- Giroux_Is_God

cam neely was livid

Told you it was gonna be Shaw.....

Told you it was gonna be Shaw.....
- Giroux_Is_God

ahem.

Finally over

ahem.
- Don'tForgetTocchet

How does that #16 on the Bruins feel?

Handzus looked ready to collapse in that OT

ahem.
- Don'tForgetTocchet

I'd really love that personally.

A good puck moving goaltender who has shown he can handle the media BS of a tough market with class and a guy that could be a mentor for Mason for a few seasons.

All in for Luongo (if he is bought out).
- flyer_nutter

I'm down w that...so long as his new deal is cap friendly.

Thing is, with the Flyers' PP having clicked at 20+ percent most recent years and being 3rd in the NHL this past season, I don't think Laviolette and Mullen will be inclined to tinker much with the top unit of Timonen, Voracek, Giroux, Simmonds and Hartnell.

If it were your call to make would you:

a) keep the current umbrella setup but replace Timonen with Streit on the first unit?

b) Keep Timonen at the top of the umbrella, use Streit as the roving other point guy and Voracek, Giroux and either Hartnell/Simmonds lower in the zone?

c) Change the alignment and go with the traditional left and right point men setup with Timonen and Streit at the two points and Voracek, Giroux, Hartnell/Simmonds up front?
- bmeltzer

Either A or D. which is to put Streit on the 2nd unit. Seems to me that one of Streit, Kimmo or Jake has to be on the 2nd unit or you really haven't improved it.

Quick thoughts
Streit: As long as the length and cap hit isn't something ridiculous such as 4 years, 24 million, I am good with this move. They needed a puck mover and a QB for the 2nd pp unit who can step up and replace Kimmo on the first unit in another year and they got him. Even better, they got him without giving up any of their young talent or any 1st or 2nd round draft picks.

The Draft: I would still prefer holding onto the 11th pick and taking the BPA. However I would listen to any proposal to trade down, as long as the return package still includes a pick in the top 18. I am not a big fan of trading up into the top 5 because the cost is likely to be too high. Also I would not rush whoever I draft right into the lineup.

Further trades and buyouts: I would like to see the Flyers stay patient for the most part. To free up cap space, I would buyout both Bryz and Briere and also trade Mezaros at the draft for the highest pick I can get for him. While I like Mez when healthy, I have serious doubts about his future health, nor can I see any way they are going to risk the $$ to re-sign him after this season.

Free agency: With the money saved by losing Briere, Bryz and Mez, I would try to sign Jagr & Ray Emery. My roster would be as follows:
G: Mason & Emery
D:
Timonen-Coburn
Streit-Schenn
Grossmann-Gus
Gervais (Lauridsen would be 7th on my depth chart, but I would rather see him play every night in the AHL than sit in the pressbox, Bourdon is my wild card)
Lines:
Hartnell-Giroux-Voracek
Read or McGinn-Schenn-Jagr
Read or Talbot-Couturier-Simmonds
Talbot or Rosehill-Laughton-Rinaldo
14th forward-Akeson, to occasionally spell Jagr.

cam neely was livid
- Crimsoninja

huge opportunity lost for the bruins last night. huge. i feel for rask. had no chance on any of them. those wide shots that redirect in off your own d-men are infuriating, especially when they tie the game and you go on to lose int triple OT in the SCF.

huskins was solid under horrendous circumstances, i didn't mind him at all
- Don'tForgetTocchet

i'd be happy to have him back. doesn't seem like he will be.

Quick thoughts
Streit: As long as the length and cap hit isn't something ridiculous such as 4 years, 24 million, I am good with this move. They needed a puck mover and a QB for the 2nd pp unit who can step up and replace Kimmo on the first unit in another year and they got him. Even better, they got him without giving up any of their young talent or any 1st or 2nd round draft picks.

The Draft: I would still prefer holding onto the 11th pick and taking the BPA. However I would listen to any proposal to trade down, as long as the return package still includes a pick in the top 18. I am not a big fan of trading up into the top 5 because the cost is likely to be too high. Also I would not rush whoever I draft right into the lineup.

Further trades and buyouts: I would like to see the Flyers stay patient for the most part. To free up cap space, I would buyout both Bryz and Briere and also trade Mezaros at the draft for the highest pick I can get for him. While I like Mez when healthy, I have serious doubts about his future health, nor can I see any way they are going to risk the $$ to re-sign him after this season.

Free agency: With the money saved by losing Briere, Bryz and Mez, I would try to sign Jagr & Ray Emery. My roster would be as follows:
G: Mason & Emery
D:
Timonen-Coburn
Streit-Schenn
Grossmann-Gus
Gervais (Lauridsen would be 7th on my depth chart, but I would rather see him play every night in the AHL than sit in the pressbox, Bourdon is my wild card)
Lines:
Hartnell-Giroux-Voracek
Read or McGinn-Schenn-Jagr
Read or Talbot-Couturier-Simmonds
Talbot or Rosehill-Laughton-Rinaldo
14th forward-Akeson, to occasionally spell Jagr.
- BiggE

Nice. I'd be ok with most of what you got here. If they could squeeze him in under the cap, I'd resign Gagne and move Simmonds up to 2nd line and put Gags on the 3rd line. I like McGinn in small doses, but really don't think he's ready yet. Talbot is a lock, so it would likely be Rinaldo/Rosehill on the other wing. Still think they need to get D in this draft, but I'm ok with the trade down scenario.

Nice. I'd be ok with most of what you got here. If they could squeeze him in under the cap, I'd resign Gagne and move Simmonds up to 2nd line and put Gags on the 3rd line. I like McGinn in small doses, but really don't think he's ready yet. Talbot is a lock, so it would likely be Rinaldo/Rosehill on the other wing. Still think they need to get D in this draft, but I'm ok with the trade down scenario.
- TheGreat28

I'm ok with Gagne, as long he will agree to a 1 or 2 year deal, I want to avoid signing aging wingers to long contracts, it's one of the reasons I want them to go after Jagr.

huge opportunity lost for the bruins last night. huge. i feel for rask. had no chance on any of them. those wide shots that redirect in off your own d-men are infuriating, especially when they tie the game and you go on to lose int triple OT in the SCF.
- hammarby31

Agreed, the pressure really swings to the Bruins now, going down 2-0 will make it extremely difficult for Boston to win this series.

I think Gervais will assume the #7 d-man role. However, if someone from the top 6 goes down for any length of time, they recall Lauridson from the Phantoms and insert him in the top 6. I don't have a problem with Gervais in the #7 d-man role.
- ravishingone

What's the sense then of having him as the #7 defenseman?

What's the sense then of having him as the #7 defenseman?
- MJL

You need someone, that can fill in for one or 2 games if a Dman gets the flu on a road trip, a minor injury or is injured in warm up. There is no sense carrying Lauridsen for that role, he is much better off playing 20+ mins on the top shutdown pair for the Phantoms. Gervais is more than capable to be your 6th Dman here and there playing 10-12 mins per game. Obviously if a Dman is going to miss more than 2 or 3 games, you put him on IR and bring up Lauridsen.

You need someone, that can fill in for one or 2 games if a Dman gets the flu on a road trip, a minor injury or is injured in warm up. There is no sense carrying Lauridsen for that role, he is much better off playing 20+ mins on the top shutdown pair for the Phantoms. Gervais is more than capable to be your 6th Dman here and there playing 10-12 mins per game. Obviously if a Dman is going to miss more than 2 or 3 games, you put him on IR and bring up Lauridsen.
- BiggE

Obviously, I understand the concept of having a 7th defenseman. My point was why have Gervais as the 7th defenseman, if you're not going to play him? And many might find out when the see Lauridsen more, that he may not be an upgrade over Gervais. Although I realize for many that Gervais is a scapegoat, and Lauridsen is the future golden boy. I agree with you that Gervais is capable of playing a limited role as a 6th defenseman. it's when you ask him to be more then that, is when you get in trouble.

Obviously, I understand the concept of having a 7th defenseman. My point was why have Gervais as the 7th defenseman, if you're not going to play him? And many might find out when the see Lauridsen more, that he may not be an upgrade over Gervais. Although I realize for many that Gervais is a scapegoat, and Lauridsen is the future golden boy. I agree with you that Gervais is capable of playing a limited role as a 6th defenseman. it's when you ask him to be more then that, is when you get in trouble.
- MJL

If not Gervais, who would you like to see in that role? I'd be fine with Huskins, as long as he will accept a one year deal at 900k or less. They can always waive Gervais and send him to the AHL if not claimed, his cap hit is low enough that it would come completely off the books.

Obviously, I understand the concept of having a 7th defenseman. My point was why have Gervais as the 7th defenseman, if you're not going to play him? And many might find out when the see Lauridsen more, that he may not be an upgrade over Gervais. Although I realize for many that Gervais is a scapegoat, and Lauridsen is the future golden boy. I agree with you that Gervais is capable of playing a limited role as a 6th defenseman. it's when you ask him to be more then that, is when you get in trouble.
- MJL

Gervais.

If not Gervais, who would you like to see in that role? I'd be fine with Huskins, as long as he will accept a one year deal at 900k or less. They can always waive Gervais and send him to the AHL if not claimed, his cap hit is low enough that it would come completely off the books.
- BiggE

Why would the team use up a slot on the reserve list just to upgrade the 7th defenseman spot from Gervais to Huskins?

I don't even think it's an upgrade.

8 years, $76 million for Malkin