It was definitely Bryz.
- Feanor

No question.

The team was able to rebound from the Lavy situation within the same year. By the end of the season, it was just a blip on the radar.

The Bryz situation and the subsequent trades/drama that resulted from it were far worse.

100% absolutely, without a doubt. Simply a disaster.
- BulliesPhan87

All it really became was a two year experiment with a goaltender, that didn't work out. Due to being able to use the compliance buyout. It had little affect on the Flyers going forward. Not having developed defenseman is having a bigger impact on the team going forward.

Thats a total Homer move... Maybe that where he learned that trick.
- jak521

GM's have no worries. They are spending Uncle Edzo Daddy War-bucks.

That was a very good move.
- jak521

For Washington

All it really became was a two year experiment with a goaltender, that didn't work out. Due to being able to use the compliance buyout. It had little affect on the Flyers going forward. Not having developed defenseman is having a bigger impact on the team going forward.
- MJL

It was a massive disaster, and the Flyers are beyond lucky they got a free out on that one. A compliance buyout was never part of the plan, this move was severely short-sighted.

Holmgren deserves no credit for escaping that nightmare contract.

It was a massive disaster, and the Flyers are beyond lucky they got a free out on that one. A compliance buyout was never part of the plan, this move was severely short-sighted.

Holmgren deserves no credit for escaping that nightmare contract.
- BulliesPhan87

Think about how much worse it would have been if Mason doesn't suddenly find his game just as he arrives with the Flyers.

Think about how much worse it would have been if Mason doesn't suddenly find his game just as he arrives with the Flyers.
- PhillySportsGuy

But they signed him knowing full-well they'd have a CBO available...so no biggie.

Also, a Bobrovsky/Mason duo would be very enviable.

It was a massive disaster, and the Flyers are beyond lucky they got a free out on that one. A compliance buyout was never part of the plan, this move was severely short-sighted.
- BulliesPhan87

Whether they got lucky to have a compliance buyout or not, they were still able to use it to remove the contract from the cap and move on. Of course that wasn't part of the plan. It would've been a massive disaster if they would've had to use a traditional buyout and still have it impacting the cap. But the compliance buyout is part of it. It was a player move that simply didn't work out. And in the end, I think the Flyers wound up with a younger, possibly better goaltender.

Think about how much worse it would have been if Mason doesn't suddenly find his game just as he arrives with the Flyers.
- PhillySportsGuy

Or if he still did, and we just had Bryzgalov riding the pine for the remaining seven years on his contract.

But they signed him knowing full-well they'd have a CBO available...so no biggie.

Also, a Bobrovsky/Mason duo would be very enviable.
- jmatchett383

I don't think they trade for Mason if Bob is performing well.

Or if he still did, and we just had Bryzgalov riding the pine for the remaining seven years on his contract.
- BulliesPhan87

Or bought out and having dead cap space.

Whether they got lucky to have a compliance buyout or not, they were still able to use it to remove the contract from the cap and move on. Of course that wasn't part of the plan. It would've been a massive disaster if they would've had to use a traditional buyout and still have it impacting the cap. But the compliance buyout is part of it. It was a player move that simply didn't work out. And in the end, I think the Flyers wound up with a younger, possibly better goaltender.
- MJL

So what you are saying, if I understand correctly, even though the actual signing was incredibly horrific, wasnt actually incredibly horrific because the NHL granted them a mulligan?

Does that just completely negate the fact that he signed Brzy to a hilariously over-the-top contract?

EDIT: I am so completely enthralled by this logic btw.

If I heinously murder someone and then get away with it, you know... because of a loophole, it really isnt murder... because I got away with it.

I like this.

The team put themselves in a tough spot. I think they wanted to give Lavy the opportunity to turn things around because he is a good coach. They wanted to remain loyal to him and not fire him for missing the playoffs once. The team just looked so bad though. They looked like they were going to be one of the worst teams in hockey based on the preseason and first 3 games.

I wouldn't have had the balls to fire Lavy 3 games into the season, but, deep down in my heart, I knew this team wouldn't get better until they changed coaches.
- PhillySportsGuy

Lavy showed the same problems and the inability to fix them since he got here. After how awful they were against the Devils, Rangers et al with him as coach, the embarrassing series against the Devils in the 2012 playoffs, even the end of the 2011 season and their horrid series against the Bruins that year. He kept making the same mistakes over and over with little or no adjustments, then they miss the playoffs entirely. Later on, we find out that he was on an incredibly short leash as was evident by his firing 3 games into the season. It just shows that the Flyers management made a really bad call.

Not drafting and developing defenseman well.
- MJL

What was the 3rd?

So what you are saying, if I understand correctly, even though the actual signing was incredibly horrific, wasnt actually incredibly horrific because the NHL granted them a mulligan?

Does that just completely negate the fact that he signed Brzy to a hilariously over-the-top contract?
- jak521

You don't understand correctly. It was undoubtedly a big mistake. I'm looking at it in comparison to other mistakes that are still affecting the team currently, such as failure to draft and develop defenseman. That is having a big impact on the team today.

If Bryzgalov had played to a high level, the contract would've been fine.

EDIT: I am so completely enthralled by this logic btw.

If I heinously murder someone and then get away with it, you know... because of a loophole, it really isnt murder... because I got away with it.

I like this.


- jak521

I'm going to start keping track of the amount of times you reply to one of my posts, without having a clue about what is being said, or what my point is. The total is growing.

Or if he still did, and we just had Bryzgalov riding the pine for the remaining seven years on his contract.
- BulliesPhan87

Yeah. I think the Bryz situation was the worst singular move of the Homer regime

Whether they got lucky to have a compliance buyout or not, they were still able to use it to remove the contract from the cap and move on. Of course that wasn't part of the plan. It would've been a massive disaster if they would've had to use a traditional buyout and still have it impacting the cap. But the compliance buyout is part of it. It was a player move that simply didn't work out. And in the end, I think the Flyers wound up with a younger, possibly better goaltender.
- MJL

Holmgren doesn't get credit for that buyout. The contract was a huge mistake. You're right that getting Mason was a stroke of luck. poop, I'll even say it was a pretty smart find by Holmgren.

But the Bryzgalov contract was an undeniable nightmare of a mistake.

All it really became was a two year experiment with a goaltender, that didn't work out. Due to being able to use the compliance buyout. It had little affect on the Flyers going forward. Not having developed defenseman is having a bigger impact on the team going forward.
- MJL

They Flyers should be one of the teams that pray to the Hockey Gods every day for that lockout and subsequent CBOs. I don't think the fact that they got lucky with that makes signing Bryz any more or less of a mistake. In the summer of 2011, they had no idea that a CBO would be in the picture and essentially fully committed to Bryz for the long haul.

I still agree that the dmen not being drafted and developed effectively was the biggest failure. I think Bryz could still have been an above average goalie with the right team in front of him and part of that comes from getting good defensemen without having to overpay them in free agency.

If Bryzgalov had played to a high level, the contract would've been fine.

- MJL

And if my grandfather had wheels, he'd be a go kart.

You don't understand correctly. It was undoubtedly a big mistake. I'm looking at it in comparison to other mistakes that are still affecting the team currently, such as failure to draft and develop defenseman. That is having a big impact on the team today.

If Bryzgalov had played to a high level, the contract would've been fine.
- MJL

Pardon me if I am confused, but didnt you spout of the other day about how well Homer has done drafting and developing d-men over the last few years?

So, I guess in another 3 years when Ghost, Morin, Haag, Sanheim, etc. are playing we can blame him for not drafting and developing wingers with goal scoring acumen?

I guess what you want to say is that Homer should have started drafting and developing d-men earlier on, and say.. forgot about drafting Couts, or trading for Pronger?

Holmgren doesn't get credit for that buyout. The contract was a huge mistake. You're right that getting Mason was a stroke of luck. poop, I'll even say it was a pretty smart find by Holmgren.

But the Bryzgalov contract was an undeniable nightmare of a mistake.
- BulliesPhan87

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake. But in comparing it to other mistakes, I think not drafting a developing defenseman was and remains a bigger issue. It's not about giving anyone credit for the buyout, it's that the compliance buyout minimized the impact going forward from the mistake. Making it a lesser mistake in my view, then the defenseman issue, which is still going to affect the team for a number of years further. You can't just dismiss the compliance buyout from the equation when looking at the Bryzgalov deal.

All it really became was a two year experiment with a goaltender, that didn't work out. Due to being able to use the compliance buyout. It had little affect on the Flyers going forward. Not having developed defenseman is having a bigger impact on the team going forward.
- MJL

Agreed

And if my grandfather had wheels, he'd be a go kart.
- BulliesPhan87

Real easy to be a GM in hindsight. How a player plays, determines whether every contrct was a good one or not in hindsight, doesn't it?

Whether they got lucky to have a compliance buyout or not, they were still able to use it to remove the contract from the cap and move on. Of course that wasn't part of the plan. It would've been a massive disaster if they would've had to use a traditional buyout and still have it impacting the cap. But the compliance buyout is part of it. It was a player move that simply didn't work out. And in the end, I think the Flyers wound up with a younger, possibly better goaltender.
- MJL

Well if you want to look at it that way, they're just unlucky that MAB, Marshall, Betilsson, Lauridsen, Luukko, Blidstrand, and Sullenprop never panned out.

Lavy showed the same problems and the inability to fix them since he got here. After how awful they were against the Devils, Rangers et al with him as coach, the embarrassing series against the Devils in the 2012 playoffs, even the end of the 2011 season and their horrid series against the Bruins that year. He kept making the same mistakes over and over with little or no adjustments, then they miss the playoffs entirely. Later on, we find out that he was on an incredibly short leash as was evident by his firing 3 games into the season. It just shows that the Flyers management made a really bad call.
- NickTheKid87

I think the team felt they needed to remain loyal to him. During his tenure, there was considerable roster turnover and he still kept getting them into the playoffs and even winning series'. I think they spoke with him that offseason and they both came to the consensus that he needed to adjust his style of play based on the current roster makeup.

Lavy and team probably both felt confident he could do this. Once the season started, it was evident he couldn't though.

I'm not saying the team made the right move by bringing him back. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I feel part of the reason the team brought him back was because of their reputation. People have constantly ridiculed the Flyers for firing coaches so quickly. I think Ed wanted to prove that he was loyal and would stick with a coach.