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

Potential Offseason Acquisitions

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-06-2014, 02:16 PM
  #176
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
He was the worst minus player in the league this season at -39 (and the next worst player on Vancouver was only -15) and he was outscored in ES points per game by Braydon Coburn.
Meh, pretty much every big name player had a really down year on that team. Sedin, Sedin, Burrows, Edler, etc. It was across the board and it was a non playoff team that fired its clfirst year coach and traded Luongo. Chances are it was just a really terrible coaching choice in a series of bad management moves and in Edlers case a coach who is probably the exact opposite of what Edler needs.

If Edler can be had for not a lot then you go for it, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDinkalage Morgoone View Post
Am I the only person who doesn't view NTCs as some sort of magic shield? To me, a NTC just serves as some sort of warning to a player and gives them some say in where they go. I don't really believe it cements them into the locker room, making them completely immovable.
NMC's are a bigger deal. Though I'm not sure if the new CBA has changed how that all works.

With an NTC/NMC is that it limits your options and therefore pretty much kills any return you could get a lot of the time.

Garbage Goal is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 02:23 PM
  #177
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 24,361
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Meh, pretty much every big name player had a really down year on that team. Sedin, Sedin, Burrows, Edler, etc. It was across the board and it was a non playoff team that fired its clfirst year coach and traded Luongo. Chances are it was just a really terrible coaching choice in a series of bad management moves and in Edlers case a coach who is probably the exact opposite of what Edler needs.
Edler was -24 worse than any other player on the Canucks, suffers from a chronic back injury and has five years left at $5 million. It's mind boggling that anyone would consider trading assets for him. We already have one guy with a bad back on the team who just had a really poor season.

Curufinwe is online now  
Old
05-06-2014, 02:25 PM
  #178
flyershockey
Registered User
 
flyershockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post


NMC's are a bigger deal. Though I'm not sure if the new CBA has changed how that all works.

With an NTC/NMC is that it limits your options and therefore pretty much kills any return you could get a lot of the time.
I'm pretty sure there's almost no difference anymore between a full NTC and a NMC with the rules against burying money in the minors under the new CBA.

flyershockey is online now  
Old
05-06-2014, 02:40 PM
  #179
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
Edler was -24 worse than any other player on the Canucks, suffers from a chronic back injury and has five years left at $5 million. It's mind boggling that anyone would consider trading assets for him. We already have one guy with a bad back on the team who just had a really poor season.
+/- is a bad hill to die on, generally. Given the management and coaching context it's not something easy to judge him on. Like I said, he's worth looking into if he wouldn't cost much return. He's definitely not worth full value though.

The back problems are scary, granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
I'm pretty sure there's almost no difference anymore between a full NTC and a NMC with the rules against burying money in the minors under the new CBA.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I also don't know how it affects NMC and NTC deals signed before the lockout. I just knowledge it's harder to bury contracts in the minors now or almost impossible.

Garbage Goal is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 02:42 PM
  #180
JDinkalage Morgoone
U of South Flurrida
 
JDinkalage Morgoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Ln.
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 14,724
vCash: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Meh, pretty much every big name player had a really down year on that team. Sedin, Sedin, Burrows, Edler, etc. It was across the board and it was a non playoff team that fired its clfirst year coach and traded Luongo. Chances are it was just a really terrible coaching choice in a series of bad management moves and in Edlers case a coach who is probably the exact opposite of what Edler needs.

If Edler can be had for not a lot then you go for it, I think.



NMC's are a bigger deal. Though I'm not sure if the new CBA has changed how that all works.

With an NTC/NMC is that it limits your options and therefore pretty much kills any return you could get a lot of the time.

That's true if teams know the short-list on a limited NTC. I don't know how much it'll drive a player's value down, as teams will still be bidding against each other for a player's services if they really want him. The GM could just come out and say "sorry, that offer doesn't work for us" if the guy refuses to waive, but I guess there are leaks/GMs will read it as the guy refusing to waive.

I just don't get the outrage when Homer gives an NTC considering a great number of GMs also do it.

__________________
"Help was not promised, lovely girl. Only death."
JDinkalage Morgoone is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 02:44 PM
  #181
JDinkalage Morgoone
U of South Flurrida
 
JDinkalage Morgoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Ln.
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 14,724
vCash: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
+/- is a bad hill to die on, generally. Given the management and coaching context it's not something easy to judge him on. Like I said, he's worth looking into if he wouldn't cost much return. He's definitely not worth full value though.

The back problems are scary, granted.



Yeah, that's what I meant. I also don't know how it affects NMC and NTC deals signed before the lockout. I just knowledge it's harder to bury contracts in the minors now or almost impossible.
This, I agree with. Although Ovechkin's case is much different and worse, I don't think he's a terrible player for having all those minuses like the main boards people seem to think.

JDinkalage Morgoone is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 03:06 PM
  #182
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDinkalage Morgoone View Post
That's true if teams know the short-list on a limited NTC. I don't know how much it'll drive a player's value down, as teams will still be bidding against each other for a player's services if they really want him. The GM could just come out and say "sorry, that offer doesn't work for us" if the guy refuses to waive, but I guess there are leaks/GMs will read it as the guy refusing to waive.

I just don't get the outrage when Homer gives an NTC considering a great number of GMs also do it.
Ultimately it comes down to the value/play of the player & his current contract. If a team wants your guy than you'll receive a fair price if not more. The market basically sets itself. The St. Louis trade is an example of this despite him blocking a trade to everywhere but New York.

The Flyers would get a good price for guys like Hartnell & Coburn regardless if they have limited trade options. Vinny on the other hand would be a tough sell regardless if he had one or not.

LegionOfDoom91 is online now  
Old
05-06-2014, 03:11 PM
  #183
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 24,361
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
+/- is a bad hill to die on, generally.
Generally, but the +/- disparity between Edler and the rest of Vancouver's regular defensemen is unbelievable.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...ewName=summary

Hamhuis +13
Tanev +12
Stanton +5
Garrison -5
Weber -7
Bieska -8
Edler -39

Curufinwe is online now  
Old
05-06-2014, 03:28 PM
  #184
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 10,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
Generally, but the +/- disparity between Edler and the rest of Vancouver's regular defensemen is unbelievable.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...ewName=summary

Hamhuis +13
Tanev +12
Stanton +5
Garrison -5
Weber -7
Bieska -8
Edler -39
That is an alarmingly bad number

Hiesenberg is online now  
Old
05-06-2014, 03:59 PM
  #185
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,656
vCash: 500
Yeah with Edler it's not so much the plus minus but how much worse he was compared to everyone else in his team. Plus minus is only ever useful when looking at individual on a single team IMO and that differential is shocking.

I understand he was used all wrong, facing the toughest competition, but if he can't handle that then what use is he to the Flyers?

FlyersFan61290 is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 04:16 PM
  #186
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 17,359
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiesenberg View Post
That is an alarmingly bad number
OV's is even more extreme. For a guy scoring 51 goals, being -35...it is almost unfathomable.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 04:22 PM
  #187
JDinkalage Morgoone
U of South Flurrida
 
JDinkalage Morgoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Ln.
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 14,724
vCash: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
OV's is even more extreme. For a guy scoring 51 goals, being -35...it is almost unfathomable.
Weren't over half PP goals?

JDinkalage Morgoone is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 04:27 PM
  #188
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDinkalage Morgoone View Post
Weren't over half PP goals?
24 of them were.

LegionOfDoom91 is online now  
Old
05-06-2014, 04:40 PM
  #189
JDinkalage Morgoone
U of South Flurrida
 
JDinkalage Morgoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 308 Negra Arroyo Ln.
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 14,724
vCash: 1175
36 of Ovechkin's 79 points came at a time where he could only become a - player. I didn't watch enough of the Capitals to make a logical argument, but one explanation could be that he played a strange amount of PP time to ES time each game?

He averaged 15:29 ES TOI per game and 5:02 PP TOI per game. I am not sure how that compares. For comparison sake, Claude Giroux averaged 15:44 ES TOI per game and 3:44 PP TOI per game. So, over the course of the season, Ovechkin would have had about 106 minutes more PP time than Giroux, just according to averages. That's 106 more minutes to allow a shorthanded goal.

Maybe my analysis isn't great, but noting how bad Ovechkin is defensively, plus how bad the Capitals in general are defensively, (21st in league GA/G, 27th in the league SHG against, having a negative goal differential) perhaps that paints a picture.

JDinkalage Morgoone is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 06:17 PM
  #190
blinds
Registered User
 
blinds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,664
vCash: 500
Ehh, we allowed more SHG than Washington. Can't explain away numbers that extreme, with Ovi or Edler.

Edler's season was so disastrous, I doubt the Canucks would be willing to move him while his value is so low. No team could really justify taking a big risk on the guy, injury problems and poor play have persisted for years. I can't imagine they could get very much for him right now.

blinds is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 06:46 PM
  #191
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,393
vCash: 500
It's two players better offensively then defensively, playing on non playoff teams for franchises trending downward lately, and both under pretty bad coaches (Torts can be argued to have been just a terrible fit, but whatever) and resultingly had a pretty down year. Edler had some injury issues too.

It's that simple to me.

Garbage Goal is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 07:23 PM
  #192
blinds
Registered User
 
blinds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
It's two players better offensively then defensively, playing on non playoff teams for franchises trending downward lately, and both under pretty bad coaches (Torts can be argued to have been just a terrible fit, but whatever) and resultingly had a pretty down year. Edler had some injury issues too.

It's that simple to me.
But the rest of the Canucks defense have the same excuse and none of them were even a -10. Edler was a -39. That discrepancy is enormous and I don't even know how to make sense of it. Injury issues isn't a good enough excuse for being 30 goals to the negative more than any other defenseman on your team.

blinds is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 08:23 PM
  #193
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blinds View Post
But the rest of the Canucks defense have the same excuse and none of them were even a -10. Edler was a -39. That discrepancy is enormous and I don't even know how to make sense of it. Injury issues isn't a good enough excuse for being 30 goals to the negative more than any other defenseman on your team.
Not all struggles are created equal and he had injury issues. He's also probably the worst fit for Torts right after the Sedins so maybe it all hit him harder.

Regardless, it's one season and +/- amidst a team and season of pretty terrible failures. Maybe he was pretty terrible even compared to his team, but there's lots of contextual reasons for it and he has enough skill and production prior to this season where he's worth seriously considering if he can be had for cheap. It's not like we are full on developed or top-end D anyhow.

In my opinion.

Garbage Goal is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 09:16 PM
  #194
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Not all struggles are created equal and he had injury issues. He's also probably the worst fit for Torts right after the Sedins so maybe it all hit him harder.

Regardless, it's one season and +/- amidst a team and season of pretty terrible failures. Maybe he was pretty terrible even compared to his team, but there's lots of contextual reasons for it and he has enough skill and production prior to this season where he's worth seriously considering if he can be had for cheap. It's not like we are full on developed or top-end D anyhow.

In my opinion.
At 28 and signed through 33 at 5.00m/year after a few years in a downtrend, he needs to be extremely cheap for me to consider.

I'm talking 2nd rounder cheap. He's a risk and a half.

CS is offline  
Old
05-06-2014, 09:31 PM
  #195
ahthorne
Registered User
 
ahthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 443
vCash: 500
The issue with acquiring Edler will likely be what it'll cost to acquire him. Canucks won't be giving him away, and will likely be looking at Brayden Schenn+ at least. That's out of my price range if I'm Holmgren, especially with how tight the Flyers are to the cap and the logjam they have at defense with 2nd pairing and lower defenders.

Edler's past season was curious. Few stats going against him:

a) Saw highest offensize zone starts among Canucks regular's on defense other than rookies Stanton and Corrado.
b) Middle of the pack QoC, with Hamhuis and Tanev seeing tougher competition. The pairing of Hamhuis and Tanev also had the highest Corsi rating relative to QoC, although Edler had a higher Corsi rating overall. The Canucks in general had decent Corsi 5v5.

aaaand then two showing how you can get to -39 with decent possession stats:

c) When Edler was on the ice, Canucks' goalies had a .902 SV% and his team had a 3.54% shooting percentage when he was on the ice. That has gotta be near bottom of the league in both categories in terms of top-4 defenders, although I didn't look into it.
d) Edler was bottom-10 in PDO among NHL regulars (20+ games) ... meaning his season was definitely very unlucky.

Clearly, Edler's +/- was terrible but he also just had a really brutal season as literally everything went against him. Much like Steve Mason pre-Flyers, his stats this past season don't show what kind of player he is.

In a buy-low situation, Edler would be a good pickup. At full price, I'd be reluctant if only because of his injury history AND his struggles both in recent playoff seasons and this past season because it's clear he's not a top pairing defender. He's got the physical tools, definitely has offensive talents and would be a great player for this team moving forward without Kimmo Timonen. Cost of acquiring him would be the big issue for me.

ahthorne is offline  
Old
05-07-2014, 02:50 PM
  #196
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 10,107
vCash: 500
Any interest in a deal around Brent Burns & Tommy Wingels for Coburn and Read? Burns gives you the big, fast winger for the 1st line, or move him back to D.

Gilligans Island is offline  
Old
05-07-2014, 02:52 PM
  #197
Stizzle
Registered User
 
Stizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Any interest in a deal around Brent Burns & Tommy Wingels for Coburn and Read? Burns gives you the big, fast winger for the 1st line, or move him back to D.
My understanding is he plays RW. We have Voracek and Simmonds already at RW. We need a LW. Also, if Matt Read was traded, I might cry.

Stizzle is offline  
Old
05-07-2014, 02:56 PM
  #198
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 10,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzle View Post
My understanding is he plays RW. We have Voracek and Simmonds already at RW. We need a LW. Also, if Matt Read was traded, I might cry.
He played RW since Hertl was a rookie and McClellan wanted to ease him into the lineup. Burns is the type of power forward that doesn't play within any kind of structure anyhow. He's a wrecking ball when he's on so he could handle the LW, I imagine. But, yes, that's an unknown.

He would be an upgrade on Hartnell, whom I believe is your 1LW?

Burns best assets are getting in fast and physical on the forecheck and getting a wrister off quickly with speed.

Yes, I know Read would be a tough loss - the type of winger the Sharks could really use on the 2nd / 3rd line.

Gilligans Island is offline  
Old
05-07-2014, 03:04 PM
  #199
Appleyard
HFB Partner
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 16,586
vCash: 683
Burns would be our best defenceman if he could transition back to D and be the D man he was from 07-08 to 11-12 when healthy.

10-15 goals and 40-45 points from the back end while being a good PP and PK player and solid defensively... he can also skate at a similar standard to Coburn and is physical. He would be a Coburn upgrade... though the question would be could he get back to being the Dman he was? (I imagine he could, but the transition would be rough for a bit.)

Appleyard is online now  
Old
05-07-2014, 03:11 PM
  #200
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 10,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appleyard View Post
Burns would be our best defenceman if he could transition back to D and be the D man he was from 07-08 to 11-12 when healthy.

10-15 goals and 40-45 points from the back end while being a good PP and PK player and solid defensively... he can also skate at a similar standard to Coburn and is physical. He would be a Coburn upgrade... though the question would be could he get back to being the Dman he was? (I imagine he could, but the transition would be rough for a bit.)
There's no reason to think he couldn't transition back to D. (I'm sure the Sharks will consider that this offseason if they keep him.)

The only reason he was moved to F midway last season was the Sharks were really lacking in top 6 fwds. He moved up and had instant chemistry with Thornton - wreaking havoc on the opposing D with his forechecking and creating space, that the Sharks kept him up there.

That said, he wasn't a Norris type D when he was a dman for us. His Corsi and scoring were there, he just had a tough time transitioning to a new team's D system.

Gilligans Island is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.