aziz

that's the overage from last season. the flyers ended the season $1.4mil over the cap ceiling, and so that overage is charged to the cap for this season. as it isn't tied to any particular player, looks like they decided to put holmgren's name next to it.

i blame lindros.

see, i KNEW this moment would come!

right, except it is "the longer of" 6 days or 3 games. so, which ever comes last, not first. and it can be extended by 2 games once.

agreed. i think richards without the C changes a lot. this was one of those weird trades where one team did not give up what the other team received. richards in philly was damaged....the leadership role he was given was premature, and i don't know how he and the team could have fixed that. in LA, he has a clean slate, gets to be just one of the players.

i'm sure LA misses simmonds, but like you said, he isn't a huge fish. who knows what schenn is going to end up being, but in any case, he wasn't going to be particularly helpful to the kings any time soon. the flyers are in a spot where they can wait for him, LA needed help right now.

i call the deal win/win, really. i kinda wish a high end roster player could have come back for richards, but the flyers look like they have a pretty full toolbox right now...so i don't think they were hurt by his loss.

I know some posters had their hopes up that Jagr would fail in Philly for some strange reason.

well, the "some strange reason" is that he was the guy we loved to hate most in the league for almost 20 years. imagine being a junior in a pittsburgh area highschool in 1991 as a flyers fan. jagr was the face of our hatred of the pengiuns, and was the face of the asshole penguins fans we had to deal with non-stop. "dude, jagr is awesome, the flyers suck!" and then he went on to the caps and then the rangers...he was our eastern confrence nemisis. it's a tough lift to ask people who fixated on him as the enemy for 2 decades to welcome him with open arms.

that's the "had their hopes up" part. we wanted to see him humbled and shamed and the flyers to move on without him.

thing is, the "humbled" part actually happened. who knew jagr could step in and be comfortable in a supporting role? the way he's playing now, he skates like his job is to help giroux become a superstar, not increase the awesome of jagr. that's new, that's a thing none of us thought possible. the chip he had on his shoulders for years and years is gone, and he seems like a guy who is just happy to help where he can. he seems...humble. i dunno, i completely didn't see that coming. i don't think anyone who paid attention to him in pitt, wash, or NY could have seen that coming.

we'll see how he lasts through the season, but honestly, i see him getting better over the next couple months. he seems more and more comfortable out there as he gets back up to NHL speed, he's understanding giroux's game more and more, and is starting to work other players into his schemes. as one of the most vocal anti-jagr guys here (well, philly.com, but whatever), he's proven everything i feared wrong. at this point, i don't think 80 points is out of the question, and he's going to be a big part of giroux breaking 100.

what's wrong with the spinorama?

because no one likes the spinorama :blink:

"i wonder who got post 10,500?"

Ok, but players have been doing that spinorama move and they all counted when they went in. That's reversing the puck movement all the way.

most of them. some of those guys do manage to keep the puck moving at the net. but the ones that don't, those shouldn't count.

'twas crap. bad goal. bad explanation. the guy in the video even says, "...but in stopping, [briere] continued to dribble or stickhandle the puck side to side, backward foreward."

the rulebook does NOT just say the puck has to stay in motion as the guy claims. it says the puck has to continue motion towards the goal line. side to side and backward foreward doesn't cut it. the guy cites rule 24.2 of the rulebook. here is the pertinent part:

The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and

once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be

scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the

goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the

goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a

complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete.

the play was dead the second briere pulled the puck back. terrible call on the ice, terrible call from toronto, terrible rationalization after the fact.

if this kind of crap is allowed going forward, the shootout is going to become even more of a joke than it already is. a goalie has no chance on a play like that. a player on a breakaway with no back pressure, no time constraints, and who can pull the puck back and around will score 80% of the time. the other 20% being goalies who come flying out of the net and slide tackle the shooter.

imo, the league needs to make an announcement reiterating (because it's already in the freaking rulebook) that the puck must continue its progress towards the goal, and then institute a 5 second shot clock on the penalty shot, from the moment the player touches the puck at center ice.

Out of curiosity who would you trade Courts or Schenn for that is equal value? I don't think you can get anyone that can really help right now unless it's a package.

i don't know, ekman-larsson in phoenix, maybe? maybe they'd like to find a real center for doan before he's 400 years old?

who knows if they be interested. my point is, i don't know how schenn is going to find an opportunity with the flyers in his natural position. they can either shoehorn him into another spot, which could work...bump someone else to another spot...or they can move schenn for someone who can slide into a spot that the team will need some help with over the next few years. i'm not super anxious to trade the kid, i just really can't see how the roster can be shuffled to accomodate all the centers they currently have, and so would not be upset if the flyers found a way to translate his value into something that fits the team's needs better.

-Patrick Sharp says "hello".

why is patrick sharp saying hello? what point are you trying to make?

if schenn were a winger, my point of view on this would be different. unless the flyers are planning on converting him to a wing, you tell me what spot he is going to take on the roster. 6 minutes per game on the 4th line?

i really don't understand how some people can't get their heads around the idea that an asset can be parlayed into another asset without the move representing some kind of surrender. the kings didn't give up on schenn when they traded him; they used his value to fill a need on their roster.

the flyers have zero need for another top 6 center. at least not for the next 3 years. top 6 winger? yes. top 4 dman? yes. top 6 center? no, not at all. spending the next 3 years trying to find ice time for him, juggling lines around all the time so giroux, briere, couturier and schenn can all get their chances, is only going to continue the confusion we saw when the flyers tried to make it work with richards, carter, giroux, and briere.

as far as i'm concerned, the answer is to either convert couturier or schenn to a wing, or move couturier or schenn. not "give up" on them, but trade their value for equal value in a position they have a need for.

well, headbutting....no matter how hard you squint, that's a shitty play. you can't even pretend to make a "it was a hockey play" argument on that. dude's a piece of crap.

And having too many centers is a problem every gm of every hockey team on the planet wishes he had.

sure, a problem every GM wishes he had...but it is still a "problem". again, assuming a healthy roster, where does he play? 4th line? who sits so you can give schenn a regular shift?

but it's way to early in the season/his career to give up on him.

absolutely, but trading a player doesn't always mean you are giving up on him. sometimes it means you have other needs that he can be leveraged to fill.

As others have said, if he finds his groove, he'll be a good replacement for some of our aging forwards.

sure, but who? briere in 4 years?

the problem is: where does he fit on the roster between now and briere's contract expiring? until that time, you are looking at 4 top 6 centers. couturier looks like he can work magic on a 3rd line...but does that mean schenn is 4th line material until 2015? or do you bump briere or giroux to a wing, when each has proven FAR more effective in the middle?

i just don't know how you work him into the roster.

What are your thoughts on Schenn?

my only thought on it is: with giroux, couturier and briere on the team through the summer of 2015 (end of biere's contract), at what point will there be a regular roster spot for schenn to take? it is dumb to give up on a kid after a handful of games, but from a roster depth/needs point of view, i don't know how he could fit into the team's plans. on the other hand, with coburn, carle and timonen becoming UFAs in the next two years, there are organizational depth needs on the blueline. a value for value, need for need trade makes some sense.

schenn may very well become awesome, i'm just not sure a 2-way, top 6 center is where the flyers ought to be concentrating their prospect value. if it can be turned into a 2-way, top pair defenseman, it strikes me as a good idea.

i wouldn't call the sabres a solid team. they brought leino in because they needed a 1st line center. enough said, you know?

good goalie, a good player here and there, but overall bottom rung, imo.

it's the flyers game to lose. which they are entirely capable of. in their hands, though.