Does anybody want Matt Carle back?
View Single Post
06-19-2012, 03:52 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Originally Posted by
Okay we get it, you are pro-Carle - it has put some blinders on you.
Carle is turnover prone in his own zone.
He has the WEAKEST, LEAST accurate shot for an "offensive" defenseman I have ever seen. Mez's random forward-like moves this season are what I was referring to.
Carle, without Pronger, looks terrible. He looks out of position. He has missed his man how many times in front of our own net? Dude deflects more pucks into our net than into the opposing team's net.
He appears much better than he is bc of assists. But, I assure you there are cheaper, less turnover prone defensemen that could come in and replace Carle as adequate second pairing guys without needing 1st pairing money and a seasoned vet to make up for mistakes.
That is all.
I mean what do you really think? Do you think I want Carle to be bad? Why would I? It's a slim market and we haven't built our farm system up to feed our team so of course I would love it if Matt Carle was better than he is.
I am not one of those people who need a whipping boy. I just think, despite the occasional good game, Carle is more noticeable on the ice than he should be and for the wrong reasons.
What do I really think? I think that your opinions of Carle couldn't possibly be off target more. And I still can't figure out why Holmgren doesn't see what you see. And why the rest of the NHL, and even the legitimate sources that cover and write about the NHL and it's players don't see what you see. Apparently your one of those fans that know better then they do.
Originally Posted by
I don't really feel like looking at the cap hit of every single NHL defenseman for the second time today. I don't really have the time; typing this up alone will take long enough without that. When I looked through earlier, though, there were a lot of cap hits attached to d-men that made me wonder what silly hell this is that we have to pay Carle 4-5million.
"Comparable" is probably not the best word to use, but I still can't think of a better one. There are several young defensemen who are still RFAs who are as capable, or nearly as capable, as Carle is at 5v5 defensive play. Despite what you seem to think, Carle is not some special unique talent; there are quite a few good young players across the league. Their cap hits are all lower than Carle's projected contract, and some of them last a few more years. Some of their ceilings are realistically higher than Carle's. Yet Carle is going to be paid more than them because his assist totals have been bloated from a few seasons of playing with one of the premier offenses in the NHL. What frustrates me is that we HAVE to sign Carle to a raise, because we have no other choice. I wish we had some young, capable defenseman who could step in to Carle's role at a much lower price. We don't, because the organization is bad at developing defense. It's been a problem for ages, and it's sharply felt this offseason.
Carle's projected cap hit compared to defensemen who are far more capable is equally frustrating. He might get paid the same or more than Kronwall, for instance. That's amazingly stupid; Carle is nowhere near as good as Kronwall.
It's pretty clear to me that you don't understand the NHL salary Structure and how it works. And the difference between RFA's and UFA's. Secondly, I never stated that Carle is a unique talent. So those are your words not mine. And please don't be putting them in my mouth. And thirdly, the Flyers don't have to re-sign Carle. If they do re-sign him, it's because they want to.
And as far as Kronwall is concerned. I have no issue saying that there are some areas where Kronwall is better. Such as a hitter and a goal scorer from the back end. But to say that there is a drastic difference between the two players. That's where your obvious bias against Carle comes in. The two players are comparable as far as overall ability. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Like all defenseman
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by VanSciver