The Ended Flyers Thread

[Austinfan]

You're missing the point, it's like baseball, I can spend up to the cap the first year, but I'm stuck with the entire contract.
So give $20M in two long-term contracts, where is the cap room to extend all my RFAs?
Toronto is facing this issue this offseason.

The Phillies, now that they've signed Harper, are probably out of the FA business for years, other than short-term deals that replace expiring short-term deals, especially if they extend Realmoto and down the road, Hoskins and the young SPs. Same principle, just because you have short-term cap room, doesn't mean you can spend up to it on long-term deals without sabotaging the future.

[bigegypt0417]

The Phillies, now that they've signed Harper, are probably out of the FA business for years, other than short-term deals that replace expiring short-term deals, especially if they extend Realmoto and down the road, Hoskins and the young SPs. Same principle, just because you have short-term cap room, doesn't mean you can spend up to it on long-term deals without sabotaging the future.

This statement is false...the phillies have promised Harper they would be in the top 5 in payroll and will have money to burn if they are winning. You have a philosophy that basically says get to .500 and hope you can get lucky. This franchise and its ownership doesn't share your viewpoint.

[zambonir]

Anyway, this is the Flyers thread and the NHL has a hard cap. The 2021 Phillies could and possibly should be in the tax. It's safe to say the Flyers will sign another $7-9 million FA this off-season but who knows what trading they have in mind.

[bigegypt0417]

it's going to definitely be interesting to see how they will balance a large number of very good young prospects with the need to have above average veteran players.

[bkeich]

So one of my pet peeves in Hockey came up last night, and it cost the Flyers (although they went on to win).

One of the stupidest rules in sport (but below Soccer's inability to keep time) is that Hockey stops when the referee blows his whistle because he has lost sight of the puck (presumably a goalie has frozen it). Problem is that the ref's all do this differently, some are slow with the whistle, some blow it while the puck is not at all frozen (like last night, this putz intended to blow his whistle but the goalie did not have control of the puck, infact by the time he blew his whistle the puck was already in the net and back out).

Change the freaking rule. If the goalie wants to freeze the puck he must hold it IN HIS GLOVE above his head. If it is under him, well, he doesnt have control of it. If he can't figure out where it is the referee can blow the play dead after a second or two. If the Goalie is not in the crease it should be a penalty (maybe an area slightly bigger than the crease since being a little outside of the crease seems reasonable to still freeze it). If he is behind the goal it should be a penalty shot (currently it is just a penalty).

And the referees from last night should be either fired or removed for the rest of the season. To actually disallow a clearly clean goal because you intended to blow the whistle because you thought the puck was frozen (it was not) shows a lack of awareness on 2 levels, first you didnt make the call correctly, then, with a moment to reflect, you screwed up what should have been true.

[zambonir]

I have personally never had a problem with the rule, though it is obviously meant to favor/protect goalies. The rule is that the play is dead when the ref loses sight of the puck, regardless of how long it takes him to blow the whistle. There is nothing in the rule that requires the goalie to have control or says the puck should actually be frozen (i realize you are suggesting this should change). "Intent to blow" is a ridiculous phrase but I have never found it illogical that the play is dead the moment the ref, in his brain, has decided it was dead. There is a gap between that moment and the actual whistle. No different from off-sides really (when play often continues after the infraction, even up to and including a goal in some cases).

Of course there are refs who lose sight of the puck when they shouldn't, but that is a problem with their positioning and/or ability as refs, not the rule. As the rules are written they made the correct call, which still doesn't mean they did a good job.

[flyers19rw]

The officiating in the NHL has always left a lot to be desired. However over this season the amount of questionable calls has reached a higher level of occurrence. The League needs to tighten up its definition on some rules. It also needs to upgrade the officiating in its contests. With the League getting involved more and more with gambling, missed calls are going to raise suspicious eyebrows. The NBA already has had to deal with referees influencing the outcomes of games to satisfy bettors. The NHL doesn't need to get involved with that type of suspicion.

[bkeich]

Of course there are refs who lose sight of the puck when they shouldn't, but that is a problem with their positioning and/or ability as refs, not the rule. As the rules are written they made the correct call, which still doesn't mean they did a good job.

But as the rule is written (lose sight of puck) it could be blown anytime. They would normally lose sight of the puck when the puck is held in the corner against the boards. Pretty much anytime the goalie is involved they lose sight of the puck, even if he has no control of it. To me it is a dumb rule, the referee losing sight of the puck should not stop play, it should be when a player has legally decided to hold the puck (only the goalie can do that). By having it be "losing sight of" you are making officials interpret a rule and giving very little guidance as to how to do that (I assume they do get some guidance, but since the ref's vary greatly in their implementation it is clear it is not well done).

I hate "opinion" calls (obviously). Diving and Gymnastics are unwatchable sports because of it in my opinion. Obviously some rules must be an opinion (football penalties, etc.) but when you can make it a clear, basically indisputable thing, those rules work much better.

[zambonir]

But as the rule is written (lose sight of puck) it could be blown anytime.

Is that actually true? I think it only applies to the crease.

With the advent of replay and better technology there's no question it should be adjusted, but the current rule does not include any "opinion." If the ref can't see the puck he can no longer assess the play or decide whether or not something is a goal, so the play is dead. Deciding when the goalie does or doesn't have control is a much bigger judgment call. And if he can't see puck he literally can't make that judgment call.

[LegoDoom]

Of course there are refs who lose sight of the puck when they shouldn't, but that is a problem with their positioning and/or ability as refs, not the rule. As the rules are written they made the correct call, which still doesn't mean they did a good job.

But as the rule is written (lose sight of puck) it could be blown anytime. They would normally lose sight of the puck when the puck is held in the corner against the boards. Pretty much anytime the goalie is involved they lose sight of the puck, even if he has no control of it. To me it is a dumb rule, the referee losing sight of the puck should not stop play, it should be when a player has legally decided to hold the puck (only the goalie can do that). By having it be "losing sight of" you are making officials interpret a rule and giving very little guidance as to how to do that (I assume they do get some guidance, but since the ref's vary greatly in their implementation it is clear it is not well done).

Isn't this a player safety issue? The goalie is in a very vulnerable position.

[zambonir]

Ultimately, yes. Right or wrong protecting the goalie has always come before any other notions of fairness or getting a play right (except when the Stars when the Stanley Cup, lol). Counterpoint is they are bigger and more padded than ever. In a lot of these situations if you didn't have "intent to blow" you'd probably have long reviews and overturned goals due to crease violations or interference or just the video showing the goalie had already covered the puck (making the rule that he has to have it frozen or controlled would be even harder to judge/enforce).

[LegoDoom]

Goalies are more protected for stopping the puck, but not for taking a slash/skate to the back of the glove, being fallen on because players are crashing the net, etc. It's the reason that players get aggressive when their goalie is hit after the play. Goalies are protected from stopping the puck, but they are pretty much defenseless when it involves contact with players.

I am fine with the rule (even though it sometimes is incorrect).

[LegoDoom]

And the NFL rule about an offensive fumble into the endzone being a safety is much worse than the NHL or soccer rule

[bkeich]

Is that actually true? I think it only applies to the crease.

With the advent of replay and better technology there's no question it should be adjusted, but the current rule does not include any "opinion." If the ref can't see the puck he can no longer assess the play or decide whether or not something is a goal, so the play is dead. Deciding when the goalie does or doesn't have control is a much bigger judgment call. And if he can't see puck he literally can't make that judgment call.

But that is my point. He can't see the puck alot of the time when it is around goalie. It could not be controlled at all, he will lose sight of the puck if the goalie or another player is in the way, if it is sitting under the goalie but not controlled at all, etc. A good amount of the time, from where that official is he does not have a clear view of the puck, what he is actually doing most of the time is waiting for a sign from the goalie that the goalie thinks he has it. Technically there would never be any goals because he will always lose sight of the puck as it passes by the goalie (unless the puck goes between him and the goalie, so maybe 20% of goals). This is a dumb rule IMHO. Now, they could say there is a time associated with it, like 2 seconds, but that is not what was called in this case or what the rule says.

(normally that ref is sitting behind the goal line and in the corner)

[LegoDoom]

A good amount of the time, from where that official is he does not have a clear view of the puck, what he is actually doing most of the time is waiting for a sign from the goalie that the goalie thinks he has it.

IMO, what you are referring to is that the goalie will freeze. That either means he has the puck or he doesn't know where it is. When he doesn't know where it is, the actions of the other players will determine whether he has it covered up or not. If it's unclear and the ref can't see the puck, then he will always side with player safety (as he should) and blow the play dead.

[zambonir]

Sounds like Quenneville is already headed for Florida unless the Flyers want to try and get him without talking to other candidates.

[xogfog]

Flyers didn't fare well in the draft lottery. Devils win the top pick, Rangers the 2nd pick, Flyers actually dropped a spot from where they were in the standings and will pick 11th.

[Squire]

Yeah...last night was a painful night for the Flyers.

I really thought we were on the cusp when we got the 2017 #2 overall pick in Patrick and then jumped up to get Frost. I don't know about our outlook anymore. Frost and Farabee and Ratcliffe seem like good prospects but the Rangers have Kratsov and now Kakko. The Devils will have Heschier and now Hughes. I thought Hextall had us on the right track even if he was a little cautious. Nothing nothing about Holmgren or Fletcher or Gordon gives me much confidence at all.

[bigegypt0417]

Yeah...last night was a painful night for the Flyers.

I really thought we were on the cusp when we got the 2017 #2 overall pick in Patrick and then jumped up to get Frost. I don't know about our outlook anymore. Frost and Farabee and Ratcliffe seem like good prospects but the Rangers have Kratsov and now Kakko. The Devils will have Heschier and now Hughes. I thought Hextall had us on the right track even if he was a little cautious. Nothing nothing about Holmgren or Fletcher or Gordon gives me much confidence at all.

I don't know...the flyers still have one of the better systems in hockey as well as a good amount of available cap space. This franchise is probably in the best position it's ever been in with all those factors coming together at once. There is a strong core on the big team and for the first time in a very long time we won't go in to an off-season and ask "what about a goalie?".

This was a disappointing season but you really cant ignore the talent and money this team has to work with.

[Austinfan]

Yep. Teams have off seasons, fans then overreact, "we're doomed." Teams overacheive, "we've arrived!."

Flyers had goaltender hell last season, record 8 goalies played for them and injuries dug a deep hole, but Hart got his feet wet, Sandstrom and Ustimenko are coming over, so goalie finally seems to be solved.

I'm not sold on Hughes as an elite game changer, guys like Stamkos and Tavares have had good careers but haven't lead any team to the promised land, even McDavid, with two other high pick centers can't carry Edmonton. Hockey is a team game, you need two top lines, four solid defensemen, an above average goalie and good enough depth not to negate the quality at the top. Devils are a long way away, Rangers might be closer but don't have their goalie of the future yet.