Jump to content

Could the Expansion Draft Rid Us Of This Meddlesome MacDud?

ruxpin

By ruxpin
in Philadelphia Flyers

Recommended Posts

ruxpin Grand Master

ruxpin

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Mcdud taught him that....

 

I think I've seen you acknowledge this already so it's not directed at you (I've hated on him as much as anyone after I was initially happy about getting him):   We all rag on him, but McDud is actually playing very well in his current role.  I still don't like the contract, but his on ice play has actually been pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
radoran Grand Master

radoran

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

 

I think I've seen you acknowledge this already so it's not directed at you (I've hated on him as much as anyone after I was initially happy about getting him):   We all rag on him, but McDud is actually playing very well in his current role.  I still don't like the contract, but his on ice play has actually been pretty good.

 

Again*, he's Kris Russell. If MacDud was making $3M and not $5M or if he wasn't signed for umpteen years there would be less to be upset about. Being part of the #homercoaster doesn't help, either.

 

 

 

* where's that damn horse!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
flyerrod Rising Star

flyerrod

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

Wow. Yeah Mcdud has played better but no way i would play Mcdud over MDZ.

Do we really need to go over the 40 reasons that McDud is in the line up.....and will stay there barring injury...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
King Knut Newbie

King Knut

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, flyerrod said:

Do we really need to go over the 40 reasons that McDud is in the line up.....and will stay there barring injury...

 

I can think of 13 reasons,

I can think of 40 reasons, 

and I can think of 2 reasons.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
King Knut Newbie

King Knut

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

I have no idea what that means. Is it some kinda haiku?

 

Fun with numbers (some of which I still have no explanation for):

 

-They have a Grand total of 13 wins with Mac in the lineup (so far).  

-He need to get to 40 games to qualify as the D man they need to expose (he'll be exposed either way, but this way they won't necessarily 'NEED' to expose Manning and Gudas. 

-They have a grand total of 2 wins without Mac in the lineup (so far).  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
radoran Grand Master

radoran

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Fun with numbers (some of which I still have no explanation for):

 

-They have a Grand total of 13 wins with Mac in the lineup (so far).  

-He need to get to 40 games to qualify as the D man they need to expose (he'll be exposed either way, but this way they won't necessarily 'NEED' to expose Manning and Gudas. 

-They have a grand total of 2 wins without Mac in the lineup (so far). 

 

That's so weird.

 

Edmonton has 12 wins with Kris Russell in the lineup and only two when he was out for seven games!

 

The other thing doesn't matter because Russell is on a one year deal with the Oil.

 

:hocky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mojo1917 Veteran

mojo1917

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, icehole said:

I believe it stands for "Queefing Of Couturier". "Because of the queefing of couturier, the flyers are winning".  It make sense in a sentence.

 
 

That's funny right there.

+1

 

i'm never one to let genius go unrecognized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AJgoal Newbie

AJgoal

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

QOC?

 

What @flyercanuck said. 3 regulation losses vs. Pittsburgh, Montreal, and a red-hot Tampa team. Shootout loss vs. Ottawa that's been either 2nd or 3rd in their division all season, and the other vs. Detroit, which was basically an even matchup. The Leafs loss is an outlier, but every team has those once in a while. So the losses are less about MacDonald being out of the lineup, than the Flyers playing some real quality opponents in those games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ruxpin Grand Master

ruxpin

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, icehole said:

I believe it stands for "Queefing Of Couturier". "Because of the queefing of couturier, the flyers are winning".  It make sense in a sentence.

I feel like we should have a hall of fame on here for brilliantly funny posts.  I'd vote this in first ballot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OccamsRazor Grand Master

OccamsRazor

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, AJgoal said:

So the losses are less about MacDonald being out of the lineup, than the Flyers playing some real quality opponents in those games. 

 

C'mon dude how are we ever going to sell Mcdud off to Vegas with you bringing FACTS to this myth!

 

DAMN now we have to start all over!!!

 

:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AJgoal Newbie

AJgoal

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

C'mon dude how are we ever going to sell Mcdud off to Vegas with you bringing FACTS to this 

 

I'm not trying, cause he ain't going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
King Knut Newbie

King Knut

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, AJgoal said:

 

I'm not trying, cause he ain't going.

 

I'm still not sure about this.  

I think it's still highly unlikely, but as I pointed out a while back, while there is little chance Vegas won't make the league cap minimum, Pronger is coming off the Coyotes books this year and they are likely to lose a few other UFA's (Shane Doan has deadline trade written all over him).

 

The chances are good they're going to need a D man to fill out their roster at the end of the year and depending on who they resign and for how much, they'll have to make up about $20 million in new contracts in the off season to get back up to the league minimum while filling 9-10 active roster spots.

 

This is a team that took Pronger's contract off our hands in order to have him do nothing at all and MacDonald is certainly playing better than nothing at all right now.  

 

They could just promote the youngster Chychrun to full time NHL status, but that's just enough to ice 6 guys a night and he only counts as a $1mil ELC against the cap.  

 

The other half of this is that the UFA market for high end talent is going to be a little more competitive this year as there's an extra team in Vegas that will be extremely motivated to bring in some actual talent to support the role players they will just have drafted.

 

Add to that the fact that the UFA market for mid-low range talent will ALSO be more competitive because  a lot of teams are going to need to be filling in roster holes after the expansion draft. 

 

And since Phoenix is not exactly a top destination for UFA's or stars with NMC's or modified NTC's, I'm saying that no matter what, Phoenix is going to have to overpay for some sort of MacDonald type player this off season (i.e. a guy who makes more than he's worth) in order to reach the league minimum.  

 

I'm using Phoenix here just because they have a history of making deals like this that actually haven't benefitted them on the ice at all. Right now they're in fine shape cap wise, but in July it'll be a little different.

 

A team like Carolina is in much more need to some money. They're right at the basement right now and they need up to 11 new contracts for next year.  

 

Long story short, while I'm not taking MacDonald if I'm Vegas, I think there's a decent chance there's a team out there that could want him.    

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AJgoal Newbie

AJgoal

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

ummmmmyeah, I think it has a lot more to do with the team on the whole just getting it's act together.  

Same thing happened last year just a few weeks later, so they're ahead of schedule this year.

 

With him back, they've beaten Chicago, Calgary, Ottawa (again), Minnesota, Boston, and now Edmonton... all teams that with records similar to or better than the Flyers.  

 

And lost to Tampa again.

 

As you say, it has to do with the team's improved play as a whole.

 

I'd be a lot more interested in how the team plays with/without MacDonald and why they played better with him (if they did) if there was actually a large sample size to draw a conclusion from. 8 games, quite simply, is not.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
King Knut Newbie

King Knut

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

And lost to Tampa again.

 

As you say, it has to do with the team's improved play as a whole.

 

I'd be a lot more interested in how the team plays with/without MacDonald and why they played better with him (if they did) if there was actually a large sample size to draw a conclusion from. 8 games, quite simply, is not.

 

 

Well with any luck by the end of the year the sample size with/without will probably be 41/41 or 40/42

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...