View Single Post
Old
05-09-2013, 01:00 PM
  #47
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,401
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Agh. So I have to rehash a debate from 2 years ago?
Yes.

Quote:
1) Bob showed amazing potential. As a young goalie, it's reasonable to expect that he would improve and develop, which is something that young players with amazing potential often do. The playoffs weren't a big deal because he was a rookie. Lots of rookies struggle, especially when such and insane amount of pressure is thrown on them all at once, like they did with Bob. He was/is young as well, so he had/has plenty of time to figure things out. Anybody who freaked out about those POs was overreacting, it's not like the guy is Fleury/Bryz age, where continued playoff meltdowns is an extremely alarming trait. Hell, even Fleury has a bit of time to figure that part of his game out.
Bob did not show amazing potential. He played well for one season. That is not amazing potential. Potential, yes. Amazing potential? No. If you want to ignore the playoffs, that is fine. He still did not show amazing potential. He certainly had time to develop, but having time to develop does not mean that he WILL develop. There were risks involved in sticking with Bob. There were risks in going with Bryz. The risks with Bryz were less likely to occur. The risks with Bob were more likely to occur. I don't know how you can tell me the riskier decision would be a better decision without the benefit of hindsight. Even if you made these arguments two years ago, I would have said (and probably did say) that you were wrong. Honestly answer this hypothetical: If the Flyers kept Bob and he fizzled out, and Bryz put up similar numbers to Bob this season elsewhere, you would stand by your decision and say that it was the better move to go with Bob? I find that highly unlikely. I imagine you would be saying the same thing I am saying now, that it would have been less risky to go with the proven commodity rather than the unknown with potential.

Quote:
2) It was obvious at the time that Bryzgalov would be expensive. Bob wouldn't be. So with Bryz, we would have less depth on the team than we would have with Bob/Vet.
That's true, and I think we can all agree that his contract is a bigger issue than the actual act of signing him. But again, by passing on Bryz and keeping Bob in favor of adding depth to your skaters, you are risking the same thing pretty much. The depth may not work out and Bob may still crumble, while Bryz excels elsewhere. Who would have been the depth guy(s) we got? Still would need a backup goalie so that leaves about $4 million...where does that go and does that guy really make a difference if Bob ***** the bed? Sure, it could have gone perfect, but when you are dealing with this situation, I think the safest bet is to go with the safest bet...not the unknown.

Quote:
3) Bryz was near the peak of his prime, we'd be signing him for a couple prime years and then keeping him into the usual decline years for the average player. That's not attractive. Bob still had his prime years ahead of him.
I agree with this, and I think most at the time didn't like the length of the contract. If your problem is simply that the Bryz contract was bad, I agree with you there. They should have signed him to a shorter deal, but that still wouldn't have changed the situation with Bob. He still would have been dealt and it still would have been the right move.

Quote:
Those were the arguments I made at the time. That was without hindsight, that was just using what was known at the time. The only thing incorrect there is the assumption that we'd get some good years out of Bryz before declining, since apparently we're gonna get nothing but decline.
Your reasoning is still flawed. Just because you wanted to stick with Bob in hopes that he some day turns into something special doesn't mean it was the right move. Bad decisions that work out in the end aren't decisions that should be repeated in the future because it worked out once. Sticking with Bob would not have been smart. It may have worked out, but it wasn't a good decision. I think you have told me this a number of times, in dealing with Bryz when I said I would give Bryz the same contract if he wins us a Cup. Something about the ends not justifying the means...

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote