radoran

The topic is "most missed ex-Flyers" and I most miss Patrick Sharp, my fellow alum from UVM. If the thread was "best ex-Flyers still playing" we might come up with a different answer :-) Sharp was another guy who really never got a shot with the Flyers. Played 41 games before the lockout, then had 22 before being traded to Chicago. When he was traded he was almost universally badmouthed as a bust who would never amount to much and some people believed the Flyers got the better end of the deal. In his first full season with the Hawks he scored 20. The next season - 36.Then 26, 25 and 34. In return, Matt Ellison played seven games for the Flyers, notching a point. And 110 Phantoms games with 24 goals and 64 points. Perrennial 20-goal scorer, averaged 30 goals a season the past four years. Yeah, I think I'd "miss" that even without the "fellow alum" thing. I don't know that the Sandberg reference holds any water. Sandberg played 13 games for the Phillies with six at bats. Appearing in eight percent of games - and not even batting in half of them - isn't quite the same and playing half a season and then a quarter of a season on the main roster. They're still two Really Really bad trades, though.

All I said was I lit the fuse and the bomb blew up. If you want to imply that lighting the fuse had something to do with the bomb exploding in that sentence, go for it. ;-) There's really no need to dump on Schenn. I think this team was due for a bump in the road, and it happened to happen when Schenn was called up. Bryz got a bug in his head (as happens with Bryz - then he tends to turn in runs like he's on now). The D started playing like three pairings who really hadn't played together too much. It was 1-3-0. IMO there's no way that a 20yo callup can "disrupt" an NHL locker room to this extent (now that Billy Tibbetts is no longer with us). The real problem with Schenn is the cap implications - nothing to do with the 1-3-0 record or the "way the team played." This team is skating the thin thin edge of cap compliance. Which is why I said what I said earlier in the thread that if there's a rational space - I like that third line LOD had Voracek/Schenn/Read - but I really have no idea what kind of player Schenn actually is on the ice. I've seen him for four games (plus preseason and the rookie game (live)) at the NHL level. Is he a playmaker? Finisher? Two-way? We don't know yet. There's also no need to rush Schenn into the lineup. If there's space, put him in. If not, he's a very nice insurance policy for a top 9 forward in Adirondack.

Well, a suspension would boil down to intent - which everyone here seems to assume and the league said didn't exist. That was the stated reason there was no suspension - no intent. If you assume that Lucic intended to hit Miller - which is against the rules - then using the "standards" applied by the league previously, a suspension would have been in order. Not lengthy, perhaps a game off. Again, using the "standards" applied by the league, they would do this in part as a means of explaining to the rest of the players how serious this is. As it is, when Kaleta "accidentally" takes out Thomas on April 7, it will surely just be a "coincidence." I like the theory that a player who causes an injury through a deliberate act - with intent - should be out as long as the player he injured. Not sure how it would apply in practice, but I do like the theory.

All right, obviously we're getting a little far afield, but... If you think that Miller was making a "dumb" decision based on the fact that the rule says he shouldn't be run in that situation, then, fine. But Miller was playing the game according to the rules. Lucic wasn't. Lucic should have been suspended. EVERYONE here acknowledges that Lucic INTENDED to hit Miller. The NHL's guy said "what? intent? no. no way, dude." I am quite familiar with being in opposition to dumb rules. I have been quite clear that I would favor a stricter redefining of the goalie position/contact rule. My disdain for the crease rule predates the Hull incident by months, if not from its inception. Buffalo still lost the Cup. Lucic should have been suspended.

Quebec is apparently clamouring to get the Islanders - THE ISLANDERS - to come there. Talk about desperate... Of course, you'll note they're not coveting the Leaes... WPG has some good parts, but IMO doesn't stack up well against other franchies.

The NHL wouldn't have put a team into Winnipeg without a business plan that they believed could work. Of course, they would argue that was the same for Phoenix. And I'd say that, with history and culture, Winnipeg has a better shot at having a successful franchise than Phoenix despite being about 1/6 the size in their Metro area (695K vs. 4.1M). You'll note that Phoenix is currently 4th in the West and have been to the postseason the past two years. If I was Winnipeg, I might have wanted to wait a year to have the "real" Jets come back rather then get all hot and bothered over a team that "almost" made the playoffs last year. That said, I believe I got into all this with the concept that Canada "deserved" another team, which was the context for the Winnipeg discussion. I remain unconvinced that Canada "deserves" another team - but if, say, Quebec comes up with a workable plan and a decent arena - kudos to them!

Metzer, http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-Meltzer/Flyers-Gameday-111711-vs-Coyotes/45/39781, has: Carle - Pronger Coburn - Timonen Lilja - Meszaros Here's the Flyers' official site story: http://flyers.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=64095&navid=DL|PHI|home

I'm definitely in the "glass half empty" side of Winnipeg and you're "half full" - which is perfectly fine from where I sit. I'm looking at it purely academically - I have no dog in this fight. That said, if you had $100, how much would you put down on Winnipeg making the playoffs in the next three years? I'm fairly familiar with the team - have Enstrom on my FHL, frequently have Pavelec when available and have had Kane and Bumistrov - and I can't see them challenging even for eighth given the competition. Nik Antropov is your leading scorer? NIK ANTROPOV? lmao I'd put down $20 if I could get any favorable odds. Straight up? No thanks. In Other News: how pathetic is it that Dallas is drawing 10K a game and leading their division? And did someone really say "Houston"??

I think Letang and Kohlrabbi don't really belong on this list. There's no way that Letang is a Hart Trophy winner and they typically don't go to goalies... And, really, THREE Penguins in the mix for Hart in this article? (Two honorable mentions) It's WAY early to be thinking about this,. I think we have to see how players are really "valuable" to their teams over the course of the season. When I think of the Hart, I think of guys who have made their teams better. As much as it pains the hell out of me, Kessel's making a damn good argument simply by making the Leaes look mildly respectable.

In terms of arena size, I'm still quite right - they currently have relatively the same sized arena that didn't work before. Yes, there are plans to expand it. No, it isn't expanded yet. Yes, the Canadian dollar's strength at the moment is a boon, as is the "cost certainty" of the CBA. How many of their STH's are going to be thrilled to pony up big bucks when their initial contract runs out to see a team that (potentially) still hasn't made the playoffs? I'm not saying it "can't work" but this is a franchise with one playoff appearance and zero playoff wins in its history. The team is 13th in the East and tied for third worst record in hockey. As I look at it, I can't say that there's any reason to believe that any of that will change next year. Or the year after that. "Exciting prospects" or no, how long will Winnipeg (or any place but, say, Tronno) support a chronically underachieving, losing franchise? NHL level hockey has already failed in both Winnipeg and Quebec once. Hell, Pittsburgh was at the verge of losing the Pens before their chronic losing led to a ridiculous number of high draft picks. Again, I *hope* Winnipeg works out. But I'm not betting the chicken coop on it, much less the whole farm.

They have the same sized building and are selling out at 15,004. It's almost impossible for them to be anything but in the 20s in league attendance. Their market is actually relatively smaller now than it was before. Last time, it was bigger than Quebec - now 20K less than Quebec. I *hope* Winnipeg works out. I'd *hope* that Quebec could work.

Minnesota is a hockeymad state - they lost the Stars because of their arena. If they're filling 90%+ I'm good with that. Nashville is an interesting story. They have an attendance number they need to meet or they can leave. They're still filling 90% this season. Winnpieg? Winnipeg essentially still has the small arena that couldn't work the first time. Both Minnesota and Nashville are drawing more actual PEOPLE than Winnipeg. I don't see where Winnipeg's 15.004 is an indication that it will thrive while Nasvhille (16,333 avg.) and Minnesota (16,965) are indications they are obviously failing.

I have no problem watching hockey as a national "niche" sport. That doesn't mean there can't be "hockey" in other places. Tampa's drawing 19K and 96.3% capacity. LA sells out 99.9% this season. Columbus was supposed to be a primed market with proven support for an AHL franchise. Being godawful since inception has killed that. I think Colorado would be back with some success. Phoenix, Miami and Carolina? Hmmm... Does St. John's, Newfoundland have an NHL franchise yet?

SQUIRREL!

Right, I'm saying in 2-3 years after the "newness" has worn off. Look at the bottom ten in attendance - Anaheim and Carolina have won Cups since the lockout. New Jersey, Colorado and the Islanders have storied histories. Dallas "won" the Cup and trails Phoenix and Columbus as the WORST attendance in the entire league (% of house). Then you've got Nashville, Minnesota, Florida and Columbus - with Nashville and Minnesota filling 90+% of capacity. So the question is: does Winnipeg still sell out after making the playoffs once in a decade and winning zero playoff games?

At best that would make it offsetting minors. In order for the "chicken wing" move to work, one's stick has to be already jabbed into the midsection of the opposing player... This gets back to your "sticks on the ice" comment.

Article the other day said MLS has now eclipsed NHL in average fans per game: http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2011/11/mls-surpasses-nba-nhl-in-average-attendance/ A lot of this has to do with terrible teams in bad hockey markets, but it also referenced the idea that MLS put teams in areas that had a big interest in soccer. They went where the amrket was, they didn't expect a pro team to trickle down and develop interest. I'm curious to see how Winnipeg reacts to having the Atlanta Thrashers over the next few years. If all you have is godawful hockey, how much do you really wanna go watch it?

If there's support in Seattle, I think that'd be a great idea. Seattle's far enough from Vancouver.

From teh FB: Philadelphia Flyers INJURY UPDATE: Flyers GM Paul Holmgren on (D) Erik Gustafsson: "Erik underwent wrist surgery this morning at Methodist Hospital. The surgery was performed by Dr. Randy Culp. We expect Erik to be out of action for six (6) weeks.” Can Schenn play D? ;-)

The important part here is that hitting the goalie in that situation is against the rules. Goalies are not "fair game" when they are in that position. Period. I'd like the instigator rule to go away, but while it's here Shelley is even more ineffective and overpriced. I understand and respect your opinion about how things should be. It's just not how they are.

It's all good. I still have that overwhelming sense of relief that those two decade-long contracts are gone.

Sharp, Patrick.- Worst. Trade. In A Significant Amount of Time.

I see no reason to force a round peg into a square hole. If there's a spot for Schenn, use him. If not, go back and put up two points a game in Adirondack and we'll call you when we square the circle.

I'm not buying into the "Canada deserves another team" argument at this point. I think Winnipeg put a cap on that "deserving." Seven of the top ten Canadian cities already have a team, with Winnipeg the only city under a million people (695K). Quebec has about 20K more. The Buffalo metro has about 1.1M people and there have long been questions about whether Buffalo "can support" a team. I can tell you first hand there are fewer hockeymad cities in the US like Buffalo (Rick notwithstanding) and the team is an integral part of what makes the city identify itself. If Buffalo "can't support" the Sabres, shouldn't we wait to see if the Jets actually succeed in Winnipeg before deciding more small Canadian cities "deserve" NHL teams? You can forget about Hamilton - Tronno will never allow it, much less Buffalo. After that, London has less than 500K people. That leaves Quebec. Does Quebec "deserve" a team simply because it had one and lost it? If Quebec puts together a convincing argument that it will have a new arena and signifcant fan and sponsor support for a team - long term - then I have absolutely no problem with the Quebec Coyotes. I'm just not down with the idea that they "deserve" it. Besides, Quebec is a very nice city. I'd hate to see those ruffian Canadian fans burn it down if their team loses.

I think Jagr has a feel for when a team has the "it" to do something special in a season. I think he feels that he has that here - that this was an opportunity to play for a real contender. Pittsburgh clearly was treating him as a swan song. He wanted to be an eagle. I don't think he ever felt that Washington had a serious chance when he was there and, I mean, seriously - the Rangers? Sheeeya. Philly has given him a late career charge and he's making the most of it. After watching former Flyers go out and get their names on the Cup, I won't mind if a couple former Penguins are on it again under the name PHILADELPHIA FLYERS. He's a real force with the puck. Eerily reminds me of Lindros at times - the 68 (instead of 88) doesn't help. Not the physical edge to the game, but the physical presence on the puck. His influence off the ice is enough that they should just give Shelley's "intangible" money to Jagr. The impact on Voracek could be - COULD BE - career changing. '68 and '93 playing for the Flyers. We've got to be among the most popular teams in Czech. Imagine if they had Vokoun instead of Bryzgalov...