Could Evgeni Nabokov be the Flyers answer in goal?
by Travis Hughes on Jun 26, 2010 2:05 AM EDT
in Rumors
79 comments
With Dan Hamhuis and the potential of paying him four or five million dollars a season to patrol the Flyers blueline now out of the picture, Paul Holmgren has some options. Late in the first round of the NHL Draft on Friday night, Holmgren was frequently seen speaking with San Jose Sharks general manager Doug Wilson, and the news soon filtered out that the subject of their conversations was soon-to-be free agent goalie Evgeni Nabokov.
The Sharks announced two days ago that they were going to let Nabokov walk on July 1, ending his tenure in San Jose. Following that announcement, you have to assume that the Sharks lose a lot of their ground in any negotiations for his rights. They're already getting rid of him anyways, so how much bargaining room do they have?
At the same time, though, we learned tonight that at least one other team is interested in acquiring those rights, which makes things a little more attractive from the Sharks perspective. Still, the Flyers would have the upper hand in these talks, and you'd have to expect they wouldn't be sending anything major back to the Sharks in a potential trade.
To start, let's examine the goalie market. We saw Jaroslav Halak, a much more attractive option than Nabokov, return a decent prospect and a lower-level prospect. That's for a guy who's younger, arguably better and only a restricted free agent.
For the Flyers, acquiring Nabokov would be a much bigger risk in that they don't get anything if they fail to sign him before July 1, so if we had to guess, we'd have to assume the Flyers would only give up something like a second or third round pick. Note: the Flyers picked up a third round pick in the 2011 draft tonight.
So, assuming that they don't get ripped off for the rights to the guy, and I would consider anything outside of a second (pushing it) or third round pick and perhaps a low-level prospect a severe overpayment. After all, Hamhuis only got the Flyers a third.
Let's jump ahead, then, and think about the ramifications of the Flyers acquiring the rights to Nabokov. Assuming they don't overpay and assuming we're okay with the risk of possibly losing something for nothing to get the chance to sign him before he hits UFA, would we be okay with Evgeni Nabokov as the next Flyers goalie?
Let's break this down into bite-size pieces.
- His contract: I spoke with the guys from Fear The Fin, SBN's Sharks blog, and they say that they expect Nabokov to get between four and five million on his next contract. He made $6 million last year and he had a cap hit of $5.375 million on his last deal, which he signed in 2006.
With his age (he'll be 35 in July) and with the unattractive nature of this year's goalie market, the Flyers could perhaps get Nabokov to agree to an incentive-laden deal. Either way, the Flyers would be paying him about the same as they would've paid Hamhuis. The FTF guys also said they expect Nabokov to want a two or three year deal.
Could he take a lesser deal? Who knows, at this point. I doubt he'd take less money or a shorter term from the Flyers without at least seeing what other offers come his way on July 1. Signing him to a deal worth four or five million could handcuff them when it comes to re-signing Braydon Coburn, finding a third-pairing defenseman and a free agent winger.
Holmgren spoke with Nabokov's agent on Friday night though, according to the Daily News, so he knows what he's doing before he potentially trades for him. The goalie is represented by Don Meehan, who also represents Chris Pronger. There's a history here, the DN suggests, and that bodes well for us.
- The Flyers' defense: Would playing behind the Flyers defense, albeit not as good as we hoped it would be had they signed Hamhuis, be a boost to Nabokov's game? The San Jose blueline isn't bad or anything, but the Flyers are much better in that department, and if they could make a guy like Michael Leighton look good, what could they do with a guy like Nabokov, who admittedly has a ton of skill.
- A stop-gap: Geoff's post on Thursday gave us a lot to look forward to with Johan Backlund. If the Flyers can get two solid years out of Evgeni Nabokov, it might be all they need while a guy like Backlund, or perhaps another young goaltender from the system or even elsewhere, takes the time to develop. We've been talking for a while about wanting the Flyers to get a young goalie, but we have several here -- they just need the time to grow.
- Is he still good? Nabokov had a great year last year, but can we expect that for one or two more? Here's an excerpt from a FTF post a few days ago.
Years of seventy plus start seasons have a tendency to wear on a goaltender, even one who speaks the iron man language as fluently as the Russian keeper. And although Nabokov had a phenomenal season during 2009-2010, posting a .922 SV% which arguably deserves the distinction of being named the Sharks regular season MVP, expecting him to continue or exceed those numbers next season is a long shot.
For starters, one look at his career save percentage shows that 09-10 was an anomaly. Nabokov has always been viewed by fans and media members as a top-five goaltender in the league, and whether that is true is still a point of contention in some circles-- however, his save percentage since the lockout doesn't seem to back that assertion up.
In fact, Nabokov is decidedly average by this metric. He has posted a .910 SV% since the NHL closed its doors in October of 2004, which lists him at 25th amongst goaltenders who have played at least 100 games.
In other words, he sits behind such notables as Cristobal Huet (.914), Chris Mason (.913), and Martin Biron (.910). Not the greatest company when speaking of an elite goaltender. While his .922 SV% this past season was notable, it is likely the safest of wagers to say that it will regress to the mean-- in other words, drop to the level we would expect it to be considering his career average and another year under his belt.
Keep in mind, that's coming from the people who love the guy.
We'll likely learn a lot more about this thing tomorrow. For now, let's discuss the possibility of this actually happening. The second round kicks off at 1 PM ET on Saturday. Stay tuned.
0 recs |
79 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
if Nabby cost 4 mill for two season, I say its worth the risk.
Pilgrim: Be gone pest, and give me the Bird
Yakko: We'd love to but the FOX censors wouldn't allow it
hes targeted at 2-3 years. I’d take 3 too. But my only problem is, if we gat him, I want to keep the lineup we have, put Legion on the third line so it can have a decent winger, and resign Carter and Giroux, and Hope either Marshall or MAB are ready after next year. that Should keep us under the cap, especially since it should rise another 2 next year also
Pilgrim: Be gone pest, and give me the Bird
Yakko: We'd love to but the FOX censors wouldn't allow it
Do
Not want…I’d still rather try to work something with the Kings.
I just don’t trust Nabokov — though I guess I would trust him more than a Leighton/Boucher/Emery.
I would rather work thing out with the Kings too, but that would require giving up carter. I say, since we were willing to use the $ mill on Hamhulis, a position we are good at, why not get a proven goalie with that instead
Pilgrim: Be gone pest, and give me the Bird
Yakko: We'd love to but the FOX censors wouldn't allow it
Yeah but the difference is a guy(Nabokov) that can be had cheaply(in terms of picks/players) from a team that wants to give him up as opposed to a guy(Bernier) that would be very expensive in terms of picks players(although cheap in terms of $$$) from a team that does not want to give him up.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
But Bernier is a guy you can have for the long haul vs Nabokov who only has a few years left in him at best, and giving up a guy like Carter- when we’re already loaded at center- for a long term goalie solution isn’t that bad a deal, especially when you consider Carter becomes invisible during the playoffs and is a streaky player during the season.
I would not be excited, but I would be more comfortable than if we were to re-sign Leighton. As good as he was for us, I was always nervous watching him play. I’m not a Nabokov fan, but I feel like there’s a little more stability. I would much rather have one of the young guys mentioned here many times from LA, Minny, or Vancouver, though. I’d much rather have a solution than a stopgap.
I know we can’t afford to be too picky, but am I the only one that thinks the Flyers need to have a big draft in 2011 to restock the farm? We really don’t have that much in the system right now. It makes it that much harder when you have to get most of your replacements for players as they age/are-gotten-rid-of from outside the system.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Jun 26, 2010 2:43 AM EDT reply actions
I don’t see the Flyers being able to sign him cheap enough to make it worth the risk to get the rights now. If he knows there’s interest out there, I doubt he’ll sign with the Flyers for less than he’s asking before July 1st. They may be able to get him for that later if he doesn’t get what he wants on the open market, I just don’t see them bargaining him that low at this point.
I mentioned it in one of the other threads, but I don’t think Nabby can have an incentive laden deal anyway. According to the definition in 50.2, it doesn’t matter than he’ll turn 35 on July 25th, he would need to already be 35 by June 30th. So there’s no way that I can see to put him into that category of 35+ players with 1 year incentive laden contracts, since he won’t meet the age restriction.
I think this is pretty dead on.
The allure of Nabokov, to me at least, is largely based on the market being so dead for goaltenders that he almost has to sign with us. We’ve got our pick of a lot of guys, he only has one team to go to if he wants to ever see the playoffs again.
We don’t need an exclusive negotiating window with him.
As long as it isnt Turco or Thomas I have no problem with it.
This team is obviously in a win now state, forget about youngsters like Bernier…that isnt going to happen, not a chance.
We’re looking for an experienced goalie, not a promising guy with zero nhl experience, so it will probably be either Nabokov or Mason or Vokoun.
Then, please Mason or Vokoun…
Well, Nabby could be OK, as long as we aren’t signing him for more than a year or two.
Still, he just seems like a waste of money overall.
#1 Flyers fan in England (originally from Southeastern PA)
by Orange and Black Forever on Jun 26, 2010 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh I would love Vokoun, but he has a heavy cap hit and we would need to trade something serious to get him.
To think if we got him at the deadline (we all hated the idea of trading Carter for him of course) we’re probably sitting on the cup right now…it kinda hurts…
by FireTheWalrus on Jun 26, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
I was thinking about that before game 6 of the finals. we basically got nothing out of carter all playoff long and if we had vokoun i think you could safely assume we win at least one of games 1/2. and we probably win game 6 in regulation with that weak 5-hole sharp goal. definitely hurts to think about
i’m fine with any goalie as long as it is a 1-2 year contract… i’m not interested in having a “dipietro” situation, no matter how much talent the goalie has.
also, i’m pretty sure the majority of teams advancing to the 2nd round of the playoffs were using a goalie that started the season as a backup…
that said, what the hell… i’d be ok with leighton and his 5hole for another year… as long as we are not committed long term.
This is all I wanted to see…it makes the Hamhuis move more reasonable. I just want to see us get something to help us out this season. Not saying picks are bad, just don’t know if they would have the impact now that I think a lot of fans are looking for.
Philadelphia Flyers/Columbus Blue Jackets...don't ask me how.
If it was up to me, I'd free Charles Manson... -MRH
what has Nabby’s stats looked like against the East? the Atlantic Division?
Philadelphia Flyers/Columbus Blue Jackets...don't ask me how.
If it was up to me, I'd free Charles Manson... -MRH
by PhillyPhan85 on Jun 26, 2010 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Nabby’s not the best goalie out there, but how often has the best goalie in the league won a Stanley Cup lately? If that were the case, the Canucks would’ve won at least two by now. Niemi’s certainly not the best goalie, either.
Truth is, goaltending is important, but a great defense is more important. $4M/season for an established goalie is not a bad deal. I don’t like giving up a pick for him (maybe a prospect already in the system?). But otherwise, this news encourages me.
Im sorry but I do not believe Luongo is the best goalie.
He gets a lot of ink, but is really overrated.
You could make the argument with Buffalo
But they have so many big holes
Same with NYR,
Thank God!
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jun 26, 2010 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree. I stopped believing he was the best goalie the moment the Canucks go to the playoffs.
Nabby qualifies for that, but he’s done better in the playoffs on the top of my head.
by Dylan Marck on Jun 26, 2010 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Yup. His playoff numbers are a bit better.
Nabokov’s career NHL regular season numbers: 293-178-37-29, 50 shutouts, 2.39 GAA, .912 save %
Nabokov’s career NHL postseason numbers: 40-38, 7 shutouts, 2.29 GAA, .913 save %
by Ben Feldman on Jun 26, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
And if IIRC, none of those San Jose teams played D, or at least the D like we have. Remember, we turned Leighton into (at times) Patrick Roy. We cannot discount the strengths of this team and ignore them when considering a GT.
by Dylan Marck on Jun 26, 2010 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
So we would get a goalie, that is fairly expensive but not over the top expensive that will help us get one of the top record in the conference only to redefine the word fail come playoff time…
No thanks.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
If the Flyers sign Nabokov to a two- or three-year deal with a $4.5 million cap hit, they’ll have roughly $6.9 million in remaining cap space to re-sign Coburn, re-sign their choices of Asham, Powe and Carcillo (or sign their replacements) and sign a #5 D-man. That might be stretching it a bit, but it’s doable, depending on how much Coburn signs for. The key offseason, as we know, is the one coming up after this season. For the sake of argument, let’s say the Flyers spent about $6 million to sign those five players, and they were all signed to multi-year deals. The Flyers will then have about $13.7 million in cap space to re-sign their choice of Carter, Gagne, Giroux, Leino and Boosh. That’s almost certainly pushing it. But, signing Hamhuis to a multi-year deal at $4 million a year would cause the same situation. So basically the choice is between (for real) spending in goal or spending more on defense. But again, doing either leaves the Flyers in a similar situation going forward with regard to the salary cap.
After game 6 not one post, article, or blog started with the notion that our 1st concern is more D men.
It was all about finding a man behind the pipes. It has always been about that!
Nabby isn’t the Answer in my mind, but he is a good solution.
Im glad that we are heading towards looking for a answer or a solution to our Goalie issue
Finding a legitimate Goaltender, Someone who can win face offs , a 3rd pairing of D was the list of priorities , and a proper winger.
As soon as Hamhuis trade came we seemed to forget that.
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jun 26, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re right, after we got his rights everybody was thinking about signing Hamhuis and not our other priorities.
I really think that we should not trade for anybody else’s rights, resign Coburn before July 1st (I think we can swing a multi year deal with a cap hit of about 2.5M), and a goalie for a year or two who won’t be more than 3M, because we’ll have Backlund. We’ll need somebody established in the net for this season. I was thinking what about somebody like Biron/Nitty? I think that one of them would work, as they played here in front of a worse defense, but with a better defense they should be better than Leighton and going from last season will be in the 1M-1.5M range, and that’ll leave us enough money to fill in a 3rd pair D-man and somebody on the RW.
And I say save the rest of the cap room we have left (I don’t know how much) because as has been said here next offseason is going to be very crucial and we need as much cap room as we can get.
#1 Flyers Fan in New York
by Lindbergh 31 on Jun 26, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
No.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
by Ben Rothenberg on Jun 26, 2010 11:13 AM EDT reply actions
Just spitballin' here, Frank, but maybe
Patience might be the key with Nabby (and goaltending in general) for the Flyers, but especially right now it will take a total will of iron and the ultimate poker face to be patient. Given that the Sharks made their announcement well in advance, and that Homer was talking to Meehan after talking to Wilson, it could be Homer was asking permission to sound out Nabby rather than talking rights aquisition. He can then play it one of two ways: Nabby indicates willingness to consider general outlines of an offer if a rights deal can be worked out, so (1) Homer negotiates seriously to acquire the rights; or (2) Homer goes through the motions of negotiating rights but, alas, is unable to acquire them and tells Nabby he tried but he’ll have to wait until July 1st and talk to him then. If it’s (1) he gets the rights or not and we go from there. If it’s (2) Homer is running a bluff and is willing to wait and see if all the arguments against signing Nabby — especially the pricetag: who has the room to pay that kind of $ and/or could move someone to make that room for this particular G? – that are expressed here in BSH and elsewhere will make for a more favorable situation on/after July 1. It’s a weird year for the available goalie pool I think, especially because of the cap. Who knows who, or when, or even if the available G will sign? Like I said, just spitballin’, but sometimes no move is the right move. Wait and see might be the way to go. Probably in about an hour I’ll see if I’m right. Patience, patience.
January 11, 1976
Let’s not bring that up again. I’m finally able to sleep through the night without nightmares.
"Game 7's are tough... It's a game that's made for men and our guys proved to be men today." -Laviolette
by PatterPoet95 on Jun 26, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Aha, you ARE awake. Thought you might be. I wonder if anyone else has an opinion on that epic...ummm...debate?
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 26, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Which was essentially Geoff screaming to look at the numbers and me sticking my fingers in my ears and saying “I’m not listening to you.” Then it was over and someone called me a moron and it started all over again.
Yeah- it was epic.
"Game 7's are tough... It's a game that's made for men and our guys proved to be men today." -Laviolette
by PatterPoet95 on Jun 26, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah- it was epic.
You’re being sarcastic again.
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 26, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I kept my mouth full of popcorn!
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jun 26, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Truth
"Game 7's are tough... It's a game that's made for men and our guys proved to be men today." -Laviolette
by PatterPoet95 on Jun 26, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I never called you a moron
or stupid, and i resent the accusation — I’m careful to not personally attack people.
I said it was silly to debate once you said you ignore statistics, because it becomes way too involved to convince someone who’s adamantly opposed to statistics to listen to statistics.
1. Silly I would pay close attention to the “3a” definition.
2. At the point you added your comment I had already conceded the debate to Geoff (in two places in fact). It seemed to me at least, that my having conceded that debate, left little reason for you to direct any comment towards me especially in the manner in which you titled the comment.
3. You said that I “ignore facts” which simply isn’t true (stressed the "ignore’ word and said nothing of statistics). When a person makes a value judgement they are weighing one set of facts against another and choosing one set of facts as “better.”
With these three points it left little room for me not to feel like you where in fact saying either that I was being stupid or that I am stupid…
"Game 7's are tough... It's a game that's made for men and our guys proved to be men today." -Laviolette
by PatterPoet95 on Jun 26, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
So you're looking at the 3a definition of silly
to derive insult from me saying “I think it’s silly to continue an argument,” you’ve looked at the 3a definition of “silly” and extracted from the idea that it’s “silly to continue an argument if” that i think you’re “stupid?”
2. You commented in my original comment, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that I added comment only after you’d already conceded some argument to Geoff. In fact, my first response to you was to explain what ESS% means, and from then on I replied as I saw relevant / if I could add more to the conversation.
3. You said you “ignore facts,” not me:
I care about wins and one trophy… The rest is facts figures and semantics (though I do have a special place in my heart for sematics).. I derived from this that you care about wins and one trophy, and do not care about the rest. The rest you specified as “facts figures and semantics,” while then conceding that actually you do have “a special place in [your] heart for semantics.”
I took this to mean that you didn’t care about facts, figures, etc. I think this is a silly thing to do, which I think is within my reasonable allowance to say. I didn’t say it was “stupid of you” to do so. I didn’t say any number of things. I said it is a silly thing to do. Not that you’re silly for doing so, perhaps you have reasons, or that you’re stupid for doing so (this would be an insult).
But fine, if you want to take insult where there is none, nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
I always find it weird when someone says “I don’t care” and then proceeds to comment as if they do in fact care. So, I can’t really say “I don’t care” for the 3 or 4 minutes it takes me to write this comment, and certainly that day I did care (but only enough to defend myself for a minute). However, after that it is safe to say it won’t bother me in the least.
I find it strange that we are discussing this here. I certainly was not calling you out here. My comments were a lighthearted response to “Top Shelf” (all your fault Top). I wasn’t even calling you out with my “final” post on that thread to Goeff. I was calling you out in my immediate response to your
Dude this is silly post. I’ve reread it again just now, and several times, I really don’t see any other way to read it. I won’t bring it up again (got that Top?) and I will just take you at your word that you didn’t mean it as any type of insult.For the record though the quote that you pulled here was clearly on of the posts where I was conceding the debate to Geoff. And while certainly I was being dismissive of “facts and figures” I was being dismissive of the “facts and figures” as presented in the debate. Last time I checked a team either wins or loses a game (fact) an individual or team either wins or loses a trophy (fact).
All done and not to be mentioned ever again, at least by me…
"Game 7's are tough... It's a game that's made for men and our guys proved to be men today." -Laviolette
by PatterPoet95 on Jun 26, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Alls I'm sayin is
you said “some dude called me a moron.” I resent that. I didn’t call you a moron. Hell, being moronic does not imply being a moron — just that, at that moment, one is doing something moronic.
As is, I never said that in the first place. I said it’s silly to debate (I didn’t see your post as being a concession, if it was I apologize) when you say (as I read) that you ignore facts/figures. Okay, that’s your prerogative, but it makes the debate nothing more than he-said-she-said, which seems silly to continue. Not you. The debate. The debate seems silly to continue. Again, I don’t know how you construe that I’m insulting you out of it.
And obviously, I do care about how you perceive that comment otherwise I wouldn’t devote time to it. If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn’t bother spending time out of my day responding to your posts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q
January 11, 1976
by TopShelfTony on Jun 26, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Not that I’m suddenly a Nabby fan, but he showed really great patience in that second video.
by Giroux-ling for Cheese on Jun 26, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
What are the odds of front loading his contract of 2 years with more being paid this year?
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jun 26, 2010 12:13 PM EDT reply actions
no the cap hit is the average,…and since he is old,(over 35) he could retire after the 1st front loaded year, and we are still on board for the hit!
*at least this is how I understand it
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jun 26, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I thing you didn’t acknowledge for next year’s off-season
I believe there’s a decent chance of Gagne taking less money or a discounted rate next year?
Also, Carter might be traded for picks if Nabokov is signed? Perhaps Carter going for picks his how we open up our salary and re-populate the farm system?
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jun 26, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
If not this summer, Carter could be a BIg trade deadline target in April
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Jun 26, 2010 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Carter for picks and or prospects is the wisest decision if you sign Nabokov
Heard it here first!
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jun 26, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
With all the ‘trade Carter’ talk going on over the past few weeks, this is where i think the possibility of trading him is better, i.e., at the trade deadline next year. I still want him to be on our team, but, if he does go, I’d rather then than now.
#1 Flyers fan in England (originally from Southeastern PA)
by Orange and Black Forever on Jun 26, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The Flyers are under no budget for actual salaries. Haven’t been for, what, 35 years? Prometheus is right that Nabokov’s cap hit is the average of his year-by-year salaries. So even if he’s paid $6 million in the first year and $3 million in the second year, his cap hit is still $4.5 million. Just like Pronger’s cap hit is a stable ~$4.9 million for the next seven years despite his contract being front-loaded. Front-loading has no effect on the cap.
by Ben Feldman on Jun 26, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I see. Post above yours, is that an option?
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jun 26, 2010 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if the Flyers sign Nabokov to a contract with a cap hit of $4.5 million, they’re only under a little cap pressure. If you’re not going to trade Carter for non-NHL assets (draft picks, prospects), what’s the point of doing it now instead of a year from now when he’s a pending RFA?
by Ben Feldman on Jun 26, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe get more value?
that’s the only reason i can think of — which is why i doubt it happens, because when you chase a guy like Nabokov you’re going for the cup now.
If you had a certain asset in mind, you’d be giving them an extra year of development?
With nothing known about the upcoming season, you could potentially steal a prospect or nothing, or before they have a great year? (weak point)
I’m also a firm believer in that if you are in a tight spot (next year we will be), your product loses value. Because we will be in a tight spot, wouldn’t Carter lose his value a bit? Would another bad post season diminish his value?
Preaching the Inglewood Jack
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jun 26, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Can I just ask the question...
What happened to the notion that this team wanted a young goalie…
Nabby?
Thomas?
Really?
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but if the Flyers only give up a third round pick for rights to Nabby AND manage to sign him to a 1-2 year contract with a cap hit of 4.5 mil or less, then we essentially got rid of Parent for Nabby in return (assuming that we do manage to sign him of course).
Not too shabby.
by Giroux-ling for Cheese on Jun 26, 2010 2:28 PM EDT reply actions
The young goalies are not available getting Bernier is about as likely as getting Ryan Miller. The guy is not available. Schnider from VAN is more likely but I am not sure he is ready to be a number 1 guy especially on a cup contender.
Nanny is a true number 1 he might not be top 5 but certainly top 10 and that is a lot better than what we have had since as the site used to say 1987.
I don’t understand why his numbers are looked at from 6 years ago. I don’t care what a guys stats are were in 2004 especially goalies they can be radically different and meaningless.
Over the last 3 years he has been elite. He is not Tim Thomas who came out if nowhere and had 1 good year after spending many as a backup. Nor is a an untested kid who you never know how they are going to perform in the NHL Maxim Oulette ring a bell. He is the least risky of every option and won’t cost us a roster player or Jeff Carter just some cap space.
Imagine what an utter failure it would be to trade Carter for a young goalie who busts that would set our franchise back a long way. Price or Halak was the best option young with NHL experience ready to peak. That didn’t work out Nabby is better than going back to Biron or Nitty which is probably going to be plan C.
by chrislanci on Jun 26, 2010 3:36 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
We HAVE to sign Nabokov. If we do, we’ll have Boosh as the backup and win the President’s Trophy, just like the Sharks did in 2008-09! And we WON’T lose in the playoffs unless we play Anaheim (not bloody likely)!
“Do you see how my mind works? It’s like a laser!”
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Oddly enough, the orange one is named Emery.
by BroadStreetBully on Jun 26, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Bench me or trade me!
I think the most important thing here is to get back the the task of getting another good “D” man.
They must do something to get Pronger and Kimmo more “benchtime”. The best goalie in the world won’t accomplish that. If these guys can get a little more rest they will be more effective defensively AND offensively jumping up on the play.
Carter for Kaberle?
Gotta get Nabokov
The way I see it we have one or two elite years left with Pronger. That means we need to make a move right now. If it only takes a 2 year deal, or even a third year, I say its a no-brainer. Nabokov has proven hes a very good goalie. Yea, he’s been a part of the SJ playoff collapses, but hes a much better option than anyone else out there. The fact that we don’t have to give up Carter is huge too. Sign Nabokov, have a great shot at winning it all, then trade Carter when hes a RFA. He could definitely bring back a good haul even if he is a free agent. Then you have enough space to resign Leino and Giroux. I dont even care about resigning Gagne. In my opinion he is done. He was playing totally soft in the finals. I’m tired of him at this point. If Holmgren pulls this out I think the Flyers are the best team in the NHL on paper for next year. Very good goalie, elite defense, and three very good scoring lines and a great checking line. I cant imagine why any Flyer fan wouldnt want this move to happen
Pretty simple
If we can get Nabokov for a reasonable short term deal, then you absolutely do it. Look how far we got with Boosh and Leighton. Nabokov may be overrated, but there’s no doubt he’s better than Boosh/Leighton. We’re looking for an upgrade, Nabokov is without question an upgrade. Nabokov is a no. 1 goalie, he’s just not one of the best number 1 goalies. Put a balanced team in front of him that comes to play in the playoffs and let’s see what happens. All I’m saying.
by bleedorangewhiteblack on Jun 26, 2010 7:11 PM EDT reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Jersey
|
82 | 48 | 27 | 7 | 103 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
82 | 47 | 28 | 7 | 101 |
|
Philadelphia
|
82 | 41 | 35 | 6 | 88 |
|
New York Rangers
|
82 | 38 | 33 | 11 | 87 |
|
New York Islanders
|
82 | 34 | 37 | 11 | 79 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
Flyers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
New Jersey
|
Tue 09/21 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Toronto
|
Thu 09/23 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Toronto
|
Fri 09/24 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Sat 09/25 | 8:00 PM EDT |
|
@
New Jersey
|
Tue 09/28 | 7:00 PM EDT |
Last 5 Games
|
Chicago
|
Wed 06/09 | OT - L 3 - 4 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 06/06 | L 4 - 7 |
|
Chicago
|
Fri 06/04 | W 5 - 3 |
|
Chicago
|
Wed 06/02 | OT - W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Mon 05/31 | L 1 - 2 |
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Columbus Blue Jackets
- Fantasy Hockey Philosophy: Matt Romig's goalies on the cheap
- Puck Headlines: Modano gets his Red Wings; Jason Smith arrested
- Jaroslav Halak arrives in St. Louis, greeted by expectations
- In which Canucks' Ryan Kesler annihilates us in NHL 2K11
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
