Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 175
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,954

    2017-18 Roster Thread

    Season is now upon us.

    I will start this thread by announcing that Matt Read has been placed on waivers today.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,954
    Could mean Ghost will be day to day, could mean they aren't sure quite yet but they wanted the option of having an extra D man in case, so they waived a forward.

    I would expect news on Ghost some time today.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,769
    Let's hope Read gets claimed.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,954
    Charlie O'Connor explains it well here:

    "If Ghost is injured enough for IR, Read stays. If Ghost is healthy enough to play Wed, Read may stay. If Ghost is D2D, Read goes down Tues.

    Remember, placing someone on waivers does not mean he HAS to be sent down. It just gives the team the ability to do so after he clears."

    I doubt he gets claimed. No reason for someone to take on his entire cap hit and salary.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,954
    Also, Nolan Patrick has officially changed his number to 19

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,954
    Carchidi reporting Ghost is on the plane headed to San Jose. All 3 rookies on flight as well. So sounds like they feel he could be available at some point in California.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,952
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    Also, Nolan Patrick has officially changed his number to 19
    First thing Iíve liked in a while. Going to snag me one of these mint jerseys

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,357
    I've had some time to digest what's happening and I'm calming down. I maintain that there is more to all of this that meets the eye and I do have to say that Lindblom, while I think he deserves a shot to be up here, didn't play his way into a top 6 spot. He played well, but didn't force it. I get it.

    Anyways, like I said, there has to be more at play here than the generic answers and responses and decisions the coaches and management have made. I never trust any bit of information that a GM or coach says during an on-the-record interview, so my guess is there are reasons things are the way they are due to things we can't see on the surface. I'm going into opening night with that attitude and mindset. Plus, if I'm being honest, even with the rookies in the lineup I would still consider us a fringe, bubble type playoff team hanging more on the outside of the fence, so if we have to wait 15-20 games before changes are made and the kids are called up, it may not be a bad idea to have them get into the swing of the season in the minors and come up at a later date.

    I will choose to be more optimistic and know that at least we still have this abundance of talent and this is a good problem to have.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,952
    I consider us to be a team that has a chance at the last wildcard spot, but likely doesnít make it with or without a lineup full of rookies. The east, especially the metro, is the toughest division in hockey. We have no superstar in a superstar driven league either.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,357
    Quote Originally Posted by castan_b View Post
    I consider us to be a team that has a chance at the last wildcard spot, but likely doesnít make it with or without a lineup full of rookies. The east, especially the metro, is the toughest division in hockey. We have no superstar in a superstar driven league either.
    Exactly. The coaching staff and management seems to agree with this notion and I do too. At the end of the day these kids may actually be better served getting their legs going in the minors while Hextall tries to showcase what our vets can do. If injuries occur on other teams and they need help it makes them better trade bait so at least we're gaining some sort of asset instead of just cutting them for the sake of cutting them. Maybe they just view it as regardless of what the roster looks like, it's impossible to predict what a team full of rookies will do and how they will perform for an entire year. Let em get going down under, let the vets play up here and hopefully play well enough to garner some trade value, and re-evaluate 15-20 games into the season. Maybe? I dunno.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,952
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyGuys89 View Post
    Exactly. The coaching staff and management seems to agree with this notion and I do too. At the end of the day these kids may actually be better served getting their legs going in the minors while Hextall tries to showcase what our vets can do. If injuries occur on other teams and they need help it makes them better trade bait so at least we're gaining some sort of asset instead of just cutting them for the sake of cutting them. Maybe they just view it as regardless of what the roster looks like, it's impossible to predict what a team full of rookies will do and how they will perform for an entire year. Let em get going down under, let the vets play up here and hopefully play well enough to garner some trade value, and re-evaluate 15-20 games into the season. Maybe? I dunno.
    Andrew MacDonald and Dale Weise are going to somehow get better and more tradable a season older?

    Manning, Filppula, and Lehtera (if we retain cap money) I can see being a low cost rental player at the TDL for an injury plagued team; but is watching these guys for 1/2 a season worth the 6th or 7th round pick over Sanheim, Lindblom, and Morin getting viable NHL experience? You think Hexy is counting on fleecing people? I hope he isnít, that is foolish.

    I just donít see the point anymore, no one is giving us 1st, 2nd, or 3rds for any of our garbage ... Matt Read couldnít even net a 6th or 7th round pick or I know heíd have been traded.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,769
    Quote Originally Posted by castan_b View Post
    I consider us to be a team that has a chance at the last wildcard spot, but likely doesnít make it with or without a lineup full of rookies. The east, especially the metro, is the toughest division in hockey. We have no superstar in a superstar driven league either.
    I don't think the NHL is a "superstar-driven" league -- especially when contrasted with the NBA, NFL or even MLB. In the NBA, there are about 5 teams who are "contenders", 3 of whom are "serious".

    In the NFL, there is a similar situation, although there is more variability because of the depth requirement (you need to field two competitive units, each with 13+ players once you account for situational roles). But even then, you could pretty much guess who is going to be there in the end (Patriots, Steelers, Falcons, etc.).

    The NHL is - IMO - one of the more dynamic leagues in terms of who wins and who loses. There is a lot more emphasis on team play and a lot more emphasis on having depth. In the NFL, your "fringe" players might get 15% of snaps in a game; in the NBA, they'll get 3-10% of game time. In MLB, they might not get off the bench except for specific situations. In the NHL, even a 4th line is getting 10-12 minutes per game (~20%); a third d-pairing may be getting 15 mins+ (25%).

    Do superstars get preferential treatment in the NHL? Absolutely. Do they contribute to a team's success? For sure. But I don't think I'd say the NHL is superstar-driven, especially when compared to the NBA or NFL, where having (at least 2-3 "superstars") is a baseline requirement for contention.

    I firmly believe that the depleted Ottawa Senators (with one-footed Erik Karlsson) could've easily beaten the Penguins this past season. Ditto for the Capitals (though they did have a few healthy superstars). For the most part, NHL is overly contingent on having a "hot" goaltender than having superstars, IMO.

    Just about any team can make a run (especially in a 7-game series) if their goaltender catches fire -- hell Neuvy single-handedly made our inferior-as-hell and depleted-as-hell team competitive against WSH two seasons ago by standing on his head. LAK won two Cups on the "Hope Quick Gets Hot" strategy, plus Kopitar & Doughty. NSH made it to the finals with a 37+ year-old #1 center and Rinne standing on his head (along with strong defensive play).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace23 View Post
    I don't think the NHL is a "superstar-driven" league -- especially when contrasted with the NBA, NFL or even MLB. In the NBA, there are about 5 teams who are "contenders", 3 of whom are "serious".

    In the NFL, there is a similar situation, although there is more variability because of the depth requirement (you need to field two competitive units, each with 13+ players once you account for situational roles). But even then, you could pretty much guess who is going to be there in the end (Patriots, Steelers, Falcons, etc.).

    The NHL is - IMO - one of the more dynamic leagues in terms of who wins and who loses. There is a lot more emphasis on team play and a lot more emphasis on having depth. In the NFL, your "fringe" players might get 15% of snaps in a game; in the NBA, they'll get 3-10% of game time. In MLB, they might not get off the bench except for specific situations. In the NHL, even a 4th line is getting 10-12 minutes per game (~20%); a third d-pairing may be getting 15 mins+ (25%).

    Do superstars get preferential treatment in the NHL? Absolutely. Do they contribute to a team's success? For sure. But I don't think I'd say the NHL is superstar-driven, especially when compared to the NBA or NFL, where having (at least 2-3 "superstars") is a baseline requirement for contention.

    I firmly believe that the depleted Ottawa Senators (with one-footed Erik Karlsson) could've easily beaten the Penguins this past season. Ditto for the Capitals (though they did have a few healthy superstars). For the most part, NHL is overly contingent on having a "hot" goaltender than having superstars, IMO.

    Just about any team can make a run (especially in a 7-game series) if their goaltender catches fire -- hell Neuvy single-handedly made our inferior-as-hell and depleted-as-hell team competitive against WSH two seasons ago by standing on his head. LAK won two Cups on the "Hope Quick Gets Hot" strategy, plus Kopitar & Doughty. NSH made it to the finals with a 37+ year-old #1 center and Rinne standing on his head (along with strong defensive play).
    I think this league is highly superstar driven ... it depends on what youíre definition of superstar is. I see your point, but I donít agree. I get the multiple lines, but it is also match-up driven.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    14,954
    Quote Originally Posted by castan_b View Post
    I think this league is highly superstar driven ... it depends on what youíre definition of superstar is. I see your point, but I donít agree. I get the multiple lines, but it is also match-up driven.

    I tend to lean towards Ace here. I do think you need stars on your team to win, but stars or even superstars can be neutralized in the playoffs. We've seen first hand that a guy like Malkin can be thwarted in a series. McDavid last year struggled to score. Hell, Crosby for most of last postseason struggled to score.


    It revolves back to my original point about stacking lines. When all the chips are down, and you're playing against one of the best teams in the league, particularly in a playoff series, top lines and even 2nd lines tend to cancel each other out. Whether that's each of them scoring a few goals or each of them getting nearly shutdown completely, the top guys are keyed on and can struggle to make a real difference on the scoresheet.


    That's why depth is so important. It's those "other" guys, those guys on the 3rd and 4th line that end up getting hot or chipping in offensively to make the difference. Same goes for the D corps. Sure, Erik Karlsson is great. But as OTT is likely going to find out this year, if they don't have much around him, that D corps is going to struggle against good and great teams.


    That's what makes the Flyers dangerous, even without Lindblom and with that 3rd line they have going now. It's not optimal, but it's still better than most people have. Just imagine how much more dangerous they could be if that Patrick line they have assembled goes from being the 2nd line to the 3rd line.


    I'm not going to digress too much into that again. But the point is, due to the larger percentage of time spent in the game from depth players, like Ace mentioned, depth is of greater importance in hockey than any other sport.


    Stars and superstars get your foot in the door to the playoffs, depth is what ends up making you into a legitimate contender.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,952
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    I tend to lean towards Ace here. I do think you need stars on your team to win, but stars or even superstars can be neutralized in the playoffs. We've seen first hand that a guy like Malkin can be thwarted in a series. McDavid last year struggled to score. Hell, Crosby for most of last postseason struggled to score.


    It revolves back to my original point about stacking lines. When all the chips are down, and you're playing against one of the best teams in the league, particularly in a playoff series, top lines and even 2nd lines tend to cancel each other out. Whether that's each of them scoring a few goals or each of them getting nearly shutdown completely, the top guys are keyed on and can struggle to make a real difference on the scoresheet.


    That's why depth is so important. It's those "other" guys, those guys on the 3rd and 4th line that end up getting hot or chipping in offensively to make the difference. Same goes for the D corps. Sure, Erik Karlsson is great. But as OTT is likely going to find out this year, if they don't have much around him, that D corps is going to struggle against good and great teams.


    That's what makes the Flyers dangerous, even without Lindblom and with that 3rd line they have going now. It's not optimal, but it's still better than most people have. Just imagine how much more dangerous they could be if that Patrick line they have assembled goes from being the 2nd line to the 3rd line.


    I'm not going to digress too much into that again. But the point is, due to the larger percentage of time spent in the game from depth players, like Ace mentioned, depth is of greater importance in hockey than any other sport.


    Stars and superstars get your foot in the door to the playoffs, depth is what ends up making you into a legitimate contender.
    Iíd agree with the last sentence, which is why superstars are needed - matchups and regular season wins. In the playoffs, they are neutralized by stronger teams who also have superstars and better depth.

    We donít have one

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •