flyerrod Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 2 hours ago, icehole said: Here's how I look at it. First, I like to look at a players assets. Does he skate well? Does he have a good shot? Does he have good hands? Is he a fighter (not fists but determination)? If I don't see those things, I don't mind letting that player go. We can discuss what the cut-off line is to say when a player should be developed, but if a player isn't developed yet, he should be in the AHL making less than $1mill. I don't like having a $1 mill+ player on my NHL team in his developmental stages. Baseball players get into their mid 20's before they make the big team sometimes. I don't want that either. So if a player reaches a certain age and still undeveloped, let someone else develop him. Picture this, you are on the same line with RJ Umberger for EVERY SHIFT you are on the ice.......how do you judge or rate someone with that kind of handicap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Good one rod....anyone playing with Umberger is playing shorthanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Scott made the team out of camp. So he's probably one of the top 13 skaters in the organization... Doesn't mean he wouldn't benefit from more ice time playing a larger role, to build some confidence. Truly what he has been bringing to the team could be matched by Cousins without the gnashing of teeth regarding "why does he play like a dumbass half the time ?" I said elsewhere dragging RJ around 6 minutes a night probably doesn't help anyone develop anything but ulcers. That said he has those moments where he looks good and those where he looks like he's back in the OHL thinking that an NHL player = a dumb 16 year old that will buy" this fancy move/pass" in the neutral zone, and that makes him look really bad. Provided he keeps a good attitude a trip to the Lehigh Valley might be good for Laughton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Laughton is making $832K on the second year of his Entry Level Contract. He's 21. I have no quarrel with him being in the AHL, but he's not a $1m+ guy in his mid-20s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 hour ago, radoran said: Or Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Candlestick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 31 minutes ago, radoran said: Laughton is making $832K on the second year of his Entry Level Contract. He's 21. I have no quarrel with him being in the AHL, but he's not a $1m+ guy in his mid-20s. I don't have issues with this either. I just don't want to see him graded or degraded as it were from playing with Umburger. If you put him on a line in the NHL with Read and say Gagner, you do 2 things...... 1) You increase the quality and ability of his wings 10 fold. 2) You bump the amount of time he has on the ice up to 12-14 minute range which also keeps the rest of your lines fresh and should balance the energy through the entire game. You can send him down to the AHL but if you do, who are you going to bring up to play the limited 4th line time? Cousins?Konecy(sp)?Straka? How is that going to help develop their game at this point in time? Ultimately, the deletion of Umberger from the active lineup will better this team immediately regardless of who the Flyers bring up or not to fill his spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Oh, I would waive Umburglar rightnow. Last year. Before the trade happened. And I'd be playing Weal for that 4th line time just to see what he's got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackhole Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 10 hours ago, flyerrod said: Picture this, you are on the same line with RJ Umberger for EVERY SHIFT you are on the ice.......how do you judge or rate someone with that kind of handicap? Exactly this! RJU is a boat anchor on the frikkin titanic for f***s sake! Reads game goes to $h*+, well, who's on his line?.... Sonofabitch it's RJ. Couturier has no offense....you don't say! What a shock! Hmmmm.... And the list goes on. Look. Give Laughton big minutes in the A. Good, but he's gonna be alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think it could do RJ some good to sit. Maybe before you send Laughton down play Weal with Laughton and see how that works Weal could provide a spark who knows. It's to be like he has some skill...it would be nice to give him the ol eyeball test i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ8812 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 He can't be any worse than Umberger. No one can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Coach likes RJ. He "does the little things well". I don't know what to say about that exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 On 1/21/2016 at 11:40 AM, radoran said: Oh, I would waive Umburglar rightnow. Last year. Before the trade happened. And I'd be playing Weal for that 4th line time just to see what he's got. Just another reason to buy out RJ this summer.........the expansion draft. If not he could screw them over when it happens and they lose a player they don't want to lose. R.J. Umberger could give the Flyers a significant expansion draft headache http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2016/3/17/11248418/r-j-umberger-could-give-the-flyers-a-significant-expansion-draft No way i'd want to lose Nick Cousins and be forced to keep that bum. ... does a player with a no-move clause count among the guys you have to protect? This is relevant because everyone is expecting Commissioner Gary Bettman to make any new team competitive. There will be no creation of patsies here. Let’s say you’ve got three no-move clauses. Must they be part of your protection list because they can’t be selected? If yes, it increases the risk of exposing more of your roster. So buy him out to head this off at the pass!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 That article missed another player - Mark Streit would be the same issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 On 1/20/2016 at 7:19 PM, AJgoal said: 44 minutes ago, AJgoal said: That article missed another player - Mark Streit would be the same issue. Not the same thing. There is a difference between the two. Streit just has a no trade clause. Doesn't affect weather they will expose him. RJ and his issue is a no movement clause. So that is the issue. He would hqve to be protected. Or at least this is what the NHLPA will rule and win on which would screw them. Unless he is bought out this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Why would the NHLPA permit players with no trades to be exposed, but fight for players with NMCs? In either case, a player could move to a team they would otherwise turn down. In the 2000 expansion draft, you had to protect guys with NTCs. I'd imagine it would be the same again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 3 hours ago, AJgoal said: Why would the NHLPA permit players with no trades to be exposed, but fight for players with NMCs? In either case, a player could move to a team they would otherwise turn down. In the 2000 expansion draft, you had to protect guys with NTCs. I'd imagine it would be the same again. Becuase it isn't a trade. But it is a movement. Different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Umberger can be bought out with a $1.6M cap hit in 2016-17 and a $1.5M in 2017-18. I don't think that is much of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, hf101 said: Umberger can be bought out with a $1.6M cap hit in 2016-17 and a $1.5M in 2017-18. I don't think that is much of an issue. And, IIRC, $1.5M the next year. Overall, I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd do I even if they weren't facing this issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I get that it's not a trade. But they are, in essence, being traded. Just with no compensation. The end result for the player, though, is exactly what the ntc is trying to prevent - movement to another NHL team without their approval. The "no movement" part of the nmc doesn't really come into play, because the expansion teams aren't forcing players to their parent club's AHL affiliate. Since the two clauses would both be acting in the same way in this instance, I would expect them to be treated exactly the same. The NHL could just allow teams to "buy out" expiring contracts, since the window will (probably) open before the expansion draft. Essentially, let them place players with expiring contracts on unconditional waivers and release them to free agency two weeks early. Forcing teams to protect players who may have no intention of re-signing with them just a week or so after the expansion draft seems a bit daft. So that is, of course, what the NHL will probably do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, AJgoal said: I get that it's not a trade. But they are, in essence, being traded. Just with no compensation. The end result for the player, though, is exactly what the ntc is trying to prevent - movement to another NHL team without their approval. The "no movement" part of the nmc doesn't really come into play, because the expansion teams aren't forcing players to their parent club's AHL affiliate. Since the two clauses would both be acting in the same way in this instance, I would expect them to be treated exactly the same. The NHL could just allow teams to "buy out" expiring contracts, since the window will (probably) open before the expansion draft. Essentially, let them place players with expiring contracts on unconditional waivers and release them to free agency two weeks early. Forcing teams to protect players who may have no intention of re-signing with them just a week or so after the expansion draft seems a bit daft. So that is, of course, what the NHL will probably do. I agree that is why i think it would make the most sense to have it after the new year has started and just let the expiring contracts do just that expire. I'm sure they will figure it out and no matter what i hope the Flyers don't get screwed. I pray the expansion team will take Mcdud off their hands for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 They won't have it after the draft, because players claimed could impact draft strategies, trades, etc. Teams will want to know who they are losing first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 6 minutes ago, AJgoal said: Teams will want to know who they are losing first Well how ever they certainly need to fix it because it wouldn't be fair for teams to have to protect guys they were not intending to resign like RJ and Streit. So how ever they do it i hope it gets fixed. I wonder how it will affect the AHL guys to? I'm sure it will some how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 30 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said: I wonder how it will affect the AHL guys to? I'm sure it will some how. I imagine it would eventually lead to AHL expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 AHL guys will be eligible to be claimed. There's a thread in General Hockey about what is being proposed right now: Protect 7 forwards, 3 Defenseman, and 1 goalie, OR Protect 8 skaters and one goalie. Players with two years of pro experience or less are exempt. Another proposal is guys on ELCs are exempt. @Jammer2 said that radio/tv was reporting that players drafted 3 years prior but not yet playing in the pros were eligible to be drafted (so college and euro players who hadn't made the jump yet). Teams will lose one player per expansion team. So expansion teams will end up with 30 players, plus drafted players. Previous drafts prevented teams from losing more than one goalie and one defenseman. Nothing final yet afaik. Teams want a year to prepare, so if expansion is approved, we should get the final rules before the 2016 draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.