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

Will Bryzgalov ever be worth his contract? All Bryz Discussion Here. Part Two

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-13-2012, 07:55 AM
  #76
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
It is useless to argue with DFF on this stuff...

We could have Shelley on a 10 year 100 million contract right now and if we won the cup, with Shelley being scratched as the 13th forward every night, he would claim it was a good signing because we won the cup and he did his job as the 13th forward.

DUHockey9 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 08:14 AM
  #77
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
It is useless to argue with DFF on this stuff...

We could have Shelley on a 10 year 100 million contract right now and if we won the cup, with Shelley being scratched as the 13th forward every night, he would claim it was a good signing because we won the cup and he did his job as the 13th forward.
Worse, we could have bryzgalov giving 50 goals per game (Putting the puck himself in his own net most of the time!) for the first 3 game of each playoff series before having brobovsky win the the last 4 games.

even with a 0-12, 50 GAA and .100% DFF would still argue Bryzgalov worth every penny of his contract if the flyers still could manage to win the cup with Brobovsky winning the 16 other games.

And if DFF dont think Bryzgalov would not worth his contract in this extreme scenario, im asking him: where do you put the line between being worthy or not of a contract?


Last edited by palindrom: 01-13-2012 at 08:34 AM.
palindrom is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 08:17 AM
  #78
FlyersMania2
Registered User
 
FlyersMania2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
I think the discussion should be - how long can we blame goalies?

I mean Bob has looked good and Bryz hasn't but when Bob looks good (i.e. last night) it is said he has bailed us out.

When goalies who are successful elsewhere are bad here and our other goalie has to bail us out against the worst team in our division, there is a bigger problem.

System. Defense. Bob can't bail us out of every game - sooner or later, we will be cursing both goalies when the blame should be placed elsewhere - the system we are playing and our defensive lapses.

FlyersMania2 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 08:51 AM
  #79
StandingCow
Registered User
 
StandingCow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 3,537
vCash: 50
I think most hockey fans can see the difference between the fault being the goalie vs the defense. Yes, our D hasn't been that good, but Bryz has let in momentum deflating goals... goals that are routine saves.

I really think Bryz's bad play has maybe been the cause of our defense being terrified of making mistakes, because they have no faith in his ability to stop the puck. I have heard several times watching the game that our team plays better in front of bob...

Nobody expects us to be bailed out every time, but they do expect to be bailed out some of the time. Bryz was almost never (with the exception of 1 or 2 games) bailing the team out... everything was going in.


Last edited by StandingCow: 01-13-2012 at 09:13 AM.
StandingCow is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 09:03 AM
  #80
thelos
Bunk
 
thelos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,610
vCash: 500
Team played like **** in front of bob yesterday

thelos is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 09:38 AM
  #81
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
It is useless to argue with DFF on this stuff...

We could have Shelley on a 10 year 100 million contract right now and if we won the cup, with Shelley being scratched as the 13th forward every night, he would claim it was a good signing because we won the cup and he did his job as the 13th forward.
Pretty much.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 10:27 AM
  #82
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,026
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Pretty much. If you win a Cup, everyone earns their paycheck. Ok maybe a guy who never steps foot on the ice is a different story, but in a Bryzgalov/Huet situation, if the goal is to win a Cup, and they do it, they are worth it. I overstepped a little in earlier posts if I said that. But those who are playing, even if not up to your standards, are worth it if the team wins a Cup. Go into the older thread to read more about this. It was discussed by me and Beef ad nauseum.
Huet faced 3 shots in the 2010 playoffs. How did he have any impact in the playoffs? Huet was never worth his contract. Because Chicago won the Cup that season is not sufficient proof that he did.

If Bryzgalov is on the bench for every playoff game this season and the Flyers win the Cup, Bryz did not measure up to his contract. It's pretty easy to understand, really.

__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities
CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 10:40 AM
  #83
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Huet faced 3 shots in the 2010 playoffs. How did he have any impact in the playoffs? Huet was never worth his contract. Because Chicago won the Cup that season is not sufficient proof that he did.

If Bryzgalov is on the bench for every playoff game this season and the Flyers win the Cup, Bryz did not measure up to his contract. It's pretty easy to understand, really.
He won half of their games in the regular season and was the backup goalie in the playoffs. That is how he was worth it. You can only be worth a contract by having an impact in the playoffs? I don't know too many Blackhawks fans who would tell you they'd rather have no Huet in 2009-10 in lieu of the Cup they won.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 10:47 AM
  #84
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,026
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
He won half of their games in the regular season and was the backup goalie in the playoffs. That is how he was worth it. You can only be worth a contract by having an impact in the playoffs? I don't know too many Blackhawks fans who would tell you they'd rather have no Huet in 2009-10 in lieu of the Cup they won.
If Huet starts for Chicago in the 2010 playoffs, they don't win the Cup. That's why he rode the pine. There's a reason why he never played another game for the Blackhawks after 2010, even though he was still under contract. Hint: it's because the organization believed he wasn't doing his part to earn what they paid him.

If you're paying a goaltender $5M per season, he's not earning that contract sitting on the bench during the playoffs.

Your response above regarding Shelley, even if tongue in cheek, pretty much sums up how out of touch you are with how a player measures up to earning his contract.


Last edited by CanadianFlyer88: 01-13-2012 at 10:52 AM.
CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 10:48 AM
  #85
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
He won half of their games in the regular season and was the backup goalie in the playoffs. That is how he was worth it. You can only be worth a contract by having an impact in the playoffs? I don't know too many Blackhawks fans who would tell you they'd rather have no Huet in 2009-10 in lieu of the Cup they won.
I just want to ask, where do you draw the line between being worthy of a contract or not? if a team win the stanley cup....

as my example above, if a player score 3 goals per game in his own net, but a team still manage to win the cup.. does he worth his contract. (assuming he did nothing good to compensate the 3 goal he put in his own net!, his impact on ice was clearly negative).

Alternatively, can i player worth his contract if his teams doesnt win the cup?


Last edited by palindrom: 01-13-2012 at 11:00 AM.
palindrom is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 10:57 AM
  #86
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,361
vCash: 10592
Huet

He started out the season red hot and was a big part of the Hawks getting off to a good start and winning early, but from there, it just got worse and worse. Add it all up and anyone else could have duplicated his record. I actually felt bad for him when he was handed the Cup, probably felt disconnected from the team and that he had no part in it. If he did feel this way, I don't blame him.

coldsteelonice84 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 11:36 AM
  #87
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge11 View Post
Team played like **** in front of bob yesterday
did they ever..

bob was stellar, and deserves better support..

but i fear the same team D in front of Bryz last nite, and its a loss for sure..

perhaps 6-2 or something ugly..

Flyerfan4life is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 11:45 AM
  #88
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
If Huet starts for Chicago in the 2010 playoffs, they don't win the Cup. That's why he rode the pine. There's a reason why he never played another game for the Blackhawks after 2010, even though he was still under contract. Hint: it's because the organization believed he wasn't doing his part to earn what they paid him.

If you're paying a goaltender $5M per season, he's not earning that contract sitting on the bench during the playoffs.

Your response above regarding Shelley, even if tongue in cheek, pretty much sums up how out of touch you are with how a player measures up to earning his contract.
All I can say is the same thing I have been saying which people refuse to acknowledge. You change something on that team and it is not a guarantee they win the Cup. No Huet to start the season means a different goalie is their starter. That can change the entire season. For better or worse. If they sign someone different and he starts and plays well, Niemi doesn't play in the playoffs and maybe they lose in the first round. I have said this from the beginning, when you have results like winning a Cup, you can't look back and say well if they did this or that they would have been better off. Concrete results are always concrete and valid. Hypotheticals (mine and yours) are never, ever, anywhere, for any reason, more valid that actual results. They won they Cup. He contributed. He earned his contract and was worth it. He didn't hurt his team, in fact he won half of their games en route to a championships. How is he not worth it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
I just want to ask, where do you draw the line between being worthy of a contract or not? if a team win the stanley cup....

as my example above, if a player score 3 goals per game in his own net, but a team still manage to win the cup.. does he worth his contract. (assuming he did nothing good to compensate the 3 goal he put in his own net!, his impact on ice was clearly negative).

Alternatively, can i player worth his contract if his teams doesnt win the cup?
A player can earn his contract in a number of ways. Winning a Cup isn't the only way, but it is certainly one way. He can earn it with stats and leadership and all those other good things as well. In short a player is worth his contract if he does his job (winning a Cup, putting up good stats, etc). He doesn't have to do all of them. I really didn't think this was a difficult concept. Apparently many of you are not familiar with the saying that there is "more than one way to skin a cat."

In your example no, a player who is out there scoring three goals in his own net is not worth his contract regardless of a Cup. If they are deflections going in off of him, that is a different story, but if he is out here deliberately hurting his team, then no he is not worth it. I think I addressed that in the last thread as well. However, if the player was doing that and they won the Cup, I don't think too many people would be complaining. I know I wouldn't.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 12:05 PM
  #89
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
You would seriously be the only person who wouldn't be complaining.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 12:24 PM
  #90
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
A player can earn his contract in a number of ways. Winning a Cup isn't the only way, but it is certainly one way. He can earn it with stats and leadership and all those other good things as well. In short a player is worth his contract if he does his job (winning a Cup, putting up good stats, etc). He doesn't have to do all of them. I really didn't think this was a difficult concept. Apparently many of you are not familiar with the saying that there is "more than one way to skin a cat."

In your example no, a player who is out there scoring three goals in his own net is not worth his contract regardless of a Cup. If they are deflections going in off of him, that is a different story, but if he is out here deliberately hurting his team, then no he is not worth it. I think I addressed that in the last thread as well. However, if the player was doing that and they won the Cup, I don't think too many people would be complaining. I know I wouldn't.
Well, IMO Bryzgalov is not doing his job right now. Huet didnt do his job as well when Chicago won the Cup.

If the Flyers win the cup with Brobovsky as a starter, i dont think Brygalov would be doing his job.

In my opinion a player worth his contract when he does at least not too worse than the average player having similar contract.

When we compare Bryzgalov to other goalie earning similar money (or even with goalie earning significantly less) .....i dont think he worth his contract so far.

palindrom is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 12:31 PM
  #91
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
When a big money starting goalie loses his job to his backup, I don't see how you can say he's earning his money or is worth it.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 12:37 PM
  #92
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
A player can earn his contract in a number of ways. Winning a Cup isn't the only way, but it is certainly one way. He can earn it with stats and leadership and all those other good things as well. In short a player is worth his contract if he does his job (winning a Cup, putting up good stats, etc). He doesn't have to do all of them. I really didn't think this was a difficult concept. Apparently many of you are not familiar with the saying that there is "more than one way to skin a cat."
Stupid is as stupid does.

Players do not win championships, teams do. Teams can win championships despite constituent parts not holding up their end of the bargain. TEAMS can overcome weak links. For example, the Philadelphia Flyers overcame Michael Leighton/Brian Boucher for three rounds of playoffs before they ran into a wall and couldn't hold it together anymore.

Now, both those guys were cheap backup goalies, so you can argue that they earned their contract -- Leighton definitely did that year. The evaluation changes if they're signed for a decade to a high cap hit.

If Bryzgalov loses his starting job to Bob, he doesn't earn his contract no matter what the Flyers TEAM does. He isn't paid to be a backup, he's paid to be a starter and he isn't playing well enough to deserve that role.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 01:01 PM
  #93
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,026
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
All I can say is the same thing I have been saying which people refuse to acknowledge. You change something on that team and it is not a guarantee they win the Cup. No Huet to start the season means a different goalie is their starter. That can change the entire season. For better or worse. If they sign someone different and he starts and plays well, Niemi doesn't play in the playoffs and maybe they lose in the first round. I have said this from the beginning, when you have results like winning a Cup, you can't look back and say well if they did this or that they would have been better off. Concrete results are always concrete and valid. Hypotheticals (mine and yours) are never, ever, anywhere, for any reason, more valid that actual results. They won they Cup. He contributed. He earned his contract and was worth it. He didn't hurt his team, in fact he won half of their games en route to a championships. How is he not worth it?
He began to hurt his team, which is why he wasn't between the pipes for the playoffs. He wasn't earning his contract so he was benched and, subsequently, not invited back to be part of the team the following season.

Just they're a winning team doesn't mean that everyone at any given time is earning their contract. It's the reason even Stanley Cup winning teams make roster adjustments in the following off-season.

By your logic, Andreas Nodl should be celebrated for his contribution to the Flyers this season, should the Flyers win the Cup, even though he was waived because he was no longer a fit with the big club. He contributed to the team's success this year, so he must have been worth his contract.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 01:01 PM
  #94
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
DFF is the biggest fan of the butterfly effect I've ever come across.

Perhaps he is Edward Lorenz!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

DUHockey9 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 01:16 PM
  #95
WeekendAtBernies
Registered User
 
WeekendAtBernies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
DFF is the biggest fan of the butterfly effect I've ever come across.

Perhaps he is Edward Lorenz!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
The butterfly effect? Is that where Bryzgalov goes down into the butterfly before the shooter releases a shot and as a result he gives up a soft goal? I've seen that happen tens of times this year, so I assume that's what you're referring to?

I'm too lazy to read the article...

WeekendAtBernies is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 01:19 PM
  #96
kimmofan44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: thorndale pa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,457
vCash: 500
i personally think we need to give bryz a season to see what we are really getting, if he craps the bed this year and then rights the ship next year with an outstanding performance, yes it sucks that we wasted 10 mill on a seasons worth of goalie juggling, but in the end it would have been worth it. we just have to wait and see how it pans out bc like it or not we are stuck with him


Last edited by kimmofan44: 01-13-2012 at 02:23 PM.
kimmofan44 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 01:21 PM
  #97
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Stupid is as stupid does.

Players do not win championships, teams do. Teams can win championships despite constituent parts not holding up their end of the bargain. TEAMS can overcome weak links. For example, the Philadelphia Flyers overcame Michael Leighton/Brian Boucher for three rounds of playoffs before they ran into a wall and couldn't hold it together anymore.

Now, both those guys were cheap backup goalies, so you can argue that they earned their contract -- Leighton definitely did that year. The evaluation changes if they're signed for a decade to a high cap hit.

If Bryzgalov loses his starting job to Bob, he doesn't earn his contract no matter what the Flyers TEAM does. He isn't paid to be a backup, he's paid to be a starter and he isn't playing well enough to deserve that role.
I was expecting you to chime in here eventually. I'd have to say this is probably the best criticism of my opinion thus far. You make a good point about Bryz being paid to be the starter but not actually being the starter, but I still don't think that's enough to say he wasn't worth it if the team wins the Cup. In my opinion, you win the Cup, everyone has done their job and was worth every penny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
He began to hurt his team, which is why he wasn't between the pipes for the playoffs. He wasn't earning his contract so he was benched and, subsequently, not invited back to be part of the team the following season.
And yet he still won half their games and they still won the Cup. If that is hurting the team I wonder what helping looks like.

Quote:
Just they're a winning team doesn't mean that everyone at any given time is earning their contract. It's the reason even Stanley Cup winning teams make roster adjustments in the following off-season.
A player earning his contract in season X is not relevant to what happens after. Blair Betts earned his contract and was waived this year. Are you going to tell me that because he was waived he was not worth his contract?

Quote:
By your logic, Andreas Nodl should be celebrated for his contribution to the Flyers this season, should the Flyers win the Cup, even though he was waived because he was no longer a fit with the big club. He contributed to the team's success this year, so he must have been worth his contract.
I'm not saying Huet (or similarly situated players) should be celebrated and should win the MVP or anything like that. You can earn your contract without being lauded and congratulated and recognized for it. If the Flyers win the Cup I'm not going to complain that they paid Nodl for a few weeks and he took up cap space that could have been spent elsewhere. During his time here I'd say he was worth it. There just wasn't a spot on the team for him any more. That doesn't mean he wasn't worth it or didn't earn it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
DFF is the biggest fan of the butterfly effect I've ever come across.

Perhaps he is Edward Lorenz!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
As if it isn't a legitimate argument? In order to win the Stanley Cup everything has to go perfectly. You have to be good and you have to be lucky. You change the makeup of the team and who knows what happens. That is why my biggest argument this entire time is that when you have concrete results, they are ALWAYS worth more than "what ifs" that you come up with. If we are talking about predictions for the future, then you can come up with any scenarios you want and they are just valid as anything I will say. But looking back on something that happened, especially when that something is the highest possible point you can reach in professional hockey, all of your what ifs and what could have beens mean exactly nothing.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 02:22 PM
  #98
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
As if it isn't a legitimate argument? In order to win the Stanley Cup everything has to go perfectly. You have to be good and you have to be lucky. You change the makeup of the team and who knows what happens. That is why my biggest argument this entire time is that when you have concrete results, they are ALWAYS worth more than "what ifs" that you come up with. If we are talking about predictions for the future, then you can come up with any scenarios you want and they are just valid as anything I will say. But looking back on something that happened, especially when that something is the highest possible point you can reach in professional hockey, all of your what ifs and what could have beens mean exactly nothing.
Trust me, I understand that but you take it to an extreme. We've covered the 13th forward thing, and even you admit that for players that don't play, it's a bit of a stretch; but even if it is someone that plays, you take it as concrete that if that SPECIFICS player wasn't there at that exact time, we may not have won.

Jody Shelley is a terrible hockey player. Even if he was playing, it's a stretch to say we wouldn't win without him. And I understand it, what if Shelley makes a critical hit on a forecheck, which leads to a turnover, and then a goal, which gave us momentum, and we end up winning a game (yada yada, butterfly effect). I get it. That is legitimate. What you fail to realize is that, that particular action (and many actions) are not that special or difficult. Chances are that there are dozens and dozens of people that are capable of making that play.

You hide behind this veil because it's impossible to prove otherwise. Your point isn't based in fantasy but you take it as far as humanly posisble, and you hide behind the fact that it's impossible to prove otherwise.

It's like if some incompetent, terrible, human being was responsible for simply pushing some button that magically cured world hunger or something. You'd claim "thank god for that incompetent, terrible, human being!" When reality is, it could have been anybody pushing that button, that specific individual probably didn't matter.

Edit: Basically, what I'm getting at, is that you essentially place the same amount of importance on every single role in a hockey team. If Claude Giroux wasn't here we wouldn't have won. If Jody Shelley was here, we wouldn't have won. One of those players is far more important than the other. One of their jobs is significantly more difficult than the other's. Yet you absolve them both, and treat them as if they were equally critical in any success or failure. Winning means everyone did their job after all right?!


Last edited by DUHockey9: 01-13-2012 at 02:27 PM.
DUHockey9 is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 02:40 PM
  #99
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
I was expecting you to chime in here eventually. I'd have to say this is probably the best criticism of my opinion thus far. You make a good point about Bryz being paid to be the starter but not actually being the starter, but I still don't think that's enough to say he wasn't worth it if the team wins the Cup. In my opinion, you win the Cup, everyone has done their job and was worth every penny.
Do you seriously not grasp how dumb that argument is? If Bob is the starter, we could have spent that money on a player that may have improved the team even more. Unlike a skater, if you're a goalie riding the pine during the playoffs, you're irrelevant to the final result.

You were talking about Huet earlier... the Hawks ended up paying for him to play for another team! How can you seriously argue that he was worth his contract to the Hawks? They had to dismantle key components of their team BECAUSE OF HIS CONTRACT and he wasn't even a key component of their team at that point.

It would be one thing like with the Bruins a couple of years ago when Rask simply outplayed Thomas (who was injured, but still a very solid goalie). It's an entirely other matter when you are literally producing at a rate well below the standard of an average starting goalie -- let alone an elite one, which Bryz is paid to be.

What's truly fascinating is your black-and-white view of the world that results justify all means, and, more importantly, absolve all sins. In this very post you went on to talk about how teams need to get "lucky." Luck works both ways... luck can mask the fact that people aren't doing their jobs.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-13-2012, 03:04 PM
  #100
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,026
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
And yet he still won half their games and they still won the Cup. If that is hurting the team I wonder what helping looks like.

A player earning his contract in season X is not relevant to what happens after. Blair Betts earned his contract and was waived this year. Are you going to tell me that because he was waived he was not worth his contract?
Where did I indicate that Huet didn't have a good start to the 2009-10 season? How he finished the season, and what happened afterwards, is the real issue. You don't prove your worth by performing a relatively small proportion of your contract.

If you are hired for 4 years and, after an impressive 6 months, your value starts to decline and you are eventually fired, did you earn your 4-year contract?

The Blackhawks recognized that Huet was not going to be the guy and relegated him to the bench, eventually (essentially) firing him.

What happens during the length of the contract amounts to the individual proving the worth of the contract.

Quote:
I'm not saying Huet (or similarly situated players) should be celebrated and should win the MVP or anything like that. You can earn your contract without being lauded and congratulated and recognized for it. If the Flyers win the Cup I'm not going to complain that they paid Nodl for a few weeks and he took up cap space that could have been spent elsewhere. During his time here I'd say he was worth it. There just wasn't a spot on the team for him any more. That doesn't mean he wasn't worth it or didn't earn it.
Nodl was just an example of a player who contributed to the Flyers this season that will have no bearing down the road in the Flyers winning the Cup (unless he somehow makes it back on the roster). Huet's play declined so substantially that he was relegated to the bench for the playoffs. How you can possibly believe that his regular season win total equates to him being worth his contract is simply astounding.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:45 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.