HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

LEIGHTON activated; WALKER surgery (out 6-8 weeks from Dec. 16) and LAPERRIERE LTIR

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2010, 03:12 PM
  #76
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Oh but you see. When the season is almost half way through, and you can see how the player has performed you can totally rip into our GM. Funny thing is, I don't see anyone complaining about the Mezaros trade anymore. That was one of the best moves in the offseason out of any GM.

Funny thing is too, that I remember that Tampa were in joy that they had got rid of him.
Mez was good but at 4M he's not exactly a cap steal although if you move Carle and Zherdev you can maybe add some punch on the wing and Mez moves up.

Again with Thomas the Flyers would have pursued a bit of an alternative strategy and they could have still solidified their D and maybe even given Bartulis a chance to prove himself.

The savior so far has been Bob but again we have to see how he performs in the playoffs. Hopefully he continues to improve.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 03:22 PM
  #77
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Oh but you see. When the season is almost half way through, and you can see how the player has performed you can totally rip into our GM. Funny thing is, I don't see anyone complaining about the Mezaros trade anymore. That was one of the best moves in the offseason out of any GM.

Funny thing is too, that I remember that Tampa were in joy that they had got rid of him.
Really? There was a whole thread discussing the problem that is his salary going on last week.

And Tampa is still thrilled they moved Meszaros (and Walker)... as they're about to use all of that cash to re-sign Stamkos past this year.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 03:49 PM
  #78
phillyfanatic
Registered User
 
phillyfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Really? There was a whole thread discussing the problem that is his salary going on last week.

And Tampa is still thrilled they moved Meszaros (and Walker)... as they're about to use all of that cash to re-sign Stamkos past this year.
Whille you and I disagree on the Flyers side of the Meszaros trade I agree with the Tampa side. Signing Stamkos is priority number 1 for them as it should be. Now if only they didn't have Vinny signed to a terrible deal perhaps they could have Stamkos and a decent defense with Meszaros. Oh well - I shall shed no tears for a weak fanbase franchise that has 1 more Stanley Cup then us since my birth 30+ years ago. Freakin Brad Richards.

Now, if we had Vinny for 7.27 for 12 years, Prospal at 1.2 buyout for 5 years, Fedotenko at .3 for 2 years on a buyout, Dan Ellis at 1.5 for 2 years and a defense led by Kubina, Ohlund, Brett Clark and Randy Jones.....now then, I would understand hating the GM.

phillyfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:09 PM
  #79
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Meszaros was a gamble acquisition, as he didnt play very well in Tampa, but I knew he was a good player and hoped it would turn out like this. I still think the timing was weird, since we could have tried to sign a UFA for 4 mil the next day without losing a 2nd, but Im glad we have Meszaros now, and hope that we can trade Carle for a cheaper 3rd pairing guy and a pick this offseason to keep Leino

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:13 PM
  #80
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I do not fault Homer at all for not trading for Thomas. In fact, I would have been pissed if he did. You don't trade for a 35+ contract making that much money, for significant years, coming off of a down year.
And you would have been wrong b/c the reality is that Thomas is performing and damn well and again the contract although not ideal was not horrible considering what you signed for the same money. Also again you would have a vezina goalie for the playoffs and Bob could round out his game. BTW Thomas has 3 years left doesn't he which includes this year..where is the 5 coming from?

I recall Holmgren really considering getting Thomas because he liked his attitude, was professional and a great competitor (or so it was reported). He then went back to his strategy that he pursued when he went after Hamhuis who rejected us and decided to solidify the D and then "jumped" at Meszeros. Then came the ill advised Leighton signing and raise, Shelley signing, Zherdev signing and last but worst..the Walker signing.

Anyway, this is all a moot point for now but the strategy he pursued will show itself come playofff time. If Bob is the real deal then we should be fine although it doesn't absolve the situation of having dead weight completely. The cap flexibility would have been nice no matter what especially come trade deadline time where you might need the flexibility.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:14 PM
  #81
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfanatic View Post
Whille you and I disagree on the Flyers side of the Meszaros trade I agree with the Tampa side. Signing Stamkos is priority number 1 for them as it should be. Now if only they didn't have Vinny signed to a terrible deal perhaps they could have Stamkos and a decent defense with Meszaros. Oh well - I shall shed no tears for a weak fanbase franchise that has 1 more Stanley Cup then us since my birth 30+ years ago. Freakin Brad Richards.

Now, if we had Vinny for 7.27 for 12 years, Prospal at 1.2 buyout for 5 years, Fedotenko at .3 for 2 years on a buyout, Dan Ellis at 1.5 for 2 years and a defense led by Kubina, Ohlund, Brett Clark and Randy Jones.....now then, I would understand hating the GM.
The previous incarnations of management (Feaster) in TB, were terrible.

And TB's skaters aren't all that bad, and they have some talent developing on D (Hedman is going to be a stud, IMO)... and even now they aren't that bad, they just need their goalies to improve a bit.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:15 PM
  #82
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
And you would have been wrong b/c the reality is that Thomas is performing and damn well and again the contract although not ideal was not horrible considering what you signed for the same money. Also again you would have a vezina goalie for the playoffs and Bob could round out his game.

I recall Holmgren really considering getting Thomas because he liked his attitude, was professional and a great competitor (or so it was reported). He then went back to his strategy that he pursued when he went after Hamhuis who rejected us and decided to solidify the D and then "jumped" at Meszeros. Then came the ill advised Leighton signing and raise, Shelley signing, Zherdev signing and last but worst..the Walker signing.

Anyway, this is all a moot point for now but the strategy he pursued will show itself come playofff time. If Bob is the real deal then we should be fine although it doesn't absolve the situation of having debt weight completely. The cap flexibility would have been nice no matter what especially come trade deadline time where you might need the flexibility.
You would have seriously traded for a damaged goods 35+ contract last summer?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:22 PM
  #83
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You would have seriously traded for a damaged goods 35+ contract last summer?
Yes...because the reality is that he is not damaged goods. He sure isn't playing like it. The over 35 contract is real but so is the reality we have Leighton (damaged goods), Walker (damaged goods) and Shelley (worthless goods).....

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:30 PM
  #84
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Yes...because the reality is that he is not damaged goods. He sure isn't playing like it. The over 35 contract is real but so is the reality we have Leighton (damaged goods), Walker (damaged goods) and Shelley (worthless goods).....
...he had surgery last offseason, and played most of the year hurt. He was the definition of "damaged goods."

Sure, he's recovered nicely, but it requires a leap of faith to assume that a goalie Thomas' age is going to recover well (and who knows how that will play out going forward) and perform at a high level.

Additionally, we weren't really in a position to take on long-term contracts given the fact that both Giroux and Carter were not signed past this year... one of the reasons the Meszaros, Walker, and Shelley acquisitions made so little sense strategically.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:35 PM
  #85
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...he had surgery last offseason, and played most of the year hurt. He was the definition of "damaged goods."

Sure, he's recovered nicely, but it requires a leap of faith to assume that a goalie Thomas' age is going to recover well (and who knows how that will play out going forward) and perform at a high level.

Additionally, we weren't really in a position to take on long-term contracts given the fact that both Giroux and Carter were not signed past this year... one of the reasons the Meszaros, Walker, and Shelley acquisitions made so little sense strategically.
His injury didn't sound career ending or something he couldn't bounce back from. Rask just overshadowed him for that particular year. It happens...just like what Bob is doing to Leighton so far. Yes he was a risk but sometimes you have to weigh how much of a risk something really is. I already posted a thread in the summer about my position on it and I found it intriguing to sign the guy and Meltzer was saying the same thing. I wasn't against it..I said it in my initial post. Anyway....could have should have would have. I agree the other offseason acquisitions were baffeling and fraught with even more question marks as an aggregate.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 04:53 PM
  #86
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
His injury didn't sound career ending or something he couldn't bounce back from. Rask just overshadowed him for that particular year. It happens...just like what Bob is doing to Leighton so far. Yes he was a risk but sometimes you have to weigh how much of a risk something really is. I already posted a thread in the summer about my position on it and I found it intriguing to sign the guy and Meltzer was saying the same thing. I wasn't against it..I said it in my initial post. Anyway....could have should have would have. I agree the other offseason acquisitions were baffeling and fraught with even more question marks as an aggregate.
It was like a hip/groin thing, no? That's not exactly the type of injury goalies necessarily bounce back from all that well.

If he had one year left, I would have been all over him in a Gagne swap (no real risk there... and preserved cap flexibility past this year). But I think Homer made the right decision (if he ever considered it, which I doubt given the fact that he doesn't appear to like spending money on goal) in not going after Thomas given the injury problem last year.

Just a big risk with a 35+ contract.

Thomas didn't even play that bad last year, agree with you there. Rask was just that good. However, Thomas will come down to earth at some point here. No way he can maintain his current play throughout the entirety of the season... someone needs to look into whether he's on pace to set the record for SVPCT.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 05:00 PM
  #87
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It was like a hip/groin thing, no? That's not exactly the type of injury goalies necessarily bounce back from all that well.

If he had one year left, I would have been all over him in a Gagne swap (no real risk there... and preserved cap flexibility past this year). But I think Homer made the right decision (if he ever considered it, which I doubt given the fact that he doesn't appear to like spending money on goal) in not going after Thomas given the injury problem last year.

Just a big risk with a 35+ contract.

Thomas didn't even play that bad last year, agree with you there. Rask was just that good. However, Thomas will come down to earth at some point here. No way he can maintain his current play throughout the entirety of the season... someone needs to look into whether he's on pace to set the record for SVPCT.
We went over the injury debate in the original thread about the trade and in this particular post where I cited the article below...see the bolded part. This is what I was basing my risk factor on...looks like I wasn't really off given how he's playing. Yes we'll see if he can sustain it but I would have more confidence in him doing so than Leighton. Hopefully Bob continues to make this a moot point like I said

Post:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=101


Quote:
Article:

BOSTON -- While there have been several different trade rumors involving the Bruins that have bubbled up over the last couple of days, sources indicated to CSNNE.com that Boston's top trade priority heading into the draft is unloading veteran goalie Tim Thomas and his $5 million salary cap hit.

Thomas lost his starting job to rookie Tuukka Rask last season and is seeking to become a No. 1 goaltender elsewhere. Itís apparent he's willing to waive his no-trade clause in order to do so.

Sources also indicated both the San Jose Sharks and Tampa Bay Lightning are in the mix in discussions with the Bruins for Thomas, and the Philadelphia Flyers are also a potential suitor if they can shed some salary cap baggage leading up to the July 1 free agent deadline.

"They've got to move the salary," one source with knowledge of the situation told CSNNE.com. "They donít have a whole lot of choice. The challenge is finding a place willing to take him and the salary that goes along with him."

There was some question about whether teams would be scared away by the hip surgery Thomas underwent after the season was over, and there was uncertainty about whether Thomas would be willing to waive the no-trade clause he owns in two of the three remaining years on his deal.

But several sources indicated Thomas' surgery was minor in nature and general manager Peter Chiarelli said last week Thomas would be ready at the start of training camp. A second source indicated the likelihood is that Thomas will waive the no-trade if the right kind of deal comes along after putting up a perfectly serviceable 2.56 goals-against average and .915 save percentage along with five shutouts last season.


"He's a goalie and he wants to play. He's a competitive guy and the most important thing for him at this point in his career is to go to a player where he can play,Ē said a second source. "He's not going to be happy if heís sitting."

http://www.necn.com/06/21/10/Bruins-...03&feedID=4945

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 09:46 PM
  #88
MiamiScreamingEagles
Global Moderator
A Fistful of Dollars
 
MiamiScreamingEagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 38,948
vCash: 1118
http://www.csnphilly.com/12/14/10/Fl...290&feedID=695

Quote:
The Flyers decided late Tuesday night to place Matt Walker on long-term injury where he joins Ian Laperriere.

Goalie Michael Leighton was re-activated after the Flyers' 3-2 win over the Penguins.

Originally, the club was going to leave Walker on injured reserve. But since he will undergo surgery on Thursday, a decision was made to place him on LTIR right now. Walker is expected to miss 4-6 weeks. Once he is medically cleared, he could come off LTIR.

MiamiScreamingEagles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 10:02 PM
  #89
BernieParent
HFB Partner
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,464
vCash: 500
Holmgren has to come out from behind his pithy little phrases and enact a long-term solution to this time bomb of a cap situation. Whether that is a 10-game showdown between Boucher and Leighton, waiving Shelley (hint hint), moving Zherdev or finding a more interesting approach, he's got to get a handle on the salary to a) keep his existing line-up, and b) give himself flexibility up to the trade deadline.

BernieParent is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2010, 10:24 PM
  #90
paragon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfanatic View Post
Now, if we had Vinny for 7.27 for 12 years
Cap hit is not that relevant for a team that usually has 10M in cap space. Vinny's salary is more important. He's the highest paid player in the league, making 10M a year for the next 6 years. Top 3 worst contracts in the league, and a true anchor for a cash-strapped team like Tampa.

paragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 03:58 AM
  #91
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
I'll say this again DrDoom. Hindsight is everything. Thomas could of just as easily gotten lit up in his first few games, and rode the pine for the rest of the year. So he's on a tear at the moment. Isn't bobrovsky too?

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 07:40 AM
  #92
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
And you would have been wrong b/c the reality is that Thomas is performing and damn well and again the contract although not ideal was not horrible considering what you signed for the same money. Also again you would have a vezina goalie for the playoffs and Bob could round out his game. BTW Thomas has 3 years left doesn't he which includes this year..where is the 5 coming from?

I recall Holmgren really considering getting Thomas because he liked his attitude, was professional and a great competitor (or so it was reported). He then went back to his strategy that he pursued when he went after Hamhuis who rejected us and decided to solidify the D and then "jumped" at Meszeros. Then came the ill advised Leighton signing and raise, Shelley signing, Zherdev signing and last but worst..the Walker signing.

Anyway, this is all a moot point for now but the strategy he pursued will show itself come playofff time. If Bob is the real deal then we should be fine although it doesn't absolve the situation of having dead weight completely. The cap flexibility would have been nice no matter what especially come trade deadline time where you might need the flexibility.
No, no, no, no, a thousand times no. Much like the arguments I make about Homer...you cannot just use the ends to justify the means.

Trading for a 35+ contract worth 5 million over multiple years when he had a down year IS stupid and you can't argue that. Whether or not that 35+ year old turns it around and plays well has NOTHING to do with the fact acquiring that specific player in that specific circumstance is STUPID.

If I buy a $10,000 lottery ticket is that smart? No it's effing dumb! Because the chances of me winning are small. If I win does that make it smart? No it's still effing dumb, I just got lucky and it worked out in my favor.

I'll even give you an example with better odds. If I go to AC and put $10,000 on black, is that smart? Nope. It's dumb. If I win does it become smart? Nope, it's still dumb, I just happened to win. Now you need to recall Tim Thomas has years on his contract beyond this year. So you have to continue to take your $10,000 winnings and keep placing it on black essentially. RISK!

Why don't people seem to understand risk mitigation? Being a GM is not about acquriing players with no regard for money, assets, or risk. In a salary cap world, you cannot afford something that risky when you are as money tight as we are.

edit: Oh and I'm not sure what you're asking with "where is the 5 coming from"? I don't see where I said that. 35+ contract for multiple years at 5ish million per year, is what I think I said?


Last edited by DUHockey9: 12-15-2010 at 07:47 AM.
DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 09:39 AM
  #93
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
I did not say there wasn't risk I said that the risk wasn't as big as people made it out to be. That is my point! I posted an article about how his surgery was not some major deal. The guy had an off year and was overshadowed by Rask and the injury didn't help. Anomalies happen! As far as the 5 comment I meant his contract is for another 3 years which includes this year. Some people said it was a 5 year deal we would have to deal with. If Holmgren stuck with the strategy to get a goalie since we had no clue what Bob was going to do and still don't in the longterm and especially the playoffs he could have just swapped Gagne's contract for Thomas and then allowed for more cap space by not signing Leighton and then giving ill advised contracts to the likes of Shelley or trading for Walker (almost 2m for 3 years). Look at all the risk you gained from just those 3 players alone! There has been NO added value with those signings and they aren't devoid of risk. Even if Thomas didn't perform out the gate we actually would still be in a better position cap wise and we could have still solidfied our D and had the ability to extend Giroux and Carter...maybe they would had to get a cheaper D man than Meszeros and given Bartulis a chance to earn a spot but with Thomas in net you wouldn't have had to stack the D as much although Holmgren stacked it by overpaying anyway. Again this is all about pursuing a different strategy with Thomas being your cornerstone deal. It wasn't as big a risk as people were making it out to be given the flexibility you would have gained.


Last edited by FreshPerspective: 12-15-2010 at 09:44 AM.
FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 09:48 AM
  #94
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
I did not say there wasn't risk I said that the risk wasn't as big as people made it out to be. That is my point! I posted an article about how his surgery was not some major deal. The guy had an off year and was overshadowed by Rask and the injury didn't help. Anomalies happen! As far as the 5 comment I meant his contract is for another 3 years which includes this year. Some people said it was a 5 year deal we would have to deal with. If Holmgren stuck with the strategy to get a goalie since we had no clue what Bob was going to do and still don't in the longterm and especially the playoffs he could have just swapped Gagne's contract for Thomas and then allowed for more cap space by not signing Leighton and then giving ill advised contracts to the likes of Shelley or trading for Walker (almost 2m for 3 years). Look at all the risk you gained from just those 3 players alone! There has been NO added value with those signings and they aren't devoid of risk. Even if Thomas didn't perform out the gate we actually would still be in a better position cap wise and we could have still solidfied our D and had the ability to extend Giroux and Carter...maybe they would had to get a cheaper D man than Meszeros and given Bartulis a chance to earn a spot but with Thomas in net you wouldn't have had to stack the D as much although Holmgren stacked it by overpaying anyway. Again this is all about pursuing a different strategy with Thomas being your cornerstone deal. It wasn't as big a risk as people were making it out to be given the flexibility you would have gained.
I also wanted a goalie added, but not TT because it was far too risky. And in no way am I condoning, Shelley or Walker, those are equally stupid.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 09:49 AM
  #95
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
I'll say this again DrDoom. Hindsight is everything. Thomas could of just as easily gotten lit up in his first few games, and rode the pine for the rest of the year. So he's on a tear at the moment. Isn't bobrovsky too?
Again you are comparing a Vezina goalie who had an off year (anomaly) and who's injury wasn't something major as the article I posted noted to a rookie who has fallen off a bit, has never played 40-60 games like a starter and who hasn't been tested in the playoffs. It's not the same. I'm big on Bob but despite all the overblown risk that Thomas had ...I still would have like to have traded for Thomas to mitigate the risk of having to rely on a rookie goalie in the playoffs and two career backups.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 09:50 AM
  #96
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
I think Roloson would have been a less risky option. Cheaper, shorter deal, not injured

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 09:58 AM
  #97
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I also wanted a goalie added, but not TT because it was far too risky. And in no way am I condoning, Shelley or Walker, those are equally stupid.
ok it was far too risky for you. I agreed with Melzter...it was risky but not as risky as some imagined especially if Holmgren pursued a better offseason strategy with the goalie as the cornerstone. Yeah Bob is making it a moot point for now but we are only 1/3 into the season. Thankfully everything is just fine but this game is a funny game and we will have to see what kind of situation we are in around March (trade deadline) and April with the goalies and injuries. I agree a lot of those goalies were not palatable but I did support getting Thomas. I didn't like Turco, I figured Nabakov would go to Russia, Ellis I was on record as saying reminded me of Esche, Biron was flaky, Niemi was not great etc. The only one I sort of liked was Nitty but he's been inconsistent as always. Holmgren is just lucky Bob has done more than expected and Boosh is holding his own but there is a real risk that might not hold up. Holmgren's strategy of stacking the D and the middle is not bad since depth at those two positions is key int he playoffs but in the offseason tons of people were in agreement that we needed to address the goaltending situation since nobody imagined Bob would be as good as he has been although he's tapered off...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 11:07 AM
  #98
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Again you are comparing a Vezina goalie who had an off year (anomaly) and who's injury wasn't something major as the article I posted noted to a rookie who has fallen off a bit, has never played 40-60 games like a starter and who hasn't been tested in the playoffs. It's not the same. I'm big on Bob but despite all the overblown risk that Thomas had ...I still would have like to have traded for Thomas to mitigate the risk of having to rely on a rookie goalie in the playoffs and two career backups.
....quoting the GM that was shopping him last summer. The Bruins had every reason in the world to downplay the nature of his injury.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 11:39 AM
  #99
Shadow Flyer
Why So Serious?
 
Shadow Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,714
vCash: 500
I get all over Homer as much as anyone around here, but I won't get on him for not trading for Tim Thomas. Given his age, contract and the fact that he was coming off injury ... the risk wasn't worth it, especially when we only needed a slight upgrade in net anyway.

Not one GM in the league made a play for Thomas, and rightfully so. The circumstances surrounding that player at the time he was supposedly available made him too risky for anyone to acquire. Not to mention the fact that Thomas still has multiple years left on a 35+ contract, where if he reverts to last seasons' form or has injury issues, you are quite literally ****ed for the future.

If Thomas was offered to the Flyers, then Homer did the right thing by passing on that deal at the time. What alot of people fail to understand around here is that a HUGE part of a GMs' job is to mitigate risk (especially in a cap world). Trading for Tim Thomas in the offseason would have been the exact opposite of mitigating risk.

Shadow Flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2010, 12:25 PM
  #100
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Flyer View Post
I get all over Homer as much as anyone around here, but I won't get on him for not trading for Tim Thomas. Given his age, contract and the fact that he was coming off injury ... the risk wasn't worth it, especially when we only needed a slight upgrade in net anyway.

Not one GM in the league made a play for Thomas, and rightfully so. The circumstances surrounding that player at the time he was supposedly available made him too risky for anyone to acquire. Not to mention the fact that Thomas still has multiple years left on a 35+ contract, where if he reverts to last seasons' form or has injury issues, you are quite literally ****ed for the future.

If Thomas was offered to the Flyers, then Homer did the right thing by passing on that deal at the time. What alot of people fail to understand around here is that a HUGE part of a GMs' job is to mitigate risk (especially in a cap world). Trading for Tim Thomas in the offseason would have been the exact opposite of mitigating risk.
Great minds, man, great minds...

DUHockey9 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 06:18 AM.

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.