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

Should Flyers have kept Carle?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-08-2012, 09:18 PM
  #51
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Carle also spent 13 games with Pronger, who was producing at a very high level before his season/career were torpedoed; this would have boosted his numbers initially, before coming back down to normal. Overall, Carle's production is lower than should be expected from someone who is supposedly very good at offfense, considering his time on ice with a top 3 offense and time with the top forward line.

My theory is that other teams know how to defend Carle now. He gets neutralized because they can single him out, because he is one dimensional offensively. A one dimensional player like that can't drag along a teammate who isn't all that gifted offensively; MAB wasn't an offensive dynamo, and that surely didn't help. Despite that, with time spent with Pronger and Timonen, and loads of time with our top forward lines, his offensive output is disappointing compared to other Dmen, and spending half his time with MAB doesn't adequately explain it...especially since the team's production with MAB on the ice is slightly better.

Carle should be a strictly secondary player, and it was detrimental for the team to use him so much in a primary role. However, we didn't really have much choice. This year, someone else will likely be that offensive detriment, possibly even two whole pairings. At the end of the day, it was wise to not give Carle the contract he got with the team in its current situation. That's the sort of contract you give to someone who helps fix/does fix the problem, and I don't think that would have been Carle.

I wrote this while doing several other things, so sorry if it isn't strung together/communicated adequately/makes no logical sense. Don't really have the time to polish it.
Which is more likely, Carle's numbers would be boosted by playing with Hall of Famer Chris Pronger for 13 games, or brought down by playing with AHL fodder Marc-Andre Bourdon for roughly 40?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 09:29 PM
  #52
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Which is more likely, Carle's numbers would be boosted by playing with Hall of Famer Chris Pronger for 13 games, or brought down by playing with AHL fodder Marc-Andre Bourdon for roughly 40?
Again, the team's production with MAB on the ice is slightly higher than Carle. How do you account for that? What about the the 54% (at minimum) of his ice time spent away from MAB?

Carle flat out isn't fit to anchor a pairing. He's a great complimentary player, but he can't cut it otherwise.

__________________
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
08-08-2012, 10:33 PM
  #53
The Couturier Effect
Registered User
 
The Couturier Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 4,035
vCash: 500
Should they have kept Carle? No way. He's a defensive liability and is not worth that kind of money.
As far as Mez goes, there is no need to press the panic button. The Flyers have many options. There are decent options in free agency. Colaiavovo, Hannan, Campoli etc. The easiest option is to stick with what they have in the system. Bourdon would be a solid option if he recovered from his concussion. If not, they can see what Manning and Gustafsson can do with more ice time. They could also make a trade, but I don't think it'll be for a big-name player like Boyle or Yandle.

The Couturier Effect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 09:10 AM
  #54
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Which is more likely, Carle's numbers would be boosted by playing with Hall of Famer Chris Pronger for 13 games, or brought down by playing with AHL fodder Marc-Andre Bourdon for roughly 40?
Didn't I show multiple times (in previous threads) that Carle actually had better numbers when Pronger was out of the lineup.

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 10:42 AM
  #55
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
Didn't I show multiple times (in previous threads) that Carle actually had better numbers when Pronger was out of the lineup.
That's because Carle faced weaker competition and stopped getting shredded by opposing teams' top line

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 11:29 AM
  #56
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
That's because Carle faced weaker competition and stopped getting shredded by opposing teams' top line
I haven't checked his Qaulcomp with and without Pronger, but considering he played 23min a night I doubt he faced drastically easier competition. I could be wrong, I'll try and look it up.

KimiFerrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 12:31 PM
  #57
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
I haven't checked his Qaulcomp with and without Pronger, but considering he played 23min a night I doubt he faced drastically easier competition. I could be wrong, I'll try and look it up.
Kimmo and Coburn faced the top lines, Carle faced what was left. I thought his defensive play improved noticeably once he stopped playing with Pronger. I believe it's because as the obvious weak link on that pairing, teams would take advantage of him. Once he was no longer facing the best competition at Pronger's side, that didn't happen anymore.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 12:54 PM
  #58
usahockey22flyers
Forza Roma
 
usahockey22flyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
At that price tag, I think the majority of Flyers fans are happy he walked.

usahockey22flyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 01:05 PM
  #59
FlyingHigh13
Registered User
 
FlyingHigh13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Cleveland
Country: United States
Posts: 89
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by usahockey22flyers View Post
At that price tag, I think the majority of Flyers fans are happy he walked.
Yes, only way id want him back would be for 4.5/3ys, anything over that PEACE BRO

FlyingHigh13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 02:23 PM
  #60
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 Fish Invictus View Post
That was something I noticed while watching him. You didn't notice all the blocked shots, or how often his shots were gloved by goalies without much challenge? That usually led to a faceoff, which the Flyers lost more often than not. That's what happens when all you do is gently wrist it in from the blue line.

Carle himself wasn't less productive, yet the team overall was while he was on the ice.
Did those things happen on occasion? Yes, but there's no evidence it is was a negative trend rather than just a perception bias. There is more evidence that his goals for was impacted by luck considering his numbers were above average in previous seasons. His PDO backs up this theory.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 02:26 PM
  #61
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,121
vCash: 500
He has an awful shot which makes him one dimensional on offense, and easier to defend against; that's not bad luck.

Edit: His higher numbers in previous seasons can be attributed to playing with Pronger, too. Pronger was a pretty good defenseman, especially on offense.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 02:34 PM
  #62
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
He is an above average points producer. I fail to see the issue with his one dimensional nature on offense.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 02:36 PM
  #63
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
He is an above average points producer. I fail to see the issue with his one dimensional nature on offense.
He earned those points through sheer amount of ice time with a top offense. Look at the team's production when he is on the ice compared to when he is off the ice last year; the team's production is lower overall while he played. That is the issue.

We didn't need another year (or 6) of Carle in over his head at a high cap hit. He's a complementary player. We don't need anymore complementary players, especially at that contract.

Unfortunately, we are likely going to be in that situation (players in roles they can't handle) yet again. At least they won't be overpaid, I guess.

Edit: I'm not trying to say Carle is terrible. I'm trying to say he was misused, and it hurt them team overall. Carle can be an asset in the right situation. I don't think Philly is currently that situation.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 08-09-2012 at 02:43 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 03:02 PM
  #64
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 Fish Invictus View Post
He earned those points through sheer amount of ice time with a top offense. Look at the team's production when he is on the ice compared to when he is off the ice last year; the team's production is lower overall while he played. That is the issue.

We didn't need another year (or 6) of Carle in over his head at a high cap hit. He's a complementary player. We don't need anymore complementary players, especially at that contract.

Unfortunately, we are likely going to be in that situation (players in roles they can't handle) yet again. At least they won't be overpaid, I guess.
You are looking at a one year sample size. Just maybe last year was an anomaly for him, but you refuse to even look at the possibility.

I don't disagree that he is a complimentary defensman. I've always said he is a good #3. The problem is do the Flyers have 3 defenders better than him? In my opinion they do not.

I don't think his contract is ideal (too long), but I don't think the money is that bad because contracts rise as the cap rises. Player values have been distorted lately because the cap hit of elite players has remained stagnant due to these frontloaded deals. So people panic when the prices for mid level talent keeps rising, but the problem is really these bogus frontloaded deals are distorting everything.

That said, for me the question isn't should the Flyers have handed him that deal. The question is should the Flyers have tried harder to get him signed at a lower price? I think the Flyers made a mistake chasing Suter and Parise with high risk deals instead of re-signing their free agents to lower risk team friendly deals. Suter is not that much of an upgrade to justify a 12 year risk at a tremendous cap hit. Holmgren didn't screw up when he failed to match Tampa's offer. He screwed up on day one chasing a pipedream when it was widely reported he didn't want to play in a market like Philly.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 03:16 PM
  #65
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
You are looking at a one year sample size. Just maybe last year was an anomaly for him, but you refuse to even look at the possibility.

I don't disagree that he is a complimentary defensman. I've always said he is a good #3. The problem is do the Flyers have 3 defenders better than him? In my opinion they do not.

I don't think his contract is ideal (too long), but I don't think the money is that bad because contracts rise as the cap rises. Player values have been distorted lately because the cap hit of elite players has remained stagnant due to these frontloaded deals. So people panic when the prices for mid level talent keeps rising, but the problem is really these bogus frontloaded deals are distorting everything.

That said, for me the question isn't should the Flyers have handed him that deal. The question is should the Flyers have tried harder to get him signed at a lower price? I think the Flyers made a mistake chasing Suter and Parise with high risk deals instead of re-signing their free agents to lower risk team friendly deals. Suter is not that much of an upgrade to justify a 12 year risk at a tremendous cap hit. Holmgren didn't screw up when he failed to match Tampa's offer. He screwed up on day one chasing a pipedream when it was widely reported he didn't want to play in a market like Philly.
I don't know that Carle was willing to take the lower price. The market was thin, and Dmen were getting paid. I'm not gonna worry to much about the org's negotiations with him, especially since we don't know how they unfolded. Perhaps Homer did try to get him; if he balked at TB's offer, I don't blame him. I think matching that is a mistake.

I don't consider last year an anomaly, no. If Carle had a down year while playing next to Pronger, then it could be; same circumstances, oddly different results. However, this year was very different for him, and we saw the result This coming season wouldn't have brought a return to normal circumstances, because Pronger remains out; there's little reason as things stand to believe there would be a drastic turnaround. Anchoring his own pairing instead of complementing Pronger is a huge change, and accounts for the drop in offensive numbers IMO. I think he would continue to be less effective as long as he was playing in a role he doesn't quite fit.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 05:57 PM
  #66
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
Didn't I show multiple times (in previous threads) that Carle actually had better numbers when Pronger was out of the lineup.
Yes you did. There is nothing wrong with Carle being on the second pairing on this team and playing very little against the opposing teams top lines. People cry about his price but I guess were better off entering the season with 3+ mil in cap space and only one good pairing on D.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 06:08 PM
  #67
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
You are looking at a one year sample size. Just maybe last year was an anomaly for him, but you refuse to even look at the possibility.

I don't disagree that he is a complimentary defensman. I've always said he is a good #3. The problem is do the Flyers have 3 defenders better than him? In my opinion they do not.

I don't think his contract is ideal (too long), but I don't think the money is that bad because contracts rise as the cap rises. Player values have been distorted lately because the cap hit of elite players has remained stagnant due to these frontloaded deals. So people panic when the prices for mid level talent keeps rising, but the problem is really these bogus frontloaded deals are distorting everything.

That said, for me the question isn't should the Flyers have handed him that deal. The question is should the Flyers have tried harder to get him signed at a lower price? I think the Flyers made a mistake chasing Suter and Parise with high risk deals instead of re-signing their free agents to lower risk team friendly deals. Suter is not that much of an upgrade to justify a 12 year risk at a tremendous cap hit. Holmgren didn't screw up when he failed to match Tampa's offer. He screwed up on day one chasing a pipedream when it was widely reported he didn't want to play in a market like Philly.
Everyone and their mother knew Suter and Parise didn't want to play here, except Homer. He tried to drive up their price in case either one went to Pitt, or Parise went back to NJ.

It backfired because he tied his own hands and that allowed Carle and Jagr to leave. Now we get the leftover scraps. The Weber offer was even dumber.

Weber is Nashville's best asset, captain, and most marketable player. Suter just left town, the GM publicly stated he would match any offer sheet, and the team is owned by multiple millionaires.

Add it all up, and the odds were extremely low they would let him walk for draft picks. I'm not buying the BS from the agent that he really wanted to be here. What Weber really wanted was a monster contract NOW, before the new CBA possibly eliminates deals like his.

Sure he would have played here if the offer went unmatched. If he REALLY wanted to play in Philly above all else, and money wasn't the most important objective, he signs a one year deal and comes here next year as an UFA.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 11:46 AM
  #68
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Carle would absolutely have been useful given the state of our defense right now.

But a 6 year commitment is 100% a deal breaker. Our D will look radically different in 3 years I am sure. I am not ready to commit $5.5m of cap space to Carle for the next six years when we dont know what kind of role he would play in that time.
Yeah, it was time for Carle to leave. Sure, he gets ragged on more than he deserves from a few of the posters here, but he is not someone I'd like the Flyers to invest that much time and money into.

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:22 PM
  #69
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
I can't wait for 20 games into the season. Tampa fans are going to be trying to kill Yzerman for this deal

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 12:43 PM
  #70
dookie88
Registered User
 
dookie88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
I can't wait for 20 games into the season. Tampa fans are going to be trying to kill Yzerman for this deal
I we stand pat right now, I'm almost sure people will start realising how important Matt Carle was for this team. Probably before those first 20 games are played.

I won't start arguing about him being worth the contract he got (although I think he probably would've stayed here for $5m x 5 years), but he's one of the better puck movers in this league.
Guess what we miss right now on the backend?

dookie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:11 PM
  #71
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookie88 View Post
I we stand pat right now, I'm almost sure people will start realising how important Matt Carle was for this team. Probably before those first 20 games are played.

I won't start arguing about him being worth the contract he got (although I think he probably would've stayed here for $5m x 5 years), but he's one of the better puck movers in this league.
Guess what we miss right now on the backend?
Just curious if you saw the games last year and not highlights. I never understood where this "carle is a great puck mover" comes from.

He was terrible under pressure. I mean sure, he could outlet a pass when starting the rush. But so can other defenseman on the team. He's another Villie leino. Going to be hillarious.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 01:27 PM
  #72
dookie88
Registered User
 
dookie88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Just curious if you saw the games last year and not highlights. I never understood where this "carle is a great puck mover" comes from.
Games. Not all, but a fair amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
He was terrible under pressure. I mean sure, he could outlet a pass when starting the rush. But so can other defenseman on the team. He's another Villie leino. Going to be hillarious.
Not going to tell you what you should believe.
I guess we'll see how our blueline will work with Jonas Gustaffson being the primary puck mover.

dookie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:04 PM
  #73
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookie88 View Post
Games. Not all, but a fair amount.



Not going to tell you what you should believe.
I guess we'll see how our blueline will work with Jonas Gustaffson being the primary puck mover.
Eric?

I know our defense is bad, but I don't think Jonas is going to be traded for lol.

I can't wait to see him play to be honest. He was +12 last year, and +4 in the play-offs. Not bad for a rookie

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2012, 02:45 PM
  #74
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 9,019
vCash: 500
It would have been nice to have kept Carle, but not at that price, and certainly not at that term.

It's the same as making a panic trade for Bouwmeester. Would he be a nice player to have? Sure. But why overpay right now when a better solution might be available in the coming months? Are we still going to be desperate for him in the future?

Just because he may be what we need right now, does not mean he will be what we need in four or six years. I'm not ready to carve out such a significant chunk of our cap space for somebody who may or may not fit our team in such a long time.


These 5+ year deals should be reserved for players you absolutely know will be a core piece of your team in that amount of time. Giving Garrison, Carle, Leino, etc. such long deals is awful contract management. You sign guys like that for two or three years at a time. Any longer and you start to assume way too many things.

hockeyfreak7 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 05:25 PM.

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.