Have we tarded Jeffy Carter yet?

Woah, woah, woah. Criticize the Flyers cap management and what not, that's all fine by me. But don't go calling the great Dan Carcillo a 'lesser player'. He's the new seventh wonder of the world, and looking to climb the rankings.


- BulliesPhan87

That picture is amazing.

Have we tarded Jeffy Carter yet?
- jak521

Ya, for some lazy, underachieving scrub named Voracek(?), and a first round pick. what a poopty trade. How does Homer still have a job?

So by your definition, all 30 NHL teams have a cap problem? In the context of looking at whether a team has a Cap problem, or doesn't have a Cap problem, that is not the correct way of looking at it, in my opinion. Because in that context every team has a cap problem.
- MJL

No, all 30 teams CAN have cap problems when they start to approach the cap. Not all teams are near the cap, so they don't have these same problems that the Flyers and bigger market teams do.

The issue here is the word "problem". Swap it with "limitation".

A problem is not defined as something someone did wrong. You seem to thing of it as a "mistake" or mishandling of the cap. A problem is simply: something that requires a solution.

So if any of the 30 teams gets near the cap, but wants to sign X player but at the moment, cannot sign X player due to the cap, they need to find a SOLUTION to the PROBLEM. Sometimes the only solution is to not sign X player, other times the solution might be a trade.

I can't wait to see the Caps play in a real division. They are in for a rude awakening.
- PhillySportsGuy

I couldn't agree more. My fiancee poo-poos this thought, and I just smile.
We'll see who is right.

So by your definition, all 30 NHL teams have a cap problem? In the context of looking at whether a team has a Cap problem, or doesn't have a Cap problem, that is not the correct way of looking at it, in my opinion. Because in that context every team has a cap problem.
- MJL

i get your point, but at the same time it makes it seem like you feel no team has a cap problem or mismanages the cap at times.

No, all 30 teams CAN have cap problems when they start to approach the cap. Not all teams are near the cap, so they don't have these same problems that the Flyers and bigger market teams do.

The issue here is the word "problem". Swap it with "limitation".

A problem is not defined as something someone did wrong. You seem to thing of it as a "mistake" or mishandling of the cap. A problem is simply: something that requires a solution.

So if any of the 30 teams gets near the cap, but wants to sign X player but at the moment, cannot sign X player due to the cap, they need to find a SOLUTION to the PROBLEM. Sometimes the only solution is to not sign X player, other times the solution might be a trade.


- mikel33

Every single NHL team is limited by the Cap. Just because they haven't reached that limit yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for them. It is still there. You can't place a label on a team as having a problem, or not having a problem, when the limitation is the same for every team. Because one team decides to spend more of their allotted Cap space, versus another. Doesn't signal that team having a problem. It just means they spent all of their Cap space. And that team not being able to spend more then their allotted share, doesn't signal that team having a Cap problem.

i get your point, but at the same time it makes it seem like you feel no team has a cap problem or mismanages the cap at times.
- Crimsoninja

I think that teams make bad player choices in which players to trade, or which players to sign, more then mismanaging the Cap. I don't feel the Flyers mismanage the cap. They've made some bad player choices as an example. Most recently with Brzgalov. But his contract and his cap hit wasn't the issue in my opinion. His play and the results were the issue. They didn't get their bang for their buck.

I'd keep Grossman over Gill at this point. So far, Gill has not shown any compelling reason to displace anyone else for the 7th spot. That being said, we get to see a few games before jumping to any conclusions. Besides, another team may need defensive help and come calling for one. Depending on the return, any one or even two could alter the plans of Homer or Hextall.

Every single NHL team is limited by the Cap. Just because they haven't reached that limit yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for them. It is still there. You can't place a label on a team as having a problem, or not having a problem, when the limitation is the same for every team. Because one team decides to spend more of their allotted Cap space, versus another. Doesn't signal that team having a problem. It just means they spent all of their Cap space. And that team not being able to spend more then their allotted share, doesn't signal that team having a Cap problem.
- MJL

Your definition of cap problem is different than most.

I look at it differently as well.

Say the cap is set at 60 million... The Flyers spend 64 million, but are able to put 4.75 on LTIR.

That leaves them with 750,000 in cap space. The fact that they spent up to the limit in and of itself isnt necessarily a problem, hell it might be a good thing. Fielding a solid top to bottom team costs money after all... Now, the "problem is that by doing that they end up limiting their ability to add pieces later on down the road. That CAN be a problem. We have seen the happen before.. and it absolutely WAS problematic.

Actual spend to the fullest isnt the problem, but leaving yourself with minimal wiggle room, and paying a price for that in the long term is.

I think that teams make bad player choices in which players to trade, or which players to sign, more then mismanaging the Cap. I don't feel the Flyers mismanage the cap. They've made some bad player choices as an example. Most recently with Brzgalov. But his contract and his cap hit wasn't the issue in my opinion. His play and the results were the issue. They didn't get their bang for their buck.
- MJL

So, can you give an example of when a team did have a cap issue?
Take the Devils having to ice less than 20 men. I'd call that a cap issue. However, they had other option. Just like the Flyers could have traded Upshall for Carcillo or not iced Giroux, the Devils could have made a cap-saving trade (trade a player/players for a lower cap hit ) or iced fewer players. They chose to ice fewer than 20 players. I would call that a cap problem but, being as they had a way to ice a full team, one could argue it wasn't a problem at all, correct?

I think that teams make bad player choices in which players to trade, or which players to sign, more then mismanaging the Cap. I don't feel the Flyers mismanage the cap. They've made some bad player choices as an example. Most recently with Brzgalov. But his contract and his cap hit wasn't the issue in my opinion. His play and the results were the issue. They didn't get their bang for their buck.
- MJL

The ultimate problem is the team leaves itself with very little wiggle room. Injuries occur, players overachieve and poop happens. I don't know if you want to call it poor cap management, but it is poor management. I'm not a Homer hater by any means, but his greatest downfall is forcing himself into a corner in certain circumstances.

It's not close to being semantics. And you can say I'm wrong all you want. But using that as an example of poor cap management is wrong in my opinion. You can certainly argue that the trade itself was a bad trade. But they were not forced to make that trade. There's always other options when putting a roster together and deciding what player moves to make. One of those options that they had at the time, was leaving Giroux in the minors, and not making a trade at all. So how were they forced to make a trade, when that option, and others were available to them?
The entire context of the conversation was about Cap mismanagement. And you brought up the example of that trade, as evidence of it. I disagree with that. So it's not a invalid argument to debate whether it was a choice or they were forced to make it. It is the entire argument in a nutshell.
The idea is to put the best team on the ice that you can, under the parameters of the salary cap. The Flyers were willing to basically exchange Upshall and a 2nd round pick, for Giroux and Carcillo in the lineup. Which was the end results. I'm okay with that result. It's no different then deciding who makes your team at the end of training camp, or which player to keep or sign in the off season.
- MJL

You're right, the entire context of the conversation was about cap mismanagement.

The Flyers had a former first round draft choice who would have made the team better, but they couldn't recall him because they didn't have enough cap room to absorb his massive cap hit of $850K.

That's cap mismanagement. The team, if it wanted to bring Giroux into the lineup, had to make a move to clear enough cap room to fit $850K under the cap. To put their best possible team on the ice under the salary cap they had to make a trade.

The trade they made sent a solid player, plus a 2nd rounder for a 3rd line agitator who had fallen out of favor for the sole reason it provided enough cap room to recall Giroux.

On what planet is that not an example of poor cap management?

You can argue if they were forced to make that particular trade or if it was a decision all along. The bottom line is they made a bad trade solely to get cap space because they could not fit $850,000 under the cap. That is a crystal clear example of poor cap management. They aren't the only team who has done something similar.

Detroit had to trade Ville Leino for a broken down OK Tollefsen because they couldn't bring Franzen back from the LTIR. The Devils have played games where they dressed 16 or 17 skaters because of the cap. It's not a damning indictment, it's an example of poor planning.

I'd keep Grossman over Gill at this point. So far, Gill has not shown any compelling reason to displace anyone else for the 7th spot. That being said, we get to see a few games before jumping to any conclusions. Besides, another team may need defensive help and come calling for one. Depending on the return, any one or even two could alter the plans of Homer or Hextall.
- Hokeeguy9

Hell, I'd keep Brad Marsh at age 58 over Gill.

The ultimate problem is the team leaves itself with very little wiggle room. Injuries occur, players overachieve and poop happens. I don't know if you want to call it poor cap management, but it is poor management. I'm not a Homer hater by any means, but his greatest downfall is forcing himself into a corner in certain circumstances.
- PhillySportsGuy

If you were driving the bus to hell you'd see it differently. Gamble big to live large... I'm ok with him making over aggressive "mistakes" with the cap (i.e. high pay acquisitions which keep us at the limit of the cap all the time) versus the alternative of snoozeville...
Poop does happen, you can't predict it, so swing for the fences when you can. Different mindest than you'd like to see, but I'm comfortable with it. Mostly cuz I don't have to make those decisions. I just get to watch the fallout.
Is it Oct 2nd yet?

Hell, I'd keep Brad Marsh at age 58 over Gill.
- Jsaquella

We are well aware of your feelings for poor Mr. Gill (orange cone on a skateboard being my personal favorite - I blame Skippy). What did that man ever do to you?

If you were driving the bus to hell you'd see it differently. Gamble big to live large... I'm ok with him making over aggressive "mistakes" with the cap (i.e. high pay acquisitions which keep us at the limit of the cap all the time) versus the alternative of snoozeville...
Poop does happen, you can't predict it, so swing for the fences when you can. Different mindest than you'd like to see, but I'm comfortable with it. Mostly cuz I don't have to make those decisions. I just get to watch the fallout.
Is it Oct 2nd yet?
- FlyersGrace

I'm fine with the aggressive mindset...far better to have that than a guy sitting on his hands.

But when you dance that close to the line, you're going to sometimes make mistakes. Holmgren and the Flyers are not alone. Other teams, with highly respected GMs that have won multiple Stanley Cups have gotten into the same situation where they had to make a less than stellar trade to get under the cap.

I like Holmgren, but there are things about him I wish he hadn't done.

We are well aware of your feelings for poor Mr. Gill (orange cone on a skateboard being my personal favorite - I blame Skippy). What did that man ever do to you?

- FlyersGrace

He went to camp with the Flyers.

Outside of that, I love Hal Gill...he's a funny dude.

You're right, the entire context of the conversation was about cap mismanagement.

The Flyers had a former first round draft choice who would have made the team better, but they couldn't recall him because they didn't have enough cap room to absorb his massive cap hit of $850K.

That's cap mismanagement. The team, if it wanted to bring Giroux into the lineup, had to make a move to clear enough cap room to fit $850K under the cap. To put their best possible team on the ice under the salary cap they had to make a trade.

The trade they made sent a solid player, plus a 2nd rounder for a 3rd line agitator who had fallen out of favor for the sole reason it provided enough cap room to recall Giroux.

On what planet is that not an example of poor cap management?

You can argue if they were forced to make that particular trade or if it was a decision all along. The bottom line is they made a bad trade solely to get cap space because they could not fit $850,000 under the cap. That is a crystal clear example of poor cap management. They aren't the only team who has done something similar.

Detroit had to trade Ville Leino for a broken down OK Tollefsen because they couldn't bring Franzen back from the LTIR. The Devils have played games where they dressed 16 or 17 skaters because of the cap. It's not a damning indictment, it's an example of poor planning.
- Jsaquella

obvious...9 pages ago...and 20 pages from now. if only there was a way to post something here that would selectively inhibit the the re-uptake of serotonin in posters and then we could...

I'm fine with the aggressive mindset...far better to have that than a guy sitting on his hands.

But when you dance that close to the line, you're going to sometimes make mistakes. Holmgren and the Flyers are not alone. Other teams, with highly respected GMs that have won multiple Stanley Cups have gotten into the same situation where they had to make a less than stellar trade to get under the cap.

I like Holmgren, but there are things about him I wish he hadn't done.
- Jsaquella

I have re-read this post three times and I can't find a fault with it.
*picks up rock to look again*
Guess we might actually agree sorta!
Holmgren is not perfect, he does make mistakes, but he also does try every second to make this a better team, and he isn't scared to swing for the fences and potentially make a mistake. Go him.
Of course now I have an image of him and Bettman dancing and it creeps me out. Maybe if it was a fisticuffs dance I'd feel better? I think we'd do well in the 'ole "My GM'd beat the crap out of your GM" competition.

I have re-read this post three times and I can't find a fault with it.
*picks up rock to look again*
Guess we might actually agree sorta!
Holmgren is not perfect, he does make mistakes, but he also does try every second to make this a better team, and he isn't scared to swing for the fences and potentially make a mistake. Go him.
Of course now I have an image of him and Bettman dancing and it creeps me out. Maybe if it was a fisticuffs dance I'd feel better? I think we'd do well in the 'ole "My GM'd beat the crap out of your GM" competition.
- FlyersGrace

I like Holmgren. I think he's done a good job overall. But I won't ignore the bad just to sell the good.

I also won't sugar coat something I disagree with.

Every single NHL team is limited by the Cap. Just because they haven't reached that limit yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for them. It is still there. You can't place a label on a team as having a problem, or not having a problem, when the limitation is the same for every team. Because one team decides to spend more of their allotted Cap space, versus another. Doesn't signal that team having a problem. It just means they spent all of their Cap space. And that team not being able to spend more then their allotted share, doesn't signal that team having a Cap problem.
- MJL

I don't know what you're talking about with half of this.. its not even what I was talking about. Please re-read my last post.

Every single NHL team is limited by the Cap. Just because they haven't reached that limit yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for them. It is still there
- MJL

Of course every team is limited by the cap. Who ever said it doesn't exist for them? Huh?

You can't place a label on a team as having a problem, or not having a problem, when the limitation is the same for every team.

What label? Cap Problems? Just because a limitation exist for every team does not mean that teams don't have to find solutions to different things once they approach the cap.


If I'm at an ATM trying to take out $10,000 but I can't because the ATM doesn't allow that much at once, I have a problem. That same problem exist for everyone who tries to use that ATM. Not everyone tries to take out that much at once, so others don't experience this problem too often, or not at all.

So since I cannot take out $10,000 at the ATM, I have a problem, that requires a solution. I'm having an ATM limitation problem, not a problem handling ATMs.

Problem = Something that needs a solution. So when the Flyers can't sign X player because there is a cap in place, that means that the problem is that there IS a cap. Not the Flyers.

Because one team decides to spend more of their allotted Cap space, versus another. Doesn't signal that team having a problem. It

I'm not saying the Flyers are a problem, I'm saying the cap presents problems that requires solutions. AKA Cap problems.

It just means they spent all of their Cap space. And that team not being able to spend more then their allotted share, doesn't signal that team having a Cap problem

If they cannot sign player X because of the cap, it means the team is running into cap problems, not problems managing the cap.

Your definition of cap problem is different than most.

I look at it differently as well.

Say the cap is set at 60 million... The Flyers spend 64 million, but are able to put 4.75 on LTIR.

That leaves them with 750,000 in cap space. The fact that they spent up to the limit in and of itself isnt necessarily a problem, hell it might be a good thing. Fielding a solid top to bottom team costs money after all... Now, the "problem is that by doing that they end up limiting their ability to add pieces later on down the road. That CAN be a problem. We have seen the happen before.. and it absolutely WAS problematic.

Actual spend to the fullest isnt the problem, but leaving yourself with minimal wiggle room, and paying a price for that in the long term is.
- jak521

That's where I differ. The only way that could be a problem is if you feel the money they already spent on players to get to the limit, was spent poorly. And that instead of using that cap space wisely, they failed to do so. Which in turn created holes in the lineup, that now can't be filled. That they ran out of Cap space due to fieilding a quality team, in which the quality players, as you put it costs money, doesn't constitue a cap problem. As an example, if the Flyers were forced to keep a declining Briere, and Bryzgalov, who continued to underacheive, for the high Cap hits they had. Which would of alos severley limited them in making other moves to improve the team, that would be a cap problem, because it woould drastically affect the team placed on the ice.

That's where I differ. The only way that could be a problem is if you feel the money they already spent on players to get to the limit, was spent poorly. And that instead of using that cap space wisely, they failed to do so. Which in turn created holes in the lineup, that now can't be filled. That they ran out of Cap space due to fieilding a quality team, in which the quality players, as you put it costs money, doesn't constitue a cap problem. As an example, if the Flyers were forced to keep a declining Briere, and Bryzgalov, who continued to underacheive, for the high Cap hits they had. Which would of alos severley limited them in making other moves to improve the team, that would be a cap problem, because it woould drastically affect the team placed on the ice.
- MJL

Im saying that spending to the limit is not a problem, but can create problems.

You think they wanted to trade Gagne for Matt Walker?

For kicks, our last 10 games vs all of the teams in the Metro

Capitals: 7-2-1, .750 P%

Penguins: 5-4-1, .550 P%

NYR: 2-8-0, .200 P%

Columbus: 5-2-0 (only played 7 times since 2003-2004 season), .714 P%

Carolina: 8-2-0, .800 P%

New Jersey: 3-6-1, .350 P%

NYI: 6-2-2, .700 P%

Combined P%: .575

Projected total record vs. Metropolitan: 26-19-1