Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Can Quick move to Flyers or somewhere else this season?
Did i see the pens game during which the pens hit 4 posts and Crosby and Martin(?) both missed complete empty netters from 6 feet out?
That being said, Bob did look good and weirdly looked more comfortable saving the harder shots
Like we did not miss some opportunity's also!!!!!!!!!!!! Posts are part of the goalie's equipment LOL Did you see the 1st period? I guess your glass is always half empty.
Like we did not miss some opportunity's also!!!!!!!!!!!! Posts are part of the goalie's equipment LOL Did you see the 1st period? I guess your glass is always half empty.
As a Flyers fan I would say you'd be better off taking the glass half empty approach. He played a good game, that's one game, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
I hope he does flourish and develop into the goalie we need, but let's not get too excited just yet.
As a Flyers fan I would say you'd be better off taking the glass half empty approach. He played a good game, that's one game, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Nobody's getting ahead of themselves, well maybe some are, but I don't see that from the vast majority of Flyers fans.
Let's also for the sake of sanity and reality not pretend this was just one good game.
He's been doing this since he arrived in Philadelphia. He played this way for years in the KHL.
Like I said, if we're going to bring everyone's expectations back to reality, we need to clarify what reality is.
I'm not saying you should be overly optimistic because there still a bunch of hurdles for this kid to cross, but there is reason to be excited at least a little bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
If I had the depth up front that the Flyers have and have had goalie problems since Hextall, yes I would.
Now, since the Rangers have Lundqvist and have historically been strong in goal, no, it's not a deal I would make.
You want to strengthen an organizational wekness, you have to give quality for quality.
Nobody's getting ahead of themselves, well maybe some are, but I don't see that from the vast majority of Flyers fans.
Let's also for the sake of sanity and reality not pretend this was just one good game.
He's been doing this since he arrived in Philadelphia. He played this way for years in the KHL.
Like I said, if we're going to bring everyone's expectations back to reality, we need to clarify what reality is.
I'm not saying you should be overly optimistic because there still a bunch of hurdles for this kid to cross, but there is reason to be excited at least a little bit.
No offense, but they should not let you be a GM.
Fair enough, but you won't get a legit #1 without parting with talent comensurate for said #1 goalie.
Fair enough, but you won't get a legit #1 without parting with talent comensurate for said #1 goalie.
I'm not going to get into this argument again, but I think you should at least agree that a skater's value is different than a goaltender. And that value varies from team to team. On a team like the Flyers, the need for a strong goaltender is almost non-existent. Could they use someone half competent? Of course, but they don't need a great goalie.
While I don't think Quick is a great goalie, nor do I think he's anything special, he would be nice to have in net mostly for his cost vs. production ratio. On the Flyers, he'd be perfect.
That doesn't mean I'm throwing out a useful asset to acquire him, let alone a 40 goal scorer.
My offer from the Flyers is probably Matt Carle at the most. Certainly not Hartnell or another forward.
With that kind of offer, we wouldn't acquire him, but really it doesn't phase me in the least.
I'm not going to get into this argument again, but I think you should at least agree that a skater's value is different than a goaltender. And that value varies from team to team. On a team like the Flyers, the need for a strong goaltender is almost non-existent. Could they use someone half competent? Of course, but they don't need a great goalie.
While I don't think Quick is a great goalie, nor do I think he's anything special, he would be nice to have in net mostly for his cost vs. production ratio. On the Flyers, he'd be perfect.
That doesn't mean I'm throwing out a useful asset to acquire him, let alone a 40 goal scorer.
My offer from the Flyers is probably Matt Carle at the most. Certainly not Hartnell or another forward.
With that kind of offer, we wouldn't acquire him, but really it doesn't phase me in the least.
I would think that the need for a true quality goalie is the difference that the Flyers do not have. Every other component is there.
I agree that a skaters value is different, but no more important than a goalie. In the Flyers case (based on the depth that you have) I'd say it's less important.
An offer of Hartnell for a #1 goalie would be laughed at. He's a decent 3rd line winger that is not totally out of place on the 2nd line. But left there to long and he's exposed for the inconsistent player he is. However, left on the 3rd line he's awesome. However, the Kings are not trading a #1 goalie for a good 3rd liner. They have one already in Simmonds.
I guess we value these guys differently, it's cool
I would think that the need for a true quality goalie is the difference that the Flyers do not have. Every other component is there.
I agree that a skaters value is different, but no more important than a goalie. In the Flyers case (based on the depth that you have) I'd say it's less important.
An offer of Hartnell for a #1 goalie would be laughed at. He's a decent 3rd line winger that is not totally out of place on the 2nd line. But left there to long and he's exposed for the inconsistent player he is. However, left on the 3rd line he's awesome. However, the Kings are not trading a #1 goalie for a good 3rd liner. They have one already in Simmonds.
I guess we value these guys differently, it's cool
Hartnell is a top 6 forward. I'm not even a Flyer fan, I was definitely rooting against them all play-offs and season, but he's a top 6 guy.
Hartnell is a top 6 forward. I'm not even a Flyer fan, I was definitely rooting against them all play-offs and season, but he's a top 6 guy.
Yeah, I was about to say.
(the following directed at: PLD)
Anyway, all the players we have are not necessarily "key," but they all have specific roles to fill. Some may say that it's excess, but I'm pretty excited to see the best core of skaters in the NHL night in and night out.
That said, if you start detracting and taking away from that core, it takes away from our ability to field a strong team. Even transplanting it for a goalie...
What's a better use of assets?
A) The best team of skaters with a mediocre goalie producing like an elite goalie because of the amount of talented skaters.
or
B) Just a strong team of skaters with a better goalie producing the same as the weaker goalie would behind all of those skaters.
Just because skaters impact the game at every inch of ice, whereas goalies only impact what goes in and out of the net for the most part, it should be fairly obvious where you can see that skaters are a more important investment for cap space.
Welcome to the salary cap era. The world once dominated by goaltending and interference is gone.
Uhhh B. A good goaltender playing behind a great D wins you Cups. Most certainly there would be a huge difference to adding "B" both on the stats sheets, and more importantly on in the standings.
__________________
I'm not high, but I don't know what day it is.
Uhhh B. A good goaltender playing behind a great D wins you Cups. Most certainly there would be a huge difference to adding "B" both on the stats sheets, and more importantly on in the standings.
Normally dwindling the talent of your skating core makes it harder on the goalie. So in theory, having a strong skater offsets having a weaker goalie. It's not a perfect 1 for 1 ratio, but if you're going to get the same GAA from (remember this is only in theory, not record fact because there are other factors involved):
Carter + Leighton
as you would from
Gaustad + Miller
Why wouldn't you take the extra offensive abilities from Carter as opposed to Gausted in the theory that the GAA production between the pipes is the same?
The two goalies in the Stanley Cup Finals last year were probably the 29th and 30th best "starters" in the NHL. If not, they were certainly around there. I know for a fact that Leighton was 30th.
I would also argue that no real elite goalie, or extremely good goalie for that matter, has won a Stanley Cup since before the lockout during the heart of the DPE.
For the last two decades, this trend is even more reinforced with the strength of the goaltending champions showing up only during the DPE. Before and after most winners and runner-ups were just average to slightly above-average goalies playing behind strong teams.
An average goaltender playing behind a spectacular d-core and a deep offensive core that is strong at both ends of the rink is the way to win a championship. Overspending at the goaltending position is a waste of cap space, and shipping off assets to acquire a strong goaltender is a waste of assets. Why do you think goaltending prices not only on the market but in trades as well are so deflated?
Think what you want, but the importance of goaltending is not as significant as it once was and certainly not as significant as the value of a strong skater whether defensive or offensive.
