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

2009 Flyers Prospect Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-06-2010, 11:01 AM
  #726
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
"Blue chips" mean nothing unless they really are blue chip prospects. I'm not talking about first rounders.

Flyers prospect pool is weak because even though a lot of their prospects are performing well, they're being drawn from very hit or miss circumstances. So they still have a strong chance of not making it than your average healthy first rounder with a solid skill-set and a proven track record for a number of seasons.

Frankly, unless you're really something like a top 25-35 prospect out of all current prospects at any given time, your odds of being an NHL gamebreaker are pretty slim anyway.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the relative ranking/situation of our prospect pool going forward. It's not that dire a situation just because we have Giroux and JVR...but that does mean that we HAVE TO control those guys (if we trade either we have to get back other young players), and we cannot lose any young players as cap casualties.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 12:03 PM
  #727
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
It's something that's going to come back and bite us, no use in sugarcoating it.
I'm not sugarcoating anything. I bet you it won't come back to haunt us at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm not sure what that has to do with the relative ranking/situation of our prospect pool going forward. It's not that dire a situation just because we have Giroux and JVR...but that does mean that we HAVE TO control those guys (if we trade either we have to get back other young players), and we cannot lose any young players as cap casualties.
You don't hold onto Giroux and JVR just because they're young ELC players. You hold onto Giroux and JVR is because it is quite obvious that they're future impact players. You should WANT to control those guys.

Giroux and JVR represent the top 5% of all prospects like them. The majority of first round forwards don't hit 40 points.

I think our prospect pool without them is low just because other organizations are still waiting on their prospects to develop further. In essence, we're being punished for JVR's graduation.

Really, Bill Meltzer's take and representation of where our prospect pool stands is legitimate. If you take out Giroux and JVR, we really don't have the high-end hopefuls. Even so, those are just numbers.

It's one thing to go ahead and say how lacking our prospect pool is, but it's quite another to take some legitimate steps in explaining how that could effect the team. It would be one thing if we were an old team with a number of busts. The reality of it is that we're a very young team with our high-end prospects having recently graduated.

It's a misrepresentation that you are piggybacking just because Bill Meltzer said it. It has nothing to do whether he's wrong or right. The reality of it is that we're not in that bad a shape.


Last edited by CS: 03-06-2010 at 12:09 PM.
CS is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 12:05 PM
  #728
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I'm not sugarcoating anything. I bet you it won't come back to haunt us at all.
You seem to see a lot of the world on the bright side as evidenced by a 7.5 rating for Eriksson when he's doing well in a league that a 43 year-old Ed Belfour dominated, we have several extreme long term contracts and multiple pending FAs.

Unless we find a way to dump Hartnell or Briere (which is doubtful), this is a franchise that's going to have trouble keeping young players and then when those guys go, there won't be any to replace them.

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 12:11 PM
  #729
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
You seem to see a lot of the world on the bright side as evidenced by a 7.5 rating for Eriksson when he's doing well in a league that a 43 year-old Ed Belfour dominated, we have several extreme long term contracts and multiple pending FAs.

Unless we find a way to dump Hartnell or Briere (which is doubtful), this is a franchise that's going to have trouble keeping young players and then when those guys go, there won't be any to replace them.
The franchise will have trouble keeping both Gagne and Briere. They also will have trouble keeping both Carle and Coburn if they want to spend more than $3m on goaltending at any point.

The numbers aren't nearly as bad and our prospect pool isn't nearly as bad as people make them out to be.

CS is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 12:24 PM
  #730
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The franchise will have trouble keeping both Gagne and Briere. They also will have trouble keeping both Carle and Coburn if they want to spend more than $3m on goaltending at any point.

The numbers aren't nearly as bad and our prospect pool isn't nearly as bad as people make them out to be.
Yes they are.

Re: the prospect pool. No offense and I'm sure you work hard, but I've been following prospects for over 10 years, I don't like our pool, Meltzer doesn't like our pool, and NHL scouts and GMs apparently don't like our pool judging by what the scout said to Meltzer and our inability to make a trade at the deadline.

So no one in the league or the hockey community appears to like our pool except for a few die-hard Flyers fans. I mean, I was here for the Drozdetsky and Dov Grumet-Morris hype.

Re: numbers. Keeping Briere isn't necessarily optional. He has an NMC and moved his family (he has kids) to the area. Furthermore, I think he's played well this season. I have much less of a problem asking Hartnell to waive the NTC considering he's dogged it most of the season and appears to have no desire to get better. Briere is somebody that's actively accepted a position change and is now helping the team instead of being a liability.

But it's going to be extremely difficult to move either one for a variety of reasons, beginning with the NTCs.

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 12:36 PM
  #731
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Yes they are.

Re: the prospect pool. No offense and I'm sure you work hard, but I've been following prospects for over 10 years, I don't like our pool, Meltzer doesn't like our pool, and NHL scouts and GMs apparently don't like our pool judging by what the scout said to Meltzer and our inability to make a trade at the deadline.

So no one in the league or the hockey community appears to like our pool except for a few die-hard Flyers fans. I mean, I was here for the Drozdetsky and Dov Grumet-Morris hype.
I don't like our pool without JVR/Giroux. It is what it is, but it's not something to jump off a bridge over. A good, young team can survive without a prospect pool for a number of years. That's why this whole argument is completely pointless.

Quote:
Re: numbers. Keeping Briere isn't necessarily optional. He has an NMC and moved his family (he has kids) to the area. Furthermore, I think he's played well this season. I have much less of a problem asking Hartnell to waive the NTC considering he's dogged it most of the season and appears to have no desire to get better. Briere is somebody that's actively accepted a position change and is now helping the team instead of being a liability.

But it's going to be extremely difficult to move either one for a variety of reasons, beginning with the NTCs.
What Gagne said a while back really struck a chord with me. I think it's very true. If a team wants you gone, they have a way of making you leave. It won't be easy, and a clause basically let's you have full control over the movement process. Even so, if a team wants you to go then there's ways to get a player to leave.

A lot of times you'll have to take deadweight back, so to move a producing, talented player like Briere just to acquire a what may be a little less in salary but amounts to much more deadweight is not really worth it.

CS is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 01:46 PM
  #732
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I'm not sugarcoating anything. I bet you it won't come back to haunt us at all.
You sugarcoat everything.

Quote:
You don't hold onto Giroux and JVR just because they're young ELC players. You hold onto Giroux and JVR is because it is quite obvious that they're future impact players. You should WANT to control those guys.
We don't have a goalie, dude. I realize you feel that goalie isn't an important position, but we don't have one. Leighton is not a short- or long-term solution, and this team has mortgaged itself to win short-term.

Quote:
Giroux and JVR represent the top 5% of all prospects like them. The majority of first round forwards don't hit 40 points.
I actually would wager that's not true.

For example, 2004 (these guys only being 24ish):
Ovechkin, yep.
Malkin, yep.
Ladd, yep.
Wheeler, yep.
Olesz, not yet.
Picard, not yet.
Tukonen, not yet.
Stafford, yep
Radulov, yep.
Nokelainen, not yet.
Chipchura, not yet.
Korpikoski, not yet.
Zajac, yep.
Wolski, yep.
Kaspar, not yet.
Chucko, not yet.
Schremp, not yet (but was on pace to this year).

So, 8/17 forwards from that group have already hit 40 pts, and a few others look like they'll have a decent shot in the coming years (I'll be shocked if Schremp doesn't).

Perron, Voracek, Gagner, and Kane have already established themselves at that level of player from JVRs draft class (that's well over 5%).

Quote:
I think our prospect pool without them is low just because other organizations are still waiting on their prospects to develop further. In essence, we're being punished for JVR's graduation.
It's low because we lack good prospects. We've traded away prospects and picks and we now lack a quantity of quality prospects.

Quote:
Really, Bill Meltzer's take and representation of where our prospect pool stands is legitimate. If you take out Giroux and JVR, we really don't have the high-end hopefuls. Even so, those are just numbers.
Just numbers...it's an observable reality.

Quote:
It's one thing to go ahead and say how lacking our prospect pool is, but it's quite another to take some legitimate steps in explaining how that could effect the team. It would be one thing if we were an old team with a number of busts. The reality of it is that we're a very young team with our high-end prospects having recently graduated.
...age has nothing to do with it. Under the salary cap you're going to lose players and you NEED young, cheap players that can come in and fill those roles going forward. We're not going to have that going forward. What we have is what we're going to have, and we don't have 1st rd picks in the next couple of years (or 2nds) to fill in those gaps and provide some help in the 2-4 year window.

So, yes, it's quite easy to analyze how it's going to impact the team going forward.

Quote:
It's a misrepresentation that you are piggybacking just because Bill Meltzer said it. It has nothing to do whether he's wrong or right. The reality of it is that we're not in that bad a shape.
You accused me of a "belligerent lie" for stating that the Olympics won't help the NHL going forward (they won't, but that's another discussion).

What you just wrote is a belligerent lie, as we have discussed the lack of real prospects in the system below JVR and Giroux previously...I'm not piggybacking anything, that's Meltzer quoting a scout stating what I (and others) have noted to you previously.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 01:49 PM
  #733
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I don't like our pool without JVR/Giroux. It is what it is, but it's not something to jump off a bridge over. A good, young team can survive without a prospect pool for a number of years. That's why this whole argument is completely pointless.
This is a deeply flawed statement. Prospects and draft picks are extremely valuable under a salary cap.

Quote:
What Gagne said a while back really struck a chord with me. I think it's very true. If a team wants you gone, they have a way of making you leave. It won't be easy, and a clause basically let's you have full control over the movement process. Even so, if a team wants you to go then there's ways to get a player to leave.

A lot of times you'll have to take deadweight back, so to move a producing, talented player like Briere just to acquire a what may be a little less in salary but amounts to much more deadweight is not really worth it.
Depends on the player and the situation. For example, the only reason Dan Boyle isn't still in TB is because he had a NTC and not a NMC. They threatened to waive him, which would mean he would have no control over where he ended up.

With Briere, for example, the Flyers have zero leverage.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 01:56 PM
  #734
ToTheNet
Registered User
 
ToTheNet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Holland, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,284
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ToTheNet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
This is a deeply flawed statement. Prospects and draft picks are extremely valuable under a salary cap.
So you are saying that you would rather have a prospect pool made up of 30 hit or miss prospects + a full assortment of picks every year

OVER

a Chicago Blackhawks team where the majority of their talent will be with the team for the next. . . oh . . . 7-8 years or so?

Prospects and picks are nice and all . . . but what happens when you have a complete log jam of good young talent that is all signed?

Or you have a Luongo and a top rated goalie prospect that will just about never help your team because they won't ever play and thus continue to de-value.

I'm siding with Chris on this debate.

ToTheNet is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 02:57 PM
  #735
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTheNet View Post
So you are saying that you would rather have a prospect pool made up of 30 hit or miss prospects + a full assortment of picks every year

OVER

a Chicago Blackhawks team where the majority of their talent will be with the team for the next. . . oh . . . 7-8 years or so?

Prospects and picks are nice and all . . . but what happens when you have a complete log jam of good young talent that is all signed?

Or you have a Luongo and a top rated goalie prospect that will just about never help your team because they won't ever play and thus continue to de-value.

I'm siding with Chris on this debate.
Are you not paying attention to what is about to happen to the Blackhawks? They have negative cap space for next season, and that's with multiple UFAs and RFAs.

Did you not see what just happened to the Detroit Red Wings? They finally had to start paying everyone...and boom, they're not the juggernaut they were before.

Young, good players grow up into older expensive players and you either replace some of them with young, good players...or you lose depth (and thus the quality of your team) in a hurry. After next season, I think it borders on a foregone conclusion that Gagne (or someone else significant) will be gone from the lineup...who replaces him? JVR on the top line, most likely, but who replaces JVR (JVR will be getting a raise the following year)?

The salary cap, by is very nature of distributing players around the league, makes draft picks and prospects much more valuable than they were previously. It is impossible to have sustained success without those two things working in your favor unless you get extremely lucky in how your contract structure plays out (News Flash: we're not lucky). Look at how this plays out in the NFL (a mature salary cap league). You either draft well, or you die...it's that simple.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:10 PM
  #736
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I don't like our pool without JVR/Giroux. It is what it is, but it's not something to jump off a bridge over. A good, young team can survive without a prospect pool for a number of years. That's why this whole argument is completely pointless.
Not really, look at the cap hell that Chicago is about to get into. Look at Boston who's already dealt 1 great young player because of cap concerns.

Our time is coming. The comparison Jester makes with the NFL is very relevant. If you don't consistently draft and develop talent, you fail.

Quote:
What Gagne said a while back really struck a chord with me. I think it's very true. If a team wants you gone, they have a way of making you leave. It won't be easy, and a clause basically let's you have full control over the movement process. Even so, if a team wants you to go then there's ways to get a player to leave.

A lot of times you'll have to take deadweight back, so to move a producing, talented player like Briere just to acquire a what may be a little less in salary but amounts to much more deadweight is not really worth it.
Well, I personally don't like the idea of making somebody leave who's working hard and performing for you if they have an NTC. I'm sure that the Flyers could make Briere's life a living hell and force him to waive, but that's not something the organization should be doing.

Hartnell I see as a bit of a different case because he's tanked it and simply has not performed, I don't think it's too far off to say that Hartnell is our 12th or 13th best forward right now, it's gotten to be totally unacceptable. But who's going to take that contract?

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:36 PM
  #737
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Jester. I'm not going to argue against your method. You have the habit of forcing everyone into these sentence by sentence debates that I just don't have the time to deal with. Not to mention it creates HUGE walls of text that no one ever reads.

So I will say this.

We will have our core offense set up for the next 4-5 years at the VERY least. That may or may not include Gagne. We certainly won't be able to keep all three of Gagne, Hartnell, and Briere, but that's what the cap was designed to do. It was designed force teams to play flawed and cheap. It's more competitive after all if teams spread the wealth. I like Gagne, but I have to problems with that.

However, as long as Giroux or vanRiemsdyk ask for $7m/year contracts, we should easily be able to fit around a core of Giroux, vanRiemsdyk, Richards, and Carter over the next 4-5 years.

Bold year is the only year I could see any major issue in our future, but if we can get JVR to sign a moderate 1-year contract, keep his RFA status, and re-sign him the next offseason, we'll be fine. Hartnell and Timonen's contracts end at the same year. Afterwards it's clear sailing.

Richards: $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Briere---: $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> UFA
Gagne--: $5.25m -> UFA
Carter--: $5.00m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Giroux--: $0.82m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Riemer--: $1.65m -> $1.65m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Hartnell-: $4.20m -> $4.20m -> $4.20m

CS is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:41 PM
  #738
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Jester. I'm not going to argue against your method. You have the habit of forcing everyone into these sentence by sentence debates that I just don't have the time to deal with. Not to mention it creates HUGE walls of text that no one ever reads.

So I will say this.

We will have our core offense set up for the next 4-5 years at the VERY least. That may or may not include Gagne. We certainly won't be able to keep all three of Gagne, Hartnell, and Briere, but that's what the cap was designed to do. It was designed force teams to play flawed and cheap. It's more competitive after all if teams spread the wealth. I like Gagne, but I have to problems with that.

However, as long as Giroux or vanRiemsdyk ask for $7m/year contracts, we should easily be able to fit around a core of Giroux, vanRiemsdyk, Richards, and Carter over the next 4-5 years.

Bold year is the only year I could see any major issue in our future, but if we can get JVR to sign a moderate 1-year contract, keep his RFA status, and re-sign him the next offseason, we'll be fine. Hartnell and Timonen's contracts end at the same year. Afterwards it's clear sailing.

Richards: $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Briere---: $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> UFA
Gagne--: $5.25m -> UFA
Carter--: $5.00m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Giroux--: $0.82m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Riemer--: $1.65m -> $1.65m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Hartnell-: $4.20m -> $4.20m -> $4.20m
Thanks for making me snort apple on my keyboard.

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:43 PM
  #739
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Jester. I'm not going to argue against your method. You have the habit of forcing everyone into these sentence by sentence debates that I just don't have the time to deal with. Not to mention it creates HUGE walls of text that no one ever reads.

So I will say this.

We will have our core offense set up for the next 4-5 years at the VERY least. That may or may not include Gagne. We certainly won't be able to keep all three of Gagne, Hartnell, and Briere, but that's what the cap was designed to do. It was designed force teams to play flawed and cheap. It's more competitive after all if teams spread the wealth. I like Gagne, but I have to problems with that.

However, as long as Giroux or vanRiemsdyk ask for $7m/year contracts, we should easily be able to fit around a core of Giroux, vanRiemsdyk, Richards, and Carter over the next 4-5 years.

Bold year is the only year I could see any major issue in our future, but if we can get JVR to sign a moderate 1-year contract, keep his RFA status, and re-sign him the next offseason, we'll be fine. Hartnell and Timonen's contracts end at the same year. Afterwards it's clear sailing.

Richards: $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Briere---: $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> UFA
Gagne--: $5.25m -> UFA
Carter--: $5.00m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Giroux--: $0.82m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Riemer--: $1.65m -> $1.65m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Hartnell-: $4.20m -> $4.20m -> $4.20m
I agree with Shafer on this one. I'm also not going to argue about it though because of the bold.

Garbage Goal is online now  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:48 PM
  #740
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Jester. I'm not going to argue against your method. You have the habit of forcing everyone into these sentence by sentence debates that I just don't have the time to deal with. Not to mention it creates HUGE walls of text that no one ever reads.
Well, based on experience...people do read 'em. And it's actually a significantly easier method rhetorically than having to use back referencing sentences to note what specific points you're addressing.

But, hey, we'll try something else.

Quote:
So I will say this.

We will have our core offense set up for the next 4-5 years at the VERY least. That may or may not include Gagne. We certainly won't be able to keep all three of Gagne, Hartnell, and Briere, but that's what the cap was designed to do. It was designed force teams to play flawed and cheap. It's more competitive after all if teams spread the wealth. I like Gagne, but I have to problems with that.

However, as long as Giroux or vanRiemsdyk ask for $7m/year contracts, we should easily be able to fit around a core of Giroux, vanRiemsdyk, Richards, and Carter over the next 4-5 years.

Bold year is the only year I could see any major issue in our future, but if we can get JVR to sign a moderate 1-year contract, keep his RFA status, and re-sign him the next offseason, we'll be fine. Hartnell and Timonen's contracts end at the same year. Afterwards it's clear sailing.

Richards: $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Briere---: $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> $6.50m -> UFA
Gagne--: $5.25m -> UFA
Carter--: $5.00m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m -> $5.75m
Giroux--: $0.82m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Riemer--: $1.65m -> $1.65m -> $4.25m -> $4.25m -> RFA/Long-term cont.
Hartnell-: $4.20m -> $4.20m -> $4.20m
1) Your Carter estimation may be overly optimistic. A young center with (potentially) three consecutive 40 goal seasons...

2) Why on Earth would JVR agree to a 1-year contract? What idiot agent would agree to such a deal?

3) Are we ever going to budget anything for a goalie?

4) What is going on with our defense? Coburn gotten a raise? We moved Carle? Pronger is locked in and his play will degrade through these years meaning we get significantly less per $ from him.

5) Who replaces Gagne in the lineup?

All of this ignores the fact that as of right now, our team is poorly structured. Again, you don't think goalies are important...but, well, I and a lot of other people disagree. I think we need to devote attention to that position. I don't think we can keep up this three-line idiocy, and we lack a center that can play that role for this club.

So, sure, we may be able to squeeze everyone in (except, of course, Gagne), but then we're left with a team that has the same structural defects that I think are a problem as of now.

And God forbid anyone get hurt, because we don't have anyone around that is going to be filling in for 'em going forward.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:48 PM
  #741
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Thanks for making me snort apple on my keyboard.
You can't see Carter signing a similar contract to Richards?

Excuse me for apparently not knowing what I'm talking about then...

Anyway, all your laughing means nothing when you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Not really, look at the cap hell that Chicago is about to get into. Look at Boston who's already dealt 1 great young player because of cap concerns.

Our time is coming. The comparison Jester makes with the NFL is very relevant. If you don't consistently draft and develop talent, you fail.
Chicago's issues are worse than ours. They decided to sign Hossa, Seabrook, and Huet. Because of that they might lose Barker (who they traded), Versteeg, and possibly Sharp.

We won't lose anywhere close to that. We will likely lose Gagne and one of Hartnell, Coburn, or Carle. That's if Briere is not moved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Well, I personally don't like the idea of making somebody leave who's working hard and performing for you if they have an NTC. I'm sure that the Flyers could make Briere's life a living hell and force him to waive, but that's not something the organization should be doing.

Hartnell I see as a bit of a different case because he's tanked it and simply has not performed, I don't think it's too far off to say that Hartnell is our 12th or 13th best forward right now, it's gotten to be totally unacceptable. But who's going to take that contract?
I'm not interested in forcing people out of contracts either. Things right now are fine if people would just look at the numbers instead of running around like a panicked chicken.

We're fine. Our core will stay in tact. With that core we will be competitive for years if they stay healthy.

I mean yesterday half this board wanted to dump Gagne for almost nothing. I'm not saying any of you were involved, but this place is needlessly fickle. You worry too much.

CS is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:49 PM
  #742
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
I agree with Shafer on this one. I'm also not going to argue about it though because of the bold.
If you guys truly believe that Carter is going to make 5.75m, will you invite me to come live in your fantasy world?

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:51 PM
  #743
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I'm not interested in forcing people out of contracts either. Things right now are fine if people would just look at the numbers instead of running around like a panicked chicken.
I take it you like starting the playoffs on the road, then.

Jester is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:54 PM
  #744
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
You can't see Carter signing a similar contract to Richards?

Excuse me for apparently not knowing what I'm talking about then...

Anyway, all your laughing means nothing when you're wrong.
Not at all. Carter has an outside shot at 40 this year and will hit 35 for sure and probably 40 again next year. 2-time 40 goal scorers who are great 2-way players don't take 5.75, sorry.

Quote:
Chicago's issues are worse than ours. They decided to sign Hossa, Seabrook, and Huet. Because of that they might lose Barker (who they traded), Versteeg, and possibly Sharp.

We won't lose anywhere close to that. We will likely lose Gagne and one of Hartnell, Coburn, or Carle. That's if Briere is not moved.
You are planning on paying a goalie 1.5 mill per year then for the next 5 years?

Quote:
I'm not interested in forcing people out of contracts either. Things right now are fine if people would just look at the numbers instead of running around like a panicked chicken.

We're fine. Our core will stay in tact. With that core we will be competitive for years if they stay healthy.

I mean yesterday half this board wanted to dump Gagne for almost nothing. I'm not saying any of you were involved, but this place is needlessly fickle. You worry too much.
Considering Jester and I are 2 of the people who have constantly supported Gags (I mean, I own a Gagne jersey), I think it's safe to say that neither of us fall into the "trade him and run" mentality on this board.

You have to accept that fact that on 3 of our biggest contracts (Pronger, Briere, Kimmo), we are going to be facing diminishing returns and that Carter will most likely want more than what Briere is getting (he's significantly outperforming him).

I also think that assuming Roo has a 60-70 point year next year, he isn't going to take just a 1 year deal, he'll most likely want 3 or 4.

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:55 PM
  #745
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
If you guys truly believe that Carter is going to make 5.75m, will you invite me to come live in your fantasy world?
Like I said before, plain as day, I'm not going to argue this one.

Garbage Goal is online now  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:56 PM
  #746
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
1) Your Carter estimation may be overly optimistic. A young center with (potentially) three consecutive 40 goal seasons...

Why wouldn't Carter get a similar or at worst slightly above Richards in a contract? You mean to tell me that this boards new scapegoat will hesitate to lock up another player to an "albatross" contract? If you're going to pick a theory then stick with it. Don't change it at whims to your benefit.

2) Why on Earth would JVR agree to a 1-year contract? What idiot agent would agree to such a deal?

Not saying he would, but even so, the ramifications of a long-term contract for JVR are that significant. After that one year we're basically home-free anyway.

3) Are we ever going to budget anything for a goalie?

No.

4) What is going on with our defense? Coburn gotten a raise? We moved Carle? Pronger is locked in and his play will degrade through these years meaning we get significantly less per $ from him.

One of Coburn, Carle, or Hartnell will have to be moved. That's not an issue honestly. We have enough in the pool to work with in secondary roles in the coming years. I'm not really worried. Things can go wrong, but if foresight was 20/20 then we wouldn't have signed Emery, even though it was the perfect idea at the time.

5) Who replaces Gagne in the lineup?

Who cares? Teams change. I like Gagne, but we'll have Carter, Richards, Giroux, and vanRiemsdyk entering their prime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
All of this ignores the fact that as of right now, our team is poorly structured. Again, you don't think goalies are important...but, well, I and a lot of other people disagree. I think we need to devote attention to that position. I don't think we can keep up this three-line idiocy, and we lack a center that can play that role for this club.

So, sure, we may be able to squeeze everyone in (except, of course, Gagne), but then we're left with a team that has the same structural defects that I think are a problem as of now.

And God forbid anyone get hurt, because we don't have anyone around that is going to be filling in for 'em going forward.
Because Leino, Kalinski, Nodl, and Laliberte have been such god awful call-ups right?

As I have said before, we have a nice group of prospects in the system that won't be stars but will likely be very good complimentary players.

CS is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 03:57 PM
  #747
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Like I said before, plain as day, I'm not going to argue this one.
So you are taking a position that makes little sense and then refusing to engage in debate on that position.





These guys would like to hire you.

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 04:01 PM
  #748
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
So you are taking a position that makes little sense and then refusing to engage in debate on that position.





These guys would like to hire you.
I said that I agree with Shafer on this one and that I don't want to argue it.

Seems immature, idiotic, and trollish of you to say my opinion makes "little sense" when you don't even know what it is. Nice thinking there.

Posting pictures of famous politicians isn't going to get me to argue with you as it's obviously pointless.

Garbage Goal is online now  
Old
03-06-2010, 04:02 PM
  #749
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Why wouldn't Carter get a similar or at worst slightly above Richards in a contract? You mean to tell me that this boards new scapegoat will hesitate to lock up another player to an "albatross" contract? If you're going to pick a theory then stick with it. Don't change it at whims to your benefit.
Huh? I think Holmgren will probably offer Carter something along the lines of 7 yrs 49 million.

Quote:
Not saying he would, but even so, the ramifications of a long-term contract for JVR are that significant. After that one year we're basically home-free anyway.
Neither JVR or Giroux is going to take a sweetheart 1 year deal to help our cap. This is a business.

Quote:
No.
That's comforting.

Quote:
One of Coburn, Carle, or Hartnell will have to be moved. That's not an issue honestly. We have enough in the pool to work with in secondary roles in the coming years. I'm not really worried. Things can go wrong, but if foresight was 20/20 then we wouldn't have signed Emery, even though it was the perfect idea at the time.
We have nobody in that pool who projects to a top-4 d-man and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

And signing Emery was a perfect idea at the time? Should I let Jester take this one? He has more patience than I do.

Quote:
Who cares? Teams change. I like Gagne, but we'll have Carter, Richards, Giroux, and vanRiemsdyk entering their prime.
Another Flyers fan who grossly undervalues what Simon Gagne brings to this team, what a shocker.

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
03-06-2010, 04:02 PM
  #750
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Huh? I think Holmgren will probably offer Carter something along the lines of 7 yrs 49 million.
What makes you think that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Neither JVR or Giroux is going to take a sweetheart 1 year deal to help our cap. This is a business.
Who cares?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
We have nobody in that pool who projects to a top-4 d-man and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
Come back in 5 years when Coburn is a top pairing d-man for another organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
And signing Emery was a perfect idea at the time? Should I let Jester take this one? He has more patience than I do.
Further proof you guys would make terrible GMs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
Another Flyers fan who grossly undervalues what Simon Gagne brings to this team, what a shocker.
I love Gagne. I've been one of his biggest supporters.



You know it's funny. I'm not even going to argue with everyone anymore.

I just find it hilarious that all these young players including Carter, Giroux, JVR, etc will all do so spectacularly well soon.

In the same breath you ask who is going to replace Gagne in the lineup?

Maybe from an outside view of all this, I can see the endless cycle of pessimism no matter what argument you're making.

Carter will score 40-50 goals for the next three seasons, but we're worried about Gagne and Briere's diminishing returns.

We're all so doomed.

I hope all these players perform as well as all you hope and get the contracts you're all expecting them to get. We should have a Stanley Cup in no time.

I quit. Enjoy your lost causes.

CS 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 11:48 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.