HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Scott Hannan

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-16-2011, 08:22 AM
  #26
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
A situation where a guy is asking for a lot of money but other players are signing for less. But here, the Flyers wanted Lilja and he was signed for cheap. I mean I just don't understand your logic. I get that you could have signed a different player, maybe even a comparable player. But if the Flyers wanted Lilja why would they wait to see how things shake out. It doesn't matter if no other teams or every team in the NHL was after him. The Flyers wanted Lilja. They didn't want Hannan (or they did and couldn't sign him). Either way, what would waiting have done? If they wanted Lilja, they would have Lilja now too. Waiting would not have done anything. If they were interested in Hannan they would have went after him. But they weren't. They were interested in Lilja, so they got him. If your argument is that Hannan is a better player and they SHOULD have been interested in him, then ok that's a different story. But if your argument is if they waited they could have gotten someone else, that argument doesn't really hold water since it seems they weren't interested in anyone else.
They could have waited and gotten a player who they believed would have been too expensive for cheap, a player that at the beginning of FA they would have seen as unrealistic to fit there needs. They did thing same thing last year when they came right out and gave Shellley 1.1M dollars cause "he was there guy." They gave Leighton 1.6M/per, cause he must have been there guy. The Lija contract is probably even worse due to the age and the over 35 rule.

I have no problem to go out full strength to grab a guy playing top 9 or top 4 minutes. But the Flyers have shown they they are inept at letting the market play out for depth and filler spots.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 09:52 AM
  #27
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yeah, it's always a good reason to not go after the guy you want and hope someone is still available later. The Flyers brass wanted him, wrong or right, and they got him. If they thought he was the best guy to fill the role, why wait until the end and hope he is still available or settle for a guy they think is worse?

I know you don't like Lilja, but in general, as a GM, scout, etc, wouldn't you want to get the guy you want from the beginning? If I'm Homer and Co. and I see player X and say, this is the guy we should get for the #6 spot, lets do it. Why wait until now to see who's still "sitting out there?" The idea is to field the best team, not field the best contracts or most fan-likable time. Lilja may or may not work out, time will tell. But if the Flyers think he is the guy for the job they would be stupid to sit and wait and see who's left. Sure, they coudla gotten someone for less or let Bartulis or Gus fill the role, but they think Lilja is better. He may not be (I personally think he will be ok, especially as a 6/7). But they thought he was so you go after him. Why settle for a guy you (meaning Homer and Co.) don't believe is better?
I love two paragraph defenses of stupidity.

The Lilja signing was stupid.

Lilja is not very good at all to begin with... the terms of the contract are an abomination of idiocy. Just like the signing of Shelley was a *ing abomination of stupid.

At what point will people stop defending these idiot *ing contracts that Holmgren signs every offseason?

Leighton? Stupid.
Shelley? Stupid.
Lilja? Stupid.

No doubt they had motivations to give him that contract, and they were stupid motivations and they should be called out as stupid.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 12:25 PM
  #28
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I love two paragraph defenses of stupidity.

The Lilja signing was stupid.

Lilja is not very good at all to begin with... the terms of the contract are an abomination of idiocy. Just like the signing of Shelley was a *ing abomination of stupid.

At what point will people stop defending these idiot *ing contracts that Holmgren signs every offseason?

Leighton? Stupid.
Shelley? Stupid.
Lilja? Stupid.

No doubt they had motivations to give him that contract, and they were stupid motivations and they should be called out as stupid.
You do realize that if homer hadn't signed Leighton after the cup run, the media would've tripped balls.

Shelley (a signing I never liked) is just riley cote 2.0, and the coaches all love him b/c he's a good lockerroom presence. If we ever need cap space, we will waive him.

Lilja hasn't played a game with us. He's going to be o'donnell 2.0 for us.


Homer would rather have a veteran on the 6th spot over gus when the playoffs come...I can't disagree with that.

Why don't you give him a chance in our system before you say its a terrible signing?

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 12:41 PM
  #29
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
You do realize that if homer hadn't signed Leighton after the cup run, the media would've tripped balls.
If Holmgren had signed someone to replace (ie, upgrade), the media would probably have been okay with it. Besides, Holmgren shouldn't be GMing to appease the masses, especially the press who have generally shown only a marginal notion of what is a good move for this team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
Shelley (a signing I never liked) is just riley cote 2.0, and the coaches all love him b/c he's a good lockerroom presence. If we ever need cap space, we will waive him.
Though Shelley is a better fighter than Cote, the terms are still ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
Lilja hasn't played a game with us. He's going to be o'donnell 2.0 for us.
I don't think Lilja will be O'Donnell 1.0. Plus he's signed for more cash and more years. There was no reason to leap on Lilja.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
Homer would rather have a veteran on the 6th spot over gus when the playoffs come...I can't disagree with that.

Why don't you give him a chance in our system before you say its a terrible signing?
It's a long season, so let's not do any chicken-counting. Plus, considering the youth movement this team has just taken on forward, what is the need to bring in a 35+ player, whose skills aren't exactly superior, over a couple of legitimate rookie, low-cost options?

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 12:43 PM
  #30
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,668
vCash: 500
I'd have rather kept OD than sign Lilja to that contract...or better yet, begin rotating Bart, Gus and others in to see if they can crack it or not.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 12:46 PM
  #31
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
O'D was a great signing cause it was 1 year and cheap. Lilja is 2 years and more expensive.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 01:27 PM
  #32
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,240
vCash: 500
signing a guy who isnt very good to be your #6/7 defenseman to a 2 year deal on a 35+ plus contract is beyong stupid. Then again so was signing a minor league goalie to a 3 million dollar deal/2 year deal and giving a goon whos going to play 40 games a year to a 3 year deal.
i dont think many would of minded the Lilja signing had it been for just this season. Yeah he sucks but you could of dealt with it. Hopefully our young defenseman who are close get used to riding the bus in Adirondack or hope to be traded because they wont be on the big club unless we have a rash of injuries on the blueline.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 01:34 PM
  #33
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
You do realize that if homer hadn't signed Leighton after the cup run, the media would've tripped balls.
Yeah, the media was really tripping balls when Holmgren publicly courted two goalies before signing Leighton.

Quote:
Shelley (a signing I never liked) is just riley cote 2.0, and the coaches all love him b/c he's a good lockerroom presence. If we ever need cap space, we will waive him.
Cote was making low money totals on year-to-year deals essentially. If Shelley was signed to such a contract, there would be no complaint.

He's not... and that's why the signing is *ing moronic.

Quote:
Lilja hasn't played a game with us. He's going to be o'donnell 2.0 for us.
O'Donnell is a better hockey player at this point...

Quote:
Homer would rather have a veteran on the 6th spot over gus when the playoffs come...I can't disagree with that.

Why don't you give him a chance in our system before you say its a terrible signing?
Because it's a terrible signing. There's no way Lilja should be on ANY team with a 35+ contract.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 02:43 PM
  #34
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
If Holmgren had signed someone to replace (ie, upgrade), the media would probably have been okay with it. Besides, Holmgren shouldn't be GMing to appease the masses, especially the press who have generally shown only a marginal notion of what is a good move for this team.


Though Shelley is a better fighter than Cote, the terms are still ridiculous.


I don't think Lilja will be O'Donnell 1.0. Plus he's signed for more cash and more years. There was no reason to leap on Lilja.


It's a long season, so let's not do any chicken-counting. Plus, considering the youth movement this team has just taken on forward, what is the need to bring in a 35+ player, whose skills aren't exactly superior, over a couple of legitimate rookie, low-cost options?
While we were never fans of Leighton on this board, we had just been to the SCF, and not signing him would've been absurd. No GM could've let him go and not looked bad to his entire team.

The players liked him, and richie/carter liked him...

Resigning Leighton was the biggest no-brainer of the year, no one knew he'd be injured all year.

Lilja is here for two years to set an example, and we don't have cap issues for these next two years...


Bart / gus will get there shot, but the philosophy of the club is to stack D for injuries. With pronger as a ? Im all for it.

I don't want to throw the young guys in there out of desperation when they aren't ready to succeed!

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 02:53 PM
  #35
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,668
vCash: 500
Signing Leighton to be anything more than a backup, and signing him for more than Boucher was downright moronic. Last season would have been difficult to watch if it meant we'd be seeing more of Leighton in net, so his injury did spare us that spectacle.

I don't get why people think we needed to automatically re-sign Leighton because he played in the Finals. He played like garbage in the Finals. The team didn't make it as far as they did because of him, they made it that far despite him. If they'd let him walk to pursue a better goalie, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. He was brought in off waivers to be a stopgap, not a permanent solution.

The length, amount, and timing of the Leighton signing was incredibly stupid. It isn't a hindsight thing either...many of us at the time predicted that absolutely no good could come of it.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 04:06 PM
  #36
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Signing Leighton to be anything more than a backup, and signing him for more than Boucher was downright moronic. Last season would have been difficult to watch if it meant we'd be seeing more of Leighton in net, so his injury did spare us that spectacle.

I don't get why people think we needed to automatically re-sign Leighton because he played in the Finals. He played like garbage in the Finals. The team didn't make it as far as they did because of him, they made it that far despite him. If they'd let him walk to pursue a better goalie, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. He was brought in off waivers to be a stopgap, not a permanent solution.

The length, amount, and timing of the Leighton signing was incredibly stupid. It isn't a hindsight thing either...many of us at the time predicted that absolutely no good could come of it.
I understand that, and I agree with you. BUT, do you understand how bad it would look to casual fans/ players if we just dropped him? Even our goalie coach jeff Reese was high on Leighton at that point.

Its not NHL 11, you have to act in a decent fashion and take care of your own to some degree.

(Imagine you are a Leighton fan for a second...you believe Leighton thrives in our system. You see the SV %% the GAS and the shutouts, and say "hey, imagine what this guy could do with a full year in our system". You believe the risk is worth taking, because the payoff is so high...the cost is low.

He's a fan favorite, a player favorite, and a coach favorite, and he wants to stay in philly.)


From that point of view (and its not just fans with that view...its players and coaches too)
If you don't sign this guy its a crime.

As a GM you can't just throw a guy under the bus like that (for no reason) because it will effect the organization elsewhere.

Differences of opinion happen, and you have to respect them to some degree.


(Just sayin ...)

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 04:10 PM
  #37
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
I understand that, and I agree with you. BUT, do you understand how bad it would look to casual fans/ players if we just dropped him? Even our goalie coach jeff Reese was high on Leighton at that point.

Its not NHL 11, you have to act in a decent fashion and take care of your own to some degree.

(Imagine you are a Leighton fan for a second...you believe Leighton thrives in our system. You see the SV %% the GAS and the shutouts, and say "hey, imagine what this guy could do with a full year in our system". You believe the risk is worth taking, because the payoff is so high...the cost is low.

He's a fan favorite, a player favorite, and a coach favorite, and he wants to stay in philly.)


From that point of view (and its not just fans with that view...its players and coaches too)
If you don't sign this guy its a crime.

As a GM you can't just throw a guy under the bus like that (for no reason) because it will effect the organization elsewhere.

Differences of opinion happen, and you have to respect them to some degree.


(Just sayin ...)
He had a reason.

Leighton isn't very good.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 04:19 PM
  #38
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,668
vCash: 500
A GM shouldn't make moves and signings solely to keep casual fans from being annoyed.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 04:37 PM
  #39
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
A GM shouldn't make moves and signings solely to keep casual fans from being annoyed.
This. And thats the flaw in the argument tuckrr is trying to make. A successful GM doesn't try to appease or please fans, but put the best team possible on the ice.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 05:30 PM
  #40
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
A GM shouldn't make moves and signings solely to keep casual fans from being annoyed.
I didn't say solely...

Like it or not (I know you don't like it) the reality of the situation is that Leighton hadn't given us a reason to throw him out, he had success that year.


Also its for the coaches/other players more than the fans.

Resigning Leighton was a given...it wasnt even homers call!

What if he'd signed somewhere else cheap and had success...that'd look a lot worse than not even offering him a contract!

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 05:38 PM
  #41
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,668
vCash: 500
Ok, making moves with the intention to satisfy the fans remains incredibly stupid. It's also not a motivating factor for Homer, or Gagne would still be a Flyer.

If Homer looked at his entire body or work, his terrible performance pretty much anytime he faced a determined and good offense, and decided "I HAVE TO SIGN THIS MAN, NO CHOICE" than he shouldn't have his job. If he ever once thought "I should sign Leighton because a casual fan will be pleased" he shouldn't have his job either.

If it wasn't even Homer's call (doubtful), then Snider needs to stay the hell away from those decisions.

Leighton would NOT have had success elsewhere. If he had signed elsewhere, it would have been in a backup role at best. Otherwise he would have been shredded, unless he wound up on a team who's defense was capable of babysitting him nonstop...there aren't many defenses like that. Ours in 2010 was.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 05:40 PM
  #42
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
I didn't say solely...

Like it or not (I know you don't like it) the reality of the situation is that Leighton hadn't given us a reason to throw him out, he had success that year.


Also its for the coaches/other players more than the fans.

Resigning Leighton was a given...it wasnt even homers call!

What if he'd signed somewhere else cheap and had success...that'd look a lot worse than not even offering him a contract!
Please explain.....


Most people could tell he was never gonna have alot of success cause he was not a good goalie, so he wasn't gonna go elsewhere and learn how to play well.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 06:20 PM
  #43
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm6492 View Post
Please explain.....


Most people could tell he was never gonna have alot of success cause he was not a good goalie, so he wasn't gonna go elsewhere and learn how to play well.
Between jeff Reese saying this is our guy, he's going to get better.

And

Ed Snider wanting to go with a bargain goalie who can go to the cup (niemi / Leighton ) From so that money could be spent elsewhere)

Homer was told to sign Leighton.


Now if you want to argue that the contract should've been cheaper or fewer years go ahead..
but saying he shouldn't have even signed him is just armchair GMing

I thought 3 years was reasonable at the time. If it worked it would've been great.


Now obviously this year marks a change in philosophy.
given this change it seems like 1 year would've been better.



But if you look at the moves (signing BOB) 3 years was reasonable cause BOB would've been a backup

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 06:28 PM
  #44
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
So, now it isn't a PR disaster behind the decision, but the organization simply deciding to do something stupid?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 06:32 PM
  #45
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
So, now it isn't a PR disaster behind the decision, but the organization simply deciding to do something stupid?
fans, players, coaches.


you read fans.

i say **** it, im done with you.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 06:34 PM
  #46
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
fans, players, coaches.


you read fans.

i say **** it, im done with you.
Hey dude, I'm just enjoying the completely idiotic defense your attempting.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 07:14 PM
  #47
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
fans, players, coaches.


you read fans.

i say **** it, im done with you.
As we are with you, although it was entertaining.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 07:38 PM
  #48
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,858
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm6492 View Post
They could have waited and gotten a player who they believed would have been too expensive for cheap, a player that at the beginning of FA they would have seen as unrealistic to fit there needs. They did thing same thing last year when they came right out and gave Shellley 1.1M dollars cause "he was there guy." They gave Leighton 1.6M/per, cause he must have been there guy. The Lija contract is probably even worse due to the age and the over 35 rule.

I have no problem to go out full strength to grab a guy playing top 9 or top 4 minutes. But the Flyers have shown they they are inept at letting the market play out for depth and filler spots.
Who did they believe was going to be too expensive? Hannan? Were they interested in Hannan? I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Was Hannan going to sign in Philly? For that price? For less maybe? Next time you talk to him or Homer let me know the answers to these questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I love two paragraph defenses of stupidity.

The Lilja signing was stupid.

Lilja is not very good at all to begin with... the terms of the contract are an abomination of idiocy. Just like the signing of Shelley was a *ing abomination of stupid.

At what point will people stop defending these idiot *ing contracts that Holmgren signs every offseason?

Leighton? Stupid.
Shelley? Stupid.
Lilja? Stupid.

No doubt they had motivations to give him that contract, and they were stupid motivations and they should be called out as stupid.
I love responses like these. I am not talking about Leighton or Shelley. I am talking about the fact that the poster I was responding to is acting as if the Flyers were really interested in Hannan or another player but signed Lilja because they are stupid or something like that. It's good though to know that you still will disagree with me on anything I say.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2011, 10:59 PM
  #49
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Who did they believe was going to be too expensive? Hannan? Were they interested in Hannan? I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Was Hannan going to sign in Philly? For that price? For less maybe? Next time you talk to him or Homer let me know the answers to these questions.
And...you are making my point. No, we do not know if they were interested in him. I would bet that they didn't offer him a deal. BUT THATS THE ISSUE. Locking in on a #6/7 d-man when there are/will be better options as the market dies down. This is not just about Hannan, but about anyone to fit this role. There is no reason to not let the market play a little bit and see what happens. But homer never does this, and it backfires.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-17-2011, 07:11 AM
  #50
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,858
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm6492 View Post
And...you are making my point. No, we do not know if they were interested in him. I would bet that they didn't offer him a deal. BUT THATS THE ISSUE. Locking in on a #6/7 d-man when there are/will be better options as the market dies down. This is not just about Hannan, but about anyone to fit this role. There is no reason to not let the market play a little bit and see what happens. But homer never does this, and it backfires.
But you are missing my point. If they are interested in Lilja, why would they wait to see what Hannan or anyone else was going to sign for if they weren't interested in someone else. Do you really think that Homer said, "Crap, we gotta sign someone. ANYONE! QUICK!" Or do you think maybe they said, "Hey, we like this Lilja guy and we can probably get him for between $500k and $1M too." I'm guessing it was the latter.

Also, how did this backfire? Lilja didn't even step on the ice yet. You don't like him and would have rather had Hannan so it backfired? Why don't you let the season start first before you start acting like you know more than the GM. Maybe it wasn't the best move, but just because Scott "Bobby Orr" Hannan signed for only $250k more doesn't mean that signing Lilja "backfired" on the Flyers somehow. We won't know until the season starts.

But my point remains the same whether or not Lilja plays 1 game for the Flyers and sucks it up or he wins the Norris Trophy. If there is a player you want, and he is available, you get him. Otherwise you risk losing him. It doesn't matter that you as a fan don't think he is a good player, if the GM and company are interested in a player, why would they wait to see who else is available? If you are just playing the market so to speak, then yeah let things shake out. But if you want player X, why would you wait to see where other people play and see who else is available if you aren't interested in other players? I mean, I can see it now. The Flyers wait until this week and sign Lilja. Then it's "OMG why didn't he sign (insert player here) last week? This is what happens when you wait! I can't believe how stupid Homer is! If a player signs with another team it is guaranteed that means he would have also signed in Philly and probably even for less if Homer wasn't so stupid."

DrinkFightFlyers 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 03:13 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.