I'd be fine with NordsBuzz. 😉


- gergeswillems

I can agree with the first part, but you said this..

"Oh god, please don't trade Quick to Philly. That's where goaltending careers go to die. He deserves better than that."

Which goaltenders died in Philly? Certainly not Mason, he resurrected his career in Philly and posted pretty solid numbers until the last year. Bryz? He didn't really have much of a career as a starter until Philly. Bob? Fantastic first year as a Flyer, was it a bad trade sure it was. Cechmanek? You do remember he was a Vezina nominee? Never a fan of his when he was a Flyer, thought he was extremely overrated.

Vanbiesbrouck and Emery, only goaltenders that had better years outside the Flyers that I can think of...but Emery did help take the Flyers to the 2010 Stanley Cup finals.

That is where the Flyers main problem is, they don't get proven goaltenders that succeeded elsewhere. They always try to get one they think will be good for them. Quick would actually be something new for the Flyers.
- Glak18

Bryzgalov had over 300 NHL games and a Vezina nomination under his belt before he went to Philadelphia. Not sure how you can say his career hadn't started yet. Since when do you give a non-starter a $42M contract?

Bobrovsky didn't work out in Philly, now he's a Vezina winner with Columbus.

Elliott was fantastic with St. Louis, now he's mediocre at best with the Flyers. To be fair, he was pretty poop with Calgary too, but Calgary hasn't been kind to goaltenders since Kipper retired either.

There's more examples than you care to admit.

Bryzgalov had over 300 NHL games and a Vezina nomination under his belt before he went to Philadelphia. Not sure how you can say his career hadn't started yet. Since when do you give a non-starter a $42M contract?

Bobrovsky didn't work out in Philly, now he's a Vezina winner with Columbus.

Elliott was fantastic with St. Louis, now he's mediocre at best with the Flyers. To be fair, he was pretty poop with Calgary too, but Calgary hasn't been kind to goaltenders since Kipper retired either.

There's more examples than you care to admit.
- tkecanuck341

Ok you are absolutely correct about Bryz, I did forget about his Phoenix days. For some reason I was thinking right from Anaheim backup days. In all fairness, everyone including myself balked at the signing of Bryz because he was overrated before playing a game in Philly and that turned out to be true.

Actually Bob worked out AWESOME in Philly. You may want to watch his first season as a Flyer rookie. Why did they trade him then? Well first off they screwed up by signing Bryz and secondly Bob demanded a trade because he wanted to be a starter and has already proven he could be.

Actually Elliott, when not injured, plays JUST like his days in St. Louis. Just like last year when he was fantastic before his core injury.

Again I could go on and on about the Flyers goaltenders, I know them all well.

Is there a rule Leaf players are worth less than every other team's players?

They don’t need permission to speak to Nylander you meatball. He’s a free agent any team can pick up the phone and talk to his agent.

They don’t need permission to speak to Nylander you meatball. He’s a free agent any team can pick up the phone and talk to his agent.
- wylie61

Yes but they don't like to do that because everybody is afraid of stepping on other gm's toes.

They don’t need permission to speak to Nylander you meatball. He’s a free agent any team can pick up the phone and talk to his agent.
- wylie61

He's a restricted free agent. Not a free agent. Leafs control everything about Nylander that doesn't pertain to him signing a offer sheet. And a offer sheet isnt discussed with him. A team just makes a offer and sends it and he either signs it or doesnt. They dont negotiate anything about it. Simply sign or dont.

Is there a rule Leaf players are worth less than every other team's players?
- RogerRoeper

I thought it was the opposite.

Yes but they don't like to do that because everybody is afraid of stepping on other gm's toes.
- BINGO!

I'd find it hilarious if the Flyers signed Nylander to an offer sheet just because it would be Holmgren doing it again.

I thought it was the opposite.
- gergeswillems

I just read Kyle Clague for Nylander, the Kings won't do because it's too much to give up...

I just read Kyle Clague for Nylander, the Kings won't do because it's too much to give up...
- RogerRoeper

You have a point there.

I just read Kyle Clague for Nylander, the Kings won't do because it's too much to give up...
- RogerRoeper

I don't think its a to much to give up as in hes worth more than Nylander. But more a it's to much for LA to give up in terms of an aging D core, and a team that's been working to rebuild its farm system. I think LA plans to move on from Muzzin and Amart soon for guys like Brickley and Clague. I just think that Clague is to valuable to the teams future. Esp with many believing hes going to be a really good player.

Ok you are absolutely correct about Bryz, I did forget about his Phoenix days. For some reason I was thinking right from Anaheim backup days. In all fairness, everyone including myself balked at the signing of Bryz because he was overrated before playing a game in Philly and that turned out to be true.

Actually Bob worked out AWESOME in Philly. You may want to watch his first season as a Flyer rookie. Why did they trade him then? Well first off they screwed up by signing Bryz and secondly Bob demanded a trade because he wanted to be a starter and has already proven he could be.

Actually Elliott, when not injured, plays JUST like his days in St. Louis. Just like last year when he was fantastic before his core injury.

Again I could go on and on about the Flyers goaltenders, I know them all well.
- Glak18

We could go on and on all day, but my overall point was that Quick has benefited from playing in a defensively-responsible system for his entire career. If he got traded to Philadelphia, he wouldn't be nearly as good as he would on a defensively responsible team, as his reputation would suffer accordingly, just as Bryzgalov's did after leaving a defensively responsible teams like Anaheim and Phoenix for the Flyers. I would prefer that the most successful goaltender in Kings history go out with his reputation intact.

He's a restricted free agent. Not a free agent. Leafs control everything about Nylander that doesn't pertain to him signing a offer sheet. And a offer sheet isnt discussed with him. A team just makes a offer and sends it and he either signs it or doesnt. They dont negotiate anything about it. Simply sign or dont.
- poisondhearts37

Still a “free agent” doesn’t matter if he is restricted or unrestricted. Any team can still talk to his agent without requiring permission. They can hammer out a contract and then try and trade for his rights.

I just read Kyle Clague for Nylander, the Kings won't do because it's too much to give up...
- RogerRoeper

If it was Nylander for KALE Clague, straight up, I'm sure the Kings would do that in a heartbeat. However, I'm sure Dubas is asking for one of Toffoli/Muzzin/Martinez, Clague, and a high round draft pick (or something similar), and the Kings aren't willing to include their best defensive prospect in addition to those other pieces.

We could go on and on all day, but my overall point was that Quick has benefited from playing in a defensively-responsible system for his entire career. If he got traded to Philadelphia, he wouldn't be nearly as good as he would on a defensively responsible team, as his reputation would suffer accordingly, just as Bryzgalov's did after leaving a defensively responsible teams like Anaheim and Phoenix for the Flyers. I would prefer that the most successful goaltender in Kings history go out with his reputation intact.
- tkecanuck341

If you put it that way...I agree 100%. How the team plays in front of a goaltender makes a huge difference.

People need to understand that you cant go into the future with Carter Hart being your Starter.

First of all he wont be 1-2 years. In 12 games he has 3.61 GAA and 0.884 SV% in the AHL. This is not good. It will take time for this to improve. That alone will take 1-2 years. Once he is ready for the NHL he will be brought up as a backup goalie and he will be a backup for at least 2 years. Anyone remember a goalie named Vaslievsky on Tampa Bay? He didnt just join the NHL and immediately made starter. It takes endurace to survive an 82 game schedule as a goalie. To play 60+ games is a lot to ask of a rookie goalie. Vas played at least 2 years as backup to Bishop. When he was ready, they dealt Bishop away.

That should be the plan now. Dont count on Carter Hart. He is a young promising goalie but like all young prospects he is no guarantee. How do you think it looks on a team to wait for a young goalie to come up and then find out he is a bust? Pretty bad! Flyers need a goalie now and for the forseeable future. When Hart is ready then you can make the necessary changes then.

Bryzgalov had over 300 NHL games and a Vezina nomination under his belt before he went to Philadelphia. Not sure how you can say his career hadn't started yet. Since when do you give a non-starter a $42M contract?

Bobrovsky didn't work out in Philly, now he's a Vezina winner with Columbus.

Elliott was fantastic with St. Louis, now he's mediocre at best with the Flyers. To be fair, he was pretty poop with Calgary too, but Calgary hasn't been kind to goaltenders since Kipper retired either.

There's more examples than you care to admit.
- tkecanuck341

Bob did work out in Philly. He was traded so there wouldnt be goalie controversy. Homer wanted Bryzgalov to be the clear cut #1. Bryzgalov was only brought in because of Ed Snider overreacting to a bad playoff round. Bobrovsky, Leighton and Boucher were swapped in an out like hookers in that series and Bobrovsky still doesnt have good playoff numbers. He still had great regular season numbers with Philly. Which is why most fans were upset they dealt him. Getting Mason lessened the pain because he was a good goalie until he left.

Yea Elliot was good but that was behind a solid St.Louis defence. Once he left he came back to earth. He is a good goalie as well but he is going to let in a softie at least once per game. Once Flyers got going his numbers were solid. Then he got hurt and the Wheels fell off the team because they had no NHL goalies left.

Flyers have always had good goalies. They just have not had an Elite goalie.

Still a “free agent” doesn’t matter if he is restricted or unrestricted. Any team can still talk to his agent without requiring permission. They can hammer out a contract and then try and trade for his rights.
- wylie61

"Group 2 Players and Free Agents.
(i) (A) Any Player who meets the qualifications set forth in the following
chart and: (1) is not a Group 1 Player or a Group 4 Player, and (2) is not
an Unrestricted Free Agent, shall be deemed to be a "Group 2 Player" and
shall, at the expiration of his SPC, become a Restricted Free Agent. Any
such Player shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any
Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC
with any such Player, subject to the provisions set forth in this Section. As
used in this Section 10.2, "age," including "First SPC Signing Age" means
a Player's age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs an
SPC regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC."

Can he negotiate but not sign until the new club has his rights? Can he not negotiate or sign until new club has his rights? I've read this both ways.

GM?

I can't even get a promotion at work.
- Feds91Stammer

Maybe try spending less time goofing off on the Internet? 😉

Maybe try spending less time goofing off on the Internet? 😉
- Quetzalcoatl

That's the only way us Red Wings fans can get through the day. We can only watch our 4 most recent Cup run DVDs so much. Mine are wearing out.

"Group 2 Players and Free Agents.
(i) (A) Any Player who meets the qualifications set forth in the following
chart and: (1) is not a Group 1 Player or a Group 4 Player, and (2) is not
an Unrestricted Free Agent, shall be deemed to be a "Group 2 Player" and
shall, at the expiration of his SPC, become a Restricted Free Agent. Any
such Player shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any
Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC
with any such Player, subject to the provisions set forth in this Section. As
used in this Section 10.2, "age," including "First SPC Signing Age" means
a Player's age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs an
SPC regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC."

Can he negotiate but not sign until the new club has his rights? Can he not negotiate or sign until new club has his rights? I've read this both ways.
- GregDM

Well I’ve heard Dreger and McKenzie say this several times. They could be wrong but I doubt it but the way they put it is he’s free to talk and negotiate but can’t sign a contract as an RFA until that team owns his rights. This obviously doesn’t apply to a offer sheet.

Well I’ve heard Dreger and McKenzie say this several times. They could be wrong but I doubt it but the way they put it is he’s free to talk and negotiate but can’t sign a contract as an RFA until that team owns his rights. This obviously doesn’t apply to a offer sheet.
- wylie61

The point is that teams don't have to send an offer to him out of the blue and take a wild *guess* at what he wants.

Imagine he says "no". So what then? They just try again?

They can talk and negotiate an offer sheet.

While it would be painful to trade a guy like Quick who helped bring you two Cups plus kept you competitive as recently as last year, it would signal that the Kings have finally realized the window has closed....and more importantly, moved one of their onerous Lombardi-era contracts. As such, the price might not be as high as you might think, and Carter Hart might not necessarily be a piece coming the other way - Petersen has looked good and the Kings have shown the ability to develop their own goalkeepers. A couple of young forwards might get it done.

While it would be painful to trade a guy like Quick who helped bring you two Cups plus kept you competitive as recently as last year, it would signal that the Kings have finally realized the window has closed....and more importantly, moved one of their onerous Lombardi-era contracts. As such, the price might not be as high as you might think, and Carter Hart might not necessarily be a piece coming the other way - Petersen has looked good and the Kings have shown the ability to develop their own goalkeepers. A couple of young forwards might get it done.