HFBoards

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

Flyers Lose Joacim Eriksson's Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2011, 01:42 PM
  #401
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
From Capgeek. For the 2011-12 season.
Their at 40 right now. By the time the fill the Flyers roster, sign RFA's and possible draft picks, they'll be pretty close to 50.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 02:52 PM
  #402
Larry44
FlyersTankNation
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You realize Read isn't making 900K in the AHL, right?

Pretty much every team can afford those types of contracts. The only potential problems are the huge bonus ones, and potential cap problems they can cause.
No, Read signed a one-way contract. He was old enough to bypass the ELC process, IIRC.

Looked it up, don't know if anyone else has a better link:

http://phillysportsdaily.com/flyers/...out-matt-read/

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune’s Michael Russo, it’s a three-year, one-way contract worth $2.7 million. Next season he’ll earn $800,000, in 2012-13 he will earn $900,000, and in 2013-14 he will earn $1 million. He will count $900,000 against the salary cap. Read, 24, just completed his NCAA eligibility with the Minnesota-based college.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 06:45 PM
  #403
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
I've been off to some of the more uncivilized parts of Sweden for about a week with no Internet connection or much of any contact with outer world at all, so I'm a bit late here, but here goes:

I can see where the Flyers thought that Eriksson's career wasn't going in the right direction. He definitely would have wanted to start more games than he did the previous season. With the new agreement between the NHL and the Swedish hockey federation (when the hell did that happen btw? I must have missed that completely) I can see why they were hesitant to give out a contract to him (and Bertilsson). I still think Eriksson might turn out a real solid goalie however, but it will probably be after spending a few more years in the SEL and one or two years in the AHL as well.

If I can handle basic addition despite being slightly drunk on a Tuesday night, we should be pretty close to the 50 contract limit when all is said and done. If it's wise to have guys like Harper and Rowe take up some of these contracts can perhaps be discussed, but they are there. If it's a good idea to sign Hovinen and let Eriksson go could also be discussed I think. I don't think I've ever seen Hovinen play however, so that is for others to discuss.

For those of you who follow the AHL a little more closely, is there a limit on how many AHL contracts a team can have. Similar to the limit on veteran players in order to keep it a development league I mean. Otherwise I think teams will find loop holes there pretty soon. Unless there's something else in play there that I'm missing at the moment. But a guy like Denis Hamel was on such a contract last year for us, no? So, it's not just scrubs on that level but pretty decent players as well.

I'm more pissed that Tim Erixon made his way to the NYR however, I think he'll be a terrific player.

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 07:19 PM
  #404
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,255
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by sa cyred View Post
It seems like this is the only argument you guys can fall back on. So because they have the professional name, we should sit back like good little fans, our tail between our legs and listen obediently to what they say? Sorry, not going to do that. I have learned from experience that just because they have a title, doesn't mean they know more.

You trust an organization who drafts and trains goalies terribly. They are one of the worse in the league. If you are alright with that, then I am fine with your decision.

Im actually really not arguing about Eriksson anymore it seems. It's more that, I should just shut up and listen and beleive to all that they say. That's what I disagree on. Like I first posted in the prospect thread. I am not surprised they did this. The Flyers dont really like taking Euro players and don't want to wait more than two years for them to develop, especially goalies. That's fine, just in the future, draft every player from NA. Will make things alot easier.
Yeah good point. Instead of trusting professionals who are trained in scouting players and who have watched him play for the past two years, we should all just assume we know better than them because he is listed as the top Flyers prospect on HF. I wonder if Homer knows about this site? That would have made his job easier. He can just click on the Flyers logo and see who he should or should not sign based on reviews of the player and YouTube clips of their best games. ****, I'm gonna put my resume in the pool next time the Flyers (or any team) needs a new scout. This website will surely give me the edge on the trained professionals that watch people play hockey for a living.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 07:36 PM
  #405
Coppy
Good Luck Richie!
 
Coppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yeah good point. Instead of trusting professionals who are trained in scouting players and who have watched him play for the past two years, we should all just assume we know better than them because he is listed as the top Flyers prospect on HF. I wonder if Homer knows about this site? That would have made his job easier. He can just click on the Flyers logo and see who he should or should not sign based on reviews of the player and YouTube clips of their best games. ****, I'm gonna put my resume in the pool next time the Flyers (or any team) needs a new scout. This website will surely give me the edge on the trained professionals that watch people play hockey for a living.
I can't believe how people keep saying crap like this...

"The Flyers just traded a 1st round pick for Steve Eminger."

"What? Doesn't he kinda suck?"

"Hey, they are professionals! They must see something in him. This move will pay off, you'll see"


"The Flyers just traded Gagne to the Lightning for Matt Walker and a 4th."

"So, basically they got nothing for him, and had to take back a bad contract."

No! These guys run a professional hockey organization! They know what they're doing!

Coppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 07:50 PM
  #406
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
I can't believe how people keep saying crap like this...

"The Flyers just traded a 1st round pick for Steve Eminger."

"What? Doesn't he kinda suck?"

"Hey, they are professionals! They must see something in him. This move will pay off, you'll see"


"The Flyers just traded Gagne to the Lightning for Matt Walker and a 4th."

"So, basically they got nothing for him, and had to take back a bad contract."

No! These guys run a professional hockey organization! They know what they're doing!
See the problem here is that no GM or scout is perfect. They make mistakes. So bringing up a few examples really doesn't prove anything. You could do that with moves for every GM in the business.

Do you really think that Holmgren wasn't aware that he was basically giving Gagne away, and taking on Walker's Cap hit? Let's be serious here. But Holmgren got what he needed. Which was cap space to make other moves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yeah good point. Instead of trusting professionals who are trained in scouting players and who have watched him play for the past two years, we should all just assume we know better than them because he is listed as the top Flyers prospect on HF. I wonder if Homer knows about this site? That would have made his job easier. He can just click on the Flyers logo and see who he should or should not sign based on reviews of the player and YouTube clips of their best games. ****, I'm gonna put my resume in the pool next time the Flyers (or any team) needs a new scout. This website will surely give me the edge on the trained professionals that watch people play hockey for a living.
That's awesome, you can be an NHL scout and never leave your house. Why not? Many on here think they know more than the professionals, just from what they read on their home PC on the internet! LOL

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 08:01 PM
  #407
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
See the problem here is that no GM or scout is perfect. They make mistakes. So bringing up a few examples really doesn't prove anything. You could do that with moves for every GM in the business.

Do you really think that Holmgren wasn't aware that he was basically giving Gagne away, and taking on Walker's Cap hit? Let's be serious here. But Holmgren got what he needed. Which was cap space to make other moves.
There was no reason for Holmgren to be forced to give away Gagné however. He backed himself right into that corner all by himself. Last off season Chicago was ****ed, but we looked pretty much all right to fit everything under the cap. Then Holmgren panicked.

Plus, of course, in shedding Gagné and his salary for this season we had to pick up 1.7M for Walker for next year so as far as salary dumps goes, it was a pretty terrible effort.

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 08:05 PM
  #408
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
There was no reason for Holmgren to be forced to give away Gagné however. He backed himself right into that corner all by himself. Last off season Chicago was ****ed, but we looked pretty much all right to fit everything under the cap. Then Holmgren panicked.

Plus, of course, in shedding Gagné and his salary for this season we had to pick up 1.7M for Walker for next year so as far as salary dumps goes, it was a pretty terrible effort.
He didn't back himself into a corner, he made a choice. He could have kept Gagne. He didn't have to trade for Meszaros. These were all choices. It was no where near a panic move. It was a planned and calculated move.

Walker can be easily waived and buried in the minors and off the Cap, so that's not an issue. As a fan I only care about the Flyers Cap numbers, not how much payroll they have to pay to players in the minors.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 08:38 PM
  #409
Coppy
Good Luck Richie!
 
Coppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
See the problem here is that no GM or scout is perfect. They make mistakes. So bringing up a few examples really doesn't prove anything. You could do that with moves for every GM in the business.
Ok. Isolate what goalies those scouts have decided were worth picking in recent (10) years. Its posted a few pages back (Spoiler alert! Its almost all failures). Could we still say that is common with every organization in the business?

Btw, I didn't pick those moves just because they were mistakes. I picked them because they were mistakes that was obvious to any fan that has more the a casual interest in hockey at the time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
He didn't back himself into a corner, he made a choice. He could have kept Gagne. He didn't have to trade for Meszaros.
Actually, he could have had Meszaros and kept Gagne. All he would have had to do was not sign Leighton, Shelley and Zherdev.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Walker can be easily waived and buried in the minors and off the Cap, so that's not an issue. As a fan I only care about the Flyers Cap numbers, not how much payroll they have to pay to players in the minors.
I love this logic. When it comes to Eriksson, a prospect that may one day be a decent goalie for the Flyers, its "guys the Flyers have a limited amount of contracts they can give out, Eriksson just wasn't worth it." But when its Matt Walker, a player who should never put on a Flyers uniform again, its "Who the hell cares, let him waste a contract spot in the minors. Its not my money"


Btw, at this point, I'm not even arguing Eriksson as much I'm arguing the idea that an organization's moves are above questioning from anyone that doesn't work in the business, most of all their fans, without whom they wouldn't be in business.


Last edited by Coppy: 06-07-2011 at 08:49 PM.
Coppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 08:43 PM
  #410
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
He didn't back himself into a corner, he made a choice. He could have kept Gagne. He didn't have to trade for Meszaros. These were all choices. It was no where near a panic move. It was a planned and calculated move.

Walker can be easily waived and buried in the minors and off the Cap, so that's not an issue. As a fan I only care about the Flyers Cap numbers, not how much payroll they have to pay to players in the minors.
Yes, trading for Meszaros was a choice. A choice I still don't agree with. And by trading for him without ridding the roster of some salary, and one or two quotes as well, he backed himself into a corner where he had to trade Gagné.

I liked the way Meszaros played last year, and I've liked him as a player since his days in Ottawa but to pay 4M for a player that is on your 3rd pairing isn't right. If we'd traded one of Carle or Coburn I would have loved acquiring Meszaros for a 2nd rounder. My option would have been to get a real solid #5 guy (there were a few available last off season), keep Gagné and see if one of Parent or Bartulis could step up enough to solidify that 3rd pairing. If they weren't up for it we would have most likely been able to sort that out as the season rolled along. Not everything has to be fixed by July 1st. That is one of my biggest concerns with Holmgren, he has no patience whatsoever.

Walker still counts during the off season though. And with him, Leighton, Lappy, Read and whatnot we're pretty close to the 10% we're allowed to exceed the cap. Not to mention he's one of those pesky contracts we could have used on one of our prospects.

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 08:48 PM
  #411
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 4,464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
There was no reason for Holmgren to be forced to give away Gagné however. He backed himself right into that corner all by himself. Last off season Chicago was ****ed, but we looked pretty much all right to fit everything under the cap. Then Holmgren panicked.

Plus, of course, in shedding Gagné and his salary for this season we had to pick up 1.7M for Walker for next year so as far as salary dumps goes, it was a pretty terrible effort.
Give it up will ya. Jeez

Hockeypete49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 10:45 PM
  #412
sa cyred
Yea....the Flyers...
 
sa cyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Traveling...
Country: Cuba
Posts: 15,328
vCash: 500
SOB, I found the real reason they couldn't sign Eriksson, or any of their prospects. Checkout David Issac's twitter. He explains, along with Geoff, that RFA COUNT AGAINST THE CAP. This is why The Flyers had to trade Clackson to PHX. We were right at the 50 limit mark with the RFA's.


I guess it came down to getting Bryz, or signing Eriksson, Bertilsson, etc etc. In the end, I'll agree with that decision. It was too wierd that they were so high on Eriksson and just let them go. Guess they had to in order to get Bryz. We couldnt sign these guys because, we couldnt go after the 50 contracts. So I guess this argument ends here? Guess we were all wrong and right at the same time.

sa cyred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 11:30 PM
  #413
Coppy
Good Luck Richie!
 
Coppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sa cyred View Post
SOB, I found the real reason they couldn't sign Eriksson, or any of their prospects. Checkout David Issac's twitter. He explains, along with Geoff, that RFA COUNT AGAINST THE CAP. This is why The Flyers had to trade Clackson to PHX. We were right at the 50 limit mark with the RFA's.


I guess it came down to getting Bryz, or signing Eriksson, Bertilsson, etc etc. In the end, I'll agree with that decision. It was too wierd that they were so high on Eriksson and just let them go. Guess they had to in order to get Bryz. We couldnt sign these guys because, we couldnt go after the 50 contracts. So I guess this argument ends here? Guess we were all wrong and right at the same time.
What? I don't follow. Clackson was an UFA and unlikely to be resigned, so he didn't/wouldn't count against the contract limit. Right now the Flyers are at 40 contracts.

Edit: Ok, so after checking twitter I get what you meant, but I'm pretty sure Dave Isaac is wrong. As far as I know RFA don't count against the contract limit, it only counts players currently under contract.


Last edited by Coppy: 06-07-2011 at 11:37 PM.
Coppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2011, 11:56 PM
  #414
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 sa cyred View Post
SOB, I found the real reason they couldn't sign Eriksson, or any of their prospects. Checkout David Issac's twitter. He explains, along with Geoff, that RFA COUNT AGAINST THE CAP. This is why The Flyers had to trade Clackson to PHX. We were right at the 50 limit mark with the RFA's.


I guess it came down to getting Bryz, or signing Eriksson, Bertilsson, etc etc. In the end, I'll agree with that decision. It was too wierd that they were so high on Eriksson and just let them go. Guess they had to in order to get Bryz. We couldnt sign these guys because, we couldnt go after the 50 contracts. So I guess this argument ends here? Guess we were all wrong and right at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
What? I don't follow. Clackson was an UFA and unlikely to be resigned, so he didn't/wouldn't count against the contract limit. Right now the Flyers are at 40 contracts.

Edit: Ok, so after checking twitter I get what you meant, but I'm pretty sure Dave Isaac is wrong. As far as I know RFA don't count against the contract limit, it only counts players currently under contract.
The RFA's + UFA's contracts are technically not expired yet. So I am assuming they still count for this year until July 1 when the new league year begins. Which would be why they had to move Clackson for Bryzgalov.

Though it doesn't explain why they couldn't sign their prospects like Eriksson because their contracts wouldn't start until next season so I don't think they would count against the 50 limit until the summer.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 09:22 AM
  #415
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
No, Read signed a one-way contract. He was old enough to bypass the ELC process, IIRC.

Looked it up, don't know if anyone else has a better link:

http://phillysportsdaily.com/flyers/...out-matt-read/

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune’s Michael Russo, it’s a three-year, one-way contract worth $2.7 million. Next season he’ll earn $800,000, in 2012-13 he will earn $900,000, and in 2013-14 he will earn $1 million. He will count $900,000 against the salary cap. Read, 24, just completed his NCAA eligibility with the Minnesota-based college.
Wow, had no idea he was going to be 25 before he ever set foot on the ice with a professional contract. Not exactly a great sign, to be honest.

Point remains, that isn't a contract that is going to hurt teams too badly if they want a guy. Read, at his age, is also an exception to the norm.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 09:53 AM
  #416
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
Ok. Isolate what goalies those scouts have decided were worth picking in recent (10) years. Its posted a few pages back (Spoiler alert! Its almost all failures). Could we still say that is common with every organization in the business?

Btw, I didn't pick those moves just because they were mistakes. I picked them because they were mistakes that was obvious to any fan that has more the a casual interest in hockey at the time.
Again, scouting players isn't an exact science. The Flyers have drafted some highly rated goalies in the recent past. Players that would be high on prospect lists on various internet sites, similar to Ericksson. It's just unfortunate that they didn't work out. How many thought Nittymaki was going to be the next #1 Goalie for the Flyers when he first saw action in the NHL?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post

Actually, he could have had Meszaros and kept Gagne. All he would have had to do was not sign Leighton, Shelley and Zherdev.

Again, that's a choice that he made. And with any GM, you can find decisions to criticize him on after the fact. Make the decisions before knowing the facts. See how good you are at it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
I love this logic. When it comes to Eriksson, a prospect that may one day be a decent goalie for the Flyers, its "guys the Flyers have a limited amount of contracts they can give out, Eriksson just wasn't worth it." But when its Matt Walker, a player who should never put on a Flyers uniform again, its "Who the hell cares, let him waste a contract spot in the minors. Its not my money"


Btw, at this point, I'm not even arguing Eriksson as much I'm arguing the idea that an organization's moves are above questioning from anyone that doesn't work in the business, most of all their fans, without whom they wouldn't be in business.
Walker is an NHL player capable of playing a 6th or 7th D man role in the NHL. It's his Cap hit that is the issue in that it's a lot to pay for a player in that role. Not that you don't know if he can play in the NHL. He can. You don't know if Ericksson can. That's the point. Big difference there. No one has said, that I'm aware of that you or anyone else can't question an originizations's moves, after the facts are known. What is being said in the Ericksson situation is that your stating that they made a bad move when you don't know that it was a bad move. Again, a big difference between the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
Yes, trading for Meszaros was a choice. A choice I still don't agree with. And by trading for him without ridding the roster of some salary, and one or two quotes as well, he backed himself into a corner where he had to trade Gagné.
No, he didn't have to trade Gagne. He could of kept Gagne and made other choices. He wasn't backed into any corner. He made a choice in trading Gagne. How could you not like trading for Meszaros for a 2nd round pick? It was a flat out steal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
I liked the way Meszaros played last year, and I've liked him as a player since his days in Ottawa but to pay 4M for a player that is on your 3rd pairing isn't right. If we'd traded one of Carle or Coburn I would have loved acquiring Meszaros for a 2nd rounder. My option would have been to get a real solid #5 guy (there were a few available last off season), keep Gagné and see if one of Parent or Bartulis could step up enough to solidify that 3rd pairing. If they weren't up for it we would have most likely been able to sort that out as the season rolled along. Not everything has to be fixed by July 1st. That is one of my biggest concerns with Holmgren, he has no patience whatsoever.
You too hung up on a meaningless number for a defensive pairing. Look at the minutes a player plays and the situations he plays in. Look at the minutes he played in the playoffs. Is a young 24 year old defenseman like Meszaros always going to be on the 3rd pair? Or is he in future years hopefully going to be given a bigger and bigger role? Did they make the trade for Meszaros for just last Season? That's why the comments don't make any sense. Did Gagne have a concusision issue and other injuries and was approaching his 30's and an upcoming UFA? Your whole point here is based on Meszaros on the 3rd pair. You have to look deeper and not focus on one Season but on the future as well. The FLyers got a very good young D man for a 2nd round pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
Walker still counts during the off season though. And with him, Leighton, Lappy, Read and whatnot we're pretty close to the 10% we're allowed to exceed the cap. Not to mention he's one of those pesky contracts we could have used on one of our prospects.

Yea, they are close. But moves will be made to take care of that. And they have contracts to use on prospects.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 10:18 AM
  #417
Larry44
FlyersTankNation
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Wow, had no idea he was going to be 25 before he ever set foot on the ice with a professional contract. Not exactly a great sign, to be honest.

Point remains, that isn't a contract that is going to hurt teams too badly if they want a guy. Read, at his age, is also an exception to the norm.
Just an example of how we can find players and outbid other teams because we have the cash to give them big deals. It doesn't happen often, but it's nice to have the cash.

We'll have to see how Read pans out. I hope he can make the team out of camp.

I looked it up when he was signed and he's only a year younger than Carter, and comes from a small town just outside London. It's possible that Carter played against him as a kid in tournaments or with travelling teams, before Carter went to the Soo.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 03:40 PM
  #418
Booba
Fier, ému and proud
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chez Moi
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
If I can handle basic addition despite being slightly drunk on a Tuesday night, we should be pretty close to the 50 contract limit when all is said and done. If it's wise to have guys like Harper and Rowe take up some of these contracts can perhaps be discussed, but they are there. If it's a good idea to sign Hovinen and let Eriksson go could also be discussed I think. I don't think I've ever seen Hovinen play however, so that is for others to discuss.

For those of you who follow the AHL a little more closely, is there a limit on how many AHL contracts a team can have. Similar to the limit on veteran players in order to keep it a development league I mean. Otherwise I think teams will find loop holes there pretty soon. Unless there's something else in play there that I'm missing at the moment. But a guy like Denis Hamel was on such a contract last year for us, no? So, it's not just scrubs on that level but pretty decent players as well.
I brought that issue here a few weeks ago. I was saying that the Flyers were already close to the 50 contracts limit and it might create some problems for them. I said that with only 10 contract spots open it would be tough for them to sign their own RFA, keep a strong farm team and sign their prospects (at that time, I didn't even know that they had to sign Ericsson and Bertilson).

As for the AHL, I don't think that there is a limit of contract. Some team had over 10 players signed to AHL contract last season. In Hamel's case, he had an AHL contract this year but I think that he might be able to land a two-way NHL/AHL deal since he was one of the best player in the AHL during the second half of the season.

Booba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 04:53 PM
  #419
Coppy
Good Luck Richie!
 
Coppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Again, scouting players isn't an exact science. The Flyers have drafted some highly rated goalies in the recent past. Players that would be high on prospect lists on various internet sites, similar to Ericksson. It's just unfortunate that they didn't work out. How many thought Nittymaki was going to be the next #1 Goalie for the Flyers when he first saw action in the NHL?
You chalk it up to unfortunate, I chalk it up to an organization that struggles to draft and develop goalies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Again, that's a choice that he made. And with any GM, you can find decisions to criticize him on after the fact. Make the decisions before knowing the facts. See how good you are at it.
Yes, its only in hindsight that we can see that signing Leighton, signing Shelley, trading Gagne for Walker and a 4th were bad moves. At the time, it was impossible to predict those moves were going to backfire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Walker is an NHL player capable of playing a 6th or 7th D man role in the NHL. It's his Cap hit that is the issue in that it's a lot to pay for a player in that role. Not that you don't know if he can play in the NHL. He can. You don't know if Ericksson can. That's the point. Big difference there.
Player A is a defensemen with an organization stacked with defensemen who has no future with the organization but to be AHL fodder until his contract is up

Player B is a goalie prospect in an organization short on goalie prospects, who may one day have a future in the NHL

Which would you rather have taking up a contract spot?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
No one has said, that I'm aware of that you or anyone else can't question an originizations's moves, after the facts are known. What is being said in the Ericksson situation is that your stating that they made a bad move when you don't know that it was a bad move. Again, a big difference between the two
Which can be said of literally every move any professional sports franchise makes. Are they all above questioning because we are not professionals and they are?

Coppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 05:15 PM
  #420
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
You chalk it up to unfortunate, I chalk it up to an organization that struggles to draft and develop goalies.

I chalk it up to players not playing up to their potential. You seem the think the player has no culpability here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
Yes, its only in hindsight that we can see that signing Leighton, signing Shelley, trading Gagne for Walker and a 4th were bad moves. At the time, it was impossible to predict those moves were going to backfire.
Other than Leighton, mainly due to an injury, they didn't back fire. And Leighton getting hurt allowed Bobrovsky to enter the picture that's a good thing. A GM over the course of a Season or over a number of years, including drafting players, UFA's, RFA's on both the pro level, lower levels including the AHL, and junior levels, makes who knows how many decisions on players. You list 3 that you think were poor moves to state, see I told you he was a bad GM. it's laughable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
Player A is a defensemen with an organization stacked with defensemen who has no future with the organization but to be AHL fodder until his contract is up

Player B is a goalie prospect in an organization short on goalie prospects, who may one day have a future in the NHL

Which would you rather have taking up a contract spot?
Poor analogy. It isn't a choice between Walker and Ericksson. One has nothing to do with another. The Flyers didn't feel that Ericksson was worth signing at this time. How hard is it to accept that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post

Which can be said of literally every move any professional sports franchise makes. Are they all above questioning because we are not professionals and they are?
No one that I've read has ever stated that Holmgren or any other member of the Flyers is above questioning. yet yuo repeatedly make that comment.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 05:23 PM
  #421
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,783
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I chalk it up to players not playing up to their potential. You seem the think the player has no culpability here.
Ah. So, it isn't the organization's fault that none of their goalies became NHL starters. It's the players.

Just...no blame on the organization for not spotting better players?

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 05:30 PM
  #422
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Ah. So, it isn't the organization's fault that none of their goalies became NHL starters. It's the players.

Just...no blame on the organization for not spotting better players?
It's both. The Flyers have drafted some players that were highly thought of as prospects. It's not on just the players, it's on both. But I haven't read anyone put any culpability on the players. As an Orginization, you pick the players you feel strongly about, then put them in the best situation you can for them to succeed. Then it's up to the player to come through.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 05:32 PM
  #423
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,783
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
It's both. The Flyers have drafted some players that were highly thought of as prospects. It's not on just the players, it's on both. But I haven't read anyone put any culpability on the players. As an Orginization, you pick the players you feel strongly about, then put them in the best situation you can for them to succeed. Then it's up to the player to come through.
I'd say it has more to do with the organization being wrong about a player's potential than it does with the player not meeting it.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 05:35 PM
  #424
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I'd say it has more to do with the organization being wrong about a player's potential than it does with the player not meeting it.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Do you think the Flyers are right about the potential for Bobrovsky? From this point, if he doesn't develop as well as is expected, who's fault is it? The players or the Flyers?

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 05:44 PM
  #425
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,783
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Do you think the Flyers are right about the potential for Bobrovsky? From this point, if he doesn't develop as well as is expected, who's fault is it? The players or the Flyers?
Unless the player flat-out isn't trying, it's on the organization more than the player. It's up to them to recognize who is worth having or not...before they bust. If a player is doing all that an organization asks, and doesn't live up to their expectations...something is probably wrong with what they expected.

Beef Invictus 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 01:08 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.