I love Simmonds.. and I love what he brings, but his style is much easier to get through FA than a 26 y/o puck moving d-man who plays a good two way game.

Edler is a top pairing d-man... and could step in for Timonen right now. He also has one hell of a shot. He would immediately better our blue line.


We could sign Clowe this offseason and virtually replace Simmonds.
- jak521

Trading Simmonds for Edler would be a no brainer. No knock on Simmonds.

Trading Simmonds for Edler would be a no brainer. No knock on Simmonds.
- MJL

It'd be a good move, but ideally, I'd like to try and hang onto Wayne. I honestly think that Edler could be had for prospects and picks, due to Vancouver's cap situation, as pointed out earlier.

I also still think the Flyers should try and see what Nashville would entertain, in terms of offers, for Shea. No harm in fielding offers to get an idea...

*Fantasy trade would look like this:

Read, Coburn, Cousins, Akeson, and this year's 1st round pick

For Shea...


Would be pretty damn solid lol.

Good summation Bill,
I agree that the signing of Bryz was indeed the deathknell for Bob here. But for me, that was the trade. After that point, Bob was as good as gone. So in correlation, the signing of Bryz and the trading of Bob is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. Which really was a result in the culmination of decades of unsatisfactory goaltending being projected on the shoulders and performance of a Rookie Goaltender. That's the shame of it, letting the past influence judgement of present talent and faith in Bob's ability.
There are 2 things that stand out to me as reason why this might have been a good move for Philly. First as Bill states, Bob is a great first half a year goalie. In a half season it's logical he'd do pretty well. However the second part revovles around why I think Bob has fixed his second round Jinx. Bob has changed his playing style dramatically to fix the holes in his game. His Body positioning is much higher than his traditional low stance, taking away the top of the net away which was his achillis heel. Now did this sugguestion come from Reese or Columbus's Goalie Coach, I don't know. If it was Columbus's, well then it's safe to assume that Bob might not have gotten better staying here and it was good he left. If not
In the end I look at the whole debacle as what we should have done is switched Goalie coaches with Columbus, Reese could have fixed Mason and Columbus's guy could have fixed Bob and both teams could have been happy. In the end I wish Bob well and still have hope that this whole musical chairs goalie dance could end us up with a Calder form Mason, Voracek, Coots, Schenn, and Simmonds (because we had to trade Richie & Carter right after getting Bryz, another domino)

It'd be a good move, but ideally, I'd like to try and hang onto Wayne. I honestly think that Edler could be had for prospects and picks, due to Vancouver's cap situation, as pointed out earlier.
- Flyers_V88

Edler's got a NTC... so do Bieksa, Garrison and Hamhuis. Unless one or more of them really want to play in Philly, I don't think any of their D coming over would be very likely. Gillis hasn't been just willing to give Luongo away and he's superfluous... Edler's their top dog on the blueline.

Keith Ballard's probably the only likely one... after he's been complianced, of course.

I also still think the Flyers should try and see what Nashville would entertain, in terms of offers, for Shea. No harm in fielding offers to get an idea...

*Fantasy trade would look like this:

Read, Coburn, Cousins, Akeson, and this year's 1st round pick

For Shea...
- Flyers_V88

Poile's probably got Homer's # blocked by now.

It'd be a good move, but ideally, I'd like to try and hang onto Wayne. I honestly think that Edler could be had for prospects and picks, due to Vancouver's cap situation, as pointed out earlier.

I also still think the Flyers should try and see what Nashville would entertain, in terms of offers, for Shea. No harm in fielding offers to get an idea...

*Fantasy trade would look like this:

Read, Coburn, Cousins, Akeson, and this year's 1st round pick

For Shea...


Would be pretty damn solid lol.
- Flyers_V88

Normally teams don't make a bad deal and give away a top defenseman to solve Cap issues. They look at other areas.

Rule of thumb that I use. If you want one of another teams top players. Be prepared to give up your top players. You aren't likely getting a Weber for a quantity of players deemed expendable.

Normally teams don't make a bad deal and give away a top defenseman to solve Cap issues. They look at other areas.
- MJL

No you're right, I agree for sure. But, I've been watching the games and Edler hasn't looked good at all. Obviously this is all very hypothetical, just what if's....


As for the number being blocked, I can say with almost for sure, there is NO CHANCE we get Weber either. That trade was just for fun purposes...

I truly don't know what the Flyers are going to do. I just REALLLLLLLY don't want us to give up lots of assets for a guy like Yandle.

Poile's probably got Homer's # blocked by now.
- Tomahawk

Yeah, that was a nice relationship while it lasted.

Yeah, that was a nice relationship while it lasted.
- flyler

I don't know this, or haven't heard anything specifically linking Holmgren to other GMs, but I do honestly suspect a large number of GMs in the league are pissed-off with and scared of Holmgren and his potential Offer-Sheets or dealings... I can't see how he's made any friends after last summer lol.

No you're right, I agree for sure. But, I've been watching the games and Edler hasn't looked good at all. Obviously this is all very hypothetical, just what if's....


As for the number being blocked, I can say with almost for sure, there is NO CHANCE we get Weber either. That trade was just for fun purposes...

I truly don't know what the Flyers are going to do. I just REALLLLLLLY don't want us to give up lots of assets for a guy like Yandle.
- Flyers_V88

I don't think Nashville trades Weber to ANYONE. (oh, and I question the whole "Homer is on block from Poile". That Weber thing was business; not personal)

By July 1st, they will have paid him $27 million (give or take) for one year's work.

Why would they trade at that point? They would be better simply setting that money on fire on July 1st instead of giving Weber that huge payout and trading him a month later.

Nashville is "pot committed" to Weber, IMO.

I don't know this, or haven't heard anything specifically linking Holmgren to other GMs, but I do honestly suspect a large number of GMs in the league are pissed-off with and scared of Holmgren and his potential Offer-Sheets or dealings... I can't see how he's made any friends after last summer lol.
- Flyers_V88

This is what I don't understand. Why would other teams be PO'd? It's part of the CBA that every team knows about. Why not use it to make your team better if that's the best route?

It's about winning and as long as its within the rules, have at it.

This is what I don't understand. Why would other teams be PO'd? It's part of the CBA that every team knows about. Why not use it to make your team better if that's the best route?

It's about winning and as long as its within the rules, have at it.
- flyguy12

Yeah, the whole "How dare you use a rule we allowed?!?" mentality is screwy.

This is what I don't understand. Why would other teams be PO'd? It's part of the CBA that every team knows about. Why not use it to make your team better if that's the best route?

It's about winning and as long as its within the rules, have at it.
- flyguy12

Exactly.

I don't think Nashville trades Weber to ANYONE. (oh, and I question the whole "Homer is on block from Poile". That Weber thing was business; not personal)

By July 1st, they will have paid him $27 million (give or take) for one year's work.

Why would they trade at that point? They would be better simply setting that money on fire on July 1st instead of giving Weber that huge payout and trading him a month later.

Nashville is "pot committed" to Weber, IMO.
- johndewar

People make the same mistake investing their $. They buy a stock expecting it to appreciate and they are wrong. Instead of re-evaluating the situation and salvaging future losses by selling and eatting a partial loss they hold on to their Dog stock even though the "facts" have changed and they take more pain down the road. Nashville already paid him $27mm but how much more do they owe him? Being stubborn is a poor strategy.

EDIT: Not to mention Philly is probably dealing from a more deleveraged postion than they were LY when they made the offer sheet to Weber. Poile may be able to get Couts, a pick and some $ from Philly now for Weber (i believe cash may change hands now in new CBA, I apologize if I'm wrong).

I don't think Nashville trades Weber to ANYONE. (oh, and I question the whole "Homer is on block from Poile". That Weber thing was business; not personal)

By July 1st, they will have paid him $27 million (give or take) for one year's work.

Why would they trade at that point? They would be better simply setting that money on fire on July 1st instead of giving Weber that huge payout and trading him a month later.

Nashville is "pot committed" to Weber, IMO.
- johndewar

I think the argument for a potential trade would be based on the fact that Nashville is a small-market franchise, that loses money EACH season, and their owners are covering the losses and operating costs. It would essentially be to mitigate any more financial suicide. It's also become clear that Nashville is NOT the same team without Suter, and that it wasn't just Weber holding things together. The team needs a variety of different assets, and can use them more up front, than on the back-end in my opinion.

I agree with the overall assessment that Weber will not be traded, but I don't think it's because Nashville feels this sense of pride and obligation in keeping him to save face, but moreso because I think the market is limited based on what they'd realistically expect back, and what the beneficiary teams are willing to part with, coupled with his staggering cap hit.

People make the same mistake investing their $. They buy a stock expecting it to appreciate and they are wrong. Instead of re-evaluating the situation and salvaging future losses by selling and eatting a partial loss they hold on to their Dog stock even though the "facts" have changed and they take more pain down the road. Nashville already paid him $27mm but how much more do they owe him? Being stubborn is a poor strategy.
- flyguy12

Yeeeep. Exactly.

This is what I don't understand. Why would other teams be PO'd? It's part of the CBA that every team knows about. Why not use it to make your team better if that's the best route?

It's about winning and as long as its within the rules, have at it.
- flyguy12

Agreed for sure. I don't dispute this. But I also know, as seen with Burke and Kevin Lowe, even though it's fair-game to use, GMs who can't employ that strategy as easily as a Holmgren or whoever, do not like the notion. It's essentially allowing the rich teams to stay rich, within the cap, and the poor teams to try and fend for themselves.

It's entirely fair and legal, but it's not something everybody opts for as a signing strategy.

People make the same mistake investing their $. They buy a stock expecting it to appreciate and they are wrong. Instead of re-evaluating the situation and salvaging future losses by selling and eatting a partial loss they hold on to their Dog stock even though the "facts" have changed and they take more pain down the road. Nashville already paid him $27mm but how much more do they owe him? Being stubborn is a poor strategy.
- flyguy12

If Weber was underperforming .....yeah, holding on is poor strategy.

Getting rid of the guy after 1 year (ONE YEAR!) is simply wasting money. And for what, exactly? Rich people like something to show for their money...

Using your stock analogy, the Preds look to have "gone long" with Weber.

If Weber was underperforming .....yeah, holding on is poor strategy.

Getting rid of the guy after 1 year (ONE YEAR!) is simply wasting money. And for what, exactly? Rich people like something to show for their money...

Using your stock analogy, the Preds look to have "gone long" with Weber.
- johndewar

It's not a waste though... You did something to save the franchise and show the fans you're committed. But, look at their season. Weber didn't make a difference, and it became even more aparent Suter was equally as important to the equation.

I think the general point trying to be conveyed here is that Nashville will do what's in their best interest to try and win. If that means trading Weber for more assets to put into the team, then so be it. I fail to see ANY logic in keeping a player simply because you HAD NO CHOICE but to match the offer sheet the Flyers STRUCTURED FOR THEIR TEAM AND PLANS, not Nashville's. How many people wanna bet that Nashville had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of signing Weber to that money and term. Their hands were forced.

Yeah, the whole "How dare you use a rule we allowed?!?" mentality is screwy.
- Flyskippy

More like "How dare you rich sons of b|tches find loopholes in the soon-to-expire CBA we agreed on to poach the best players from the poorer teams."

More like "How dare you rich sons of female doge5 find loopholes in the soon-to-expire CBA we agreed on to poach the best players from the poorer teams."
- jmatchett383

LOL, yes. That's it right there in a nutshell.

Hard to argue w/ homer trading Bob at that juncture. if a mistake was made, it was running after bryz to begin w/...

If Weber was underperforming .....yeah, holding on is poor strategy.

Getting rid of the guy after 1 year (ONE YEAR!) is simply wasting money. And for what, exactly? Rich people like something to show for their money...

Using your stock analogy, the Preds look to have "gone long" with Weber.
- johndewar

I agree that it's only been one year w/Weber and if you look at past performance you would hope that this year is an outlier. However the % of cash they have alotted to one player for the foreseeable future and the sting they're feeling after this season may have them altering their gameplan. It's a reason why I think Homer should at least kick the tires again. It's all about dealing from a position of leverage and in this situation, Nashville still has it IMO. I'm not saying I'm confident it will happen but I wouldnt' be shocked if it did.

Yeah, the whole "How dare you use a rule we allowed?!?" mentality is screwy.
- Flyskippy

To be fair, it's not necessarily a rule they favored. The "A" in CBA may stand for agreement, but only insofar as the negotiations allowed.

It's not a waste though... You did something to save the franchise and show the fans you're committed. But, look at their season. Weber didn't make a difference, and it became even more aparent Suter was equally as important to the equation.

I think the general point trying to be conveyed here is that Nashville will do what's in their best interest to try and win. If that means trading Weber for more assets to put into the team, then so be it. I fail to see ANY logic in keeping a player simply because you HAD NO CHOICE but to match the offer sheet the Flyers STRUCTURED FOR THEIR TEAM AND PLANS, not Nashville's. How many people wanna bet that Nashville had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of signing Weber to that money and term. Their hands were forced.
- Flyers_V88

This is coming to me second-hand from someone who was told, matter-of-factly, the following 2 things:

1) Weber is not for sale, no matter what. He is the face of the franchise, and they are not moving him.

2) The Flyers are essentially blacklisted as far as they're concerned.

Take it for what it's worth. But really, why would Nashville be willing to spend $25M for 48 games and then trade him when they have to pay significantly less than that each successive year?

More like "How dare you rich sons of b|tches find loopholes in the soon-to-expire CBA we agreed on to poach the best players from the cities that can't support an NHL franchise."
- jmatchett383

FTFY