HFBoards

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

Flyers’ Meszaros Quietly Having Banner Year

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2011, 08:13 PM
  #76
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
You are really ready to throw the Flyers defense into the conversation for best ever?
Phillies rotation isn't in the conversation as best ever either though. Early 90s Braves was better, and going to be around for 10 years.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:14 PM
  #77
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
It's funny how people say that Mez's contract doesn't hurt us despite the fact that we have Powe (who is a freaking awful ES player, sorry, it's true) playing 14 mins a night for us and Boucher as a starting goaltender.

.
Yep that is all he is, a quality 4th line pk guy. He should never be in the top 9 unless an injury during the game. He adds nothing in that role. He is fine for the 4th line. He is so called hitting is so overrated as well.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:14 PM
  #78
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
When Tampa Bay has the money to sign Stamkos... get back to me. Yzerman made out like a bandit in those deals last summer given the position his team was in.
Stamkos was going to be a Lightning no matter what.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:15 PM
  #79
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
He had a better series, yes. But that series is winnable for the Flyers with Leighton if they had a better 3rd pairing.
the 3rd pairing had nothing to do with the quality of goals he let up. eager, sharpe, and others.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:17 PM
  #80
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Phillies rotation isn't in the conversation as best ever either though. Early 90s Braves was better, and going to be around for 10 years.
Actually, they are in that conversation.

And, even if they are 4th best ever... our group of defenseman isn't even close to that.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...son&id=5920160

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:17 PM
  #81
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
the 3rd pairing had nothing to do with the quality of goals he let up. eager, sharpe, and others.
They gave up 25 goals. That's not all on Leighton.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:18 PM
  #82
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
That was a hypothetical, I certainly wouldn't spend 5 mill on any goalie at this point, but I think you can still throw around 3-4 and do pretty well.

Referring to your bold statement, I really think that at some point, maybe now, maybe down the road, having Powe and Nodl playing those kinds of minutes is not going to end well.

The Carter line has looked absolutely toothless ever since Powe went back to it, not a coincidence IMO.

Someone like a Langenbrunner would have been a godsend and obviously we didn't have the assets to get him, but still, we could really use that type of player.
The roster certainly isn't perfect, but you won't find any in the NHL that are. Especially under the cap every team has a weak point.

Flyers
+ Excellent forward depth
+ Excellent D 1 through 6
- Short one average 3rd liner
- Don't have a great goalie

Pens
+ 2 Elite top end forwards
+ Good D, more so 1-4
- Abysmal group of wingers

Anyway, you could go on and on with every team in the league. I know this is nothing terribly insightful but to me its about minimizing the impact of your weak points. Overloading on D is definitely a philosophy I can get behind and is probably the last spot on the roster I would want to be below average.

I would love an improvement in goal, but it's gotta be the right guy at the right time. The past few years I don't think the right player has been available at the right price so I'm not going to get upset about not making a mistake there (like signing Huet or Bulin or something) and deciding to go a different direction

BringBackStevens is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:18 PM
  #83
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Goaltender is the least important position in the NHL. Teams spending more than $4-5M on the position are wasting cap space.
You are conflating two lines of reasoning.

The play of your goalie is, hands down, the most important of any player on the ice. This isn't debatable. No matter how good your forwards or defense are and play, if your goalie sucks ass and is letting in pucks from the far blue line, you're going to lose. Similarly, a goalie is the only player on the team that can single handedly steal a game for the team.

Where the critical analysis gets interesting is in the relative difference between Goalie A and Goalie B. The reality is that you have a set of goalie that are head and shoulder above the rest (based on talent level and reliability), then a set of guys that are all pretty much the same. Under the salary cap, that is beginning to be witnessed in the money that is getting given out in contracts. If you can't get one of the top echelon guys, it doesn't make sense to drop a load of cash to get the best guy of the second tier.

However, Henrik Lundqvist, Ryan Miller, etc. impact the end result for their team more than any other player on the ice the majority of the time (Lundqvist has been making a crappy NYR team competitive for years now). Price is the only reason Montreal is a playoff team right now. So on and so forth.

Don't conflate the economic aspects of the goalie market with the actual importance of what that player does on the ice. Goalie is the only position on the ice that can improve or worsen the play of every single player on your bench.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:19 PM
  #84
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Actually, they are in that conversation.

And, even if they are 4th best ever... our group of defenseman isn't even close to that.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...son&id=5920160
How about they throw 1 season as a rotation before they get put into conversations with 1993 Braves, 1989 Mets and 1971 Orioles.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:19 PM
  #85
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
I know it's tough for you to learn this much about hockey in one night.
Teach me, please.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:19 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 MountainHawk View Post
Stamkos was going to be a Lightning no matter what.
Not necessarily, and not with potentially horrible deals down the line if they didn't clear that cap space. He's about to get a metric ton of money and that team isn't exactly rolling in the cash down there. TB needed to shed money past this year, and they shed a lot of it... on us.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:20 PM
  #87
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
They gave up 25 goals. That's not all on Leighton.
never said it was, he was the main reason they lost. Not the only reason.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:21 PM
  #88
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You are conflating two lines of reasoning.

The play of your goalie is, hands down, the most important of any player on the ice. This isn't debatable. No matter how good your forwards or defense are and play, if your goalie sucks ass and is letting in pucks from the far blue line, you're going to lose. Similarly, a goalie is the only player on the team that can single handedly steal a game for the team.

Where the critical analysis gets interesting is in the relative difference between Goalie A and Goalie B. The reality is that you have a set of goalie that are head and shoulder above the rest (based on talent level and reliability), then a set of guys that are all pretty much the same. Under the salary cap, that is beginning to be witnessed in the money that is getting given out in contracts. If you can't get one of the top echelon guys, it doesn't make sense to drop a load of cash to get the best guy of the second tier.

However, Henrik Lundqvist, Ryan Miller, etc. impact the end result for their team more than any other player on the ice the majority of the time (Lundqvist has been making a crappy NYR team competitive for years now). Price is the only reason Montreal is a playoff team right now. So on and so forth.

Don't conflate the economic aspects of the goalie market with the actual importance of what that player does on the ice. Goalie is the only position on the ice that can improve or worsen the play of every single player on your bench.
Goalies that give up goals from the far blue lines aren't in the NHL.

A team that signs are starter for $2M and backup for $1M and wisely spends $56M on the rest of the team will be a better team than a team that spends $6M + $1M on goalies and $52M on the rest of the team, even if the $52M is spent just as wisely.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:21 PM
  #89
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
He had a better series, yes. But that series is winnable for the Flyers with Leighton if they had a better 3rd pairing.
What the hell did the 3rd pairing have to do with the Eager goal? The Kopecky goal? The Kane goal?

Those were all freaking AWFUL goals and all game winners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Inebriator
The roster certainly isn't perfect, but you won't find any in the NHL that are. Especially under the cap every team has a weak point.

Flyers
+ Excellent forward depth
+ Excellent D 1 through 6
- Short one average 3rd liner
- Don't have a great goalie

Pens
+ 2 Elite top end forwards
+ Good D, more so 1-4
- Abysmal group of wingers


Anyway, you could go on and on with every team in the league. I know this is nothing terribly insightful but to me its about minimizing the impact of your weak points. Overloading on D is definitely a philosophy I can get behind and is probably the last spot on the roster I would want to be below average.

I would love an improvement in goal, but it's gotta be the right guy at the right time. The past few years I don't think the right player has been available at the right price so I'm not going to get upset about not making a mistake there (like signing Huet or Bulin or something) and deciding to go a different direction
Pens: Crosby, Malkin, Staal. That's all they need and realistically, if they can figure out Malkin-Staal, their forwards stack up pretty damn well close to ours.

I do agree about overloading on D and personally, it's something I can get behind as well, but right now, we are drastically overpaying 3 guys (Carle, Coburn, Mez) and we have 2 significant other weak spots on the roster.

That's a problem IMO.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:23 PM
  #90
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
never said it was, he was the main reason they lost. Not the only reason.
The Flyers not being able to give some ice time to Krajicek, Parent, Bartulis, and Syvret is why we lost.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:23 PM
  #91
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You are conflating two lines of reasoning.

The play of your goalie is, hands down, the most important of any player on the ice. This isn't debatable. No matter how good your forwards or defense are and play, if your goalie sucks ass and is letting in pucks from the far blue line, you're going to lose. Similarly, a goalie is the only player on the team that can single handedly steal a game for the team.

Where the critical analysis gets interesting is in the relative difference between Goalie A and Goalie B. The reality is that you have a set of goalie that are head and shoulder above the rest (based on talent level and reliability), then a set of guys that are all pretty much the same. Under the salary cap, that is beginning to be witnessed in the money that is getting given out in contracts. If you can't get one of the top echelon guys, it doesn't make sense to drop a load of cash to get the best guy of the second tier.

However, Henrik Lundqvist, Ryan Miller, etc. impact the end result for their team more than any other player on the ice the majority of the time (Lundqvist has been making a crappy NYR team competitive for years now). Price is the only reason Montreal is a playoff team right now. So on and so forth.

Don't conflate the economic aspects of the goalie market with the actual importance of what that player does on the ice. Goalie is the only position on the ice that can improve or worsen the play of every single player on your bench.
Wrong, Chris Shafer said so, it must be fact.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:24 PM
  #92
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Flyers have 9 guys that might have 20 goals, so I don't see how we can say they have a 3rd line hole.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:24 PM
  #93
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Goalies that give up goals from the far blue lines aren't in the NHL.

A team that signs are starter for $2M and backup for $1M and wisely spends $56M on the rest of the team will be a better team than a team that spends $6M + $1M on goalies and $52M on the rest of the team, even if the $52M is spent just as wisely.
Wait, this is not true at all.

The Habs roster is relatively awful (pathetic offense, below-average D without Markov/Gorges) and they are in a playoff spot.

How else do you explain that besides goaltending? And Price is going to be a 5-6 mill goaltender after this year. He's the only reason that team is competitive.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:26 PM
  #94
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Wait, this is not true at all.

The Habs roster is relatively awful (pathetic offense, below-average D without Markov/Gorges) and they are in a playoff spot.

How else do you explain that besides goaltending? And Price is going to be a 5-6 mill goaltender after this year. He's the only reason that team is competitive.
Let me know when the Habs are serious Cup contenders.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:26 PM
  #95
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Here's the reality.

Everyone thinks Meszaros is overpaid because he's playing on the "third pairing." He's had games where his pairing has played the most minutes and he's stepped up in the absence of Pronger, but I'll just ignore that simple fact for all of your sake for now.

The truth is, if you wanted to get an average 3rd pairing player for $1m-$2m, fine. You also have to realize that such a player would not be nearly as good as Meszaros is doing against lesser competition.

We're not paying Meszaros to be an average 3rd pairing defenseman. We're paying him to be a dominant 3rd pairing defenseman; to make our defense that much deeper and harder to much up against regardless of who is on the ice.

So complaining about Meszaros' salary per his production is akin to asking for another average 3rd pairing defenseman like Alberts, Jones, Kukkonen, Krajicek or any number of average to terrible guys we've had on the 3rd pairing and expecting them to be as successful in the role that Meszaros is filling as Meszaros.

Meszaros gets paid to be a dominant 3rd pairing defenseman, and honestly, I doubt you'll find a better 3rd pairing defenseman in the NHL. Why is that? Well most of it is because he should be playing a lot higher than the 3rd pairing.
We're paying Meszaros to play defense for the Philadelphia Flyers. We're paying him 4M a year (for the next 4 years) to do that. Remove the name and dwell on that, rather than simply Meszaros. Alberts (who would be fine as a 3rd pairing guy), Jones, Kukkonen, Krajicek... bottom barrel. We're not talking about those types of players as a possible replacement. You can overspend on the third pairing guy without overspending by as much as is the case for Meszaros (which could still play out down the line if we move one of Coburn/Carle).

Quote:
But this is yet another mark that the great "voices of reason" on this Flyers' board have missed; fairly high and wide I might add. You completely Jeff Carter'd the logic on this one.
The comedy here is how completely out of line your logic is in arriving at this point. The critique of Meszaros is not that he has played poorly, or not been a good on ice acquisition for the Flyers this year... he has played well, and clearly improved the back end of the team's D (so has O'Donnell). So you're essentially creating a paper tiger to tear down and make yourself feel better, given that your $4M is the going rate... have to pay to get... etc. arguments are pretty much empty vessels when placed within the context of actual reality as far as the contracts that are out there.

$4M is most certainly not the going rate for a 2nd pairing guy. $3M isn't even necessarily the going rate for a 2nd pairing guy. There are no. 1s and 2s out there making less than Meszaros.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:27 PM
  #96
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
Let me know when the Habs are serious Cup contenders.
You are changing the parameters of your own argument.

You originally said

Quote:
A team that signs are starter for $2M and backup for $1M and wisely spends $56M on the rest of the team will be a better team than a team that spends $6M + $1M on goalies and $52M on the rest of the team, even if the $52M is spent just as wisely.
No mention of Cup contender.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:28 PM
  #97
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk View Post
The Flyers not being able to give some ice time to Krajicek, Parent, Bartulis, and Syvret is why we lost.
so leighton played no part in them losing the series,interesting.
well if that is what you want to believe than by all means go ahead. Maybe if the coach showed a little more confidence in them the results may have been different. They never were able to get into a groove. Not like the hawks had this awesome 3rd pairing, though it was better than they flyers.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:28 PM
  #98
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Pens: Crosby, Malkin, Staal. That's all they need and realistically, if they can figure out Malkin-Staal, their forwards stack up pretty damn well close to ours.
I wasn't really trying to compare the Pens in a who's better type of way, just pointing out that even the best teams have some major weaknesses. Their winger situation is absolutely a weakness but as you pointed out their Center depth can help mitigate that. Same goes for our D - Goalie situtation, IMO.


Quote:
I do agree about overloading on D and personally, it's something I can get behind as well, but right now, we are drastically overpaying 3 guys (Carle, Coburn, Mez) and we have 2 significant other weak spots on the roster.

That's a problem IMO.
I don't really agree that Carle, Coburn, and Mez are drastically overpaid. D is expensive and lately 3.5-4.5 is the going rate for your above average 2ndish pairing guys. Carle and Coburn particularly can be frustrating to watch and its easy to sour on them until you watch some other teams and realize that our defense is a luxury. There's a lot of ****** D out there and not many teams even have guys like Carle and Coburn in their 3-5 spots

BringBackStevens is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:28 PM
  #99
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
We're paying Meszaros to play defense for the Philadelphia Flyers. We're paying him 4M a year (for the next 4 years) to do that. Remove the name and dwell on that, rather than simply Meszaros. Alberts (who would be fine as a 3rd pairing guy), Jones, Kukkonen, Krajicek... bottom barrel. We're not talking about those types of players as a possible replacement. You can overspend on the third pairing guy without overspending by as much as is the case for Meszaros (which could still play out down the line if we move one of Coburn/Carle).



The comedy here is how completely out of line your logic is in arriving at this point. The critique of Meszaros is not that he has played poorly, or not been a good on ice acquisition for the Flyers this year... he has played well, and clearly improved the back end of the team's D (so has O'Donnell). So you're essentially creating a paper tiger to tear down and make yourself feel better, given that your $4M is the going rate... have to pay to get... etc. arguments are pretty much empty vessels when placed within the context of actual reality as far as the contracts that are out there.

$4M is most certainly not the going rate for a 2nd pairing guy. $3M isn't even necessarily the going rate for a 2nd pairing guy. There are no. 1s and 2s out there making less than Meszaros.
UFAs 1 and 2s? On Cup contenders?

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:29 PM
  #100
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
so leighton played no part in them losing the series,interesting.
well if that is what you want to believe than by all means go ahead. Maybe if the coach showed a little more confidence in them the results may have been different. They never were able to get into a groove. Not like the hawks had this awesome 3rd pairing, though it was better than they flyers.
No Leighton sucked too. Not denying that. But Leighton's awfulness would have been overcomeable if we had 6 guys to play D and not 4.

MountainHawk 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 11:20 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.