Michael Leighton will be back next week; what should the Flyers do?
by Travis Hughes on Nov 30, 2010 2:06 PM EST
in Philadelphia Flyers Commentary
Email
Print
Tim McManus broke the news this morning, reporting that Michael Leighton was on the ice practicing with the Adirondack Phantoms at the Glens Falls Civic Center. McManus also reported that Leighton will indeed play both games this weekend for the Phantoms, on Saturday in Wilkes-Barre and on Sunday in Atlantic City against the Albany Devils.
The Flyers announced a bit more news on Leighton this afternoon, adding that Leighton will stay with the Phantoms for a "6-day conditioning stint." The collective bargaining agreement gives the team two options after this six-day stint. Should the Flyers determine Leighton isn't ready after Sunday's game, they can ask Gary Bettman's office for a two-game extension on the conditioning loan.
If Leighton is ready after Sunday, he'll be forced to come off of long-term injured reserve immediately, and his salary will count against the Flyers cap on Monday. At the absolute latest, should he need that unlikely extension, he'd be back on the Flyers by the following Sunday, December 12 following two more games with Adirondack. Again, though, that's not likely.
The point of all this? The Flyers will need to clear $1.55 million in salary cap space by Monday. Financially and in a roster-space sense, the team cannot afford to carry three goaltenders. Not without making a move, at least.
We'll discuss exactly what the Flyers can do after the jump.
Some of the options...
- waive Matt Walker and his $1.7 million cap hit.
- place Walker on LTIR.
- place Ian Laperriere and his $1.166 million salary on LTIR.
- make a trade that frees up the necessary space.
We won't go into trade speculation because it would just be that -- wild speculation. Any of these other moves would get them under the cap for the time being, and it would remove one player from the active roster, which is also necessary as the Flyers are currently at the limit.
As our Geoff Detweiler pointed out yesterday, LTIR isn't the optimal solution.
Placing Lappy on LTIR doesn’t take his salary off the cap. So the Flyers will count his ~$1.1 mil cap hit against their upper limit regardless of whether he’s on LTIR or not. Placing him on LTIR only lets them add a player they otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford.
Bringing that back to the daily calculation: If you put Lappy on LTIR so that you can carry three goalies, the Flyers will be over the salary cap for the entire season. They would simply be granted a cushion at the end of the year up to the total (number of days * the daily cap hit) of those players on LTIR.
So right now, the Flyers have spent ~$19k more than the salary cap. But that’s covered because of the LTIR cushion. So right now, the Flyers would be unable to take on any salary through the end of the year (that changes if they go some days without a player on LTIR this season) because they are technically at the salary cap.
Right now, they are spending ~$4,000 per day over the salary cap. That equals ~$850k over the cap at season’s end – forgiven due to LTIR – but if the Flyers wanted to trade, say Matt Walker for a guy making $2.5 million per year, they can’t due to LTIR. Even though they could have, had they never had a guy go on LTIR throughout the year.
Waiving Matt Walker at this point makes the most sense, but we'll see exactly how the Flyers handle this over the next couple of days. Decisions, decisions.
90 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think what the Flyers should do is pretty obvious. I think this post should be “The Flyer should waive Matt Walker to make room to carry two injury prone veteran goalies a rookie, but what will they do?”
To the tune of "Sugar Magnolia:"
Waiving Matt Walker, good solution!
Seven d-men and I don’t care!
Danny Syvret’s down with the Phantoms
Should we need to get someone from there!
Sergei Bobrovsky is just a rookie!
Two so-so veterans are on his side!
We can discover the wonders of rebounds
When Michael Leighton won’t knock the puck aside!
We’ve got everything delightful;
We’ve got goalies, one, two, three!
In January, we can trade Leighton
For a lower draft pick indeed!
Or something like that.
I’d rather package Leighton and a low-level pick for a higher pick if we can. Waive Walker for now to make the necessary cap room. We haven’t needed the guy, and I doubt we’d have won any more games with him in the lineup even if he were healthy.
It would actually be good for him. He can take as much time as he needs to get healthy again, and maybe he can help some team down the stretch, like Lukas Krajicek did for us last year. Then he can be God-awful for some other team in the playoffs, like Lukas Krajicek was for us last year.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Nov 30, 2010 2:28 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
As the immediate solution, I agree with waiving Walker and carrying 3 goalies. We don’t want to waive Leighton, because there’s a better chance of us needing to call him back up than there is of us needing to call up Walker, and either one could be claimed off re-entry waivers for half price. So send Walker down and leave him there, stick with the 7 D-men we have, and carry 3 goalies for now. Backlund is also not waiver exempt and could be claimed, so calling up a goalie after an injury could be interesting no matter who we try to bring up. Given that it’s only been 10 days since Chuck Gormley reported Leighton was still having some numbness in his leg, I don’t want to think about any options that involve moving Boosh.
The problem with all of this is the CBA.
Article 13.6 covers waivers of injured players. It says that you can waive an injured player only if he was on recall waivers.
BUT, the next paragraph in 13.6 says:
A Player who is otherwise required to clear Regular Waivers who is injured during Training Camp must clear Regular Waivers if he remains on an NHL roster for thirty (30) days (cumulative) during his injury… before being Loaned to a minor league club.
So the Flyers CAN waive Walker – since he’s been on an NHL roster for 55 days – so long as his injury was during training camp – which I believe it was.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 3:14 PM EST reply actions
I’m a bit confused. So, you can’t waive an injured player unless they already have been through recall waivers or they have been injured since training camp (for at least 30 days)?
This has “Homer gets confused and LTIR’s him” written all over it.
lol
Okay. You can’t waive an injured player. But there are two exceptions to this:
- They got injured while on recall from a minor league team. I.e. the Flyers recall David Laliberte, who gets injured during his callup. He can be waived back to the AHL.; OR
- They got injured during training camp and stay on the roster for 30 days (or some stupid 10 games played exception, which doesn’t make sense since the player is injured.)
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
This whole situation makes me thing that Homer knew exactly what he was doing for this entire situation with Leighton out. He knew that he was going to keep 3 goalies on the roster as soon as he kept Bob and sent down Backlund. The first step to this puzzle was NOT putting Walker or Lappy on LTIR. This keeps our cushion for moves available. Secondly, the trade for Syvret. If we didn’t have Syvret and waived Walker to have Bartullis suck again, we would be in a Randy Jones situation. If Walker is waived and we don’t have Syvret we have two options. 1- Bring up Walker and PRAY he isn’t picked up causing us and another team to split his 1.7 cap hit (we’d be responsible for half of this year’s hit). 2- Go with Gustaffson, Bourdon, Marshall someone else (whoever fits the 6th D-role best, probably Marshall because he’s the best defensivly, but paired with OD, Gustaffson would be able to roam with OD staying at home), but we want the experience. With the trade for Syvret, and a waive of Walker, it ends his season (or at least his shot with the Flyers). Now if Walker goes down, we can call up Syvret if we need anything. Then again I could be totally wrong, but I’d like to think that the pieces fit in the puzzle.
Man Crushin on Bob since 2010
by orangeandblack20 on Nov 30, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
I agree. I’m not sure, but if we were to bring up Walker through re-entry waivers and he is claimed, we may have to pay half of his 1.7 for the remainder of his contract. Idk though?
Yes, half the remainder.
Which is why you don’t bring him up on re-entry.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
Alright that’s what I thought and was insinuating it’s not a good idea to ever bring him up if applicable
Right.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
I think he would be absent Walker. But that could change quickly.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
We’re holding off on Gustafsson for another year then? Fair enough. I’d see waiving Walker as a great excuse to get these guys some minutes, in emergency situations.
From what Tim McManus says, Gustafsson is just as guilty as the other prospects in making mistakes this year. If any of them pick their play up, maybe they pass Syvret, but at this point, I’d have to think he’d be the best option. Especially if it’s to sit in the press box behind Bartulis.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
I guess I just feel that if we’re getting that low in the depth chart, we’re either giving up on the season or not really playing the third pairing anyway. Syrvet seems like a waste when these young mistake-prone D-men need the seasoning.
I only want Syrvet if two defensemen go down in the playoffs.
Well, we’re only talking about if two defensemen go down anyway. In that case, I can’t imagine that third pairing would be playing much at all, so how much does it help to have Gustafsson/Bourdon/Marshall play 7 minutes a night, getting sheltered in the NHL?
If their season is over, maybe it does help. But then the Flyers are likely in the playoffs, where you probably want the best option, which has to be Syvret.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Dec 1, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
I’m going to go ahead and say this whole thing falls apart on the premise that Holmgren knew he was going to keep Bobrovsky when he sent Backlund down. It’s quite possible – I’d say even likely – that he kept Bob for two reasons: 1) He can audition, then get sent down without going through waivers; and 2) He played well in the preseason.
Other than that, keeping Walker and Lappy off LTIR is just smart cap management. Yes, I said it. Getting Syvret could just as easily have been to improve the Phantoms as it was to replace Walker as the 8th guy.
Either way, I like how you’re thinking. I just don’t think it was a plan. I think it’s a well executed – up to this point – adjustment of the plan.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it was “Plan-A” necessarily but I defiantly think it was “B”,“C” or at least the “back-up Plan”. After Bob’s two reasons to come up, which I totally agree with, someone had to say, but what if he’s the guy? You cant bring up a 22 year old, 4 year pro with lots of potential, who had a .937% good preseason and not have the slightest hope that he’ll succeed. And if you do bring him up with no hope, you don’t throw him into the lions den on night one.
Man Crushin on Bob since 2010
by orangeandblack20 on Nov 30, 2010 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
And if it wasn’t thought up then, it was thought up right before we traded Syvret. We were looking for a place who would take in two young guys, both who could be NHL level somewhere else, who we just need to get out of our AHL locker room? Give them to the team who has a former NHL’er who played with the Flyers as recently as with Coach Laviolette last season. Its the perfect move to find a replacement for an 8th defensmen.
Man Crushin on Bob since 2010
by orangeandblack20 on Nov 30, 2010 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, this I agree with. I only hope this is true, because if not… that means someone other than Walker is gone. Which doesn’t make much sense.
But yes, I also take the acquisition of Syvret to mean Walker is gone.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
Be careful about giving Homer too much credit, because we can’t be 100% sure what options he had when dealing Maroon and Laliberte. Syvret certainly works out to be an attractive option, but it’s hard to call it a master plan when we aren’t sure what was offered to him; for all we know Syvret may have been the only option he had. He wasn’t working from a position of strength. It’s entirely possible that the trade for Syvret was his idea, but I don’t know if it’s safe to assume it was.
I do agree though, that getting Syvret makes Walker even more expendable in the eyes of the organization.
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
But if you take that line of reasoning — that since we don’t know his options, we can’t give him too much credit — we can never give any GM credit.
I tend to agree that it’s best to stray towards the median level of praise with GMs since we really don’t know the market, but getting Syvret for a locker room headache + a redundant player is by no means a bad move as of right now.
Yeah, it’s no master plan, but I think it’s safe to give Homer a thumbs up on this type of trade.
I agree that I’m being cynical about not giving Homer too much credit and that I could easily take that too far and never give any GM credit; but I’m being cynical in this particular case because we know he wasn’t in a position of strength when facilitating this deal. It took him a significant amount of time to find a trade partner after Maroon had been cut, so I feel we have legitimate reason to believe his options were limited, and I just wanted to throw out a caution flag. He definitely ended up with a deal that worked out well, and he totally gets a thumbs up for the achievement; I’m just not comfortable with the idea that Homer had everything worked out so far in advance. He did a good job here, it’s just the master plan part that I have issues with.
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
Very well said.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t recall saying “master plan”, and if I did I do recall switchign that claim to a “Plan B” or “C” or even a “Backup Plan.” But I do think that at some point Homer had the thought, “Oh shit, what if Bob rocks the house?” And because of that we are in a better situation. If not then we got lucky, but too many things seemed to fit in for it to be totally lucky.
Man Crushin on Bob since 2010
by orangeandblack20 on Nov 30, 2010 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
I’m just waiting for someone to say trade Carcillo, which is a no-no. Waive Walker, it’s not even like he played regular season, or well in pre-season.
How soon can the Flyers drop Shelly? Hypothetically, of course.
DCCGDP 13,28,36
Carcillo for a 3rd rounder (never would happen), would you do it Cillo stache?
rest of Flyer world…
Carcillo for a 5th rounder, would you do it?
Man Crushin on Bob since 2010
by orangeandblack20 on Nov 30, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
Hells to the no. Not happening. Carcillo for my sister, maybe (I’m kidding. I’l have both). I understand Carcillo talent-wise is not above 4th or 5th rounder, maybe lower. I bolded it cause that might be the only time I will ever say it. Trading is out of the question.
DCCGDP 13,28,36
by Cillo stache on Nov 30, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
I would FAR rather see Shelley traded. I mean, he gets paid to be the ‘heavyweight’ fighter on the team, but at my last count he had LOST 9 of 10 bouts this season. Not least of which was his face getting turned into hamburger by Kassian the other night against Minnesota. I mean, c’mon – you’re paid to fight, at least win, dammit! Carcillo is paid to agitate (which may or may not include either fighting or scoring) and he fills that contract very nicely.
Season to date – Carcillo: 15 games played, 1 goal and 1 assist, five fighting majors and two minor penalties. Shelley: 25 games played, 1 goal and 1 assist, five fighting majors and eight minors.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Dec 1, 2010 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Homer could, I believe, send Bobs down to the AHL for 2 weeks, to allow him to get some rest. After all, he has looked only so-so the last few games. Let him go to the AHL for 2 weeks or 3, get some rest, and let us Showcase Lieghton for a few games. Bobs can go up or down from the AHL to the NHL all season, so no real harm there, except to his ego maybe.
We can NOT trade Boosh, he has been awesome when called upon, and we don’t need two starters, we need a starter and a backup (Boosh).
This just buys the Flyers a few weeks, and gives Homer two more weeks to figure something out. I didn’t mean it as a long term solution. But it gives Homer an option to let Leights put some work on that disc before doing something permanent.
by NickFotiu4HOF on Nov 30, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
I say maybe. Or alternate it. Bobs every other game or so, when its needed. Leigthon and Boosh in between. Let’s them rest, but lets them play.
DCCGDP 13,28,36
by Cillo stache on Nov 30, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
First off, they would never. Secondly, last five games:
28 of 30 (OTL)
15 of 16 (W)
7 of 11 (ND) Tampa game, shouldn’t even count.
25 of 28 (L)
28 of 29 (W)
solid. 28 of 30, 15 of 16, 28 of 29.
Man Crushin on Bob since 2010
by orangeandblack20 on Nov 30, 2010 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
Sure they would. He hasn’t looked great since Tampa. And they can’t carry three, Bobs would have to go down to the AHL, since he is the only one of the three goalies that can go down to the AHL without going thru waivers. Bobs may need a rest, and we can let Leights press that disc for 5 games or so, see what breaks.
by NickFotiu4HOF on Nov 30, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
So to give him a rest you are going to send him down to get bombarded by shots in Adirondack behind the worst AHL team possibly in history(I kid, but it might be close) instead of just giving him a game or two off behind Chris Pronger and Kimmo Timmonen? That makes no sense.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Nov 30, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
Why can’t they carry three?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
This is a random question Geoff. But could they waive Leighton and then trade him to another team who would not have to bring him through waivers? This makes no sense because it kills Leights value, but I was wondering if something like that is possible.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Nov 30, 2010 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
No, waivers are kind of an independent variable. The basics of waiver eligibility are determined based on how many games you’ve played in your career, and your eligibility for re-entry waivers (that’s the half price claim kind) is determined on June 30th before the season starts and doesn’t get adjusted during the season, as defined in 50.9.(g).
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
Well, first, the Flyers would have to waive him AND send him to the AHL in order for him to require going through re-entry waivers.
So in your hypothetical, the other team would not have to bring him through re-entry if Leighton never went to the AHL. But if Leighton went to the Phantoms after clearing waivers THEN was traded… I don’t know. A cursory reading of the CBA just now didn’t reveal that scenario. I guess because it’s unlikely?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
If he cleared but wasn’t yet loaned to the AHL, he appears to stay on the NHL roster until the Transfer Form in exhibit 26 is filed. That’s inferred from 13.5 and 13.14.
Once sent to the AHL, I believe it becomes part of 50.9.(g).(ii), which reads:
(ii) To the extent the Player does require Waivers to be Loaned to aSo if he doesn’t actually get transferred after the waiver claim period, he shouldn’t come off the NHL cap until he comes off the NHL roster, so we haven’t gotten anywhere by waiving him. And then I think that once he’s actually been loaned to the AHL after clearing waivers, he always has to come back up through re-entry waivers no matter the situation. Not that any of this is clear cut, mind you.
minor league affiliate, he cannot be Loaned or recalled without
first clearing regular Waivers, and then cannot be Recalled to the
NHL parent Club during the same League Year without also
clearing a new Re-Entry Waiver procedure, pursuant to which the
Player can be claimed by another NHL Club for fifty (50) percent
of the contract’s remaining amounts to be paid
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, it’s the whole “waived, loaned to AHL, traded” scenario. If he’s traded while waived to the Phantoms, does he have to clear re-entry waivers to play for the NHL team he’s traded to? That doesn’t seem fair.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
Really I was thinking about Randy Jones last year. We all heard rumors about how Holmgren tried to bring him up despite trade offers from teams. I was just wondering if those teams offering trades kinda meant that he probably could be traded to their NHL roster. Personally I think if they trade for a guy he should be allowed to be placed on any eligible roster they choose before the standard rules apply.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Nov 30, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
I’m with you on that one.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that would be the right thing to do, but I’m searching around for precedent to see if I can figure out how it is done. There’s shocking little about trades written into the CBA, let alone strange cases like this.
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
That’s ridiculous, not what you said EVC but this roster horseshit…what they don’t want teams to stash away talent they trade for or play the talent they traded for and toss the shaft they had to take on to get what they wanted?
I don’t follow…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
he said
I think if they trade for a guy he should be allowed to be placed on any eligible roster they choose
I was thinking that by eligible roster that he meant any roster affliated with your team and so theoretically could you use those affliated teams as a cap buffer to stash away the crap players another team might make you take along with the player you really wanted in any trade. It seems a common enough strategy in the NHL of getting rid of dead weight to clear cap space. Perhaps a means to offset some of the inequities the cap cause more successful teams. But I interpreted his statement to mean that the NHL won’t allow you to use your minor league squads as this cap buffer more or less. Make sense now? Prolly not. Keep in mind I have a rudimentary understanding of how this works. What sucks is I did honors calculus thru an extended learning program, (I taught myself and just took the tests at the school) so I not dumb but I really struggle to get this cap shit. I’ve never read anything so convoluted in my life. So if I’ve misread or misintrepreted the stuff being talked about pardon me but it’s really done out of earnest attempt to understand.
Don’t feel bad about not getting it. I’ve poured hours and hours of research into attempting to understand the CBA and making notes and flowcharts and crazy spreadsheets, and I’m can’t always understand it perfectly either because so many things are left vague. There’s all these crazy connections between articles, where you can’t try to understand one section without understanding all the other sections, because there’s nothing identifying the rules that are intertwined. One good example of that is re-entry waivers; they talk about eligibility for all different kinds of waivers in Article 13, the actual waiver section, but then the only mention of re-entry waivers allowing a player to be claimed for half price is in Article 50. Nothing indicates in Article 13 that you need to go read Article 50, you just have to read the whole darn CBA to find that out. Bottom line, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with being smart enough, or good enough at math; the only way to attempt to understand it is to just put in extreme amounts of time that most people probably can’t dedicate to something as silly as understanding the CBA.
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 11:01 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not even a lawyer, I’m an engineer! I’m just a very stubborn, very determined engineer who had a fair amount of spare time when I was sick last season and an interest in breaking this down and figuring it out.
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 11:07 PM EST up reply actions
Hah. Right I remember your an engineer so you prolly can relate to this being math minded. The cap stuff is alot like advanced metrics esp. with baseball in so far as your kinda snowblind, that is no frame of reference from which to start and all you can see is a bunch of terminology and abbreviations flying all over the place but no “Start Here” spot on the game board. Evenmore maddening is the underlining approach is plain as day but yet you feel just as lost . With the stats stuff, it like yeah I know what your basic linear regression is and how it works, and that no one is here is breaking any new ground in the science of statistics but I still don’t get what your saying because you don’t show your frigging formulas and how you arrived at them. It drives me up the wall. Thanks guys for showing me to the temple and slamming the door in my face…I ‘ll take it on faith that you know what your doing and no, I won’t buy you god damn book because a] I understand the fucking math behind what your doing aint like quantum cryptography and b] you just cost me a few hours of my time which is worth the price of your effing book.
To help with understanding this issue, (forgive me if I explain things you already understand): We know that if the Flyers demote a guy who is eligible for waivers & re-entry waivers, either Leighton or Walker in this case, that if we call him back up to the NHL we have to send him through re-entry waivers and risk him getting claimed for half price by another team. If that happens, we pay half the cap hit and half the actual salary for the remainder of the contract, and it reduces our available cap space each year. What we haven’t determined for certain is if we send one of them to the AHL and then another team trades for him in a minor-league deal, should the team that traded for him have to take the same risk and call the player up through the re-entry waiver process? Ed Van Chimp was making the argument that since the other team already gave up something to get him, they should get the choice whether to initially assign that player to their NHL roster or to their AHL team without a penalty, i.e., they should not have to automatically assume the risk of putting that player on re-entry waivers themselves and then having that player possibly get claimed by a third team. In that scenario, the team that gave something to us in a trade to get him would be stuck with the multi-year cap penalty while team #3 laughed all the way to the bank. We all seem to agree that wouldn’t be fair, but the wording in the CBA leaves the details of what would happen in that situation vague and Geoff and I aren’t sure what the exact ruling would be. I’m still looking for something that would set a precedent if anything like that has happened in the past. I hope that helps.
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 11:32 PM EST up reply actions
Your assistant reporting for duty
I believe that in this case we are misreading what the trading conditions would be. In this case, the Flyers would NOT be trading to an “AHL” roster but to the NHL roster. What I recall is some defenseman for the Sharks who was being traded from their minor league club to an NHL club.
The CBA makes lots of sense in its individual paragraphs, and is nonsense when it is taken together as a whole.
Thinking about asking my employer for an 11-year contract.
Trade Leighton.
Thanks DG
The fog has lifted. It’s making more sense
With the cap restrictions already in place, I think that 1/2 price discount should not be given to the interested team regardless of his re-entry waiver status or what ever the scenario is for that matter. It’s just too much. Tennessee Ernie Ford agrees. He says it’s alot like when
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ‘cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store.
Sixteen Tons
That was the first record I ever heard that wasn’t Bob Sings! or some other Sesame Street album. I remember being little and going through my parents’ record collection hoping to find something interesting. I was probably only like 5 at the time. I picked it because it was a little record (a 7") which were the ones I knew how to play. Plus, it said it needed to be played at 78 RPM, and I thought it was going to sound like Mickey Mouse.
Plus, the label was orange. You know how I feel about all things orange and black.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
How about, instead of waiving Walker, find a team that wants him, and we can get a draft pick (6th round maybe) in return?
Nobody wants him, his contract is horrible and he really isn’t a good player either.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Nov 30, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
It's simple.
Deal Walker for a low pick to a team that needs a physical rugged defensemen, such as Montreal, Dallas and Edmonton. I’m sure that the Flyers could get a 4th rounder for Walker and avoid having to keep him down on the Phantoms. As far as Leighton goes, I’d actively shop him too. Teams like Anheim, Calgary and Colorado need a really good back-up, and we could pick-up anothe mid-to-late round pick. We have many goalies in our system as well as defensemen, so I just say do your best to move them.
I think Anaheim has a good backup in Curtis McElhinney. He’s actually got better numbers than Hiller so far.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
It’s amazing what happens when you don’t open the door for Miikka Kiprusoff every night.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Who else does that include?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 7:39 PM EST up reply actions
That’s right! I forgot :(
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Nov 30, 2010 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
Edmonton
With Khabibulin down right now, I would think Edmonton could use a goalie with NHL experience.
by flyersphan17 on Dec 1, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
A couple Oilers fans I know tell me Khabibulin’s is “injured,” as in it was a polite way to pull him. I don’t know if there is validity to this argument or not as I don’t watch many AHL games on tv.
They also wanted him to get jailtime for his DUI, so maybe it’s personal.
Also, they’re huge Toskala fans. They’re out there!!!
Perhaps Leighton can go to Detroit, if they have another Leino-like character hanging around their farm team. Hey, a guy can hope!!!
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Dec 3, 2010 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
3 goalies? Is that standard or is it just somekinda broken goalie syndrome particular to the Flyers that has people paranoid. Does Walker have match up potenial that might make him valuable against certain teams? I guess the 3 goalie thing has to do with is the uncertainity with BOB, a handful of games is simply to small a sample to really be certain, otherwise 3 goalies seems like wasted money unless you really use 3 goalies.
On a side note...
Only the second period in the Blackhawks-Blues game and Chicago is up 5-1.
Having to hear Chicago’s goal song that many times is brutal.
Gagne just scored the OT winner for the Bolts in his first game back from injury. His signature move!
Does that settle the “Who got more about the trade” question, at least for today’s portion of the argument?
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 30, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
That trade was like the Cliff Lee deal. Okay, I understand why RAJ did it but he took the first 3 magic beans he saw Duh. For me Gags injury history and his age were reason enough trade him but still even with that in mind a 4th round pick and Krajicek with 40 more pounds on him were all Homer could get. Zoiks. Although with the cap restraint things prolly limited Homer’s options.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
