trevluk Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I really dont understand all the hatred on this signing. Vinny still has a lot in the tank in my opinion and will probably be re-vitalized on a new team, has a cup and veteran leadership to bring to the young guys, 5 years at 4.5 is not that deep, and I dont think he was going to sign ANYWHERE without a NMC to end his career. The young guys will still get plenty of ice time and they have a cup winning, veteran that proabably feels he still has something to prove and lead by example. I like this signing. I dont love it but I do like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I don't *completely* understand it either. Yes, Flyers need defense. Yes, Flyers need a 2nd goalie. This guy is the highest rated UFA this year and the Flyers signed him! When was the last time that happened? For all the grief that Homer gets on this board, he is a well respected and shrewd GM. He will pull something off to have this team right back in contention for the cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGreatGazoo Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) 5 years and a full NMC. Not a modified like many teams give. A full one. Vinnie can still play. The cap value is good as well- for the1st 3 years. I'm pretty sure in years 4 and 5 this won't be a popular contract. That's what I don't like about it. I also don't think adding Vinnie if it costs them Coburn makes this team any better. But maybe that's just me. Edited July 3, 2013 by DaGreatGazoo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toughfighter83 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 the thing is schenn and courts are too young to take on these roles, signing vinny makes alot of sense when you lost briere, who do you love replace him with or worth giving up assets for bobby ryan there's no chance they would be get horton? this move makes sense, plus it takes pressure off of giroux which had alot of in this past season, when you didnt have second line scoring. i think if they sign gagne to a discount, he would fit on the first line with giroux and jake if gagne can handle first line dutties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 @DaGreatGazoo@AlaskaFlyerFan@trevlukfull disclosure...i don't "hate" the signing...I hate the contract. IMO it appears there is no direction to this team. We have a young core that needs to grow together. Coots and Laughton especially need time to grow. how does that happen with Vinny here? Surprise..we have another log jam at center. Now if you are moving Coots or Laughton for a bona-fide young stud d-man...you might be able to convince me. Again...not hating Vinny. If this was 3 or 4 yrs ago i would be jumping up and down and personally driving to tampa to pick him up and bring him here to philly. Fast forward to present...i guess i'm just questioning if there is a really plan........One thing is for sure....it never stays quiet in Flyertown for very long! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 the thing is schenn and courts are too young to take on these roles, signing vinny makes alot of sense when you lost briere, who do you love replace him with or worth giving up assets for bobby ryan there's no chance they would be get horton? this move makes sense, plus it takes pressure off of giroux which had alot of in this past season, when you didnt have second line scoring. i think if they sign gagne to a discount, he would fit on the first line with giroux and jake if gagne can handle first line dutties.not gonna argue...valid point...but riddle me this batman...how do they gain the experience? I might add we didn't lose Briere. We lost the playoff version of Briere...not the regular season version of him. I will agree it will hopefully take some pressure off Roo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Uhh... Because its a stupid contract for a player you didn't need? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 the thing is schenn and courts are too young to take on these rolesBrilliant. Just brilliant. So the way to help them learn is to bring an over-the-hill overpriced player who will preclude their development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toughfighter83 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Brilliant. Just brilliant. So the way to help them learn is to bring an over-the-hill overpriced player who will preclude their development. i dont understand, why are you pushing these young guys? because you think that having young guys all over the roster will just mean cup victory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 For all the grief that Homer gets on this board, he is a well respected and shrewd GM.Well he did one up the Canadiens again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 He will pull something off to have this team right back in contention for the cup.Are you new here? That mirage you're seeing is actually sand. Second verse...same as the first...and the one before that, and the one before that and.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 @hf101 I like the new avatar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevluk Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Uhh... Because its a stupid contract for a player you didn't need?As an objective observer, you dont think the flyers could benefit from LeCavalier? For the experience, leadership, and skill set that he still brings to the table I dont think the contract is that bad. We may not like the last year or so of the contract but I can live with that and for those of us who saw how tremendously the young kids benfited from Jagr's presence, I almost like this signing for that component alone. This signing may not have been good for other teams but i dont mind it for the Flyers. I still think we pick up another D man to address that concern and who knows with the goalie situation but as Flyers fans, we are used to that!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 this move makes sense,Says the guy who wouldn't know sense if someone pissed it in a urinal and shoved his head in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevluk Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 it takes pressure off of giroux which had alot of in this past seasonI agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 As an objective observer, you dont think the flyers could benefit from LeCavalier?No. I don't. It's going to cost us one of the kids, first of all.Second of all, even with him we are NOT a cup contender. So we waste the one or two moderately productive years Lecavalier has PLUS the future of one of the kids we'll flush because of it only so in two years when Vinny starts truly showing his age and misses portions of seasons due to injury we'll be then flushing the kid du jour only to sign "the best available free agent on the market" to do the whole damn thing all over again.Why do I know this? Because I have posted this exact same post (change Vinny to Nedved or Pronger or Hatcher or Forsberg or whomever) at least 5-7 times over the last 12 years I've been on philly.com and its off-shoots. Each time, someone wants to write "you don't think this will help?" NO I DON'T. BECAUSE REPEATING THE SAME DAMN MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AGAIN GUARANTEES YET MORE MISTAKES.We had the opportunity of a reset. A do-over. A roster full of kids and a decent draft and finally maybe some workable cap space. Simply plug holes while the kids progress in front of hopefully a competent goalie or two. But no. Even the people defending this deal are idiotically -- yes, idiotically: there is no other term for it--suggesting it is now okay to trade a 20 or 22 year old with tremendous upside because we just signed our soon-to-be 34 year old wunderkind.It's utterly ridiculous. Is this board full of people who have followed the Flyers for less than 18 months??? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 @ruxpinthank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toughfighter83 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 No. I don't. It's going to cost us one of the kids, first of all.Second of all, even with him we are NOT a cup contender. So we waste the one or two moderately productive years Lecavalier has PLUS the future of one of the kids we'll flush because of it only so in two years when Vinny starts truly showing his age and misses portions of seasons due to injury we'll be then flushing the kid du jour only to sign "the best available free agent on the market" to do the whole damn thing all over again.Why do I know this? Because I have posted this exact same post (change Vinny to Nedved or Pronger or Hatcher or Forsberg or whomever) at least 5-7 times over the last 12 years I've been on philly.com and its off-shoots. Each time, someone wants to write "you don't think this will help?" NO I DON'T. BECAUSE REPEATING THE SAME DAMN MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AGAIN GUARANTEES YET MORE MISTAKES.We had the opportunity of a reset. A do-over. A roster full of kids and a decent draft and finally maybe some workable cap space. Simply plug holes while the kids progress in front of hopefully a competent goalie or two. But no. Even the people defending this deal are idiotically -- yes, idiotically: there is no other term for it--suggesting it is now okay to trade a 20 or 22 year old with tremendous upside because we just signed our soon-to-be 34 year old wunderkind.It's utterly ridiculous. Is this board full of people who have followed the Flyers for less than 18 months???if you think loading a team full of young players will win cups, you are sadly mistaken, i mean look at the oilers, they are loaded with first overall picks, why are they are not in cup contention? im not saying this team cant have old players but you have to mix it with vets and youth because when you have youth they have growing pains or they might not be the players you thought they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevluk Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 It's going to cost us one of the kids, first of all.Why? Cap hit is 4.5, That is not that bad for all that Vinny can bring to the table and there are other pieces that would be moved before we would be forced to let go of one of the kids. I think Mez is gone, maybe for a bag of pucks, but I take Vin over Mez any day of the week. (and yes I know we need D, but we dont need D that only can play a handful of games a year.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 As an objective observer, you dont think the flyers could benefit from LeCavalier? For the experience, leadership, and skill set that he still brings to the table I dont think the contract is that bad. We may not like the last year or so of the contract but I can live with that and for those of us who saw how tremendously the young kids benfited from Jagr's presence, I almost like this signing for that component alone. This signing may not have been good for other teams but i dont mind it for the Flyers. I still think we pick up another D man to address that concern and who knows with the goalie situation but as Flyers fans, we are used to that!!No, I don't. You can't afford another D man or reputable goalie thanks to this move. (Personally I'd leave your D alone right now). Your remaining cap money is tied up. One of your young kids is getting a lot less ice time. He brings leadership and veteran presence? Uhh... Timonen? Streit? Grossman? Talbot? Hartnell? (As much as I hate him). Things you don't need for a second PP guy? And what's his production going to be with whom? What if losing St.Louis finishes him? I think this is a stupid contract. Too much money for too long to too old for something too available on the roster already with too little cap space. Too stupid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toughfighter83 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 with all this complaining, do you rather this team contend or just be the oilers and islanders losing every year? nothing guarantees a cup but at least it's something i can watch about, instead of losing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 if you think loading a team full of young players will win cups, you are sadly mistaken, i mean look at the oilers, they are loaded with first overall picks, why are they are not in cup contention? im not saying this team cant have old players but you have to mix it with vets and youth because when you have youth they have growing pains or they might not be the players you thought they are.Shut up and let the grown ups talk. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 with all this complaining, do you rather this team contend or just be the oilers and islanders losing every year? nothing guarantees a cup but at least it's something i can watch about, instead of losing.Well we have won nothing for how many years now???I seem to recall the Blackhawks were a perennial non contender.....but hey, nothing like a young team growing together to win the Stanley Cup...... again. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent05 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 @toughfighter83So you are satisfied year after year of them winning 1or 2 rounds of the playoffs? You are happy with that until you die without ever seeing them win the Cup? Are you Ed Snider? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Why? Cap hit is 4.5, That is not that bad for all that Vinny can bring to the table and there are other pieces that would be moved before we would be forced to let go of one of the kids. I think Mez is gone, maybe for a bag of pucks, but I take Vin over Mez any day of the week. (and yes I know we need D, but we dont need D that only can play a handful of games a year.)It has NOTHING to do with the money!"Why?" Well, I and others have said it quite a few times, but what the hell, I'll say it again: There are FOUR lines. So FOUR centersThere are now, including Laughton, SIX centers. We now have a soon-to-be 34 year old passed his prime blocking the progress of players we should have been trying to groom into contributors for years rather than the MAYBE two years Lacavalier will be good.It's simple math. It has NOTHING to do with the 4.5M. It has to do with we don't need a center. We need a fricken winger. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.