QOD Danny Hamhuis is the first piece of what puzzle?
by orangeandblack20 on Jun 20, 2010 4:25 PM EDT
Email
PrintWell the off-season is well underway right now with a twist that no one really saw coming. With Homer coming out and saying the top priority is goal tending, the trade talks involving Carter, and Homer's confidence in the bottom two defense men, the last thing any of us saw coming was a trade for a top 4 (maybe top 2 or 3) d-man. Danny Hamhuis is now a Philadelphia Flyer, and if he was on the squad about a month ago we could be hoisting the cup with the depth he brings to the defense. However, every action requires and equal and opposite reaction. Ryan Parent does not equal Dan Hamhuis, so what will need to happen? Do we get rid of Coby? Is Kraijeck gone? Will we keep the depth on the back and then give up forwards for a goalie? Does this defense boulster mean that were confident enough in Boosh and Backlund to man the pipes? There are lots of scenerios to follow, and lets see what you guys think...
I still think that we are going to sign Coby and Hamhuis if the price is right and then ship out one of our favorite guys (Gags or Carter or Harts or someone else that we like) to get a goalie. I don't think Homer would come out and say goaltending is top priorety and then not make it the top priorety. Hopefully a young guy could come in and play 50ish games with Boosh filling in the rest. He's a much more effective player when he plays once every few games than once every 19 (see: Emery, Ray). If something goes wrong with Boosh, we got Backlund to back up.
This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I can’t imagine Hamhuis was brought in just to get Coburn out. The whole issue was that Laviolette had to ride the top-4 too hard. Moving Coburn won’t change that.
I voted big move.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
JUST CHANGED THE POLL
BECAUSE MOST OF YOU (8) ALREADY SELECTED BIG MOVE, I SPECIFIED WHAT KIND OF BIG MOVE
by orangeandblack20 on Jun 20, 2010 5:23 PM EDT reply actions
I think Hamhuis was brought in so you have a stronger defense, meaning Coburn stays and you have pairs of:
Pronger – Carle
Timmo – Hamhuis
Coburn – Kraji/Bartulis
This would allow for the two two units to get a little less ice time and the 3rd unit to get a little more. Hopefully keeping our top 4 fresher.
Now the team needs to go out and get a young goalie and hopefully a half decent winger. I don’t know that this team needs a stud winger, if they can get a better goalie and upgrade their D, which assuming they sign Hamhuis they just did, that should mean that the would give up less goals and thus need to score less.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Hamhuis’ rights were acquired. That doesn’t mean he will sign, or that he will sign and stay. If he signs, why couldn’t he be the bargaining chip to acquire goaltending? Then someone like Boychuk — looks like Boston won’t be able to afford him after extending Seidenburg — could help to upgrade the D and eat Pronger/Timmo minutes at fewer $.
January 11, 1976
I was thinking about this, but then realised that it may be bad from the players perspective. If you sign a UFA, get him to move to Philadephia, and then one week later package him into a deal for somewhere else (where he doesn’t get a choice where he wants to go, as opposed to having complete choice as a UFA), then players may be more reluctant to sign with you as free agents. That would make it harder for us to get absolute steals like we did for Hammer.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Jun 20, 2010 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
go go gadget triple post
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
haha sorry…and here I was thinking it didn’t post at all. I just gave up after trying three times…
by PursuitOfLappyness on Jun 20, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
And now no one will know what you two are talking about!
Man, you two are seein’ things…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 20, 2010 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
No one here: what are they talking about?
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 21, 2010 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Pursuit triple posted, but I deleted the first two, leaving the aftermath
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jun 21, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Deleted? Deleted?
Why, you can’t do that!
Whaddya think this is, a blogtatorship?
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 21, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
What got me thinking about alternatives is exactly what you say: “absolute steals like we did for Hammer.”. I have some rules I try to live by and one of them is: if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. I mean Hammer for Parent (no disrespect for RP — I think he’ll be a solid D) and a pick? David Poile is no fool and this isn’t the firesale Nashville had in the Boots/ownership fiasco. So: is there more to it? People were surprised that Hamhuis seemingly did an about face about coming to Philly. Maybe he didn’t. Maybe what he had were assurances he’d be moved. I can’t find the obligatory interview, even a phone interview, of him mouthing the right words about excited to make a fresh start and blah blah. Seen from that perspective we (Homer) look like flexible and resourceful types who work with players to make things happen. Hey, I’m just speculating here. Pretty much like everyone else I guess.
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 21, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
That doesn't happen
Can you come up with some players who have been traded for, signed, and then traded again? It just doesn’t happen, for a few reasons:
1) Too much risk in getting the player — value won’t necessarily go up after you sign him, unless it’s for a great price (which is unlikely and a huge gamble)
2) You lose your credibility. FAs won’t want to sign with you because they know you’ve traded another guy you just signed a short time after.
You lose your credibility. FAs won’t want to sign with you because they know you’ve traded another guy you just signed a short time after.
I agree with both reasons, but especially this one.
We’re going to sign and keep Hamhuis.
#1 Flyers fan in England (originally from Southeastern PA)
by Orange and Black Forever on Jun 21, 2010 6:19 AM EDT up reply actions
“We’re going to sign and keep Hamhuis.”
I would’ve said “I hope we’re…”, because there’s that “Death and taxes” rule. I haven’t seen any exception to that one, have you?
See above to Lappy and Alon re: credibility.
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 21, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
What about three-way deals? Who’s to say Homer doesn’t have one in place pending signing Hamhuis?
You’re not saying that something can’t happen because it hasn’t happened before, are you?
I’m not sure why you’re implying his value would have to go up, neither that his value could go much higher. The word everywhere was that he was in the top group of sought-after UFAs, yeah?
As I said above in reply to Lappy: your credibility is enhanced if he’s on side with the deal because he’s been told he’ll be moved. That would answer the 180 on coming to Philly too.
Like I also said above: I’m just speculating like everybody else here, saying “maybe”. Would be nice to be as sure as you saying “That doesn’t happen”!
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 21, 2010 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Well
Fine, in theory this could be the first time out of the huge amount of times a player signed to a new contract with a new team could be traded shortly after. I’ve never seen it in any sport, and all probability says that it’s fair of me to say that this type of transaction simply “doesn’t happen.”
Is it a 0 percent chance? No. It’s also not a 0 percent chance that the coffee table my computer is sitting on is about to turn into the world’s largest toilet bowl-shaped chocolate cake. That would be kinda cool if it did. But it probably won’t.
If it does, it would be more rare than coming from behind down 3 games to 0 and winning a series. What’s that mean? Yeah, it’s possible, but there’s a reason that the teams that pull that off are etched in memory forever — it’s so freaking rare. If Hamhuis is traded by the Flyers over the next week or so, it would be a first in sports as far as I can find. I haven’t researched enough to say with total confidence that it’s never happened, but you get my point.
3 way deals also happen simultaneously. Think about it — if you have a 3 way deal that takes a few days to occur, Team C is not even going to go into the deal since there are any number of variables that could nix the deal from their end (other higher bidder, other players become available, etc). In that case, Team B probably also sees the same logic Team C saw, and realizes Team C won’t go in, and then doesn’t want to get caught with a player it doesn’t necessarily want, and then doesn’t go through with the deal in the first place.
This is why 3-way deals are both rare and also occur simultaneously.
D'oh
I realize I didn’t specify something.
If it does, it would be more rare than coming from behind down 3 games to 0 and winning a series.
The “it” here is not referring to my chocolate toilet bowl (which the more I type, the more it sounds suspect and not worth eating). The “it” is referring to a trade of the nature we’re discussing. That said, it’s also true that if my chocolatey dreams came true, that would be more rare than coming back when down 3 games to 0.
Wow, I appreciate the long answer to “You’re not saying that something can’t happen because it hasn’t happened before, are you?” I like your confidence. My preference is to avoid absolutes if I can and try to look at things from as many angles as possible. It’s what I’ve done for a living for more years than I care to count, and I enjoy it immensely.
How about your thoughts on: “I’m not sure why you’re implying his value would have to go up, neither that his value could go much higher. The word everywhere was that he was in the top group of sought-after UFAs, yeah?”
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 22, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
heh
“My preference is to avoid absolutes if I can and try to look at things from as many angles as possible.”
I understand, it’s a classic thing to do in psychology. Reminds me of a spat I had with a bunch of TAs in a psych class a while ago.
What I’m saying is: “[Hamhuis’] value won’t necessarily go up after you sign him, unless it’s for a great price” because if we sign him for an expensive contract, other teams won’t necessarily want him, because they’d have to give up both $$ and a player to get him, as opposed to another (perhaps cheaper, perhaps not, but around as good) actual UFA, whom they could sign without sending anything back. That’s all.
Teams would rather have Prospect A + Player B than Hamhuis, assuming Player B even approaches Hamhuis, even if Player B is as expensive as Hamhuis. This makes negotiating more difficult, and means we aren’t guaranteed getting much more than Parent type of player (maybe a once-great now-almost-bust prospect + replacement D… not necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily what we want).
Great answer, but now I find myself wondering about the spat with the TAs!
(I took freshman psych because it sounded cool but couldn’t figure out what anyone was talking about — esp the TAs. Aced the course by pretty much writing back everything the prof said, which is a sad comment on: me, the prof, the TAs who marked the papers and exams, freshman psych, or all or some of the above. Looking at the part from sad comment on: to of the above, maybe it wasn’t such a waste of time to take that course after all.)
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 23, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
hah
to satisfy your curiosity:
there was a question on an exam asking whether or not the amygdala is the physiological explanation for fear. I said it was, because I’d recently read a few articles saying specifically that. They said that it was not, because correlation is not causation. I pointed out to them that that would be fine, if the situation were different and the amygdala was not the physiological explanation for fear — however, in fact, the amygdala IS in fact the physiological explanation for fear, as reported by articles X, Y, and Z from the past 2 years.
Needless to say, they marked the question wrong anyway, and did not take kindly to a freshman pointing out their idiocy to them… not that I’m bitter (obviously i’m not bitter at all, right? right?!?!). C’est la vie
and to point out the relevance
they said that a lot of things could be the physiological explanation for fear and that just because the amygdala had such a high correlation didn’t make it the explanation — that it was important to explore all possible angles. I pointed out that the amygdala had been isolated as the source, that other angles had been explored and the only rational option left was the amygdala, and they essentially said “tough titties”
did not take kindly to a freshman pointing out
You know, that’s the way it is in so many situations: you couldn’t be right because you are (fill in appropriate word for younger). It’s the companion bull to respect your elders. I laughed in commiseration with your frustration — been there, haven’t we all? And yet, those TAs had too but…
Reminds me of a rule I’ve tried my best to honor: just don’t you be like that.
Easy to try, not so easy to do.
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 24, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
indeed
i just hope that the next generation’s version of wikipedia is something i latch onto rather than abhor. So annoying to see professors discount wikipedia completely, when in fact it’s actually a pretty good general source to use.
“The older people get the less they seem able to apply the knowledge and experience they have acquired to embracing advances. Instead they retreat into distrust and ignorance.”
Now that’s an accurate observation.
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 25, 2010 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Holmgren Learning PR from Ruben Amaro
I haven’t liked all of Amaro’s moves, but he has an interesting not a total lie/but not the full truth way of interacting with the media (for example, Pedro signing last year). Here, I think Holmgren is trying to fake out the media (and maybe his fellow GMs?). We all know how bad the 3rd pair defense was in the Final, that had to be upgraded, especially given that those problems might show up even worse against the Penguins and Caps (and we know how he is motivated to combat against those guys: recall the Pronger signing). His suggestion that he thought Parent et al were ready to step up next year was pure flotsam/bogosity. “Goaltending is a priority” yeah, right,, that’s why he signed Backlund and Bobrovsky (I suspect serious obfuscating on that one).
Here’s what I think: Hamhuis and Coburn get signed. Eliis or Leighton (outside chance: Nitty) will get signed. We see during 10-11 if Bobrovsky or Backlund can goaltend for the future. And if they can, trade Carter for Ryan and Sbisa (this one might not be possible; technically, this would be “trade for a winger” but this would really be a “huge move”). Everybody else that needs to for salary cap purposes gets dumped, and that includes Carcillo and maybe even Powe and certainly Asham, Krajicek, Syrvet, etc.
If we somehow get Ryan, this gives us under contract:
Carter/Ryan-Richards-Gagne
Briere-Leino-Hartnell
?-Giroux-JVR
Betts-LaPerrere-Nodl
(and, unfortunately, Cote).
Pronger-Carle
Timonen-Hamhuis
Coburn-Bartulis
Boosh-Backlund-some 3rd guy
If the cap goes up, sign someone like Guerin or Recchi for the 3rd line.
I was in college in Boston in 1974 and when Clarke scored the OT goal in game 2 I knew that the Flyers would win the Cup since they would never lose at home.
Who knows if this can be worked out logistically, but let’s say you get Ryan and sign him to a long-term deal with a cap hit of $3.5 million. Let’s say you sign Recchi or Park or whomever to a one (or two) year deal with a $1 million cap hit. You re-sign Powe for three years at a cap hit of $625,000. You sign Hamhuis to a multi-year deal with a cap hit of $3.75 million, and Coburn to a multi-year deal with a cap hit of $2.75 million.
AUTO-GENERATED CAPGEEK.COM LINES
FORWARDS
Simon Gagne ($5.250m) / Mike Richards ($5.750m) / Bobby Ryan ($3.500m)
Scott Hartnell ($4.200m) / Daniel Briere ($6.500m) / Ville Leino ($0.800m)
James Van Riemsdyk ($1.654m) / Claude Giroux ($0.822m) / Mark Recchi ($1.000m)
Darroll Powe ($0.625m) / Blair Betts ($0.700m) / Ian Laperriere ($1.167m)
Riley Cote ($0.550m)
DEFENSEMEN
Chris Pronger ($4.921m) / Matt Carle ($3.438m)
Kimmo Timonen ($6.333m) / Dan Hamhuis ($3.750m)
Braydon Coburn ($2.750m) / Oskars Bartulis ($0.600m)
GOALTENDERS
Brian Boucher ($0.925m) / Johan Backlund ($0.800m)
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS
(these totals are compiled using the bonus cushion)
ROSTER: 21; CAP: $56.8m; PAYROLL: $56.035m; CAP ROOM: $1.403m BONUSES: $0.637m
That’s not enough room to make any substantial trade deadline additions (unless you make a major subtraction as well), but enough room that if you don’t Randy Jones anybody, you have enough room for an injury recall or two (or a seventh defenseman for the west coast trip/s, etc.) and some breathing space.
Nice work.
Was Carcillo just not resigned?
Can we get a fanpost together where people put their team list ideas up like this, so they have a little more substance to them. I first saw it over at Nucks Misconduct and it makes for an interesting read.
Using CapGeek and the UFA/RFA list to try and make a team seems more satisfying than throwing out names. Sure it involves a lot of speculation and guessing contract details but that is part of the fun.
I had been working on making a team so that I could make a fanpost about it, but seeing as you’ve already made one Ben you could use it as an example if you’d be interested?
New Zealand's 4th best Philadelphia Flyers fan
In case we don't get a fan post up:
FORWARDS
Simon Gagne ($5.250m) / Mike Richards ($5.750m) / * Bobby Ryan ($4.000m)
Scott Hartnell ($4.200m) / Daniel Briere ($6.500m) / Ville Leino ($0.800m)
James Van Riemsdyk ($1.654m) / Claude Giroux ($0.822m) / * Maxim Afinogenov ($1.000m)
- Darroll Powe ($0.650m) / Ian Laperriere ($1.167m) / Blair Betts ($0.700m)
DEFENSEMEN
Matt Carle ($3.438m) / Chris Pronger ($4.921m) - Braydon Coburn ($3.000m) / Kimmo Timonen ($6.333m)
Oskars Bartulis ($0.600m) / * Dan Hamhuis ($4.000m)
GOALTENDERS
Brian Boucher ($0.925m) / Johan Backlund ($0.800m)
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS
(these totals are compiled using the bonus cushion)
ROSTER: 20; CAP:$56.8m; PAYROLL: $56.510m; CAP ROOM: $0.928m BONUSES: $0.637m
I gave Coburn, Powe, Ryan, and Hamhuis slightly more money than Ben to be pessimistic – at the values Ben gave, there’d be an extra $1.025m available. I grabbed Afinogenov because he’s an UFA who was paid $800k last year and was one of the more valuable players in points per dollar. I also dropped Cote because he’s Cote.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Hmmm ...
I like it. AND if Holmgren can, in fact, swing slightly lower numbers for those four players you added money to and he’s also willing to bump against the cap, MAYBE you could even sign Leighton. However, under these conditions, they better damn well win the Cup, because the 2011-2012 cap situation will be unmanageable – Gagne, Leino, Boucher, and Giroux will need new contracts, with absolutely no room to do it. Even assuming Gags takes a hometown discount, that won’t leave enough space to sign Leino and Giroux, let alone finally get a decent staring goalie!
by MaximumTalbot on Jun 21, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Great job Ben.
Quick question…
Cap: 56.8m
Payroll: 56.035
Would not give us $1.403 m in cap space?
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Bonuses, I believe, explain that discrepancy
Our bonuses count towards the payroll but not towards the cap. I think.
Bobby Ryan ain’t signing a long term deal worth 3.5 a year, he is 5+ on the open market.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jun 21, 2010 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Not sure about that
I’ve heard reports from anywhere from 3.5m to 4.5m, I think 5m is a little high for his open-market value. That said, I think he’ll be worth 5m within 3 years.
If we trade for him, it won’t matter since he won’t be on the open market.
You think a 23 year old 35 goal scorer is worth 3.5 a year?
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Jun 21, 2010 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
When he's an RFA
he might be. Also, no, I think “he’ll be worth 5m within 3 years,” which would include this year, and I’d be perfectly happy to shell over $5m a year for him if we had the cap space. As is, I’ve heard that he’s worth 3.5-4.5m a year from various reports etc.
Maybe he’ll get more. If so, probably not with the Flyers unfortunately.
Very good work.
Also, kudos to The Dark below. All of us seem to have the same general vision, just a few minor tweaks difference. Any of these would seem to be better than going after Tim Thomas. :-((
I was in college in Boston in 1974 and when Clarke scored the OT goal in game 2 I knew that the Flyers would win the Cup since they would never lose at home.
Wow I was not online all weekend (I was back home in PA for Father’s Day and was at the Phils game Sat and got to see Lidge blow it in person!), and I come back and see we got the rights to Dan Hamhuis. I was thinking about maybe having this guy but I was feeling he would be wanting too much per year (he was at 2.5m last season, so i would think he’d want at least 3m per season). I don’t know how this translates to us quite yet, and I have to read more about him to see how keen I am on keeping him, but I forsee this as the start of a string of some moves, and a big name player being traded sometime very soon, and it may be somebody whom we don’t expect.
#1 Flyers Fan in New York
Don't think so
I don’t see it being anyone that we don’t expect. Everyone has been traded here, at least in conjecture. If there’s a blockbuster trade in the making, it’s going to be Jeff Carter, and it would have to be a Bobby Ryan level deal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Wednesday’s Three Stars: Devils fourth line steps up; Watch Prust dive
- Stephen Gionta leads Devils in Game 5 triumph over the New York Rangers
- Rangers, Devils back at MSG for pivotal Game 5; NHL 13 screenshots (Playoff Puck Previews)
- CBC announces ‘While the Men Watch Hockey Night,’ sets off backlash over sexism
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 Phoenix Coyotes
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Carter rescues Devils; New Jersey moves within 1 win of Cup finals with 5-3 win over Rangers
- Rangers' best game fails; Devils once again find holes in New York G Lundqvist in 5-3 victory
- Lundqvist struggles as Rangers lose Game 5, 5-3
- Devils-Rangers Sum
- Huberdeau leads Saint John to Memorial Cup semis
