaire's health, but so would also a loose statement about time affecting a random creature's health. In what way is the Grinch in bad shape, still (after all these years of pro experience) not fit enough to have prepared and endured a tough pro season a pro argument for his greatness?

I find it hard to believe that Leclaire "anywhere near" faced alot more than 15+ quality scoring chances a game, like Lundqvist did during monthly stretches when the NYR team decided to plainly suck - majorly. The game vs LA Kings where he faced 12+ quality scoring chances during the first period alone comes to mind.

Any thread claiming the NYR defense was some kind of major super factor for Lundqvist's numbers just have to watch him consistently since he entered the league and be convinced otherwise. NYR's defense has never played a major role in the wall saga, they have been more like inconsistently solid contributors with all too often brainlapses.

If Leclaire was so much greater than Lundqvist - like you sort of claim - he would have been recognized for it, even in Columbus. Lundqvist has been nominated for the Vezina trophy thrice in three years for reasons bigger than his #1 D-man being named Michal Rozsival and his #2 being named the now flushed Marek Malik. He's just frigging good.


Last edited by Chimp: 08-01-2008 at 07:38 PM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2008, 10:55 PM
  #25
HockeyStickHomicide
Registered Abuser
 
HockeyStickHomicide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 714
vCash: 500
I just wanted to add that I watched his games all the last few seasons and the guy plays really well some nights, but needs some help others, without any real defensemen on his team he would just get creamed those games. Also I believe I watched 3 games or more last year where he was helped off the ice due to injury. I believe it was his knee all three times.

HockeyStickHomicide is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.