View Single Post
Old
07-05-2013, 07:54 AM
  #72
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeekendAtBernies View Post
"If". That's an interesting word, because it means that everything after it didn't actually come true.

I never said signing Emery the first time was a bad idea, but it did turn out to be a mistake and it did cost us dearly. I guess you can't blame the franchise for the signing, but I'm mystified as to how our team physicians didn't happen to notice a hip in such horrendous shape when giving Emery his physical...


Anyway, my point was that this is yet another retread (the Flyers' way: bringing back former players) and it's bringing back a guy who wasn't all that great for us the first time (due to injury) and a guy who is totally unproven as an NHL starter (post surgery) or even as a guy in a strict timeshare.

Ray Emery has played 65 games TOTAL in the last 3 years and you think it's a good idea to sign him with the intention of potentially being our starter?!? What could possibly go wrong there? His hip hasn't been tested at all over the grind of true starter's workload. Heck, he hasn't even been tested YET in a true 50-50 timeshare where he plays 40+ games in a season. But who am I kidding, I'm sure this gamble will work out fabulously... just like all the other moves we've made involving goalies for the past 15 years.

On top of the injury issues and the fact that his hip is totally untested in a 50-50 timeshare, let alone a starter's workload, there's the fact that his stats aren't really that great. Sure he's a feel good story, but his save percentages are less than those of Corey Crawford over the last 2 years: The same Corey Crawford who NOBODY considers to be an elite starter, the same Crawford who Hawks fans wanted benched several times this season and even in these playoffs.
How do you know his hip was in bad shape when he signed the first time? Seems you're just making assumptions, so if you're wrong in your assumption the signing wasn't a mistake.

FlyersFan61290 is offline   Reply With Quote