Flyers Talking Kovalchuk, But Deal Still Seems Far-Fetched
by Travis Hughes on Feb 2, 2010 9:00 AM EST
in Philadelphia Flyers Commentary
Email
PrintFine, Paul. We'll indulge. Apparently the Flyers have had continuing discussions with Atlanta general manager Don Waddell about a potential trade for superstar and soon-to-be-free agent Ilya Kovalchuk.
One NHL executive said that the Flyers have had intermittent talks with Atlanta over Kovalchuk.
Atlanta General manager Don Waddell met with Holmgren at last week’s game and discussed matters. Waddell scouted the Flyers himself on Saturday during the Isles game but did not meet with Holmgren, the source said.
"Find a one winger, one defenseman that adds up to what Kovalchuk makes and the Flyers could do this deal," the source said.
The Flyers think Kovalchuk will want between $9 and $9.5 million on a re-signing and because of that salary, they couldn’t afford Kovalchuk long-term.
Translate that: the Flyers are looking to trade two major pieces for a rental player. A superstar rental player, but still, a rental player. But okay, since Homer seems serious, let's take a walk on the wild side. You know, just for fun.
The Flyers get Ilya Kovalchuk, shoring up the seriously underachieving top guns on the offense. The move frees up a lot of cap space this off-season when Kovalchuk inevitably walks away (or he's traded for picks at the draft in June) because the Flyers can't afford to re-sign him.
As teased in the CSN article, the Flyers will have to trade away about $6.389 million in salary just to afford Kovalchuk for the remainder of the season. Who would have to go? Any combination of Danny Briere, Mike Richards, Scott Hartnell, Jeff Carter and Simon Gagne.
Briere, Gagne and Hartnell have no-trade or no-movement clauses, and Holmgren is on record multiple times saying that Carter unequivocally will not be traded. Richards is staying and we all know that, meaning someone would have to agree to the trade.
If you could get Gagne to waive his no-trade clause, you could probably get the deal done by adding a defenseman. Braydon Coburn, who has emerged as the proverbial scapegoat of the Philadelphia defense this season, has a cap hit of $1.3 million. Couple that with Gagne's cap hit $5.25 million and voila, perfect match. How convenient.
If you'll recall correctly, it was considered an absolute fleecing when highly-touted youngster Coburn was ripped away from Waddell and the Thrashers for none other than Alexei freakin' Zhitnik back in 2007. Waddell would probably itch at the chance to correct that embarrassing mistake, even if it means making another one by overlooking Coburn's recent developmental transgressions.
So would Gagne and Coburn be enough to get the deal done? Probably. The Flyers might have to throw in another mid-level prospect like David Laliberte of Jared Ross, but Coburn's status as a restricted free agent would be a nice bargaining chip and would likely keep the Thrashers from asking for a draft pick, which the Flyers don't have to give up anyway.
Of course, the sheer thought of trading away Gagne -- a guy who has been in Philadelphia his entire career, is a perennial fan favorite in this town and is just a genuine class act -- tugs at the heart strings of Flyers fans. But all emotional investments in Gagne aside, it's hard to argue against that package for Kovalchuk, even if he's just a rental player. The trade wouldn't take much away from the Flyers offense at present and it would add an elite scorer just in time for the stretch run and the postseason.
But again, there's really not much to get excited, depressed, or emotional in any way about. The chances of Gagne waiving his no-trade clause to go to Atlanta are about as likely as NBC offering Conan O'Brien the spot as host of The Tonight Show again. The logistics of this trade may be possible, yes, but the stars would truly have to align for Ilya Kovalchuk to become a Philadelphia Flyer.
153 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would be okay with a Gagne/Coburn/Laliberte for Kovalchuk trade. If Homer could get Waddell to throw in a conditional pick (if Coburn walks, maybe? so we keep his RFA pick), but that would never happen.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
This nonsense fits the very definition of upshalling this team.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
i’m with HO on this one. i like our four lines the way they are. even though hartnell keeps screwing up, he has looked somewhat better on the first line with gags/richards.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
I’m with you guys too. I don’t want this in any way, shape, or form. And like I said, it’s not happening anyway.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Feb 2, 2010 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
Kovalchuk
It’s just conjecture of course, but I wouldn’t do a trade like that, for a ‘rental’ player, especially since Homer didn’t change this team up when things were looking bad. The team has come through a rough time, and as teammates, they are probably better for it. I’d leave ’em alone and see what they can do in a playoff run.
bird dog and coburn for ilya, trade ilya at the draft for a 1st and a 2nd. then have 5mil + to lock up giroux and add some scoring depth at wing
by asmallvictory31 on Feb 2, 2010 10:29 AM EST reply actions
Not possible.
1. No one in his right mind would take Gagne, Coburn, and a low-level prospect for Ilya Kovalchuk.
2. We don’t have any other Russians on the roster. Russian players want to be around other Russian players. We would have to make another deal following this one, just to get another Russian player in the lineup.
3. Gagne will bounce back, and Coburn is settling in now (at long last). Let’s not get rid of these players for a rental like Kovalchuk.
4. As weredun4 said, the team has been through a lot and are starting to come out of all of their issues. Let’s leave the group intact and see what they can do.
I cannot help but think back to last year, when the Flyers won in Boston on the eve of the trade deadline. After all of the injuries, departures through the waiver wire, etc., the Flyers finally had a complete team on the ice and they made the Bruins pay. They played a very solid all-around game. Just like that, Upshall was gone and the chemistry was disrupted yet again.
Holmgren’s done some good things and some lousy things. He’d better not upshall the team again.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I agree with you on every point, but I DO think Atlanta would take Gagne/Coburn/prospect.
They aren’t getting many serious offers, and while they could certainly keep him like Florida did for JayBo last year, it seems like Waddell is getting nervous. I could be wrong but that’s the impression I get from what I’ve been reading.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Feb 2, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
I’m with you on everything except number one, I think Atlanta would take it. We may not always give Gagne credit for what he’s done, but if you look at other boards during the offseason trade discussions, there are fans in other places that have been more than willing to take him off our hands. While I firmly believe Gagne is going to bounce back from this rut soon, if I have to give him up forever, I don’t want to give him up this way. If he were to go in the off-season because we need the space to give Giroux a real contract or something (even though I think he’s got one more year before that happens, that’s not my point), I’ll come to grips with it. Or even if we get somebody back we’re going to keep for a while, or to make space for a goalie signing we’ll need this offseason, it’ll be okay. But to have him and Coburn leave for a rental player, regardless of how good Kovalchuk is, will hurt the fans and possibly the very fragile locker room dynamic; you don’t know how the players will react to that kind of a deal for a rental and could be resentful. Even though this entire scenario is unrealistic, it’s even more unrealistic to believe we’re going to be able to keep Kovalchuk for any length of time with the amount of big contracts we already have. And if we did give him a deal somehow to stay here for a while, then we’ve shot ourselves in the foot cap-wise.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 2, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
bird dog and coburn for ilya
Who is Bird Dog? Hartnell?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
i don’t think this trade will happen
by asmallvictory31 on Feb 2, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
I really don’t like this. Even if we get a good deal to have 9 Mil + locked up in one player with a probable no-trade clause is a bad idea. I don’t mind the team we have now, but i do think a small trade would help.
But again, there’s really not much to get excited, depressed, or emotional in any way about. The chances of Gagne waiving his no-trade clause to go to Atlanta are about as likely as NBC offering Conan O’Brien the spot as host of The Tonight Show again. The logistics of this trade may be possible, yes, but the stars would truly have to align for Ilya Kovalchuk to become a Philadelphia Flyer.
Just for emphasis.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
Why would anyone waive their NTC to go to Atlanta? I read/heard that part of the reason Kovy won’t resign there is because ATL can’t promise him they’ll still be in Atlanta in the next few years. The organization is a bit unstable and most hockey players, especially ones who’ve been around as long as Briere or Gagne, don’t want to submit themselves to the potential morass.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
I love kovy, hes is always on my other fantasy team. I don’t expect this trade to go through in any way with the flyers, but I will admit that Kovy in orange gets me a little giddy.
"NO HONOR"
I wouldn’t mind doing this deal right now because it will give us Kovy for the playoff run, and more importantly, it will clear up valuable cap space that we have been hamstrung by for the last few seasons.
Are there any other big names going to be FA this summer? We could let Kovy walk and use the cap space to bring in someone else.
If ATL would do it for the Gags/Coburn/prospect then why not?
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
I would love for this to happen if for any other reason than it free’s us from Cap Hell. I will be honest, getting Kovi won’t win us the cup. Not this year, not any year. Not unless other parts are fixed. But at least getting him means that we have 6 mil or so coming off the books next year. And if we can manage to move a guy like Briere then it gets us out of an awful contract, it will give us the flexibility to make some of the moves we really need to make. I would be ok with Emery coming back next year but it will take twice as much as we are paying him now, at minimum to get him back. But there are so many other holes that it hurts to think about it.
Is there any team that really has all it’s holes filled. Meaning sometimes you can’t fill every hole as easily as over emphassizing one aspect of your team…Perhaps being too balanced is a imepediment because in a cap system it’s to hard to plug holes with quality free agents… The end result is a small amount of star talent surrounded by to many average to subpar role players.
i would trade hartnell for umberger though, straight up.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
by psudrozz on Feb 2, 2010 12:43 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
wouldnt mind the trade, but who replaces Coburn on defense? Oskars and Kraijcek seem to play well when theyre alongside Timonen, but then that still leaves a really week 3rd pairing
Syvret or Parent when they return, or Boynton if Homer wanted to claim him. Which I assume he missed his chance.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
I’m thinking boynton may have been a case of being paid too much money that even if they got him and cleared enough room, they’d have zero space for anything later this season.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 2, 2010 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
Most likely true.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
If we are going to talk anyone out of their NTC it would have to be Briere. That would be the move which would buy Holmgren at least three more years in his job. I might even give him a short moratorium on intelligence insults. And even if Kovalchuk walked that money would be a real buyout. We have to send a center in any of these proposed deals. We have 4 guys that need to play the top two positions. As much as I dislike Gagne he is the best winger on this team and needs to remain here for proper balance. Giroux has to play center. Richards can be the third center because of his extra ice time on special teams. So to me for the option of having Kovachuk or cap space losing Carter or Briere is fine. Add Coburn and PoweAshamRossCarcilloLapierePyrola for Kovalchuk.
If that deal is truly possible which is a big IF Holmgren would be absolutely bat shit insane if he didnt make that trade. Short term it makes great sense. Right now Gagne cant score and Coburn hasnt been playing well this season. Resigning Kovalchuk would be impossible but that means the Flyers could trade his rights at the draft and pick up at least a first rounder. Plus it clears the Flyers of 6 mil in cap space next year. Considering the odds say Gagne is going to get hurt again sometime between now and the end of next season it would be great to replace him short term with Kovalchuk and long term with a FA. If the Holmgren could slide Briere into that deal it would obviously be even better long term. However, in the short term I prefer Briere to gagne
The only way I’d trade for Kovalchuk is to flip him before the trade deadline.
I would much rather send Carle and Hartnell to Atlanta. Thats a lot more return for the Thrashers than they’d be getting from Gagne and Coburn (5 more contract years vs. 1 more contract year). They add up to $7.5m.
Then I’d look to flip Kovalchuk to LA for something like Jarret Stoll and a conditional 1st round draft pick if they resign him, or our second round pick back if he walks.
If we “flipped” Kovalchuk to LA, wouldn’t we be able to get more for him?
I thought the “rumored” package of Kovy to LA included Jack Johnson, Wayne Simmonds, and a pick?
I did not see that rumor. Maybe more. I’d certainly take Stoll, Simmonds and a pick even under the conditions I posited in a heart beat.
Found some discussion. Apparently the package would include not only Johnson and Simmonds but Brayden Schenn as well. Seems a little steep to me, especially since there’s no guarantee of re-signing.
Now seems like a good time for Holmgren to call his old buddy dean and suggest they stop fucking bidding against themselves and scare atlanta into making a deal before the market goes down.
Wadell can’t be in that job much longer, Holmgren and Lombardi ought to work out a three way day and pull the Kings offer off the table.
MarioD and D is for dealer. Wouldn’t LA just eliminate the middle man on that one? But very interesting take on a possible deal option.
LA would eliminate the middle man if they were interested or they’d just wait till he’s a free agent knowing Philly most likely wouldn’t resign him. But again, not happening, not going to happen, forget Kovy to Philly. Way to many “what ifs” involved. Lots of NTCs, lots of salary to be swapped around, and we don’t have picks to give up, which I’m sure Atlanta would want. This is a pipe dream that’s not going to happen. Sorry, just had to put that out one more time to try and get threw to everyone.
What LA would be offering there and what the Flyers would offering are very different deals.
LA is offering cheap young players who should develop. The Flyers would be offering players in the prime of their career who are under contract for three and four more years. Atlanta is in a playoff spot at the moment. Its a franchise that needs to generate excitement and some how save face from trading the only recognizable player on their team. Getting a couple of established NHL players may be more preferable than a couple of high-ceiling kids from LA.
That makes a lot of sense seeing as multiple teams will be offering things the deal they take really makes a statement of future or present. I agree with you they have been in future mode for 10 years now the show has to drop. It would be awesome if the Flyers could get Briere to wave and go over Gagne.
I would take him for the rest of tis season, then let him walk after if he wants too. I mean if its only Gagne and Coburn, then we get a super sniper for the playoffs plus it frees us from cap hell if he goes. Its not like Gags and coburn are in the top 10 for key players on this team success right now anyway.
"NO HONOR"
I’m torn….it’s obvious this deal is probably in the 5% realm of possibility. To me, you have to look at it in two ways. A) Does Kovalchuk help or hurt your playoff run? and B) Does Kovalchuk leaving in the summer hurt your team? (Assuming giving up Gags and Burn)
I would say A is a push. Kovy is a great offensive player…. but he rarely carries defensive zone responsibility. Gags is ok in his own zone….but can’t find the net right now. Coburn….at this point it’s pretty obvious he’s lost. Sometimes decent players need to find a new home. So the team is probably about the same, for the push. Better offensively, but possibly suspect even more in their own zone.
B is where this deal sells me. Cap space. We know Kovy walks after the last game of our season. (figure round 2 of playoffs, optimistically) Barring a miracle, this team doesn’t have a Stanley Cup in their future. …anyone without their fanatic loyalty clouding their judgment knows it. We end up getting something decent for Kovy, and remove that cap issue from our books, to be used to sign an upgrade in the off season. (I would insist that they finally get a dominant goalie…..but then again we’ve seen this for a decade…. we’ll end up chancing it on someone with questionable issues, but upside, talent wise. )
I do the deal for Gags and Coburn, because it doesn’t end up hurting your club now, and helps it down the road, with Kovy walking in the off season.
Put him on a line with Richards and someone else who is an average to above average 2 way player and you can kind of not worry too much about his lack of defensive play. Chances are either Pronger or Timonen will be out on D and with Richie there playing disciplined, it would work.
The problem is what dominant goalie? The only UFA goalies making more than Emery are:
Turco, Nabokov, Theodore, Toskala, Chris Mason, and Ellis.
Only one of that group that I consider dominant and I would actually want is Nabokov. But he’s getting $5.375 mil this year, is 34, so how much next year? Is it worth it?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed, the UFA pool for goalies will be shallow next year. Nabokov is clearly the best of the bunch, and will be looking to make his last contract of his prime, so that could be a serious blocking point. I’d be interested in Turco, depending on the terms. Mason might also be interesting (but not dominant)…. he’s played decent behind a pretty pathetic defense.
Unfortunately, the best goalie out there, that wants to move, is in Florida. Vokoun is locked up there until 2011 (?) and the eternally rebuilding Panthers are pretty vocal about wanting to move him after this season. They’ll probably want way too much though. In a perfect world, he’d be my choice to get in net for the Flyers. If he had any semblance of defense, he’d win a Vezina without question.
I wrote about that a couple days ago.
I really like the goaltending market this offseason. I’ll copy and paste since it needs to be updated for the giggy trade anyhow:
Here’s a list in terms of general talent evaluation on my part:
Nabokov
Chris Mason (StL)
I think those are going to be the two highest valued goalies. After those guys are a glut of serviceable secon tier goaltenders who could probably be had for $2m a year or less and with the right team are quality players:
Theodore
Ellis
Hedberg
Nittymaki
That’s 6 goaltenders, I’d be happy with who are all UFAs. You’ve also got the following RFAs diluting the market:
Harding
Price
Halak
So you’ve got 9 quality goaltenders available this summer. And how many teams would be looking for a starting goaltender right now?
Anaheim
Atlanta
BostonColumbus ?? (They’ve got two goalies under contract but are both under $2m so they could decide to sign someone to improve)
Buffalo
Carolina
Calgary
Chicago
Dallas
Detroit (I expect them to ride Jimmy Howard and not make a move)
Edmonton (Do they eat Khaby’s $3.75m? Or suck for the next four years? Either way, Kevin Lowe should not have a job.)
FloridaMontreal
Los Angeles ?? (same as columbus)
Minnesota
Nashville
New JerseyPhiladelphia
NY Islanders
NY Rangers
Ottawa
PhoenixSan Jose
Pittsburgh
St Louis
Tampa
Toronto
Vancouver ??(I would expect them to go with and save the cap money, but he is very cheap so they could afford a big contract if someone signs without the guarantee of playing time.)
Washington
That’s 10 teams looking for a starting goalie (including Columbus as a representative of the four question mark teams, one of which I’m guess will sign a big name).
With 9 quality starting goaltenders, and no guarantee all 11 of those teams will even sign one (I’m looking at you, Edmonton) there will definitely be a few goalies who sign at good value.
I’d say you can cross off Montreal and Toronto from that list.
Montreal will keep one of the two for sure. (Figure Halak, as of right now)
Toronto already figures they just got a number one, this weekend.
Depending on the playoffs, I’d wonder if Nabokov is even going to be available. San Jose may just ante up the moolah for him.
I understand the list completely. There are 11 teams and 9 goalies. I just think that there is a good chance that Montreal will end up with one of the two mentioned.
But then we remove that team and that goalie, as I just did with Anaheim, Toronto, Hiller, and Giggy.
The point is, in fact, that ALL of those teams and ALL of those goalies will be paired up. It’s merely a question of in what combinations.
Not until it is known though, Montreal still needs a goalie as you say, and the options of price and halak are still there. No choice has been made there. Anaheim made a choice when they traded Giguere.
I still think there are problems with your list and here are my thoughts about what teams actually will look to upgrade.
Atlanta – they are going to go with Pavelec/Lehtonen. They just have to see what they got with those two.
Columbus-as I noted above Mason is the franchise. He just is having a tough sophmore season.
Dallas-no arguments, they will be in the market
Edmonton-they just don’t have the cap space etc. to eat Khaby’s salary and bring in someone else, although given this I can see the argument to have them on the list
Montreal-I understand, but they will take one of Price/Halak off the market, so they are on the list, but not really.
Nashville-given their history, I’d say they’ll resign Rinne. Ok, I see them there.
Philadelphia-for some reason, we’ll always be on these lists
San Jose-no arguments, although as many people have stated, they have to be favored to lock up Nabokov
St. Louis-no arguments
Tampa-Mike Smith isn’t being upgraded. No way.
So I see maybe 3 teams legitimately in the market for a true upgrade and most of the other ones having an option already locked up except for the ink on the new contract.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 3, 2010 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
ATL – Lehtonen and Pavelec are RFAs, Hedberg is UFA
Columbus – As I said, is a placeholder for one of Columbus/Edmonton/LA/Washington, because one of the four will probably decide to try to upgrade.
Tampa – Nitty is their starting goaltender
Why would Washington want to upgrade, they have Varlamov and Neuvirth until 2011. LA is in the same boat with Quick and Bernier who they’re high on. And Edmonton who probably would want to upgrade might not have the money to do so, may just pray that Khabibulin can come back healthy.
Varlamov is a rookie who missed at least two months of the year with a groin injury. I think I’ve heard stories like this before.
Again, this is one I expect ONE OF THE FOUR to sign a goaltender.
But my point is why put those teams into the conversation when unless something bizarre happens they really won’t be looking for a starting goaltender. Unless your talking backups/mentors for teams current goalies.
Because if there’s only a 20% chance each of those four teams (Columbus, Edmonton, LA, or Washington) will sign a starting goalie, then there’s an 80% chance that any one of the four will.
Where does the 20% chance come from? Again, LA and Washington won’t be looking for goaltenders, That’s two teams with 0% (ok, maybe closer to 5% but definetly under). Cash strapped Edmonton that has a starting goalie signed (albiet injury prone) for 3 more years and tons of horrible contracts to eat. And Columbus who’s not going anywhere anytime soon with a young, affordable goalie with tons of upside having a sophmore slump. How does that turn into 80% chance of someone getting a goalie? And why use those four teams when two don’t need a goalie. Might as well say Vancouver/Detroit/Edmonton/Columbus will pick up a goalie. I don’t even think Columbus is in search of a goalie.
When Washington gets bounced from the playoffs early again because they don’t have a goaltender, and then realize that they’d be going into next season with two guys who, combined, have made about 50 NHL starts, they are very likely to make a move.
Columbus has a goalie who had a hot rookie season and a bad sophomore season. That does not equal “tons of upside”. He was a 3rd round draft choice. There’s just as much evidence that he is a journeyman goaltender as there is that he’s a star goaltender. Its up to Columbus to decide what they want to do. They have $9m in cap space this year and already 18 players under contract next season. They could very logically decide to sign a quality netminder and bring Mason along more slowly and consider trading the FA at the deadline. Also, both Columbus goaltenders’ contracts end after next season, so they need to start thinking about the future at that position.
Edmonton has no money, but they also don’t have a goaltender. Hence, they’re a candidate to sign one.
Los Angeles also has 18 players signed next year already and lots of cap space. But they’re also ready to take their run. If they see a goalie they really like, there’s no reason they wouldn’t take a shot at him.
I think it’s important to note that Washington will be trading one of Neuvirth, Varlamov, or Holtby by the end of next season. They are aware they have this depth, and they will likely move one of those pieces.
But I don’t think they sign a #1 goalie in the offseason. Maybe a 1-A, but they don’t need a goalie by any stretch of the imagination.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
How can they not need a goalie when, five months from now, their organizational depth at the position is 36 career starts and a recent hamstring injury to their more experienced guy?
At this very moment, the only player on their active roster who has ever started an NHL game is Theodore.
They might look for a backup/mentor for their starter/ But I mean if we’re arguing about backups, I’ll concede due to the fact that it really doesn’t matter all that much to me what teams are looking at in terms of backups.
Then they’ll go out of the playoffs early this season and next season.
I happen to think that organization is a little smarter than you’re giving them credit for.
I don’t understand how it’s completely inconceivable to you that the Washington Capitals have as their top three goalies in 2010-2011 be Varlamov, Neuvirth, Holtby.
Unlikely? Certainly. But it’s not as if they’re not NHL goalies.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
That’s exactly what its like!
One of them has never made an NHL start, one of them has 12 NHL starts, and the other has 24 starts over two seasons and is suffering from a major injury to his leg.
There’s no NHL experience there whatsoever, and for a team that expects to be a contender for the Cup will go into the season with no experience in net is crazy.
Check the Neuvirth date again. He’s an RFA in the 2011 season.
Washington has confidence in Varlomov and think that Neuvirth could be a franchise goalie if Varlomov doesn’t pan out and at least another season to find out.
Quick, while not an elite goalie, is just as capable as any of the aforementioned goalies (minus Nabakov). And again, see Bernier as the future of the franchise.
The fact that Columbus has 9 mil in cap space doesn’t mean they’re going to use it. They’re not exactly the Flyers in terms of revenue. Also, my guess is the organization isn’t thinking Stanley Cup next year so why not stick with Mason.
Edmonton… doesn’t have any money, but does need a goalie. Do they think Khaby can rebound. I have no idea. That’s the one team I’d say will definetly at least look around and see what they can get.
Check the Neuvirth date again. He’s an RFA in the 2011 season.
Washington can’t afford to see if Varlamov will pan out. They have to be in win now mode before that entire team blows up.
Columbus just fired Hitchcock, they’re about to blow that team up. Maybe the new regime doesn’t think highly of Mason.
You have no idea what lombardi will do with that money. Maybe Quick will be in a Thrashers uniform in three days.
Neuvirth is an RFA after 10-11, according to CapGeek, just like NHL Numbers says. I’m not sure what the disagreement is there…
I would also disagree with Washington having to be in “win now” mode, seeing as how they have 7 forwards signed for next year (with Backstrom the only big-name guy not signed), 4 RFA, 5 defensemen signed, 3 goalies signed, and John Carlson just waiting in the wings. They have a ridiculously good AHL team, so they have a huge window of opportunity.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
1) That is absolutely not what NHL numbers says. NHLnumbers says he’s RFA at the end of the year, the same time Theodore goes UFA:
I don’t know which is correct.
I think CapGeek is correct...
I think I might know what happened…. I think nhlnumbers is accounting for the original contract, and capgeek has adjusted it for the “Slide rule”, where as nhlnumbers has not adjusted it.
Neuvirth signed a 3 year Entry Level SPC in June of 2007
From the Cap’s website:
Fri, 06.01.2007 – The Washington Capitals have signed goaltender Michal Neuvirth to a three-year entry-level contract beginning next season
Now the slide rule from the CBA:
Section 9.1. (d) (i) In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old Player signs an SPC with a Club but does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the first season under that SPC, the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for a period of one (1) year, except that this automat ic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC. Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player’s SPC is extended an addit ional year in accordance wit h this subsect ion, all terms of the SPC, with the except ion of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses,
shall be extended; provided, however, that the Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all circumstances.
Neuvirth played zero games in the NHL in 2007-08, and his 20th birthday did not occur until March 23, 2008, 3 months after the December 31 cut off date. Therefore, I think the contract slide has been correctly applied by CapGeek.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 3, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
Didn’t mean to reply yet.
They’re in win now mode for the 2010-11 season. We’re talking about the summer of 2010.
2010-11 is the last contract year for Semin, Knuble, Laich, Bradley, and Varlamov. Assuming they sign Backstrom this summer (his K is up in June) they most likely can’t afford to keep all of those players together.
Cap Geek has it at 2011, and NHL Numbers keeps coming up temporarily out of service for me.
You act as if this guy hasn’t shown anything that would give the caps confidence in him. And again, name another guy on that list other then Nabakov who you’d rather have?
Mason while having cooled down isn’t having a horrible year. Especially with the team in front of him, his numbers are pretty good.
You have no idea what Lombardi is going to do either. I just know Quick is a strong goaltender and they think highly of Bernier.
You act as if this guy hasn’t shown anything that would give the caps confidence in him
He hasn’t shown ANYTHING. 22 games in two years and a major injury. That’s his total output. He’s just a huge question mark.
And which one of the guys you listed ISN’T a question mark? I don’t know why a guy the organization has seen and obviously thinks is capable of being a starter would be any worse then any of these guys.
Honestly though I’m tired of this. Mario seeing as you know everything there is to know about hockey and your always right, how about you go apply for a job as a gm or something. An organization could only be so lucky to have a man of your intelligence making all those decisions.
a guy the organization has seen and obviously thinks is capable of being a starter
Which is why he wasn’t their starter last season or this season? And now that he’s suffered a major injury, that couldn’t possibly effect his performance in the future?
Seeing as you are talking out of your ass why don’t you just stop?
1) He was their goalie for 13 playoff games, taking over for Jose Theodore after just SIX NHL games. You take this as evidence that they don’t have faith in him?
2) In your assessment of how many games he has played, you keep mentioning 22. But you’re obviously leaving out his playoff games. He has played in 35 games
3) If Varlamov wasn’t the starter this season, neither was Theodore. Both played 16 games at the time of Varly’s injury. Theo started 15, Varly 14, but Theo got yanked less than 7 minutes into one game and before the first period was over in another.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
1) As if there’s a difference between 22 and 35 career games?
2) Despite Varlamov playing in the playoffs, Theodore still started opening night this year. He was clearly their number one goalie and Varlamov had an opportunity to compete, and didn’t take the job away before being injured for the last two months.
Theo started opening night against the Bruins, Varlamov played against the lowly Maple Leafs. He then had a chance in Philly, and got yanked in the 2nd period after 4 goals.
Theodore started the next four games all against good teams (Rangers, Red Wings, Devils, Sharks) and Varlamov got back in net against the Predators.
They split the starts against the Isles and Thrashers, then Theo got the start against the Flyers before they split the starts between those two teams again.
That covers the first month. Theo started opening night and all but one all of the teams expected to be good teams (Boston, NYR, Jersey, Detroit, San Jose, Philadelphia) while Varlamov had Philly and a bunch of lowly opponents.
Thats not to mention that Theodore missed time in the fall (a game in October with back spasms, two games in November for personal reasons).
That’s not exactly how probability theory works… you see, when the events are independent, simply adding the probabilities doesn’t account for overlap between the cases, it counts the possibilities where 2 or 3 of the teams get goalies multiple times. If the goalie/no goalie options were weighted evenly (50%), you would have a 15/16 chance of somebody getting one, or about 94%. But since you’ve weighted these teams getting a goalie as the less likely option (meaning 80% chance they won’t get one), you actually end up with a probability of 59% that at least one of the 4 teams would get a goalie.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 3, 2010 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
Okay, the math is wrong but the conclusion is the same: Its more likely than not that one of those teams would get a goalie.
It is still more likely than not, you are correct there. But 60% isn’t quite the same level of confidence as 80%, which is why I posted the math.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 3, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
Not when two of the teams won’t be going after a goalie at all, unless they’re looking for a backup. Again, Washington and LA won’t be going after a goalie. Both teams have two NHL ready goalies on their roster that are cheap and have tons of upside. So again, your down to two teams that would go after a goalie and again, I don’t think Columbus would put up the cash for another goalie while Mason is there.
You can keep claiming the exact same thing as much as you want, but you’re wrong.
For instance: Washington only has one goalie signed next season, and he’s currently in the midst of a major leg injury and has made 22 career starts. They’d be fucking idiots to not make a move on a goaltender.
But Neuvirth has better numbers than Theodore, so why wouldn’t the team go with Varlamov and Neuvirth next year?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Because Theodore did so well last year. Getting yanked for a rookie and all.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
Good thing you didn’t tell that to any of the young goalies that have been there before then, like Cam Ward just to throw one off the top of my head.
Seriously, the two of you want to argue for rookie goaltending in the stanley cup playoffs? Are you fucking kidding me?
Seriously, you want to argue FOR a guy with a 19-27 playoff record, never getting out of the second round, and who lost his job to someone with only 6 NHL games played last year?
No, clearly he’s the best guy to get them a Stanley Cup.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
This actually isn’t right either because these are not independent events. In other words, a team’s decision to sign a goalie is affected by the decisions of other teams.
They’re not completely independent, that’s true, but I was working with theoretical numbers since I can’t predict which team will pick which player and then how that will change the next teams choices. I’m only calculating for them taking a goalie (any goalie). But if you look at it as yeses and nos, you get 16 possibilities like YYYY, NNNN, and NYNY, etc. If you only do your math by 20% x 4 = 80%, you’ve counted YYYY as 4 possible outcomes instead of counting it as 1 possible outcome. Hence the 59% is closer to the truth.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 3, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
I know Mason is having a bad year, but I can’t see Columbus giving up on the kid. He’s kind of like Cam Ward his sophmore season.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 2, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t get me wrong, I liked Niitty when he was here, and his numbers this year are fabulous. He didn’t play with our current defensive pairings since Pronger, Bartulis, etc weren’t here last year, nor did he play with this goaltending coach or this head coach, so I can’t say exactly how he’d do if plugged into our team right now.
But the idea of Niitty/Boosh as our goaltending tandem next year leaves me a little nervous. They could potentially be very solid and I’m not saying they can’t be, but I’m not confident enough in the idea for that little queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach to go away. At least we’d be able to beat Atlanta again, though.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 2, 2010 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
I really wasn’t getting into specifics like that. Just approximating where I think the shakes out, and I think Nitty will be viewed around the league just like the others I grouped him with.
I’m only replying to the part where you said you would be happy with him and expressing my concerns. I don’t disagree with your breakdown of who needs goaltenders and who’s out there.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 2, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Right. What I’m explaining is that I meant that in terms of “if I were a fan of the team that signed him”. Thats why I said it was a list of “general talent evaluation”, as opposed to considering which players would be good/bad fits in specific locations. For instance, Jose Theodore is also on the list, as is Montreal, but it seems like a terrible idea for him to go back there.
Okay, so you like the fact that the market is diluted for goalies. I get that. But how many of those goalies do you actually want on the Flyers?
I want nothing to do with Theodore, Ellis, or Hedberg. One of Price/Halak won’t be around, and the other will probably get more than he’s worth immediately (not be affected by the dilution).
That leaves Nabokov, Mason, Niitty, and Harding. I don’t really want Niitty, Nabokov will either stay in SJ or go for more than we can afford, so that leaves only Mason and Harding IMO.
So, I guess I’m saying there are really only two goalies that I think the Flyers could afford and I would want.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
I want nothing to do with Theodore, Ellis, or Hedberg.
I’ll take each one of them over Ray Emery.
One of Price/Halak won’t be around
Montreal could take all those RFA picks to rebuild and sign a UFA.
So, I guess I’m saying there are really only two goalies that I think the Flyers could afford and I would want.
But that has nothing to do with the point, which is that there are a lot of goalies and a lot of teams that need goalies, so there shouldn’t be any bidding wars driving up salaries.
But that has nothing to do with the point, which is that there are a lot of goalies and a lot of teams that need goalies, so there shouldn’t be any bidding wars driving up salaries.
I know that’s your point, but Dinky’s comment simply said “get a dominant goalie”. So, my point is "who is available that is a dominant goalie. Nabokov appears to be the only one in that category.
You would seriously take Johan Hedberg over Emery? I can see people liking Theodore and Ellis even though I disagree, but Hedberg??
The chance that Montreal lets both Halak and Price walk are about as good as the Flyers chances of trading Briere for Kovalcuk. It could happen, but it won’t.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
I know that’s your point, but Dinky’s comment simply said "get a dominant goalie". So, my point is "who is available that is a dominant goalie. Nabokov appears to be the only one in that category.
Sorry, I had lost track of that.
You would seriously take Johan Hedberg over Emery? I can see people liking Theodore and Ellis even though I disagree, but Hedberg??
Hedberg has a very quiet 8.8 GVT in 26 gp this season. (Vukota had him at (-2.3). Whoops!)
Also, he’s the third best shootout goalie ever (by career save %).
He’s just a very sneaky good goalie, which is exactly what you want because it will keep his salary down.
The chance that Montreal lets both Halak and Price walk are about as good as the Flyers chances of trading Briere for Kovalcuk. It could happen, but it won’t.
I think it would be brilliant. They’d probably get three first rounds and 2 2nds. Thats a team that just isn’t going to win as its currently constructed.
I think it probably only happens if they fire Gainey.
I know Hedberg is fantastic in shootouts, but he’s always been a backup. Since his second pro season in 01-02 (66 games) he has only played 35 games twice (36 and 41), and he hasn’t had a save percentage at .900 since 21 games in 03-04. Yes the Thrashers suck, but not breaking .900 is not good at all.
This year is the first year since 06-07 his gaa is below 3.46, and he’s only faced 1,000 shots three times in his career, putting up s% of .892, .895, and .904 (that 01-02 season in Pittsburgh).
On Halak/Price: How does the RFA —> draft pick system work? I have no idea.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
He’s saving .916 this season. Maybe its a hot year, maybe he put it all together. I think he’s less than a gamble than Ray Emery was, and a better fit for this style of play (extremely good at breakaways, which should translate also to odd man rushes).
RFA compensation is based purely on the the value of the contract the player receives. These are the numbers pre-2008-09, which is probably around where the cap will be next season anyway:
Contract Value → Compensation to Club
$863,156 or less: None
$863,156 – $1,307,812: 3rd round pick
$1,307,812 – $2,615,625: 2nd round pick
$2,615,623 – $3,923,437: 1st and 3rd round pick
$3,923,437 – $5,231,249: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick
$5,231,249 – $6,539,062: Two 1st’s, one 2nd, one 3rd round pick
$6,539,062 or more: Four 1st round picks
Both Price and Halak are going to get $3m. They could get $4m. They shouldn’t clear $5.2m. Montreal could let them go and would get 2 1sts, 2 3rds, and may get one or two 2nds.
Do the clubs have to try and make an offer to their RFAs?
What I’m thinking is why should the club be compensated if they didn’t want the player anyway
What if the team can’t afford to offer the same contract another team offers? You don’t think the Flyers, in this case deserve to get something in return for that? It is somewhat like when MLB teams are offered compensation for losing free agents.
I understand that. But if they can afford to resign but choose not to then why should they be compensated for a player that wasn’t in the team plans anyway.
eg if Homer made no effort to sign Coburn but just let other teams have at his rights why should he get draft picks?
There are reasons for everyone to go along with the system:
For teams, an RFA is an asset. They’ve either trained him through the system, or given up other assets in trades to acquire him. The picks represent a return on that investment. Even if the host team chooses not to make an effort to sign the player, presumably that player would have been willing to re-sign at a low value to remain a pro (ignoring the KHL and other overseas leagues, since the CBA deals with North American hockey).
For the NHLPA, most of their senior members are older players, who are UFA. The system promotes hardballing negotiations with RFAs to keep their cost down, which means more money to sign UFAs.
For the younger players, the RFAs, the picks given up represent an investment in them. Since most GMs don’t seem to understand the concept of sunk costs, those picks mean the RFAs are more likely to be kept with the organization than an equal player signed as an UFA or brought up through the system.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Article 10.2(a)(ii)-(v)
(ii) In order to receive a Right of First Refusal or Draft Choice
Compensation (at the Prior Club’s option) with respect to a
Restricted Free Agent, the Prior Club of a Restricted Free Agent
must tender to the Player, no later than 5:00 p.m. New York time
on the later of June 25 or the first Monday after the Entry Draft of
the final year of the Player’s SPC, a “Qualifying Offer”, which
shall be an offer of an SPC, for one League Year, which is subject
to salary arbitration if such Player is otherwise eligible for salary
arbitration in accordance with Section 12.1, on at least the
following terms and conditions:
(A) if the Player’s prior year’s Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is less
than or equal to $660,000 for that League Year, 110% of
the prior year’s Paragraph 1 NHL Salary.
(B) if the Player’s prior year’s Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is
greater than $660,000, but less than $1,000,000 for that
League Year, 105% of his prior year’s Paragraph 1 NHL
Salary, but in no event to exceed $1,000,000.
© if the Player’s prior year’s Paragraph 1 NHL Salary is equal
to or greater than $1,000,000 for that League year, 100% of
the prior year’s Paragraph 1 NHL Salary.
(D) if a Player is eligible to receive a Two-Way Qualifying
Offer, the Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary component
shall not be less than the higher of the Player’s prior year’s
Paragraph 1 Minor League Salary, if any, or the minimum
Minor League salary.
The Flyers would only have to offer Coburn a contract for his same salary as last season ($1.3m).
I’m unclear whether they mean cap hit, salary and bonus, or salary. Regardless, Parent, Carcillo, Power, Syvret, and Tollefson all get offers for basically the same contracts they’re currently on in order for the Flyers to retain their rights.
So Coburn could take the one year, $1.3 mil qualifying offer, the Flyers get no picks since no other team signed him, and then what? Is he a UFA after that or an RFA?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 8:11 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not 100% certain, but I thought the rule was you couldn’t be an unrestricted free agent until age 27 or 7 years of NHL service? If that’s still the case, he wouldn’t meet either mark by the end of 2010-11. I could be mistaken, though.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 2, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
To clarify my above reply…
My understanding from trying to read the ruddy CBA just now is that if the Flyers fail to make a qualifying offer to an RFA, they become a UFA immediately. But if the player accepts the qualifying offer or signs an SPC elsewhere that entitles the Flyers to compensation, the player has to meet the 27 years old or 7 years of service rule to become a UFA, so they could still be an RFA if their new contract expires before they meet those requirements. I think… It’s hard to read these things and try to remember the differences between Group 1 and Group 2 and Group 3, etc.
It’s so confusing.
by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 2, 2010 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
I think [Hedberg is] less than a gamble than Ray Emery was, and a better fit for this style of play (extremely good at breakaways, which should translate also to odd man rushes).
I disagree for two reasons:
1. Hedberg is 9 years older than Emery. He is past his prime while Emery should just be coming into his.
2. Hedberg may be better on breakaways than Emery, but I don’t think breakaways translate to odd-man rushes at all.
Say the Wild have a 2-on-1 against us on Saturday. Timonen is the only man back while Koivu and Havlat are attacking for Minnesota. Two things are likely to happen (assuming the Wild get a shot on goal):
a. The puck carrier (Koivu for the sake of argument) can just shoot the puck. If Emery is playing the shooter as he should, he has a decent chance of making the save (as any decent goalie would).
Koivu can complete a pass to Havlat who can fire a one-timer. For Emery to make a save on that, he’s got to display post-to-post quickness – precisely the reason the Flyers signed him. When Emery is on his game, his lateral movement is excellent.In either scenario, Emery has to stay in the crease if he wants to have a chance to make either save. His crease-happiness is exactly why he struggles with breakaways.
Now say we have scenario b with Hedberg in the net instead of Emery. Is Hedberg more likely to stop a cross-ice one-timer than Emery? Given the numbers Geoff posted above, I doubt it.
Breakaways are a different animal because it’s a one-on-one situation. The goalie has more decisions to make relative to his positioning. Chances are he’s not going to have to go post-to-post like he would for a cross-ice one-timer.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Oops.
That bold statement is supposed to be preceded with a “b.”
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
a Breakaways and odd-man rushes are all about angles, which is clearly Emery’s problem.
b All the broadcasts talk about Emery struggling to go post to post.
How come whenever Emery makes a post-to-post save, Jim Jackson says “There’s that great movement post-to-post” then?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Like I said, I’d love a push to get Vokoun.
You may give up a lot, but damn, the guy is worth it. 7 shutouts, tied with Marty, along with the best save % in the league, against the most shots faced?
He’s worth giving up some goal production, IMHO.
Has anyone asked this question yet...
Is it even strategically worth it to bring in Kovi? And I don’t mean from a cap space side. I mean, this team has spent weeks, and countless hours changing their game from what John Stevens wanted to what Lavvi wants? Guys are in better shape then they have ever been. They are back checking, playing solid two way hockey. Hitting guys, taking guys off the puck. Taxing their bodies more than they ever have. And now you want to talk about bringing in a guy, who has probably never even heard the word back check let alone actually know what the word means. The guy has absolutely ZERO history of ever playing playing two way hockey. Ever. The guy has a grand total of 13 hits in 48 games…tied for 628th in the league…I bet you Ray Emery has more hits than that.
Add to that, that in order to get Kovi you are going to have to give up a guy like Hartnell or Gagne, Carter, maybe Briere, and yes they are all having somewhat disappointing seasons but all of them, with maybe the exception of Briere at least play two way hockey. They all have their faults but they are at least buying into this system. Something you will never, ever be able to get Kovi to do. And you want to bring that guy on the team? And put him above the rest of the team?
No thank you. Especially considering adding Kovi, at any cost, will not win them the cup this year, or any year.
Guys are in better shape then they have ever been. They are back checking, playing solid two way hockey. Hitting guys, taking guys off the puck. Taxing their bodies more than they ever have.
Wait, who are we talking about now?
I don’t want Kovalchuk as a rental. If they’re going to go far enough to get him, they may as well sign him. I don’t really want Homer to do this, but here’s what I’d like to see if he was dead set on getting him:
Hartnell, Carle and Patrick Maroon (at this point, it looks like he has no place here going forward) for Kovalchuk and some mid-range prospect so Homer can pretend he has a farm system. And I haven’t the slightest doubt that Hartnell would waive whatever limited no trade clause he has if they ask him to. Then, in the offseason, trade Gagne to Montreal (Halak + pick/s or prospect/s?). I loathe the concept of trading Gagne, but his value’s only going to go down (hard as that is to admit) and Montreal’s the only team he’ll waive his NTC for. MarioD, what do you think of Halak?
I put this up in a fanshot a couple of weeks ago, but Habs Eyes on the Prize has been doing a fantastic breakdown of Price/Halak monthly. Their conclusion: as soon as Gainey said Halak was available, he only started against bad teams to boost his numbers. He’s still good, but the numbers are deceptive.
I’m hesitant to trade Maroon though since he’s another big, power forward type who knows how to put the puck in the net. Suddenly, this team is lacking that. (Think Knuble, not Asham) I still hope he can find a spot on the Flyers.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
Turco
Welp…..on some other site rumors have now been posted about Turco to Philly. First time I’ve seen that, even though Homer said yesterday that they weren’t looking to do anything in goal. Rumors are just that, but just something else to opine about.
If getting Kovalchuk will help us clear cap space, I wouldn’t mind. However, it’s not necessary. Best case scenario would be to somehow wiggle out from under Briere’s contract, but that’s a longshot and he is producing. Homer has to stop taking on monster contracts of players that appear to be the “missing piece in our Stanley Cup run” and think long term. He’s already bounced our draft picks to other teams and that will catch up to bite us.
This team misses Knuble on and off the ice. His leaving left a hole that has not been filled and can’t be by anyone on the current roster. Players like Knuble are very, very scarce and we can see that now.
The Flyers, according to team sources, are "all but out" of the Ilya Kovalchuk sweepstakes. Team sources have told CSNPhilly.com that signing Kovalchuk would "mortgage our future" beyond what the club is willing to pay.
But these “sources” say nothing about what everyone here is talking about: Getting him as a rental so that the team “pays off their mortgage” next year. Maybe it’s syntax, maybe it’s double-speak, maybe it’s the reporter, but if it’s the source truly equating trading for Kovalchuk with signing Kovalchuk, there’s a major problem in the Flyers front office.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
Maybe they’ve made the determination that it’s not worth it to get him as a rental, and so the only way they’d acquire him is if they could ensure a long-term deal could be done. Though, if it meant the Rangers couldn’t get Kovalchuk…
The Rangers don’t scare me, with or without Kovalchuk.
Honestly. Maybe I’m crazy… but they don’t.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Feb 3, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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
