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 we re-sign G Joacim Eriksson?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-25-2013, 11:55 AM
  #76
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,821
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I am not saying I'd RATHER have these other guys, I'm just saying that if we are looking at SEL goalies to sign, they should be in the conversation too. There is no reason to look at Eriksson's stats and say he would be a good backup, look at the stats of the three other guys in the same league that are in the same ballpark (if not identical or better) and say they are not worth it. It seems odd that taking a risk on a 22-23 year old goalie is a good idea, but taking a risk on a 26-27 year old goalie with similar stats is a bad idea. As I said earlier, that argument seems like a thinly veiled attempt to justify the interest in Eriksson without falling into the category of people I was referring to in my original point.
I don't get why they should be in the conversation. They're too old to be prospects. The younger guy putting up great numbers is far more desirable than the older guys putting up slightly lesser numbers.

__________________
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
03-25-2013, 12:03 PM
  #77
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I am not saying I'd RATHER have these other guys, I'm just saying that if we are looking at SEL goalies to sign, they should be in the conversation too. There is no reason to look at Eriksson's stats and say he would be a good backup, look at the stats of the three other guys in the same league that are in the same ballpark (if not identical or better) and say they are not worth it. It seems odd that taking a risk on a 22-23 year old goalie is a good idea, but taking a risk on a 26-27 year old goalie with similar stats is a bad idea. As I said earlier, that argument seems like a thinly veiled attempt to justify the interest in Eriksson without falling into the category of people I was referring to in my original point.
I still don't see how you can consider such a larger age difference an excuse but whatever. And that's fine they can be in the conversation I'm just saying all things considered (yes age is a big one) that it make sense to consider him over some others with similar numbers. Can you honesty say that a guy turning 23 this yr compared to a guy who turns 28 this yr or who is already 28 isn't a big difference? Come on dude, that's 5 yrs. If that were true read would've won the Calder or at least had a legit shot last year. Age, especially such a large difference, is always a factor.

FlyersFan61290 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:04 PM
  #78
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I don't get why they should be in the conversation. They're too old to be prospects. The younger guy putting up great numbers is far more desirable than the older guys putting up slightly lesser numbers.
That's a good point, the 26 or 27 year old probably wouldn't be able to make the jump to NHL backup but the 22 year old could. You want Eriksson to be the NHL backup based on his stats in the SEL. There are several other goalies in the same area or better but are a couple years older and they are not desirable. I understand why you would want the 22 year old more, but you would have no interest in the other guys? This team needs a backup goalie. If Eriksson is that guy, why aren't the others? That's why it seems like people only want the guy because they know his name or because they want to say they were right and Homer was wrong.

EDIT: How about Julius Hudacek? He's 24 and is at .929 and 1.89?


Last edited by DrinkFightFlyers: 03-25-2013 at 12:09 PM.
DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:06 PM
  #79
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,926
vCash: 769
you guys realize Fasth is 30 years old, right?

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:06 PM
  #80
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,821
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
That's a good point, the 26 or 27 year old probably wouldn't be able to make the jump to NHL backup but the 22 year old could. You want Eriksson to be the NHL backup based on his stats in the SEL. There are several other goalies in the same area or better but are a couple years older and they are not desirable. I understand why you would want the 22 year old more, but you would have no interest in the other guys? This team needs a backup goalie. If Eriksson is that guy, why aren't the others? That's why it seems like people only want the guy because they know his name or because they want to say they were right and Homer was wrong.

I'm far less interested in them because I'm looking for a potential long term solution, not just a backup for next year. Eriksson has more potential to be the long term solution than those guys.

This has nothing to do with Homer...you're seriously the only person here making this about Homer and his choice to let him go. Ignoring past GM decisions, Eriksson still remains far more desirable than the other players.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:12 PM
  #81
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I'm far less interested in them because I'm looking for a potential long term solution, not just a backup for next year. Eriksson has more potential to be the long term solution than those guys.

This has nothing to do with Homer...you're seriously the only person here making this about Homer and his choice to let him go. Ignoring past GM decisions, Eriksson still remains far more desirable than the other players.
My sentiments exactly

FlyersFan61290 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:15 PM
  #82
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan61290 View Post
I still don't see how you can consider such a larger age difference an excuse but whatever. And that's fine they can be in the conversation I'm just saying all things considered (yes age is a big one) that it make sense to consider him over some others with similar numbers. Can you honesty say that a guy turning 23 this yr compared to a guy who turns 28 this yr or who is already 28 isn't a big difference? Come on dude, that's 5 yrs. If that were true read would've won the Calder or at least had a legit shot last year. Age, especially such a large difference, is always a factor.
It absolutely is a factor. Again, I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying would prefer these guys or that the Flyers should pursue them and not Eriksson. I am saying that if we are looking at the SEL stats of Eriksson and saying he should be signed and blah blah blah, how can you not look at the goalies in the same league with the same or better stats and say, psh, he's a couple years older, forget about him? Hudacek is 24, is that too old? Christian Engstrand is 24 too. Right in that area of stats. Is a year and a half too old too?

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:15 PM
  #83
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,821
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan61290 View Post
My sentiments exactly
Yep. At their age bringing them over makes no sense. We can get backups who already have NHL experience if we want to get players on the older side of the spectrum.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:15 PM
  #84
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,926
vCash: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I'm far less interested in them because I'm looking for a potential long term solution, not just a backup for next year. Eriksson has more potential to be the long term solution than those guys.

This has nothing to do with Homer...you're seriously the only person here making this about Homer and his choice to let him go. Ignoring past GM decisions, Eriksson still remains far more desirable than the other players.
i have to agree

unfortunately Bryz's contract hurts us when it comes to a long term solution...

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:16 PM
  #85
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,447
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
That's a good point, the 26 or 27 year old probably wouldn't be able to make the jump to NHL backup but the 22 year old could. You want Eriksson to be the NHL backup based on his stats in the SEL. There are several other goalies in the same area or better but are a couple years older and they are not desirable. I understand why you would want the 22 year old more, but you would have no interest in the other guys? This team needs a backup goalie. If Eriksson is that guy, why aren't the others? That's why it seems like people only want the guy because they know his name or because they want to say they were right and Homer was wrong.
People want Eriksson back because they are sick and tired of the same old crap recycled in ADK. A ****** veteran backup. Are there guarantees with the Eriksson if they did bring him back? Of course not. i just think people would like to have something down in ADK to get excited about. Right now there is very little.
The organization did make a mistake in how they handled it. Novinen going back to Europe so quickly was a clear indication that they did not handle that correctly at all. Is it Holmgrens fault? probably not entirely. Some fault goes to the scout(Little?) Who made the recommendation to Holmgren.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:18 PM
  #86
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,821
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
It absolutely is a factor. Again, I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying would prefer these guys or that the Flyers should pursue them and not Eriksson. I am saying that if we are looking at the SEL stats of Eriksson and saying he should be signed and blah blah blah, how can you not look at the goalies in the same league with the same or better stats and say, psh, he's a couple years older, forget about him? Hudacek is 24, is that too old? Christian Engstrand is 24 too. Right in that area of stats. Is a year and a half too old too?
You know, you claimed earlier that there's some supposed anti-Homer thing behind the interest in seeing Eriksson signed. I could just as easily accuse you of being so pro-Homer that you don't want Eriksson to sign here or succeed in the NHL so Holmgren can be proven right. You are the one who brought Holmgren's decision into the thread to begin with, after all, so it's clearly something that's on your mind.

The urge to sign Eriksson is there because he's doing extremely well, he's the youngest, and none of our prospects are close to contributing; perhaps he can. It doesn't hurt to find out. And yes, 2 years does matter, especially if that can be 2 years of NHL/NA experience.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:18 PM
  #87
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I'm far less interested in them because I'm looking for a potential long term solution, not just a backup for next year. Eriksson has more potential to be the long term solution than those guys.

This has nothing to do with Homer...you're seriously the only person here making this about Homer and his choice to let him go. Ignoring past GM decisions, Eriksson still remains far more desirable than the other players.
So what of the 24 year olds I mentioned? Their names haven't been thrown around at all. Is that because they are past the age where they should be considered for long-term possibilities? Hudacek has been putting up these numbers since he was 21. When Engstrand was 20 he put up .916 save percentage in the SEL, a higher number than Eriksson. He's not worth a look though. Why? Probably because no one has ever heard his name before.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:20 PM
  #88
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
You know, you claimed earlier that there's some supposed anti-Homer thing behind the interest in seeing Eriksson signed. I could just as easily accuse you of being so pro-Homer that you don't want Eriksson to sign here or succeed in the NHL so he can be proven right. You are the one who brought Holmgren's decision into the thread to begin with, after all, so it's clearly something that's on your mind.
I have said over and over again I have no problem with signing Eriksson. My problem is that it appears that people's reasoning behind it is misplaced. If the only reason was that it was the numbers he was putting up, why aren't people looking at the other goalies in the league putting those numbers up? The first three I mentioned were too old (for you, maybe). But the other two seem to be still young enough to where it matters. Yet they are not mentioned. Weird.

And again, I am not saying they are better. I am not saying the Flyers should focus on them. I understand why you would want Eriksson more. But why wouldn't you also be interested in the other guys?

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:23 PM
  #89
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
It absolutely is a factor. Again, I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying would prefer these guys or that the Flyers should pursue them and not Eriksson. I am saying that if we are looking at the SEL stats of Eriksson and saying he should be signed and blah blah blah, how can you not look at the goalies in the same league with the same or better stats and say, psh, he's a couple years older, forget about him? Hudacek is 24, is that too old? Christian Engstrand is 24 too. Right in that area of stats. Is a year and a half too old too?
Act as if being a yr older is the same as 5 go ahead. Those guys should be considered over the others (not names Eriksson) absolutely they should. I just want to point out though that this is engstrand's first good yr and Eriksson has more experience at a higher level and is still younger. Again not saying they shouldn't be considered just that I still see Eriksson as the better option based purely on the things I know (stats, age and yrs experience at a high level).


Last edited by FlyersFan61290: 03-25-2013 at 12:29 PM.
FlyersFan61290 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:23 PM
  #90
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,821
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
So what of the 24 year olds I mentioned? Their names haven't been thrown around at all. Is that because they are past the age where they should be considered for long-term possibilities? Hudacek has been putting up these numbers since he was 21. When Engstrand was 20 he put up .916 save percentage in the SEL, a higher number than Eriksson. He's not worth a look though. Why? Probably because no one has ever heard his name before.

I edited that in. 24 year olds are less desirable than Eriksson at 22. That's 2 less years of possible NHL/NA development compared to what we could possibly put into Eriksson when he's 24. He's also putting up similar stats with less experience, which is more desirable anyways.

I see no good reason to consider those player over Eriksson, or on par with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I have said over and over again I have no problem with signing Eriksson. My problem is that it appears that people's reasoning behind it is misplaced. If the only reason was that it was the numbers he was putting up, why aren't people looking at the other goalies in the league putting those numbers up? The first three I mentioned were too old (for you, maybe). But the other two seem to be still young enough to where it matters. Yet they are not mentioned. Weird.

And again, I am not saying they are better. I am not saying the Flyers should focus on them. I understand why you would want Eriksson more. But why wouldn't you also be interested in the other guys?
I explained that above. Everyone has clearly explained their motivations, I'm not sure how else to say it that makes it any clearer...sorry.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:30 PM
  #91
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I edited that in. 24 year olds are less desirable than Eriksson at 22. That's 2 less years of possible NHL/NA development compared to what we could possibly put into Eriksson when he's 24. He's also putting up similar stats with less experience, which is more desirable anyways.

I see no good reason to consider those player over Eriksson, or on par with him.



I explained that above. Everyone has clearly explained their motivations, I'm not sure how else to say it that makes it any clearer...sorry.
Ok, I guess you are right. Not a chance of any bias around here.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:31 PM
  #92
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,821
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok, I guess you are right. Not a chance of any bias around here.
Look in the mirror.

We've justified our position pretty well. I don't think any outsiders would notice any bias.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:34 PM
  #93
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok, I guess you are right. Not a chance of any bias around here.
Who exactly is biased, me? I would like some evidence of this. all I've ever said is that he should be considered above the others but. Agreed with you that they should be considered as well. How exactly is that a bias? I would like for you to point something out specifically.

FlyersFan61290 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:37 PM
  #94
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Look in the mirror.

We've justified our position pretty well. I don't think any outsiders would notice any bias.
Yet another good point. I truly believe that an outsider that saw Eriksson's stats and age compared to the other guys I mentioned and conclude that Eriksson was a cut above the rest based on the 1.5 years younger he is than the two 24 year olds. They certainly wouldn't consider the fact that their stats at the same age were similar (some actually better for the 24 year olds at Eriksson's age). Yup. That 1.5 years is all the diference.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:41 PM
  #95
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yet another good point. I truly believe that an outsider that saw Eriksson's stats and age compared to the other guys I mentioned and conclude that Eriksson was a cut above the rest based on the 1.5 years younger he is than the two 24 year olds. They certainly wouldn't consider the fact that their stats at the same age were similar (some actually better for the 24 year olds at Eriksson's age). Yup. That 1.5 years is all the diference.
But Eriksson has the better numbers the past two yrs and yes is almost 2 yrs younger so yes he should be considered above the others. Why is that so wrong. Again not that they shouldn't be considered at all just that eriksson should be considered above the others. How is that biased?

FlyersFan61290 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:45 PM
  #96
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan61290 View Post
Who exactly is biased, me? I would like some evidence of this. all I've ever said is that he should be considered above the others but. Agreed with you that they should be considered as well. How exactly is that a bias? I would like for you to point something out specifically.
I am not talking about you necessarily. I am talking about many of the people who called it a mistake to let him walk and now want him signed, but really know nothing about him other than his stats. Those people who act like this kid is some savior and who are penciling him in as a backup without him ever stepping foot on North American ice. My thoughts on them is that they feel this way a) simply because they have heard his name before or b) they want to sign him so they can say Homer was wrong. It makes no sense for a person to look at stats and say lets get this guy but have no interest in comparable players if all we are looking at is stats (and age). If this guy was playing over here and people saw him on a regular basis, then I probably wouldn't make this argument. But most of us have only seen highlight clips, read blog posts, and seen his stats. Very few have seen him in more than one or two games I imagine.

If I started a thread to sign one of the other two goalies I mentioned (prior to this discourse having taken place), I doubt it would have garnered much interest.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:46 PM
  #97
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,821
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yet another good point. I truly believe that an outsider that saw Eriksson's stats and age compared to the other guys I mentioned and conclude that Eriksson was a cut above the rest based on the 1.5 years younger he is than the two 24 year olds. They certainly wouldn't consider the fact that their stats at the same age were similar (some actually better for the 24 year olds at Eriksson's age). Yup. That 1.5 years is all the diference.
It is the damned difference. All your snarky and un-needed condescension doesn't change that. A younger player tearing up a league is more desirable than an older player. If you're looking a prospect, that extra year of development in your own farm system is generally better in the long run. Eriksson is more desirable than the others. There's a limited number of spots for goalies in the organization, so why waste time going after less desirable options? Push hard for the best.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:57 PM
  #98
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
It is the damned difference. All your snarky and un-needed condescension doesn't change that. A younger player tearing up a league is more desirable than an older player. If you're looking a prospect, that extra year of development in your own farm system is generally better in the long run. Eriksson is more desirable than the others. There's a limited number of spots for goalies in the organization, so why waste time going after less desirable options? Push hard for the best.
Ok I guess.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 12:57 PM
  #99
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,447
vCash: 50
the wooooooooooooooooooosh sound going over someones head is growing louder by the minute.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-25-2013, 03:11 PM
  #100
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 2,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I am not saying I'd RATHER have these other guys, I'm just saying that if we are looking at SEL goalies to sign, they should be in the conversation too. There is no reason to look at Eriksson's stats and say he would be a good backup, look at the stats of the three other guys in the same league that are in the same ballpark (if not identical or better) and say they are not worth it. It seems odd that taking a risk on a 22-23 year old goalie is a good idea, but taking a risk on a 26-27 year old goalie with similar stats is a bad idea. As I said earlier, that argument seems like a thinly veiled attempt to justify the interest in Eriksson without falling into the category of people I was referring to in my original point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
It absolutely is a factor. Again, I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying would prefer these guys or that the Flyers should pursue them and not Eriksson. I am saying that if we are looking at the SEL stats of Eriksson and saying he should be signed and blah blah blah, how can you not look at the goalies in the same league with the same or better stats and say, psh, he's a couple years older, forget about him? Hudacek is 24, is that too old? Christian Engstrand is 24 too. Right in that area of stats. Is a year and a half too old too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I have said over and over again I have no problem with signing Eriksson. My problem is that it appears that people's reasoning behind it is misplaced. If the only reason was that it was the numbers he was putting up, why aren't people looking at the other goalies in the league putting those numbers up? The first three I mentioned were too old (for you, maybe). But the other two seem to be still young enough to where it matters. Yet they are not mentioned. Weird.

And again, I am not saying they are better. I am not saying the Flyers should focus on them. I understand why you would want Eriksson more. But why wouldn't you also be interested in the other guys?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I am not talking about you necessarily. I am talking about many of the people who called it a mistake to let him walk and now want him signed, but really know nothing about him other than his stats. Those people who act like this kid is some savior and who are penciling him in as a backup without him ever stepping foot on North American ice. My thoughts on them is that they feel this way a) simply because they have heard his name before or b) they want to sign him so they can say Homer was wrong. It makes no sense for a person to look at stats and say lets get this guy but have no interest in comparable players if all we are looking at is stats (and age). If this guy was playing over here and people saw him on a regular basis, then I probably wouldn't make this argument. But most of us have only seen highlight clips, read blog posts, and seen his stats. Very few have seen him in more than one or two games I imagine.

If I started a thread to sign one of the other two goalies I mentioned (prior to this discourse having taken place), I doubt it would have garnered much interest.
You're posting in a thread on re-signing Joacim Eriksson. It's not a thread on SEL goalies in general, so obviously people are going to express their opinions on Eriksson and not necessarily on SEL goalies in general. So, yeah, of course people want this particular SEL goalie because they've heard of him, but not of others, but if there are (and I think that is in fact true) many more SEL goalies that could play in the NHL and Eriksson is one of them, does that make it any less desirable to sign him? No, it doesn't, because he's still as good (or as bad) as he is, and just because there's a plethora of capable goalies out there that aren't out there doesn't mean each of them somehow gets worse because of that fact. In relative terms, yes, because there's greater competition, so each one of them can be seen as less valuable and more easily replaceable, but not in absolute terms.

Plus, you just have to make a choice, and when items 1 - 5 are, say, "objectively" the same, choosing item 1 because you've owned it before isn't a bad decision. At least you're not stuck in a loop trying to decide which to go with.

And, again, this is a thread on Eriksson specifically. If you started a thread on SEL goalies, I'm sure others would pop up, as well, but if you stick to him, I don't see why people would need to go off-topic and unnecessarily bring those other goalies in unless they were the reason behind their choice. Judging from your posts, I can see what bothers you, and I'm not ostracizing Homer for letting a gem go. He did what he did, but what's so wrong about people liking a particular player? You seem to have constructed this view that because people are only talking about him, they don't like anyone else.

Ryker 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 08:42 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.