×
Jump to content
Play Pick'em Daily Read more... ×

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL
vis

Moves Starting?

Recommended Posts

Is there really serious talk of the Flyers trading for Quick?  I agree with the first poster here, that created this thread, its a mistake to do that now.  If they were in the race right now maybe.  But given where they are they would likely get ripped off in that scenario.  The Kings are in no position to think they can fix things "Quick" either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

He's not in a bad situation he is 24 and has MAF and Subban blocking him.

 

So I was just thinking what if you offered them Sandstrom it would give them something for a guy who has no where to go to play up.

 

For a guy who would come over and need a two or three years to develop while MAF contract plays out and opening a room for him in a few years.

 

I don't know just thinking aloud how to fix the goalie problem that is happening.

Wow , a trade that could benefit both parties. What's that called, a win / win or something...?

Although if you're LVK do you roll the dice and hope for no injury whammies? 

Flyers probably would need to add "something".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Is there really serious talk of the Flyers trading for Quick?  I agree with the first poster here, that created this thread, its a mistake to do that now.  If they were in the race right now maybe.  But given where they are they would likely get ripped off in that scenario.  The Kings are in no position to think they can fix things "Quick" either. 

I hope the Flyers lay off JQ.

However,

There is still a lot of hockey to be played. Couple that with the parity in the league especially the metro division where all the teams are within like 10 points of  each other. A 5 game win streak puts the Flyers in contention, we're all bitching about the team's play,  the reality is they are 1 game below .500. They should be better than they're playing, it doesn't mean they're lousy. So if a goalkeeper comes in and plays " not terrible" this team can make the tournament. 

It's not like we're talking about a 5-15 and 4 team here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Although if you're LVK do you roll the dice and hope for no injury whammies? 

 

 

They still have Zach Fucale and Maxime Legace in the minors in case an injury pops up.

 

3 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Flyers probably would need to add "something".

 

Sure. However Sandstrom is a pretty big prospect himself.

 

I could add something to it i guess depends on what they would want.

 

You could even include Lyon in the package too however Dansk isn't waiver exempt so if you did a trade like this it would be with intentions of him starting or no less backing up in the NHL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

@OccamsRazor

my initial thought was add Lyon too. or the extra 3rd this year.

 

You could always give them a Mark Friedman instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OccamsRazor

No to Friedman.

Sandstrom is a pretty good prospect, like you said it might work 1 to 1. 

I didn't know about LVK's depth at goalie they would be dealing from a position of strength and perhaps making a lateral move at worst ? That might require a little pot sweetener, Lyon or our extra 3rd should suffice. 

f-it you know, I'm not begging for the guy, I don't need to give up a nearly ready defenceman too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mojo1917 said:

I didn't know about LVK's depth at goalie they would be dealing from a position of strength and perhaps making a lateral move at worst ? That might require a little pot sweetener, Lyon or our extra 3rd should suffice.

 

They would be getting a goalie who will be on his entry level deal for two more years next year by the time MAF is on his last year of his deal too.

 

So that is a plus for them so by then even they could be ready to move on from him and they could be ready to have Subban take over the starter position and then Sandstrom could be his backup maybe by then or close to it.

 

Like i said just brainstorming on ways for them to bridge a goalie till Hart is ready. Not even sure how they feel about Dansk.

 

But i would like to acquire him for sure. And ship Elliott and Neuvy out.

 

Dansk/Stolie could be a nice solid tandem for 2019-20.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Dansk/Stolie could be a nice solid tandem for 2019-20.

 

I think everything will depend on how Stolarz does the rest of the way this year. If he shows he's at least capable of being a tandem goalie, I'd roll with him and whoever. 

 

I mean, that would be the first homegrown goalie since... Niitty? 

 

18 years between homegrown goalies is a good track record, right? 

 

PS - I wish I could facepalm my own post lol

  • Uggh... 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, brelic said:

I think everything will depend on how Stolarz does the rest of the way this year. If he shows he's at least capable of being a tandem goalie, I'd roll with him and whoever. 

 

Sure but i wouldn't want to stand pat and put all my marbles in one basket....i mean they are trying to turn this thing around and you don't even know if Elliott when and if he comes back will actually be able too...i'm would rather be proactive than reactive...is all and even if Stolie plays well at Elliott's age not sure if he doesn't play a lot he will be effective...maybe he will....maybe he won't and Neuvy...oh forget that guy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Sure but i wouldn't want to stand pat and put all my marbles in one basket....i mean they are trying to turn this thing around and you don't even know if Elliott when and if he comes back will actually be able too...i'm would rather be proactive than reactive...is all and even if Stolie plays well at Elliott's age not sure if he doesn't play a lot he will be effective...maybe he will....maybe he won't and Neuvy...oh forget that guy...

 

Are you saying to get another goalie and *keep* Elliott and Neuvirth around? Or get rid of both and go with two unproven goalies *this* year? 

 

Not sure I fully understand what your position is... If we keep both, then we have too many goalies again. 

 

Of course, I say that, and we've already gone through 5 :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Sure but i wouldn't want to stand pat and put all my marbles in one basket....i mean they are trying to turn this thing around and you don't even know if Elliott when and if he comes back will actually be able too...i'm would rather be proactive than reactive...is all and even if Stolie plays well at Elliott's age not sure if he doesn't play a lot he will be effective...maybe he will....maybe he won't and Neuvy...oh forget that guy...

What does turning it around mean exactly? Creeping into 8th and drafting more mediocre prospects? I would much rather **** the bed for 3 more years and emerge a power than continue down this corporate path. I've seen this film every year for most of the past 40 years. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brelic said:

Are you saying to get another goalie and *keep* Elliott and Neuvirth around?

 

 

I'm saying waive Neuvy and just get him out the picture and they have carried 3 goalies this year already.

 

Then if Stolie and Dansk show they can handle the load trade Elliott for a bag of chips.

 

There are a few teams with banged up goalies in need.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, flyer4ever said:

What does turning it around mean exactly? Creeping into 8th and drafting more mediocre prospects? I would much rather **** the bed for 3 more years and emerge a power than continue down this corporate path. I've seen this film every year for most of the past 40 years. 

 

I think what was made crystal clear by the Hextall firing is that the corporate path is inextricable from the hockey path.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, flyer4ever said:

What does turning it around mean exactly? Creeping into 8th and drafting more mediocre prospects? I would much rather **** the bed for 3 more years and emerge a power than continue down this corporate path. I've seen this film every year for most of the past 40 years. 

truly, they would  just need to blow it this year and draft the better Hughes kid. Then you'd have a combination of Hughes, Couturier, Patrick down the middle and all those guys in LHV making the 4th line a quality NHL 4th line.

 

I still think this group can get into the playoffs, they need a goaltender they can trust. 

Even though we haven't liked how they've played they're only 1 game under .500, their division is bunched up to where they are all within 10 points of one another...it's "do-able".

 

I would hate to tank, but this would be an okay year to wind up with the top pick. 

Every other time this team blows, the guy isn't there in the draft to reverse the fortunes.

 

Edited by mojo1917
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanking is doable in many forms. This group is just a bunch of band aids trying to sneak in the back door. No personality, no character. I would rather see the GM get a bunch of young, big, fast kids who will be fun to watch, win or lose, and draft in the top 2 for 2 years than continue like this. If the Flyers get 3 home playoff games this year and next, or none the next 2 seasons and 8 to 12 the following 5 years, what's better in every way? Has anyone at Comcast even considered this? This team is not close to winning anything. They are soft and when the games mean something they will get steamrolled. It's easy to be a game under 500 in the Patrick this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I would hate to tank, but this would be an okay year to wind up with the top pick. 

 

 

The problem is the math just doesn't pan out anymore with tanking. Take a look at this graph: 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

Essentially, even if you end up 31st overall, you only have an 18.5% chance of getting the first overall pick. If you're aiming specifically for 1st, there's really no way of getting even remotely good odds.

 

Now, if you're content with a top 4 pick of whatever you can get, then tanking can make more sense.

 

I should note I think the idea this team will purposely tank is extremely unlikely. Not that you're saying any different, but it's worth noting. There's no way this new GM comes in talking about winning now and proceeds to allow his team to tank on purpose. Not to mention, I would 100% assume many of the players on the team would outright refuse to tank.

 

Now, is it beyond their control? They're certainly playing like 💩. There's plenty of reason to believe they'll end up in the bottom five anyway, regardless of their intentions. But tanking to try to get the 1st overall pick makes very little sense and frankly won't happen with this team imo.

 

Can they get lucky twice? 😃

Edited by elmatus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get well soon Sammy i think the Flyers can use you on the backend...

 

 

...the PK can use you too...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dmitry Kulikov just come off IR i wonder if he would be a good acquisition for the defense.

 

Is under contract for next year at only for 4.3 mill. 

 

I would do this to help take Mcdud off the ice.

 

Provorov/Kulikov

Ghost/Hagg

Sanheim/Gudas

 

????

 

Upgrade or not?

Edited by OccamsRazor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is funny-crazy- or whatever you chose to call it...Filppula would be 4th on the team with his production...more points than Simmer.

 

Yeah that that sink in a minute....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

What is funny-crazy- or whatever you chose to call it...Filppula would be 4th on the team with his production...more points than Simmer.

 

Yeah that that sink in a minute....

 

Here he is playing 3C with the Islanders ..... hmmmmm

 

image.png.30d03728e84e1a703dd35de0b5765ac7.png

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

3 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

Dmitry Kulikov just come off IR i wonder if he would be a good acquisition for the defense.

 

Is under contract for next year at only for 4.3 mill. 

 

I would do this to help take Mcdud off the ice.

 

Provorov/Kulikov

Ghost/Hagg

Sanheim/Gudas

 

????

 

Upgrade or not?

 

Well, other than being a about 3 yrs younger and a bit easier on the cap (this is assuming you can rid yourselves of Macdonald in the first place), Kulikov is actually not that much different a player than MacDonald.

I've watched him play quite a bit on the Panthers, a bit with Buffalo, though admittedly not a whole lot in The 'Peg.

In recent seasons he also seems to be an injury risk, but on the ice, he just really seems like he is more of a defensive liability more often than not.
I'm not gonna claim I understand all the advanced metrics, but I even peeked at some of those, and his possession numbers are well under 50%.

In fact, I dare say that under the right circumstances, you are more likely to get better production out of MacDonald than Kulikov.
Defensively, I think they are a wash, as neither are particularly strong as a defender, Kulivkov due to decision making, and MacDonald, seemingly, due to his speed, or lack thereof.

I dunno.
If you can remove Macdonald off the roster and replace him with Kulikov, I would say age-wise and cap-wise its an upgrade.....but that's about it, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

8 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

Well, other than being a about 3 yrs younger and a bit easier on the cap (this is assuming you can rid yourselves of Macdonald in the first place), Kulikov is actually not that much different a player than MacDonald.

I've watched him play quite a bit on the Panthers, a bit with Buffalo, though admittedly not a whole lot in The 'Peg.

In recent seasons he also seems to be an injury risk, but on the ice, he just really seems like he is more of a defensive liability more often than not.
I'm not gonna claim I understand all the advanced metrics, but I even peeked at some of those, and his possession numbers are well under 50%.

In fact, I dare say that under the right circumstances, you are more likely to get better production out of MacDonald than Kulikov.
Defensively, I think they are a wash, as neither are particularly strong as a defender, Kulivkov due to decision making, and MacDonald, seemingly, due to his speed, or lack thereof.

I dunno.
If you can remove Macdonald off the roster and replace him with Kulikov, I would say age-wise and cap-wise its an upgrade.....but that's about it, IMO.

 

I respect that opinion.

 

So yeah forget I mentioned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 9:29 PM, Hockey Junkie said:

Is there really serious talk of the Flyers trading for Quick?  I agree with the first poster here, that created this thread, its a mistake to do that now.  If they were in the race right now maybe.  But given where they are they would likely get ripped off in that scenario.  The Kings are in no position to think they can fix things "Quick" either. 

 

They’re only considering Quick because Ryan Miller is unavailable!

 

Miller :love:

  • Good Post 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 6
      Post
      Just avoid 4-way stops and you'll be ok. We're so polite, it ends up basically being just 4 parked cars.    
    • 5
      Post
      You're not wrong. It does appear to be a solid roster to work with. On paper, I think most would say it doesn't seem like a line up that should require very much to be very good.   And yet, it really hasn't been good. It was saved last year largely because of one guy, and so far this season the roster is floundering and showing itself largely incapable of stringing together more than one decent period a game at best. And that's despite the same one guy who is still playing very high caliber hockey.   I wouldn't have canned Hexy as a first step, but I can definitely understand why the brass ran out of patience. This is the second season in a row I can remember where the Flyers were considered under the radar contenders, primed and waiting for a major step forward. Instead, they're in the basement.    It's also not like they're near the bottom three due to bad luck or injuries or what have you. They're playing poorly. This roster that seemed primed to take a major step forward is exactly where it should be right now based on their level of play.   Again, I would have definitely dropped the coaches first. I'm still baffled that didn't happen in fact. It seems entirely logical to assume that with a different system, maybe this chronically underperforming roster could finally take the step forward so many thought they would.   Was Hexy unwilling to make such a blatantly obvious change? That would explain at least in part why he was shown the door. We'll probably never know of course.   I really liked Hexy's methods. We have the best prospect pool we've ever had (on paper anyway). We have a bunch of money to work with to retain our upcoming youngsters. Hexy made some questionable signings in Voracek and now JVR, but I would consider both of them understandable signings at the time. He didn't find us a 3C in the offseason, but we have so many "almost there" players who could take that spot, I can understand this decision as well.   Did he do everything right? No, but it was definitely a refreshing tenure when compared to the pure chaos of the homercoaster. I'm going to be very sad to see many of Hexy's best decisions now go to waste in the name of sneaking into the playoffs and making more money.    I dunno. Part of me can't stand his loyalty to the coaching staff, but he made so many other great decisions. It's a messy situation for sure.
    • 4
      Post
      So much Canadianness going around.
    • 4
      Post
      I would ask, to what end? So that we can finish just outside of the playoffs and get a mid-round pick?    If Ottawa gets rid of Anderson, they're doing the sensible thing and edging closer to a guy like Hughes.    If we get Anderson, it just brings us further away from that possibility, and I can almost guarantee we will miss the playoffs this year. According to past years, there's a 78% chance we miss.    We should be looking to *shed* a goaltender, not add one. Shed Neuvirth, and roll with Elliott/Stolarz. When Elliott gets hurt, give Lyon or Hart (just a taste in 2019, say) a chance at backup.    Look to *shed* players, not add some. Replace them with guys like Vorobyev and NAK and Kase and Myers and Friedman.    But Holmgren just can't help himself. He's going to want to push for on-ice success *right now* and a playoff berth. There's no way he's going to get rid of established veterans for unproven rookies - that would be the complete opposite of what he and Scott were saying. That they need to see on-ice success now.   Prove me wrong, Homer. Please.      
    • 4
      Post
      It's exactly like the behavior of an addict. 
    • 4
      Post
      Drafting 1st again?

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 

Contact Us

 

Recent Topics

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×