They still need to assign Hall, Gervais and Bourdon to the AHL, and then they will have to cut another $16,022 to get under the cap-which can be easily done by sending Schenn or Couturier to the AHL on paper for 24 hours.
- Jsaquella

i love that we're 16 thousand and twenty two dollars over the cap. it just makes me .

Bingo.
- Jsaquella

It's the Flyers philosophy. Unfortunately it seems as if they won't change. It's not the end of the world, but it's frustrating.

I'm looking forward to Wednesday night. I have a feeling the Flyers are going to surprise and come out of the gate playing well.

Arguing the merits of Jay Rosehill. A 28 year old career minor leaguer. Absolutely hilarious.

I nominate the next topics to be, is grass green? Is the sky blue? Does poop stink?
- PLindbergh31

yes. yes. yes. sometimes.

It's the Flyers philosophy. Unfortunately it seems as if they won't change. It's not the end of the world, but it's frustrating.

I'm looking forward to Wednesday night. I have a feeling the Flyers are going to surprise and come out of the gate playing well.
- PLindbergh31

They've recalled Akeson and kicked those bums Simmonds/Hartnell off the top 6???

I would prefer Steckel. However, he wasn't made available until a few days ago. Rosehill was resigned (wisely or unwisely) before he or Pandolfo were available. He's also possibly cheaper than them, and can be waived and "buried" if need be. No real interest in Langenbrunner.
- jmatchett383

Steckel was on a PTO. He could have been signed off the PTO by anyone, at any time. It's not binding.

I don't have real interest in any of them anyhow. But they are actual NHL players, who were in the NHL because they can play. If fighting was banned tomorrow, Jay Rosehill wouldn't be in the NHL....I'd just rather have a guy that can step in and do more than play 3 minutes and bang his knuckles off the other teams' designated fighter's skull.

Hell, if we're not interested in outside options, I'd rather have a guy like Ben Holmstrom or Chris VandeVelde, who can step in and play on the PK or just handle 10-12 minutes on a given night.

Rosehill's played over 10 minutes in a game twice in his NHL career, according to hockeyreference.com. The only reason he played that much? Both times his team was getting blown out by Boston. The first time, they lost 7-0. The second? 8-0.

New blog up.

- Jsaquella

Professional Hockey People have judged that rosehill is not only an nhl plyr, but an asset to the flyers. you must accept this!

Steckel was on a PTO. He could have been signed off the PTO by anyone, at any time. It's not binding.
- Jsaquella

I meant when they resigned Rosehill (end last season) he wasn't available.

But the reason that guys like Holmstrom/McGinn/etc. aren't in his role is because they actually want them playing regularly, which they will be in the AHL. 90% of the time, Rosehill will be in the Jody Shelley suite, unless there's a major issue. Even if there's an injury, Rosehill STILL probably is a reserve, and they'll call up someone. Rosehill has a very specific purpose, and will most likely adequately fill it when necessary. The rest of the time, he will have little to no effect on the team.

I meant when they resigned Rosehill (end last season) he wasn't available.

But the reason that guys like Holmstrom/McGinn/etc. aren't in his role is because they actually want them playing regularly, which they will be in the AHL. 90% of the time, Rosehill will be in the Jody Shelley suite, unless there's a major issue. Even if there's an injury, Rosehill STILL probably is a reserve, and they'll call up someone. Rosehill has a very specific purpose, and will most likely adequately fill it when necessary. The rest of the time, he will have little to no effect on the team.
- jmatchett383

But they could have brought him in at any time on a PTO, like they did with Gill and tried to do with Cleary.

A guy like Holmstrom, at age 26, isn't going to have his development stalled by being a 13th forward in the NHL, rather than being a 2nd liner in the AHL.

But they could have brought him in at any time on a PTO, like they did with Gill and tried to do with Cleary.

A guy like Holmstrom, at age 26, isn't going to have his development stalled by being a 13th forward in the NHL, rather than being a 2nd liner in the AHL.
- Jsaquella

But why would they have brought him in on a PTo when they already had Rosehill signed? They could bring him in, but they'd still have Rosehill.

But why would they have brought him in on a PTo when they already had Rosehill signed? They could bring him in, but they'd still have Rosehill.
- jmatchett383

Why did they want to bring in Cleary, when they had 6 other candidates to be the third line LW? Because he was a better player than what they had on hand.

He's really bad. Sorry he passes your eye test. I know a good eye doctor.

Guys like Arron Asham are great 4th liners because, even though they're not big NHL scorers, they were once really good at hockey.

Guys like Rinaldo and Rosehill were never good at hockey. They were good at bringing energy and being fearless. And to me, that's just not good enough at this level (and it shows).
- bradleyc4

If fighting was prohibited in the NHL, this would be a great point, and wether you like it or not, it is good enough at this level, and unless fighting is banned, this will continue. Why are you guys arguing about Jay Rosehill? He costs less than Shelley, and does more than Shelley (on ice, reportedly). I'll never understand why people don't like fighting, especially Flyers fans and our history. It is PART of our history for gods sake.

Steckel was on a PTO. He could have been signed off the PTO by anyone, at any time. It's not binding.

I don't have real interest in any of them anyhow. But they are actual NHL players, who were in the NHL because they can play. If fighting was banned tomorrow, Jay Rosehill wouldn't be in the NHL....I'd just rather have a guy that can step in and do more than play 3 minutes and bang his knuckles off the other teams' designated fighter's skull.

Hell, if we're not interested in outside options, I'd rather have a guy like Ben Holmstrom or Chris VandeVelde, who can step in and play on the PK or just handle 10-12 minutes on a given night.

Rosehill's played over 10 minutes in a game twice in his NHL career, according to hockeyreference.com. The only reason he played that much? Both times his team was getting blown out by Boston. The first time, they lost 7-0. The second? 8-0.
- Jsaquella

I agree with you on every point about him not being here if fighting was banned. But its not, and it won't be anytime soon.

If fighting was prohibited in the NHL, this would be a great point, and wether you like it or not, it is good enough at this level, and unless fighting is banned, this will continue. Why are you guys arguing about Jay Rosehill? He costs less than Shelley, and does more than Shelley (on ice, reportedly). I'll never understand why people don't like fighting, especially Flyers fans and our history. It is PART of our history for gods sake.
- iroc4me2

I love a good hockey fight. What I dislike is two guys who can't play hockey dropping the gloves at a faceoff just to validate their roster spots.

A guy like Shelley, Rosehill or Bissonette doesn't prevent a guy like Cooke or Kaleta from taking a run at Giroux or Voracek. All they can do is trade punches after the fact, and usually a guy like Kaleta or Cooke will refuse to fight a Shelley or Rosehill and they'll end up fighting John Scott or Steve MacIntyre.

Not exactly sure how Rosehill fighting John Scott because Patrick Kaleta hit Giroux from behind makes sense for the Flyers. The thing that might make Kaleta think twice about running Giroux is a guy like Hartnell or Simmonds, who might be on the ice at the same time as Giroux.

I love a good hockey fight. What I dislike is two guys who can't play hockey dropping the gloves at a faceoff just to validate their roster spots.

A guy like Shelley, Rosehill or Bissonette doesn't prevent a guy like Cooke or Kaleta from taking a run at Giroux or Voracek. All they can do is trade punches after the fact, and usually a guy like Kaleta or Cooke will refuse to fight a Shelley or Rosehill and they'll end up fighting John Scott or Steve MacIntyre.

Not exactly sure how Rosehill fighting John Scott because Patrick Kaleta hit Giroux from behind makes sense for the Flyers. The thing that might make Kaleta think twice about running Giroux is a guy like Hartnell or Simmonds, who might be on the ice at the same time as Giroux.
- Jsaquella

Well I can definitely agree with pretty much all of that, I guess I didn't really think about it like that. I read arguments on here, and it doesn't always come across the way you said it, my apologies. And then I guess all of that comes back to the instigator rule. Well said sir.

Well I can definitely agree with pretty much all of that, I guess I didn't really think about it like that. I read arguments on here, and it doesn't always come across the way you said it, my apologies. And then I guess all of that comes back to the instigator rule. Well said sir.
- iroc4me2

I'm running low on caffeine, so my bad for the unclear wording

But yeah, I have no issue with fighting.

Why in the name of Jesus would anybody fight Colton (frank)ing Orr? If he wants to fight, just skate away or simply turtle and enjoy the free power play.

Honestly, that is probably the most meaningless argument you could have made.
- Jsaquella

It's not meaningless, it's you're just grasping at straws. There comes a time in a Hockey game where you need to stand up to a player like that.

I think Rosehill's there for the next time they play the guy that ran Giroux.
Say a guy runs Giroux and he's out for the season. Flyers get a 5-minute PP and score twice. Without Giroux out, maybe not at all.

However, if that team knows that its star player is going to get run by Rosehill next time they play, then maybe it puts a little bit of restraint on them. Maybe, maybe not. It's better than just going, "Oh man...that sucks."

Again, he's the 13th forward. The reserve. He's not a 4th liner. He won't play in the playoffs. He will play sparingly if at all.

Edit: Personally, I'm not a big fan, as as I said, there are a few players out there I'd tale over him. They weren't available when Rosehill got resigned. But really, in the end, this point is so minimal that I'm ashamed I'm discussing it. Hockeybuzz FTW.
- jmatchett383

All good points. And it could very well be the next shift if he's in the lineup.

Steckel was on a PTO. He could have been signed off the PTO by anyone, at any time. It's not binding.

I don't have real interest in any of them anyhow. But they are actual NHL players, who were in the NHL because they can play. If fighting was banned tomorrow, Jay Rosehill wouldn't be in the NHL....I'd just rather have a guy that can step in and do more than play 3 minutes and bang his knuckles off the other teams' designated fighter's skull.

Hell, if we're not interested in outside options, I'd rather have a guy like Ben Holmstrom or Chris VandeVelde, who can step in and play on the PK or just handle 10-12 minutes on a given night.

Rosehill's played over 10 minutes in a game twice in his NHL career, according to hockeyreference.com. The only reason he played that much? Both times his team was getting blown out by Boston. The first time, they lost 7-0. The second? 8-0.
- Jsaquella

You're comparing different players. Rosehill is on the team because the Flyers want a player with his skillset as a role playing depth forward. Agree or disagree with that philosophy. But none of those players can replace Rosehill in that role. And that's what the Flyers want. Right, wrong, ir indifferent.

I meant when they resigned Rosehill (end last season) he wasn't available.

But the reason that guys like Holmstrom/McGinn/etc. aren't in his role is because they actually want them playing regularly, which they will be in the AHL. 90% of the time, Rosehill will be in the Jody Shelley suite, unless there's a major issue. Even if there's an injury, Rosehill STILL probably is a reserve, and they'll call up someone. Rosehill has a very specific purpose, and will most likely adequately fill it when necessary. The rest of the time, he will have little to no effect on the team.
- jmatchett383

Finally somebody gets it!

It's not meaningless, it's you're just grasping at straws. There comes a time in a Hockey game where you need to stand up to a player like that.
- MJL

Yeah, there was a time...back in the 1970s. No need for it now. Lacking a goon has really held Detroit back, hasn't it? And Chicago? How did they manage to win the Stanley Cup last year without having an enforcer?

You still need team toughness, but carrying a guy strictly for his pugilistic abilities is unnecessary. Saying that you need a guy to stand up to Colton Orr is a ridiculous argument. It's not grasping at straws.

You know how you "stand up" to Orr? You have a guy like Rinaldo laugh at him when he tries to fight, and then you score on the ensuing powerplay.

I love a good hockey fight. What I dislike is two guys who can't play hockey dropping the gloves at a faceoff just to validate their roster spots.

A guy like Shelley, Rosehill or Bissonette doesn't prevent a guy like Cooke or Kaleta from taking a run at Giroux or Voracek. All they can do is trade punches after the fact, and usually a guy like Kaleta or Cooke will refuse to fight a Shelley or Rosehill and they'll end up fighting John Scott or Steve MacIntyre.

Not exactly sure how Rosehill fighting John Scott because Patrick Kaleta hit Giroux from behind makes sense for the Flyers. The thing that might make Kaleta think twice about running Giroux is a guy like Hartnell or Simmonds, who might be on the ice at the same time as Giroux.
- Jsaquella

And who do you want taking care of those issues? Rosehill, or Simmonds or Hartnell. If there's a home and home series against a team like Toronto where it got nasty in the first game, and then they insert Orr for the 2nd game. Who do you want going against Orr? Rosehill or Simmond or Hartnell. And don't tell me you think that Simmonds is going to trutle or skate away, because that's fantasy.

Finally somebody gets it!
- MJL

Others get the idea, they just find it (frank)ing moronic to carry a guy on the roster who's only tangible hockey "skill" is something that is illegal under the rules of the sport.

Want a better argument? Why carry a guy who won't dress when the playoff roll around? So he can bang his knuckles off Colton Orr's skull in December.

Yeah, brilliant argument

Yeah, there was a time...back in the 1970s. No need for it now. Lacking a goon has really held Detroit back, hasn't it? And Chicago? How did they manage to win the Stanley Cup last year without having an enforcer?

You still need team toughness, but carrying a guy strictly for his pugilistic abilities is unnecessary. Saying that you need a guy to stand up to Colton Orr is a ridiculous argument. It's not grasping at straws.

You know how you "stand up" to Orr? You have a guy like Rinaldo laugh at him when he tries to fight, and then you score on the ensuing powerplay.
- Jsaquella

You think it's unneccessary. As I've said many times, I think some points that you make are valid and reasonable. But the reasons for wanting an enforcer are also valid. You may not agree with it. Doesn't make it wrong. Skating away and taking the PP's is not always going to happen.
And when has anyone stated that you need an enforcer to win the Cup? So don't see the relevance there. And if you think it is, then I'll simply counter with the teams that did win the Cup with an Enforcer on the roster.

And who do you want taking care of those issues? Rosehill, or Simmonds or Hartnell. If there's a home and home series against a team like Toronto where it got nasty in the first game, and then they insert Orr for the 2nd game. Who do you want going against Orr? Rosehill or Simmond or Hartnell. And don't tell me you think that Simmonds is going to trutle or skate away, because that's fantasy.
- MJL

What issues?

Colton Orr isn't going to take a run at Giroux. If things get nasty in the second game, you skate away from Orr, and laugh when he's in the box and score on the power play.

In two years with the Flyers, the only real goon Simmonds has fought has been Stu Bickel. He generally picks and chooses his spots well. Hell, even Carcillo knew that fighting Orr was stupid, and that laughing at him would simply give the Flyers a power play.