Resigned: Elliot x1 yr @ $2 million

[ruxpin]

15 hours ago, CoachX said:

Rumor says he was a good guy in the room

I'm so tired of the good guy in the room routine. On a team that sleepwalked through half a season two seasons in a row. Maybe more people that stink in the room but can perform on the ice. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by ruxpin

[OccamsRazor]

4 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Maybe more people that stuck in the room but can perform on the ice. 

 

Time to have that talk to the kids...

 

 

#lovethisseries

[CoachX]

8 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I'm so tired of the good guy in the room routine. On a team that sleepwalked through half a season two seasons in a row. Maybe more people that stink in the room but can perform on the ice. 

"Good guy in the room" and "love what he brings to the ice"

 

Its like when a really hot chick says, "he's a nice guy"

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, CoachX said:

"Good guy in the room" and "love what he brings to the ice"

 

Its like when a really hot chick says, "he's a nice guy"

 

"Bless his heart."

[mojo1917]

11 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Time to have that talk to the kids...

 

 

#lovethisseries

 

When I started to watch this the cadence for the pulldown was incorrect for NTSC. The first season it was terrible, I didn't know if i he problem was Netflix's or my internet but the show was unwatchable for me. 

I didn't like the way the show "looked" because the motion had stutteri-ness to it that was intolerable to my eye.

The story was good, but I couldn't standing watching the bad juddering when people walked or threw a punch, which happened a lot. It looks like that issue has been resolved. 

A lot of people in my family love this show, and I'm always like really, you didn't notice how bad it looked- they then tell me to quit working.  -good times

I didn't notice the issue in this clip is it from a more recent season?

. 

 

[OccamsRazor]

7 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

 

When I started to watch this the cadence for the pulldown was incorrect for NTSC. The first season it was terrible, I didn't know if i he problem was Netflix's or my internet but the show was unwatchable for me. 

I didn't like the way the show "looked" because the motion had stutteri-ness to it that was intolerable to my eye.

The story was good, but I couldn't standing watching the bad juddering when people walked or threw a punch, which happened a lot. It looks like that issue has been resolved. 

A lot of people in my family love this show, and I'm always like really, you didn't notice how bad it looked- they then tell me to quit working.  -good times

I didn't notice the issue in this clip is it from a more recent season?

. 

 

 

Yeah I didn't notice anything like that at all looked fine on my 4K tv.

 

Waiting for season 5 WTF are they going to announce it's release?

[Podein25]

2 hours ago, ruxpin said:

"Bless his heart."

 

I didn't know you were from the South.

[King Knut]

On 6/26/2019 at 11:57 PM, Howie58 said:

I can't get too angry.  He is a known entity.  Apparently, the youngins in the system aren't ready. Talbot flunked his audition. I suspect we will see 3-5 goalies played by season's end. Keep your fingers crossed.

 

Howie

 

I'm still annoyed that he traded for Talbot at all, then traded for him at such a strategically unsound time that cost them real games and may have lead to Hart's injury which cost more games.  

 

Last year we had a lot of goalies to start, they all got injured and we needed more.  This year we're not starting out with so many.

 

The bright side is that Sandstrom is in LHV and could make a good backup option.  From what I understand and what little I've seen, I'm not crazy about his style.  It's a little antithetical to Hart, less economical (which is why I really like Stolarz because He and Hart were similar in their ability to track the puck and anticipate the shot -Hart's better but still...).

 

Moose is fine for me.  I actually think he was way better than most Flyers fans give him credit for.  I worry about his ability to stay healthy, but hopefully if he starts out in the backup role and Vigneault isn't as insane as first Berube, then Hakstol was with starting his goalies (Gordon was a little bit too, but as mentioned injuries and the untimeliness of Talbot's Visa status were mostly to blame).  

 

Talbot didn't flunk his audition because he never got one.  Talbot simply thinks he's going to get a starting job someplace...

WHICH IF ANYONE CARES TO REMEMBER is exactly what I said he'd do.  Sometimes I hate being right all the time.  Just call me Mr. Cassandra.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

13 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I'm so tired of the good guy in the room routine. On a team that sleepwalked through half a season two seasons in a row. Maybe more people that stink in the room but can perform on the ice. 

 

I'm tired of it too and mostly because looking at the results, this team's "good guys in the room" are apparently pretty damn bad in the room. 

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, Podein25 said:

 

I didn't know you were from the South.

 

I'll type a longer response later.   Gotta finish my fried anything and grits.

[ruxpin]

28 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I'm tired of it too and mostly because looking at the results, this team's "good guys in the room" are apparently pretty damn bad in the room. 

 

Yeah, completely agree.  I mean, maybe it would be at all relevant if the game was played in the room.

 

Think about the stars in their field.  Those that won a championship.    I mean, maybe it was said at some point, but I don't remember Gretzky lifting the Cup and some announcer going, "He's great in the room!"

 

It's usually reserved for someone barely competent and, in a discussion about what they actually do, "well, he's great in the room!"  What does that even mean?  (S)he doesn't hog their neighbor's locker space?   (S)he's a really good cheerleader?   

 

"Don't worry, Bobby.  You had that one really good pass.  You're good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-on-it, people like you!"   --  great in the room.

[King Knut]

3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Yeah, completely agree.  I mean, maybe it would be at all relevant if the game was played in the room.

 

Think about the stars in their field.  Those that won a championship.    I mean, maybe it was said at some point, but I don't remember Gretzky lifting the Cup and some announcer going, "He's great in the room!"

 

It's usually reserved for someone barely competent and, in a discussion about what they actually do, "well, he's great in the room!"  What does that even mean?  (S)he doesn't hog their neighbor's locker space?   (S)he's a really good cheerleader?   

 

"Don't worry, Bobby.  You had that one really good pass.  You're good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-on-it, people like you!"   --  great in the room.

 

I think you can be a good player AND great in the room. I think Gretzky and Messier and the like we’re probably pretty good in the room.  But they went out and out their money where their mouths were and their teams followed suit. 

[ruxpin]

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I think you can be a good player AND great in the room. I think Gretzky and Messier and the like we’re probably pretty good in the room.  But they went out and out their money where their mouths were and their teams followed suit. 

 

Completely agree.  I guess the point is that if they were good (arguably great) in the room but not great on the ice, I don't think they're raising Cups.

 

At the very least, I don't think the "room" is the first thing that comes to mind with either is that they were great in the room.  Maybe implied, though, specifically with Messier.  Because if someone says to me, "great leader" I instantly think of him.  And the room is part of it.   To echo you, though, the difference was the money where their mouths were on the ice.

[Podein25]

21 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Completely agree.  I guess the point is that if they were good (arguably great) in the room but not great on the ice, I don't think they're raising Cups.

 

At the very least, I don't think the "room" is the first thing that comes to mind with either is that they were great in the room.  Maybe implied, though, specifically with Messier.  Because if someone says to me, "great leader" I instantly think of him.  And the room is part of it.   To echo you, though, the difference was the money where their mouths were on the ice.

 

Ok, I think I've listened to quite enough of this anti-room diatribe of yours. You know who was great in the room, but also great on the ice? Shojon Walter Podein.  Walter!

 

So just stop it.

 

Govern yourself accordingly.

[ruxpin]

2 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Ok, I think I've listened to quite enough of this anti-room diatribe of yours. You know who was great in the room, but also great on the ice? Shojon Walter Podein.  Walter!

 

So just stop it.

 

Govern yourself accordingly.

 

Wouldn't argue about Podein.   He was always very nice about leaving the seat down for Gilbert Dionne when he was finished.

 

There's nothing wrong with being "good in the room."   But it cannot be the reason for keeping  a player when they are doing nothing -- or worse, being a liability -- on the ice.   MacDonald was good in the room, apparently.  It's too bad they didn't put VR goggles on him on the ice so he'd think he was in the room.    

[Podein25]

12 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Wouldn't argue about Podein.   He was always very nice about leaving the seat down for Gilbert Dionne when he was finished.

 

There's nothing wrong with being "good in the room."   But it cannot be the reason for keeping  a player when they are doing nothing -- or worse, being a liability -- on the ice.   MacDonald was good in the room, apparently.  It's too bad they didn't put VR goggles on him on the ice so he'd think he was in the room.    

 

Lol. Yeah I know what you mean, just having a laugh

[hf101]

7 hours ago, King Knut said:

Talbot didn't flunk his audition because he never got one. 

Well he did, and he sucked.  Elliot came back from injury and played better.

 

In the 4 games and 211 minutes that Talbot played he gave up 13 goals for 1  Win, 2 Losses, a  3.80 GAA.  96 saves and a 0.881 S%.

 

His last 2 seasons in Edmonton have not been good.  I'm glad Fletcher let him walk.

[King Knut]

On 6/28/2019 at 6:33 PM, hf101 said:

Well he did, and he sucked.  Elliot came back from injury and played better.

 

In the 4 games and 211 minutes that Talbot played he gave up 13 goals for 1  Win, 2 Losses, a  3.80 GAA.  96 saves and a 0.881 S%.

 

His last 2 seasons in Edmonton have not been good.  I'm glad Fletcher let him walk.

 

You're kinda missing my point... repeatedly.  

 

Allow me to review:

 

-I never wanted Cam Talbot on this team.  Let's keep that in mind as I proceed to defend him...

-Elliott didn't come back and play better.  Elliott came back and played.  Gordon put his trust in Elliott which I think was the right thing to do and Eliott did what Elliott does... He played pretty well until he got hurt again.  

-Talbot didn't suck for the Flyers.  He played 3.5 games across several months.  Just kind of hap hazardly with no rhyme or reason.  You can't toss a guy into a mix he's never played with 3.5 times over several months and expect to get a decent look at his game.

-His last two full seasons in Edmonton, he played 67 and 73 games, lead the league both years.  

-Two years ago, he led the league in Wins (42), had a .919 save% 3rd in the league with 7 shutouts and anchored the Oilers to 2nd in their division and game within a game of the WCFs, beating the Sharks in the first round. Not earth shattering, but pretty okay for a team that is missing some glaring pieces.

 

 

I have no problem with Elliott being the backup this year... I'm a little surprised they had to pay him $2million, but whatever.  

I'm not mad at Fletcher for going with Eliott over Talbot.

I'm mad at Fletcher for trading for Talbot at all.  Stolarz was playing WELL. His style is more consistent with Hart's which means the team would have to adjust less for his fill in dates.   

 

The ONLY reasons to make that trade is if you really feel confident that:

     A) you can sign Talbot and

     B) He's the right guy to sign to backup and mentor Hart.  

 

Apparently, neither of those were actually part of the decision.  Fletcher Traded a younger goaltending asset who (albeit was at a fragile state in his development) seemed to be bouncing back from a pair of bad injuries to potentially be settling into a great spot as a 2G in a young tandem who would resign for less money and longer term than either Elliott or Talbot.  

 

Why did Fletcher make that trade?  Just like Simmonds... what was the point of the trade?  

Frankly, I'd lump in every trade he made last year but the other players he unloaded weren't good.  They were still pointless trades because they weren't being played anymore after Gordon took over and they each on contracts that were either expiring or likely to be bought out.  

 

Think about it...  who from ANY of the trades Fletcher made last year is returning to the team this year?  

What was the point of any of it?  When it's Weise, who cares, but with Simmonds and Stolarz... I think those trades seriously hurt this team last year and were a big part of the derailed comeback.  

 

All of which would be fine as a sacrifice for the future... but in hind-sight, 4 months later, none of which seem to have had any point.  

 

 

 

[hf101]

18 hours ago, King Knut said:

I have no problem with Elliott being the backup this year... I'm a little surprised they had to pay him $2million, but whatever.  

I'm not mad at Fletcher for going with Eliott over Talbot.

I'm mad at Fletcher for trading for Talbot at all.  Stolarz was playing WELL. His style is more consistent with Hart's which means the team would have to adjust less for his fill in dates.   

 

The ONLY reasons to make that trade is if you really feel confident that:

     A) you can sign Talbot and

     B) He's the right guy to sign to backup and mentor Hart. 

 

Gottcha.  Fetcher took a small risk at the deadline to see if Talbot was an option to sign as a backup to Hart.  Fletcher didn't fail, Talbot did.  I can't blame Fetcher for trying.  As for Stolarz, yeah he was playing decent when he traded him, but Stolarz wasn't an answer to having a mentor for Hart in the back-up roll. That leaves zero playoff experience as a Hart / Stolarz tandem.  While we all liked Stolaz he wasn't going to last in the Flyers organization.

 

I do think the Flyers would have signed Talbot over Elliot IF he was observed as the better back-up to Hart for this season.  That was the intention in the trade.  It was Talbot that failed the audition.

 

As far as Simmonds goes, instead of Hartman we now have Pitlick and a fourth round pick in next years draft versus nothing if Simmonds wasn't resigned.  Fletcher had to have known how much money and term Simmonds wanted and obviously felt he was not worth that money as a roll player.    I'm ok with this decision by Fletcher also as Pitlick is a cheaper and is a better defensive player than Simmonds.

 

As far as derailing the teams comeback.  I think everyone knew this team wasn't going to go anywhere in the playoffs and they were gassed just trying to get there.    I think Fletcher's moves make us a better constructed team for next season with youth and experience while still allowing some opportunity for some prospects from the AHL to get playing time with the Flyers this season.

[OccamsRazor]

10 minutes ago, hf101 said:

  It was Talbot that failed the audition.

 

I am coming around to this resigning after watching all the crazy money handed out yesterday.

 

Talbot thinks he is a starter still....and i'm afraid he is not from what i seen from him. Elliott is his equal if not slightly better.

 

The only thing Talbot had over Elliott is reliability....that is it. Speed wise moving around in the crease i expect the 31 year old Talbot to look much quicker than the 34 year old Elliott and that isn't the case, i give Elliott the slight edge in this area.

 

I think Elliott has a better glove too. However time will tell if the Flyers made the right move. Let's Elliott can stay healthy to play in his allotted 25-30 games this year. 

 

I am hoping the new senior defenseman (Braun/Niskanen) can sheppard to flock of young D men in front of Hart and Elliott to better all around defensive play and take some of the burden off the forwards and their back checking and let them concentrate on scoring.

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, hf101 said:

  I think everyone knew this team wasn't going to go anywhere in the playoffs and they were gassed just trying to get there.    I think Fletcher's moves make us a better constructed team for next season with youth and experience while still allowing some opportunity for some prospects from the AHL to get playing time with the Flyers this season.

 

-Tell that to the Blues.  Oh wait, you can’t because they're  too busy singing Gloria and drinking from the cup in a south Philly instead of the Flyers.  

 

-Fletcher didn’t choose not to resign Talbot.  Talbot chose to sign elsewhere so he could be the presumptive starter.  ...just as I predicted when Fletcher made the trade. 

 

-Hart and Stolarz were good because they pushed each other.  It was healthy competition.  In the end, Stolarz doesn't have a future in Philly,  but he should have have higher trade value than nothing. I’d sooner see him go for a pick.   But I’m actuality, I’d sooner see him do that this year when he might have fetched a better one.  

 

-Regarding Simmonds, I’d sooner have kept the band together and kept pushing although the Talbot deal kind sealed the Flyers comeback in the tomb by the time the deadline came around. Even so, I think the glimmer of hope and the urge to try is something that’s been missing on this team since Hakstol took over and it would have been smart to encourage that a little more rather than just give the hell up like they did.