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

Gagne really could be the one to go

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-01-2010, 09:23 PM
  #151
MCAKES
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 379
vCash: 500
Flyersguru posted that everyone. GAGNE is on the decline move him now he did nothing in the playoffs last year not to mention we have an over abundance of top 4 forwards!!!!

MCAKES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:24 PM
  #152
sg12lw
Registered User
 
sg12lw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyersguru View Post
Gagne is clearly on the declined, sell high now, re-sign him cheap next offseason.
guys who get dumped, usually dont come running back

sg12lw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:24 PM
  #153
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,617
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclear reactor View Post
OK I don't want to see Gagne gone but this meme that he's getting dealt because of the O'Donnell and Shelley contracts is beyond ridiculous. They signed for a combined cap hit of $2.1M. It's not like those roster spots would be empty if these two weren't signed. They would otherwise be filled and the savings would be less than $1.0M.
That <$1M is just the cap space we need now though. Try and fit the team as is under the cap, and you'll find that we're in trouble if we can't resign Powe for less than what he's expecting and have one of the cheapest AHL options as our 13th F. We can't go into the season with that, no room whatsoever. The Meszaros move definitely had a bigger impact, but if Gagne would be traded solely to fit what we have, then yes the two smaller signings WERE a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Gagne is more important to this team than any goalie we could move him for including free agent goalies we could acquire with his cap space (unless we are talking about Vokoun, Miller, Lundqvist, Luongo, or Brodeur).
The marginal return of any legitimate starting goalie on this team has been understated by you several times, and I'd just like to know how you've come to this conclusion, other than "we're so strong everywhere else." I do think moving Gagne to do this would be a bad move, but it'd just go in the big book of Holmgren "oops" at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ugiswrong View Post
Perhaps to the Avs for a conditional 1st or 2nd depending on if he signs and defensive prospect (and Radnor's own) Colby Cohen?
No thank you. He was pretty bad defensively at the NCAA level. I liked watching him and stuck up for his play among other BU fans, but I very much doubt he reaches NHL potential.

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:26 PM
  #154
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
Because Holmgren believes exactly what I believe; that most goaltending is dime-a-dozen and that you can make a more effective competitive team but not relying on one. Stronger teams are stronger because they have better depth. In turn, this takes a lot of pressure of a goaltender making his job easier and making your team better in general.
Until a good offense comes along, which will break down your good defense (because that's what good offenses do), and shreds that crappy goalie which is your last line of defense... and the most cost effective way to improve every player on your roster.

Holmgren's also clearly a moron, so I wouldn't want to identify myself with too many of his philosophies. I mean, Jody Shelley.... seriously?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:29 PM
  #155
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,159
vCash: 500
if gags gets traded to make cap room after the shelley signing, i might burn down my mother****ing neighborhood.

oh, and after the massive leighton overpayment, and the coburn overpayment.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:32 PM
  #156
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Just so we're clear on marginal returns on goalies. A 1% movement in SVPCT is roughly 3 goals every 10 games. I would guestimate that on average that comes out as somewhere between 8-16 pts over the course of the season (depending on how lucky/unlucky you are in the games in which those extra goals come down).

So, the difference between getting .900 SVPCT and .920 SVPCT is maybe 16-32 pts in the standings. (Sidenote: yes, this is the reason that the Devils have been remarkably resilient despite losing talent... Brodeur is in the best 5 year run of consistent play in his career.)

Moreover, SVPCT is largely independent of the play of the team in front of them. Thus why if you look at SOGA there is almost no correlation to SVPCT... and, yes, good defensive teams cut down on SOGA.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:33 PM
  #157
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
I will assassinate Paul Holmgrem. I am 100% serious.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:34 PM
  #158
dbr2
Lockout Beard
 
dbr2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,346
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dbr2
Okay Paul you ****ing *******.

dbr2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:37 PM
  #159
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,617
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Just so we're clear on marginal returns on goalies. A 1% movement in SVPCT is roughly 3 goals every 10 games. I would guestimate that on average that comes out as somewhere between 8-16 pts over the course of the season (depending on how lucky/unlucky you are in the games in which those extra goals come down).

So, the difference between getting .900 SVPCT and .920 SVPCT is maybe 16-32 pts in the standings. (Sidenote: yes, this is the reason that the Devils have been remarkably resilient despite losing talent... Brodeur is in the best 5 year run of consistent play in his career.)

Moreover, SVPCT is largely independent of the play of the team in front of them. Thus why if you look at SOGA there is almost no correlation to SVPCT... and, yes, good defensive teams cut down on SOGA.
I think that's a bit of an overestimate, but I definitely agree that goaltending is very important. With a Turco type goalie, I think we're a top-3 team in the East. With Leighton, we're top-6 if we play up to our abilities.

In the playoffs, we're screwed against WAS/PIT.

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:45 PM
  #160
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by might2mash View Post
I think that's a bit of an overestimate, but I definitely agree that goaltending is very important. With a Turco type goalie, I think we're a top-3 team in the East. With Leighton, we're top-6 if we play up to our abilities.

In the playoffs, we're screwed against WAS/PIT.
You don't think 3 goals in 10 games can cost you 1 point over 10 games?

The only team in the league that outscored their opponents by more than a goal a game was Washington. 3 extra goals in 10 games is huge.

I agree on the 16-32 front, but that's because I doubt it's a linear relationship.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:50 PM
  #161
SteveH
Registered User
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 141
vCash: 500
I got home from work after hearing about Jody Fing Shelly, and took a nap. I had a dream that Ed Snider became Al Davis. I woke up and read this. FML

SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:51 PM
  #162
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyersguru View Post
Gagne is clearly on the declined, sell high now, re-sign him cheap next offseason.
Gagne is clearly on the decline, I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sg12lw View Post
guys who get dumped, usually dont come running back
true

Quote:
Originally Posted by might2mash View Post
I think that's a bit of an overestimate, but I definitely agree that goaltending is very important. With a Turco type goalie, I think we're a top-3 team in the East. With Leighton, we're top-6 if we play up to our abilities.

In the playoffs, we're screwed against WAS/PIT.
The fact of the matter is this team is not capable of beating PITT or WASH in the playoffs.

Some of you guys let your homerism cloud your judgment. Carter is worth way more to this team RIGHT NOW and will be for the NEXT 5 YEARS. Yet you guys all freak out. Carter is 25 an peaking now. Gagne is quickly declining.

Now, while I personally think trading Gagne is a silly move, I certainly wouldnt freak out if the deal was right.

You guys think this team is not trying to get young, but look at the roster. We bring in Carle (25) last year. We bring in Meszaros (24) this year. Our Centers are Carter (25), Richards (25) and Giroux (22). Hartnell is 28, Leighton is 29, JVR is 21 and we might move one of our FEW 30+ players in a deal that brings us cap space and a potential at a goalie like Nabokov or Turco.

The fact of the matter is Gagne is an injury risk, declining with age, and has a HUGE cap hit. If we can make a decent deal, we should consider it. Ideally, we carry his hit and he re-signs on a much cheaper deal next time around, but if it comes down to Giroux, Gagne, Carter - Gagne is the odd man out, easily.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 09:52 PM
  #163
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,238
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Just so we're clear on marginal returns on goalies. A 1% movement in SVPCT is roughly 3 goals every 10 games. I would guestimate that on average that comes out as somewhere between 8-16 pts over the course of the season (depending on how lucky/unlucky you are in the games in which those extra goals come down).

So, the difference between getting .900 SVPCT and .920 SVPCT is maybe 16-32 pts in the standings. (Sidenote: yes, this is the reason that the Devils have been remarkably resilient despite losing talent... Brodeur is in the best 5 year run of consistent play in his career.)

Moreover, SVPCT is largely independent of the play of the team in front of them. Thus why if you look at SOGA there is almost no correlation to SVPCT... and, yes, good defensive teams cut down on SOGA.
I was with you until this. Good defences have an effect not only on shot quantity, but the quality of scoring chances faced. That obviously is going to ahve an effect on the save percentage of the goalie facing said chances. That relationship is plain as day and if you can't see it I don't even know what to say...

Hell, look at what Leighton did behind our defense. That wasn't a coincidence.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 10:00 PM
  #164
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
I was with you until this. Good defences have an effect not only on shot quantity, but the quality of scoring chances faced. That obviously is going to ahve an effect on the save percentage of the goalie facing said chances. That relationship is plain as day and if you can't see it I don't even know what to say...
We've had this discussion, and we disagree. My narrative is certainly more complicated than I just presented it, but no one cares to read that.

There are significantly larger holes in your argument, however. For example, you have very little answer for why goalies perform at the same level on different teams with VASTLY different levels of defensive play in front of them. Like, Roberto Luongo from Florida to Vancouver. Vancouver has a demonstrably better defense in front of him, but his statistics have been pretty much right in line across the board.

Team defense can limit GAA, but it doesn't have a significant effect on SVPCT as sample sizes grow. Good defenses limit chances across the board... they give up less quality chances, less mediocre chances, and less bad chances. That mitigates any impact the team defense can have on SVPCT.

And if that weren't true, you could demonstrate that statistically... not just anecdotally with "team defenses limit chances" and goalies save easier chances with greater frequency. You could display correlation between defense and SVPCT... I'd be happy to see it, because then me and Shafer could agree on something.

Quote:
Hell, look at what Leighton did behind our defense. That wasn't a coincidence.
...lets see him do it again in 60 games. Then we can talk about whether or not it's a coincidence.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 10:02 PM
  #165
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Just so we're clear on marginal returns on goalies. A 1% movement in SVPCT is roughly 3 goals every 10 games. I would guestimate that on average that comes out as somewhere between 8-16 pts over the course of the season (depending on how lucky/unlucky you are in the games in which those extra goals come down).

So, the difference between getting .900 SVPCT and .920 SVPCT is maybe 16-32 pts in the standings. (Sidenote: yes, this is the reason that the Devils have been remarkably resilient despite losing talent... Brodeur is in the best 5 year run of consistent play in his career.)

Moreover, SVPCT is largely independent of the play of the team in front of them. Thus why if you look at SOGA there is almost no correlation to SVPCT... and, yes, good defensive teams cut down on SOGA.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 10:03 PM
  #166
TheKingPin
Registered User
 
TheKingPin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,549
vCash: 500
Half of you need to find a bridge some where and jump off. The other half needs to look at see that we were two wins away from a stanley cup last year. Holding on to vets is not the way to keep a team good for a long time. We have to get carter giroux and jvr signed or trade one of them. If this happens and we keep all of our dmen we are going to have a D so good that we are going to be fine with Carter and Richards...and Hartnell and JVR and Giroux and Lieno and Briere.

RELAX

TheKingPin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 10:27 PM
  #167
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,617
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKingPin View Post
Half of you need to find a bridge some where and jump off. The other half needs to look at see that we were two wins away from a stanley cup last year. Holding on to vets is not the way to keep a team good for a long time. We have to get carter giroux and jvr signed or trade one of them. If this happens and we keep all of our dmen we are going to have a D so good that we are going to be fine with Carter and Richards...and Hartnell and JVR and Giroux and Lieno and Briere.

RELAX
Last I checked, Gagne is only 30. He's not exactly old. Also, we know that Giroux and Carter will need to be addressed next offseason, but Gagne is off the books then. I'd rather have $4M coming off the books than Homer trade Gags away and commit that money long-term to something else.

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 10:31 PM
  #168
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by might2mash View Post
Last I checked, Gagne is only 30. He's not exactly old. Also, we know that Giroux and Carter will need to be addressed next offseason, but Gagne is off the books then. I'd rather have $4M coming off the books than Homer trade Gags away and commit that money long-term to something else.
Exactly.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 10:38 PM
  #169
Terence Peterman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKingPin View Post
RELAX
I'm tired of hearing this. I refuse to relax because some **** insists on pulling the heart strings for the only team I've ever had them. It's like the girl who constantly flirts with you and then says you're like a brother to her. I'm ****ing tired of being Paul Holmgren's equivalent when he just ****-teased us by waving the Cup in front of us.

The Flyers are the only team to which I'm desperately attached. I've been a Phillies fan all my life, and I've seen more than my fair amount of strife with them, and have to deal with Ruben's ineptitude right now, but it still doesn't top this. Paul Holmgren is a ****, and I've got not only every emotional right, but logical right as well, to feel he's 100% a dumbass who can't differentiate between his morning wood and morning spoon for his cereal.

He's not fit to run this team, and I've run a large amount of my time and schedule otherwise around this team. He's ****ing with a large part of my life. I'm generally 100% against saying anything like that sports-related, but he is. He can go get ****ed by a ****ing black bear for all I ****ing care. I hope he ****ing hates it, and I hope it happens as much as possible before his ass plain falls off from all the bear dick it took.

Terence Peterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 10:41 PM
  #170
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,238
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
We've had this discussion, and we disagree. My narrative is certainly more complicated than I just presented it, but no one cares to read that.

There are significantly larger holes in your argument, however. For example, you have very little answer for why goalies perform at the same level on different teams with VASTLY different levels of defensive play in front of them. Like, Roberto Luongo from Florida to Vancouver. Vancouver has a demonstrably better defense in front of him, but his statistics have been pretty much right in line across the board.

Team defense can limit GAA, but it doesn't have a significant effect on SVPCT as sample sizes grow. Good defenses limit chances across the board... they give up less quality chances, less mediocre chances, and less bad chances. That mitigates any impact the team defense can have on SVPCT.

And if that weren't true, you could demonstrate that statistically... not just anecdotally with "team defenses limit chances" and goalies save easier chances with greater frequency. You could display correlation between defense and SVPCT... I'd be happy to see it, because then me and Shafer could agree on something.
Suffice to say there are a large number of complicating variables involved in what we're talking about. Your faith in statistics to inform your opinions over the combination of playing/watching the game and common sense is startling. The ability of statistics to reliably describe or predict the happenings of a hockey game in any great detail is poor. The game is too chaotic, and the things that are objectively quantifiable are influenced by a ton of other variables.

I'll trust my brain and my eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...lets see him do it again in 60 games. Then we can talk about whether or not it's a coincidence.
This is fair enough.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 11:08 PM
  #171
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
Suffice to say there are a large number of complicating variables involved in what we're talking about. Your faith in statistics to inform your opinions over the combination of playing/watching the game and common sense is startling. The ability of statistics to reliably describe or predict the happenings of a hockey game in any great detail is poor. The game is too chaotic, and the things that are objectively quantifiable are influenced by a ton of other variables.

I'll trust my brain and my eyes.
They don't, my faith in statistics goes right along with watching the game. However, SVPCT is a pretty friggin simple objectively quantifiable number... it isn't some obscure statistical formula, it's simple: what percentage of shots put on a goalie did he stop.

In any one game, that's a terrible statistic. Over the course of thousands of shot, it's a pretty good statistic for simply getting at how good a goalie is at stopping pucks flying in his direction. Just like batting average is a terrible statistic if I'm looking at one game, and a very good statistic over larger sample sizes. Tedd Williams was one of the best hitters ever... he had slumps, though.

Large samples reduce the chaos (it's called statistical noise) by bringing together larger volumes of data.

So, two points:

1) I have not and will not ever use statistics to predict a single game. I do put a great deal of faith in statistics over larger sample sizes, and if the larger sample size is better for you that's the better choice.

2) Your brain and your eyes are unreliable. The human brain is TERRIBLE at objectively quantifying large volumes of data... it's just the way it is. This is one of the primary reasons I rely on statistics -- in fact, it's one of the reasons statistics have risen to such prominence in recent years as computers have enabled greater volumes of data analysis.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 11:23 PM
  #172
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
I can't believe how many people on here are trusting the words of Doug MacLean and Nick Kypreos. I mean, come on people, they're two are the stupidest ***k giraffes in the dumb dumb salad. MacLean has run two hockey franchises into the ground and he's been called out by Bettman for being a mark for Jim Ballsille and that MacLean has absolutely no credibility amongst anyone in the league.

As for Nick Kypreos, the guy has lost so many fights he's been in, we're beginning to see the effects of what a swiss cheese brain looks like. The guy is an idiot.

Until there's an actual Flyer official who says Gagne is gone or until there is an official press release indicating Gagne has been moved, this rumour is nothing more than two guys blowing smoke out of their ass. They're known to do that.


Last edited by BobbyClarkeFan16: 07-01-2010 at 11:40 PM.
BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 11:30 PM
  #173
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
I can't believe how many people on here are trusting the words of Doug MacLean and Nick Kypreos. I mean, come on people, there two are the stupidest ***k giraffes in the dumb dumb salad. MacLean has run two hockey franchises into the ground and he's been called out by Bettman for being a mark for Jim Ballsille and that MacLean has absolutely no credibility amongst anyone in the league.

As for Nick Kypreos, the guy has lost so many fights he's been in, we're beginning to see the effects of what a swiss cheese brain looks like. The guy is an idiot.

Until there's an actual Flyer official who says Gagne is gone or until there is an official press release indicating Gagne has been moved, this rumour is nothing more than two guys blowing smoke out of their ass. They're known to do that.
Here's why it makes sense:

1) We do need to shed some salary.

2) We can't keep Gagne past next season no matter what after Holmgren went and committed all that money to the next two years salary.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 11:34 PM
  #174
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,238
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Regarding the second point. Statistics are as good as the people gathering the data. Goal tending statisticians in Florida are known to be very generous. It has been written about and discussed before.


My brain and eyes are bad at quantifying large volumes of data. My statement is more of a qualitative one about a pretty complex thing, and you're drawing conclusions to the contrary from some basic statistics. You're using statistics to say that my qualitative opinion on the effects of various factors in the game is wrong, because you're not seeing a correlation when you look at some pretty simplified #'s. I play the game (as do you), I see how one thing effects another. It is plain and right there to see.

You're also trying to compare large sample sizes (with regard to Luongo) and say that one changed variable has no effect because you didn't see a large shift in svpct from sample to sample. This conclusions disregards a whole slew of other changes in variables that happened simultaneously.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 11:35 PM
  #175
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Here's why it makes sense:

1) We do need to shed some salary.

2) We can't keep Gagne past next season no matter what after Holmgren went and committed all that money to the next two years salary.
If salary needs to be shed, it'll be Carle and someone else sent packing. When Gagne signs his next deal, I think it's going to go down (after all, as we've seen today, there's only three players who really hit home runs in their contracts - Gonchar, Martin and Michalek).

The market looks like it's beginning to correct itself, so Gagne shouldn't be a problem to re-sign. Honestly, with the acquisition of Meszaros, the writing is on the wall for Carle. Meszaros is the same player offensively, but is much, much, much better defensively and can skate like the wind. It also helps that Andrej has a bit of a mean streak in him as well. And when you consider that last season was the first time in two seasons his shoulder was healthy, I think a decline in points was to be expected as he played it cautiously.

But yeah, I wouldn't put much faith or stock in the words of Doug MacLean or Nick Kypreos. That's like saying Eklund is the second coming of Bob MacKenzie.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.