Jump to content

Resigned: Elliot x1 yr @ $2 million


pilldoc

Good move?  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. Good Move for the Flyers?

    • Yeah
      8
    • Nay
      12
    • Meh
      13


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

It defies reason, right?

Among other things, yes. Was he even looking for alternatives or did he just settle for a seemingly safe bet which allows him to be more adventurous the next time...

 

You'll can him in two years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hockey-78 said:

backup a guy who either can't stay healthy or can't play well 5 games

 

I think those two things are essentially the same thing. He just needs to play a game here, a game there, almost never in a row. I think he can do that. Maybe not, I don't know, but it's not the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so-so signing. probably doesn't make a difference on the ice, but i suppose it could be good for Hart having an older vet for another year. i guess the question should now turn to "who do we have when Elliott gets hurt?" i haven't seen a lot from Lyon that inspires confidence in his time in the NHL. he could probably get by for 1-2 games, but there's been times when he looks totally bewildered out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hf101 said:

Frankly,  I like the signing, the Talbot experiment was a disaster.

 

I agree with you.  Elliott was more of a starting goalie last season than any of the available back ups.

Edited by AlaskaFlyerFan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, hf101 said:

Frankly,  I like the signing, the Talbot experiment was a disaster.

 

Don't like the signing, but agree completely about Talbot.

If Fletcher really did look around and Elliott was simply cheaper, or better value at that amount (and others may not have done only one year), then I'm okay if it enables the Flyers to have enough to extend the kids in a prudent manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Elliott was simply cheaper, or better value at that amount

 

Yes,  and that is why it is a good signing.  There is also the familiarity, with Elliot and the consistency of which he played here when healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

Yes,  and that is why it is a good signing.  There is also the familiarity, with Elliot and the consistency of which he played here when healthy.

 

I remember that 15 minutes fondly.

 

(No, I agree with you.  Just being a wise guy)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

Yes,  and that is why it is a good signing.  There is also the familiarity, with Elliot and the consistency of which he played here when healthy. 

 ..... key words here ..... when healthy .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I remember that 15 minutes fondly.

 

(No, I agree with you.  Just being a wise guy)

 

No you're be honest.

 

It is why i would have pursued Curtis McElhinney first... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pilldoc said:

 ..... key words here ..... when healthy .....

 

Since he likely won't be the #1 netminder, and even if he plays 50%  -- that should be less of an issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moose is a good dude by all accounts,  I think he could be very valuable in this role. I like that contract is only for a year also. 

Elliott seems like a cat who would be helpful even during games....he has been a good teammate- with Talbot I got the sense he wanted more pt even last year. So putting aside the Hart /Talbot friendship I think this is actually a good signing. 

Provided Moose doesn't wind up in the starter's role i think this is a-okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 2015-15 his save percentage has went down every year...and his goals against have went up ever since.

 

Not a good combinations...but i'm sure we can find something good to blame it on...how bout Lindros???

 

#loweringourstandards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only question about Elliott is whether the damage Hakstol did to him is fully healed, or if it's going to be something that lingers. If it's not a lingering issue, than he was likely the best FA option out there that wasn't a guy looking to be a starter. If he gets 30-35 games (that's the number of back to backs this season, right?), he should be fine. It's not an exciting signing, but I much prefer not getting excited over the backup goalie. Otherwise we're doing it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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