ruxpin

I'm sorry, but who is anyone to claim they know the "intentions behind..." when it is specifically written the way it is? The INTENTIONS are that in the case of an RFA, a team has the right to match if they can. That right isn't present in the UFA. That's the only difference written down. Any other imposition of "intent" is simply in the mind of the person who wants to inflate something that's not there to help their argument/opinion. I can sit there and say that the "intent" is to benefit pink bunnies in Montana. It's not there anywhere on the page, obviously, but anyone be damned who tells me the "intent" is different. I'm sorry, but the "intent" argument, again, only works when someone believes something, on its face, is "unfair," and they look at a page with actual rules and when the rules don't STATE it's wrong, it was obviously the "intention" that it is wrong. It's not obvious, and it clearly doesn't say that anywhere. As far as the rules are written...to a high degree of being deliberately worded...the INTENT is to give the incumbent team the right to match in RFA cases in contrast with UFA cases. If they cannot match, or choose not to, the player moves on.

It's unfair. I'll grant that. However, I don't know about you, but I wasn't given a "fair" certificate when I was born. "Fair" really isn't reality, and I'm not sure why it should matter...since it certainly doesn't. I don't think the league can step in here based on "fair." If it does, I think I stop watching the league. Not because I'm a Flyers' fan but because I'm not sure how the league interfering with something that is, on its face, perfectly legal according to written rules in the name of "fair" is any different than a boldfaced communist intervention in "unfair" earnings. If they really don't like it, fix it in the next CBA. See if you can get the majority of owners to vote for "fair" even though for a large group of them it is counter to their own benefit. But if they are able to put it in the next CBA, that's fine. Now they've addressed "fair" in a legal way. Until them, any real or imagined move on "fair" that flies in the face of legality and current rules would be a horrible travesty. Flyers involved or not.

Andy, I think that's probably the most reasonable package I've seen in relation to the Weber thing (first time I'm seeing it, too). I REALLY like Read, though. I'd really hate to see him go.

Eh, I just don't think he's that good. I think Philly fans are so desperate for this organization to home-grow a good defenseman and a good goalie that they too willingly confuse Bobrovsky and MAB as qualifying for that criteria.

Everyone is putting MAB ahead of Gus. Am I the only one who doesn't think MAB is very good? He has some skill, but I thought he played fairly dead from the neck up. If you can sucker Nashville into taking him, do it.

Ouch. Good call, though.

Not true. They're talking a trade like what happened in the Gratton situation where a deal is set up to trade back for the picks. On paper it comes out as two separate deals, but in essence it's a package for Weber. The offer sheet was to eliminate the other teams from trade talks and possibly raising the ante.

I would be REALLY upset to see Read go. Really like the kid.

Good Lord, MD. In a discussion of "half full/half empty" glasses, I fully expect you to say "doesn't matter. Tastes like **** either way!" I was actually contentedly reading along and saying "eh, plausible" until I came to this: "I actually expected JVR to finally break out with a full summer to recuperate and rest and was looking forward to him taking on a big role next year." I don't see how anyone can "expect" this when he's shown no ability to date to be remotely consistent or consistently focused. I realize Jagr, JVR and, probably, Voracek are gone (especially if we do sign Weber), but I dont think there will be a huge drop off on offense. Wellwood will cover Voracek's absense. Someone will step up and cover Jagr, and there's absolutely NOTHING from this season to discuss in terms of covering for JVR. I do think that as far as the D goes that it is imperative to sign Weber or have a very substantial plan B. Without Weber, it's a fairly weak D.

We are all radoran. Rad really should just start posting in first person plural.

Ducks? Did someone say Ducks? So we're trading Voracek's rights, since we can't afford him now, to the Ducks?

LOL I was actually specifically thinking of you when I wrote my post.

These message boards are wearing off on me. There was a time when I would see a signing/offer like this and get all excited about the name and from an immediate hockey perspective. Now people here have me concerned about things such as duration of contract, cap hit, etc. I like Weber. I actually like him better than Suter. IF the Flyers actually get him, they have a pretty dern good defense this year. And Suter will be valuable, barring injury, for 5-6 years. And then, Flyers will have another 8 years of who knows. I don't like the idea of strapping that kind of money to one guy for THAT many years. And I really don't like the idea of giving up FOUR first round draft picks. One of the fun things, for me, about this past year was the relative youth of the team. Enjoy it now, because we won't have many youngsters in 5 years or so.

We trade Luca Sbisa for him. Oh, wait... Eh, let him get traded and see if he signs with his new team. If not, game on. Here's an idea for the Flyers...let's pretend we're Nashville and draft and groom our own damn defensemen. It ticks me off that there were some pretty good dmen sitting there when the Flyers picked this time around and we went with a centerman. SHOCKER!

@Vanflyer I like Perry. Make it so. Yeah, my silly dislike aside, I would consider Nash and think he would be terrific next to Giroux but really don't want to give up the money or the players for him. Realistically, it really only comes down to that.

LMAO!

Trade Giroux now. His value will never be higher!

Now, if it were a Penguins want-ad, it would say "Tampons Needed." (Sorry, couldn't resist. Fire away.)

My vote for BEST.POST.EVER.

Agreed, funny. But if it were about Toronto, it would say "NHL team needed."

To answer your question in an adult manner (difficult for me), I don't know for sure that I have a rational reason. My reasoning initially was based upon reasons you countered very well in a previous post. So, I'm stubbornly left with disliking him just because I'd already decided I didn't like him.

There has to be another reason?

I don't blame you for not going game by game. It's not laziness. It's called having a life. I won't argue with any of your points. I think they're valid. I'm far from a Carle basher, but I don't care who the player is, playing with Pronger has to make you better. I'd be stunned to actually see any stats backing up the idea Carle was better without him.

Me too. Would rather have kept Tocchet.

Van, I don't know if he was better or not...really have no idea. I'd find it hard to believe (that he was actually better without). That said, your stats miss his point. You're showing year totals. He's saying that Carle had better numbers in games in which Pronger didn't play than in those he did. You'd almost have to back game by game over the last two or three seasons (or however many both have been here) and tally the stats for Carle in games that Pronger was in against those Pronger wasn't. Season totals won't prove/disprove his statement...although they seem to go a LONG way since Carle's numbers in the seasons Pronger played nearly full seasons are vastly better than those in which he didn't.