[url]

The ultimate problem is the team leaves itself with very little wiggle room. Injuries occur, players overachieve and poop happens. I don't know if you want to call it poor cap management, but it is poor management. I'm not a Homer hater by any means, but his greatest downfall is forcing himself into a corner in certain circumstances.
- PhillySportsGuy

When have the Flyers left themselves with very little wrigle room? How many players were they able to call up last season to replace injured players? Every Season they go out and sign top free agents. They trade for players at the deadline. Where is this ultimate problem at?

For kicks, our last 10 games vs all of the teams in the Metro

Capitals: 7-2-1, .750 P%

Penguins: 5-4-1, .550 P%

NYR: 2-8-0, .200 P%

Columbus: 5-2-0 (only played 7 times since 2003-2004 season), .714 P%

Carolina: 8-2-0, .800 P%

New Jersey: 3-6-1, .350 P%

NYI: 6-2-2, .700 P%

Combined P%: .575

Projected total record vs. Metropolitan: 26-19-1
- JAKEw1234

Of course, teams have changed and become better since the beginning of these 10 game periods (Islanders and Columbus are quite a bit better), but it's still a promising statistic, I think.

When have the Flyers left themselves with very little wrigle room? How many players were they able to call up last season to replace injured players? Every Season they go out and sign top free agents. They trade for players at the deadline. Where is this ultimate problem at?
- MJL

When they were forced to trade Upshall + for Carcillo due to wanting to have both Briere and Giroux in the lineup.

I couldn't agree more. My fiancee poo-poos this thought, and I just smile.
We'll see who is right.
- FlyersGrace

I completely believe that the Caps are in for a rude awakening. Last year, they started incredibly slow, and because they are in a weak div, they were able to rattle off a decent winning streak at the end of the year and get the 3 seed. They were below the Flyers quite a while for God's sake, and they still got the 3 seed because of the messed up playoff format.

Of course, teams have changed and become better since the beginning of these 10 game periods (Islanders and Columbus are quite a bit better), but it's still a promising statistic, I think.
- JAKEw1234

Our record vs the Rangers and Devils has to improve IMO. I hope the departure of Torts and Kovalchuk help with that.

When they were forced to trade Upshall + for Carcillo due to wanting to have both Briere and Giroux in the lineup.
- jmatchett383

So, once again we are (well some of us anyway) are arguing the mythical "cap problem" again. A big part of this issue appears to me to be that a few posters have a much different definition of "cap problem" than the majority.

I would like to propose the following definition of cap mismanagement:

Cap mismanagement will be deemed to have occurred if, in order to make a roster move that the team wishes or needs to make, they have to first make another move they would not have otherwise made, and in that move they lose a significant asset.

Under this definition, trading Rosehill for a prospect (just an example - I know nobody would give up a prospect for Rosehill) to clear cap space would not count, as the overwhelming majority would not consider Rosehill to be a significant asset. He is easily replaced.

However, things like losing Metropolit to waiver claims, or moving Upshall for Carcillo, or trading Gange for Walker would count, as Gagne, Metro and Upshall were/are significant assets, and those moves were all made for the primary purpose of shedding cap space to allow other moves.

I realize the definition of "significant asset" somewhat subjective, but I think this is the gist of what most people mean when they refer to cap mismanagement or cap issues/problems. Yes, all these moves were choices the team willingly made. So we can't really say they were "forced" to make them. But to my mind, the team being literally forced to make the move is not really part of the definition. All the moves are voluntary, and driven by what the team thinks is best for it at that time. But in the cases where those moves result in the loss of other significant assets, I think it is fair to include the loss of those assets in any evaluation of how the team manages its cap space. I think it is an oversimplification to say that simply because they weren't literally forced to make the move, that said move is not the result of, or impacted by cap mismanagement.

When they were forced to trade Upshall + for Carcillo due to wanting to have both Briere and Giroux in the lineup.
- jmatchett383

idk, even Chicago has had to make moves for cap room this summer. It's a problem with a lot of teams. We're not unique there.

So, once again we are (well some of us anyway) are arguing the mythical "cap problem" again. A big part of this issue appears to me to be that a few posters have a much different definition of "cap problem" than the majority.

I would like to propose the following definition of cap mismanagement:

Cap mismanagement will be deemed to have occurred if, in order to make a roster move that the team wishes or needs to make, they have to first make another move they would not have otherwise made, and in that move they lose a significant asset.

Under this definition, trading Rosehill for a prospect (just an example - I know nobody would give up a prospect for Rosehill) to clear cap space would not count, as the overwhelming majority would not consider Rosehill to be a significant asset. He is easily replaced.

However, things like losing Metropolit to waiver claims, or moving Upshall for Carcillo, or trading Gange for Walker would count, as Gagne, Metro and Upshall were/are significant assets, and those moves were all made for the primary purpose of shedding cap space to allow other moves.

I realize the definition of "significant asset" somewhat subjective, but I think this is the gist of what most people mean when they refer to cap mismanagement or cap issues/problems. Yes, all these moves were choices the team willingly made. So we can't really say they were "forced" to make them. But to my mind, the team being literally forced to make the move is not really part of the definition. All the moves are voluntary, and driven by what the team thinks is best for it at that time. But in the cases where those moves result in the loss of other significant assets, I think it is fair to include the loss of those assets in your evaluation of how the team manages its cap space. I think it is an oversimplification to say that simply because they weren't literally forced to make the move, that said move is not the result of, or impacted by cap mismanagement.
- BringBack25

I'm planning on suing my neighbor for his new fence, can you represent me?

I'm planning on suing my neighbor for his new fence, can you represent me?
- Jsaquella

Sure, as long as you don't mind the fact that I'm not a lawyer and don't really know much about lawsuits.

idk, even Chicago has had to make moves for cap room this summer. It's a problem with a lot of teams. We're not unique there.
- JAKEw1234

The simple fact that the Flyers are not unique in having to make questionable moves to get under the cap doesn't make it OK.

Chicago, Detroit and New Jersey have all had to make questionable moves due to cap issues.

idk, even Chicago has had to make moves for cap room this summer. It's a problem with a lot of teams. We're not unique there.
- JAKEw1234

I'm not saying we're unique. I think the Flyers sometimes have cap problems, and at the same time, I think they're far from the worst managed teams out there.

The truth is somewhere between MJL and Tomahawk. The Flyers do sometimes handle their contracts and payroll in a way such that they back themselves into a corner at times. At the same time, there are times when they move a contract for the better of the team, knowing full-well they're going to do so before signing another player to replace him.

Sure, as long as you don't mind the fact that I'm not a lawyer and don't really know much about lawsuits.

- BringBack25

You use your tongue prettier than a $20 whore

Our record vs the Rangers and Devils has to improve IMO. I hope the departure of Torts and Kovalchuk help with that.
- Hextall271

I think until Elias retires we'll have problesm beating the Devils
We're getting better with the Rangers, we were 2-3 against them last year.

I think until Elias retires we'll have problesm beating the Devils
We're getting better with the Rangers, we were 2-3 against them last year.
- JAKEw1234

We lose to the Devils cuz one of my buddies is a Devil's supporter and the hockey gods favor him...
Once Lundquist starts playing for us things will turn around on the Ranger front.

I think until Elias retires we'll have problesm beating the Devils
We're getting better with the Rangers, we were 2-3 against them last year.
- JAKEw1234

I worry about the Devils because of Elias and DeBoer...I think he's a damned good coach

So, once again we are (well some of us anyway) are arguing the mythical "cap problem" again. A big part of this issue appears to me to be that a few posters have a much different definition of "cap problem" than the majority.

I would like to propose the following definition of cap mismanagement:

Cap mismanagement will be deemed to have occurred if, in order to make a roster move that the team wishes or needs to make, they have to first make another move they would not have otherwise made, and in that move they lose a significant asset.

Under this definition, trading Rosehill for a prospect (just an example - I know nobody would give up a prospect for Rosehill) to clear cap space would not count, as the overwhelming majority would not consider Rosehill to be a significant asset. He is easily replaced.

However, things like losing Metropolit to waiver claims, or moving Upshall for Carcillo, or trading Gange for Walker would count, as Gagne, Metro and Upshall were/are significant assets, and those moves were all made for the primary purpose of shedding cap space to allow other moves.

I realize the definition of "significant asset" somewhat subjective, but I think this is the gist of what most people mean when they refer to cap mismanagement or cap issues/problems. Yes, all these moves were choices the team willingly made. So we can't really say they were "forced" to make them. But to my mind, the team being literally forced to make the move is not really part of the definition. All the moves are voluntary, and driven by what the team thinks is best for it at that time. But in the cases where those moves result in the loss of other significant assets, I think it is fair to include the loss of those assets in any evaluation of how the team manages its cap space. I think it is an oversimplification to say that simply because they weren't literally forced to make the move, that said move is not the result of, or impacted by cap mismanagement.
- BringBack25

This is so logical. Thanks for the dose of reality. I feel like I should cut and paste it in on the top of every page. HAHAHA.

We lose to the Devils cuz one of my buddies is a Devil's supporter and the hockey gods favor him...
Once Lundquist starts playing for us things will turn around on the Ranger front.

- FlyersGrace

Signing Lundqvist would lead to cap problems. But it wouldn't really be a problem because we want to do it.

Signing Lundqvist would lead to cap problems. But it wouldn't really be a problem because we want to do it.
- jmatchett383

*looks for something to smack you with* my disdain isn't big enough. Close though.

This is so logical. Thanks for the dose of reality. I feel like I should cut and paste it in on the top of every page. HAHAHA.
- FlyersGrace

Pardon me, Lady, but my responses have been logical. I just avoided the Webster's definition of cap mis-management because it seemed unnecessary.

So, once again we are (well some of us anyway) are arguing the mythical "cap problem" again. A big part of this issue appears to me to be that a few posters have a much different definition of "cap problem" than the majority.

I would like to propose the following definition of cap mismanagement:

Cap mismanagement will be deemed to have occurred if, in order to make a roster move that the team wishes or needs to make, they have to first make another move they would not have otherwise made, and in that move they lose a significant asset.

Under this definition, trading Rosehill for a prospect (just an example - I know nobody would give up a prospect for Rosehill) to clear cap space would not count, as the overwhelming majority would not consider Rosehill to be a significant asset. He is easily replaced.

However, things like losing Metropolit to waiver claims, or moving Upshall for Carcillo, or trading Gange for Walker would count, as Gagne, Metro and Upshall were/are significant assets, and those moves were all made for the primary purpose of shedding cap space to allow other moves.

I realize the definition of "significant asset" somewhat subjective, but I think this is the gist of what most people mean when they refer to cap mismanagement or cap issues/problems. Yes, all these moves were choices the team willingly made. So we can't really say they were "forced" to make them. But to my mind, the team being literally forced to make the move is not really part of the definition. All the moves are voluntary, and driven by what the team thinks is best for it at that time. But in the cases where those moves result in the loss of other significant assets, I think it is fair to include the loss of those assets in any evaluation of how the team manages its cap space. I think it is an oversimplification to say that simply because they weren't literally forced to make the move, that said move is not the result of, or impacted by cap mismanagement.
- BringBack25

Under this definition, would you say that the current Philadelphia Flyers have a cap problem at the moment? I'd say no they don't, but they may further down the line this season. They can begin the season without loss of any significant assets, yet they may be precluded from making a deal they'd like to without doing so later on this season.

*looks for something to smack you with* my disdain isn't big enough. Close though.
- FlyersGrace

Sorry, the fire seemed to be dying down. Needed to be poked.

Under this definition, would you say that the current Philadelphia Flyers have a cap problem at the moment? I'd say no they don't, but they may further down the line this season.
- jmatchett383

They'd be (frank)ed like Jenna Jameson if Pronger drops dead or retires.

We lose to the Devils cuz one of my buddies is a Devil's supporter and the hockey gods favor him...
Once Lundquist starts playing for us things will turn around on the Ranger front.

- FlyersGrace

I'm gonna have a painful amount of Lundqvist dreams until the situation resolves itself one way or another.