OccamsRazor Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 6 hours ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said: but I have a feeling that they're going to expose or walk away from Stolarz That would make zero sense. At least too me.
BobbyClarkeFan16 Posted March 27, 2017 Posted March 27, 2017 4 hours ago, OccamsRazor said: That would make zero sense. At least too me. Actually it makes total sense if the organization has soured on him and feels that maybe he deserves a chance in another location, especially when you've got Lyon, probably Madsen and then there's Sandstrom and Hart waiting as well. Neuvirth is signed to a back up wage and signing a guy like Bernier or Bishop gives Lyon and Madsen time and also helps Sandstrom and Hart in that they aren't rushed along. Honestly, if Stolarz was in the Flyers plans, would they not have called him up now, let him play down the stretch and see if he's capable to be on the big club next year? They're mathematically eliminated now, so why not give Stolarz that chance, unless they think he's not part of the future here.
OccamsRazor Posted March 27, 2017 Author Posted March 27, 2017 1 hour ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said: Actually it makes total sense if the organization has soured on him and feels that maybe he deserves a chance in another location, especially when you've got Lyon, probably Madsen and then there's Sandstrom and Hart waiting as well. Neuvirth is signed to a back up wage and signing a guy like Bernier or Bishop gives Lyon and Madsen time and also helps Sandstrom and Hart in that they aren't rushed along. Honestly, if Stolarz was in the Flyers plans, would they not have called him up now, let him play down the stretch and see if he's capable to be on the big club next year? They're mathematically eliminated now, so why not give Stolarz that chance, unless they think he's not part of the future here. I don't know how you could sour on a kid who has played pretty well in the AHL and has only had two games in the NHL which he has won both one a shutout. But we could always trade him and hr be Bob part two....give us something new to bitch about....
AJgoal Posted March 27, 2017 Posted March 27, 2017 10 hours ago, OccamsRazor said: I don't know how you could sour on a kid who has played pretty well in the AHL and has only had two games in the NHL which he has won both one a shutout. But we could always trade him and hr be Bob part two....give us something new to bitch about.... He's in the bottom half of goalies in the AHL for Save% (0.910, 23rd) and GAA (295, 33rd) behind stalwarts like Michael Leighton (2.17/5th; 0.921/11th) and Alex Stalock (0.922/2.37). His AHL career SV% is 0.911. He lost the starting job to Lyon. It's easy to imagine the Flyers not being too attached to him with guys like Hart and Sandstrom coming. Michael Leighton once posted 3 shutouts in one playoff series. Sample size matters.
OccamsRazor Posted March 27, 2017 Author Posted March 27, 2017 8 hours ago, AJgoal said: He lost the starting job to Lyon. No he hasn't. And really 50 year old Michael****ingLeighton??? Really?
vis Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 On 3/27/2017 at 9:09 AM, AJgoal said: He's in the bottom half of goalies in the AHL for Save% (0.910, 23rd) and GAA (295, 33rd) behind stalwarts like Michael Leighton (2.17/5th; 0.921/11th) and Alex Stalock (0.922/2.37). His AHL career SV% is 0.911. He lost the starting job to Lyon. It's easy to imagine the Flyers not being too attached to him with guys like Hart and Sandstrom coming. Michael Leighton once posted 3 shutouts in one playoff series. Sample size matters. I'm with you on this. I've said a number of times that I'm not sold on Stolarz developing into a legitimate NHL starter, and I doubt the Flyers are either at this point. I think they are looking past him to the other young kids coming up. It wouldn't shock me to see them sign Bishop to a 4 or 5 year deal this offseason. I'd be totally OK with that.
ruxpin Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, vis said: It wouldn't shock me to see them sign Bishop to a 4 or 5 year deal this offseason. I'd be totally OK with that. I really hope not. First, I think that's too long with the other kids coming up. Plus, the cost would be high. But mostly because I think Bishop is a system goalie that has been and will be exposed when the system breaks down. I just don't trust him for that long at that money. Let him be someone else's problem in two years.
AJgoal Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 1 minute ago, ruxpin said: I really hope not. First, I think that's too long with the other kids coming up. Plus, the cost would be high. But mostly because I think Bishop is a system goalie that has been and will be exposed when the system breaks down. I just don't trust him for that long at that money. Let him be someone else's problem in two years. I agree. With the kids coming, the last thing I think the Flyers should do is sign a long term deal with a UFA. Frankly, I expect one more year like this before we start to see a true upward trend as the defense solidifies. I wouldn't spend big on a goalie as it's less money down the line to fill in needs. Re-evaluate in two years when Neuvirth's deal is up and the goalie prospects have started to sort themselves out.
ruxpin Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, AJgoal said: I agree. With the kids coming, the last thing I think the Flyers should do is sign a long term deal with a UFA. Frankly, I expect one more year like this before we start to see a true upward trend as the defense solidifies. I wouldn't spend big on a goalie as it's less money down the line to fill in needs. Re-evaluate in two years when Neuvirth's deal is up and the goalie prospects have started to sort themselves out. Yeah, I just don't want a situation where Ghost or Provorov or Konecny or someone comes up to the end of a ELC or whatever and we can't extend or resign because we're paying through the nose for an over-valued/over-rated goalie when we may have cheaper options blocked on the farm.
vis Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 1 hour ago, ruxpin said: I really hope not. First, I think that's too long with the other kids coming up. Plus, the cost would be high. But mostly because I think Bishop is a system goalie that has been and will be exposed when the system breaks down. I just don't trust him for that long at that money. Let him be someone else's problem in two years. With the younger kids (I'm skipping Stolarz, see my comment above), I think it's going to take at least four to five years for them to be regular starters at the NHL level. Bishop is a nice bridge to that point in time. Also, if the Flyers intend to bring up more young guys like Sanheim, Hagg and Morin next season, they better have a legit NHL-caliber goaltender for the next several seasons (especially next year), preferably one that can win games on their own. No goalie currently signed beyond this season fits that bill. Need someone back there to erase the inevitable mistakes of a young defense corps. After this year, the Flyers should have some cap flexibility with the youth - who hopefully start taking over - on ELCs and then hopefully reasonable bridge deals when they become RFAs. Even if Bishop costs a lot for four/five years, the cap situation shouldn't be terrible. Then, at the end of Bishop's run (the last year of which might be in a backup role), the defense corps should be strong enough to support a rookie goaltender as the starter.
ruxpin Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 49 minutes ago, vis said: sWith the younger kids (I'm skipping Stolarz, see my comment above), I think it's going to take at least four to five years for them to be regular starters at the NHL level. Bishop is a nice bridge to that point in time. Also, if the Flyers intend to bring up more young guys like Sanheim, Hagg and Morin next season, they better have a legit NHL-caliber goaltender for the next several seasons (especially next year), preferably one that can win games on their own. No goalie currently signed beyond this season fits that bill. Need someone back there to erase the inevitable mistakes of a young defense corps. After this year, the Flyers should have some cap flexibility with the youth - who hopefully start taking over - on ELCs and then hopefully reasonable bridge deals when they become RFAs. Even if Bishop costs a lot for four/five years, the cap situation shouldn't be terrible. Then, at the end of Bishop's run (the last year of which might be in a backup role), the defense corps should be strong enough to support a rookie goaltender as the starter. Well, I certainly get your point and it's a fair argument. I'm just not a fan of the money Bishop will demand, especially because I don't think he's nearly as good as advertised. I think he will be dreadfully exposed behind our team. In fairness, most goalies probably would, but for a lot less money.
radoran Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 51 minutes ago, vis said: With the younger kids (I'm skipping Stolarz, see my comment above), I think it's going to take at least four to five years for them to be regular starters at the NHL level. Bishop is a nice bridge to that point in time. Also, if the Flyers intend to bring up more young guys like Sanheim, Hagg and Morin next season, they better have a legit NHL-caliber goaltender for the next several seasons (especially next year), preferably one that can win games on their own. No goalie currently signed beyond this season fits that bill. Need someone back there to erase the inevitable mistakes of a young defense corps. After this year, the Flyers should have some cap flexibility with the youth - who hopefully start taking over - on ELCs and then hopefully reasonable bridge deals when they become RFAs. Even if Bishop costs a lot for four/five years, the cap situation shouldn't be terrible. Then, at the end of Bishop's run (the last year of which might be in a backup role), the defense corps should be strong enough to support a rookie goaltender as the starter. I'm with @ruxpin * in that I just don't see Bishop as "the guy" who can "steal games" behind a bad D. Look at his numbers in Tampa this season - 2.55/.911 - is that really that much better than Mason's 2.72/.906? Especially given the money Bishop will likely command? I don't see why they don't just stick with the bird in hand for what will likely be a lot less than the two in the bush. But, of course, it's the goalie's fault** so we gotta change that up. * this surprises no one ** I realize not the point of your post
OccamsRazor Posted March 28, 2017 Author Posted March 28, 2017 55 minutes ago, radoran said: I'm with @ruxpin * in that I just don't see Bishop as "the guy" who can "steal games" behind a bad D. Look at his numbers in Tampa this season - 2.55/.911 - is that really that much better than Mason's 2.72/.906? Especially given the money Bishop will likely command? I don't see why they don't just stick with the bird in hand for what will likely be a lot less than the two in the bush. But, of course, it's the goalie's fault** so we gotta change that up. * this surprises no one ** I realize not the point of your post Yes so why pay more for the same BUT older guy. Makes no sense. It's why he'll be a Flyer....
OccamsRazor Posted March 28, 2017 Author Posted March 28, 2017 Still to early to give up on this kid before he has been given a chance. But typical Flyer fans....
vis Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 5 hours ago, ruxpin said: Well, I certainly get your point and it's a fair argument. I'm just not a fan of the money Bishop will demand, especially because I don't think he's nearly as good as advertised. I think he will be dreadfully exposed behind our team. In fairness, most goalies probably would, but for a lot less money. I'm not advocating for signing him at any cost. Cannot be unreasonable. But, to me, it's more about the term. A six year deal would suck more than overpayment for four years. YMMV with Bishop. I get that. On stats alone coming into the season he was probably a top 5 goaltender. Had a great year last year. However, I do think the situation in TB this year was not good for either goalie, actually. Bishop is at his best when carrying the load, which I think he would do here if he is signed.
vis Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 5 hours ago, radoran said: I'm with @ruxpin * in that I just don't see Bishop as "the guy" who can "steal games" behind a bad D. If not Bishop, then who? Anyone? On talent alone, is Bishop an upgrade over the current goalies? Quote Look at his numbers in Tampa this season - 2.55/.911 - is that really that much better than Mason's 2.72/.906? Especially given the money Bishop will likely command? See post above. Bad situation in TB, I think. He's one year removed from an absolute beast of a season. I'd get it if you're concerned that he's past his prime. I have some concerns in that area for sure. How much do folks think Bishop will command? Quote I don't see why they don't just stick with the bird in hand for what will likely be a lot less than the two in the bush. Assuming you're referring to Neuvirth since he's signed. If so, that bird in hand stinks. Quote But, of course, it's the goalie's fault** so we gotta change that up. To be clear, this season's failures are the team's. It's not the goalie only. I'm not a Mason hater. Let's go back to my original post. I'd be OK with them signing Bishop. I'm not saying they have to sign him at all costs.
radoran Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, vis said: If not Bishop, then who? Anyone? On talent alone, is Bishop an upgrade over the current goalies? See post above. Bad situation in TB, I think. He's one year removed from an absolute beast of a season. I'd get it if you're concerned that he's past his prime. I have some concerns in that area for sure. How much do folks think Bishop will command? Assuming you're referring to Neuvirth since he's signed. If so, that bird in hand stinks. To be clear, this season's failures are the team's. It's not the goalie only. I'm not a Mason hater. Let's go back to my original post. I'd be OK with them signing Bishop. I'm not saying they have to sign him at all costs. He'd be in a bad situation in Philly, too, by your own estimation. And Mason is a year removed from 2.25/.928 - he's the bird in hand... Bishop's making $6M now - what do you think he will cost? Mason's $2M below that. If it's Bishop at 6 or Mason at 4, I'm fine with Mason. And I'm not Mason's mom here, either
vis Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 10 hours ago, radoran said: He'd be in a bad situation in Philly, too, by your own estimation. The situation I am referring to in TB was having to split duty with Vasilevskiy. He wouldn't have that issue in Philly. 10 hours ago, radoran said: And Mason is a year removed from 2.25/.928 - he's the bird in hand... He's not signed, though. Would you rather overpay Bishop or Mason? 10 hours ago, radoran said: Bishop's making $6M now - what do you think he will cost? Mason's $2M below that. If it's Bishop at 6 or Mason at 4, I'm fine with Mason. Not sure, really. Term is more critical, imo. Is Bishop $2m better than Mason this season? Fair question and maybe not. But I'm not sure that's going to be the spread. If you're going off of their current contracts, I am not sure that's a fair comparison. Mason signed his current deal as an RFA coming off a one year deal at $1.5m. Bishop signed his current deal as a UFA coming off an RFA contract with A $2.3m AAV. Both are having relatively down years. This will be Mason's first UFA year. 10 hours ago, radoran said: And I'm not Mason's mom here, either Lol...poor guy has no fam on this board.
radoran Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Mason's not signed - yet - but I don't think he's really in a position to be getting much more than his current deal. If the team's afraid of losing Stolarz (which is debatable), it makes sense to have Neuvirth exposable. And McPhee in Vegas has history with Neuvirth who could easily wind up in a tandem with another McPhee product - Grubauer. Bishop is the "ooh shiny" goaltender of this free agent class. Teams needing a goalie? Just with a quick glance - Calgary (who has no one with any sort of NHL pedigree signed and $21M in cap space). Buffalo (Lehner/Nilsson are RFA). Potentially Vancouver (Markstrom signed at $3.3M). I could see Colorado buying out Varlamov. Dallas needs to do something other than NIemi/Lehtfourin (both in last year of deals next season). Carolina has Ward and Lack in last year of deals next season (and $30M in cap space). Essentially, I don't see Bishop going for less than what he's getting now, and IMO there are teams that would go for a six year deal. And there certainly could be a market that drives up the price of Mason.
vis Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 All fair points, @radoran. Hard to handicap things at this point, until we see how the goalie market shapes up. For the record, I wouldn't sign either for a six year deal.
King Knut Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 On 3/26/2017 at 8:55 PM, BobbyClarkeFan16 said: Actually it makes total sense if the organization has soured on him and feels that maybe he deserves a chance in another location, especially when you've got Lyon, probably Madsen and then there's Sandstrom and Hart waiting as well. Neuvirth is signed to a back up wage and signing a guy like Bernier or Bishop gives Lyon and Madsen time and also helps Sandstrom and Hart in that they aren't rushed along. Honestly, if Stolarz was in the Flyers plans, would they not have called him up now, let him play down the stretch and see if he's capable to be on the big club next year? They're mathematically eliminated now, so why not give Stolarz that chance, unless they think he's not part of the future here. Why wouldn't they just trade him and get something for him? And how could the organization have soured on him? Maybe they don't think he's part of the future here, but he's looked pretty good so far so you might as well try to trade him for some picks or to sweeten a deadline deal somewhere.
OccamsRazor Posted March 30, 2017 Author Posted March 30, 2017 2 hours ago, King Knut said: And how could the organization have soured on him? I'm trying to figure that as well. I don't think that is the case by any means.
radoran Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said: I'm trying to figure that as well. I don't think that is the case by any means. As opposed to "soured" look at the "think he deserves a chance in another location" because they believe they have better options? I honestly have no idea either way. But it's not fundamentally implausible.
OccamsRazor Posted March 30, 2017 Author Posted March 30, 2017 7 hours ago, radoran said: But it's not fundamentally implausible. Unless there was some sort of handshake deal to get Lyon inked when they did...i just can't see it...if Hextall promised Lyons the spot like he burnt the year of his entry level to get him in the fold...well that would make sense. Besides when Stolie goes on to win the Vezina for another club (not saying he is that good just pointing out the possibility we are already seeing what happens when you give up on a goalie to soon in Bob who was around the same age) it will give us more thread material...
OccamsRazor Posted March 30, 2017 Author Posted March 30, 2017 And there is no way i see Ben Bishop has a answer to the problems in net for Philly. He before last night's win Bishop had dropped 4 of his last 5 since his trade to LA. Pass on him and his price tag.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.