Weren't those offers higher than the ones those goalies actually signed for?
They were sent before FA officially started. Both goalies tried to make more on the market, but couldn't. Homer had taken himself out of the running by signing Leighton. If he had made a stronger offer (instead of later using potentially 25-33% of it signing Shelley), he likely could've gotten one. If he hadn't signed Leighton, he would have had a chance of getting one.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
That was a case similar to where we are right now with defense. As I recall, Holmgren tried a bunch of stuff that offseason (Nabakov, Turco), but ended up sitting still once he couldn't get something reasonable.
Makes you wonder what happens next season if our current defensive corps struggles this season...
please no. i can already see a Schenn brothers for Yandle deal going down.
They were sent before FA officially started. Both goalies tried to make more on the market, but couldn't. Homer had taken himself out of the running by signing Leighton. If he had made a stronger offer (instead of later using potentially 25-33% of it signing Shelley), he likely could've gotten one. If he hadn't signed Leighton, he would have had a chance of getting one.
I won't disagree with the stupidity of locking up Leighton before free agency even started. Even Chris Mason signed for less that offseason.
That said, Holmgren takes a beating if he overpays (Bryz), but you're essentially saying that he low-balled two guys with offers they were unable to match elsewhere. Seems like he didn't actually low-ball them lol. They just misinterpreted the market. I suppose that if Holmgren were clairvoyant, he could have known.
Either way, considering what Nabokov got in Russia and how poor Leighton, Turco and Mason ALL were in 2010-2011, I really don't know where we would have had a better option.
I won't disagree with the stupidity of locking up Leighton before free agency even started. Even Chris Mason signed for less that offseason.
That said, Holmgren takes a beating if he overpays (Bryz), but you're essentially saying that he low-balled two guys with offers they were unable to match elsewhere. Seems like he didn't actually low-ball them lol. They just misinterpreted the market. I suppose that if Holmgren were clairvoyant, he could have known.
Either way, considering what Nabokov got in Russia and how poor Leighton, Turco and Mason ALL were in 2010-2011, I really don't know where we would have had a better option.
The problem is, by signing Leighton without even attempting to compete for those guys on the market, Holmgren created a huge pile of issues for himself and the team. Looking at it with hindsight makes it look better than it was; at the time, it was just a really awful decision; the only reason it gets redeemed at all is that Bob came out of nowhere. He created issues which we're still feeling, since we now have Bryz until the end of time...because the goalie disaster that year sent Snider off the deep end.
I struggle to believe none of the goalies we offered money to would have rejected our offer in the end, and honestly they're better than Leighton.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 08-17-2012 at 06:42 PM.
The only redemption from that offseason was that none of the goalies in the free agent crop turned out to be any good.
Mason fell on his face.
Nabokov went to Russia and failed miserably.
Turco in Chicago did not pan out.
Ellis in Tampa couldn't hack it.
and MFL covered up an injury and lost his roster spot to a rookie.
You could argue that outcomes may have been different if we picked up someone else, but I sleep better at night by telling myself that it wouldn't have mattered which goalie we signed.
The problem is, by signing Leighton without even attempting to compete for those guys on the market, Holmgren created a huge pile of issues for himself and the team. Looking at it with hindsight makes it look better than it was; at the time, it was just a really awful decision; the only reason it gets redeemed at all is that Bob came out of nowhere. He created issues which we're still feeling, since we now have Bryz until the end of time...because the goalie disaster that year sent Snider off the deep end.
I struggle to believe none of the goalies we offered money to would have rejected our offer in the end, and honestly they're better than Leighton.
Homer got permission to talk to TWO goalies before July 1 and Hamhuis.
Nabokov wanted big bucks and went to Russia, then came crawling back with his tale between his legs. Turco turned down more than he signed for in Chicago, and he sucked so bad he's done. Mason is no better than Leighton too.
Homer decided that, in the absence of a better goalie, he would resign the one who saved the season and took him to the final, and spend the money he could not spend on a goalie or on Hamhuis, and get a 5th solid Dman (Meszaros), who would prevent the, "we've only got 4 D men and two are beat up" syndrome that was the equally responsible for the Flyers losing the Cup as Leighton's mistakes.
Leighton's back, which he had told the team about at the time, was injured working out in the summer, and Bob came up big. If Leighton had come to camp healthy, I'm very confident he would've had a good year as a starter.
I don't know why you can't get over it. I'm looking forward to Leighton playing very well for the team in a minimal backup role. Bryzgalov is going to get a Phoenix like workload again, which is what I'm sure he asked for in the post season interviews. Let Bryz play 65-68 games, let Leighton play the remainder. It'll be fine.
Homer got permission to talk to TWO goalies before July 1 and Hamhuis.
Nabokov wanted big bucks and went to Russia, then came crawling back with his tale between his legs. Turco turned down more than he signed for in Chicago, and he sucked so bad he's done. Mason is no better than Leighton too.
Homer decided that, in the absence of a better goalie, he would resign the one who saved the season and took him to the final, and spend the money he could not spend on a goalie or on Hamhuis, and get a 5th solid Dman (Meszaros), who would prevent the, "we've only got 4 D men and two are beat up" syndrome that was the equally responsible for the Flyers losing the Cup as Leighton's mistakes.
Leighton's back, which he had told the team about at the time, was injured working out in the summer, and Bob came up big. If Leighton had come to camp healthy, I'm very confident he would've had a good year as a starter.
I don't know why you can't get over it. I'm looking forward to Leighton playing very well for the team in a minimal backup role. Bryzgalov is going to get a Phoenix like workload again, which is what I'm sure he asked for in the post season interviews. Let Bryz play 65-68 games, let Leighton play the remainder. It'll be fine.
You're using hindsight. Bob was luck. Even Homer admits he had no clue he would be as good as he was. At the time, Nabby, Turco and Mason (eh, kind of) were all NHL goalies. Leighton remained an AHLer who had a flash in the pan season behind a very defensively talented squad. If Homer had signed one of the NHLers and they had failed, whatever; at least he TRIED to fix the situation, that's forgivable. Believing for a moment that Leighton was a better option than any of them was idiotic. The fact remains: The Leighton signing/overpayment was stupid. Of all the signings that could have been made, giving him a 2 year contract was pretty much the worst option. Lots of people predicted that at the time, and guess what? We were right. It wasn't exactly a hard call to make.
Edit: Oh, and can we please put the "saved the season" myth to rest? Boosh deserves more credit for that than Leighton.
Edit 2: I don't know why you would think Leighton will perform "very well" in a limited backup role. Seriously, look at his entire career aside from that one season. Not a single bit of it says "I will perform well as a starter! I am an excellent backup!" There's a reason he has 352 AHL starts compared to 104 NHL starts in 11 years. That's less than 10 NHL starts per year for his career. Signing him yet again is another very questionable signing by Holmgren, especially since he won't have a badass team D to bail him out.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 08-18-2012 at 02:50 AM.
Edit: Oh, and can we please put the "saved the season" myth to rest? Boosh deserves more credit for that than Leighton.
If you are going to take apart his post fine, but this is lie. Boosh played pretty damn well for the flyers late in the season, but the team infront of him couldn't win. For whatever reason, when Leighton was in net, the team began winning games. Leighton absolutly saved that season.
They were sent before FA officially started. Both goalies tried to make more on the market, but couldn't. Homer had taken himself out of the running by signing Leighton. If he had made a stronger offer (instead of later using potentially 25-33% of it signing Shelley), he likely could've gotten one. If he hadn't signed Leighton, he would have had a chance of getting one.
He offered two goalies higher salaries than they actually signed for, and you say he should have offered them MORE? Wouldn't we then be complaining that he overpaid for these guys?
If you are going to take apart his post fine, but this is lie. Boosh played pretty damn well for the flyers late in the season, but the team infront of him couldn't win. For whatever reason, when Leighton was in net, the team began winning games. Leighton absolutly saved that season.
I think it is more likely that the team happened to be slumping a bit while Boosh was in net and began to come out of that slump when Leighton was in net, rather than:
Leighton caused the team through sheer force of his amazing titan will to, through spiritual osmosis, force the team in front of him to play better at both ends of the ice.
It has been pretty well documented that teams perform better for starters than backups. Intuitively, one would think teams would play better defensively for backups to shelter them more (this doesn't happen)... and Leighton is a clear backup if I ever saw one.
The team plays better after the change in net, but it is a leap to claim that Leighton caused that, when it could have very well been coincidence at the right time (the team gets out of the valley in the normal peaks and valleys of the nhl).
People should be cautious when they believe that MFL of all people "saved" anything. Actually, any time someone starts throwing around the word "Saved" one should take a step back and look closer.
Leighton can't save a muffin wrister from the half boards let alone a season. Chris Pronger, Kimmo Timonen, Braydon Coburn, and a team of forwards (especially bottom 6) who bought in and put out is what saved our season (I.e. everyone except Leighton). Michael Leighton was the lucky schmo who happened to be along for the ride in net. That's it. He sucks and did suck even then.
Edit: .....and God damn it, don't get me started on Brian Doucher.
He offered two goalies higher salaries than they actually signed for, and you say he should have offered them MORE? Wouldn't we then be complaining that he overpaid for these guys?
Uh, you sure about that? At the time we considered them lowball offers. That indicates that we (the fans) were willing to accept paying them more than Homer offered. I personally would have preferred paying that price (unless Homer gave someone a stupid contract length) over giving a failed NHL backup two freaking years; that would have actually improved the goaltending situation. Re-signing Leighton did not...if anything it just made it worse, because we went from having our stopgap become our go-to guy. It turned out better than it could have because of sheer chance.
The whole situation was incredibly dumb when it happened. It's still dumb,no matter how you try and rationalize it.
Uh, you sure about that? At the time we considered them lowball offers. That indicates that we (the fans) were willing to accept paying them more than Homer offered. I personally would have preferred paying that price (unless Homer gave someone a stupid contract length) over giving a failed NHL backup two freaking years; that would have actually improved the goaltending situation. Re-signing Leighton did not...if anything it just made it worse, because we went from having our stopgap become our go-to guy. It turned out better than it could have because of sheer chance.
The whole situation was incredibly dumb when it happened. It's still dumb,no matter how you try and rationalize it.
Leighton played like a starter for the vast majority of the games he played in Philly that year. The Flyers offered two then top-flight goalies contracts which they rejected. Homer then signed the goalie that backstopped them to a Stanley Cup Final to a reasonable deal. Yeah, total idiocy. He should have overpaid for Marty Turco, that would have been a much better move.
Leighton played like a starter for the vast majority of the games he played in Philly that year. The Flyers offered two then top-flight goalies contracts which they rejected. Homer then signed the goalie that backstopped them to a Stanley Cup Final to a reasonable deal. Yeah, total idiocy. He should have overpaid for Marty Turco, that would have been a much better move.
Leighton looked nothing like a starter. He looked like a backup with slow speed and movement, no rebound control, and no second-save ability playing behind a defensively sound squad that was playing like they knew any good quality scoring chance had a much higher than normal chance of going into the net. I and many others were saying that about him from the moment he began playing; having him as the goalie was a necessary challenge that had to be endured, that we all hoped would pass and be corrected as soon as possible. These were things that were said long before the playoffs or Finals.
The Flyers made no real attempt at signing either NHL goalie. Offering them lowball money before free agency starts (when they have no reason to accept, and every reason to at least see if they can get more on the market), and then not making any sort of attempt to pursue them further was horribly stupid; we predicted that it was stupid at the time, and as things unfolded we were proven correct. Signing Leighton before FA began, and attempting to go into the season with Leighton-Boosh was a horrible move, and easily the biggest ****-up Holmgren has made. Just consider the goaltending disaster that unfolded that year, and all the consequences we've seen come from it, and ask yourself: where did that begin? The answer: Leighton signing that moronic contract given to him by Holmgren.
Leighton had very little to do with them getting to the Finals. He was along for the ride, not in the drivers seat. He wasn't important. The team dragged him along and won despite him. Hell, Boston Game 7 is the shining example of that. It's total idiocy to sign him as the goaltending solution because at no point during his stint as starter did he actually look like a self-sufficient goalie who would be able to maintain that pace. That was readily apparent to lots of people, including many here. Guess what? We were right!
So, Homer made no real attempt to sign actual NHLers in favor of a guy who had played 1/3 of his career NHL starts in one season, after averaging less than 10 starts per year for close to a decade. Do you know why he played so little, and spent so much time in the AHL? Because he sucks. He's not an NHL goalie. He's not really even an NHL backup. He's a fringe guy who can't cut it.
Sorry...that was an incredibly stupid move. Our team had one huge weakness: awful goaltending. Homer did NOTHING to address that. He could have pursued NHL players, and instead decided to sign a non-NHL player to play a position that has a lot of impact if it isn't done well. So, yeah. Your sarcasm is actually a good reflection of reality: It is idiotic.
Putting aside your hindsight, based on what we knew of all the players at that time, signing Turco WOULD have been a better move. It likely wouldn't have panned out, but wow...at least based on their respective careers, it would have at least made rational sense. Of course, knowing Homer he likely would have given him a stupid contract length, but who knows? It would have been a far better move than the Leighton debacle.
Oh please. That wall of text has such a bias it's unreal.
I hate Leighton, but he was pretty fantastic during the stretch for us. He also had multiple shut-outs in a play-off series. While the team did everything to secure wins, they wern't winning with boosh back there were they.
It's completely rational to think that leighton came in and steadied the ship. Same as it's completley illogical to blame a stanley cup loss on him. He was an AHL goaltender playing in a stanley cup final.
The amount of hate leighton gets is a bit unreal. Did he screw the flyers over by not disclosing his injury? Not really, but for a guy thats been a career AHL goaltender and bounced around just about every team in the league, you wouldn't take a guaranteed 3 million dollars. Get real people.
Oh please. That wall of text has such a bias it's unreal.
I hate Leighton, but he was pretty fantastic during the stretch for us. He also had multiple shut-outs in a play-off series. While the team did everything to secure wins, they wern't winning with boosh back there were they.
It's completely rational to think that leighton came in and steadied the ship. Same as it's completley illogical to blame a stanley cup loss on him. He was an AHL goaltender playing in a stanley cup final.
The amount of hate leighton gets is a bit unreal. Did he screw the flyers over by not disclosing his injury? Not really, but for a guy thats been a career AHL goaltender and bounced around just about every team in the league, you wouldn't take a guaranteed 3 million dollars. Get real people.
Sorry, no bias at all; you're incredibly incorrect when you say that. I'm sorry that you can't accept it. You'll find that I was saying all of these things before his injury, re-signing, or Game 6. I'm just telling you what I saw from him. I saw it back then, and nothing has changed since. When he was brought in, my stance was "oh look. A backup who couldn't cut it." Guess how he looked on the ice the whole time? Like a backup who couldn't cut it, being babysat by his team.
He didn't save the season. The team was actually visibly turning it around before Leighton became the starter. He just happened to be the goalie.
He NEVER looked good in net. He always looked like he was in over his head.
The shutouts were the product of Philly absolutely manhandling Montreal. Our team thoroughly dominated them. He hardly had to do anything. It's amazing that people have built up these absurd, laughable myths about this guy.
Edit: Leighton is basically the Rex Grossman of goaltending. Clearly he sucks, yet people for reasons unknown insist on depicting him as being much better than he is.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 08-19-2012 at 02:05 PM.
Sorry, no bias at all; you're incredibly incorrect when you say that. I'm sorry that you can't accept it. You'll find that I was saying all of these things before his injury, re-signing, or Game 6. I'm just telling you what I saw from him. I saw it back then, and nothing has changed since. When he was brought in, my stance was "oh look. A backup who couldn't cut it." Guess how he looked on the ice the whole time? Like a backup who couldn't cut it, being babysat by his team.
He didn't save the season. The team was actually visibly turning it around before Leighton became the starter. He just happened to be the goalie.
He NEVER looked good in net. He always looked like he was in over his head.
The shutouts were the product of Philly absolutely manhandling Montreal. Our team thoroughly dominated them. He hardly had to do anything. It's amazing that people have built up these absurd, laughable myths about this guy.
Edit: Leighton is basically the Rex Grossman of goaltending. Clearly he sucks, yet people for reasons unknown insist on depicting him as being much better than he is.
Leighton's size helped against MTL, but thats about it
They were sent before FA officially started. Both goalies tried to make more on the market, but couldn't. Homer had taken himself out of the running by signing Leighton. If he had made a stronger offer (instead of later using potentially 25-33% of it signing Shelley), he likely could've gotten one. If he hadn't signed Leighton, he would have had a chance of getting one.
