HFBoards

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

Just thinking...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-28-2011, 12:21 PM
  #26
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
I think people recognize that fact, but some people are intent on ignoring some details in order to delude themselves into believing their hopes and dreams will come true.

It's a lot like convincing oneself that Leighton was a good idea, and a good goalie.
I do not think it is out of the realm of possibilities. I did not think Gagne was getting moved, and if goalie is the position that hurts this team down the stretch here, Homer is going to have to look at his options. The contract is a good thing in trade value.

Now, do I really think it is going to happen? Nope, the organization is in love with Carter and Richards to a fault and have endorsed them with the face of the franchise tag. But if Carter comes out of this playoffs with some more donuts on the scoring sheet, and not contributing elsewhere that is @$7.250mill that could be used elsewhere, he is paid to score, if he ain't scoring it is like Zherdev, he is loses his value.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 12:25 PM
  #27
Terence Peterman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
There's no way in hell LA's ever going to give up Quick and Simmonds in the same deal for Carter.

Terence Peterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 12:27 PM
  #28
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
I do not think it is out of the realm of possibilities. I did not think Gagne was getting moved, and if goalie is the position that hurts this team down the stretch here, Homer is going to have to look at his options. The contract is a good thing in trade value.

Now, do I really think it is going to happen? Nope, the organization is in love with Carter and Richards to a fault and have endorsed them with the face of the franchise tag. But if Carter comes out of this playoffs with some more donuts on the scoring sheet, and not contributing elsewhere that is @$7.250mill that could be used elsewhere, he is paid to score, if he ain't scoring it is like Zherdev, he is loses his value.
7.25M, where the hell does that number come from?

There was nothing particularly shocking about moving Gagne, it was just a pathetically terrible deal that he actually struck which didn't really accomplish what it should have been used to accomplish.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 12:40 PM
  #29
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
7.25M, where the hell does that number come from?

There was nothing particularly shocking about moving Gagne, it was just a pathetically terrible deal that he actually struck which didn't really accomplish what it should have been used to accomplish.
Including Zherdev and Carter combined. Carters cap hit goes up to $5.272mill next year.

I just hate the idea of watching them play and knowing what Gagne brought to the lineup. He was a perfect fit for Laviolette's system.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 12:44 PM
  #30
JVR21
G
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 7,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Including Zherdev and Carter combined. Carters cap hit goes up to $5.272mill next year.

I just hate the idea of watching them play and knowing what Gagne brought to the lineup. He was a perfect fit for Laviolette's system.
I can almost guarantee that if Gagne had stayed on the team he'd be the one we'd want to get rid of. His injuries of late are a major concern and his cap hit is high.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 12:44 PM
  #31
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,927
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
This would have been the move last season, but LA is not going to give up Quick right now IMO. If Philly was going to deal with a team and get a guy who could step in at a young age and be a quality goalie it would be Schneider.
Quick was clearly not an option last off-season, no matter how many rumours were floating around.

The Kings believed they were a contender this year and had very little confidence in Bernier this season. He may be their goalie of the future, but the Kings were clearly unwilling to hand over the starter's role to him now.

A Carter for Quick & Simmonds trade is not happening.

__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities
CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 12:49 PM
  #32
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Quick was clearly not an option last off-season, no matter how many rumours were floating around.

The Kings believed they were a contender this year and had very little confidence in Bernier this season. He may be their goalie of the future, but the Kings were clearly unwilling to hand over the starter's role to him now.

A Carter for Quick & Simmonds trade is not happening.
Source or opinion?

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:03 PM
  #33
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Source or opinion?
Their GM stated last season he had no intention of trading either goalie. He wanted them to battle it out and let the #1 spot be earned. Holmgren also had no intention to trade Carter.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:11 PM
  #34
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,927
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Source or opinion?
When you aggressively pursue a high scoring free agent forward, you're not looking to sacrifice stability in net to increase your depth up front on top of that.

Lombardi/Murray stated multiple times that they were hoping Bernier would lessen the work load from Quick and they never publically announced that either goalie was on the market. Based on their comments, though, it was clear that they believed Quick was gassed from the 72 (!) starts he had in 2009/10 and he was their guy for 2010/11, with the hope that Bernier could play enough to knock Quick back to 60-ish starts.

Just because you think it's a good deal for the Flyers, doesn't mean Lombardi even remotely considered a trade for Carter as a possibility.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:20 PM
  #35
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quick is one hell of a goalie. If the deal on the table was Brown and Quick for Carter, the flyers would of been stupid not to take it. But i seriously doubt that deal was ever there

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:26 PM
  #36
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Quick is one hell of a goalie. If the deal on the table was Brown and Quick for Carter, the flyers would of been stupid not to take it. But i seriously doubt that deal was ever there
It wasn't there only because Homer would not offer up Carter at the time. Carter could have gotten Quick/Bernier and Williams/Simmonds back at the time, but bottom line is Homer was not dealing Carter.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:27 PM
  #37
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
When you aggressively pursue a high scoring free agent forward, you're not looking to sacrifice stability in net to increase your depth up front on top of that.

Lombardi/Murray stated multiple times that they were hoping Bernier would lessen the work load from Quick and they never publically announced that either goalie was on the market. Based on their comments, though, it was clear that they believed Quick was gassed from the 72 (!) starts he had in 2009/10 and he was their guy for 2010/11, with the hope that Bernier could play enough to knock Quick back to 60-ish starts.

Just because you think it's a good deal for the Flyers, doesn't mean Lombardi even remotely considered a trade for Carter as a possibility.
Again, source or opinion. Sounds like an opinion to me.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:28 PM
  #38
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,927
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
It wasn't there only because Homer would not offer up Carter at the time. Carter could have gotten Quick/Bernier and Williams/Simmonds back at the time, but bottom line is Homer was not dealing Carter.
Wait, so you'd give up Carter for Bernier now?

Bottom line is, the Kings weren't dealing Quick and Bernier is too green to give up a player like Carter.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:29 PM
  #39
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,927
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Again, source or opinion. Sounds like an opinion to me.
The source is public quotes from the Kings' front office. Quick was not on the table.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:38 PM
  #40
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Wait, so you'd give up Carter for Bernier now?

Bottom line is, the Kings weren't dealing Quick and Bernier is too green to give up a player like Carter.
No, you are making the assumption that no deal could have been made including Carter for any combination of a goalie in LA and a fwd. Homer would have been out of his gord to not have made an offer of Carter for Bernier, Simmonds, and a draft pick(with the ability to now keep Gagne and still acquire Meszaros) or a combination deal of Carter for Quick and Williams(whom LA was looking to unload at the time).

Bottom line is the only reason a deal was not made was because the organization held Carter as a face of the franchise, and thus why they signed him long term, but at the same time they did not close the door by delaying the NTC until 2012-13 season.

As everyone seems to agree, who would not want a perennial 40 goal scorer who is excellent in both ends of the ice? And they would not make a deal because of Quick or Bernier??? If Carter was on the table they would have jumped at the chance, what combination of players and the expectation coming back is open to debate.


Deals are made when teams have a position of strength and need to move that to fill an area of weakness.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:39 PM
  #41
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
The source is public quotes from the Kings' front office. Quick was not on the table.
Yes, because GM's always tell the media exactly what their intentions are regarding players.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:40 PM
  #42
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,927
vCash: 955
The Kings went balls to the wall for Kovalchuk so they wouldn't have to sacrifice a commodity like Quick or Bernier... or any other roster player.

The Kings weren't looking for a trade last off-season; they were looking to fill the holes through free agency.

Carter certainly wasn't on the table (is this your opinion? ), but neither was Quick.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:48 PM
  #43
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Yes, because GM's always tell the media exactly what their intentions are regarding players.
As noted, the Kings paralyzed their organization in the bidding war for Kovalchuk... they weren't trading for Carter.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 01:51 PM
  #44
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
I do not think it is out of the realm of possibilities. I did not think Gagne was getting moved, and if goalie is the position that hurts this team down the stretch here, Homer is going to have to look at his options. The contract is a good thing in trade value.

Now, do I really think it is going to happen? Nope, the organization is in love with Carter and Richards to a fault and have endorsed them with the face of the franchise tag. But if Carter comes out of this playoffs with some more donuts on the scoring sheet, and not contributing elsewhere that is @$7.250mill that could be used elsewhere, he is paid to score, if he ain't scoring it is like Zherdev, he is loses his value.
Carter may be traded if he isn't central to this team moving forward, but not in the next few seasons. And not without some serious issues with teammates or management or something, or just horrid under-performing (in regular season and playoffs). Bank it.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 07:54 PM
  #45
Shadow Flyer
Why So Serious?
 
Shadow Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
It wasn't there only because Homer would not offer up Carter at the time. Carter could have gotten Quick/Bernier and Williams/Simmonds back at the time, but bottom line is Homer was not dealing Carter.
You keep saying "Source or opinion?", so I guess I can ask you the same about what I just quoted.

"It wasn't there only because Homer would not offer up Carter at the time" ~ Those are your words. Source or opinion?

Shadow Flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 08:01 PM
  #46
Shadow Flyer
Why So Serious?
 
Shadow Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Yes, because GM's always tell the media exactly what their intentions are regarding players.
You ask for a source, people tell you the source, and then it's "GM's never tell the truth". Basically, your opinion is covered no matter what, eh?

Shadow Flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 08:01 PM
  #47
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
It wasn't there only because Homer would not offer up Carter at the time. Carter could have gotten Quick/Bernier and Williams/Simmonds back at the time, but bottom line is Homer was not dealing Carter.
Source or opinion? Sounds like an opinion to me.

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 08:10 PM
  #48
decadentia
Registered User
 
decadentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breeze 44 View Post
Calm down Francis...who pi55ed in your cereal today or did your X-Box break?
My names Francis, what else would I do but ***** about bad ideas from the youth these days?

decadentia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 09:34 PM
  #49
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
It wasn't there only because Homer would not offer up Carter at the time. Carter could have gotten Quick/Bernier and Williams/Simmonds back at the time, but bottom line is Homer was not dealing Carter.
Source or opinion?

MsWoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-28-2011, 09:35 PM
  #50
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Yes, because GM's always tell the media exactly what their intentions are regarding players.
They only tell you their intentions

MsWoof 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 04:03 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.