News Article: Bryzgalov: To Buy Out or Not To Buy Out...That is the Question (Updates in post #1)

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

not signing someone who is capable of taking over for Mason in case he falters would be a mistake IMO. If you are buying out Bryzgalov and Vancouver is buying out Loungo then you have to check and see what Loungo is looking for. After him the market is pretty slim on the FA market for goaltenders.
So in the you cant bring in Loungo because you want to see if Mason can be the guy argument who do you bring in? Dan Ellis? Chris Mason? Michael Leighton?
Yeah there is the Read for Bernier rumor and I am not sure that rumor is credible.
I would hope if Bryzgalov is bought out that Holmgren has a backup paln in place for a reliable goaltender to go with Mason. because right now based on the eye test Mason cant be trusted long term when the games start counting and the pressure is back.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

not signing someone who is capable of taking over for Mason in case he falters would be a mistake IMO. If you are buying out Bryzgalov and Vancouver is buying out Loungo then you have to check and see what Loungo is looking for. After him the market is pretty slim on the FA market for goaltenders.
So in the you cant bring in Loungo because you want to see if Mason can be the guy argument who do you bring in? Dan Ellis? Chris Mason? Michael Leighton?
Yeah there is the Read for Bernier rumor and I am not sure that rumor is credible.
I would hope if Bryzgalov is bought out that Holmgren has a backup paln in place for a reliable goaltender to go with Mason. because right now based on the eye test Mason cant be trusted long term when the games start counting and the pressure is back.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. There is a difference between bringing in a capable guy in the event that Mason faulters and bringing in a better and more experienced goalie to be the starter. Obviously you want a capable backup, if you bring in Luongo, it is unlikely Mason is back the following the year for reasons previously stated. Like I said, the team simply has to commit one way or the other. Either Mason is going to be given a shot to be the guy, or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. Either way is fine by me, as long as it is handled properly.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. There is a difference between bringing in a capable guy in the event that Mason faulters and bringing in a better and more experienced goalie to be the starter. Obviously you want a capable backup, if you bring in Luongo, it is unlikely Mason is back the following the year for reasons previously stated. Like I said, the team simply has to commit one way or the other. Either Mason is going to be given a shot to be the guy, or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. Either way is fine by me, as long as it is handled properly.

ok fine I probably did misunderstand your point. Asking the Flyers to handle it properly might be asking for a bit much given how the goaltending position has been handled in recent memory.
Here is the list btw per capgeek of UFA goalies

http://www.capgeek.com/free-agents/?year_id=2013&team_id=-1&position_id=G&fa_type_id=2

Assuming Nobokov is going back to NYI the only names that remotely interest me Backstrom and Thomas and even those 2 would only interest me on a 1 year deal(I could live with Backstrom on 2 years) because of the 35 plus rule. but Backstrom could be looking at 6 per again. I guess there is Khudobin but he could be looking for big bucks from the KHL. Everyone else is pretty meh to me at best.
So that leaves what? a trade for Bernier or Miller(unlikely) and hope that Loungo gets bought out.
i

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

I wouldn't want that. If we are going with Mason we should go with Mason. Get a competent backup, but not a guy like Luongo that will likely get a somewhat substantial contract and could lead to another "riding the hot hand" type of situation and another quagmire at the end of the year (re-sign Mason long term or let him walk and go with Luongo for the next couple years).

Essentially: Signing Luongo is not something I am against. Giving Mason a chance is not something I am against. But pick one, not both. If you don't want to go with Mason, that's a totally reasonable position to take and I am not arguing with you about that. All I am saying is that they need to pick one and commit to it.

Dude, you're hilarious.

The first time I quoted is posted above. I was arguing against your statement of, "If we are going with Mason we should go with Mason." I completely disagree with the notion of allowing a guy who has had several terrible seasons in a row to take the reins for one year to see if he's capable of handling the starter's role with the Flyers. Our argument disgressed significantly from there.

You veil your own opinions in 'If the Flyers want x, then the should do y', so I have probably been arguing against that instead of what your actual opinion is.

Whatever the case, the bottom line is this: Mason is signed for one year. The Flyers cannot risk allowing him to take the reins on his own, so they have to find someone who can platoon with him, or find someone who will demote Mason to the backup role. If that means you acquire someone like Luongo and don't give Mason enough games to prove he's a number 1, so be it. They cannot point the team in a certain direction to appease Mason's desire to be a starter at the NHL level again.

Maybe he thought no one was going to offer him a contract this summer, so he took the Flyers' offer of a one year deal. No one held a gun to his head to force him to sign a one year deal but, per your last point, the Flyers only need to do what's best for the Flyers. If signing or trading for a guy results in Mason playing second fiddle, who cares? Mason's development is not as important as the Flyers' success; and they are not necessary mutually inclusive.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Dude, you're hilarious.

The first time I quoted is posted above. I was arguing against your statement of, "If we are going with Mason we should go with Mason." I completely disagree with the notion of allowing a guy who has had several terrible seasons in a row to take the reins for one year to see if he's capable of handling the starter's role with the Flyers. Our argument disgressed significantly from there.

You veil your own opinions in 'If the Flyers want x, then the should do y', so I have probably been arguing against that instead of what your actual opinion is.

Whatever the case, the bottom line is this: Mason is signed for one year. The Flyers cannot risk allowing him to take the reins on his own, so they have to find someone who can platoon with him, or find someone who will demote Mason to the backup role. If that means you acquire someone like Luongo and don't give Mason enough games to prove he's a number 1, so be it. They cannot point the team in a certain direction to appease Mason's desire to be a starter at the NHL level again.

Maybe he thought no one was going to offer him a contract this summer, so he took the Flyers' offer of a one year deal. No one held a gun to his head to force him to sign a one year deal but, per your last point, the Flyers only need to do what's best for the Flyers. If signing or trading for a guy results in Mason playing second fiddle, who cares? Mason's development is not as important as the Flyers' success; and they are not necessary mutually inclusive.

What is funny about that? The bolded language is the same sentiment as the originally quoted text, is it not? If they are choosing going with Mason then they need to go with Mason = picking one and committing to it. I am not saying if they want x they should do y. In fact, I have repeatedly said that if they want x they should do x.

It looks to me like all you are seeing is that I am using the words "Mason" and "starter" in the same thought and you don't agree with that. Which again I must point out that I am 100%, unequivocally, NOT saying that Mason is the goalie of the future and that we should annoint him the next Bernie Parent. All I am saying is that if he is to be given a chance to earn the starting goalie gig for the foreseeable future, he needs to actually be given that chance, and being backup to Roberto Luongo for the next four years will not accomplish that.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

not signing someone who is capable of taking over for Mason in case he falters would be a mistake IMO. If you are buying out Bryzgalov and Vancouver is buying out Loungo then you have to check and see what Loungo is looking for. After him the market is pretty slim on the FA market for goaltenders.
So in the you cant bring in Loungo because you want to see if Mason can be the guy argument who do you bring in? Dan Ellis? Chris Mason? Michael Leighton?
Yeah there is the Read for Bernier rumor and I am not sure that rumor is credible.
I would hope if Bryzgalov is bought out that Holmgren has a backup paln in place for a reliable goaltender to go with Mason. because right now based on the eye test Mason cant be trusted long term when the games start counting and the pressure is back.

You know who would be perfect for Flyers if they want to see Mason as guy for year but want insurance?

Was perfect in 1B role this past season going 17-1 with 1.94 GAA / .922 Sv Pct and teaming with Crawford to win Jenning Award

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

ok fine I probably did misunderstand your point. Asking the Flyers to handle it properly might be asking for a bit much given how the goaltending position has been handled in recent memory.
Here is the list btw per capgeek of UFA goalies

http://www.capgeek.com/free-agents/?year_id=2013&team_id=-1&position_id=G&fa_type_id=2

Assuming Nobokov is going back to NYI the only names that remotely interest me Backstrom and Thomas and even those 2 would only interest me on a 1 year deal(I could live with Backstrom on 2 years) because of the 35 plus rule. but Backstrom could be looking at 6 per again. I guess there is Khudobin but he could be looking for big bucks from the KHL. Everyone else is pretty meh to me at best.
So that leaves what? a trade for Bernier or Miller(unlikely) and hope that Loungo gets bought out.
i

I'm not really all that sure of who could be brought in as a backup at this point. It is certainly slim pickens this year. A trade would interest me but I am not as sold on Bernier as others (though, again, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that). Miller I think the Flyers would have to give up too much for, and I would be worried that he would bolt after his contract ends.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

You know who would be perfect for Flyers if they want to see Mason as guy for year but want insurance?

Was perfect in 1B role this past season going 17-1 with 1.94 GAA / .922 Sv Pct and teaming with Crawford to win Jenning Award

I know it hasn't been an issue (that I am aware of), but that injury REALLY worries me.

 

[Beef Invictus]

You know who would be perfect for Flyers if they want to see Mason as guy for year but want insurance?

Was perfect in 1B role this past season going 17-1 with 1.94 GAA / .922 Sv Pct and teaming with Crawford to win Jenning Award

Does Chicago expect to re-sign him?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

You know who would be perfect for Flyers if they want to see Mason as guy for year but want insurance?

Was perfect in 1B role this past season going 17-1 with 1.94 GAA / .922 Sv Pct and teaming with Crawford to win Jenning Award

I would have interest but it would have to be a very short term deal 1 or 2 years. I can understand the hesitation to sign him tho given his past medical issues. I would have some interest but I dont think he is at the top of my list.

I'm not really all that sure of who could be brought in as a backup at this point. It is certainly slim pickens this year. A trade would interest me but I am not as sold on Bernier as others (though, again, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that). Miller I think the Flyers would have to give up too much for, and I would be worried that he would bolt after his contract ends.

I have interest in Bernier coming to Philly. I have followed this kids career for since junior and then his time in Manchester. I know folks are concerned about his lack of size but he more then makes up for it with his positioning and his calm and cool demeanor. I really believe he is ready to be the #1. If the price is right I most definitely would have interest.
Not crazy about Miller. for reasons you gave alone.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I know it hasn't been an issue (that I am aware of), but that injury REALLY worries me.

Since the surgery his hip has not been issue

It will likely require longterm medical care after his career is over but he keeps in good shape and as of now has not had any issues with it

Does Chicago expect to re-sign him?

Unless he comes back cheap at around same salary he is leaving as UFA

Hawks cant afford to increase spending at G position this summer and with Raanta in fold now I think the situation is likely

Craw/Raanta in Chicago next year and Simpson (2010 2nd rounder)/Vet guy in Rockford while Carruth (2010 7th rounder) goes pro and starts next year in ECHL

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

What is funny about that? The bolded language is the same sentiment as the originally quoted text, is it not? If they are choosing going with Mason then they need to go with Mason = picking one and committing to it. I am not saying if they want x they should do y. In fact, I have repeatedly said that if they want x they should do x.

One quick note on the 'x' & 'y' thing: my analogy was more to the point that you state things like, 'If the Flyers want to see what they have in Mason (x), then they should make him the starter now (y).' It was more to show that, within that statement, it is unclear what your actual opinion is. I say this because, in some of the cases where I have challenged you on a similar statement, you have noted that what I disagreed with wasn't your actual opinion and was only an 'if/then' scenario for the Flyers.

It looks to me like all you are seeing is that I am using the words "Mason" and "starter" in the same thought and you don't agree with that. Which again I must point out that I am 100%, unequivocally, NOT saying that Mason is the goalie of the future and that we should annoint him the next Bernie Parent. All I am saying is that if he is to be given a chance to earn the starting goalie gig for the foreseeable future, he needs to actually be given that chance, and being backup to Roberto Luongo for the next four years will not accomplish that.

Mason is only signed for one year. The only option for the Flyers to see if he can be a starting goalie for the foreseeable future is to put him in the position to be the starter this year. How can the situation be any different? What my argument has been from the first time I quoted you is that the Flyers cannot take that chance and legitimately expect to be competitive this season (based on his work in the previous several seasons).

You seem to see that I am saying that the only option is to make him the back-up (my preferred choice, yes), but I have suggested platooning him, as well. I agree that he needs to earn the starter's role in a platooning scenario, but I also believe that the Flyers need to put his development aside if there's an option to acquire a guy with Luongo's ability and track record.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

One quick note on the 'x' & 'y' thing: my analogy was more to the point that you state things like, 'If the Flyers want to see what they have in Mason (x), then they should make him the starter noew (y).' It was more to show that, within that statement, it is unclear what your actual opinion is. I say this because, in some of the cases where I have challenged you on a similar statement, you have noted that what I disagreed with wasn't your actual opinion and was only an 'if/then' scenario for the Flyers.



Mason is only signed for one year. The only option for the Flyers to see if he can be a starting goalie for the foreseeable future is to put him in the position to be the starter this year. How can the situation be any different? What my argument has been from the first time I quoted you is that the Flyers cannot take that chance and legitimately expect to be competitive this season (based on his work in the previous several seasons).

You seem to see that I am saying that the only option is to make him the back-up (my preferred choice, yes), but I have suggested platooning him, as well. I agree that he needs to earn the starter's role in a platooning scenario, but I also believe that the Flyers need to put his development aside if there's an option to acquire a guy with Luongo's ability and track record.

Ok well it seems that there is a lot of misunderstanding here on both sides. Haha. My opinion on Mason is really that I am not sure. I wouldn't be opposed to them running with him as the starter, and I wouldn't be opposed to them finding someone else. It is basically what I have been saying: pick something and commit.

End of this discussion?

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

End of this discussion?

Fair enough.

 

[Embiid]

The problem with all this platooning talk is that you have a coach that doesn't like to platoon! He goes with the hot hand and sometimes in detrimental ways like what he did with Bob when he overplayed the dude and messed up his development leading to the trade. It was the root cause of Bob's playoff meltdown and subsequently getting stuck behind an underachieving Bryz as a backup simply b/c they had to justify Bryz's contract by playing him no matter how sucky he played...

Lavi is going to need to adjust (there is that word again) to how he handles the goaltending especially if Mason reverts to his mediocre or sucky ways...

 

[Flyerfan4life]

What my argument has been from the first time I quoted you is that the Flyers cannot take that chance and legitimately expect to be competitive this season (based on his work in the previous several seasons).

.

then what was the point in bringing Mason here if there was never any chance the Flyers would give him the chance to start ??

i dont think the Flyers would have brought him in, if they realisticaly expected to bring in another starter for this season.

 

[RJ8812*]

You know who would be perfect for Flyers if they want to see Mason as guy for year but want insurance?

Was perfect in 1B role this past season going 17-1 with 1.94 GAA / .922 Sv Pct and teaming with Crawford to win Jenning Award

le sigh

if we had a healthy Emery during the 2010 cup run, chances our we would have won that year

 

[Larry44]

then what was the point in bringing Mason here if there was never any chance the Flyers would give him the chance to start ??

i dont think the Flyers would have brought him in, if they realisticaly expected to bring in another starter for this season.

Based on what? The brought him in to be a backup to Bryz and see if he could revive his career. I don't think they had made up their minds, and might not have yet, in fact, about buying out Bryz.

They owe him $1.5MM for the upcoming season. That's it. It's up to him to earn playing time and beat out all and any competition for the #1 job if that is his goal.

 

[Embiid]

le sigh

if we had a healthy Emery during the 2010 cup run, chances our we would have won that year

Proof of how much luck is a big part of winning a championship.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

le sigh

if we had a healthy Emery during the 2010 cup run, chances our we would have won that year

Or maybe if Kim Johnsson doesn't suffer career ending injury the Hawks sweep Flyers as the D in front of Niemi would have been alot stronger (Kim J >>> Sopel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hendry)

 

[Beef Invictus]

Or maybe if Kim Johnsson doesn't suffer career ending injury the Hawks sweep Flyers as the D in front of Niemi would have been alot stronger (Kim J >>> Sopel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hendry)

Or he would have scored on his own net to give us the Cup.

 

[Curufinwe]

I would have settled for them going back to Boucher after game 2 and at least avoiding conceding the softest OT goal ever.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I would have settled for them going back to Boucher after game 2 and at least avoiding conceding the softest OT goal ever.

Still don't understand why your coach went back to Leighton for game 6

I thought Boucher was gonna get nod after Leighton's first period meltdown in game 5 and the fact he was pulled for 2nd time in series

 

[Embiid]

Still don't understand why your coach went back to Leighton for game 6

I thought Boucher was gonna get nod after Leighton's first period meltdown in game 5 and the fact he was pulled for 2nd time in series

Anything having to do with Leighton is inexplicable....his NHL career rivals the riddle of the Sphinx

How bout Lavi going with Leighton in a make or break playoff game against Buffalo as well...dude then goes AWOL after the game and Holmgren is still dumb enough to bring him back last year as the backup to Bryz!

 

[Beef Invictus]

I imagine Boucher was still injured or not 100% at that point. And if Leighton was injured then (I assume so), we know he hid it from management until after he signed that contract.