radoran

I think Lavy is going to go with the goaltender who he thinks gives the team the best shot at winning and I don't think he has decided at this point who that is going to be.

As long as the "goaltender who he thinks gives the team the best shot at winning" gets more than 3.5 periods to prove it, I'm good with that.

I guess I'm just not convinced that Lavi has a good eye for goaltending. It was a no-brainer to play Ward after his Conn Smythe win (and Lavi never made the playoffs with Carolina after that). It was a no-brainer to play Osgood on the Island over a young DiPietro.

Those being Lavi's two previous gigs - and after last year's goalie disaster in the playoffs and the previous year's decision to go with Leighton in the Finals - what evidence is there to rely on Laviolette to handle the current goalie situation well?

I will speculate that if he goes Bob over Bryz and doesn't win the Cup, he's fired before the playoffs are over.

Is anyone else starting to wonder about Lavy's goaltending management?? I am still in the camp that last year's cluster f*uck in the playoffs was primarily his fault. Granted Boosh or Bob didn't step up in net, but no one will EVER convince me it was a smart move to put Leighton in net..and I thought that before he laid that monster egg.

Yes.

I thought the goalie carousel was ridiculous. Leighton shouldn't have been in the same zip code as the Flyers' crease.

Bob comes in, loses a 1-0 Game 1 and starts off behind a shaky team in Game 2 and then gets demoted to THIRD and doesn't get another start for three weeks?

1-0 losses are NEVER "the goalie's fault" and there's NO way that one shaky start should lose the starting job to a journeyman backup and a waiver wire acquisition.

True though his most relevant body of work was when he had Cam Ward between the pipes. He's a very good player and NOT a head case.

All goalies are head cases.

Bryzgalov actually has a better career GAA (2.55 to 2.76) and SV% (.915 to .909) and trails Ward by .006 in win pct (.509 to .515 - based on strict WINS and counting OTLs as Ls).

He's been a 65-70 game starter for each of the past three years. Ward's been in the same boat, aside from his injured year, and topped out at 74 last season (probably why they looked for a reliable backup in Boosh to take some time off Ward's clock).

Ward's playoff pedigree aside - which is a Big Aside, I'll grant you - they are not dissimilar goalies.

This had not occurred to me but it seems plausible based upon what little we have seen so far. Good one. Also, the comment Bob made over the summer about the "players playing the game, not the contracts" sure sounds to me like something Lavy would say. Lavy seems like the type who might not give a damn about a big contract. I'm imagining the conversation between him and Homer in my mind's eye: We're paying him a lot of money you know. Yeah but he's playing lousy..democracy...competition...Bob's earning the starts...

I think "playing the hot hand" isn't a bad way to go for some goalie combos, especially in November.

Come April, it's going to be Bryz that gets the shot (barring injury).

I gotta agree with aziz on the goalie mindset - you don't restore your #1's confidence by hanging him out to dry.

Ward's been yanked twice this year - once in Philly. Bryz has been yanked (as a starter) once.

Here's Bryz's starts in November:

GAA: 2, 2, 1.92, 2, 1, 4.13, 9*

SV%: .935, .943, .917, .939, .968, .871, .667*

* pulled

And Bob's November starts:

GAA: 2.77, 3.01, 5.12, 1, 2.05

SV%: .923, .850, .872, .958, .938

It's not like Bob's been OBVIOUSLY outplaying Bryzgalov on a consistent basis.

Their next four games are a pair of B2Bs - I'd imagine we see each play a game in those. Then I'll wager Bryz starts at least 6 of the next 9.

and yet bob has started 3 of the last 5. i dunno. i'm thinking there is some debating going on within management, too.

If they're having buyer's remorse before the end of the first NOVEMBER of a NINE YEAR, NMC CONTRACT, then we're all pretty much screwed...

There were other options available out there both for this year and into next.

The time to debate Bryzgalov (for management) was the end of June, not the end of November.

And if I would guess, that's likely what prevented Homer from putting him on wavers...

Having $1.9M in cap space (Nodl + Shelley) wouldn't be a Bad Thing in terms of acquiring a serviceable player. Or Matt Walker.

I'm not going to be in the "WAAAH! WE TRADED NODL!" camp, but the two moves (waiving Shelley/Nodl) are not mutually exclusive.

Except at 3600 S. Broad...

that's a good point, rad. i guess the question is how involved in the depthchart desicions snider and holmgren want to be on it. i wonder to what extent they would go to protect their investment/save face on the whole debacle. might they trade bob specifically to take him out of the picture?

Snider got invovled with the depth chart decisions by grabbing the chart marked GOALIE and telling Homer to put "BRYZGALOV" at the top of it.

Snider was apparently very specific that he wanted the "goalie carousel" to end and the nine-year, NMC deal to Bryz was the move he apparently wanted.

Bryzgalov is the Flyers' #1 goalie. The only thing that would change that is injury - unless Bryzgalov turns into the second coming of Trevor "Beach Ball" Kidd. The only place this is going to be debated is on fan forums.

The only reason to trade Bob (now/this season) is if you get the right deal for him.

Yep. But here is what I wonder though. Would any team actually show interst in a stiff like Shelley, knowing what his salary is? For better or worse, Nodl at least can fetch you a cap relief, and I think if Homer would care, he could've actually even gotten a roster player in return. Granted, he was not looking for a player in this particular case, but still.

Shelley is a total waste. I don't know who in his right mind would pick him off the waver wire.

Yes, but once waived and assigned to Adirondack he could be a great "in the room" addition to the Phantoms AND get the $1.1M off the cap.

Of course, that doesn't help the maxed out number of contracts, so...

Argh.

Nodl was ok, but I think we seriously upgraded that role with guys like Read, Z, and Rinaldo. And the first two seem to have more offensive spunk than Noodle.

I don't expect Nodl to be Patrick Sharp - or even Rusty, for that matter - but it sucks to lose an asset for nothing simply because you've bungled the cap management.

Nodl was $300K cheaper than Shelley and brought infinitely more to the table, IMO. I'd take Nodl over Shelley 12 times out of 3.

Nodl claimed by Carolina

Per FRANK SERAVALLI

I, for one, am going to miss ol' Neon Nodl.

And the only person who's name should be at the top of the list for "cap relief" is "Jody Shelley"

Cap-strapped and at the contract limit - great way to "test the trade market".

The guy who owns the car handed the keys to Bryzgalov.

Bryzgalov wasn't Homer's call - it was Snider's. The NMC means he's not going anywhere (can't demote him) and the likelihood of a trade is Quite Small.

I like Bryzgalov, but the nine-year deal at that number is IMO too much. Of course, MO means two things: jack and squat.

Another important thing to remember: Laviolette doesn't have a nine-year, NMC deal and Snider has shown that he's got no problem canning coaches.

Bryz should start at least 60-65 games for this team. He will go up and down - and aziz is absolutely right that all goalies do go up and down.

Trade Bob? If you get the right offer, you trade anybody.

Like I said, running Thomas is the way to go. Buffalo goes away humiliated and beat up.

Gaustad HAD to do something because of his abject failure before, and he abjectly failed to do it here.

The Sabres need, God forbid, a "Barnaby" type to give them some attitude and an edge.

Kaleta is NOT it.

Patrick Thoresen

Sammy Kapanen

Jeff Woywitka

I'll give a vote for Jeff Carter the face-off Beast.

But my most missed player has probably been Justin Williams

Thoresen and Kapanen aren't in the NHL.

I mentioned Woywitka:

Jeff Woywitka (no, really - Jeff Woywitka)

Ex-Flyers Currently Playing

* missed

** can't play

*** can't play, won Cup

Brian Boucher

Joni Pitkanen**

Dainus Zubrus* (sorta)

Mark Eaton***

Martin Biron* (sorta)

Steve Eminger

Ruslan Fedotenko* & *** (KICKING MYSELF for not including Rusty before now)

Jeff Woywitka (no, really - Jeff Woywitka)

Arron Asham*

Alexandre Picard (make it so, #1)

Dennis Seidenberg***

Ville Leino**

Joffrey Lupul**

Kris Versteeg

Steve Downie**

Mike Knuble* & **

Dan Carcillo**

Sean O'Donnell

Patrick Sharp* & ***

Jeff Carter

Vinny "Vaclav" Prospal

RJ Umburglar**

Andrew Alberts

Dan Hamhuis ("Flyers property")

Nate Guenin

Luca Sbisa

Simon Gagne*

Mike Richards

Justin Williams* & ***

Daymond Langkow (Wayne Gretzky's favorite player)

Michal Handzus

Jim Vandermeer**

Scottie Upshall

Who'd I miss?

I can appreciate what he does but it's obvious by his lack of games and ice time that his days are numbered. I hated the deal when Homer signed him as I thought it was way too much money and for too long. Because of that and due to likely lack of interest elsewhere I think we're stuck with him.

The Flyers as an organization are probably stuck with him.

The Flyers as a team are not.

He could be waived to the AHL yesterday, today, tomorrow, not-soon-enough...

No. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

@radoran

Hey rad- I'm not saying he should be in the lineup because he was traded for Richards, I'm just saying he was the key piece, not Simmonds. I think a lot of people are caught up in the Flyers vying for 1st place. I honestly think we'll drop down in the pack, and that playing Schenn now and letting him adapt to the NHL will benefit the team come playoff time. Something that might temporarily take away but payoff a lot more at a later date.

Read has been an absolute bonus. But reality is, Harry Z and Rinaldo aren't really going to factor in the long range plans of a playoff team. So if Schenn goes back to the A and starts racking up 2 points a game again, isn't it obvious he needs to play against a higher level?

He was the "centerpiece" of that trade, yes. And he has another two years under contract before he's an RFA. Still, no rush. I do think that Simmonds' is undervalued in the trade scenario. A lot of Kings writers have commented that they're missing some of Simmonds' "intangibles" - like being a skilled player with an edge who's prepared to drop the gloves if needed. I think off the ice, Simmonds is also exactly the kind of player that, for example, the Ed Snider Youth Hockey program could really use to have around.

It sounds like Schenn might be able to play W without much fuss. There seems to be a top line forward position open due to injury at the moment...

I wouldn't be surprised if he was sent elsewhere in a trade, either.

Like "too many centers," having a 20yo 5th overall pick still waiting to make his real NHL coming out is a problem a LOT of teams would like to have...

Yes. There's a reason he's a top prospect.

There's no need to rush him. On the other hand we traded our captain, just entering his prime years, who just happens to be one of the top two 2 way players in the world, and it wasn't solely for Wayne Simmonds. Actually, he was the secondary player coming our way. Schenns already shown he can handle the AHL, and then some. Well, the NHL is the next step. And he's got the talent to make this team better.

Honestly, the proximity of the trade is the worst possible reason to force him into the lineup. As you note, Richards is entering his prime. Schenn essentially is playing his first post-Junior season. It's apples and kumquats.

The trade(s) made the Flyers (IMO) better, cheaper and - most importantly - younger. Having a 20yo #5 overall pick as your backup insurance policy this season (if nothing else) is a great addition to the lineup. Simmonds has a place and role on the roster - there really isn't one for Schenn at this point. I don't understand the CBA logistics of it, but not having him on the opening roster apparently lowered his cap hit this season - another important consideration beyond the window-dressing of an off-season trade.

If you add up Harry Z, Rinaldo and Read they together cost barely more than Schenn's potential cap hit (with bonuses). And those guys are good candidates for 3/4 line duty that can also add some offensive punch in a Top 6/9 role.

I'd simply rather have Schenn playing a Top 6 role in the AHL with solid minutes than trying to find 5-10 minutes on the 3/4 lines in the NHL.

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.

who said I was blaming anybody? All I said was he shows up and the team starts playing like crap. If you want to believe that I implied he had a direct impact on that result then go for it. People talk about chemistry and not ***** with lines all the time. Maybe it wasn't his presence that was causing the problem directly but someone had to sit to make room for him. Lines had to be changed around. The team lost chemistry along the way there somewhere. So was he a direct problem? no, but it's hard to ignore the trend and say that something wasn't a miss there. Don't get me wrong though,I like the guy.

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.

Seriously asking here, not trying to be stupid (see how easily I do it without trying?).

I have no idea what a suspension would be based on. Assume for a moment he intentionally hit him. There's a difference between intentionally hitting a goalie and intent to injure. Outside of that, it wasn't against the boards; it wasn't a hit to the head; it wasn't from behind; and we're talking maybe a second late. I guess I understand the charge, although a better argument would have been for interference since the puck WAS gone. But I really don't understand what a suspension would be based on...under the rules.

I haven't looked for this specifically so if you or someone knows, that's why I'm asking. I'm just not off-handedly aware of it.

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.

Well thanks. And I understand and respect yours as well. Aziz makes good points too. And yeah, I suppose I am talking about what they should be rather than how they are.

On the other hand, if the goalies are going to be protected no matter how dumb their decision or no matter where they are on the ice, they ought to save money on the paint or whatever and get rid of the crease. Because if we're not going to have the skate in the crease rule (you know, the one that didn't apply to Brett Hull), then I'm not quite sure I understand the point to the crease if the goalie's being in it or out of it makes no consequential difference. Again, talking "should be" rather than "is," but just saying the "is" doesn't really make much logical sense to me. (ha! ruxpin is talking like he would recognize logic!). So I guess penalty, yeah, but I'm glad they didn't suspend.

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.

Good point, but I think from a medium/long term perspective, it's debatable whether PHX is/was the better franchise to get. In fact, there are stories out there that ATL was the team that WPG coveted all along.

And, back to your point: I'm not certain that Quebec or any other Cdn city "deserves" a franchise necessarily. Except for Toronto: they could really uses an NHL hockey team one of these years B)

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.

Fair enough rad. Just so we are clear: I know where you are coming from. I was saying that your academic opinion was lacking facts (about the "small arena" issue and revenue implications, which have been addressed through the business plan, in particular, ticket prices).

I'll take $20 straight up that says Wpg will indeed make the playoffs within the next 3 years (starting this year). People forget that for much of the year last year ATL was in the playoffs. The wheels fell off pretty late, for a bunch of reasons, but they played like a playoff team and had the record of one for much of last year.

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"??