Michael Leighton: What To Do?
by Travis Hughes on Feb 16, 2010 11:30 AM EST
in Philadelphia Flyers Commentary
Email
PrintAh, the curious case of Michael Leighton. It no doubt falls into the 'good problem to have' category, but to say seeing him in goal makes us uncomfortable would be an understatement to say the least. Giving him the job for the rest of the season and the playoffs? Just that thought scares the crap out of us.
But why is that? Why can't we trust Michael Leighton? Is it because he's a career backup who in six NHL seasons has never won more than six games in a single year? Is it because as Flyers fans, we're simply preconditioned not to trust goaltenders?
We're all nervous that Leighton is going to revert back to form, and these are certainly valid concerns. It's a strong possibility that it does happen at some point, in fact. But for this season, with Ray Emery hurt, Brian Boucher seemingly banished, and an inability to afford another goalie, Leighton needs to be the answer. This doesn't mean the Flyers should go out and sign the guy long term just yet, but in this situation this season, Michael Leighton has done nothing but earn the starting job on this team.
It's hard to argue with the statistics, and they say flat out that Leighton has been nothing but awesome as a Flyer.
Hell, he's arguably been the most valuable player on the team this season. The team seems to play better in front of him. Maybe that's a criticism of Leighton, actually, because the team themselves aren't as confident playing in front of him. But that doesn't matter. It works, and the stats clearly prove that.
There are uncertainties however in saying, 'here are the keys, Mike. The job is yours.' We don't know what his motivation for playing so well is right now. Playing behind Cam Ward in Carolina, he knew he was never going to be the guy there. Maybe he sees a situation here where, if he plays well enough, he could easily take over the job since there's really nobody in his way. That's a lot of motivation to play your heart out.
If you give him the job now with no conditions though, he could get too comfortable and he could lose the edge he has right now; he could lose that motivation. It's a fine line the organization has to walk here in dealing with Leighton. He knows Emery is going to come back eventually and that he might lose the starting gig again when it happens, and right now, that seems enough to keep him going.
So here's what Peter Laviolette and the Flyers can do.
One: ignore the trade market for goaltending at the deadline. When Emery comes back after this current injury, give him a game or two but then throw Leighton back in right away. Make Emery your back up, but keep Leighton on the edge, with the feeling that if he makes a mistake, Emery is right there to take the job back. He's been under that pressure his entire Flyers career and there's really no reason to stop it now. It works.
Two: announce that he's your starter as soon as the Olympic break concludes. Say that you're going to hand those keys over, giving Leighton the spot he's earned. That will likely piss off Emery quite a bit, but honestly, what has he done since early November to earn that spot? Say that. Bank on the vote of confidence in Leighton giving him even more mojo when he hits the ice. It could make the guy play even better, who knows.
In either situation, you have a guy who's earned a starting job get that starting job, but you still have a safety net in case he does revert to the mean with Emery and Boucher.
127 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is, of course, assuming that Emery does come back. There are some that are saying this injury could be season- or even career-ending (worst case scenario). What should the Flyers do in that event?
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
Start dancing a gig that you got (signed, essentially) a starting goalie mid-season for just $300k.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 16, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
There are two possible explanations for Leighton to outperform his career norms at the age of 28:
1) Aberration.
2) Steriods.
I’m not sure how you can say that when he’s never had a chance to start on a decent team. He’s been either on terrible teams or behind a Conn Smythe trophy winner.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Feb 16, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
He’s played enough hockey to get a sample size.
Playing “enough” hockey and playing behind decent teams are not the same thing. Look at Boosh’s record through December and you’d think the guy was a bust but he had virtually no support. I’m guessing Leighton had similar luck. Looking at those stats though, at the NHL level, when he’s played on a decent team his GAA is pretty good. If you notice, his GAA at the NHL level is only bad when he’s played on basement dwellers (Hawks 2004 their GF was third worst in the entire league, aka no support, Flyers in 06-07 and we all know how bad that year was, and Carolina this year is self explanatory). His only bad GAA on an otherwise good team was 06-07 Preds and how can he really be properly judged as a goalie for letting in 2 goals in 1 period of play? Even Brodeur does that. You can’t make any reasonable decisions in this league based on those stats. I think when given the opportunity to play regularly in this league he’s more than proven himself and should be given the starting position. A hot streak is just that- a streak, and even then you’d see hints of what comes next. So far Leighton has been superb. He’s earned it over Boosh and Emery is pretty much done this year. We should ride him our for the rest of the season and see what happens, but JFC Lavi needs to rest him or he’ll burn out or get injured, and then all this chat is for nothing. Cheers =)
Sort of like Miikka Kiprusoff, who started his NHL career by going 14-21-3 with a 0.897 SV% with San Jose? Or Tim Thomas, who was 33 before he had more wins than losses in a full season? Or Ryan Miller, who in his first two seasons went 6-11-1 with a 0.886 SV%? Unless you’re talking a Marty Brodeur, no goalie enters the league and is amazing. Most take at least three years of steady playing time to become decent. This is only Leighton’s second time playing more than 10 games in the NHL.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
The way I see it:
His career Save percentage in the AHL is .917. His current save percentage with the Flyers is .925, or 8 tenths of a percent higher.
He played 34 games for an absolutely atrocious Blackhawks team in 2003-04 and still put up average numbers.
If we’re all stat-happy around these parts, I think we start him in the playoffs based on his AHL numbers alone. 19 GP, 9 W, 8 L, 27 GA, 1.35 GAA, .956 SV%, 5 SO.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
His career Save percentage in the AHL is .917. His current save percentage with the Flyers is .925, or 8 tenths of a percent higher.
First off, that’s 8 hundredths of a percent. 8 tenths would be 1.517%
Second, look at those numbers again. Thats 19 games in four different playoffs. He apparently never won a playoff series.
.917 = 91.7%. .925 = 92.5%. So it is tenths of a percent. If we stuck to decimals I’d say “8 thousandths higher.”
Maybe he never won a playoff series in the AHL, but if he steps up his game that much with a decent team in front of him, I like his chances anyway.
If he were an established goalie with those kind of playoff numbers, wouldn’t you want him on your team even if he never won a playoff series? I doubt you’d say, “Gee, this guy stops roughly 20 out of every 21 shots faced. Get him the hell outta here.”
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
how do you feel about Tim Thomas? He was playing in Europe and was pretty much a backup until he was like 31 right?
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 16, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
I’ve been saying for about a year that Thomas was the #1 suspect amongst all NHL players for using steroids. And when Boston gave him that long term contract I nearly laughed myself to death.
Haven’t I posted that here before?
I’ve never seen it, but I wasn’t here that much before the season.
by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 16, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
probably, i haven’t read it though. I always thought there was something a little suspect about Thomas, but didn’t think that using steriods would/could be the answer.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 16, 2010 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
Steroids? How do steroids help a goalie stop pucks?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 16, 2010 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
Really? Steroids? What advantage does that give a goalie? Reflexes are a huge part of a goalie’s game, but are steroids really going to make a difference there? I’ve never taken them, so I really don’t know their actual effect. But it seems to me a good goalie is based in the fundamentals (positioning, angles) and things that steroids won’t effect. It’s not as if they need the extra strength to perform well.
Everytime I watch Leighton, it seems like he is square to the shooter and in perfect position. A lot of the goals he has given up are in close deflections, or where the puck has been turned over right in front of him (by himself sometimes)
I really like the guy, I like his size, and I really want to see him play out the season.
I’m not going to try to explain all of this.
You’re spouting the ridiculous Barry Bonds defense that steroids don’t help hand-eye coordination.
I’d still like to hear (or get linked) to your hypothesis.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 16, 2010 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Bike riders don’t really use steroids. There’s a difference between that and blood doping.
by JasonB on Feb 16, 2010 1:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Steroids don’t help hand-eye coordination. The reason the Barry Bonds defense is ridiculous is because steroids also made his warning track pop flys into homeruns and his sore muscles heal faster, among other things.
Your two examples of “recovery time” and bike riders also have nothing to do with goaltenders. If Leighton was injured, fine. But he wasn’t, so ‘recovery time’ has nothing to do with him at all. Like Jason just said, steroids and doping are different.
You throw out a baseless accusation that Leighton could be on steroids with no defense whatsoever. Completely irresponsible.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 16, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
I have read that steroids help improve eyesight, but not necessarily hand-eye coordination. They will, however, correct some vision impairment. I don’t see how anyone could be doing steroids in professional sports today and not get caught. HGH, maybe, but their effects are different.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
Elective surgery improves eyesight.
Its not illegal to use lasik to make your vision better than 20/20.
by Prometheus74 on Feb 16, 2010 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
I wasn’t arguing illegal/legal—just stating facts of what I know steroids can do. Personally, I don’t really have a problem with steroids. I don’t think they make players appreciably better at their craft, but they do give an unfair advantage unless everyone is using them in terms of healing ability—and they do provide more power. So in Bonds’ case, I don’t have any issues, because even without the drugs, he’d have been a hell of a player; but with Maguire, where his only game was power, I feel his career was somewhat fraudulent. You can’t cherry pick, though, because those were the times.
Some have actually argued that they believe Lasik should be illegal. I completely disagree.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
First off, your own post contradicts itself and makes my point:
his sore muscles heal faster
"recovery time"… [has] nothing to do with goaltenders
Second, I’m sorry for choosing my words generally. Change “steroids” to “PEDs” in the original post.
You are all wrong
The reason Leighton is doing better is clearly because of bionic implants. I’ve heard from a completely reliable source that he’s pretty much a cyborg at this point.
I didn’t contradict myself, you just cut the sentence off:
“recovery time” … [has] nothing to do with goaltenders. If Leighton was injured, fine. But he wasn’t, so ‘recovery time’ has nothing to do with him at all.
Clearly, I shouldn’t have said “nothing to do with goaltenders” but rather “nothing to do with leighton.” Oversight on my part.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 16, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yes it does. Recovery time can be for injuries or it can be for simple fatigue, whether that is as a result of a work out or live game action.
You make an accusation that it could be steroids, but you won’t back it up. I can’t possibly see how steroids could improve hand-eye coordination. The type of athlete Barry Bonds is is COMPLETELY different to what kind of athlete a goalie is. If someone has the skill already to put the bat on the ball, making yourself stronger will make the ball go further, simple as that. If Barry Bonds had been a .200 hitter, he wouldn’t have hit that many home runs. He always had the ability to make good contact, the steroids just made them go further.
As for cycling, it’s the same thing. Someone with remarkably developed leg muscles is going to be able to pedal faster and longer than someone without. How does that in any way related to a goalie? Goalies are sedintary for a large part of the game, with very short bursts of work.
I would think that usings PEDs as a goalie could really only help you training in the off season. If you used it to develop your fast-twitch muscles around the abdomen and legs you could probably improve your performance.
Not sure how this would affect flexibility though, seems like it would have an adverse effect?
Leighton just played 6 games in 11 days. You can’t fathom how it would be an advantage to be able to recover faster?
whatever, I see your point and I’m fascinated by your hypothesis, but I can’t fanthom how this would give Leighton a clear edge. Sure he recovers faster etc., but it doesn’t explain how he is significantly posting better numbers than he was before.
I suppose you’re going to say that he’s able to better perform at his optimal level every game as opposed to needing more days between games to rest, but I can’t really see this being a legit reason for a guy to post ridiculous numbers in one season, when historically, the guy has been worse than most AHL goalies.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 16, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
So when did he start taking the steriods Mario?
1- After he was claimed
2- On the plane to Philly
3- When Emery got hurt
Just wondering your thought on when this unbelievable cycle started. Man that is more fast-acting then Ben-Gay.
Please bring something more to the table than gossip column crap.
HUH?
Do you just get all angry and type whatever comes to your feeble mind?
If you would like to gossip about the NHL and bring no real worth the Yahoo boards are wide open.
Wow, riveting stuff brother
Punching out to drive nails into my head which is a better use of my time than replying back to you.
Mario, how exactly do you contend that steroids/PEDs have assisted Leighton in his positioning and ability to orient himself to the play? Yes, they can help with recovery time and energy, I’ll give you that much. But I think it’s his positioning that has improved enough to make him a better goalie, and I can’t for the life of me understand how any drug would help him with that.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 17, 2010 9:58 AM EST up reply actions
Are you kidding? His positioning and other technical aspects are awful. That’s why he’s constantly making “miraculous” saves, because he’s not very good.
This was a lot more true in December than it is now. He was making “miraculous” saves then because his positioning was not close to where it needed to be. He has gotten a LOT better at that stuff; now his “statement” saves are the big arcing glove stops. They are no longer the Hasek-esque desperation flails.
Can’t we just say he’s having a career year and be done with it? Can’t we simply acknowledge the fact that professionals can get better at certain aspects of their craft through practice? Remember, we’re talking about a 28-year-old goaltender who is coming into his prime. We are not talking about a guy who averages 35 HR a year suddenly breaking 70 while in his late 30s.
There are a number of perfectly legal supplements which aid in muscle recovery, such as leucine and reservatrol. I’m 33 years old and I’m in the best shape of my life right now, in part thanks to leucine. Couldn’t Leighton be taking one of these instead… if he’s even taking ANY supplement to begin with?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
That’s also simply untrue. Just search “Leighton” in FlyersTV, watch the first 13 highlights and notice that on every single one of them, Leighton is in perfect position to make the save. Calm, under control, square to the shooter. His positioning and technique are standard butterfly goalie, and it’s the reason he’s making the stops.
These “miraculous” saves you speak of are nowhere to be found in the NHL’s highlights of the past 5 games Leighton has played. Yes, I could go back and look further, but it’s pointless.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Because it shows his most recent play – which is what you’re still not happy with – and proves his “positioning and other technical aspects” are not “awful”, as well as proving that he is not “constantly making ‘miraculous’ saves” as you claimed.
Five games is enough to prove that you’re, at best, speaking in hyperbole, and at worst, just flat out wrong.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
Your article discusses long term future.
I’m ignoring recent play (those last five games also include the awful trickler against Montreal) and looking at his body of work. Nothing in his 15 or whatever games as a Flyers has convinced me the rest of his career is a misnomer.
Your article discusses long term future.
Not my article.
I’m ignoring recent play
That makes sense, make the sample size even smaller and therefore more… accurate?
(those last five games also include the awful trickler against Montreal)
That would have been against New Jersey, not Montreal. And yet you can’t say he wasn’t in “position” to make the save – he just didn’t.
looking at his body of work.
12-3-1, 2.19 gaa, .925 save percentage, shows a pretty sound goalie. You must have meant his “career”…
Nothing in his 15 or whatever games as a Flyers…
No? Ok. Maybe not.
has convinced me the rest of his career is a misnomer.
And that’s completely fair. But that’s not the same as “his positioning and other technical aspects are awful. That’s why he’s constantly making "miraculous" saves, because he’s not very good.”
Had you said “nothing in Leighton’s 18 games as a Flyer has convinced me that the rest of his career is the outlier, rather than this small sample” you would not have had Mike and myself say anything. Hell, I’d have agreed with you. As would a lot of people. But you didn’t.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Not my article.
Regardless, it set the conversation which was about the long term future.
That makes sense, make the sample size even smaller and therefore more… accurate?
Taking 5 games out of like 300 professional games does not measurably diminish sample size.
You must have meant his "career"…
Yes, in fact, his “career” IS the body of his work.
Had you said "nothing in Leighton’s 18 games as a Flyer has convinced me that the rest of his career is the outlier, rather than this small sample" you would not have had Mike and myself say anything. Hell, I’d have agreed with you. As would a lot of people. But you didn’t.
Yes, IF ONLY I had said something like that when this conversation started!
There are two possible explanations for Leighton to outperform his career norms at the age of 28:
1) Aberration.
He’s played enough hockey to get a sample size.
No, THIS conversation started when you said his “positioning and other technical aspects are awful.”
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
This doesn’t mean the Flyers should go out and sign the guy long term just yet, but in this situation this season, Michael Leighton has done nothing but earn the starting job on this team.
That’s what I wrote. Nothing about long term. It’s about now til April or May or June. That’s all.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Feb 17, 2010 9:55 PM EST up reply actions
(those last five games also include the awful trickler against Montreal)
Paul Holmgren: So you stopped starting Leighton ‘cause he let in a trickler!
Peter Laviolette: Iiiiit was a trickler.
PH: And you’re not a stickler for tricklers.
PL: Noooot a stickler for tricklers.
PH: A trickler stickler.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
That will likely piss off Emery quite a bit, but honestly, what has he done since early November to earn that spot?
Well when he wasn’t hurt early in the season he played great. When he came back from injury in January he played pretty good then as well and looked like he was easily on his way to returning to full form. Injuries are unfortunate for sure, but I blame the Flyers for marching him out there night after night after night in both instances (just look how they’re doing the same thing with Leighton now and completely ignoring Boosh). People, even pro athletes in the best physical shape, still need rest every now and then.
As for Leighton the guy has been an unlikely hero for sure this season. Do I trust him to continue his career streak of greatness… not really. I think he’s definitely proven himself to be a solid backup, that’s inarguable. Would I hand him the keys… that all depends on the seriousness of Emery’s injury honestly. If Emery is out for 1, maybe 2 weeks after the season resumes I’d hand it over to Leighton.
At this point, fuck it. Give him the job, if he falters try Boucher. I think Emery is too unreliable from a health standpoint.
Mario I agree that this is an aberration, but in hockey(especially goalies) these aberrations can go on for an entire year. You see it all the time, once teams get a full offseason to watch him he’ll revert back to sucking. However I think he could keep up some darn good play for the rest of the season. The one thing I do not want is to sign him long term.
by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 16, 2010 11:57 AM EST reply actions
I agree 100%. Its the best, as very slim as it may be, chance the Flyers have. And, sadly, its the smartest thing they can do at this point (for the long term).
Sort of like Boucher’s first stint with the Flyers. I remember watching those playoffs thinking that even if we lose, we finally have a #1 goalie for years to come. Then Boosh signed the big money contract and the rest is history. Let Leighton takes us as far as he can this year, then if we still have a hole in goal in the offseason, sign him to a 1-2 contract.
Deller
I still think the team completely mishandled Boucher then. He even admits he put too much pressure on himself when he signed that contract. Then the team never gave him a chance to get his job back, even when he he earned it back in 02-03(?). He got hurt, and the team was done with him.
I still think he could have been a solid 1-A his entire career had the team not effed with his psyche.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 16, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
Ride this horse all the way. He’s been stellar, and hasn’t lost a game in which the Flyers have scored two or more goals.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Feb 16, 2010 12:24 PM EST reply actions
Leighton has easily earned the job for the rest of the year and has cemented the backup role for the future. Trade Boucher at the deadline, fill in as necessary for the rest of the season with Emery (when healthy) and Backlund. Let Emery walk and get a real plan for a number 1 for next year. I am still thinking if you could get Halak and Planchek from Montreal for at worst Carter it would be worth taking a look at Halak for the rest of the year. If either don’t work out, Sianora, lets see what we can do with the cap space.
i agree here… I like Leighton, he fits his philly roll as an underdog and perhaps a sleeper in the playoffs like umberger was… dump boucher and trade for rolo or some other reasonable facsimile…
we have no chance getting halak
by fitzy first on Feb 16, 2010 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
I know you’re joing, but Emery’s contract also ends in June.
Only Boucher is under contract next season.
we could clean house and make a play for vokoun
by fitzy first on Feb 16, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
As long as all the goalies know that none of them are in a position to have any notion of entitlement we are sitting pretty. None of them have deserved the job playoff time, and none have done anything to lose the chance either.
Only Emery has played poorly, when he has been hurt.
Boucher played well, too bad the rest of the team never showed up.
Emery played poorly when he was hurt, but who dosent?
Leighton is a rented mule or a Cinderella man, either way its good we have the rest of the year to figure it out
The only thing I think is necessary to do now is to forget about getting another goalie this year
I pray we decide to do nothing till After the season.
Fans and media will have a field day if this is done but it is the best option in my opinion
by Prometheus74 on Feb 16, 2010 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
MarioD would you extend him right now Leighton and at what number say a 3 year deal at 5 million total value
say Leighton carries us to the conference finals 1.33 million will be a bargain if not I think he might demand twice that amount anyone have a list of UFA goalies for next year beside all the guys on our squad
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 16, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
options are trade Carter and lose a 30-40 goal scorer for the next decade to get a goalie for the playoffs who might not be any better than Leighton right now and we will get bounced anyway because we can’t score or ride Leighton and hope for the best, I would sign him to an extension right now because if he does catch fire and and win a playoff round that might cost us and addition 1-2 million come summer time
Leighton is playing great ride let Lavvy rides the hot goalie like he did with Cam Ward to a stanley cup he had a save percentage of 0.88 and 3.68 GAA that cup year in the regular season and won the Conn Smyth and with retarded 2.14 GAA 0.920 sv percentage in the playoffs
Leighton’s only weakness seems to be his inability to stop pucks that go off our defensemen skates take away those goals which his stats are probably top in the league of the last two months
What about trading Hartnell? Carter is not going anywhere, and he shouldn’t. Hartnell on the other hand? So long, it’s been good knowing ya.
Oui! Trust me I am not “wanting” to trade anyone but we live in a hockey world where you can’t have everybody and the line up is skewed. You have to prioritize every situation. Having four guys that can play the same two positions is not balancing the line up very well. And not having the most important player on the ice covered under the cap is not smart.
also, Hartnell has a NTC in his contract.
by SkookFlyerfan on Feb 16, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
everyone has a price. Carter is the best center we have. As much as I love Girioux and think Richie is a better player, Carter is the best center we have. I am perfectly ok of having my 4 centers be Richie, Carter, Girioux and Betts…the guys I didn’t name, those are the extra expendable centers. Or, they can play wing.
I’d have to agree to trade Hartnell over Carter. There is a huge value diference in the two where you’re getting a good pick and value in players for Carter and for Hartnell probably some talent but no pick. I think Briere may be better to trade as he would free up the most cap space but also has a NTC.
by SkookFlyerfan on Feb 16, 2010 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
imagine how many wins Leighton could have gotten if his offense helped him out in a game or 2. 15-3?
This is a great problem to have and let’s ride the hot goalie as long as he can take us. and if Ray walks, he walks, but he won’t be getting much on the open market with his rash of injuries this year, so the flyers could match anyway.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
Let me break it down for y’all:
Leighton is the hot hand this year, so GO with him this year.
From what I’ve read, it seems like he’s really benefited from his time with Jeff Reese. His technique looks a hell of a lot better than it did when he first started playing for us, I’ll give him that.
Does this mean he’s going to be an awesome goalie from here on out? Probably not. However, I think that even after he regresses, he won’t fall as far back as he was before.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I’d even say sign him for next year, either as a back-up or insurance for the new starter we should sign (Yes, I live in a magical dream world of fantasies).
Let Emery walk, as much as I like the guy his injuries are too much of a risk and I just don’t think he’s got what the Flyers need to win the Cup.
"NZFlyerfan"
Next year depends on what you do with Boucher. I feel so bad for that guy it’s not even funny. That’s not to say I’m not enjoying Leighton’s run; I am. But if you want to go with Leighton as a back-up for next year, that means you look for another starter, and you give Boucher a chance to play elsewhere.
Here’s a magical fantasy land scenario for you: Leighton carries us to the Cup. Then we’re REALLY in a conundrum as to what we should do next year.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I don’t know how my magical fantasy dream world could get any more magical-er or fantasty-er. But that would probably do it. Leighton obviously likes it here, so he should sign for cheap. If he doesn’t and signs elsewhere based on his impressive numbers this year I wouldn’t know whether to respect the guy for getting the most out of his situation, or the opposite. I wouldn’t mind if they had some sort of platoon system with Leighton and yet unsigned goalie of the future.
I too feel sorry for Boosh. He was doing what he had to when the Flyers were playing worse than awful. Why isn’t he getting a shot right now? Leighton can’t start every game until Emery gets back, can he?
"NZFlyerfan"
I don’t think Emery is coming back man, and I don’t want him to come back.
by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 16, 2010 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
From the Outside looking in
This should be a simple one for the Flyers. This happens every few years, you guys throw in a backup goalie and suddenly he gets hot as hell and leads you guys to the Confrence Finals or Cup Finals.
Garth Snow did it
Brian Boucher did it
You guys seem due for it to happen again. Just sign a real starter in the offseason cause Leighton’s going to be another one hit wonder.
"Martin is psychical" - In reference to Matt Martin being called up to the Islanders.
+1
I believe Robert Esche was a replacement when we went to the Conf finals as well. I may be wrong though?
by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 17, 2010 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
I’m ashamed on the behalf of sports fans in general that when a player starts to play uncharacteristically well he is accused of cheating, taking PEDs. All it takes is Puck Daddy or some other blog to look at this discussion, and read Leighton and PEDs, and this discussion will have gotten out of hand. It is ludicrous to accuse Leighton of taking steroids, and I hope that this doesn’t spread to other sites.
If you give me hard irrefutable evidence that says Leighton is taking PEDs (read beyond a reasonable doubt, which I know you’re more than familiar with), I’ll believe you. But until you have that evidence, please don’t throw accusations around. It’s been half a damn season and because the guy has been uncharacteristically successful you wont smear his name with this PED nonsense.
TAKE THE FALL, ACT HURT, GET INDIGNANT
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Feb 17, 2010 10:25 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Logic and Reason
Is no way to argue with MarioD.
Conjecture, gossip and unfounded accusations are the mainstay.
HA! More unintentional irony.
It’s fantastic.
Wait, shit. Logic and reason…
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
If you have any sort of documentation, PED list, or any newspaper write up, I’d be more than happy to look at it. However, there doesn’t seem to be any. Your allegation is about as valid as saying that Leighton is channeling the prowess of Jimmy Craig. You should no better than to just look at a small sample size and declare that so and so must be using steroids. This is unusually reckless of you, and I’d ask that you stop before you lose the credibility that you have. More often than not, you are right. This time however, I believe you’re dead wrong
TAKE THE FALL, ACT HURT, GET INDIGNANT
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Feb 17, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
What on earth is reckless of me?
I said there are two possibilities. Are you arguing it’s not possible for a professional athlete to be on PEDs?
I’m arguing that in this day and age where it seems all that’s needed is rumors to to destroy someone’s reputation, it’s reckless for you to even suggest PEDs were a cause. I wouldn’t bring up the ideas of PEDs until there was some other evidence: ie a list with names, connection to a PED distributor. I’d need more than “oh his stats are substantially better, therefore he must be on PEDs.” It’s reckless of you for that fact alone, that you’re willing to label Leighton as a PED user because he’s having a remarkably good season.
TAKE THE FALL, ACT HURT, GET INDIGNANT
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Feb 17, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Really? Do you not see the comparison between this and the Raul Ibanez speculation story?
No, nothing at all is reckless about throwing out “steroids”, and anybody who says it is must be arguing that there is no possibility for athletes to be on PEDS.
Claiming that nothing you said is reckless is completely ignorant.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
The only problem with the Ibanez story was people idiotically not understanding how to read. The story itself proved that there was no reason to think Ibanez was taking steroids.
I think my post is very similar to that blog post. And your collective reactions is about the same as the retarded reactions of the MSM to that blog post.
<a href=“http:// ”http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/06/raul-ibanez-great-start-comes-with-steroid-speculation/#comment-7814" target="_blank">http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/06/raul-ibanez-great-start-comes-with-steroid-speculation/#comment-7814" >Here is that blog post, since you apparently haven’t read it:
Headline:
The Curious Case of Raul Ibanez: Steroid Speculation Perhaps Unfair, but Great Start in 2009 Raising Eyebrows
Here’s his conclusion:
Maybe he was energized by joining the defending World Series champs.
Maybe he is seeing better pitchers by joining a lineup that includes Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and Shane Victorino.
Maybe he is in the midst of a run of good luck in which he’s seeing good pitches to hit at above-average hitters parks and finding himself facing terrible pitchers even at the tougher hitters parks he’s played in.
Maybe Raul Ibanez is simply a "freak", and has been a late bloomer with a career track that refuses to follow the norm, as explained in this Bleacher Report post.
Maybe the 37-year old Ibanez trained differently this offseason with the pressure of joining the Phillies’ great lineup and is in the best shape he’s ever been in.
And maybe that training included…
Well, you know where that one was going, but I’d prefer to leave it as unstated speculation.
HOW IRRESPONSIBLE!
The “retarded reactions of the MSM” resulted from him NOT mentioned steroids, just speculation. And yet here you are flat out saying it, speculating it, and defending it.
Whether you think what he said was irresponsible or not, a large portion of the country thought it was, including ESPN, MLB, the Phillies, and Raul Ibanez himself. And that’s him NOT saying steroids.
You flat out speculated, said it, damn near accused. Arguing that article isn’t reckless doesn’t show you aren’t. That article was deemed reckless, so when you go above and beyond that, you are even more reckless.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
Whether you think what he said was irresponsible or not, a large portion of the country thought it was, including ESPN, MLB, the Phillies, and Raul Ibanez himself. And that’s him NOT saying steroids.
All people who were incapable of actually reading the article and took it out completely out of context in order to manufacture outrage.
Feel free to throw your lot in with those morons. I have no problem being compared to the articulate, thoughtful blogger.
You flat out speculated, said it, damn near accused.
There are two possible explanations for Leighton to outperform his career norms at the age of 28:
1) Aberration.
2) Steriods.
You’re right, I practically put the syringe in his glove compartment.
Arguing that article isn’t reckless doesn’t show you aren’t. That article was deemed reckless, so when you go above and beyond that, you are even more reckless.
Fake Outrage for the win! Other people are idiots: Therefore it’s true!
Wow, Raul Ibanez is a moron. I had no idea.
Fake Outrage for the win! Other people are idiots: Therefore it’s true!
True Arrogance for the win! I don’t think I’m reckless: Therefore I’m not!
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Raul Ibanez had a terribly out of context quote read to him and he responded instantly.
His response was idiotic in context of the actual article.
Something made obvious if you bothered to read the article instead of passing along idiotic journalistic hysteria as fact.
You seriously just don’t get it. Or maybe I don’t. Maybe you’re just too much like Eric Cartman’s portrayal of Glenn Beck.
Why does Wendy want to kill smurfs? I’m just asking questions, you see.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 17, 2010 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
It’s very simple. I said there are one of two possibilities.
EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS SITE jumped to the conclusion that I said he was on steroids.
I never said that. You all thought that and then decried your own perceptions. It’s the EXACT same thing that happened to the blogger who wrote about Ibanez.
And you all are just as embarrassingly moronic as the mainstream media was over the summer.
Mario,
It’s very simple. I said there are one of two possibilities… EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS SITE jumped to the conclusion that I said he was on steroids… I never said that.
It wasn’t right for everyone to jump to one of your two conclusions. I’ll give you that. But there are several things to consider. Namely, there are more than two possible reasons why Leighton is having the year he’s having. You can’t just say “This guy is EITHER a sucky player on a hot streak OR a cheater” and leave it at that.
Is it possible he’s on PED’s? Sure. But you know as well as anyone else how sensitive an issue that is. The fact is that it’s one of very many possibilities, others of which are more plausible and more worthy of discussion.
The Boston Bruins drafted this goalie named Bernie Parent and they weren’t too happy with him. So they let him go in the expansion draft and the Flyers picked him up. He was okay but nothing special. Later the Flyers traded him to Toronto, where he improved since he got to study with his mentor/hero, Jacques Plante. The Flyers traded to get him back right before the 1973-74 season, and the rest is history.
The hockey history books say that Parent came back a better goalie since he learned so much from Jacques Plante. But maybe – JUST maybe – he used the PED’s of his day, whatever they may have been. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely or even worth discussing? No. Why? We have no evidence of Parent’s behavior which could suggest he used PED’s.
Fast-forward to the present. Michael Leighton has bounced around the pros a little bit; in some cases he has done okay, in others not so much. He seems to have mastered the game at the AHL level but cannot translate that to NHL success. After a particularly rough start to the 2009-10 season, he is cut from the worst team in the league. The Flyers pick him up and he gets to study under Jeff Reese, who shows Leighton on day one all of the things he was doing wrong in Carolina and elsewhere. Leighton takes Reese’s advice and coaching to heart and becomes markedly improved.
The newspapers say that Leighton has become a better goalie since he learned so much from Jeff Reese. But maybe – JUST maybe – he’s using PED’s. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely or even worth discussing? No. Why? We have no evidence of Leighton’s behavior which could suggest he uses PED’s. Even with an icreased workload, there are plenty of legal supplements he can take which aid in his recovery time.
Even though you never explicitly said “Michael Leighton is on steroids,” you essentially suggested there is a 50% chance that he is because you DID say this:
There are two possible explanations for Leighton to outperform his career norms at the age of 28:
1) Aberration.
2) Steriods. [sic]
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Feb 18, 2010 1:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You are welcome
Don’t let lil ole me stop you from dragging peoples names thru the mud for no reason other than you get off on people responding to your posts.
Even Alanis thinks your ironic.
Tough to tell which is a better indicator of your intellegince:
1) using “your” when you meant “you’re”
2) thinking Alanis Morissette’s examples of “ironic” were actually “ironic”.
Big hint: Alanis misused the word “ironic”. And, by extension, your criticism of me is actually a fantastic meta-comment about people on this page reading my posts and then responding in ways they think are intelligent but are actually self-disproving.
Wow, a gramatical error/typo on a blog
Call the police, sound the alarm.
Still haven’t shown anyone any evidence of your unfounded rumor?
Keep looking for the killer OJ.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots 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
- Kings vs. Coyotes Game 5; Pierre McGuire on Tortorella/DeBoer argument (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Behold, the incredible playoff beards of Radko Gudas and AHL’s Norfolk Admirals
- Coyotes vs. the road warriors: Can Phoenix end LA Kings’ road domination?
- Coyotes, Kings Game 5 preview; Claude Giroux has fun; PK Subban on the ladies (Puck Headlines)
- Stanley Cup Final schedule released; Game 1 on May 30, Game 7 would be June 13
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Tokarski, Admirals blank IceCaps 4-0; Norfolk wins AHL's Eastern Conference
- Norfolk advances to Calder Cup Finals
- Oilers president Lowe says vacant coaching job not discussed with Sutter
- Eastern Conference champ to host Game 1 of Stanley Cup final on May 30
- Rangers, Devils brush away rhetoric, prepare for crucial Game 5 in East finals
