Thursday Morning Fly By: Recapping a Loss and Deadline Day
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 10:35 AM EST
in Morning Fly By
Email
PrintToday's open discussion thread, including your daily dose of Philadelphia Flyers news...
- Last night's NHL scores... Flyers 4 - Panthers 7; WAS 3 - BUF 1; VAN 6 - DET 3; CHI 5 - EDM 2; COL 4 - ANA 3; MIN 4 - CAL 0
- Recaps of last night's loss: [BSH] [Litter Box Cats] [Inquirer] [Daily News] [DelcoTimes] [CSNPhilly]
- Heading over here for last night's 3 stars might not interest you, but the picture on the side is well worth it: [Puck Daddy]
- Then, a ton of writers took on the deadline. Lots of excuses. [BSH] [Inquirer] [DelcoTimes] [CSNPhilly] [Frequent Flyers]
- Not to take a swing at MSM writer, but just have to point this out: "But [Vokoun] is not worth Carter. Not even close. Oh, and Vokoun's cap hit is $5.7 million. No thank you. This just in: Waiver-wire wonder Michael Leighton has been every bit as good as Vokoun since the Flyers plucked him from Carolina." [Inquirer]
- As mentioned in the game thread, this seems pretty accurate: "But to the surprise of no one, the Flyers will enter the postseason with a terrific group of forwards, an impressive defense and a question mark in goal. Just. Like. Every. Other. Year. GRADE: D" [Puck Daddy]
- This is the first time since 1993 the Flyers have not made a single deadline trade. [Daily News]
- This is in the recap, but it's worth publishing again: "Homer: 'I never made one call on a goalie'" [John Boruk]
- This is just another one of those casualties of writing before last night's game: "Laviolette, Leighton Pleased Flyers Stood Pat." [CSNPhilly]
- I think everyone can agree, David Booth earned a lot of respect last night. Here's video and quotes: [Puck Daddy]
- The Phantoms lost last night, 4-1. [PostStar]
- With John Grahame being plucked off waivers by the Avalance (Mile High Hockey), the Phantoms recalled goaltender Jeremy Duchesne. "He's been OK in 19 games there. Not the most exciting deadline day news." [Tim McManus]
- Not known for his hockey writing, John Smallwood says the Flyers are similar to the Sixers. Ugh. [Daily News]
- Jacob De Serres stopped 22 of 25 shots in a 5-3 Brandon win over Adam Morrison's team. Morrison didn't play. [Luber's Lounge]
- Lastly, some good news: Joacim Eriksson continues to play well, stopping 32 of 34 shots in a 3-2 OT win. [euroflyers] Even better news? He criticized his own play. High standards are good. [euroflyers]
219 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh, at at least Jonathan Willis thinks there was a bigger loser on Deadline Day than the Flyers: the Calgary Flames.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 10:47 AM EST reply actions
About that Puck Daddy quote...
While it’s true that every year we trumpet goaltending issues going into the playoffs, can anyone recall a single non-Cechmanek year where goaltending was our biggest issue IN the playoffs?
Conversely can you, or anyone else, tell me the last time a goaltender IN the playoffs won a series single handedly that this team had absolutely no business winning? That is the difference! Three out of the four series or even games you can win as a team on effort and then the fourth has to be something completely out of your control. This is what is needed to win a cup. Everyone likes to look at that Pittsburgh series last year and comment that it was not a runaway series. But when the chips were on the table in the games that we were close to winning, and even had the better advantages in play, Fleury made some saves that were out of his mind amazing.
I wonder if any team in the league has been successful post-lockout, with only 1.1MM of their cap tied up in the goaltending position.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
Really? Is there a place you can find historical cap numbers?
Osgood alone this season is making almost $1.5MM and I’m sure Hasek/Conklin the last 2 years, made at least $800K right?
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com
Detroit that year had Hasek making 2 million and Osgood making 1.7 and Howard, but really that is pretty close. Detroit is just the exception to so many rules it is like you have to almost disregard the team.
Right, so the year they won the cup, the combo was ~ 2.8MM. Last year, the combo was ~2.2MM.
I knew Detroit was the answer (not saying we are Detroit obviously), but I think anyone with half a brain can see that ~1.2MM (got my initial numbers wrong) tied up for the goaltending position shouldn’t be expected to win anything.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t you have to include emery in that analysis, though?
Hasek was hurt most of that last season. Osgood started 40 games and Hasek started 40 games.
But going into the playoffs alone, Hasek played the first series and Osgood the remaining. I forget why, injury?
no, hasek sucked.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
I should have phrased my initial question to include “successful in the playoffs”. Meaning, the minute Emery gets shut down for the season, it should be apparent to anyone (ie. Holmgren) that 1.2MM in goaltenders isn’t going to cut it.
Although, that year with Osgood/Hasek, despite injuries, didn’t the Red Wings almost win (or win) the President’s trophy? The fact remains that they entered the playoffs with both those goalies anyway.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah. I mean, I got where you were going. But it is unfair to Holmgren to suggest he only allocated $1.3m for goaltending. He planned on $2.4m for Emery and Boucher.
I see your point, but even at 2.4MM, it’s laughable at best.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
I like the idea. It’s moneyball. But you have to fill out the rest of the roster accordingly, and play a system that shields the goal. Which they didn’t do.
they’ve been playing moneyball with the position for 15 years, maybe it’s time to try a different gamble.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
They haven’t, though. They’ve spent lots of money on goaltending like Hextall, Beezer, Hackett ($3m a year), etc. Money was never the problem at all.
Isn’t the very concept of moneyball to try to find players that are undervalued, sign them to cheap and then produce a competitive team? That to me is what they’ve done with the goaltending position since Hextall (first run edition).
Regardless of how much we actually paid Hextall version 2, Beezer, Hackett etc. I think there was always the gamble that those guys would be competitive and a value for the dollars when lots of other factors said otherwise.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
Isn’t the very concept of moneyball to try to find players that are undervalued, sign them to cheap and then produce a competitive team?
But then take the inverse: Goaltending is over-valued. So you avoid that, and use the money on Betts, Malhotra, et al players who will improve defense. Rather than spend $4m on a goalie, spend $2m, and then sign Betts and Malhotra, and you’ve got $500k left over.
What I want them to do is go cheap in goal, get those good, undervalued forwards, and use lots of money on the blue line.
and has this been proven to work in the post-lockout era besides possibly pointing to Detroit?
Perhaps the sample size is too small, but I think future SC winners are going to be in the model of the Ducks, more than in the model of the Wings.
Let’s take a look back at the last 10 years…
Only Ward in Carolina and Osgood in Detroit, were goalies that won, making under $2MM. Fleury last year is probably next at 3.5MM (along with Belfour in 98-99, but every other team for the last 7 years has employeed a goalie that made over 5MM.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
Expand to just the Stanley Cup Finals teams. And the majority of them are goalies making under $4m.
Emery, Rolosson, Osgood x2, Ward, Fleury x1 (off the top of my head)
who cares about the losers? I’m talking about championship winning teams. I’d rather take the last 20 years, adjust for inflation and then see the results.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
I realize that, but there was still a certain “metric” in place. In other words, the higher tier goalies were paid at the top end of the salary scale etc.
So for example, the 94-95 Devils probably were paying Brodeur a manageable salary number based on his experience. The 92-93 Canadiens with Roy…but other than that, the championship teams had proven goaltenders and were paying them accordingly.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
But thats totally irrelevant.
My point is about the most productive allocation of cap space. Without a cap…
I’m a bit hazy on how they actually implemented the cap, but wouldn’t you need to look at contracts awarded after the institution of the cap, rather than just the goalies who won once it was implemented? I would imagine the first year or two, the winning goalies were probably still on pre-cap contracts.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Any contract they didn’t want, they were allowed to just buy out without a cap hit for it.
And everyone’s contract rolled back by a certain %.
The focus, though, is on allocation of cap space. Regardless of how the contract got there.
The concern you’re raising goes to the number of teams capable of constructing a team in the manner I advocate. But that doesn’t really affect the surprising success of teams that were able to construct a roster that way.
OK, the way they handled it does remove the potential issue I had. Since they could buy out contracts they considered bad, the monies would be allocated roughly as they would have been had the cap been pre-existing.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
I understand your point, but my point is that in the last 20 years, the goalie being paid to be an elite goalie won the championship more often than the goalie that someone gambled on won it, with few exceptions. The Flyers have fallen into the second category (by choice or whatever) and it has yet to pay off.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
Are you arguing, that, say, one of the five highest paid goaltenders in the league won the Cup more often than not?
not necessarily, what I’m arguing is that 7 out of 10 seasons, the goalie that was being paid according to his potential, history, win % etc. and are identified as say a top tier goalie in the league(not top 5 paid goalie) has won the cup.
Certainly, there are way more factors than this that go to winning a cup, but having a goalie who is getting paid a lot of money because he deserves it, has trumped the marginal goalie with a strong team in front of him.
Is it possible to construct a team on the fundementals of what you are saying? Absolutely, Detroit has proven this several times. Is it easier to construct a team based on my point. My argument is that it most certainly is and that the Flyers would have been much more successful building a team from the goal out vs. whatever way they have been doing it for the last 15 years. (which you disagree with as well, i know)
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
Is it easier to construct a team based on my point. My argument is that it most certainly is and that the Flyers would have been much more successful building a team from the goal out vs. whatever way they have been doing it for the last 15 years.
The results disagree with you, though.
Miller? Luongo? Kiprasoff?
None of the teams built from an elite goalie out has won a cup since the cap was instituted.
What about Gigeure, MAF?
Just because there exists teams to the contrary, doesn’t negate my point.
Ward is almost an anomoly because he was at least drafted by the Hurricanes.
Osgood is the only guy that proves your point.
Once again, I think the sample size post-lockout is too small. I said this:
Perhaps the sample size is too small, but I think future SC winners are going to be in the model of the Ducks, more than in the model of the Wings.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
You said defensive teams built around a goalie.
Pittsburgh is not really a defensive team. Their rankings within the Eastern Conference:
2009-10: GF 2nd, GA 8th
2008-09: GF 3rd, GA 9th
2007-08: GF 6th, GA 3rd
I don’t think Anaheim was a defensive team, either. They were 4th in GF and 6th in GA.
The teams that seem to best exemplify a stud goalie and building out from there are the Buffalo Sabres and the New York Rangers. And, well…
Defensive? I don’t remember saying that. I said teams build around a stud goalie, there is no doubt that the Penguins were built around MAF. Their defense has been adequate at best.
Anaheim’s success has always been in their goaltenders.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
not my point at all. My point is simply to build on an elite goalie (by elite, i’m simply defining it as pay bracket at this time for simplification)
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
Being in the top ten in GA is still not bad. And having Jordan Staal shutting the big lines down on other teams is immeasurable.
Perhaps the sample size is too small, but I think future SC winners are going to be in the model of the Ducks, more than in the model of the Wings.
Let’s also speculate on who “might” win this year based on the current standings and put them into groups.
Elite Tier Goalie making $4MM+
Eastern Conf
Capitals
Devils
Penguins
Sabres
Bruins
Western Conf
Blackhawks
Sharks
Canucks
Coyotes
Lesser>Mediocre goaltending (paid less than $4MM)
Eastern Conf
Senators (barely…)
Flyers
Canadiens
Western Conf
Kings
Avalanche
Predators
Red Wings
Which teams do you favor to win?
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, I don’t really understand those groupings at all.
Are they all the teams with goalies being paid more than $4.5m? Or teams with elite goalies?
I just put the teams in groups based on goalies getting paid $4MM plus (the salary range of my hypothetical “elite” goalie-whether they are or not is another discussion) and teams that have “cheap” goalies and are spending their cap dollars elsewhere.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
oh, that wasn’t Theodore in net last night? The guy making 4.5MM?
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
he’s being paid like one, so for my analysis, he’s in that group
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
But that’s the entire point: that goalies are overvalued.
Boston and Chicago are going with rookies making less than a million dollars over their $4m netminders.
Washington is stuck with an awful contract in net.
Look through the league and see how many teams have a goalie for $4m or more, and the percentage of them in the playoffs.
but you’re ignoring my point. Yes, I will say that based on the above list that it’s 50/50 of teams with high paid goalies making the playoffs, but that’s only part of it. Which teams on the above list do you give the edge to? I would certainly place my bets on the teams in the first category.
Saying Washington/Chicago/Boston (who I doubt will make it) are going with rookies isn’t a fair statement yet, because the playoffs are not here.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
But you’re playing right into the stereotype I’m debunking.
Because history tells us that its NOT the teams with good goaltending that will win:
Edmonton/Ottawa
Carolina
Detroit/Pittsburgh
Detroit
Edmonton/Ottawa? They didn’t win.
Carolina-Ward was a highly touted prospect no? And wasn’t Fleury as well?
The only team that 100% fits the bill is Detroit.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
In Playoffs, Goalie Over $4m
Anaheim (Giguerre)
Boston (Thomas, benched)
Buffalo (Miller)
Chicago (Huet, benched?)
New Jersey (Brodeur)
Phoenix (Bryzgalov)
Pittsburgh (Fleury)
Vancouver (Luongo)
San Jose (Nabokov)
Washington (Theodore)
In Playoffs, Goalie Under $4m
Atlanta
Colorado
Detroit
Los Angeles
Nashville
Ottawa
Philadelphia
Out of Playoffs, Goalie Over $4m
Calgary (Kipper)
Carolina (Ward, injured)
Dallas (Turco)
Florida (Vokoun)
Minnesota (Backstrom)
Islanders (DiPietro, injured)
Rangers (Lundqvist)
Toronto (Toskala, traded)
Out of Playoffs, Goalie Under $4m
Columbus
Edmonton (goalie injured)
Montreal
St Louis
Tampa
I already said that the playoffs was a 50/50 proposition.
Now of your playoff list, tell me your top 3 favorites to win.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
WSH and CHI would probably be the favorite but guess what goal scoring is what is going to get it done not their goaltending regardless of how much they pay those guys
I like PIT and SJ. Of the pure dark horse list, I do like LA.
CHI and WSH could go either way, depending on who starts in the playoffs.
I think Nashville should be on the “out of the playoffs” list…that or we expanded to a play in game…
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
Mario, Trying to discern your logic here. There are only 16 Playoff spots for the entire league….
Your math should look like
X / 16 in Playoffs (%)
X / 16 in playoffs (%)
Unless you use a common factor (total # of playoff spots), there is no comparison.
The math was:
Of all the teams paying more than $4m for a goalie, how many are in the playoffs?
18 teams have a $4m goalie, hence thats the denominator.
You cannot tease anything by that comparison.
BUT….since there are ONLY 16 teams in the playoffs and 10 of them curretnly have goalies over $4m….then 62.5% of the teams have goalies over $4million.
That is better than what would be considered chance, and is over the standard deviation for that equation.
Statistically then, having a better goalie gives you a better chance.
“Moneyball” isn’t “just sign players cheap.” It’s, we don’t have enough money to sign players who the market values highly, so we’ll find what the market undervalues, and sign them. There’s a huge difference between the Flyers’ valuation of the goaltending position and Oakland finding a different way to value players the market undervalues.
“Moneyball” would be the Flyers determining that players such as Manny Malhotra are a lot more effective than the market values them, using GAON/60 rather than plus/minus.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
Not being a smart ass but what you are saying is you wanted them upgrade the goaltender not change the coach?
I never would’ve fired Stevens. I wanted to blow the team up in October. Holmgren realized something needed to be done in December. At that point, he should’ve been blowing the players up and keeping Stevens.
Once they decided to hire a coach who plays a style of play that doesn’t match the players he has, Holmgren needed to fix the roster to match the coach. And that means getting a goaltender. Given the lobbying Pronger did, I would’ve traded for Rolosson yesterday.
Not just goaltender but roster as well. I agree. Trust me I was no fan of Stevens. We have gone back and forth about this and it is not necessary due to being ancient history. But anyone with a brain could have seen the personnel issues last year. This team needed TNT last summer and even the summer before ECF aside. I have never been a fan of Holmgren as GM from jump. He made a couple moves that impressed but I never thought he should have gotten the job along with Stevens’. But that is more ancient history.
Biron > Price was probably the main reason we beat Montreal.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Mar 4, 2010 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Both, obviously
But, the Canadiens posted shot totals of 36, 34, and 38 in games 2-4, getting only two goals each time. Game 3, by the way, they outshot us 34-14. I don’t care that Price coughed up three, that’s our goaltender stealing us a game.
Conversely can you, or anyone else, tell me the last time a goaltender IN the playoffs won a series single handedly that this team had absolutely no business winning?
The Montreal series in 2008. We were thoroughly outplayed and had no business winning that series. If not for Biron and RJ we would have been swept.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
OKAY! You F-ers got me, a little bit. Not to just change my argument upon being answered, but I guess in order to win the CUP I meant to say that this stolen game has to happen once per series in order to win four series. The bottom line is in every series that ended the playoffs for the Flyers over the last 35 years there was a moment when the goaltender didn’t steal a game needed to win. That is of course not going to happen every year but this team has been good enough over the last 35 years to have at least one or two cups and this puzzle piece was missing.
I don’t agree. 35 years is since 1975.
Until 1977-78, Bernie was still the goalie.
Pelle was very good.
Hextall was not just the best goalie in the playoffs, but the best PLAYER in the playoffs in 1986-87 and was their playoff goalie the next two seasons.
So at best, we’re only going back to the 90s. And since the Flyers didn’t even make the playoffs again until 1994-95.
So, at best, its a 15 year span, 13 seasons (1 lost to lockout, 1 lost to missing playoffs).
And thats before we look at some of those goaltenders. Beezer and Biron were pretty good, reliable goalies going into the playoffs.
the problem is that both guys (Beezer and Biron) were the “cheap” way out. Capable goalies, yes. Championship goalies, ummm, no.
Yesterday illustrated what this franchise does. Yes, it would have cost them Carter (if we’re to believe the rumors) but it would have arguably returned the best goalie in the league currently.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
How on earth was either one the “cheap way out” ?
Biron was snatched from becoming a UFA, to the chagrin of many. He was, if my memory is correct, one of the two highest covetted goalies in that coming summer.
Ignore the content of this article but check out the quote:
“I think it’s clear that Mike Richter is the most attractive of the free-agent goalies,” Canucks coach Mike Keenan says. "But maybe he wouldn’t fit the style of play Roger Neilson wants to stress in Philadelphia — and, remember, he had a lot of success in Florida with John in goal there.
.
“For that kind of money, whether it’s $4 million or $7 million, I’d want to feel comfortable that the goalie fits my mission if I were coach there.”
Maybe Beezer turned out not to be the best choice, but there was pretty sound logic put into the decision. And he was a very good goaltender.
I’m not saying “cheap way out” in terms of dollars and sense necessarily. I’m talking about taking the UFA road to getting a legitimate starting goalie when perhaps trading an asset or two for a decent prospect might have been the way to go.
There were plenty of people who didn’t like Biron and noted that he wasn’t an next tier goalie, which he proved to be. Adequate, but nothing special.
Where were the Flyers when Vokoun was available from Nashville? He’s long been an underrated goalie with great numbers, before his time in Florida.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying they made the best decisions.
But this idea that they haven’t tried to get a goaltender for 35 years is just silly. They’ve made many full efforts and acquired a number of goaltenders that were good acquisitions.
I agree (mostly) with your timeline. This organization has either had the wrong timing or just made awful judgement calls at that position since Hextall left the first time. I’m not saying that a number of those goalies weren’t “good” acquisitions", but none of them was a sincere attempt to get a truly “blue-chipper” in net.
What were we doing when Luongo was traded for a bag of pucks? You have a better grasp on historical context then I do.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve just been googling “Player X” “sign/trade”.
I think CuJo was a blue-chipper. I think Biron was a blue-chipper (considering it was in a cap world and they were trying to balance costs).
Luongo was traded in June of 2006. The Flyers had just been beat up by the Sabres in the first round. The trade was
Luongo, Krajicek, 6th round pick to Vancouver
Todd Bertuzzi, Alex Auld, and Bryan Allen to Florida.
Luongo had one year left on his contract and refused to sign a contract until he went UFA because he wanted an NTC and the CBA apparently prohibited an NTC until after the contract ran out.
Also, Luongo got a contract with a $6.75m cap hit. Something the Flyers couldn’t really afford without a lot of other retooling to the roster.
I was actually going to bring up CUJO, but didn’t know the general consensus, although from what I foggily recall, he would have been a much better option than Beezer.
I disagree that Biron was really a “blue-chipper”. There was lots of doubt about him being able to maintain a starting goalie role, which is why he became expendable in Buffalo to begin with. Perhaps at the time, he was the best available choice, but it’s hard to look back and actually list who was available (whether by UFA or trade)
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
but Ryan Miller had already relegated Biron to the bench. It’s not like they traded us their starting goalie and were going with their backup because he showed promise.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
i know this, I’m simply pointing out he was an above-average backup at the time, but in no way an elite goalie (nor did he have the potential to be based on his starting gigs when he was the starter)
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Biron has a .911 career save percentage. In his two full seasons as a starter for the Flyers, he saved .918 and .915.
He was a very good goaltender for the Flyers who played even better in the playoffs. He posted a .919 save percentage in the six games last season.
Biron was certainly in the top half of starters in the league those two seasons with the Flyers. The problem was they never had more than four NHL defensemen on those teams.
And I am by no means laying the inability of those teams to advance or win the finals at the feet of Biron. I’m simply saying, that Biron wasn’t going to win it based on the fact that everyone knew he wasn’t a Tier I goalie. The construction of the team in front of him is a whole other discussion.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Until 1977-78, Bernie was still the goalie.
He was never the same after being injured at the beginning of the 1975-76 season. He and Wayne Stephenson split a lot of the duties after that, and after Bernie’s injury Stephenson was arguably the better of the two. Still, I agree with you that goaltending didn’t really become an issue until the Lindros Era.
I know this book is a little outdated now (it only covers up through 1989-90) but I highly recommend Gene Hart’s book Score! In it, he mentions how the Flyers have “always had good goaltending, no matter who was in the net.” Can we get back to those days, please?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Biron, we were extremely outplayed in the series against Montreal, if it wasn’t for him and umberger we never would of won
by flyers17 on Mar 4, 2010 7:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Smallwood should stick to Basketball
Comparing Danny Briere contract to Elton Brand is an horrible comparison Danny is slightly under a point to per game as a Flyer and is a 30 goal scorer. Elton Brand is averaging 13.8 pts per game and 6.5 Rebounds per game and at one point was coming of the bench. He was a 20 and 10 guy and has not been even close to that. Richards and Carter are not Crosby and Malkin but guess who has more goals then Malkin this season Richards, Carter and Briere. Ryan Parent is not expected to be the a top pair Defender for the future unlike Holiday who is supposed to be point guard of the future. JVR is having a stellar rookie season and Giroux is progressing nicely unlikely Young who is actually regressing. Oh the Flyers cap situation gets better next year unlike the Sixers who don’t have any money coming of the cap. And finally never mind the stupid comparison since NBA you only play really 8 guys the whole game so having a superstar matters much more than in the NHL where you can shutdown the star players in the playoffs. One line teams rarely win in the NHL when the playoffs come around.
A lot of teams have a “?” when it comes to goalie, but those teams usually aren’t good enough to have that be either their only or biggest “?”. The Flyers are that rare team who always has an above average (dare I say, good/competitive) team, with the biggest weakness in goal.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
not the only team CHI and WSH also have question marks. I am not sure OTT is sold on their guy either. MTL is juggling Halak or Price, Bruins have a guy with no playoff experience, and a struggling Thomas. Who is the starter in DET I don’t even know but I doubt they are really comfortable with him. Luongo hasn’t had a great playoff record and he is always a question mark going in along with Turco in DAL.
I see. I guess I don’t feel as bad with our Goalie situation knowing we are not the only ones with “?”.
I guess we really are no better than a team going into the playoffs with a rookie goal tender, or does Leighton have play off experience?
by LegionofDoom on Mar 4, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
you should be concerned I am but that like I have been saying all season unless you got a Miller, Lundquist or Brodeur you are going into the playoffs with question marks at goalie so we are not alone. Also as Geoff has pointed out in an earlier article forever ago since the lookout teams with the better offense more goals per game have faired much better in the playoffs.
Even Brodeur has ?s around him nowadays. Really Lundqvist and Fleury, in my mind, are free of ?s.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 4, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Add in Ward, though CAR won't make it
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 4, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Fleury is full of questions this year. Ward too.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
2009 May wasn’t too long ago, so I figure I can cut them some slack there.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 4, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Slack is one thing. “Free of questions” is another.
But again, I’m in the minority in this. A lot more people are with you.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
Homer: “I never made one call on a goalie” Panthers wanted Jeff Carter for Tomas Vokoun.
I’m not sure why he would lie about this, but every report I read has said that Florida was never shopping Vokoun. They were taking offers as they came in, but they never made any calls in shopping him around. Someone isn’t telling the truth.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
I hope it’s Homer, because I got quite pissed off when I read that. It just comes across as “Hell no I didn’t want a goalie.” Chest puffed, chin raised, shoulders back. Which is just dumb. Even though I didn’t want Roloson, I hope he at least called Snow and said, what’s the asking price?
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
he has to say that stuff to show confidence in Leighton he is not going say I don’t like either of our goalies I think we are fucked and tried to get a replacement but because I tried to recall Jones I couldn’t afford one and I wasn’t trading our 2nd best forward to get one. Of course he is lying, he made the calls and this offseason he will probably say the exact opposite and make a move for a goalie unless Leighton comes up big in the playoffs.
But he doesn’t have to say it so emphatically. Basically, I’d have preferred a dodge (“I made calls trying to improve our team, no area was spared.”) rather than coming off as backing your guys and looking incompetent doing it.
I see what you’re saying, and I agree, I just would have preferred his lie was closer to one of omission than an outright false statement (assuming it is, of course.)
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
I just want some of whatever Holmgren is smoking, because that sh*t is good!
I imagine it like a scene from “That 70’s Show”. You got Holmgren, Clarke and Snyder all sitting around a table.
“So what about our goalie situation.”
“Oh, it’s great, the guys we have are champions”
*cough**cough* bunch of snickering.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
http://www.diebytheblade.com/photos/daily-links-for-thursday-march-4/618873
This is pretty awesome.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
Anything that glorifies Lindy Ruff
Makes my hate list, by default.
There’s no reason for Holmgren to say he did ask about goalies and couldn’t get one, so he didn’t. Since Leighton is still the #1, might as well make it seem intentional.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
snicker
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Mar 4, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Leino!
His play has to be one of the positives of the game. I for one have been waiting for him to show in the lineup since he was traded here.
What does everyone else think of him? If he gets more chances in the team could this be the end of Asham?
"NZFlyerfan"
I would like to see him prosper and crack the top four wingers. Asham is fine hopefully it is the end of Powe.
Well that is the point, where as it could be applied to 10 different guys available to the Flyers. I guess I get my back up when fans in this town get their wagons all hooked to the muckers and the grinders and inevitably the losers. And I didn’t mean that as any kind of affront to you psudrozz. Just my pet peeve.
10 is a bit steep don’t you think? I’m talking about within the organisation and I can only think of Asham and Powe.
"NZFlyerfan"
Ross, Carcillo, Lapierre, Betts, Nodl, Laliberte, Kalinski, Pyorala, Asham and Powe = Same guy. Some tougher than others but all energy workers by nature.
I’m not sure anyone would be happy replacing Carcillo, Lappy, Betts with Ross, Nodl and Kalinski.
"NZFlyerfan"
Just looking at PROD
Carcillo – 39:03
Laperriere – 53:11
Betts – 40:15
Nodl – 89:14
Ross – 00:00 (no points in 13 games in the NHL)
Kalinski – 34:47
Now, that’s only looking at points. For physicality, I’d take Carbomb or Lappy over any of the three (Betts I’d be a bit shakier on just because of his shoulder problems). Those three guys contribute all out of proportion to their salaries.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
The average number of minutes they’re on the ice per point they contribute (goal or assist)
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
no offense taken.
powe is what he is on this team-a fourth line mucker with some speed. he plays well with betts and lappy. i really don’t expect any more of him.
However, i still think he is a better option with respect to nodl, laliberte, kalinsky, and pyorala. especially given the team results with him on the fourth line (i do beleive in chemistry).
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
In reality though my whole point is the success of the team is based on the top two lines and goaltender. All of these guys are basically time fillers and stopgaps for the talent to do what it needs to do to be successful. This is also why the Penguins have been successful, and that is Jordan Staal. The talent he brings to the position of 3rd center makes it very hard for teams to be successful against the Pens. Richards should be in this position for the Flyers. Briere and Giroux should be the other centers. Carter really should try the wing a little bit more.
i’m not sure what you are saying….richards as a third line center to bolster production via three lines instead of two?
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Leino seems versatile – can he paly RW… someone has to replace carbomb on the first line – or demote hartnell. I liked what i saw of Leino – keep him in the lineup
I like Gagne-Richards-Carcillo a lot.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
If Leino can continue to play well I’d like to see him at least given a chance with Mike and Gagne.
"NZFlyerfan"
I just worry about who would get in the corners.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 4, 2010 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
Hopefully the skill will be elevated so as to score on the rush and or puck control passing. Not dumping and chasing into the corners.
Yeah no one should be in the corners because they are actually passing the puck to each other. Besides, I think Mike is at his best when he’s playing a bit bangy.
"NZFlyerfan"
don’t get me wrong, i think he deserves a shot at the top line to see what he can do, but i still don’t see him doing the necessary gruntwork.
of course, this is all based off what limited i could find from his time in the redwings and one game with the flyers.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
yeah, but much of our system is based on chasing the puck into corners, then either cycling or working the puck behind the net. one needs to be able to stay on their skates.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
you really can’t cycle unless you work the puck in the corners that is how the cycle game is played along the boards
Cycling is very different than merely dumping and chasing. A true cycle is keeping you skates moving and getting to spots moving the puck. What the Flyers have done for too many years is not get the puck over the blue line with any kind of control and try to pound the defense.
it is too easy to shutdown a rushing team all you have to do is stack across the blue line when the Flyers tried to this early in the year and not dump it in that is when they stop scoring, the biggest thing we did in the last game give the puck up at the blueline that went back the other way with your backcheckers got going forward or flat-foot dump and get in the forecheck or skate it in if you have speed through the neutral zone once you are in the offensive zone the Flyers cycle pretty well just need to get shots to the net, too many blocks and shots wide in the last game
Actually the biggest problem the Flyers had earlier in the year and quite frankly for all the years that Stevens’ was here was there inability to break out correctly from there own zone. The forwards were standing around in the neutral zone waiting for home run passes and then they were not able to create speed. Right now Laviolette has corrected that to a point and they are moving the puck more in the defensive zone gaining there speed into the neutral zone. It is a totally different mindset and plays right into guys like Giroux and Briere with speed and puck creativity going into the offensive zone. Now if we are talking about the 3rd and 4th lines yes they need to dump and pound which part of the whole idea that they are trying to fill time in the offensive zone for more defensive purposes.
what would you think about sitting hartnell for a night, or at least putting leino on the carter line?
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Not sit him but kick his ice time down a bit. If he shows any level of consistency the lines should be:
Gagne-Briere-Leino
Carter-Giroux-JVR
Hartnell-Richards-Carcillo
Asham-Betts-Anyone else we have been talking about
I would like to see them break up the lines and do this:
Leino-Carter-Hartnell
JVR-Giroux-Briere
Gagne-Richards-Asham
Carcillo-Betts-Laperriere
Then you could roll four lines for two periods and late in the game shorten the bench to lose JVR and Leino and go:
Briere-Carter Hartnell
Gagne-Richard-Giroux
Carcillo-Betts-Laperriere
That might work.
Toughest player on the second line would be Giroux, though.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
A bit but he is a skater though so if someone gets in his ear about it at least he is never beaten out of position.
Flyers never lose because of lack of speed. untimely penalties and poor decisions in and around the neutral zone – hence forth – harts and carbomb need to less ice time if they keep that going in the wrong direction
I love Hartnell as much as any player and he has talent dammit, but he is just a knucklehead and it is friggin frustrating. DAMMIT HARTNELL! I am drinking again.
What do you think about Carter trying out the wing. he is not the most creative guy with the puck and could really be a sniper. I know he has decent face-off numbers but the possible production might overshadow that.
No, because of defensive responsibilities. He’s a smart player with a big body, that’s who I want in the mid to high slot.
On offense, it doesn’t matter.
He’s not going to be able to throw his body around. Its about a good long reach and muscling for position when the rebound kicks into the slot (especially with this goaltending corps)
Yea that is where the philosophy is solid thinking. I was more thinking about the offensive side of the rink. Giroux is just so friggin creative with the puck especially going into the offensive zone. He and Carter would be deadly if it was Giroux moving the puck attracting the d and dishing to Carter for the nasty wrister or 1 timer.
i feel a little disappointed with Giroux’s consistency… he probably would fair better in the top two lines
Pretty much on any fast break Carter usually gets the puck on the wing or he takes it there. On offense youre not as contrained to a certain area as on defense. You could put Giroux on his wing and when the d sends the puck up the boards have Giroux carry it through center then have Carter charge up on the wing.
By the way, is anyone interested in Matthew Schneider? He’s on re-entry waives, which would mean the Flyers only pay him about $1.3m. They have plenty of cap room, and you’d make him your 7th dman and send Bartulis to the Phantoms.
I’d do it because it can’t hurt.
Possibly.
I don’t see how it makes that much of a difference at this point, though. Then again, what with Parent’s balky back, it might not hurt to have him waiting in the wings.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Right, I think he’s probably an improvement on Bartulis as the extra dman.
Also, I’m not sold on Krajicek and a Timmonen/Scheider pairing would be interesting.
agreed-was big on krajicek his first few games, but these past two games he has been….well, like there was a reason TB didn’t want him.
just wish he would go back to playing better defense. he got caught a few times last game in the offensive zone.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
What else are the flyers going to due with the extra cap space now that the deadline is passed. Unless they think someone else better is going to come along on waivers then why not. Try him instead of Krajicek. If he stinks it up put him back on waivers
What channel is the game on tomorrow? I’m in the Lehigh Valley with RCN, so I don’t get TCN, which is what the Flyer’s website has it on. Will it be on center ice, and if so, will it be blacked out?
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
- Snow building up: Isles sign Frans Nielsen to 4-year deal, avoid free agency
- Puck Previews: Capitals, Panthers in Southeast showdown; Winter Classic announcement day
- Tribute to Owen Nolan: 10 moments that best celebrate his hockey legacy (Video)
- Puck Headlines: Canucks split Sedins; Ovechkin’s $4M house; Coyotes booster club folds
- The building challenges for Seattle, Quebec City as NHL markets
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
