HFBoards

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

Eklund: "Flyers working a deal with Kings"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2009, 12:15 PM
  #51
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki View Post
When all is said and done, the only benefit to Philly here is some cap space ... about $2.9 million. That's certainly not enough to get Bouwmeester - or any other significant free agent. Even if it were, there's no guarantee that Bouwmeester comes to Philly simply because the cap space is there.
I don't think you grasp how bad the salary cap situation is right now and going forward over the next few years.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:19 PM
  #52
Mota
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,004
vCash: 500
Id rather have JVR than the 5th overall...the flyers need some size up front, JVR will bring that.

A healthy briere is something this line up really can use. They need that skilled one dimensional offensive talent that can just create scoring chances out of nothing, outside of briere and maybe giroux, they dont have that. If he has a healthy year and plays consistently with skilled players...he'll easilly put up 75+ points, and his contract wont look so bad.

Holmgren is only shopping briere because he wants an easy way out of the cap situation...and for whatever reason loves guys like jones, carle, and lupul...players who need to be moved.

And people forget, even if they find a taker for briere...it doesnt mean he'll want to go.

Mota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:20 PM
  #53
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I don't think you grasp how bad the salary cap situation is right now and going forward over the next few years.
Fine.
I don't think you grasp that there are better ways of clearing cap space than making a lose-lose-lose trade. The Flyers would be giving up more than they get in every aspect of that deal, except for cap space, where the gain isn't all that significant (2.9 million each of the next two years).

CarlRacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:22 PM
  #54
brian822
Registered User
 
brian822's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quacker912 View Post
He was right about Forsberg.



Same, but I usually read Eklund articles for a nice laugh. Figured I'd post this just to discuss the possibility.
Eklund wasnt the first to break the Forsberg signing. A radio station in Phoenix was the first.

brian822 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:27 PM
  #55
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
It's from Tim Pannacio's Sunday column.
I believe that a No MOVEMENT Clause precludes Waiving him... A NMC means he cannot be move in any matter, as opposed to a No Trade Clause that only addresses Trades.

There was also a post in HF earlier that mention Buyouts being possible with a NMC... I believe that that is also protected by the NMC. These clauses give more power to the player -- who they wanted to sign, but needed leverage against competition on the Open Market -- ergo; the player has entire control of their future with a NMC... which is often waived when the correct circumstance is met (Except if it is a Leaf).

With all due respect, I believe Tim P. is incorrect.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:29 PM
  #56
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki View Post
Fine.
I don't think you grasp that there are better ways of clearing cap space than making a lose-lose-lose trade. The Flyers would be giving up more than they get in every aspect of that deal, except for cap space, where the gain isn't all that significant (2.9 million each of the next two years).
2.9M is a good 3rd line center, or scoring winger. 2.9M is a decent defenseman.

Trading Briere is 6.5M off the salary cap for the next 6 years. 6.5 MILLION. That's not just significant, that's MASSIVE. You're complaining that you're getting parts back in that trade, so lets really paint the picture out for you.

Two seasons from now you are almost DEFINITELY looking at losing one of Gagne, Carter, or Giroux. Carter is arbitration eligible, Gagne will be an UFA, and Giroux will be a non-arbitration eligible RFA.

Coburn is getting a raise after next season.

Lupul, Carle, Jones...they are certainly players you can move, but trading Briere literally neuters the salary cap problem entirely (unless you directly fill his cap space with another big contract like Bouwmeester -- which I would have no problem with).

So, what you are talking about doing is essentially nitpicking at the heart of the problem, does it solve it? Sort of, because you're going to have to replace all of those guys that you want to trade away. You don't need to "replace" Briere if you move him out. He's getting paid top line center money, and we have two guys who are better than him at center. His replacement is already on the team and on the salary cap.

Trade Briere, and the salary cap problem goes away.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:34 PM
  #57
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersJunky View Post
I believe that a No MOVEMENT Clause precludes Waiving him... A NMC means he cannot be move in any matter, as opposed to a No Trade Clause that only addresses Trades.
It does.

Quote:
There was also a post in HF earlier that mention Buyouts being possible with a NMC... I believe that that is also protected by the NMC. These clauses give more power to the player -- who they wanted to sign, but needed leverage against competition on the Open Market -- ergo; the player has entire control of their future with a NMC... which is often waived when the correct circumstance is met (Except if it is a Leaf).
NMC does not prohibit a buyout, I believe it's actually specifically written into the CBA that contracts cannot deny the ability to buy a contract out.

Quote:
With all due respect, I believe Tim P. is incorrect.
Not that uncommon.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:36 PM
  #58
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki View Post
Fine.
I don't think you grasp that there are better ways of clearing cap space than making a lose-lose-lose trade. The Flyers would be giving up more than they get in every aspect of that deal, except for cap space, where the gain isn't all that significant (2.9 million each of the next two years).
In the Cap Era merely giving up a player for nothing, or even losing with a kicker, is not necessarily a bad thing... The freed up money and Cap Space allows them to enter the Open Market and purchase with it.

A perfect example is Clarke having Forsberg fall in his lap and paying the Kings (IIRC) to take Roenick's salary, thus allowing the space to sign Foppa... The end result was Foppa replacing JR and a pick. The Flyers got no return to speak of from the Kings, but the net result was JR for Forsberg -- Health problems aside.

I could see Briere being let go and still being ahead with a wise use of the Cap Space... And I love Danny, BTW.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:37 PM
  #59
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersJunky View Post
In the Cap Era merely giving up a player for nothing, or even losing with a kicker, is not necessarily a bad thing... The freed up money and Cap Space allows them to enter the Open Market and purchase with it.

A perfect example is Clarke having Forsberg fall in his lap and paying the Kings (IIRC) to take Roenick's salary, thus allowing the space to sign Foppa... The end result was Foppa replacing JR and a pick. The Flyers got no return to speak of from the Kings, but the net result was JR for Forsberg -- Health problems aside.

I could see Briere being let go and still being ahead with a wise use of the Cap Space... And I love Danny, BTW.
If we were to move Briere and NOT have to give up a high draft pick or something to facilitate a no-return trade I would call it a win.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:38 PM
  #60
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It does.



NMC does not prohibit a buyout, I believe it's actually specifically written into the CBA that contracts cannot deny the ability to buy a contract out.



Not that uncommon.
That is interesting, and does actually make sense... Thanks, I live to learn.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:39 PM
  #61
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If we were to move Briere and NOT have to give up a high draft pick or something to facilitate a no-return trade I would call it a win.
Agreed

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:43 PM
  #62
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,884
vCash: 50
That's why I called him 'McFly' in the other thread. His article is message-board caliber. Not that much different from the rest of them.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:45 PM
  #63
Shoeny
Registered User
 
Shoeny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Jack Johnson says Hi.
Ask the Hurricanes if they would trade Jack Johnson for Tim Gleason. The trade was made because he wanted to stay in college.

A first round pick is something that might get traded for salary cap relief, not an elite prospect.

Shoeny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:45 PM
  #64
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
That's why I called him 'McFly' in the other thread. His article is message-board caliber. Not that much different from the rest of them.
Eklund or Tim?... You used no quotes.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:46 PM
  #65
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersJunky View Post
Eklund or Tim?... You used no quotes.
pick your poison

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:49 PM
  #66
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeny View Post
Ask the Hurricanes if they would trade Jack Johnson for Tim Gleason. The trade was made because he wanted to stay in college.

A first round pick is something that might get traded for salary cap relief, not an elite prospect.
A trade is a trade, and players, picks, etc. all have their value. I'm not sure why there is some belief that they are somehow significantly different. JVR's value today appears to be less than that when he was drafted...if he struggles in the next couple of years, that value will go even lower. If the Flyers have a low opinion of him -- and there is some evidence that they have soured on him as a prospect -- then NOW is the time to trade him, as opposed to later when he proves he isn't that great.

Moreover, if you're getting the #5 pick back, then it isn't pure cap relief as that will be a pretty elite prospect right there.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 12:51 PM
  #67
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeny View Post
Ask the Hurricanes if they would trade Jack Johnson for Tim Gleason. The trade was made because he wanted to stay in college.

A first round pick is something that might get traded for salary cap relief, not an elite prospect.
Also, flipping a near ready past pick/prospect for a comparable future one would be a delay -- read, 'Cap easement' -- of a potential higher contract hitting the books, at a period when there is a huge Cap problem... Buys time to get the Cap in better shape, if that is in fact possible with falling Revenue/Cap Limit.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:00 PM
  #68
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersJunky View Post
In the Cap Era merely giving up a player for nothing, or even losing with a kicker, is not necessarily a bad thing... The freed up money and Cap Space allows them to enter the Open Market and purchase with it.

A perfect example is Clarke having Forsberg fall in his lap and paying the Kings (IIRC) to take Roenick's salary, thus allowing the space to sign Foppa... The end result was Foppa replacing JR and a pick. The Flyers got no return to speak of from the Kings, but the net result was JR for Forsberg -- Health problems aside.

I could see Briere being let go and still being ahead with a wise use of the Cap Space... And I love Danny, BTW.
Nobody is suggesting the Flyers shouldn't move Briere. This isn't a matter of keeping Briere or accepting the lousy proposal that was suggested. There are other options.
Moving Briere in a deal that requires the Flyers to take back an average player at $3.6 million a year ...
AND swap what would likely be equal, at best, prospects ...
AND drop 14 spots in what's considered a quality draft isn't a good hockey decision or a good business decision.
By all means, deal Briere if necessary. But don't make a lose-lose-lose trade to do it. Heck, a Roenick-to-LA like deal - in which the Flyers would at least receive a full $6.5 million in cap relief - is a more palatable option than the one being suggested.

CarlRacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:09 PM
  #69
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,180
vCash: 500
This trade proposal was actually started on the trade board. Here are some highlights:

We won't get the 5th OA pick without inclusding one ofthe Following: Carter, Giroux, JVR, Coburn or Sbisa, it's that simple, if you want a pick in the top 5 you are going to have to give up somoething significant, not piles of crap.

Briere does not have negative value but he doesn't have a ton of value either. We could probably trade him straight up for Handzus and save about 2.5 mil in cap space (Zus is at 4 mi I believe) however we won't get much more than that for him. Stoll would save us about 3 mil in cap space but he probably does a better job as a shut down center on the 3rd line, is relatively cheap and so we'd probably have to include something with Briere to even out the trade.

If we truly ARE going after the #5 pick (AND dumping Briere at the same time) it's most likely somethig like this:

Briere + JVR for Handzus + 5th OA
Briere + JVR + 09 3rd for Stoll + 5th OA


Now, as for who we take at #5, if you really want Cowen then you should make a trade with the Leafs and get a 2nd and 3rd for moving down because Cowen will DEFINITELY be there at #7. Honestly, with Coburn, Parent, Sbisa, Marshall and Bourdon I don't think there is a "need" to pick a dman either at E5 or moving down to 7 and taking him there. IMO if we have the #5 pick then we should DEFINITELY take either MPS or Kane. We are actually quite think at forward from a prospect POV and either MPS or Kane would do wonders to improving that.

phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:20 PM
  #70
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki View Post
Nobody is suggesting the Flyers shouldn't move Briere. This isn't a matter of keeping Briere or accepting the lousy proposal that was suggested. There are other options.
Moving Briere in a deal that requires the Flyers to take back an average player at $3.6 million a year ...
AND swap what would likely be equal, at best, prospects ...
AND drop 14 spots in what's considered a quality draft isn't a good hockey decision or a good business decision.
By all means, deal Briere if necessary. But don't make a lose-lose-lose trade to do it. Heck, a Roenick-to-LA like deal - in which the Flyers would at least receive a full $6.5 million in cap relief - is a more palatable option than the one being suggested.
I see... I think I may have misread where you were coming from. Moving down in a good draft merely to move Cap Space is not a good move; I agree. You were talking against a specific suggested deal, not the idea... My apologies, Amigo.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:22 PM
  #71
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki View Post
Nobody is suggesting the Flyers shouldn't move Briere. This isn't a matter of keeping Briere or accepting the lousy proposal that was suggested. There are other options.
Such as? Briere has complete control over where he ends up...and, frankly, I doubt he's going to say yes to going to LA anyway.

Quote:
Moving Briere in a deal that requires the Flyers to take back an average player at $3.6 million a year ...
You say average...I say a third line center...that's paid like a third line center. He's also a guy that won 57% of his draws last year, which would instantaneously have a massive impact on our club.

Quote:
AND swap what would likely be equal, at best, prospects ...
Perhaps Holmgren doesn't see it that way...again, the consensus appears to have been that JVR didn't impress over the last couple of years.

Quote:
AND drop 14 spots in what's considered a quality draft isn't a good hockey decision or a good business decision.
This is somewhat confusing, as we are actually GAINING a pick in a high quality draft.

Quote:
By all means, deal Briere if necessary. But don't make a lose-lose-lose trade to do it. Heck, a Roenick-to-LA like deal - in which the Flyers would at least receive a full $6.5 million in cap relief - is a more palatable option than the one being suggested.
And what makes you think LA would agree to that...or anyone else for that matter.

I wouldn't be shocked if they asked for Briere and our 1st (at the very least) to take on 6.5M in salary.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:27 PM
  #72
bennysflyers16
Registered User
 
bennysflyers16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 18,118
vCash: 500
I think Stoll plays point on the PP also ???
Big right handed shot could give our PP another look.

bennysflyers16 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:31 PM
  #73
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,326
vCash: 500
I think Stoll would be a good fit for our team. I would definitely trade Briere and a little something straight up for Stoll if the move could be made. The money is freed in 2 years and until then we have a reasonable 3rd line center. In the mean time its not a gigantic savings on the cap but would probably be enough to squeeze in the defender that we badly need.

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:31 PM
  #74
Cleary84
Registered User
 
Cleary84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,424
vCash: 500
When I first joined this site I didn't realize how much a pain in the ass Danny's contract is. Now I see and I wish he played up to his reputation.

It is kinda ****** that he has one injury plagued season and everyone throws him under the bus. Would it be so much to see how he does the first half of the season and try to deal him at the deadline? Or is it smarter to deal him soon in order to get a high pick?

Cleary84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2009, 01:33 PM
  #75
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyers84 View Post
When I first joined this site I didn't realize how much a pain in the ass Danny's contract is. Now I see and I wish he played up to his reputation.

It is kinda ****** that he has one injury plagued season and everyone throws him under the bus. Would it be so much to see how he does the first half of the season and try to deal him at the deadline? Or is it smarter to deal him soon in order to get a high pick?
I think Danny is living up to his expectations just fine. I like Briere a lot as a player and he seems like a great guy but just has no logical spot on this roster, especially when there are holes in the defense that need his money

BringBackStevens 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 09:59 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.