Polaris922 Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 This might be one of the stupidest threads I've ever read on here. A lot of guessing and conjecture going on about Giroux first of all. To think he has a problem based on one night of drunken misadventure....that is taking a pretty big leap. It's impossible to draw these types of conclusions based on this one night. Now there is speculation he was drinking when he hurt himself golfing?? Really??....hey, maybe...maybe not, but until anything is proven, it's all conjecture. I'm willing to give G the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone care G is a 3.5 years younger than Weber, and is entering his prime? Our offense would be PUTRID without G. He *is* the straw that stirs the drink. How about we show some patience, and just see if one of these 5 or 6 excellent prospects turn out to be our stud d-man we have been searching for?? I admire Weber, he is great in his own right, but the age difference AND the fact we finally have some wicked young D prospects of our own tells me to sit back and stay patient.The end is near! We're all DOOOOOOOMED! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakanekimiwa Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 This might be one of the stupidest threads I've ever read on here. A lot of guessing and conjecture going on about Giroux first of all. To think he has a problem based on one night of drunken misadventure....that is taking a pretty big leap. It's impossible to draw these types of conclusions based on this one night. Now there is speculation he was drinking when he hurt himself golfing?? Really??....hey, maybe...maybe not, but until anything is proven, it's all conjecture. I'm willing to give G the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone care G is a 3.5 years younger than Weber, and is entering his prime? Our offense would be PUTRID without G. He *is* the straw that stirs the drink. How about we show some patience, and just see if one of these 5 or 6 excellent prospects turn out to be our stud d-man we have been searching for?? I admire Weber, he is great in his own right, but the age difference AND the fact we finally have some wicked young D prospects of our own tells me to sit back and stay patient. One might call it 'conjecture' to make the supposition of a drinking problem based on one incident, but it's also known as an opinion. An opinion based on experience and the fact that this 'one night of drunken misadventure' led him to the drunk tank for the night. Ending up in jail because of drinking would be considered a problem... from where I stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 @Bakanekimiwa I get where you are coming from, but my feelings are, lot's of normal decent folk had a reckless night and have ended up in the drunk tank. Before I label anything a problem, I need more than just one night. These are young millionaire players out to have a good time, can you honestly say if money was no question, could you have had a few to many and do some stupid stuff you normally would not have done? Until I see more, that was this was in my line of thinking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 As a guy who puts drunks in cells almost nightly, I wouldn't worry about that. Seriously, if not for disrespecting the guy he'd probably never have seen a cell. I'd be more worried about the thought that their true motives are often released when inebriated. . Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 As a guy who puts drunks in cells almost nightly, I wouldn't worry about that. Seriously, if not for disrespecting the guy he'd probably never have seen a cell.I'd be more worried about the thought that their true motives are often released when inebriated. . Lol. You think Giroux wants to be just like Crosby? (sorry, just had to use new emoticons) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 You mean like they did to Jeff Carter?how about the time homer told Gagne he'd get a contract after camp when pronger's cap room could be LTIR'd and then just told Simon forget it go home?This team has a horrible reputation with players regarding such things but a great reputation with players as an organization on the whole. Still I'm convinced one of the reasons we overpay us because players now know they have to play hardball because who knows, you might end up in Columbus over a weekend when the GM realizes he can't afford a guy he wants instead of you three years down the line. No offense but this is by far the dumbest $hit I have read all summer. Fisrt off G is human and had too much to drink. This is a non-story. Second, what player is going to want to sign a contract with the Flyers if there is a risk of being shipped out before it kicks in?If this were the regular season maybe this would be a bigger issue, but it was the off season and it was Canada Day. Next moving along... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Young millionaire kids who never went to college (some not to high school) and who don't have to go to work in the morning for another month or so... On a national holiday.Patrick Kane's done worse. Still if Claude wanted to restructure his contract for 10% less a year to apologize I wouldn't argue. @Bakanekimiwa I get where you are coming from, but my feelings are, lot's of normal decent folk had a reckless night and have ended up in the drunk tank. Before I label anything a problem, I need more than just one night. These are young millionaire players out to have a good time, can you honestly say if money was no question, could you have had a few to many and do some stupid stuff you normally would not have done? Until I see more, that was this was in my line of thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 as the 83rd post on this board I am shocked that it is still going... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 as the 83rd post on this board I am shocked that it is still going... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertmega Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 This is as close as we're going to get in seeing #28 wearing a Predators jersey.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Not so far fetched nowTo quote Ronald Reagan (if the Flyers were to try this) "Here we go again". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSlackDelta Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 This might be one of the stupidest threads I've ever read on here. A lot of guessing and conjecture going on about Giroux first of all. To think he has a problem based on one night of drunken misadventure....that is taking a pretty big leap. It's impossible to draw these types of conclusions based on this one night. Now there is speculation he was drinking when he hurt himself golfing?? Really??....hey, maybe...maybe not, but until anything is proven, it's all conjecture. I'm willing to give G the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone care G is a 3.5 years younger than Weber, and is entering his prime? Our offense would be PUTRID without G. He *is* the straw that stirs the drink. How about we show some patience, and just see if one of these 5 or 6 excellent prospects turn out to be our stud d-man we have been searching for?? I admire Weber, he is great in his own right, but the age difference AND the fact we finally have some wicked young D prospects of our own tells me to sit back and stay patient.I agree and can't believe someone actually suggested trading the face of the franchise over this incident. Just so I know.....is this kind of thing the norm here? Am I going to regret registering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSlackDelta Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I think you're missing the point. MacDonald was not going to turn that contract down as no other GM in their right mind would give him that deal. Schenn is a two year bridge contract and Giroux is thw subject of this debate. If he's shipped out I'd say it would be tough getting LT deals without a lot of cap crushing contracts with a lot of team unfriendly clauses.Just my 2 cents though and stranger things have happened in the NHLNo other GM would have given MacDonald that deal? Did you see the insane crap the Caps GM pulled on july 1st? Care to revise your statement? IMO, I think AMac would have gotten a fairly similar deal on the open market. It was a weak crop of FA d-men this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Am I going to regret registering? Why should you be any different than the rest of us? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 No other GM would have given MacDonald that deal? Did you see the insane crap the Caps GM pulled on july 1st? Care to revise your statement? i agree with you here.MacDonald was going to get paid, well, and for a pretty long term too, regardless of where he signed. I think he's a good player, a good middle paring guy, he is not the horse A #1 Duncan Weber Doughty guy but he's a guy that makes the whole unit better.when his contract is up he'll be 33/34, the Flyers finally signed a defensmen on the plus side of what are considered a players best years.I don't think the AMac deal was/is bad at all, especially in light of what the Caps paid for Brooks Orpik. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertmega Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 @NoSlackDelta Nope I am sticking to it. He could have been had for less. I like MacDonald's game, but that much $$ for a guy that couldn't hold the 1A spot for the Islanders seems to be a little much. Keep in mind this is Matt Carle money that he got. Looking back who would you rather have on the Flyers roster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 @NoSlackDelta Nope I am sticking to it. He could have been had for less. I like MacDonald's game, but that much $$ for a guy that couldn't hold the 1A spot for the Islanders seems to be a little much. Keep in mind this is Matt Carle money that he got. Looking back who would you rather have on the Flyers roster? I was one of Carle's biggest supporters here and to be honest, I think he and MacDonald are pretty close. It makes sense to me that they should be making about the same, neither are #1 guys but both are solid 2nd pairing guys who can play first pair in a pinch. Carle may bring a bit more offense (although MacDonald has a better shot, as does my mom) and MacDonald may be a little more solid in his own zone. But I don't see much daylight between the two of them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 No other GM would have given MacDonald that deal? Did you see the insane crap the Caps GM pulled on july 1st? Care to revise your statement? IMO, I think AMac would have gotten a fairly similar deal on the open market. It was a weak crop of FA d-men this year. Quite frankly, it won't surprise me if both Capitals' signings turn out to be tragic mistakes. Just because some damn fool was going probably going to overpay, doesn't make the MacDonald move a good one. Your point about it being a weak crop of Dmen is also well taken, but that doesn't mean it was absolutely necessary to sign a guy in a "weak crop" to a six year deal. The at least $500-750K that he is likely overpaid can mean a lot in terms of callups and cap flexibility, especially for a team as frequently near the ceiling as the Flyers. If you want a direct apples-to-apples comparison, look at what Kris Russell just signed for in Calgary - 27 years old, UFA, third in the league in shot blocks, four career 20+ point seasons, 29 points in 68 games last season with 12 on the power play, -11 - $2.6M per for two years. MacDonald - 28 years old, UFA, first in the league in shot blocks (+41 on Russell), two career 20+ point seasons, 28 points in 82 games last season with 11 on the power play, -22 - $5M per for six years. We'll see how it plays out for both teams over the long haul. I, for one, expect #greatthings from MacDonald. What's bad for the league IMO is the overall general salary inflation that these moves are putting into place. Guys who really, at 28, have effectively done very little are being handed $5M, six year contracts. I don't like that - from a salary cap perspective above and beyond "The Flyers", especially given that we've lost a season an a half of hockey this century to establish "fiscal stability" in the game. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertmega Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 @JackStraw I can agree with everything you said in your above post regarding the two. I'd give the edge to Carle at the end of the day. I am not saying that the MacDonald contract is bad per se, it just seemed like it was hurried. Or in other words, Holmgren didn't get that great of a sample size before he presented the contract. After seeing what Orpik got, I am thinking that the deal isn't so bad after all; however, they do play different games to be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 @JackStraw I can agree with everything you said in your above post regarding the two. I'd give the edge to Carle at the end of the day. I am not saying that the MacDonald contract is bad per se, it just seemed like it was hurried. Or in other words, Holmgren didn't get that great of a sample size before he presented the contract. After seeing what Orpik got, I am thinking that the deal isn't so bad after all; however, they do play different games to be fair. Different games or no, the Orpik contract is insane. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FD19372 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 To quote Ronald Reagan (if the Flyers were to try this) "Here we go again". Actually, also "There you again". We can dream Weber for Giroux, but it isn't happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSlackDelta Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Young millionaire kids who never went to college (some not to high school) and who don't have to go to work in the morning for another month or so... On a national holiday.Patrick Kane's done worse.Still if Claude wanted to restructure his contract for 10% less a year to apologize I wouldn't argue. The players association would NEVER allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSlackDelta Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Quite frankly, it won't surprise me if both Capitals' signings turn out to be tragic mistakes. Just because some damn fool was going probably going to overpay, doesn't make the MacDonald move a good one. Your point about it being a weak crop of Dmen is also well taken, but that doesn't mean it was absolutely necessary to sign a guy in a "weak crop" to a six year deal. The at least $500-750K that he is likely overpaid can mean a lot in terms of callups and cap flexibility, especially for a team as frequently near the ceiling as the Flyers. If you want a direct apples-to-apples comparison, look at what Kris Russell just signed for in Calgary - 27 years old, UFA, third in the league in shot blocks, four career 20+ point seasons, 29 points in 68 games last season with 12 on the power play, -11 - $2.6M per for two years. MacDonald - 28 years old, UFA, first in the league in shot blocks (+41 on Russell), two career 20+ point seasons, 28 points in 82 games last season with 11 on the power play, -22 - $5M per for six years. We'll see how it plays out for both teams over the long haul. I, for one, expect #greatthings from MacDonald. What's bad for the league IMO is the overall general salary inflation that these moves are putting into place. Guys who really, at 28, have effectively done very little are being handed $5M, six year contracts. I don't like that - from a salary cap perspective above and beyond "The Flyers", especially given that we've lost a season an a half of hockey this century to establish "fiscal stability" in the game. YMMV.Length of contract I'll concede, a bit long...but the money isnt much different that what he would have received as an FA. You cant look at it in a vaccuum, it has to be viewed through the lens of what was available on the market this year, whether you like it or not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You cant look at it in a vaccuum, it has to be viewed through the lens of what was available on the market this year, whether you like it or not. I do - and then the question is whether or not making a move in a "weak market" is a good idea or not. It can be that the best move to make is not to make a move. When the move one "has to make" in a "weak market" is a six year commitment, well, that just seems silly to me. If that move in a weak market causes one to be cap strapped in the next strong market - what has been accomplished except locking up a mid-level player? What is it about Andrew MacDonald that we saw in 19 games (he was signed before the playoffs) was an indication that he should be given a six year contract at that level? What is it about him at all that makes him a targeted, $5M player? Given the market for a very similar player - set in February of this year - what is it about MacDonald that would have had GMs lining up with six year, $30M commitments? He had turned down $4M for 4 on the Island. And to stay with the Flyers it took almost twice the money and a longer term for a guy who still hasn't cracked 30 points in a season? The only thing I've really heard is that, having spent the draft pick, the Flyers "had" to sign him. Well, terrific, but then they're bidding against themselves. Again. That just seems ludicrous, and indicative of the problems surrounding the previous GM's regime (and, as noted, the league in general). I'll be following how this all pans out with the rest of us and I hope to heaven that he lives up to the billing. #greatthings 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 #greatthings ^^What I expect^^ 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.