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

Bryzgalov: To Buy Out or Not To Buy Out...That is the Question (Updates in post #1)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-15-2013, 04:37 PM
  #151
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
Unless you're expecting a Brodeur or Lundqvist, 3-4 years of quality goaltending is definitely not a stop-gap. I'd take the first four years of Marc-Andre Fleury's time in Pittsburgh (this year was his fifth; if he's jettisoned now, the Pens had a good run with him). Goalie turnover is a part of hockey; very few stay elite for more than a handful of years. If anyone would be an example of a stop-gap, though, it'd be Backstrom; possibly one year of strong goaltending left and questionable at best every year afterwards.
I think getting an aging goalie for the final 3-4 years is the definition of a stop-gap, no? I mean, I understand that turnover is a part of the game. That is a no-brainer. But you shouldn't be looking for a guy that can give you 3-4 years, then hope that in 3-4 years you have someone else available that can give you 3-4 years. If you are, that is a stop-gap, not a long-term solution. Isn't that what the Flyers have been doing (with the exception of Bryz) since Hextall left? Stop-gap after stop-gap? I know Luongo is better than Mason. But Luongo would certainly be a stop-gap. If he remains at his level for the next three to four years and then retires, who takes over? Stolarz? Maybe if he is ready and up to the task. If not, who then? Aren't these questions the ones that you try to avoid by looking for a guy that can give you at least 3-4 years, but hopefully a ton more?

Again, I am not saying getting Luongo is a bad idea necessarily, only that it will mean we are essentially writing off Mason and will be once again looking for a goalie in a couple years.

Quote:
Mason needs time to get his game back, if he can. I don't want to see the Flyers fall behind the pack using that time with Mason as a starter. I think he's better suited to have a reduced role; you seem to believe that a reduced role will hamper his ability to reclaim his form. (Barring a trade) There is nobody that the Flyers can sign, other than Luongo (possibly), that would be clear #1 for the Flyers at the start of the 13/14 season, so we're likely going to see Mason as the #1 (barf) or see Mason as part of a tandem.
I don't think it will necessarily hurt his development, I think it could skew and complicate things. For instance, he played 7 games this year for the Flyers and looked awesome. Obviously he will get more than 7 games this year, even if he is a backup barring any injury. But if the Flyers want to see what they have in him, I think a 20-25 game sample may not be the best starting point. Say he plays well in those 20-25 games and Luongo plays well in the other. Mason is on a one year deal. Now we have Luongo for two more years. Do we re-sign him or were the 20-25 games a fluke? What if he looks good but not great in those games? Was that a fluke? Will he even re-sign with us to be a backup for a couple years? It simply complicates things. If you don't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

And once again, you have to understand that I am not saying Mason is the answer or that the Flyers should "force it" and just run with him. I am simply saying that if the Flyers think he can be that guy and want to see if they are right, they can't do it by making him the backup for one year and signing a better guy for four years. If they do that, it is Bob 2.0. He will either not be re-signed or he will be traded (which I wouldn't necessarily be against...this all started because I said if they want to give Mason a chance they have to go all in and give him that chance...not half ass it).

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 06:02 PM
  #152
Invictus146
Registered User
 
Invictus146's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 415
vCash: 500
Speaking as a Flyers fan - if the price is right on Bernier I'd like to see that route pursued. Have at least a reasonable, veteran backup (with upside) and then a young tender with extremely high upside. Wonder if Read + pick would do it (LA's forward/cap situation is getting messy)

Speaking as both a Canucks/Flyers fan - I think there is potential on a Luongo acquistion. Just a matter of committing to that term and, as with any trade, dependent on what goes the other way. Van's in need of depth forwards - that + picks would probably do it. Unfortunately, Van's already indirectly screwed the Flyers with AV going to the Rangers (I think he will be great for him). Finally, as an additional side note, I wouldn't have mind the Flyers trying to buy low on Ballard who I personally think was terribly misused by AV. I think he would fit well into Lavvy's system

Invictus146 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 06:43 PM
  #153
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,081
vCash: 500
Philly should have gotten Tim Thomas's rights when they got Streit's.(for the 4th rounder) See what kind of deal he wa looking for and how long. For all we know, he might be fine with a 1 year $1.5 mill contract.

Tripod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 07:04 PM
  #154
Alchemy
Philadelphia Flyers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 12,474
vCash: 500
Just hurry up and buy him out.

Alchemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 07:05 PM
  #155
coolhockeyjack
Bobby looooou
 
coolhockeyjack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North of Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 37
vCash: 500
Good.

coolhockeyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 07:10 PM
  #156
Giroux It
Rookie User
 
Giroux It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Elizabethtown, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 451
vCash: 500
I'm on the fence with buying him out. I honestly think the Flyers wait until the last possible moment to amnesty to see what options show up for them. If they buy him out, what does that really leave us? An even worse place then we were in last season IMO.

Giroux It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 07:44 PM
  #157
spudnick
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux It View Post
I'm on the fence with buying him out. I honestly think the Flyers wait until the last possible moment to amnesty to see what options show up for them. If they buy him out, what does that really leave us? An even worse place then we were in last season IMO.
How are we in a worse place. Bryz has been at the bottom of the league for the last two season. You can get just about any goalie to perform like Bryz at a fraction of the cost. If Mason ***** to bed its not like Bryz jump in and steady the ship. Just get rid of him.

spudnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:21 AM
  #158
rickflyers55
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1
vCash: 500
could a 3 way deal with Montreal and Vancouver be in the work?

I'm from Montreal(even though I'm a flyers fan) and I heard last week that there were rumors about the habs trading carey price.

Could the Habs be interested in Luongo? If so a 3rd partner would need to be involved to take Price.I'm a big believer that Steve Mason will regain his old form because of all the skills,size and his previous performances(not only his calder but also his world juniors,american league and juniors performances) but maybe if we can get Price we should try to get him.He's been strugling lately but before his poor end of the season's performances he was one of the candidates for the vezina.

what would it take to get Price out of MTL?

rickflyers55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:22 AM
  #159
Brophy
Registered User
 
Brophy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Redondo Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
You guys read way to much into this ****. Dont trip..

Brophy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:35 AM
  #160
Brophy
Registered User
 
Brophy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Redondo Beach
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Hey you know what the Flyers should do?? Do a bunch of steroids and make Zac Rinaldo look like a ninja turtle. I think hed be Rafiel. Bryzgolov needs to eat a bunch of LSD and speak sign language to the god of netminding. Briere should sleep upside down like a bat I think hed grow 2 ft

Brophy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 12:38 AM
  #161
orange is better
than other colors...
 
orange is better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brophy View Post
Hey you know what the Flyers should do?? Do a bunch of steroids and make Zac Rinaldo look like a ninja turtle. I think hed be Rafiel. Bryzgolov needs to eat a bunch of LSD and speak sign language to the god of netminding. Briere should sleep upside down like a bat I think hed grow 2 ft
I approve

orange is better is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 03:05 AM
  #162
ugiswrong
Registered User
 
ugiswrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: deutschland
Country: United States
Posts: 784
vCash: 500
I don't understand all the stop-gap hesitation with Luongo. IMO, each and EVERY single goaltender the Flyers have had since, well, Pelle....

ugiswrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 08:28 AM
  #163
46zone
Guttersnipe
 
46zone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugiswrong View Post
I don't understand all the stop-gap hesitation with Luongo. IMO, each and EVERY single goaltender the Flyers have had since, well, Pelle....
I don't see why bringing in Luongo for potentially 3-4 seasons would be considered a "stop-gap"? Backstrom or Thomas or Miller (hopefully not him) for a season or two would be stop-gap options. I'm all for seeing what Mason can do, but if Luongo can be acquired then the Flyers should be all over it.

46zone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 09:17 AM
  #164
FLYERSFAN18
Registered User
 
FLYERSFAN18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 1,882
vCash: 500
If we could get luongo on a three year deal wort 4 million or less per year I would do it. We still don't know what we have in mason. Luongo could be a nice steady goaltender for is while we find a young guy for the future or until stolarz is ready

FLYERSFAN18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 10:26 AM
  #165
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invictus146 View Post
Speaking as a Flyers fan - if the price is right on Bernier I'd like to see that route pursued. Have at least a reasonable, veteran backup (with upside) and then a young tender with extremely high upside. Wonder if Read + pick would do it (LA's forward/cap situation is getting messy)

Speaking as both a Canucks/Flyers fan - I think there is potential on a Luongo acquistion. Just a matter of committing to that term and, as with any trade, dependent on what goes the other way. Van's in need of depth forwards - that + picks would probably do it. Unfortunately, Van's already indirectly screwed the Flyers with AV going to the Rangers (I think he will be great for him). Finally, as an additional side note, I wouldn't have mind the Flyers trying to buy low on Ballard who I personally think was terribly misused by AV. I think he would fit well into Lavvy's system
Don't want Luongo's contract. Period. If bought out, as a UFA, maybe but there will be other suitors.

The more I think about it, I want Bernier as long as the price is reasonable. Read + something else (picks/prospects) for Bernier + a prospect.

Bernier and Mason can compete for the starting job.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 11:14 AM
  #166
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,534
vCash: 156
The Flyers would basically be giving up assets for a player they would absolutely need to buy out next summer. That contract is just as untenable as Bryzgalov's. There's no point in trading for Luongo. I'm only interested if he gets bought out.

__________________
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
06-16-2013, 03:49 PM
  #167
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
The Flyers would basically be giving up assets for a player they would absolutely need to buy out next summer. That contract is just as untenable as Bryzgalov's. There's no point in trading for Luongo. I'm only interested if he gets bought out.
Buying out Bryz to take on Luongo's contract should get the Flyers' franchise charter revoked. Fold the team.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 04:06 PM
  #168
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,153
vCash: 500
For once I'd rather go with young talent with potential over sketchy potential stop-gaps like Luongo, Bryzgalov, Biron (although I did like Biron), Emery, Boucher, Leighton, Niittymaki (I'm aware not all of those were starters), etc.

Considering the usually crappy and currently crappy goalie market that's the smart move as well. Bernier and Luongo are the best possible options as is and it's obvious which one would be a smarter choice. Only way I could support Luongo going to us is if he's bought-out and we get him on a cheap contract. Let Bernier and Mason battle it out and see how the season goes. Have patience with them. If we had patience with Bobrovsky we might not even be in this situation.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 09:50 PM
  #169
Cardds
Registered User
 
Cardds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardds View Post
Roberto Luongo trade rumors: Islanders interested in acquiring Canucks goaltender
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/5/3...couver-canucks

Cardds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 10:14 PM
  #170
dingbathero
No Jam? How about PB
 
dingbathero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardds View Post
I'm sure it's to reach the cap floor... I don't think he wAnts to go there. His wifey rathers Florida... haha

dingbathero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2013, 10:37 PM
  #171
3Fs
Registered User
 
3Fs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Western Pa.
Country: United States
Posts: 492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
The Flyers would basically be giving up assets for a player they would absolutely need to buy out next summer. That contract is just as untenable as Bryzgalov's. There's no point in trading for Luongo. I'm only interested if he gets bought out.
Trading for him, I think would be stupid...if nucks buy him out, I think the Flyers should make him an offer. I would be very happy if we got him for a decent price.

3Fs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 01:34 AM
  #172
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,020
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I think getting an aging goalie for the final 3-4 years is the definition of a stop-gap, no? I mean, I understand that turnover is a part of the game. That is a no-brainer. But you shouldn't be looking for a guy that can give you 3-4 years, then hope that in 3-4 years you have someone else available that can give you 3-4 years. If you are, that is a stop-gap, not a long-term solution. Isn't that what the Flyers have been doing (with the exception of Bryz) since Hextall left? Stop-gap after stop-gap? I know Luongo is better than Mason. But Luongo would certainly be a stop-gap. If he remains at his level for the next three to four years and then retires, who takes over? Stolarz? Maybe if he is ready and up to the task. If not, who then? Aren't these questions the ones that you try to avoid by looking for a guy that can give you at least 3-4 years, but hopefully a ton more?
If 3-4 years is s stop-gap to you, then every team has been doing that for the majority of their franchise history; it's not a problem unique to Philadelphia.

The average NHL career length for a goaltender is about 5 years; the median career length is about 3 years. Through all of that turnover, you're lucky if a goalie plays himself into a long career with your team.

My definition of a stop-gap would be a year. As an example, had the Flyers been patient with Bobrovsky (as the most recent example), but didn't consider him ready to carry the bulk of the work after his 2011 playoff experience, they could have brought in a vet for one year as a stop-gap to allow Bobrovsky to further adjust to North America and the expectations of his performance with the Flyers.

If you have a goalie with 3-4 years of starting games on your roster, you have a bona-fide starter. The problem with the Flyers is that their goaltending turnover has been significantly shorter since Hextall's first stint.

__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities
CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 06:58 AM
  #173
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 3-4 years is s stop-gap to you, then every team has been doing that for the majority of their franchise history; it's not a problem unique to Philadelphia.

The average NHL career length for a goaltender is about 5 years; the median career length is about 3 years. Through all of that turnover, you're lucky if a goalie plays himself into a long career with your team.

My definition of a stop-gap would be a year. As an example, had the Flyers been patient with Bobrovsky (as the most recent example), but didn't consider him ready to carry the bulk of the work after his 2011 playoff experience, they could have brought in a vet for one year as a stop-gap to allow Bobrovsky to further adjust to North America and the expectations of his performance with the Flyers.

If you have a goalie with 3-4 years of starting games on your roster, you have a bona-fide starter. The problem with the Flyers is that their goaltending turnover has been significantly shorter since Hextall's first stint.
Stop-gaps can be bona fide starters. A stopgap, by definition is something that you know is temporary, as in, not a long term solution. Luongo is certainly a bona fide starter. But we all know that in reality the best case scenario is four years. That is a stopgap. We know he is not going to be the franchise goalie. He is going to be here for the last four years of his career, then we are going to be searching again for a starting goalie. I understand that turnover is a part of the game and that other teams go through the same thing, but that doesn't mean that their goalies aren't stopgaps. Just because a lot of teams have to deal with stopgap goalies on their way to a franchise guy doesn't mean they aren't stopgaps. I never said that this was an issue unique to Philadelphia.

Simply put: Luongo would be a stopgap on this team at this stage of his career. I have said from the beginning that this wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. The only point I have been making is that if the Flyers want to see what they have in Mason, signing Luongo to a bigger and longer contract is not a good idea. If they want to move on from Mason and just go with Luongo, that is a different story, but basically they have to commit to one or the other. They can't say "We want to see what Mason can do as the starter" while signing a better goalie to a longer and bigger contract. This is the only point I am making.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:31 AM
  #174
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,020
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Stop-gaps can be bona fide starters. A stopgap, by definition is something that you know is temporary, as in, not a long term solution. Luongo is certainly a bona fide starter. But we all know that in reality the best case scenario is four years. That is a stopgap. We know he is not going to be the franchise goalie. He is going to be here for the last four years of his career, then we are going to be searching again for a starting goalie. I understand that turnover is a part of the game and that other teams go through the same thing, but that doesn't mean that their goalies aren't stopgaps. Just because a lot of teams have to deal with stopgap goalies on their way to a franchise guy doesn't mean they aren't stopgaps. I never said that this was an issue unique to Philadelphia.

Simply put: Luongo would be a stopgap on this team at this stage of his career. I have said from the beginning that this wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. The only point I have been making is that if the Flyers want to see what they have in Mason, signing Luongo to a bigger and longer contract is not a good idea. If they want to move on from Mason and just go with Luongo, that is a different story, but basically they have to commit to one or the other. They can't say "We want to see what Mason can do as the starter" while signing a better goalie to a longer and bigger contract. This is the only point I am making.


So unless you have a franchise goaltender who spends his entire "x>4" year career with your team, then you have constantly rotating stop-gap goalies? Okay.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:12 AM
  #175
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


So unless you have a franchise goaltender who spends his entire "x>4" year career with your team, then you have constantly rotating stop-gap goalies? Okay.
Yeah, because that is what I said. What I am saying (and have been all along, despite your inability to understand it or refusal to acknowledge it) is that the Flyers have a guy in Mason who is young, may have the potential to be a legit franchise goalie, and is on a one year contract. If they want to see what Mason can give them, signing a better goalie for four years and making Mason a backup for one year will not accomplish that. Let me explain it again, since you don't seem to be reading my posts and only seeing what you want and arguing about things like what the definition of a stopgap is. Here it is in a concise write-up with spacing in between so that you can follow along a little better:

If the Flyers want to see what they have in Mason, getting Luongo signed to a multi-year deal will complicate that.

If Mason plays well in 20-25 games as a backup, is that a big enough sample size to offer him another contract?

Will he want to sign on to be a backup for two-three more years?

Signing Luongo essentially means that Mason is not in the plans for the future.

Similar to how signing Bryz meant that Bob was not in their plans for the future.

I had no problem with the Bryz signing (related to their decision to go after him, not related to the terms of the contract itself) and I would have no problem with a Luongo signing if that is the direction they choose (again, related to their decision to go after him, not related to the terms of the contract itself).

I have been saying that since the beginning.

I am not saying that Mason should be given an infinite amount of time to become the starting goalie.

I am not saying that Mason is better or even as good as Luongo.

What I am saying (now pay attention here because I said this in the previous post and you didn't understand it) is that if the Flyers want to see what Mason has and want to see if he can be a franchise guy, they cannot at the same time sign a better goalie to a longer and bigger deal.


Essentially: Signing Luongo is not something I am against. Giving Mason a chance is not something I am against. But pick one, not both. If you don't want to go with Mason, that's a totally reasonable position to take and I am not arguing with you about that. All I am saying is that they need to pick one and commit to it.

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 09:23 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.