Goalie Situation
As the season nears closer and closer, more things are falling into place. The forwards have pretty much been set with the departs of Smion Gagne and Arron Asham and the additions of Nikolai Zherdev and Jody Shelley. The defense has improved greatly with Lukas Krajicek and Ryan Parent gone and Andrej Meszaros, Matt Walker and Sean O'Donnell joining the back end. Everyone is pretty content with the positions right now, except the goaltending. The goalie postion is once again left with a big fat question mark on it. Many think one of Turco and Theodore will be signed, while some still think (not hope) Holmgren will go with what he has right now. Lets look at the possibilities.
STANDING PAT
It may just be Michael Leighton and Brian Boucher back stopping Philadelphia next season. It has been rumored that Holmgren is content with the goalies because of the very good defense that the Flyers pocess. I believe that this is the wrong way to go. For a team that Holmgren is building this is not the way to go. The Flyers are a team with big contracts and many top notch players. Holmgren obviousley wants to win the cup, and doesn't want to wait any longer. But with Leights and Boosh, I believe there will be no cup coming to Philly any time soon.
LOOKING WITH IN
When I say with in, I mean in the system. As of right now, the Flyers have many good goaltending prospects, but only one is N.H.L. ready as of right now. That is Johan Backlund. Backlund was very solid with the Phantoms last season, and was impressive in his fourty minutes of action last season. Backlund has potential, but may be a risk for the Flyers to take. Once again, for a team that wants to win, a 28 year old rookie may be too big of a risk to take.
FREE AGENT ROUTE
Well there are only two goalies out there right now that are somewhat attractive. Those two names are Jose Theodore and Marty Turco. Theodore had a very solid season in Washington last year and may be a good pick-up for any team. I just think that Theodore would be no substantial upgrade from Leighton, so I think it'd be a waste of money. Turco on the other hand would be a great pick-up for Philly. He would fit great here and would take advantage of it. Turco knows he doesn't have a lot of time left in his career, so he would want to play for a contender and would play his ass off with the Flyers. He would have a much better defense in front of him and would have less pressure put upon him
P.S.
This is just a question because I was wondering, has anyone heard anything about the goalies. I have heard nothing and I was hoping someone could fill me in on what is happening and if anyone has heard anything. Turco is what I'm mainly interested in. Anyway here's a poll about the article above.
This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It is with bittersweet emotions that I hope Backlund outplays Boosh in training camp and wins the backup job. Because that’s the only way I can see this goaltending situation becoming somewhat acceptable (I can see Backlund outplaying Leighton and then gaining more and more trust from Laviolette; I fear Boosh and Laviolette still aren’t 100% on the same page and unless Leighton self-destructs several starts in a row there will be no change in who gets the majority of starts). I hope he outplays Leighton, too, but it seems pretty clear that Leighton’s been penciled in as the starter in Pittsburgh, barring injury of course.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
These ideas sound like they were developed from my signature.
Can we hear from people who picked free agency route, I don’t see the logic in doing so at all.
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
Sign Turco, waive Shelley and Walker. Turco/(whoever) is an upgrade to Leighton/Boucher. If Backlund can outplay Leighton and Boucher at training camp then maybe both of them can be traded for whatever we can get and we go Turco/Backlund. That has a balance of security for this season (which pretty much has to be another run at the cup given the moves Homer has made and the impossibility of keeping this group together beyond a season) and hope for the future.
Personally though, at this stage I prefer standing pat and checking whether Backlund can succeed. Basically what Ben said. But I think people voting free agency may be looking for a bit of security.
On another front, I would hope Backlund and Boucher both outplay Leighton so that Homer dumps his salary, then waives Shelley and Walker (so ~4.4 million in space is created), then trades his 2063 2nd round pick for a veteran top line winger if possible (maybe trade the 2063 2nd + Carcillo for someone like Gagne).
Briere, Betts and Pronger; Briere, Betts and Pronger; Briere, Betts and Pronger;
Our team is so much stronger
We've got Briere, Betts and Pronger...
by PursuitOfLappyness on Jul 25, 2010 5:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Laviolette win the Cup with a rookie in goal? I would not be the least it surprised if Backs’ was in goal on opening night. After following Tim MnManus’ coverage in the PostStar and seeing how he looked in the limited action he had with the Flyers, I’m 90% certain he gets the longest looks at training camp and will be between the pipes on opening night
by Pocono Flyers Fan on Jul 26, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, but he put Ward in the playoffs because Martin Gerber became Martin Gerber and allowed something like six goals in their first game and three goals on thirteen shots by midway in the second in the second game in the first round.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
Do we have a choice?
With the signings made so far and the Flyers so tight against the cap can they make a move? Sure, waive cote and maybe walker… But I don’t see it. And people are so adamant about dropping Boosh… did we forget how we even GOT into the playoffs last year? Not Leighton.
Sorry… Anyway I think they’re standing pat. There is no money and at this point there is no definite improvement to be had.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
If you can’t tell… I’m not a Turco fan. He was great. Just not now.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
by Mike B on D on Jul 26, 2010 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm new to this blog..
but i was pretty impressed with leighton and I was looking forward to seeing if he can be consistant
everyone does
Welcome!
All of us were awfully impressed with Leighton prior to the Stanley Cup Final, but even when his angles and positioning are correct, he has an exploitable five-hole. Off the top of my head, two of the three Bruins goals in game 7 against them were five-hole, as were an inordinate number of the goals the Hawks scored against him. So there’s that against him, plus what are the odds that someone who is a career journeyman suddenly puts it all together for good? Tim Thomas did basically the same thing Leighton did, won the Vezina for it, but the year after lost the starting job to Tuukka Rask, a rookie (having said that, it’s not like Thomas had awful numbers, but Rask had better numbers and that team couldn’t score to save their lives). It just seems like Leighton’s playing above his head and it’s only a matter of time before he regresses to the mean of his career.
Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog
by Ben Feldman on Jul 26, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Every goalie has flaws Leights got the five hole, Broduer has the low shots, Niemi and a ton of smaller butterfly guys have over the shoulder. The Eager and Sharp goals are what really hurt Leighton in that series he got beat twice up high and started to slow his butterfly drop and was then beat through the five hole the next bunch of games. I think that can be corrected if he can remained focused. A second time around could be much better. I am not 100% sold on the guy and would like to see Turco in here but I am just saying no body is perfect. Our defense against CHI wasn’t nearly as good as it was in the other series revealing Leighton’s flaws to some really good shooters like Sharp who picked him apart on the open looks he got.
I think our 3rd defensive pair riding the pine during the Finals was what really hurt us more than anything. Pronger, Timmonen, Carle, and Coburn are all great, but they just didn’t have enough left in the tank to pile up that many minutes and still be solid. From our moves thus far, I would guess that’s Homer’s thinking too, though he still did everything backasswards…
I wouldn’t mind an upgrade in goal, but I don’t think Theodore or Turco would be the way to go. Given what is available, what we have isn’t bad. But, as you say, no goalie is perfect, the D has to help him out.
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
Leighton should have been re-signed in the 1st place. Boucher is very capable of being the back-up, and Leighton is only a bit better. I we would’ve not taken Shelley and instead of Meszaros gotten a cheaper defenseman (maybe Walker and O’Donnell on the third pair, or Foster), we would have the money to sign any goalie we wanted. Mason and Ellis should’ve been the primary targets, but now you move on to Turco. Even now, the Flyers can take Turco. He’s now willing to accept 2 mil, so all they have to do is waive Boosh (unfortuantely) and Cote, and send Bartulis to the phantoms, who Bill Meltzer pointed how can avoid waivers. Right there that’s around 2.1 mil off the cap, and add the 300k we have in cap-space now, that’s 2.4 million to sign Turco. We then have 7 d-men, 13 forwards and 2 goalies. Another thing the Flyers could do is trade Bartulis for a good forward prospect.
Given the age of the top-two defensemen, and the salary cap hell coming next off-season, trading Bartulis makes no sense whatsoever. You can trade Walker, O’Donnell (not likely), Meszaros, or even Coburn – but not your younger, cheaper fill-in people. ESPECIALLY considering that he can be sent to the Phantoms without waivers.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
All good points. Don’t trade Bartulis. Except if he is sent down he has to go through waivers
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
Are you sure? He has only 58 NHL games played, what is the cut off number?
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
Found It...
Once an NHL player has played in 180 NHL games, or has played three seasons since signing his first NHL contract, he must first clear waivers before he is assigned to a minor league affiliate.
Thank you Wiki :)
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
I thought DragonGirl resolved this already … he’s exempt from waivers.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
not so sure…according to the guidelines stating 180 games or 3 seasons since first NHL contract. If he signed his entry level deal 9/23/06 then his 3 years are up.
Cheers,
Fezzy
http://fezzysworld.blogspot.com
Jesus Saves...He Passes, He Shoots...HE SCORES!
The first season in which a Player who is age 20 or older plays in one (1) or more Professional Games shall constitute the first year for calculating the number of years he is exempt from Regular Waivers and Re-Entry Waivers.
The problem is that “Professional Games” include “all minor league regular season and playoff games”, meaning last year was Bartulis’ third year (two with the Phantoms). As he’s 23, three years from signing, and has exactly 60 NHL games played (including playoffs), to me, that means he has to go through waivers.
But Jenn said he doesn’t. So I go to page 68 (Art. 13.4, ex. c) and see that:
“A 20 year old Player (as Bartulis was when he signed) who plays in one or more Professional Games (as Bartulis did) in the [07-08] season will be exempt from Regular and Re-Entry Waivers” from 07-08 through 09-10.
Again, consistent with what I concluded above. But underneath that:
“Note: Once a 20 year old Player has played in his 160th NHL Game, he will immediately become eligible for Regular and Re-Entry Waivers.”
So, he’s eligible for re-entry waivers – based on the three years – but he would have been eligible sooner had he reached 160 NHL games within the past three years.
I’m no expert, but I say Bartulis has to go through waivers (having nothing to do with his contract, btw). As I said on BSH Radio this week, something tells me the Flyers didn’t know this when they acquired Matt Walker, thinking Bartulis can be moved up and down throughout the league. Now, as Art. 13.2 says, the “‘Playing Season Waiver Period’ shall begin on the twelfth (12th) day prior to the start of the Regular Season…”
So… if my math is correct… the Flyers have to send him to the minors by September 25th, before noon, in order to not have to place him on re-entry waivers. Which they might have to do anyway, but I’m done looking at the CBA for tonight.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 28, 2010 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions
So basically, BSH is in the same position as the Flyers head office, except we don’t get paid to know this stuff.
And we could have done a better job this off-season.
My problem is that, if the Flyers lose Bartulis, I can’t go any lower than the 10 I have been voting in the Flyers Fan confidence poll.
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
So basically, BSH is in the same position as the Flyers head office, except we don’t get paid to know this stuff.
Exactly. And while Frank’s point – the CBA is confusing as shit – is accurate, I stand by my response: I don’t get paid to read it, know it, and act in compliance with it.
If Frank’s sources accurately sum up the front office (one says he’s exempt, another says he’s not), whoever the CBA specialist is needs to either get better or get fired. I mean, worst case scenario is he calls someone in Toronto and asks them straight up. There’s no excuse for the team not knowing.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 28, 2010 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Geoff, wasn’t Bartulis 19 when he was signed?
Birthday: Jan 21, 1987
Signing date: September 23, 2006
Standard contract rules talk about the age you are on June 30 before the season the contract goes into effect, entry level and other rules talk about calendar year, but either way he was only 19.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 29, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Was he? Again, I’m not very good at math…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 30, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Bartulis and waivers: all the relevant sections for debate
Oskar’s birthday is Jan 21, 1987.
Note that Article 13 is Waivers, and Article 9 is entry level contracts.
From article 13.4, the special definition for age:
Note:
1. For purposes of this Article, a “year” of exempt ion shall mean a playing
season.
2. For purposes of this Art icle, “age 18” means a Player reaching his
eighteenth birthday between January 1 next preceding the Entry Draft and
September 15 next following the Entry Draft, both dates included; “age
19” means a Player reaching his nineteenth birthday in the calendar year
of the Entry Draft; “age 20” means a Player reaching his twentieth
birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft; and “age 21” means a
Player reaching his twent y-first birthday in the calendar year of the Entry
Draft.
Oskars was drafted in 2005, at the age of 18 for the purposes of this article. But here’s the weird part:
From the examples in 13.4:
(b) An 18 year old drafted in the ’05 Entry Draft who does not sign an SPC
unt il July 2006 at the age of 19, and plays eleven (11) NHL Games in the 2006-07
season, will be exempt as follows:
Season Regular Waivers/Re-Entry Waivers
05-06 n/a
06-07 Exempt
07-08 Exempt
08-09 Exempt
09-10 Eligible
Note: Once an 18 year old or 19 year old Player has played in his 160th NHL Game, he
will immediately become eligible for Regular and Re-Entry Waivers.
This is what Oskars did, drafted in 05 but signed his SPC on Sept 23, 2006, which put him into this example. But remember that Bartulis did not play any NHL games that first year, so this example isn’t perfect. This is where it gets confusing: This example doesn’t actually tell us whether to treat him as an 18 year old or a 19 year old. The only definition given is the age the year he’s drafted. There’s no language indicating that this definitely makes us treat him as a 19 year old player for the purposes of this article. That’s the crux of the problem, right there.
Now, the slide rule was enacted because he did not play in the NHL in 06-07. From Article 9.1:
(d) (i) In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old Player signs an SPC
with a Club but does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the first season under that
SPC, the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be
extended for a period of one (1) year, except that this automat ic extension will not apply
to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September
16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC. Unless a Player and Club
expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player’s SPC is extended an addit ional year
in accordance wit h this subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing
Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses,
shall be extended; provided, however, that the Player’s Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all circumstances.
So the slide rule extends the contract, but it shouldn’t change the signing date, so his “First SPC signing age” is still 19, but by the definition in 13.4 he still meets the definition for age 18 for the purposes of waivers, except for that weird example that confuses everything.
Back to 13.4, starting with the table at the top (this is a “whichever mark you hit first” table):
13.4 Exempt Players. Players who meet the criteria set forth below are exempt from
Regular and Re-Entry-Waivers:
SKATERS
Age Years from Signing–NHL NHL Games Played
18 5 160
19 4 160
Farther down in 13.4:
For purposes of Regular Waivers and Re-Entry Waivers, the five (5) year.
exemption for an 18 year old skater and the four (4) year exempt ion for a 19 year old
skater shall both be reduced to three (3) years commencing the first season that the 18 or
19 year old skater plays in eleven (11) NHL Games or more. The next two (2) seasons,
regardless of whether the skater plays any NHL Games in either season, shall count as the
second and third years toward satisfying the exemption
So he doesn’t meet the NHL games played mark, and the years have not been reduced to 3 because he didn’t play in 11 games or more early enough for that clause (in bold above) to shorten the number of years he needed. The real question is whether or not to treat him as an 18 year old player or a 19 year old player, and whether he needed 5 years or 4 years from signing to lose his exemption. If it’s 5 years, as the definition for age suggests, he’s not there yet. If it’s 4 years, which is where we’re all confused, then he could have it.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jul 29, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
and to think this problem could be avoided if we never got walker instead or if we sent walker through waivers instead
by historywillbemade on Jul 29, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
:)
That’s the stuff!
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
Wow. And this is why you’re trusted to read the CBA more than me. I don’t have the patience for it.
But my criticism of the Flyers front office still holds since all it takes is a phone call to Toronto to see what they say, then argue with them if you don’t like the answer – which they’d probably lose anyway.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jul 30, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

by 























