Murray was at the end of a relatively cheap deal. Grossmann is making $3.5mm and has another season left on his deal.
- Jsaquella

I believe Grossmann has two more years left. That being written, I believe he does have value, I don't view his contract as an albatross with hit and term based on his return.

I agree with the general premise that the mix of the Flyers top 6 does need tweaking. Only 2 of the top 6 can realistically skate the puck out of the defensive zone is a problem that needs to be corrected IMO.

Well, you have to pick and choose. A guy like Ryan Getzlaff or Claude Giroux...Yeah, I'll overpay, happily. Because those are skillsets you won't find anywhere else.

Ryan Callahan is a damned good player, but he's not elite. If you're in a place where he's the last piece of the puzzle, fine, you might bite the bullet and pay him. I'm sure if the Rangers were a more serious contender they would simply do that.

But there's maybe two or three teams that are in that spot where a guy like Callahan is the difference between a parade or not.
- Jsaquella

i realize i may be sounding hypocritical here, but i dont really view Getzlaf or Giroux as much of an overpayments. theyre players (and i realize i may be being arbitrary here) that i am willing to just say, thats what a number one stud center does/should cost

the VL one for example. at this stage in his career, taking into the totality of the factors, no i dont think it is a good contract. however, if youre holmgren and you truly think he can be that piece to make you take that next step to being better, youre in a bad spot. either you give him that extra year, or extra 1.5 AAV, or he signs elsewhere because someone will give it to him.

its no longer a matter of not having bad deals, but just trying to avoid egregious levels of bad.
- stayinthefnnet

I'm a big fan of the Lecavalier deal. I think getting him for 4.5M a year was an absolute steal.

i realize i may be sounding hypocritical here, but i dont really view Getzlaf or Giroux as much of an overpayments. theyre players (and i realize i may be being arbitrary here) that i am willing to just say, thats what a number one stud center does/should cost
- stayinthefnnet

Agreed.

I believe Grossmann has two more years left. That being written, I believe he does have value, I don't view his contract as an albatross with hit and term based on his return.

I agree with the general premise that the mix of the Flyers top 6 does need tweaking. Only 2 of the top 6 can realistically skate the puck out of the defensive zone is a problem that needs to be corrected IMO.
- ravishingone

He does have value. And you're correct, he does have two years left. But a player like Grossmann would be easier to deal if he was at the end of his deal.

That's one player. And I wouldn't put MacArthur as the same type of player that Clarkson is. Clarkson brings some assets to the team that Toronto wanted instead. Toronto had MacArthur and went in a different direction. Clarkson has had suspension and injury issues, and hasn't gotten off to a strong start in Toronto. But the outcome of signing a Free Agent long term certainly isn't decided on 36 games or parts of one season. To be determined.
- MJL

It's not. It's determined on being a guy who scores 30 goals once in the midst of 11, 15 & 17 goal seasons getting paid like he's an exceptional and proven goal scorer.

The Leafs paid him like he had 5 30 goal seasons instead of one.

i realize i may be sounding hypocritical here, but i dont really view Getzlaf or Giroux as much of an overpayments. theyre players (and i realize i may be being arbitrary here) that i am willing to just say, thats what a number one stud center does/should cost
- stayinthefnnet

They're not overpayments at all. In a year or 2, top line talents will be getting 6-8 year deals with cap hits north of 10million and all of a sudden Giroux's deal will look really good.

i realize i may be sounding hypocritical here, but i dont really view Getzlaf or Giroux as much of an overpayments. theyre players (and i realize i may be being arbitrary here) that i am willing to just say, thats what a number one stud center does/should cost
- stayinthefnnet

They're not, if only because the contract term limits will cause AAV's to climb.

I believe Grossmann has two more years left. That being written, I believe he does have value, I don't view his contract as an albatross with hit and term based on his return.

I agree with the general premise that the mix of the Flyers top 6 does need tweaking. Only 2 of the top 6 can realistically skate the puck out of the defensive zone is a problem that needs to be corrected IMO.
- ravishingone

I don't see it as an albatross, but I don't see teams lining up to get a shot at him.

It's not. It's determined on being a guy who scores 30 goals once in the midst of 11, 15 & 17 goal seasons getting paid like he's an exceptional and proven goal scorer.

The Leafs paid him like he had 5 30 goal seasons instead of one.
- Jsaquella

That's Free Agency, and how the market is. If you want one of the top players available, the market and player costs will escalate. Which is why I'm puzzled when it's said that Hartnell's deal is a bad deal. Just wait until player like Callahan and other similar players sign. Hartnell's deal looks better and better.

Well, you have to pick and choose. A guy like Ryan Getzlaff or Claude Giroux...Yeah, I'll overpay, happily. Because those are skillsets you won't find anywhere else.

Ryan Callahan is a damned good player, but he's not elite. If you're in a place where he's the last piece of the puzzle, fine, you might bite the bullet and pay him. I'm sure if the Rangers were a more serious contender they would simply do that.

But there's maybe two or three teams that are in that spot where a guy like Callahan is the difference between a parade or not.
- Jsaquella

That's the thing about it -- seriously, let's take David Clarkson out of it. That deal's an outlier, just bad for bad's sake. A player just might get it if a GM wants him bad enough, but sometimes a deal's just bad, and other GMs know it.

But the key is that Callahan is not an elite player. That is totally correct.

Yes, the cap's going up, and yes, salaries are going to rise. But a player like Callahan -- GMs need to understand that term and dollars is insane, for a player that you can find. It might be difficult, but you can find Ryan Callahan.

One thing you definitely can find in the NHL is what will likely be Age 34 and Age 35 Ryan Callahans. Those are what are known as "bad players."

Because this league has never changed. It hasn't changed, and it won't change.

Guys like Joe Thornton, Teemu Selanne, Jaromir Jagr...yeah, those guys are either still very, very good players at their ages, or were at an older age, because they are elite in multiple ways with actual hockey skill.

Ryan Callahan is not that type of player. And while I understand that some GM is going to give him a ridiculous deal, it is just that: Ridiculous.

I'd honestly bet money that Ryan Callahan's not even in the NHL at Age 35. I'm totally serious.

It's not. It's determined on being a guy who scores 30 goals once in the midst of 11, 15 & 17 goal seasons getting paid like he's an exceptional and proven goal scorer.

The Leafs paid him like he had 5 30 goal seasons instead of one.
- Jsaquella

Yeah I agree. He didn't really deserve the deal he received, but he still might live up to it.

I'm a big fan of the Lecavalier deal. I think getting him for 4.5M a year was an absolute steal.
- MJL

my issue isnt so much with the AAV, but the length. the AAV isnt egregious, but i dont see it as a mark down enough to justify a 5 year committal. secondly, even if the deal itself is conceded as not awful, i really wouldnt have viewed it as a need as a flyers fan and would have liked that capital allocate elsewhere. i dont view it as a franchise killer by any means, but committing that long to an older player while the majority of the team is skewing younger was not the wisest possible route to me.

I don't see it as an albatross, but I don't see teams lining up to get a shot at him.
- Jsaquella

I would view Grossmann as a complimentary piece in a deal involving a more significant piece to acquire another significant piece. Grossmann by himself probably is not as attractive with the term left on his deal.

For what's it's worth, I hope they just keep Gus in the top 6 and just let him grow from his mistakes. I believe there is some real value there in a third pairing role with a potential, low cap hit for years to come.

That's Free Agency, and how the market is. If you want one of the top players available, the market and player costs will escalate. Which is why I'm puzzled when it's said that Hartnell's deal is a bad deal. Just wait until player like Callahan and other similar players sign. Hartnell's deal looks better and better.
- MJL

It does, and I don't think Hartnell's deal is bad.

But giving 7 years and $36.75mm to a guy who has one 30 goal season after being a pretty steady 10-15 goal scorer at age 29, market value or not, is a bad move. It's banking on an out of the ordinary season to become the norm.

In Hartnell's case, he's been a pretty consistent 20-30 goal scorer, and has a history of being a big part of numerous successful line combinations. He's not a guy who had one very good year and cashed in.

That's the thing about it -- seriously, let's take David Clarkson out of it. That deal's an outlier, just bad for bad's sake. A player just might get it if a GM wants him bad enough, but sometimes a deal's just bad, and other GMs know it.

But the key is that Callahan is not an elite player. That is totally correct.

Yes, the cap's going up, and yes, salaries are going to rise. But a player like Callahan -- GMs need to understand that term and dollars is insane, for a player that you can find. It might be difficult, but you can find Ryan Callahan.

One thing you definitely can find in the NHL is what will likely be Age 34 and Age 35 Ryan Callahans. Those are what are known as "bad players."

Because this league has never changed. It hasn't changed, and it won't change.

Guys like Joe Thornton, Teemu Selanne, Jaromir Jagr...yeah, those guys are either still very, very good players at their ages, or were at an older age, because they are elite in multiple ways with actual hockey skill.

Ryan Callahan is not that type of player. And while I understand that some GM is going to give him a ridiculous deal, it is just that: Ridiculous.

I'd honestly bet money that Ryan Callahan's not even in the NHL at Age 35. I'm totally serious.
- AllInForFlyers

That's just not how the market works. You're comparing Callahan to to other players like Thornton, Selanne, and Jagr. Paying Callahan 5-6M a year is not paying him like an elite player. And what players like Thronton, Selanne, or Jagr get now if they were Callahan's age and going into Free Agency? That's the relative comparison. The problem seems to me that fans expectations of salaries and cost for players is lagging behind the reality of it. 5-6M for a player isn't a big deal as it was 2-3-4 years ago. And as the Cap rises and salaries continue to escalate. That 5-6M a year for a player will move further and further down the list of top NHL cap hits.

That's Free Agency, and how the market is. If you want one of the top players available, the market and player costs will escalate. Which is why I'm puzzled when it's said that Hartnell's deal is a bad deal. Just wait until player like Callahan and other similar players sign. Hartnell's deal looks better and better.
- MJL

I get that. That doesn't make it smart. That's the part you seem to be missing or ignoring. I get that it's what the market will bear...but it's still a dumb move to make.

my issue isnt so much with the AAV, but the length. the AAV isnt egregious, but i dont see it as a mark down enough to justify a 5 year committal. secondly, even if the deal itself is conceded as not awful, i really wouldnt have viewed it as a need as a flyers fan and would have liked that capital allocate elsewhere. i dont view it as a franchise killer by any means, but committing that long to an older player while the majority of the team is skewing younger was not the wisest possible route to me.
- stayinthefnnet

The 5 years doesn't bother me in the least. The NHL is full of players who have continued to be good players well into their 30's.

I get that. That doesn't make it smart. That's the part you seem to be missing or ignoring. I get that it's what the market will bear...but it's still a dumb move to make.
- Jsaquella

Not missing or ignoring anything. I guess I don't agree that it's a dumb move to make. If that's the player you feel you need, then you pay the cost. Unless you think NHL GM's just aren't smart enough to realize that there are equal players that you can get cheaper. I'm suggesting that a GM doesn't think that MacArthur is an equal in terms of what kind of player they want to add. Just using him as an example.

my issue isnt so much with the AAV, but the length. the AAV isnt egregious, but i dont see it as a mark down enough to justify a 5 year committal. secondly, even if the deal itself is conceded as not awful, i really wouldnt have viewed it as a need as a flyers fan and would have liked that capital allocate elsewhere. i dont view it as a franchise killer by any means, but committing that long to an older player while the majority of the team is skewing younger was not the wisest possible route to me.
- stayinthefnnet

My worries with the Lecavalier deal are two fold. First, he's been injured in each of the last 4 season and has missed 57 games over that time span.

Secondly, his play has dipped. Part of it is because of the injuries, but also his team mates possession metrics in playing with him have dipped as well, which is concerning. It's not just this season, bit over the last two seasons.

I think he can rebound and play better, but I also worry about what it means moving forward for kids like Schenn & Couturier. Does Lecavalier stay at wing? Does Schenn move over, despite the success he's had at center? Does Couturier end up getting stuck with subpar linemates to accomodate others?

You face a domino effect

That's just not how the market works. You're comparing Callahan to to other players like Thornton, Selanne, and Jagr. Paying Callahan 5-6M a year is not paying him like an elite player. And what players like Thronton, Selanne, or Jagr get now if they were Callahan's age and going into Free Agency? That's the relative comparison. The problem seems to me that fans expectations of salaries and cost for players is lagging behind the reality of it. 5-6M for a player isn't a big deal as it was 2-3-4 years ago. And as the Cap rises and salaries continue to escalate. That 5-6M a year for a player will move further and further down the list of top NHL cap hits.
- MJL

As I said, I understand that he'll get it.

That doesn't make it a good deal, or a smart deal, or a deal that he'll even play reasonably well for even half of it. Again, we all understand that it just takes one GM to pay it. It simply shouldn't be paid.

When the Flyers signed Daniel Briere for 8 years, I said then that if they got four good years, two average ones and two bad ones, then great.

That was coming off a 95-point season for a 100-point team.

Ryan Callahan is a different player than Daniel Briere, but that's not a good thing in the regard that Callahan's skillset will require his body to hold up -- and an overwhelming portion of league history shows that it won't.

Final

Mississauga - 0
Oshawa - 3

A goal for Laughton

Not missing or ignoring anything. I guess I don't agree that it's a dumb move to make. If that's the player you feel you need, then you pay the cost. Unless you think NHL GM's just aren't smart enough to realize that there are equal players that you can get cheaper. I'm suggesting that a GM doesn't think that MacArthur is an equal in terms of what kind of player they want to add. Just using him as an example.
- MJL

I'm not saying MacArthur is an equal. But he is similar, and he came with a lot less years and money than Clarkson, and so far the bang for the buck is decidedly in favor of the Senators in signing MacArthur than the Leafs replacing him with Clarkson.

I think sometimes NHL GM's fail to see the forest for the trees.

As I said, I understand that he'll get it.

That doesn't make it a good deal, or a smart deal, or a deal that he'll even play reasonably well for even half of it. Again, we all understand that it just takes one GM to pay it. It simply shouldn't be paid.

When the Flyers signed Daniel Briere for 8 years, I said then that if they got four good years, two average ones and two bad ones, then great.

That was coming off a 95-point season for a 100-point team.

Ryan Callahan is a different player than Daniel Briere, but that's not a good thing in the regard that Callahan's skillset will require his body to hold up -- and an overwhelming portion of league history shows that it won't.
- AllInForFlyers

There are plenty of players who have played well into their mid to upper 30's and played at a high level. Clarkson's deal is deemed to be insane, but his Cap hit doesn't put him into the top 50 for forwards in the NHL. The deal isn't as big of a deal as it's being made to be. And he was one of the top Free Agent forwards available.

That would be the part where the defenseman is not the only one involved in clearing the zone on any play or shift in a game. Unless you believe that Grossmann is the only reason why the Flyers struggle getting out of their zone. On any zone clear the defenseman can make the play, move the puck correctly and efficiently to the forwards, and the forward can turn the puck over and make an errant pass. So it then becomes a failed clear as the puck didn't reach the red line. So the defenseman gets penalized for the failed clear. The article and the data doesn't take any of that into account. The author just draws poor conclusions to back up his agenda. Lot's of holes there.
The Flyers issue of not getting the puck out of the zone is a team issue, and not just a defenseman issue, or anyone player issue. It's a team issue. And certainly the lack of puck skills of the defenseman, and the mix of defenseman is definitely part of it.
- MJL

I don't know you well, only the rhetoric a few said about your posts prior to you coming back on here. So, I will this: I find myself reading your posts and agreeing on most everything! Does that mean I will soon get a ban, too? Welcome back! This forum is now more interesting.