So, if what Luit and Leighton say is correct, 3 pages of panic and anger over absolutely nothing.
On the broadcast the other day they mentioned that Leighton was told to move out of his hotel and find a more permanent residence. Might not be something imminent, but where there's smoke, there's fire.
So, if what Luit and Leighton say is correct, 3 pages of panic and anger over absolutely nothing.
People like to read wayyyyy too much into things. How they got "Contract negotiations already underway, and Homer's ready to pull the trigger," out of "Leighton's agent is in town and might want to start talking extension" is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors
On the broadcast the other day they mentioned that Leighton was told to move out of his hotel and find a more permanent residence. Might not be something imminent, but where there's smoke, there's fire.
Maybe because the trade deadline just passed, and there's still some time left to the season. Also the possibility of planning ahead for that back-up role next season.
Maybe because the trade deadline just passed, and there's still some time left to the season. Also the possibility of planning ahead for that back-up role next season.
Not enough time that it makes sense to sign a lease.
Not enough time that it makes sense to sign a lease.
True, but I think we can all agree that it really would be no surprise to at least see him signed as a back-up next season. I'm not going to hear on tv that he was told to look for a more permanent place and automatically think the worst. Just like when I read the article and took it for what it is. Homer and his agent may meet up, but I'm sure an extension is not going to be on a serious, or need to get done now basis. I think people are seeing the title of the thread as already in the works and jumping to conclusions, before REALLY reading the article for face value. And even now that those quotes got released pretty much dismissing any imminent contract discussion, people are still trying to use obscure tv comments that may or may not be true to set themselves up for the worst.
I do wanna enter a valid opinion on the matter. If he is signed to a backup like deal, and Boucher gets moved this summer and they find a better option at #1 im OK. Leights has more than eanred a contract here and Ihope he gets it. Just hope its not some 3.5 million 5 year deal as a starter. Then Ill be mad. But the guy earned a Boucher like deal, and Ill be more than confident if our new starter goes down and he needs to play. Michael Leighton has been amazing all year and I personally hope he stays.
True, but I think we can all agree that it really would be no surprise to at least see him signed as a back-up next season. I'm not going to hear on tv that he was told to look for a more permanent place and automatically think the worst. Just like when I read the article and took it for what it is. Homer and his agent may meet up, but I'm sure an extension is not going to be on a serious, or need to get done now basis. I think people are seeing the title of the thread as already in the works and jumping to conclusions, before REALLY reading the article for face value. And even now that those quotes got released pretty much dismissing any imminent contract discussion, people are still trying to use obscure tv comments that may or may not be true to set themselves up for the worst.
I admit that I saw the threat title and posted my initial displeasure before reading the, article, however:
I still think there is some cause for concern about this news, because we all know that Homer is prone to getting ideas in his head, and failing to look at other options (IE, meeting with Emery early in the second half of last season, and then signing him unofficially before July 1 and ignoring any alternatives).
I think there is still some room for concern that he is, in fact, discussing numbers with Leighton's agent and may well wind up extending him without addressing other options. Even if he doesn't announce anything until a bit later, it just wouldn't shock me that - if Leighton manages to just keep being average - Holmgren will start with these talks today and ignore everything else, as he has in the past.
I'm fine with Leighton as a backup for small numbers if they figure out how to make Boucher go away, but Holmgren's lack of foresight or thorough planning with goaltending doesn't inspire any confidence.
Nothing wrong with talking.
So did Liut play with Pronger in Hartford? I don't have enough time before work to look. And how long has that stud been Leighton's agent? Liut was an excellent goalie and might have played a role in the Leighton's improvement at the NHL level. Though I have to say that Leighton looked OK back in his Norfolk days. He's not Bernie Parent, but he can stop initial shots.
And wouldn't signing Leighton help the Flyers land a top, young FA goalie who wants to be a No. 1? Using Halak just for a hypothetical, when July 1 comes, he looks at the Flyers and knows it's him and Leighton on the big club, with Boucher in the minors. Halak only has to beat Leighton to get 60 starts.
With just Boucher under contract on July 1, a FA wanting to be a No. 1 might choose another team over the Flyers because they don't know who their competition would be for the starting role. Keeping up the hypothetical with Halak, maybe he takes similar money/term from Edmonton or Toronto because he knows who he has to beat to be their starter. Philly's offer sounds great to him, but he wonders if Ellis or Turco or whomever will be brought in to split starts (which hurts his future earning potential).
Some guys want the money PLUS the No. 1 label. It's why some wondered about the Isles' traffic jam in their crease this season.
Nothing wrong with talking.
So did Liut play with Pronger in Hartford? I don't have enough time before work to look. And how long has that stud been Leighton's agent? Liut was an excellent goalie and might have played a role in the Leighton's improvement at the NHL level. Though I have to say that Leighton looked OK back in his Norfolk days. He's not Bernie Parent, but he can stop initial shots.
And wouldn't signing Leighton help the Flyers land a top, young FA goalie who wants to be a No. 1? Using Halak just for a hypothetical, when July 1 comes, he looks at the Flyers and knows it's him and Leighton on the big club, with Boucher in the minors. Halak only has to beat Leighton to get 60 starts.
With just Boucher under contract on July 1, a FA wanting to be a No. 1 might choose another team over the Flyers because they don't know who their competition would be for the starting role. Keeping up the hypothetical with Halak, maybe he takes similar money/term from Edmonton or Toronto because he knows who he has to beat to be their starter. Philly's offer sounds great to him, but he wonders if Ellis or Turco or whomever will be brought in to split starts (which hurts his future earning potential).
Some guys want the money PLUS the No. 1 label. It's why some wondered about the Isles' traffic jam in their crease this season.
I think if I'm Halak and I see the Flyers signing Leighton with Boucher already locked up, I'm saying to myself, "gee, they have that guy they rode with hot numbers all last year, and another backup behind them. Am I definitely going to be their starter?"
I don't think you're looking at Leighton and going "oh, great, I have to beat that guy," if you have an offer on the table for a team with no competition.
If, say, Leighton walked or Boucher gets moved and Leights is signed to backup dollars, then you know you're being brought in to be the #1. The less people we have at that position, the better, from a FA's standpoint.
Just like Anderson maybe he has finally figured it out. Not saying you should resign him or anything just saying he was once a big part of Hawks future
Just like Anderson maybe he has finally figured it out. Not saying you should resign him or anything just saying he was once a big part of Hawks future
Goalies-of-the-future and land in Florida. I'm not sure which I'd buy into first, ya know?
I don't mind the signing if it happens and is at a reasonable cost. Boucher has not been that great (he's been kinda bad for a good amount of his games his games actually). Additionally, Boucher or Leighton might be movable for futures if we need contract room, if not one may end up in Adirondack, which wouldn't be at all a bad thing, from a Flyer's stand point. The only way I am annoyed by this is if Leighton is our starter next year.
I am 110% fine with bringing him back. He has played well, and dsereves a sppot. But we can not bring Boucher back as well. Leighton should split time with a Sorey Schneider ro something.
