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

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

Well it was Leighton and a 3rd. Would you trade a 3rd for a veteran backup goalie?

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?
- jak521

Still not getting the point.

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.



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.
- MJL

Keep track all you want. You can try to spin it any way you want, but it doesnt change a thing. He signed Bryz to a contract that almost all immediately thought was overboard and had a high risk of failure. And boy did it blow up in his face. Fortunately he was able to use on of the, if not the largest buy-outs in NHL history... but, meh.. no biggie.

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.
- PhillySportsGuy

This is why I don't think Lavy is really a good coach. The good ones adjust their systems to better fit their talent, Lavy seems incapable of doing that.

Still not getting the point.
- MJL

I get your point. You are Paul Holmgren

Keep track all you want. You can try to spin it any way you want, but it doesnt change a thing. He signed Bryz to a contract that almost all immediately thought was overboard and had a high risk of failure. And boy did it blow up in his face. Fortunately he was able to use on of the, if not the largest buy-outs in NHL history... but, meh.. no biggie.
- jak521

I think, in a way, you are both right.

The Bryz signing was huge mistake, no doubt on that one.

However, due to the compliance buyout and the fact that Mason has panned out pretty well so far, it has basically no impact on the club going forward.

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.
- MJL

I'm not missing your point. I just don't agree with the excuses attached to the Bryzgalov signing. I can, and will, dismiss the compliance buyout, because it was a deus ex machina which was never part of the picture when they devised this megaturd of a contract.

If you want to factor that in that's your right, but it's rose tinted logic in my judgement.

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.
- MJL

While I see your point and it is a valid one. This is all hindsight. If Pronger and Timonen remained healthy this wouldnt even be a discussion right now. Holmgren made good moves to bring in quality defenders. As it stands right now... We have (6) top 4 defenders. It is extremely difficult to draft a #1 defensemen with the draft position we usually have and its even more difficult to trade for one. Holmgren even tried stealing Weber away....

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?
- MJL

No, the contract was pretty panned right from the start. It was a panic/reactionary move where the Flyers bid against themselves and signed him to a ridiculously long-term contract, leaving themselves no way out if he didn't perform well in a new environment/system. That's the problem, the length of it. Acquiring him was not too bad on the surface, but the terms of the deal were full of high risk.

Keep track all you want. You can try to spin it any way you want, but it doesnt change a thing. He signed Bryz to a contract that almost all immediately thought was overboard and had a high risk of failure. And boy did it blow up in his face. Fortunately he was able to use on of the, if not the largest buy-outs in NHL history... but, meh.. no biggie.
- jak521

It doesn't need to be spun. Simply use all of the facts of the situation, and come to a conclusion. It's not as big as it could've been, simply because they got out of it with a compliance buyout. And yes, a GM get's credit for using all of the methods available to him to build a team. And that includes correcting mistakes.

While I see your point and it is a valid one. This is all hindsight. If Pronger and Timonen remained healthy this wouldnt even be a discussion right now. Holmgren made good moves to bring in quality defenders. As it stands right now... We have (6) top 4 defenders. It is extremely difficult to draft a #1 defensemen with the draft position we usually have and its even more difficult to trade for one. Holmgren even tried stealing Weber away....
- GOA88

That's a damn good point. To the best of my memory, we have 6 top-4 defenders all signed to very reasonable contracts.

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?
- jak521

I am with you on this one...I don't blame Homer for the lack of home grown D, that has been going on for years, heck, Bundy is the last D man to come out of the farm team...Homer and the team have commited to always try and take the best player available...fortunately or unfortunately that was usually a forward (and matches the percentage of forwards to d-men available as well)

What Homer was commited too was adding the best Dmen he could via trade or FA, see colburn, Kimmo, pronger, grossman, AMac, and a heck of a run at Weber...

I think the team made a shift 3 years ago to try and grow some D men as they just are not out there to be had, and I think the Weber offer sheet taught them that...Now we just have to wait to see how it plays out...

No, the contract was pretty panned right from the start. It was a panic/reactionary move where the Flyers bid against themselves and signed him to a ridiculously long-term contract, leaving themselves no way out if he didn't perform well in a new environment/system. That's the problem, the length of it. Acquiring him was not too bad on the surface, but the terms of the deal were full of high risk.
- jmatchett383

Again, if he had played to a high level, the contract wouldn't have been an issue. Sure it was a risk, and it didn't work out. But that's hindisight. And if were going to use hindisght, then we should include all of the factors in looking at the final outcome. And with the compliance buyout, it turned out to not be nearly as bad as it could've been.

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?
- MJL

And the play was less than impressive (except one pretty good month, and a playoffs run in which he received the prestigious "not the worst player on the ice" award).

I am with you on this one...I don't blame Homer for the lack of home grown D, that has been going on for years, heck, Bundy is the last D man to come out of the farm team...Homer and the team have commited to always try and take the best player available...fortunately or unfortunately that was usually a forward (and matches the percentage of forwards to d-men available as well)

What Homer was commited too was adding the best Dmen he could via trade or FA, see colburn, Kimmo, pronger, grossman, AMac, and a heck of a run at Weber...

I think the team made a shift 3 years ago to try and grow some D men as they just are not out there to be had, and I think the Weber offer sheet taught them that...Now we just have to wait to see how it plays out...
- JW98FlyerFan

Didn't Homer draft Hagg, Morin, Ghost, and trade for Alt? Seems like he's doing his best (late in his tenure) to draft/develop young D.

Again, if he had played to a high level, the contract wouldn't have been an issue. Sure it was a risk, and it didn't work out. But that's hindisight. And if were going to use hindisght, then we should include all of the factors in looking at the final outcome. And with the compliance buyout, it turned out to not be nearly as bad as it could've been.
- MJL

The risk is not hindsight. It was a ridiculously high-risk move that, again, was panned widely at the time of the deal. No hinsight/heresay needed.

I'm right, you're wrong. Look at the facts and you'll understand that.

I'm not missing your point. I just don't agree with the excuses attached to the Bryzgalov signing. I can, and will, dismiss the compliance buyout, because it was a deus ex machina which was never part of the picture when they devised this megaturd of a contract.

If you want to factor that in that's your right, but it's rose tinted logic in my judgement.
- BulliesPhan87

I actually agree with MJL on this one. The difference is an individual mistake versus a mistake with greater long-term consequences. If the Flyers were not a deep-pockets team that could easily write off a 100 million dollars, OR if the league didn't allow the two compliance buyouts, then the Bryz signing would have set the organization back a half dozen years.

In terms of which mistake has had a great impact on the team today and unfortunately will continue to do so over the next 2 years or so, that is the inability to draft and develop defensemen.

The ripple effect of that strategy, or lack thereof, is a defense that lacks any true shutdown or Norris caliber defensemen but yet disproportionally is sucking up the salary cap.

Well it was Leighton and a 3rd. Would you trade a 3rd for a veteran backup goalie?
- jmatchett383

I would do that trade even if I had 4 NHL starting goalies. I just don't think they would have been looking for a reclamation project if they had the young, stud Bob ended up becoming.

My point is that the Flyers needed luck, lots of money and some shrewd moves to get out from under Bryz. Things could have been a lot worse.

Didn't Homer draft Hagg, Morin, Ghost, and trade for Alt? Seems like he's doing his best (late in his tenure) to draft/develop young D.
- jmatchett383

Exactly. As soon as Pronger went down he had no choice.

- Giroux_Is_God

Yeah, pretty much.

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.
- PhillySportsGuy

There in lies the problem.

The risk is not hindsight. It was a ridiculously high-risk move that, again, was panned widely at the time of the deal. No hinsight/heresay needed.

I'm right, you're wrong. Look at the facts and you'll understand that.
- jmatchett383

The risk of trading all of that talent for Pronger and the subsequent contract to the end of time was extremely high as well. I would not have taken on that risk. Long-term, Pronger not finishing out his contract and the ripple effect of salary juggling has put the organization in a huge bind.

Props to Tangent_Man for getting the reference at the end of the last thread.

I'm jumping ship though here. Yikes.

I have to start studying for my exam tomorrow, while juggling 24/7 studying of PnT for the next 2 years.

Please keep me in your thoughts.