I always wanted ML signed but do not want Boucher as backup when doing so, only because I think Boucher's win loss record as a backup will hurt the team more then giving that job to someone more capable of giving us a chance to win more often then not.
SJ might want Boucher as backup then use his salary to grab a better goalie in FA or even in the AHL not offered a contract.
If problems occur in the year like injuries or performance slumping we can always grab a goalie later or utilize one of the rookies with half a year under their belt in the ahl.
If we are sitting there and Turco, Mason, and Nabokov are all signed to different teams, then we can overreact, until then, we should try to be calm.
Yeah, this doesn't mean Leighton will definitely be the starter, but it does seem like Holmgren's first option is to allocate his cap dollars to defense and not goaltending.
I hope Turco turning them down doesnt sour Shooter. I mean that was a bad offer. Anything other than a backup role for Leighton and you can as of Today say the Stanley Cup draught will continue for the Flyers Orgin-eye-zation. They will never learn it appears. Plenty better options. While no goalie can guaretee a cup, many out there are btter options than Leighton. Part of me hopes he overpays Leighton and gives him a long term deal as i need a good laugh today, excuse me another laugh.
Yeah, this doesn't mean Leighton will definitely be the starter, but it does seem like Holmgren's first option is to allocate his cap dollars to defense and not goaltending.
I would only be okay with signing Leighton to "compete" if it means we're going after a young goalie via trade, which is doubtful at this point, or if he's signing Mason/Ellis. And even then, it's not the best idea. I'd much rather he go after Turco/Nabby once they see the market, then go after Mason if he's still out there. An Ellis/Leighton tandem wouldn't be ideal.
However, if this means he told Leighton he could compete for the no. 1... with Turco/Nabby, then fine. Good luck with that Mike.
In all seriousness, WTF is Homer's plan with this offseason?
1a) We traded for Hamhuis' rights; tried and failed to sign him.
1b) Yesterday there were reports that Holmgren was all hot and bothered about Volchenkov, and I read somewhere today that we're also interested in Paul Martin. Given all those options, and your interest in 'em... why trade for Hamhuis' rights?
2a) Related to the above, he was babbling about keeping all these D, which would obviously constrict our cap space and leave our dick in the wind on signing a goalie of any merit.
2b) We "trade" for the negotiating rights to Nabokov, and are allowed to talk to Turco (who we apparently made a contract offer to).
2c) We now have an "imminent" re-signing of Michael Leighton? Why? The two goalies you've already talked to are unsigned and probably just want to see what the market is like. There is absolutely no good reason to sign Michael Leighton today... did we learn nothing from last year?
Stop running around like a friggin chicken with its head cut off.
In all seriousness, WTF is Homer's plan with this offseason?
1a) We traded for Hamhuis' rights; tried and failed to sign him.
1b) Yesterday there were reports that Holmgren was all hot and bothered about Volchenkov, and I read somewhere today that we're also interested in Paul Martin. Given all those options, and your interest in 'em... why trade for Hamhuis' rights?
2a) Related to the above, he was babbling about keeping all these D, which would obviously constrict our cap space and leave our dick in the wind on signing a goalie of any merit.
2b) We "trade" for the negotiating rights to Nabokov, and are allowed to talk to Turco (who we apparently made a contract offer to).
2c) We now have an "imminent" re-signing of Michael Leighton? Why? The two goalies you've already talked to are unsigned and probably just want to see what the market is like. There is absolutely no good reason to sign Michael Leighton today... did we learn nothing from last year?
Stop running around like a friggin chicken with its head cut off.
1) Panaccio's an idiot. He thinks "Mason" played for Hitchcock -- he doesn't realize that there is Steve Mason (CBJ) and Chris Mason (STL).
2) Panaccio answered his own question. He asks if it will end with Leighton. If it does, then Leighton's not going to compete with anyone for goal. I don't want Leighton back -- I hope he dies tomorrow -- but I'm confident that Holmgren (gulp) will do everything he can to get another goalie (and hopefully through FA)
As much as I loathe Holmgren's management of this team... he has clearly gone into previous offseasons with a coherent plan.
1) Timonen, Hartnell, Briere, and Pitkanen trade.
2) Year of goofy defensive moves.
3) Emery and Pronger trade.
4) As a body, the crap he's doing is completely incoherent to an organized approach to this offseason... it appears he is quite literally throwing **** at the wall and seeing what sticks. High priced defender doesn't mesh with higher priced goalies...
1) Panaccio's an idiot. He thinks "Mason" played for Hitchcock -- he doesn't realize that there is Steve Mason (CBJ) and Chris Mason (STL).
2) Panaccio answered his own question. He asks if it will end with Leighton. If it does, then Leighton's not going to compete with anyone for goal. I don't want Leighton back -- I hope he dies tomorrow -- but I'm confident that Holmgren (gulp) will do everything he can to get another goalie (and hopefully through FA)
Ugh, this statement is a bit extreme.
For me, Leighton would be an IDEAL backup. Good size, plays well enough for us to compete in games and is only 28-29 right now.
1) Panaccio's an idiot. He thinks "Mason" played for Hitchcock -- he doesn't realize that there is Steve Mason (CBJ) and Chris Mason (STL).
2) Panaccio answered his own question. He asks if it will end with Leighton. If it does, then Leighton's not going to compete with anyone for goal. I don't want Leighton back -- I hope he dies tomorrow -- but I'm confident that Holmgren (gulp) will do everything he can to get another goalie (and hopefully through FA)
