HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

New Rumor...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2003, 06:36 AM
  #1
Teezax
Registered User
 
Teezax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,352
vCash: 500
New Rumor...

Saw this on hockeytraderumors.com...

Esche and Primeau for Khabibulin...

The question remains, would you do it?
As much as I like Esche and hope to see him here for awhile, you
gotta make this trade if your Bobby..although ditching Primeau leaves another hole at center until Lapointe comes back.

Teezax is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 06:37 AM
  #2
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Clarke dismissed the Post story and said Primeau epitomizes what coach Ken Hitchcock teaches - relentless work, checking, defense.

"Why would I trade the guy who sets the leadership example for the rest of the team?" the Flyers GM said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/7546254.htm

Dr Love is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 06:46 AM
  #3
Teezax
Registered User
 
Teezax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
Clarke dismissed the Post story and said Primeau epitomizes what coach Ken Hitchcock teaches - relentless work, checking, defense.

"Why would I trade the guy who sets the leadership example for the rest of the team?" the Flyers GM said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/7546254.htm
hadn't see that article, but then again Clarke also said he had no interest in Comrie...when the needs open up anything could happen. The question remains, would you do it?

Teezax is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 06:49 AM
  #4
wasting time
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,887
vCash: 500
Ahhhh. now the Comrie acquisition is making sense.

I like it for Philly, a lot.

wasting time is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 06:50 AM
  #5
wasting time
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teezax
Saw this on hockeytraderumors.com...

Esche and Primeau for Khabibulin...

The question remains, would you do it?
As much as I like Esche and hope to see him here for awhile, you
gotta make this trade if your Bobby..although ditching Primeau leaves another hole at center until Lapointe comes back.
doesn't Philly have a guy in the system who can play 4th center, or a winger that can play center?

wasting time is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 06:53 AM
  #6
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teezax
hadn't see that article, but then again Clarke also said he had no interest in Comrie...when the needs open up anything could happen. The question remains, would you do it?
No, I wouldn't. Bulin has won one playoff round in his career. He is no guarantee to take this team far.

The goalies available do not have a great playoff track record. Esche is playing just fine and the team and the coaches believe in him. It all boils down to this... the margin of improvement that one of the available goalies would bring to this team would not be justified by the cost to aquire them in a trade. Kolzig has had one run, and done nothing since. Khabibulin has one a single round. Burke hasn't won a round since 1988, and has already been here and absolutely sucked. CuJo has the best track record, taking two different teams to the CF twice, but he flat out stinks this year and the money is a giant red flag. I'd rather take my chances with Esche. His play has done nothing to warrant not being the goalie come playoff time.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 06:57 AM
  #7
stanley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
I don't see it happening. I don't think the acquisition of Comrie was made to replace anybody this year, rather accentuate what they already have.

Question: When has Clarke given up a contributing veteran player during the season without getting another veteran at that position in return?

Answer: You have to go all the way back to December 1995, when he traded Kevin Dineen to Hartford for future considerations, and Dineen was in the twilight of his career, so to call him a contributing veteran at that point is a stretch.

The prescedent for him to move Primeau without getting another center in return doesn't exist. I'm sure somebody is going to try and use Clarke's initial dismissal of his interest in Comrie followed by the trade for that player as evidence that you can't be sure what he's thinking. However, keep in mind that the dismissal was made in reference to the rumor that Handzus was going to get moved for Comrie.

Trade rumors take on a life of their own. If one reads a rumor enough times, fiction quickly becomes some warped form of reality.

stanley is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 07:05 AM
  #8
Flyers26
 
Flyers26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: We must accept disap
Country: United States
Posts: 7,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley
I don't see it happening. I don't think the acquisition of Comrie was made to replace anybody this year, rather accentuate what they already have.

Question: When has Clarke given up a contributing veteran player during the season without getting another veteran at that position in return?

Answer: You have to go all the way back to December 1995, when he traded Kevin Dineen to Hartford for future considerations, and Dineen was in the twilight of his career, so to call him a contributing veteran at that point is a stretch.
I'm not even sure that was Clarke. He might have been gone by then.
I know in the similar era, we traded Poulin & Propp, separately, to Boston.

Flyers26 is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 07:29 AM
  #9
MojoJojo
Registered User
 
MojoJojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 9,351
vCash: 500
Problem is that Primeau has defferred half his salary to help out the team. Does Tampa pick up the 2.5 mil we owe him for next season?
Doesnt make too much sense from Tampa's POV, since the deal comes down to Esche for Habib after Primeaus contract is up.

Anyway, Khabibulin = Cechmanek. Great stats, bad puck handler, lets in bad goals, erratic, unproven in the playoffs. Not that he wouldnt be an improvement over Hackett.

How about this instead: Handzus + Esche for Theodore. Let Theo and Hackett fight for the starting position again.

MojoJojo is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 07:40 AM
  #10
DanKordicsFist
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
How about Hackett for Nittymaki

or Hackett for Malec

or Hackett for Little

or Hackett for a roll of tape and a broken stick

 
Old
12-22-2003, 08:46 AM
  #11
Teezax
Registered User
 
Teezax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,352
vCash: 500
i think it's time we let Hackett rest and see what Esche can do as our starter, we haven't seen enough of him yet to make a judgement on if he will showup in the playoffs. Give him the time now, by the deadline in March we'll know if we have to make any changes.

Teezax is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 08:48 AM
  #12
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Sorry to butt in here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
Doesnt make too much sense from Tampa's POV, since the deal comes down to Esche for Habib after Primeaus contract is up.
True. It makes no sense for Tampa to trade away what is (arguably) its best "asset" to address their strongest position - center. Would be very stupid to trade Khabi now anyway and it had better not happen or I won't be too happy. I believe the original Brooks column made no mention of Esche, it just said "a deal centered around Primeau", which makes it sound even worse.
Quote:
Anyway, Khabibulin = Cechmanek. Great stats, bad puck handler, lets in bad goals, erratic, unproven in the playoffs. Not that he wouldnt be an improvement over Hackett.
Well, he's no Brodeur, but let me just say that his performance vs. Philly was easily the worst puck-handling performance I've EVER seen from him, so please don't judge the guy by that. Sure he lets in bad goals, who doesn't, but I've never before seen him be directly responsible for two goals in one game. He's usually a bit better with the puck, mostly just leaves it behind the goal for the Dmen to come and get.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 09:22 AM
  #13
FlyerFire
Registered User
 
FlyerFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,115
vCash: 500
i agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teezax
i think it's time we let Hackett rest and see what Esche can do as our starter, we haven't seen enough of him yet to make a judgement on if he will showup in the playoffs. Give him the time now, by the deadline in March we'll know if we have to make any changes.
playing a game with Hackett is like treading water-never know when you're going under.played pretty poorly against ATL.

FlyerFire is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 09:34 AM
  #14
wasting time
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
Problem is that Primeau has defferred half his salary to help out the team. Does Tampa pick up the 2.5 mil we owe him for next season?
Doesnt make too much sense from Tampa's POV, since the deal comes down to Esche for Habib after Primeaus contract is up.

Anyway, Khabibulin = Cechmanek. Great stats, bad puck handler, lets in bad goals, erratic, unproven in the playoffs. Not that he wouldnt be an improvement over Hackett.

How about this instead: Handzus + Esche for Theodore. Let Theo and Hackett fight for the starting position again.

Khabibulin = Czechmanek?

Whooo boy!

I think we just found out who Bobby's goalie scout has been for the past 5 years.

wasting time is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 09:35 AM
  #15
wasting time
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
Problem is that Primeau has defferred half his salary to help out the team. Does Tampa pick up the 2.5 mil we owe him for next season?
Doesnt make too much sense from Tampa's POV, since the deal comes down to Esche for Habib after Primeaus contract is up.

Anyway, Khabibulin = Cechmanek. Great stats, bad puck handler, lets in bad goals, erratic, unproven in the playoffs. Not that he wouldnt be an improvement over Hackett.

How about this instead: Handzus + Esche for Theodore. Let Theo and Hackett fight for the starting position again.

Handzus and Esche for Theodore

You're silly.

wasting time is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 09:51 AM
  #16
stanley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasting time
Khabibulin = Czechmanek?

Whooo boy!

I think we just found out who Bobby's goalie scout has been for the past 5 years.
I always love this utterly qualitative "argument." Now for a little quantitative analysis:

(Player, GAA, SV%) League standing in parentheses.

2002-03
Khabilbulin, 2.47 (T-16), .911 (T-17, with Hackett - ooh, that's gotta hurt)
Cechmanek, 1.83 (2), .925 (3)

2001-02
Khabibulin, 2.36 (T-16), .920 (T-5)
Cechmanek, 2.05 (2), .921 (T-3)

2000-01
Khabilbulin - no results, held out
Cechmanek, 2.01 (1), .921 (T-3)

I think I hurt myself typing "Khabibulin" four times, but it was an otherwise simple exercise up to this point. I just reached for statistics.

I'd reach for the "he hasn't done anything at the NHL level," but be prepared to retort the five league championships he has won. Not much left that far out on the plank. Statistically, nobody has been more effective at stopping the puck in those three years than Roman Cechmanek.

Stupid Clarke.

stanley is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 09:59 AM
  #17
wasting time
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley
I always love this utterly qualitative "argument." Now for a little quantitative analysis:

(Player, GAA, SV%) League standing in parentheses.

2002-03
Khabilbulin, 2.47 (T-16), .911 (T-17, with Hackett - ooh, that's gotta hurt)
Cechmanek, 1.83 (2), .925 (3)

2001-02
Khabibulin, 2.36 (T-16), .920 (T-5)
Cechmanek, 2.05 (2), .921 (T-3)

2000-01
Khabilbulin - no results, held out
Cechmanek, 2.01 (1), .921 (T-3)

I think I hurt myself typing "Khabibulin" four times, but it was an otherwise simple exercise up to this point. I just reached for statistics.

I'd reach for the "he hasn't done anything at the NHL level," but be prepared to retort the five league championships he has won. Not much left that far out on the plank. Statistically, nobody has been more effective at stopping the puck in those three years than Roman Cechmanek.

Stupid Clarke.
Ha Ha, I just love it when you Flyer Fans quote GAA and SV% to justify why your goaltenders are fine. You have been doing this for years, and in the end you all finally realize that Clarke is a bozo when it comes to his goalies.


Tel me this:

Both Hackett and Esche have better GAA and SV% than Eddie Belfour. Are they better?

wasting time is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 10:45 AM
  #18
SaveByHexy
Registered User
 
SaveByHexy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 927
vCash: 500
I don't understand some peoples' arguments....They are always talking about how Khabibulin or Joseph or Kolzig have not done anything (i.e. won a Stanley Cup). So what? Ed Belfour never had won a cup until a few years ago. Hasek had never won a cup up until two years ago. How long did it take Ray Bourque to win a cup? The point is, you don't have to have already won Stanley Cups to give a team a better chance at winning it all. How many people were clamoring for us to get Chris Osgood this offseason, or last spring? The guy has two cup rings, but no one wanted him here (not that Hackett was the popular choice either...and Ozzie is having a good year so far, I'll give him that). It's a reciprocal thing--either Bulin or Cujo or Kolzig would give us a better chance of winning a Cup, and in turn our team would give them a better chance of getting that monkey off of their backs. I don't think there should be any question as to whether any of these goalies is better than Hackett, and even if you think none of them can win us a cup, don't you at least think they would increase our chances of getting there? Hackett is an above-average journeyman backup. Khabibulin and Joseph have always had a high standard of play, and Kolzig's won a Vezina and taken his team to the finals. To think not one of these goalies would be an upgrade, IMO, is absurd.

As for the statistical analysis and comparison of Khabibulin and Cechmanek, yes Cechmanek did put up better numbers. I liked Roman, and perhaps he was better than Khabi. But since Cechmanek is gone, the question comes down to whether Khabibulin is better than Hackett, which in my opinion is obviously yes.

SaveByHexy is online now  
Old
12-22-2003, 10:49 AM
  #19
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amonte11Scores
I don't understand some peoples' arguments....They are always talking about how Khabibulin or Joseph or Kolzig have not done anything (i.e. won a Stanley Cup). So what? Ed Belfour never had won a cup until a few years ago. Hasek had never won a cup up until two years ago. How long did it take Ray Bourque to win a cup? The point is, you don't have to have already won Stanley Cups to give a team a better chance at winning it all. How many people were clamoring for us to get Chris Osgood this offseason, or last spring? The guy has two cup rings, but no one wanted him here (not that Hackett was the popular choice either...and Ozzie is having a good year so far, I'll give him that). It's a reciprocal thing--either Bulin or Cujo or Kolzig would give us a better chance of winning a Cup, and in turn our team would give them a better chance of getting that monkey off of their backs. I don't think there should be any question as to whether any of these goalies is better than Hackett, and even if you think none of them can win us a cup, don't you at least think they would increase our chances of getting there? Hackett is an above-average journeyman backup. Khabibulin and Joseph have always had a high standard of play, and Kolzig's won a Vezina and taken his team to the finals. To think not one of these goalies would be an upgrade, IMO, is absurd.
You can use the same arguements for Esche and Hackett as well. Another reason not to make a trade.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 10:50 AM
  #20
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amonte11Scores
since Cechmanek is gone, the question comes down to whether Khabibulin is better than Hackett, which in my opinion is obviously yes.

Esche, Esche, Esche, Esche ... again, again, again ... he'll be the starter come playoff time, not Hackett .....

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 11:07 AM
  #21
stanley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasting time
Ha Ha, I just love it when you Flyer Fans quote GAA and SV% to justify why your goaltenders are fine. You have been doing this for years, and in the end you all finally realize that Clarke is a bozo when it comes to his goalies.

Tel me this:

Both Hackett and Esche have better GAA and SV% than Eddie Belfour. Are they better?
When did I write that I was a Flyer fan? When did Ed Belfour enter this discussion? You're reaching. I just think you're bent out of shape because you implied that it was laughable for one to consider Cechmanek better than Khabibulin, and I called you on it.

Are they better? I don't think so, but I'm not about to pass off my bias as fact. I also have written several times in other threads that I think Esche is of the ability and age to have a break-out season. Statistically, players encounter significant statistical improvement when they enter their middle twenties, and he's steadily been more reliable with time. Few people predicted the likes of Theodore and Giguere would experience the success they had before they encountered it. Somebody gave them the chance to succeed and I don't believe it's any small coincidence that they bloomed when the did. I don't have the data to confirm my suspiscion, but it would be interesting to review. The Flyers are taking a gamble, but wouldn't argue with anybody who claimed that when the value and cost to acquire the available goaltenders is considered, it's no more a gamble. If anybody hears that Lou is offering up Brodeur, let me know and I'll sell the information to Clarke.

Bill James and a few other people have determined that if you took every baseball player that has ever competed in the game and evaulated them with various value-based formulas (too involved to discuss here), you find that players are most productive at the age of 27. After that, production drops at a consistent rate. Moreover, different positional players encounter production-impacting factors. For example, any student of Sabremetrics would know you'd be much wiser to gamble on a 31-year-old second baseman than a 31-year-old catcher. I digress. I know of nobody who has conducted the same breadth of statistical analysis of hockey players, although I'm certain somebody has crunched the numbers and results to see what it all might mean. Hockey has some differences, such as its fast-paced, ever-changing style during a game that make it inherently difficult to assess (baseball doesn't have the first-baseman running off the field on a change when the batter is running down the baseline). I'd be really interested to see the numbers regarding goaltenders.

After reading that, maybe you can see how I can be wholly unimpressed by a statistical analysis comprised of an equal sign and a question mark. You're not alone. Now I'm not trying to claim I'm a statistical snob. We could fill the room with the stuff I don't know. I am simply interested in seeing people acknowledge they don't have all the information rather than present an end-all, beat-all scenario.

Anywho, I replied to respond to your last post. I'd prefer that you just write "I hate Clarke and I hate Cechmanek and I hate the Flyers" rather than attempting to pass of qualitative information as fact. If you're just coming here to ruffle up the hen house, I'd respectfully prefer that you just go away. This is a public forum, but we didn't all ask you to irritate everyone. Heated debate is fine - I wish we could all discuss this stuff without the agenda of supporting our respective favorites - but that's not what you've been doing.

Thanks.

stanley is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 11:12 AM
  #22
DanKordicsFist
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasting time
Ha Ha, I just love it when you Flyer Fans quote GAA and SV% to justify why your goaltenders are fine. You have been doing this for years, and in the end you all finally realize that Clarke is a bozo when it comes to his goalies.


Tel me this:

Both Hackett and Esche have better GAA and SV% than Eddie Belfour. Are they better?
You have GOT to be a Leafs fan. The top 'o the heap of whining. I've never seen a team and fan base take on the coaches personality the way Toronto has.

I would have to say yes they are. Belfour is a flake. Brett Hull and an obscure ruling that was NEVER used during the season won HIM a cup. Cujo, same problem except his teams couldn't overcome it. Khabibulin, Cechmanek? Same guy as far as what I've seen of them in the playoffs, inconsistent.

So you're arguing on the flyers forum because you have a sincere love of all the teams in the league and can't get enough discussion about them? Or is it because your team is winning RIGHT NOW and if anyone says anything about your team you can point to your record and feel a pseudo-sense of superiority? Will you still come here when your team hits the skids or is bounced from the playoffs as usual?

One thing I know about Maple Leafs fans is they take everything literally while simutaneously creating a rich fantasy life about themselves and their team. Nothing you've said hasn't been easily disputed and your only come backs amount to "Oh yeah" You truly are "wasting time"

 
Old
12-22-2003, 11:16 AM
  #23
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 30,689
vCash: 50
2 WORDS ON THIS TRADE RUMOR ON WHERE IT STARTED

LARRY BROOKS

now please we can end the discussion right there.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 11:17 AM
  #24
Gagne2433
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 3,241
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Gagne2433
Primeau, Pitkanen aside, is, in my opinion, the most valuable player on this team for two reasons.

1) He brings it every night. People need to realize that he is not the guy he was when he was in Detroit. He is a gritty player and I love what he brings to the team. Is he the most skilled? No. But, he is the best captain this franchise has had in years. And that is valuable.

2) He is an expiring contract. His trade value is rather high right now. Any team would love to unload a solid player with a heavy contract (ie. Bulin [as I assume he makes solid cash]) for a guy who is making a lot now but will be making nothing going into this trecherous summer negotiations.

I think Esche is going to be a player.....Like Clarke said, there is only one great goalie in the league right now. No reason to think Esche CANNOT BE a guy that can carry this team.

Gagne2433 is offline  
Old
12-22-2003, 11:18 AM
  #25
Teezax
Registered User
 
Teezax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanKordicsFist
You have GOT to be a Leafs fan. The top 'o the heap of whining. I've never seen a team and fan base take on the coaches personality the way Toronto has.

I would have to say yes they are. Belfour is a flake. Brett Hull and an obscure ruling that was NEVER used during the season won HIM a cup. Cujo, same problem except his teams couldn't overcome it. Khabibulin, Cechmanek? Same guy as far as what I've seen of them in the playoffs, inconsistent.

So you're arguing on the flyers forum because you have a sincere love of all the teams in the league and can't get enough discussion about them? Or is it because your team is winning RIGHT NOW and if anyone says anything about your team you can point to your record and feel a pseudo-sense of superiority? Will you still come here when your team hits the skids or is bounced from the playoffs as usual?

One thing I know about Maple Leafs fans is they take everything literally while simutaneously creating a rich fantasy life about themselves and their team. Nothing you've said hasn't been easily disputed and your only come backs amount to "Oh yeah" You truly are "wasting time"

Teezax 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 11:10 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.