Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 132
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,623
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    Hart had a bad game but the announcers even stated the kid is being hung out to dry... OUR DEFENSE IS *** OUTSIDE OF 1 GUY.... I am with you about the short handed stuff... **** that. OUR defense isnt short handed. They are just bad.
    Defense was bad too. But I think it's a team effort. The forwards aren't playing good 2 way right now. Which last night shouldn't shock, you have 4 or 5 guys who have no business in an NHL lineup at the forward position and guys on weird lines.

    I would completely throw the baby out with the bathwater last night. Everyone was bad.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    9,888
    honestly **** the nhl for making us play these last two games. I think we can take the bruins when healthy. No couts and half an ahl roster every time we play them. Not worried at all really..we were never going to win that game. Sucks the nhl just hands valuable points away but eh...

    once this team gets healthy, we will go on a run. Still haven't had a full roster and a competent pp. FFS change the powerplay up. Thierrien is ****ing garbage. Let ghost run the point already

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,735
    Friedman placed on waivers. Someone will end up claiming him more than likely.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,992
    G was back at practice...

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,414
    Friedman placed on waivers. Someone will end up claiming him more than likely.
    if that happens, then good for him, but i can't imagine there's a huge market for 25 year old undersized puck moving defensemen with limited NHL experience and a long track record of mediocre offensive production in the AHL.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,750
    Quote Originally Posted by steagles View Post
    if that happens, then good for him, but i can't imagine there's a huge market for 25 year old undersized puck moving defensemen with limited NHL experience and a long track record of mediocre offensive production in the AHL.
    This.

    Side note....

    Thoughts on pulling the trigger on ekholm, and if it works out protecting 8 skaters instead?


    Giroux
    Hayes
    Couts
    Konecny
    Provy
    Sanheim
    Myers
    Ekholm.

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,623
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    This.

    Side note....

    Thoughts on pulling the trigger on ekholm, and if it works out protecting 8 skaters instead?


    Giroux
    Hayes
    Couts
    Konecny
    Provy
    Sanheim
    Myers
    Ekholm.
    The Flyers would be insanely silly to leave 22 year old Carter Hart dangling out there (with no real backup plan at 1G organizationally right now), to keep 30+ year old, on 1 year deal Ekholm.

    I'm not super into trading for Ekholm right now. It jacks up the protection for next year (we're going to lose someone, but trading for Ekholm basically says '1 year rental, here you take him for free') and you have to ask yourself; on his own, does Ekholm make us Stanley Cup true hopefuls? Or are we still banking on "Hart, please get hot?" If it's the latter, I think I'd keep the capital and assets and use them another way (not necessarily in the draft, but to work on acquiring talent that will either be longer term, or will put the Flyers in real Cup conversations). I tend to fall into the latter. I like Ekholm, but I don't need Ekholm. I think the Flyers can use those assets in a better way.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,750
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    The Flyers would be insanely silly to leave 22 year old Carter Hart dangling out there (with no real backup plan at 1G organizationally right now), to keep 30+ year old, on 1 year deal Ekholm.

    I'm not super into trading for Ekholm right now. It jacks up the protection for next year (we're going to lose someone, but trading for Ekholm basically says '1 year rental, here you take him for free') and you have to ask yourself; on his own, does Ekholm make us Stanley Cup true hopefuls? Or are we still banking on "Hart, please get hot?" If it's the latter, I think I'd keep the capital and assets and use them another way (not necessarily in the draft, but to work on acquiring talent that will either be longer term, or will put the Flyers in real Cup conversations). I tend to fall into the latter. I like Ekholm, but I don't need Ekholm. I think the Flyers can use those assets in a better way.
    That's not how expansion works. I guess I could have clarified initially.

    It's either 7+3+1 or 8+1 in expansion.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,750
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    The Flyers would be insanely silly to leave 22 year old Carter Hart dangling out there (with no real backup plan at 1G organizationally right now), to keep 30+ year old, on 1 year deal Ekholm.

    I'm not super into trading for Ekholm right now. It jacks up the protection for next year (we're going to lose someone, but trading for Ekholm basically says '1 year rental, here you take him for free') and you have to ask yourself; on his own, does Ekholm make us Stanley Cup true hopefuls? Or are we still banking on "Hart, please get hot?" If it's the latter, I think I'd keep the capital and assets and use them another way (not necessarily in the draft, but to work on acquiring talent that will either be longer term, or will put the Flyers in real Cup conversations). I tend to fall into the latter. I like Ekholm, but I don't need Ekholm. I think the Flyers can use those assets in a better way.
    I guess I'm with you to an extent. I think it depends on the cost to acquire and how the flyers look closer to the deadline, whenever that is.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,623
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    That's not how expansion works. I guess I could have clarified initially.

    It's either 7+3+1 or 8+1 in expansion.
    My fault there. I knew it was 7+3 but figured with 8 it was no goalie. Whoopsies. Slept like 3 hours last night. I take my medicine on the top part.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,623
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    I guess I'm with you to an extent. I think it depends on the cost to acquire and how the flyers look closer to the deadline, whenever that is.
    I assume the cost will be at least a 1st plus something interesting prospect wise. There will be more than enough teams interested in a legit top-4 dman like Ekholm who comes with control that will push the price up. At that price, count me way out.

    Hed have to come in at a "half year rental" price because that's essentially what he becomes for the Flyers (you have to assume you lose him and go from there). I just don't think he comes anywhere close to that price with one year of control past the year.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,414
    Thoughts on pulling the trigger on ekholm, and if it works out protecting 8 skaters instead?
    the teams that were hit the hardest by the VGK draft were the ones that protected 8 skaters instead of 10, or worked out a deal with VGK to protect whoever they wanted.

    it's just not worth it.


    w/r/t ekholm, it would be malpractice for the flyers to make a trade for a defenseman of that caliber before the expansion draft. i'm not saying it's not needed; i'm not saying it's not good; i'm just saying it really has to wait until the offseason.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    116,996
    We need to stop this **** man. We finally have a goalie and we are happy with the **** in front of him? typical flyers and fans. Ghost/Gust/Braun/Hagg all need to go... Imagine for a second knowing we have 3 of the worst defensive defenseman on the planet and yet we somehow someway want to worry about points from years ago in terms of gus and ghost and then there is hagg and braun..... holy **** we have a clear as **** upgrade any and everywhere.... just get rid of these 4 trash cans and find anyone.


    How many more year we gonna wait for ghost who should have been gone 2 years ago to find his offensive self? how about gus since he is the new ghost? get rid of the trash and send them and braun/hagg to the ****ing moon. Our defense is ****ing garbage people

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,623
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    We need to stop this **** man. We finally have a goalie and we are happy with the **** in front of him? typical flyers and fans. Ghost/Gust/Braun/Hagg all need to go... Imagine for a second knowing we have 3 of the worst defensive defenseman on the planet and yet we somehow someway want to worry about points from years ago in terms of gus and ghost and then there is hagg and braun..... holy **** we have a clear as **** upgrade any and everywhere.... just get rid of these 4 trash cans and find anyone.


    How many more year we gonna wait for ghost who should have been gone 2 years ago to find his offensive self? how about gus since he is the new ghost? get rid of the trash and send them and braun/hagg to the ****ing moon. Our defense is ****ing garbage people
    It's not about "being happy with what's in front of him". It's "spending assets in the best way". Sure, Ekholm improves our defense. But for how much, and how long? Does Ekholm fix the entire team? I don't think so. Ekholm really messes with the protection lists. So you have to add either, the player the Flyers now lose in the draft to the trade value you acquired him with as the total cost, or be okay losing Ekholm. If the Flyers aren't immediately one of the top 2 on their side of the playoff bracket, then I'm saying; spend the assets better.

    It isn't "don't do anything" it's "spend the assets the right way". Ekholm isn't the only defenseman who will be available in the next year (deadline/offseason). The Flyers can probably spent the capital needed to acquire talent better than Ekholm right now.

    We are at the level of being good but flawed. Every move from here on out needs to be made with the question of "how much does this move the needle in becoming a Stanley Cup winner?" When you start coming up to the cap, with players coming off their first two contracts, moves need to be the right move, not the right now. I don't think 1/2 a year of Ekholm or 1.5 years of Ekholm+losing another good player does that enough for the trade to really make sense for the Flyers to give up good assets that could be used another time, in another trade to actually move that needle.

    If Ekholm is being valued as a 1/2 year rental in trade value? Cool. I'm in. But there's more than just the Flyers who will be interested and cannot see the Preds having any reason to give him to the Flyers for that price when he comes with 1.5 years of control. Someone will give more. I would love to see Braun and Hagg gone. I'm just not convinced that Ekholm is the best way for the Flyers to maximize their assets to the best of their abilities.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; Yesterday at 09:04 AM.

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    9,888
    i am all for spending a first and someone like obrian for a defensemen on a two year contract at the deadline. Trade braun and have hagg be the 7th

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 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
  •