1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm going to disagree on trading Hart.  He's 25 years old.   When the team comes of age, he'll be 28-33... prime age for a goalie.  No need to trade him in hopes of finding someone as good as him.  You ride this with him and you have a major part of the team already in place.

I would trade Hart, but they can't because of the hockey Canada investigation. You don't want to give him 8M/Y.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Sell him now and get a haul

Those were my exact words.  When did I suggest selling him for cheap?  The whole point of my post was that he is the most valuable asset we have by far and we could get a few young prospects, a ton of picks, and get worse in the standings the next few years.

2 hours ago, Khani1 said:

Glad they are working hard but let’s be serious, this team is not making a playoff run. I doubt they make the playoffs and if they do, they are one and done. I prefer for them to lose as many games as possible but be competitive in as many of those loses as possible. You gotta hope that their #1 pick who is crushing the KHL right now is legit. Hope to hit on the next couple drafts and trade Hart/Coots soon if possible. 

 

7 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

Those were my exact words.  When did I suggest selling him for cheap?  The whole point of my post was that he is the most valuable asset we have by far and we could get a few young prospects, a ton of picks, and get worse in the standings the next few years.

I was focusing on your initial thoughts on it which were much more about tanking...  Obviously, if they can get an overpay for Hart its almost impossible to turn down now, but the initial post seemed far more concerned with the timing in order to lose more games than it was to trade him in order to gain more assets.   The implication on the quickness of the trade would indicate a far smaller concern with the return.  That may not have been your intended meaning, but it is how I interpreted it.

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

 

I was focusing on your initial thoughts on it which were much more about tanking...  Obviously, if they can get an overpay for Hart its almost impossible to turn down now, but the initial post seemed far more concerned with the timing in order to lose more games than it was to trade him in order to gain more assets.   The implication on the quickness of the trade would indicate a far smaller concern with the return.  That may not have been your intended meaning, but it is how I interpreted it.

Interesting....

@mattwill

Eagles 31

Washington 21

Hurts has no turnovers

23 minutes ago, paco said:

The Ebb and flow of the rivalry is crazy.

From 1930 through the end of the 80s, they were up 63-42 (0.600), with most of the gap created in the 70s and 80s. 

But starting in 1990 to today, we owned the series to the tune of 42-26 (0.617).

 

 

Decade	R-Words	Eagles	Tie
30	9	2
40	8	10	2
50	9	10	1
60	9	9	2
70	15	4	1
80	13	7
90	8	13
0	7	13
10	8	12
20	3	4
	89	84

 

Yep, I've always liked to follow the trends for all of the NFC East Birds' rivalries.  We were way behind the Giants as well but then starting in the late 80s got closer and closer and finally took over a few years back.  Washington is on the same trajectory but some years behind.  Hard to see us catching the Cowboys anytime soon.

I post the historical series records ahead of each Giants, Cowboys, Commanders/Redskins games.

2 hours ago, Khani1 said:

I am not nearly as enamored with him as most people are.  I don't see him as a top 5-7 goalie in the league.  He lets in too many soft goals.  Also, by keeping him, we will win more games than we should, thus prolonging this mediocre status of this team.  Sell him now and get a haul.  Maybe a couple younger prospects and a lot of high picks to work with the next couple drafts.

Disagree.  Keep him.  Most goalies get better with age.  With our team he won't be able to win many games on his own.  Even being a really good goalie Flyers will have too many d-zone give aways, too many odd man rushes for Hart to steal many games.

 

Been a while since I've been this excited for hockey. Gonna be fun watching this team grow under Torts.

 

 

He'll play.

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

The Phillies have been on both the winning and losing end of this, so I don’t say this from a place of bias; baseball has a regular season problem.

What’s the point of hanging in there for 162 games when all you need to do is make the playoffs?  

Yep, exactly.  Wildcards were originally a good idea because it allowed for an outstanding 90+ win team to get into the playoffs and not miss it simply because the division leader had over 100 wins.  

The recent expansion of the playoffs has really hurt this, and agreed the regular season is not as important now.  In fact, I think the current system seems to benefit those teams that didn't do quite as well in the regular season.  It seems that you are better off being an ~85 win team than you are winning over 100.

They need to go back to the previous format, that was better than this.

 

3 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Do not like.  Big guys and ankle injuries don't mix well.

 

It's hammy not ankle

23 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

 

Wonder if he has an ankle issue (recurrence).  I think it was an ankle that put  him on IR last year, IIRC and he was on the injury report with an ankle earlier this year (week 3).  Those ankles are asked to support a large human.

Yes, it is a hammy this week.  

23 minutes ago, EricAllenPick6 said:

Yep, exactly.  Wildcards were originally a good idea because it allowed for an outstanding 90+ win team to get into the playoffs and not miss it simply because the division leader had over 100 wins.  

The recent expansion of the playoffs has really hurt this, and agreed the regular season is not as important now.  In fact, I think the current system seems to benefit those teams that didn't do quite as well in the regular season.  It seems that you are better off being an ~85 win team than you are winning over 100.

They need to go back to the previous format, that was better than this.

 

 

They never will, because this format means more money.  More playoff games always means more money, so the idea that they'd contract the playoffs is just whistling in the wind.  If anything, they will add MORE teams to the playoffs and the top 2 seeds won't have a bye any longer.

It is far more likely that they'll go to an 8 team playoff per league and stick to the 3 game series for Round 1, but now Top Seeds 1 and 2 will match up against Teams 7 and 8, who are currently on the outside looking in, than for MLB to turn down extra playoff money and contract the playoffs back to only 4 teams.  IF (and it's a giant IF) they did go to 4 teams, they'd have to go to a 7 game series for that one to make up for the missing games.

 

And yes, that means 16 playoff teams, and yes, that would mean that the regular season is FAR less important... but it is what it is.  The regular season is local TV contracts, and the local TV stations will still pay for the rights to the local team's games, because what alternative do they have?  And then MLB will get even MORE from the national networks, because now there will be FOUR 'Wild Card' matchups per league instead of just 2, and they will still have 4 matchups for the Division Series, etc.   That means a guarantee of at least 8 more games of playoff baseball to be televised and hopefully 4 more cities to be tuning in to the playoffs.  There's no way that they could recoup what they would be losing by not expanding just by extending the Divisional Series an additional 2 game maximum.  One method means 8 MORE games minimum added to the slate of playoff games.  The other means LOSING the WC Series (loss of 8 games minimum, up to 12 max) and only adding back a guarantee of 4 more Divisional Series games up to a max of 8 additional games.  Plus, while having fewer games overall with the contraction, you also have fewer fan bases tuning in.  

 

Why would MLB do that?

Get a mandated four days off.  Can anybody blame him?

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Get a mandated four days off.  Can anybody blame him?

 

 

 

Did he take her mom along?

🏈 Immaculate Grid 100 9/9:
Rarity: 16
IMMACULATE!
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩
Play at:
https://immaculategrid.com/football
@immaculategrid x @pfref

19 hours ago, UK Eagle said:

I don't think you do, buddy

Quote

we’ve got a team, in my mind, that can get us where we want to go.”

So Jerry WANTS to be bounced in the first round of the playoffs? Assuming of course that they get that far.

 

3 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Get a mandated four days off.  Can anybody blame him?

 

 

 

would it be the same if he was dating Swift ?
lighten the F up, influencers. starting to read like a cowgirls forum.

4 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Get a mandated four days off.  Can anybody blame him?

 

 

 

I'm more interested in seeing her mom.

2 hours ago, eagle45 said:

The Phillies have been on both the winning and losing end of this, so I don’t say this from a place of bias; baseball has a regular season problem.

What’s the point of hanging in there for 162 games when all you need to do is make the playoffs?  

40 minutes ago, EricAllenPick6 said:

Yep, exactly.  Wildcards were originally a good idea because it allowed for an outstanding 90+ win team to get into the playoffs and not miss it simply because the division leader had over 100 wins.  

The recent expansion of the playoffs has really hurt this, and agreed the regular season is not as important now.  In fact, I think the current system seems to benefit those teams that didn't do quite as well in the regular season.  It seems that you are better off being an ~85 win team than you are winning over 100.

They need to go back to the previous format, that was better than this.

I disagree wholeheartedly.  Look no further than March Madness for the counter argument.  The entertainment value of 64 far exceeds the entertainment value of 8.

2 minutes ago, mattwill said:

I disagree wholeheartedly.  Look no further than March Madness for the counter argument.  The entertainment value of 64 far exceeds the entertainment value of 8.

And the public loves the Cinderella story.  

41 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Get a mandated four days off.  Can anybody blame him?

 

 

 

 

Just typical loser sports radio hosts batching and moaning.  

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

 

Yep, I've always liked to follow the trends for all of the NFC East Birds' rivalries.  We were way behind the Giants as well but then starting in the late 80s got closer and closer and finally took over a few years back.  Washington is on the same trajectory but some years behind.  Hard to see us catching the Cowboys anytime soon.

I post the historical series records ahead of each Giants, Cowboys, Commanders/Redskins games.

I remember when I started following the team in 92’ we were a good ways behind every team in the division aside from Arizona. I think Arizona we were slightly ahead but hovering around 50/50. One thing about Reid’s tenure is he did a good job of focusing on the division and closed all the gaps quite a bit. Hopefully we can pass Washington in the next decade. Dallas will be tough like you said, especially since we haven’t had a season sweep of them since 2011. Gonna be hard to catch them if that doesn’t change soon.