Look at the pictures in the article posted. I can see why MacDonald backed in when he did.
- MJL

I can't. In both cases the other defenseman is in good position, the third forward is not in a dangerous position, and with a closer gap Amac takes away the easy option which the other team chose to use.

I have a bigger issue with the term & salary combo. I think Stralman is very comparable to MacDonald & he's got a year less and a $1mm smaller cap hit.

I think he can be your 4th defenseman, might be better suited to be the best guy on the third pair on a really good team. I don't think he's suited to be the key guy on your second pair. It's not a knock on the guy, I'm not saying he's an AHL quality guy, but he's not a guy I would have committed the money & term to.
- Jsaquella

perhaps they could have gotten him for a mil less. perhaps they lose him entirely.

you know as well as i do when snider wants it, he gets it. and wait isnt in his vocabulary haha.

I have a bigger issue with the term & salary combo. I think Stralman is very comparable to MacDonald & he's got a year less and a $1mm smaller cap hit.

I think he can be your 4th defenseman, might be better suited to be the best guy on the third pair on a really good team. I don't think he's suited to be the key guy on your second pair. It's not a knock on the guy, I'm not saying he's an AHL quality guy, but he's not a guy I would have committed the money & term to.
- Jsaquella

Stralmans cap hit is 4.5. Mil

Stralmans cap hit is 4.5. Mil
- aightwebang17

It is, I was thinking of Ehrhoff's. Still, $500K less and shorter term...plus Stralman's a righty shot.

perhaps they could have gotten him for a mil less. perhaps they lose him entirely.

you know as well as i do when snider wants it, he gets it. and wait isnt in his vocabulary haha.
- stayinthefnnet

I understand why & how it went down. It's not a completely outrageous deal. I just feel, especially after free agency, that they could have gotten a similar guy for less commitment.

if you could tear up Amacs deal, and just have him walk. no compensation. but no longer have his contracts on the books. do you?
- stayinthefnnet

you'd let amac walk but not coburn

you'd let amac walk but not coburn
- 2Real

Coburn is better than MacDonald, paid less and has less years on his deal.

I can't. In both cases the other defenseman is in good position, the third forward is not in a dangerous position, and with a closer gap Amac takes away the easy option which the other team chose to use.
- aflyerpower8

Picture 1 and 2: It's a two on two, and there is no back pressure from the Flyers forwards. The Ranger forward is driving wide on MacDonald on the far side. There is no play there for him to step up, as he does not have the angle. Backing in to keep outside containment is the play there.

Pictures 3,4,5: It is a clear 3 on 2. If MacDonald steps up there and challenges, a simple chip or drop pass makes it a 2 on 1 against Schenn. The correct read on a 3 on 2 is to back in and contain.

Picture 6: Timonen has clear back pressure support from a forward, and is able to step up and challenge.

Picture 7, 8, 9: The Flyers have two defenseman back, with clear back pressure support from two forwards, and actually have the leafs outnumbered 4 on 2 on the play. Defenseman is able to challenge.

I understand why & how it went down. It's not a completely outrageous deal. I just feel, especially after free agency, that they could have gotten a similar guy for less commitment.
- Jsaquella

Who is the similar guy that they could've gotten?

you'd let amac walk but not coburn
- 2Real

1. i didnt say id let amac walk. i was merely just testing the waters of the varied opinions on here.

2. im not an amac thrasher, but coburn is a superior asset in many ways. shorter term, shorter cap hit, better player. to me anyway

Who is the similar guy that they could've gotten?
- MJL

Randy Jones

Coburn is better than MacDonald, paid less and has less years on his deal.
- Jsaquella

Really two different kinds of players, with different strengths. Coburn is more physical, and probably better defensively, but can also be inconsistent. MacDonald is better with the puck, and better offensively, while being solid defensively.

And as far being paid less, really a poor point. If Coburn was in the same position at the same time, reaching free agency, what would Coburn have gotten? Coburn got 4.5M and he signed his deal 2 seasons ago.

Randy Jones
- Jsaquella

I rest my case.

I rest my case.
- MJL

I rested mine weeks ago. That's why I usually don't respond to you. Far better things to waste time on that hearing your take on things, where the sole basis is your unsubstansiated opinion, which you seem to feel we should all accept as if Moses came down from the mountain with it etched on stone tablets.

So, enjoy the sarcastic answer of Jones.

interesting. while i dont think he is necessarily as good, he is pretty close to me, and there are many similarities to the style of play and the deal itself, that remind me of the paul martin situation.

2 years ago, people would have burned him in effigy. now, he has arguably been their most important/consistent defender for quite some time.
- stayinthefnnet

Martin has good Corsi numbers and quality of competition while Amac is a possession anchor and had worse quality of competition than Grossmann and Streit. The things he does well are not worth a six year thirty million dollar contract.

Right now, probably Brooks Laich.
- aflyerpower8

No Lecavalier interest over there, even for Mike Green?

Martin has good Corsi numbers and quality of competition while Amac is a possession anchor and had worse quality of competition than Grossmann and Streit. The things he does well are not worth a six year thirty million dollar contract.
- aflyerpower8

true. but when martin first got there. he was nothing of the sort

Martin has good Corsi numbers and quality of competition while Amac is a possession anchor and had worse quality of competition than Grossmann and Streit. The things he does well are not worth a six year thirty million dollar contract.
- aflyerpower8

The problem there is that all of those statistics are flawed when looking at individual players. And that the best way to rate a player is to actually watch him play the game. And it is on that basis, that he was worth what he was signed for.

Picture 1 and 2: It's a two on two, and there is no back pressure from the Flyers forwards. The Ranger forward is driving wide on MacDonald on the far side. There is no play there for him to step up, as he does not have the angle. Backing in to keep outside containment is the play there.

Pictures 3,4,5: It is a clear 3 on 2. If MacDonald steps up there and challenges, a simple chip pass makes it a 2 on 1 against Schenn. The correct read on a 3 on 2 is to back in and contain.

Picture 6: Timonen has clear back pressure support from a forward, and is able to step up and challenge.

Picture 7, 8, 9: The Flyers have two defenseman back, with clear back pressure support from two forwards, and actually have the leafs outnumbered 4 on 2 on the play. Defenseman is able to challenge.
- MJL

Picture 1 and 2: Amac is too far back to begin with, not an issue of moving forward, but of lessening the cushion which is basically ineffective because Nash can just skate through the blue line without ever reaching Amac.

Picture 3,4,5: Once again, he starts too far back and leaves that cushion the whole way. It isn't a 3-2 unless one of the first two players gets the puck across the line which would not happen with any sort of speed if Amac is in the right place. They could pass back, but both of them would have to stop at the line while the other guy carried it over (if he went straight at full speed, he would be right where Schenn and Amac were, so he would most likely curve out) which would give Amac time to increase his cushion if he felt it was necessary.

With his speed, the cushion should not be so big. I don't want him to step up as much as already be closer.

true. but when martin first got there. he was nothing of the sort
- stayinthefnnet

Martin was coming off 5 pretty solid seasons, playing on a perennial playoff team as a top pair defenseman when he signed with the Pens.

Martin was coming off 5 pretty solid seasons, playing on a perennial playoff team as a top pair defenseman when he signed with the Pens.
- Jsaquella

true. they were also the devils. the system has a lot to do with it.

not saying martin is a bad player by any means. love him. but he doesnt shine in any one particular area. him and amac have a similar skill set.

id at least wait a full season of amac on the team to really evaluate though, you never know.

The problem there is that all of those statistics are flawed when looking at individual players. And that the best way to rate a player is to actually watch him play the game. And it is on that basis, that he was worth what he was signed for.
- MJL

If a player brings down the numbers of his defense partners which Amac did in every pairing, I think that is telling. He passed my initial eye test, but when I specifically looked at things like gap control and neutral zone play he failed my eye test as well.

Picture 1 and 2: Amac is too far back to begin with, not an issue of moving forward, but of lessening the cushion which is basically ineffective because Nash can just skate through the blue line without ever reaching Amac.


- aflyerpower8

That is not the case, he has to be back far to be able to angle the player to the outside on that play. There is a lot of ice there, with no back pressure. One step up in the wrong direction, and he's easily beaten to the outside.

Picture 3,4,5: Once again, he starts too far back and leaves that cushion the whole way. It isn't a 3-2 unless one of the first two players gets the puck across the line which would not happen with any sort of speed if Amac is in the right place. They could pass back, but both of them would have to stop at the line while the other guy carried it over (if he went straight at full speed, he would be right where Schenn and Amac were, so he would most likely curve out) which would give Amac time to increase his cushion if he felt it was necessary.


With his speed, the cushion should not be so big. I don't want him to step up as much as already be closer.
- aflyerpower8

You're ignoring what even the author states which was that MacDonald was knocked down earlier on the play. Again, where is the back pressure and the 5 man unit. Gap control is a team responsibility.

I'm sure there is game film and stills available that shows that MacDonald made the wrong read or was out of position on some plays. As there would be for any defenseman. But the author chooses some poor pictures to make his case.

ugh. i even laughed out loud at that one.

you win.

i still think you seriously undervalue coburn though
- stayinthefnnet

Likely the biggest understatement of the day made on the interwebs. You win.

Coburn is better than MacDonald, paid less and has less years on his deal.
- Jsaquella

Yup. No doubt about it.

But why people get sucked into the Coburn sucks debate is baffling. The Flyers have some problems, Coburn ain't one of them.