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

Luukko: Holmgren's job safe, even if no playoffs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2010, 10:08 PM
  #101
RoDu
Registered User
 
RoDu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,578
vCash: 500
fire Luuko

RoDu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 11:06 PM
  #102
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Yes, but I don't want to hear it as someone who desperately wanted them to acquire a goalie at the deadline. This situation could have been avoided.

Beyond the terrible luck, there's a lot to dislike about this season. They'd still be comfortably in a playoff position despite their goaltending luck if they weren't prone to disappearing for stretches of the season.

I just don't want to hear it. Everyone has injuries.
It's been previously speculated (and reasonably so) that there wasn't anything available at the deadline. At least not for a reasonable cost to us.

Every team has injuries, but very few if any have this many injuries at goalie. Can you name any other team that was without their 1st and 2nd string goalie at any point in the season, let alone the entire second half of the season? Can you name any team that's currently without their 1st, 2nd, and 4th string goalies as well as their leading point and goal-scorer? I can't think of any.

Injuries become a legitimate excuse at a certain point. I think the slump that we're in right now has certainly crossed that point.

I don't see how a team like Detroit can have their down year excused by bad luck with injuries, but for some reason the Flyers can't blame some of their record this season on bad luck with injuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
If the Flyers followed the Keith Allen plan, and made goaltending a priority, instead of treating it like 3rd line LW, they wouldn't have shoddy "luck".

They entrusted the goaltending job to Ray Emery. That was a gamble, just because of the off-ice stuff. Holmgren then banked that if anything happened to Emery, be it injury or off ice issues, Boucher could handle the load.

Epic Fail
The off-ice stuff was over-blown I think and it was a perfectly reasonable move considering our cap situation.

He did get Boosh. Personally, I don't think Boosh is a bad backup, I think this team just plays like crap in front of him for whatever reason. Regardless though, he found a new starter in Michael Leighton. Then he went down. Then just today he called up a goalie who looked very good in his first game. Then he goes down. Can you really blame Holmgren for having that much bad luck with his goalies? He pretty much lost two starters to injury for most of the year and had their second or arguably first best option at this point in time also go down with injury for the rest of the regular season.

I don't see how getting a "real" goalie, like you want, affects their ability to get injured. Just because you have a top starter doesn't mean he won't get injured (a la Brodeur last year).

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
I want him fired because for three seasons he has been the manager of a brutally inconsistent team that has more talent than it has shown.

He's handcuffed himself with several horrible contracts, wasted assets such as draft choices and cap room, failed to address some glaring holes that have been here since he took the job, and worst of all, has failed to set up a standard of accountability.
Which is exactly what I said? I'm fine with blaming him for all that stuff, but blaming him for the way this season has panned out, with the exception of the Randy Jones situation of course, isn't fair to him.

Although, it's hard to tell how much of this so-called "inconsistent team" is really his fault. He just puts the team together, it's up to the players to play to the best of their abilities. The responsibility for consistency should be put on the coach and the players, not the GM.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 11:20 PM
  #103
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post

The off-ice stuff was over-blown I think and it was a perfectly reasonable move considering our cap situation.

He did get Boosh. Personally, I don't think Boosh is a bad backup, I think this team just plays like crap in front of him for whatever reason. Regardless though, he found a new starter in Michael Leighton. Then he went down. Then just today he called up a goalie who looked very good in his first game. Then he goes down. Can you really blame Holmgren for having that much bad luck with his goalies? He pretty much lost two starters to injury for most of the year and had their second or arguably first best option at this point in time also go down with injury for the rest of the regular season.

I don't see how getting a "real" goalie, like you want, affects their ability to get injured. Just because you have a top starter doesn't mean he won't get injured (a la Brodeur last year).



Which is exactly what I said? I'm fine with blaming him for all that stuff, but blaming him for the way this season has panned out, with the exception of the Randy Jones situation of course, isn't fair to him.

Although, it's hard to tell how much of this so-called "inconsistent team" is really his fault. He just puts the team together, it's up to the players to play to the best of their abilities. The responsibility for consistency should be put on the coach and the players, not the GM.
Emery was a perfectly reasonable move, considering how badly the cap had been managed. I was fine with Emery, but regardless, he was a major roll of the dice. Not adequately preparing for the possibility that Emery would get hurt or have an issue was not reasonable.

The off ice stuff was not really overblown. There was no bidding war for Ray Emery. I wish it would have worked out. All this said about the goaltending, that is NOT the reason this team is in the position it is in.

The problem I have with "blaming him for this year" is that this inconsistency has been an issue for his entire tenure as GM. Sure he's brought in guys like Jason Smith, Chris Pronger and Ian Laperriere, but at the same time he's done nothing to hold his "core" players accountable.

How many times did we hear about issues where the older guys added for leadership were upset at being "tuned out"? Guys like Hartnell haven't even seen a drop in their PP time, let alone been healthy scratches-and that is under two different head coaches.

The issues this season, to me, are simply the straw that breaks the camel's back. Holmgren's basic plan is to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks-whatever his good points, and he has several-they're outweighed by his inability to stick to a plan.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 11:35 PM
  #104
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
Emery was a perfectly reasonable move, considering how badly the cap had been managed. I was fine with Emery, but regardless, he was a major roll of the dice. Not adequately preparing for the possibility that Emery would get hurt or have an issue was not reasonable.

The off ice stuff was not really overblown. There was no bidding war for Ray Emery. I wish it would have worked out. All this said about the goaltending, that is NOT the reason this team is in the position it is in.

The problem I have with "blaming him for this year" is that this inconsistency has been an issue for his entire tenure as GM. Sure he's brought in guys like Jason Smith, Chris Pronger and Ian Laperriere, but at the same time he's done nothing to hold his "core" players accountable.

How many times did we hear about issues where the older guys added for leadership were upset at being "tuned out"? Guys like Hartnell haven't even seen a drop in their PP time, let alone been healthy scratches-and that is under two different head coaches.

The issues this season, to me, are simply the straw that breaks the camel's back. Holmgren's basic plan is to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks-whatever his good points, and he has several-they're outweighed by his inability to stick to a plan.
I think that, in terms of teams that he's put on the ice the last few years, he's done great. He's good at seeking out talent. He rebuilt the team in basically one year and the last couple of years haven't been all that disappointing really. As an eight seed they went to the ECF and had an exciting playoff run and last year they brought the Stanley Cup champs to six games (and most of us agree that we outplayed them). This year has just been one giant cluster-****. This year almost feels like a cursed year frankly.

I don't have a problem with the teams that he's put together, I think he's very good at doing that, but my major beefs with him is the major roster turnover that's occurred over the last few years (Biron, Niitty, Umberger, Knuble, Upshall, Vaanenan, Kukkonen, Lupul, Prospal, etc.) and his poor handling of the cap that's resulted in some of that turnover (Upshall). If he knew how to handle a cap then I don't think he would be a bad GM quite frankly.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 11:51 PM
  #105
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
I think that, in terms of teams that he's put on the ice the last few years, he's done great. He's good at seeking out talent. He rebuilt the team in basically one year and the last couple of years haven't been all that disappointing really. As an eight seed they went to the ECF and had an exciting playoff run and last year they brought the Stanley Cup champs to six games (and most of us agree that we outplayed them). This year has just been one giant cluster-****. This year almost feels like a cursed year frankly.

I don't have a problem with the teams that he's put together, I think he's very good at doing that, but my major beefs with him is the major roster turnover that's occurred over the last few years (Biron, Niitty, Umberger, Knuble, Upshall, Vaanenan, Kukkonen, Lupul, Prospal, etc.) and his poor handling of the cap that's resulted in some of that turnover (Upshall). If he knew how to handle a cap then I don't think he would be a bad GM quite frankly.
Really? In terms of putting teams on the ice he's done great?

2007-08 the team he put on the ice finished in sixth place, after a late season ten game losing streak prompted rumors that the coach was on the verge of being fired. Last year, they blew home ice on the last day of the season. This year, they will need luck and a couple plane crashes to make the playoffs.

The only sustained success his team has had is when an average goalie caught fire for a few weeks during the 2008 playoffs.

Let's look at the team he's assembled. There's talent, sure. There better be, because he's paying out $60mm in salaries. But does the talent fit? He's got a guy with a $6.5mm cap hit playing out of position on the RW. He's got a guy who is best suited as a third line agitator playing on a line with a multi-time all star and the face of the franchise.

Talent without worrying about the cohesion is great for fantasy teams. This is the real deal, where you have to actually worry about how the talent assembled fits together.

In that regard, Paul Holmgren's been a mediocre GM, at best.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 12:01 AM
  #106
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
Really? In terms of putting teams on the ice he's done great?

2007-08 the team he put on the ice finished in sixth place, after a late season ten game losing streak prompted rumors that the coach was on the verge of being fired. Last year, they blew home ice on the last day of the season. This year, they will need luck and a couple plane crashes to make the playoffs.

The only sustained success his team has had is when an average goalie caught fire for a few weeks during the 2008 playoffs.

Let's look at the team he's assembled. There's talent, sure. There better be, because he's paying out $60mm in salaries. But does the talent fit? He's got a guy with a $6.5mm cap hit playing out of position on the RW. He's got a guy who is best suited as a third line agitator playing on a line with a multi-time all star and the face of the franchise.

Talent without worrying about the cohesion is great for fantasy teams. This is the real deal, where you have to actually worry about how the talent assembled fits together.

In that regard, Paul Holmgren's been a mediocre GM, at best.
Those last few paragraphs fall more under cap management then anything which I've already criticized him for.

As for putting good teams on the ice:

-Rebuilt the team in one year then went on to:

-Go to the ECF. Then:

-Lost in six games to the Cup champs (who many think we outplayed). I can see how you could say this was a little disappointing, but I don't see it that way.

-Like I said, this year he put a good team together (which they've shown before), but it's just been one massive cluster-**** of a season in so many ways, most of which you can't blame him for.

This season is massively disappointing in terms of where we thought we would be going into the season compared to where we are now, but a lot of what's gone wrong this season has either been unpredictable or flat-out bad luck. Only real qualms I have with the team he put together is not getting a third line center (which, I admit, going into the season I wasn't sure if it would be a problem or not) and not getting a more reliable backup (which is kind of hard to blame him for because his options were limited IIRC).

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 12:30 AM
  #107
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Those last few paragraphs fall more under cap management then anything which I've already criticized him for.

As for putting good teams on the ice:

-Rebuilt the team in one year then went on to:

-Go to the ECF. Then:

-Lost in six games to the Cup champs (who many think we outplayed). I can see how you could say this was a little disappointing, but I don't see it that way.

-Like I said, this year he put a good team together (which they've shown before), but it's just been one massive cluster-**** of a season in so many ways, most of which you can't blame him for.

This season is massively disappointing in terms of where we thought we would be going into the season compared to where we are now, but a lot of what's gone wrong this season has either been unpredictable or flat-out bad luck. Only real qualms I have with the team he put together is not getting a third line center (which, I admit, going into the season I wasn't sure if it would be a problem or not) and not getting a more reliable backup (which is kind of hard to blame him for because his options were limited IIRC).
He was able to "rebuild" so quickly because the last GM left him about $30mm in cap room and had ownership will to spend to the cap limit.

That rebuilt team, IIRC, clinched a playoff spot in game 79 or 80. Hardly the mark of a great team. They rode a hot goalie past Montreal.

Last year, they lost home ice by playing with no heart down the stretch. As for outplaying the Pens, last I checked, the Pens won 4 and the Flyers won 2. Lot of folks think that in 2008, Montreal outplayed the Flyers.

This season is simply the culmination of all the past errors coming to roost. It's not a cursed year, it's the result of piss poor planning organization wide.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 12:45 AM
  #108
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
It's been previously speculated (and reasonably so) that there wasn't anything available at the deadline. At least not for a reasonable cost to us.

Every team has injuries, but very few if any have this many injuries at goalie. Can you name any other team that was without their 1st and 2nd string goalie at any point in the season, let alone the entire second half of the season? Can you name any team that's currently without their 1st, 2nd, and 4th string goalies as well as their leading point and goal-scorer? I can't think of any.

Injuries become a legitimate excuse at a certain point. I think the slump that we're in right now has certainly crossed that point.

I don't see how a team like Detroit can have their down year excused by bad luck with injuries, but for some reason the Flyers can't blame some of their record this season on bad luck with injuries.
Holmgren said he did not make one phone call for a goalie so how would he know what was possible? Homer and the media had been saying along he had no interest in a goalie and felt they needed a forward or defenseman. They also said all along Leighton would be our playoff starter. I think it's painfully obvious he was content with gambling on Leighton/Boucher which everyone thought was a terrible idea except for the three Holmgren supporters in existence.

Sure, they've had unusually bad luck with goaltending, I am not going to dispute that, but up until Leighton got injured their goaltending had been adequate for this season.

This team has been terrible hockey this entire month. There was signs of a horrible slump was coming before Leighton was injured. Their offense simply has not been producing.

Giroux: 1 goal
JVR: 1 goal
Hartnell: 2 goals
Briere: 3 goals
Richards: 4 goals
Betts: 1 goal
Laperriere: 0 goals
Powe: 0 goals
Asham: 1 goal


You're not going to win many games when the majority of your forwards are doing nothing all month long. Yeah it hurts to lose Carter considering he was one of the two forwards scoring on a regular basis, but you're not going to do much better if they aren't getting scoring from the rest of the roster.

They've scored 7 goals in their 5 game losing streak. You can't win when you average less than 1.5 goals a game.

The injuries suck and certainly complicates things, but if the players that are here would be show up there would be no talk about them possibly missing the playoffs.

I don't care about what people say about Detroit, but I will say when you're the best organization in the league and your team is at the top of the league year in and year out you're going to get leeway when you have a down year for the first time in forever.

An underachieving organization? Not so much. When Leighton went down the Flyers just had to go .500 the rest of the way and they'd more than likely would secure a playoff spot. That was an achievable goal despite the injuries. They have failed to reach that goal so far because their forwards have not showed up. That has nothing to do with their bad luck with goalies.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 07:05 AM
  #109
Kaktus*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 22,389
vCash: 500
NFC - no fire clause

Kaktus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:06 AM
  #110
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKingPin View Post
Yea seriously. How is it Homer's fault that we suck? This team was predicted by most to come out of the East. That means on paper we are the best team in the East. As a GM thats all you can do is fix the on paper stuff.
How is it shooters fault? good quesiton, i really dont know the answer to that lol.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:17 AM
  #111
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Oh, BTW, Detroit has won a Stanley Cup or 4....that means they get the benefit of the doubt when they have a down year.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:19 AM
  #112
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 114,473
vCash: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
Oh, BTW, Detroit has won a Stanley Cup or 4....that means they get the benefit of the doubt when they have a down year.
And even at that, the Red Wings have their it together, and will beat whoever they play in round 1.

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:39 AM
  #113
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
The way I look at it is this. Holmgren has made more positive moves than bad moves. However, his negative moves have been so bad, and in a certain case mind boggling stupid, that they outweigh the good. I'm not going to blame him for all of our problems and run him out of town with pitchforks and torches like some of you, but if he was fired it wouldn't bother me... depending on who replaced him.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:48 AM
  #114
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
The way I look at it is this. Holmgren has made more positive moves than bad moves. However, his negative moves have been so bad, and in a certain case mind boggling stupid, that they outweigh the good. I'm not going to blame him for all of our problems and run him out of town with pitchforks and torches like some of you, but if he was fired it wouldn't bother me... depending on who replaced him.
In your opinion why do you think he has made more positive moves than negative? I see it the other way around. Regardless who reaplces him,as that has nothing to do with his performance, the needs to go. I hoenstly dont understand how people want him to stick around.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 12:55 PM
  #115
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
In your opinion why do you think he has made more positive moves than negative? I see it the other way around. Regardless who reaplces him,as that has nothing to do with his performance, the needs to go. I hoenstly dont understand how people want him to stick around.
Positive:

-Coburn trade
-Forsberg trade, which brought:
--Timonen
--Hartnell
--Upshall
--Parent
-Getting the top free agent center available when it seemed we were in desperate need of one
-Richards' contract
-Carter's contract
-Betts
-Lappy
-Bartulis' contract
-Picking up Leighton
-Pronger trade
-Hiring Lavi
-Pretty solid drafting
-Pretty solid college signings

Negative:

-Eminger trade
-Keeping Stevens too long
-Waiving Metropolit
-Upshall AND a 2nd for Carcillo
-Signing Boosh
-Briere's contract length
-Jones debacle


Theres probably more that I'm not thinking of, but hey I'm trying to study for a Tax midterm so can I get cut some slack?

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 01:01 PM
  #116
JCameron418
Registered User
 
JCameron418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Positive:

-Coburn trade
-Forsberg trade, which brought:
--Timonen
--Hartnell
--Upshall
--Parent
-Getting the top free agent center available when it seemed we were in desperate need of one
-Richards' contract
-Carter's contract
-Betts
-Lappy
-Bartulis' contract
-Picking up Leighton
-Pronger trade
-Hiring Lavi
-Pretty solid drafting
-Pretty solid college signings

Negative:

-Eminger trade
-Keeping Stevens too long
-Waiving Metropolit
-Upshall AND a 2nd for Carcillo
-Signing Boosh
-Briere's contract length
-Jones debacle


Theres probably more that I'm not thinking of, but hey I'm trying to study for a Tax midterm so can I get cut some slack?
I agree with the above.

People on here give Holmgren a lot of crap but I think he's done way more good then bad for the organization.

This year I'd fault him with not making a deal at the deadline but look at it from his perspective. You got a goalie with a high sv% low gaa and is working great with the team. On the same hand you have limited picks and prospects to give up for another goaltender. So he made the call. Was it a bad call yes. But in the same hand in hindsight we should have signed Craig Anderson in the offseason instead of Emery. Did we know Emery was gonna be injured the whole season. No. Did Holmgren think Leighton was gonna get hurt. No.

Just my stupid 2 cents.

JCameron418 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 01:02 PM
  #117
dbr2
Lockout Beard
 
dbr2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,342
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dbr2
Don't forget Hartnells no clause.

dbr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 01:02 PM
  #118
decadentia
Registered User
 
decadentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Positive:

-Coburn trade
-Forsberg trade, which brought:
--Timonen
--Hartnell
--Upshall
--Parent
-Getting the top free agent center available when it seemed we were in desperate need of one
-Richards' contract
-Carter's contract
-Betts
-Lappy
-Bartulis' contract
-Picking up Leighton
-Pronger trade
-Hiring Lavi
-Pretty solid drafting
-Pretty solid college signings

Negative:

-Eminger trade
-Keeping Stevens too long
-Waiving Metropolit
-Upshall AND a 2nd for Carcillo
-Signing Boosh
-Briere's contract length
-Jones debacle (This should be in neon lights)
-Letting Knuble go (and signing Jones to a ridiculous contract instead)
-Not replacing the offense of Lupul/Knuble
-Not firing Stevens/hiring Lavi for training camp
-Signing Emery/Boucher before truly exploring the goalie market


Theres probably more that I'm not thinking of, but hey I'm trying to study for a Tax midterm so can I get cut some slack?
Added a few, good luck on your midterm

decadentia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 01:32 PM
  #119
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest the Hero View Post
Positive:

-Coburn trade
-Forsberg trade, which brought:
--Timonen
--Hartnell
--Upshall
--Parent
-Getting the top free agent center available when it seemed we were in desperate need of one
-Richards' contract
-Carter's contract
-Betts
-Lappy
-Bartulis' contract
-Picking up Leighton
-Pronger trade
-Hiring Lavi
-Pretty solid drafting
-Pretty solid college signings

Negative:

-Eminger trade
-Keeping Stevens too long
-Waiving Metropolit
-Upshall AND a 2nd for Carcillo
-Signing Boosh
-Briere's contract length
-Jones debacle


Theres probably more that I'm not thinking of, but hey I'm trying to study for a Tax midterm so can I get cut some slack?
coburn is apositive however that was more waddell needing to make the playoffs than shooter being a great dela maker imo.
think the Forsberg trade was good at the time. Giving up a 1st to talk to kimmo and hartnell was not good asset management imo. Giving hartnell that contract was not needed. No problem with the kimmo deal. He went overboard with briere. To many years. Richards contract imo is silly. No one except maybe 3 or 4 player should ever get that type of long term dea. Carter good deal. Betts is a dime a dozen guy, no other team even offered him a deal. Nothing great about that. Lappy was 1 year to much but can sort of live with that. Picking up Leighton was grasping at the last straw that happened to pan out somewhat. That isnít any genius move by any means. Pronger has been great but that trade is a disaster. Lavi I agree. The others to soon to tell. Now go study.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 01:37 PM
  #120
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Bidding against himself in the Pronger deal to give up two 1sts that we didn't need to lose...

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 01:43 PM
  #121
chimrichalds18
the key
 
chimrichalds18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Bidding against himself in the Pronger deal to give up two 1sts that we didn't need to lose...
I'd also add the 2nd that he sent to LA with Gauthier just to get them to take him off our hands.

Seems like a small thing, but that 2nd (for this year) would have been the starting point for any trade at this year's deadline. It amazes me how recklessly this organization throws around draft picks.

chimrichalds18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 02:06 PM
  #122
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Bidding against himself in the Pronger deal to give up two 1sts that we didn't need to lose...
Right on the dot. As well, the Flyers were more than a Chris Pronger away from competing for the Stanley Cup and everyone knew that. Holmgren sold everyone on the idea that Pronger was the missing piece of the puzzle and as it turns out, Pronger has been nothing more than the piece of the puzzle trying to keep the mess that Holmgren assembled a float. And now with no draft picks in the first three rounds, no salary cap room, and no other viable assets, this franchise is stuck in the mess that's it in for at least another season or two.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 02:15 PM
  #123
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 114,473
vCash: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by chimrichalds18 View Post
I'd also add the 2nd that he sent to LA with Gauthier just to get them to take him off our hands.

Seems like a small thing, but that 2nd (for this year) would have been the starting point for any trade at this year's deadline. It amazes me how recklessly this organization throws around draft picks.
Because they felt bad for him

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 03:06 PM
  #124
Alcoolique*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Prudential Center.
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post


Yeah, but they're not realistically going to win the Cup right? Or could they? Even if they're the favorite for the Cup, the odds say they won't win it. They probably won't, but their 1st/2nd round exit this year and every year since 2000 is so effing different from the Flyers right?





.
arhem, they actually won the cup in 2000, went to the cup in 2001, won the cup in 2003...

Alcoolique* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 03:31 PM
  #125
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
A GM should not be called "successful" for having a few more good moves then bad moves. Anywhere else in America, and you get fired for that kid of rate. If Boucher saves 55% of the shots, is he successful?

mm6492 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 10:29 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.