Hextall's Legacy as GM

[icehole]

53 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Hextalls been gm for 2 years. Only an idiot (or his mom) would think he's the greatest gm ever.

 

If I sold my house I could go out and buy a new Mercedes and some stylin' suits and a big boat and a trip around the world. It would look like I'm doing really well, but in the long run I'd be out on the street. That's how Homer ran the Flyers.

 

The Hawks are the most successful franchise presently in the NHL. Their best players were drafted, not bought. And when they keep winning and players want big paydays, they can't afford to pay them all with the salary cap. So they deal them off for picks and prospects and continually fill those holes with cheap young talent...aka draft picks.

 

Making the playoffs isn't my goal as a Flyer fan. I've seen them in the playoffs...they were there last year. Big deal. I want a cup.

You could keep your house because it's smart and your gaining equity.  You could pay it off and retire at 65 with no mortgage.  Or, you could sell it, but an older, seemingly run down house with good bones, flip it, sell for double, buy two more houses to flip, and retire at 50 with a house, Mercedes, suits, and a boat.

The Hawks are a good franchise right now but where we're they for decades?  They acquired some good draft picks by being bad, they got the #1 by being the 2nd worst team in the league, and they got one of the best (hard to beat out 87) players of the past decade.  I don't know if that team would look the same with JVR on the team.  So if players want huge contracts, you want to ship them off and get picks?  How much do Kane and Toews make?  I actually agree with that theory, but that's not what Hextall is doing.  Couturier could have got some picks and so could Giroux (especially before last season).  Jake got paid after one good season, and MacDonald was signed with Hextall at the table (next to Holmgren).

I want a cup too but I didn't want to sacrifice 3 or 4 years to get one.  If they don't get one in 6 years, it will have been a waste.

[brelic]

8 minutes ago, icehole said:

 

The Hawks are a good franchise right now but where we're they for decades?  So if players want huge contracts, you want to ship them off and get picks?  How much do Kane and Toews make?  I actually agree with that theory, but that's not what Hextall is doing.  Couturier could have got some picks and so could Giroux (especially before last season).  Jake got paid after one good season, and MacDonald was signed with Hextall at the table (next to Holmgren).

I want a cup too but I didn't want to sacrifice 3 or 4 years to get one.  If they don't get one in 6 years, it will have been a waste.

 

They were run by someone else who focused on the wrong things.

 

Quote

So if players want huge contracts, you want to ship them off and get picks?

 

Yes, but not your core players. The Hawks kept guys like Keith, Seabrook, Toews, and Kane. They are the core.

 

When the secondary and complementary pieces become too expensive, they shipped them off and replaced them with similar but cheaper parts. The core is the same, and the periphery changes.

 

If all of our defensive prospects pan out the way some people here are talking, we won't be able to afford them. We'll have to keep a few and ship off the rest for parts and picks while they get replenished by cheaper prospects with similar upside. 

 

That's called smart asset management - and something Homer did not understand.

 

The difference between Homer and Hextall, to me, is that Homer built a house of cards whereas Hextall is building a house of concrete and wood.

 

Neither guarantees any kind of championship - no formula can guarantee that. There are 29 other major obstacles in the way, not to mention a ton of intangibles that have to go your way.

 

Both approaches will give you a house, and both are capable of delivering competitive teams and a Cup. 

 

As a fan, it comes down to what you want. It sounds like you are a fan of Homer's approach. Personally, I prefer Hextall's approach. 

[OccamsRazor]

41 minutes ago, icehole said:

I want a cup too but I didn't want to sacrifice 3 or 4 years to get one.

 

 

Well i hate to say it but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

They have tried the other way why not trying this way now...they are a couple years into...let's follow this through and see how it works....you can't make a call right now....too soon...sit back and enjoy the ride...there will be ups and downs...there is no other way around it...

[icehole]

4 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

They were run by someone else who focused on the wrong things.

 

 

Yes, but not your core players. The Hawks kept guys like Keith, Seabrook, Toews, and Kane. They are the core.

 

When the secondary and complementary pieces become too expensive, they shipped them off and replaced them with similar but cheaper parts. The core is the same, and the periphery changes.

 

If all of our defensive prospects pan out the way some people here are talking, we won't be able to afford them. We'll have to keep a few and ship off the rest for parts and picks while they get replenished by cheaper prospects with similar upside. 

 

That's called smart asset management - and something Homer did not understand.

 

The difference between Homer and Hextall, to me, is that Homer built a house of cards whereas Hextall is building a house of concrete and wood.

 

Neither guarantees any kind of championship - no formula can guarantee that. There are 29 other major obstacles in the way, not to mention a ton of intangibles that have to go your way.

 

Both approaches will give you a house, and both are capable of delivering competitive teams and a Cup. 

 

As a fan, it comes down to what you want. It sounds like you are a fan of Homer's approach. Personally, I prefer Hextall's approach. 

I'm not really educated on what the Hawks were doing in those decades, but were they overpaying washed up players or were they just drafting bad and not acquiring the right players?  I felt like the flyers always acquired big names whether they were washed up or not, but I dont remember Chicago getting those players and it not working out.

When you have a core like Kane, toews, Seabrook, and Keith, it's easy to designate a "core".  Giroux, voracek, couturier, and Simmonds aren't at that same level and any of them could have been dealt.  Simmonds is a bargain but he will get paid soon.  I feel like the core you are speaking of isn't here yet.  So if Hextall wants to go that route, I don't know why he's handed out some decent contracts so far.

At the end of Holmgrens tenure, I was cursing him out as much as anybody.  "You got rid of Richards and Carter!"  "You gave what to Hartnel?"  "Briere has a NMC?".  I was excited to have Hextall come in.  One of his first moves was to give Kimmo a one year deal instead of a long deal.  I said "see Homer...was that so hard".  Now it's two years later and I really miss guys like Briere and Hartnell.  I think we got a good return for Richards and Carter.  The exciting future that we hear about is still being blocked by cap problems because of contracts that aren't worth it.

So I don't know what philosophy I prefer.  I feel like they are both going to end up at the same destination, but Hextall's is a little less exciting.

[flyercanuck]

55 minutes ago, icehole said:

You could keep your house because it's smart and your gaining equity.  You could pay it off and retire at 65 with no mortgage.  Or, you could sell it, but an older, seemingly run down house with good bones, flip it, sell for double, buy two more houses to flip, and retire at 50 with a house, Mercedes, suits, and a boat.

 

Sure. Or you could sell it ...blow all your equity on a few years of fun and be left with hardly anything. That was Holmgrens way. He traded away a bunch of 1sts...he gave away 2nds...

 

Quote

The Hawks are a good franchise right now but where we're they for decades?  They acquired some good draft picks by being bad, they got the #1 by being the 2nd worst team in the league, and they got one of the best (hard to beat out 87) players of the past decade.  I don't know if that team would look the same with JVR on the team.  

 

 

Different gm. Just like the Flyers have now. With a  refreshingly different philosophy.

 

Quote

 

So if players want huge contracts, you want to ship them off and get picks?  How much do Kane and Toews make?  I actually agree with that theory, but that's not what Hextall is doing.  Couturier could have got some picks and so could Giroux (especially before last season).  Jake got paid after one good season, and MacDonald was signed with Hextall at the table (next to Holmgren).

I want a cup too but I didn't want to sacrifice 3 or 4 years to get one.  If they don't get one in 6 years, it will have been a waste.

 

You keep your core and sell off replaceable parts. Couturier is still developing. Everyone on this board gets that you can't see the value in him. Trade Giroux? Sure if someone blows you away. Whose your #1 centre then? They're as hard to find as #1 defencemen. It's taken us 50 years to draft a develop one of those. 

 

You don't want to wait 3 or 4 years? We've been waiting decades. DECADES!

[icehole]

3 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Sure. Or you could sell it ...blow all your equity on a few years of fun and be left with hardly anything. That was Holmgrens way. He traded away a bunch of 1sts...he gave away 2nds...

 

 

Different gm. Just like the Flyers have now. With a  refreshingly different philosophy.

 

 

You keep your core and sell off replaceable parts. Couturier is still developing. Everyone on this board gets that you can't see the value in him. Trade Giroux? Sure if someone blows you away. Whose your #1 centre then? They're as hard to find as #1 defencemen. It's taken us 50 years to draft a develop one of those. 

 

You don't want to wait 3 or 4 years? We've been waiting decades. DECADES!

You're not wrong.  But when people get too gooey about things, I like to give the other side.  Two hot topics for me are Hextall and Couturier.

I can agree that Hextall is making some good moves, but people go overboard. 

If you think Couturier is still developing, that's fine.  5 seasons is a little too long of development for my liking, maybe he'll get there.  I wish you were the GM for that deal though.  You could say "Couts, I know you want a big contract, but you're still developing so we'll offer 3 years at $3mill per.  Show us what you can do."  If he doesn't like that, he can be one of the casualties of the Blackhawks plan.

Giroux won't be a #1 center for much longer.  If I'm going to wait for the prospects to show up, I might as well draft a #1 center with a bag of pics I got for Giroux.

[brelic]

47 minutes ago, icehole said:

I'm not really educated on what the Hawks were doing in those decades, but were they overpaying washed up players or were they just drafting bad and not acquiring the right players?  

 

I'm not overly familiar with those years either, but from what I have read, the owner was cheap and focused on that rather than building a competitive team.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Wirtz

 

As owner of the Blackhawks, Wirtz had a reputation for stubbornness and frugality, earning the nickname "Dollar" Bill.[4] He was vilified by Blackhawks fans for forbidding home games to be televised unless they were picked up by national broadcasters, which only happened when the Blackhawks made the playoffs. As Wirtz explained it, broadcasting regular-season home games was unfair to season-ticket holders.[5] For a short time during the 1991-92 and 1992-93 seasons, Wirtz introduced Hawkvision, a pay-per-view service that operated in conjunction with Chicago's local SportsChannel outfit, which cost $29.95 per month and broadcast Blackhawks home games.

 

Wirtz was also blamed for allowing Bobby Hull to leave the Blackhawks and the NHL for the World Hockey Association (although his father, Arthur Wirtz, was actually responsible for that decision).[4][6] Wirtz was further blamed for the loss of both Dominik Hašek and Ed Belfour, for trading Denis Savard in 1990, for the trade of Chris Chelios to Detroit (in actuality, Chelios had asked to be traded and gave approval to then-General Manager Bob Murray when told Detroit was the most interested team), for the trading of Jeremy Roenick, and for the 1967 trade of Phil Esposito.[4] Wirtz was also blamed for the Blackhawks' Stanley Cup drought, which was the second longest in NHL history and the longest in team history.[4] Under the ownership of Wirtz, the Chicago Blackhawks were named by ESPN in 2004 as the worst franchise in sports.[7] In 2002, ESPN ranked Wirtz as the third greediest owner in all of sports.[8]

 

So that shows you the kind of stewardship that Hawks had to endure for decades.

Quote

When you have a core like Kane, toews, Seabrook, and Keith, it's easy to designate a "core".  Giroux, voracek, couturier, and Simmonds aren't at that same level and any of them could have been dealt.  Simmonds is a bargain but he will get paid soon.  I feel like the core you are speaking of isn't here yet.  So if Hextall wants to go that route, I don't know why he's handed out some decent contracts so far.

 

 

Yes, those four Hawks players are superior to our four top players. But, that doesn't make ours any less of a core. You don't need the most talented players to win the Cup. You need the best team.

 

If this "core" doesn't work out, we've got a new potential "core" in the pipeline because of Hextall. Rubstov, Konecny, Provorov, and Sanheim. Or four different guys depending on how drafts and trades go in the future. 

Quote

So I don't know what philosophy I prefer.  I feel like they are both going to end up at the same destination, but Hextall's is a little less exciting.

 

 

That's a completely fair point. And you're probably right in a lot of ways that Hextall's is less exciting... during the building phase. 

 

I think the big difference you'll see is that when Hextall gets the axe someday, he won't leave his predecessor with a mess that takes a half-decade to fix. 

 

Personally, I find the building phase exciting, because I know we'll have better talent on the ice soon. I'm ok with being a passenger and fan watching a systematic approach to team construction.

 

For me, the Flyers are just a narrative that I've followed for 35 years, and I look forward to each new evolution.

 

It really depends what you want out of it.

[radoran]

1 hour ago, icehole said:

You're not wrong.  But when people get too gooey about things, I like to give the other side.  Two hot topics for me are Hextall and Couturier.

I can agree that Hextall is making some good moves, but people go overboard. 

If you think Couturier is still developing, that's fine.  5 seasons is a little too long of development for my liking, maybe he'll get there.  I wish you were the GM for that deal though.  You could say "Couts, I know you want a big contract, but you're still developing so we'll offer 3 years at $3mill per.  Show us what you can do."  If he doesn't like that, he can be one of the casualties of the Blackhawks plan.

Giroux won't be a #1 center for much longer.  If I'm going to wait for the prospects to show up, I might as well draft a #1 center with a bag of pics I got for Giroux.

 

At 22, Claude Giroux - in his first full season as a professional - had 16 goals and 47 points.

 

I'd say the Flyers pushed Couturier into the pros too early - probably because fans "want to be entertained."

 

But his contract actually matches pretty well to his production and c/should be a bargain by the end.

[icehole]

3 hours ago, radoran said:

 

At 22, Claude Giroux - in his first full season as a professional - had 16 goals and 47 points.

 

I'd say the Flyers pushed Couturier into the pros too early - probably because fans "want to be entertained."

 

But his contract actually matches pretty well to his production and c/should be a bargain by the end.

I think if Couturier was brought in at 22, I might feel differently about him.  At the same time, I'd be pushing to bring him up because J.J., coatsy, and everyone else in the organization would be gushing over how well he's playing for the phantoms or other developmental league.  If he came in at 22, by now I'd say "he doesn't live up to the hype, but he'll adapt to the league".  18 or 23, when you've been in the league for 5 years, you should be well adapted.  I'd also be OK with a smaller contract for him right now until he proves he's worth of a big contract.

Unfortunately, he came in at 18, played well for an 18 year old, and took some steps back since then.  It wasnt time for a big contract yet.  If he got one somewhere else, I wouldn't have been upset.

[murraycraven]

5 minutes ago, icehole said:

 If he got one somewhere else, I wouldn't have been upset.

 

no ****???   not sure anyone around here could have figured that out!  

[radoran]

1 minute ago, icehole said:

I think if Couturier was brought in at 22, I might feel differently about him.  At the same time, I'd be pushing to bring him up because J.J., coatsy, and everyone else in the organization would be gushing over how well he's playing for the phantoms or other developmental league.  If he came in at 22, by now I'd say "he doesn't live up to the hype, but he'll adapt to the league".  18 or 23, when you've been in the league for 5 years, you should be well adapted.  I'd also be OK with a smaller contract for him right now until he proves he's worth of a big contract.

Unfortunately, he came in at 18, played well for an 18 year old, and took some steps back since then.  It wasnt time for a big contract yet.  If he got one somewhere else, I wouldn't have been upset.

 

The thing is, it isn't a "big contract." It's market value for his production. 

 

You can look for yourself: https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/active

 

It's not out of line at all. We don't have to like it (I don't like where the salary structure of the league has gone) but it is true.

 

And even if he simply maintains his current production level, he's likely to be a "value" contract by the end of term.

[icehole]

14 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

The thing is, it isn't a "big contract." It's market value for his production. 

 

You can look for yourself: https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/active

 

It's not out of line at all. We don't have to like it (I don't like where the salary structure of the league has gone) but it is true.

 

And even if he simply maintains his current production level, he's likely to be a "value" contract by the end of term.

I don't care about market value...I care about the value someone has to my team.  

I'm not sure what the cap friendly site is showing me.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know, is market value for a 6th year second line center that scores 39 points, 6 years at $4.5mill per?  The cap hit isn't terrible but the length is double what I think he deserves. 

I always feel like we're going in circles with this debate so it is what it is.  You like hextall, I think he could be doing more.  You like couturier, I don't like his position (2nd line center) on the team or his contract.  I want to see the future that we hear about year after year, you're OK with letting them develop while the team is mediocre. 

[flyercanuck]

5 hours ago, icehole said:

You're not wrong.  But when people get too gooey about things, I like to give the other side.  Two hot topics for me are Hextall and Couturier.

I can agree that Hextall is making some good moves, but people go overboard. 

 

Who's going overboard?

 

I like what he's doing. In 2 years he's got rid of several immovable contracts. He's got our prospect cupboard from one of the leagues worst, to one of the best...in 2 drafts! That's almost amazing. He didn't gut the core (which is what the Sabres/Leafs etc do nowadays to rebuild) and his team made the playoffs. I've been preaching build through the draft since Holmgren first took over...so of course I'm going to agree with Hextalls philosophy. And making the young guys earn their spot can only build a better team..

 

5 hours ago, icehole said:

If you think Couturier is still developing, that's fine.  5 seasons is a little too long of development for my liking, maybe he'll get there.  I wish you were the GM for that deal though.  You could say "Couts, I know you want a big contract, but you're still developing so we'll offer 3 years at $3mill per.  Show us what you can do."  If he doesn't like that, he can be one of the casualties of the Blackhawks plan.

 

I didn't like Couturier making the team as an 18 year old and was outspoken about it. His development was stalled because of it. When your sole job is to check the other teams top players, your offensive development is going to be damaged. You don't like Couturiers development? Blame Holmgren. You know, the gm that left the prospect cupboard bare, left Hextall with a bunch of terrible contracts to old players to clean up, and the guy YOU like how he did things. The king of the Mickey Mouse quick fix.

 

5 hours ago, icehole said:

Giroux won't be a #1 center for much longer.  If I'm going to wait for the prospects to show up, I might as well draft a #1 center with a bag of pics I got for Giroux.

 

Drafting a #1 centre isn't as easy as saying it. Ask the Leafs. Ask the Devils. The Preds traded potential stud defenceman Seth Jones for one cause they couldn't draft one. Now the Blue Jackets need one. The Blues underachieve every spring cause they lack there. The Habs don't have one. Rangers. Sens. Hurricanes. Coyotes.

[radoran]

59 minutes ago, icehole said:

I don't care about market value...I care about the value someone has to my team.  

I'm not sure what the cap friendly site is showing me.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know, is market value for a 6th year second line center that scores 39 points, 6 years at $4.5mill per?  The cap hit isn't terrible but the length is double what I think he deserves. 

I always feel like we're going in circles with this debate so it is what it is.  You like hextall, I think he could be doing more.  You like couturier, I don't like his position (2nd line center) on the team or his contract.  I want to see the future that we hear about year after year, you're OK with letting them develop while the team is mediocre. 

 

We're going in circles because you have an obsession about it and refuse to listen to the actual facts of the situation.

 

It's not that I "like" Couturier, but I can see his value for the team and what they project him to be. I do think he needs to do more as a "second line center." 

 

But, yes, that contract is market value. You can use the slider to show cap hits in the $4-4.5M range. You'll see centers like Craig Smith (27 years old, 37 points last year), Michael Frolik (28, 32 in 64), Tyler Bozak (30, 35 in 57), Nazim Kadri (25, 45 in 76), Nick Bjustad (24, 34 in 67) all making in the $4-4.5M range. Again, if he only continues to produce at the level he has, and salaries continue to increase as they have, he will be a "value" for dollar at the end of the contract. Hextall in extending the six year deal is banking on him at least doing that.

 

And you can ignore the fact that Couturier only played 63 games last year (his "39" points projecting to 50 points) if you want. It doesn't help your argument any. 50-point players are getting about $4-4.5M in this league. It's just the way it is.

 

If they didn't re-sign Couturier, who would you have gotten to fill that role? What did they "lose out on" by signing him instead of...??

 

IMO, the jury is still out on Hextall as I said in my very first post on this thread. It's way too early to be evaluating him. I hated the Hartnell deal, for example, and think that the Voracek deal is a potential problem if he doesn't get back to the career year he had two years ago. I just really don't see Couturier as "a problem."

 

The whole "trade X for picks" is fine - but that's not bringing "the future" you're talking about wanting to see here any quicker. In fact, it's taking a step back. And you also need someone who is willing to give up that boatload of picks. I'm not sure that team exists for Claude Giroux at $8.275M for six more years. For that matter, how many #1 centers have been drafted in recent years? Not many, and those that have are taken in the top five. What team is giving up top five picks? GMs know when there's a McDavid or a Matthews or an Eichel in the pipeline and they aren't giving those away for Claude Giroux, especially when his production has dropped from 86 to 73 to 67 over the past three years.

 

Like it or not, Hextall is building "the future" around the core of Giroux/Voracek/Schenn/Simmonds and, yes, Couturier. Those guys are signed for (at least) the next 3-4 years and are all 28 or younger. Also signed for 3-4 more years are Gudas, Weise, Raffl and, unfortunately, MacDonald (you want a tragic contract signing - there's no better example). 

 

Obviously they will look to extend Gostisbehere and we can expect Provorov/Sanheim and maybe Morin to join on the blue line. 

 

Will it work? We'll find out.

[Podein25]

 

58 minutes ago, radoran said:

We're going in circles

 

I predicted this at the start of the thread. I'm a genius.

 

[King Knut]

On 9/23/2016 at 9:10 AM, icehole said:

What would Hextall have to do to make you feel like he was a successfull GM.  If he doesn't win a cup, is he a failure?

Some of us want to crown him as a genius, but his moves really haven't amounted to much yet.  He missed the playoffs with 84 points and he lost in the first round with a 96 (that surprised me) point season.

Let's look 8 years into the future.  Hextall left to be president of hockey operations for calgary after the 19/20 season.  The flyers are in a bit of a rebuilding mode, maybe squeaking into the playoffs or maybe missing.  We look back and he averaged 91 points, he missed the playoffs two seasons, lost in the first round two seasons, lost in the second round two seasons, lost in the ECF one season, and lost a cup final.

Does that make him a failure or is that success?

 

He's already a success IMHO.  

Considering where the roster, the system and the cap where when he started, he's done a remarkable job just getting them this far.  Also because of that I think you'll have to wait a long long time to judge where he goes from here fairly.   He's been Houdini getting us this far.   We should all thank him for doing what he's done.

 

You'd have to be a real jerk to criticize a GM for not bringing an organization farther along than Hexy has with his hands tied as much as they've been tied.  Why that would be like an ER doctor saving a heart attack patient's life with open heart surgery and then getting on his case that patient hadn't run a marathon yet a day later...  Or a President getting elected during the great depression and giving him a hard time because the economy is ONLY better than it's been for sixteen years....  oh wait.   oops.  hee hee just a joke.  

 

Seriously though, I'm sure there's someone out there who is ready to can him already and who thinks he's doing a terrible job, but come on!  We went from no draft picks, zero cap room, a bunch of overpaid dead weight in the lineup and having to LTIR Pronger for the next 5 years in order to even ice a team, to one of the strongest farm systems in hockey and an actually remotely competitive team in just two years.  

 

Yeah, sure He traded Hartnell, but he got 4+ million off the books 3 years earlier than he would have otherwise.  

Sure, we still have MacDonald, but have patience... the guy's a minor miracle worker, let's not get on his case for not quite being Moses.  

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

30 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

 

I predicted this at the start of the thread. I'm a genius.

 

 

[ruxpin]

On 9/26/2016 at 8:48 AM, flyercanuck said:

Different gm. (and owner) Just like the Flyers have now. With a  refreshingly different philosophy

 

Agree.  Just had to add that.  Although the "owner" thing was meant for Chicago.  That wasn't supposed to be about Snider.

[ruxpin]

18 hours ago, Podein25 said:

I predicted this at the start of the thread. I'm a genius. goatf##er

 

Fixed it.

[brelic]

18 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

 

Yeah, sure He traded Hartnell, but he got 4+ million off the books 3 years earlier than he would have otherwise.  

Sure, we still have MacDonald, but have patience... the guy's a minor miracle worker, let's not get on his case for not quite being Moses.  

 

 

 

Anyone know why Columbus is looking to trade him? He scored 23 goals last year, still has 3 years left on his contract, and the Jackets want to get rid of him. Is it the contract? 

 

I still think it was right to trade Hartnell. Hexy may have gotten a more rotten return than he'd hoped for, but it was a longer term strategy. Locking him up at that age for an extra 6 years was a typical Homer move. 

 

Just look at the Marchand contract - IMO, it's a bad move and contract for a guy who has in all likelihood peaked statistcally. He'll be 37 when it expires. Yuck.

 

[murraycraven]

 

[King Knut]

2 hours ago, brelic said:

 

Anyone know why Columbus is looking to trade him? He scored 23 goals last year, still has 3 years left on his contract, and the Jackets want to get rid of him. Is it the contract? 

 

I still think it was right to trade Hartnell. Hexy may have gotten a more rotten return than he'd hoped for, but it was a longer term strategy. Locking him up at that age for an extra 6 years was a typical Homer move. 

 

Just look at the Marchand contract - IMO, it's a bad move and contract for a guy who has in all likelihood peaked statistcally. He'll be 37 when it expires. Yuck.

 

 

Hadn't realized they wanted to trade him.  23 goals and he seemed to be well liked in the locker room here.

Is Johnny Torts still coaching over there?  Maybe Harts was caught kneeling at some point?

Joking aside, maybe they have salary issues unrelated to the cap?  Maybe he's just a chip that they think someone will go for?

 

For two years it was really tough to watch Umberger, but it was always about this moment for Hextall.  He never expected to be truly competitive in that time... nor do I think he necessarily expects it now.

 

And I think it's a bit ridiculous to give a 28 year old an 8 year deal no matter what.  He scored almost 40 goals which is nice and they bruins had a good seacon, but it didn't help them in the playoffs.

 

Of course Homer had Jeff Carter locked up for less than that over a shorter duration and chose to deal him post haste.  

Not that Jake, Coots (and what Cousins was it?)  wasn't a great handful of magic beans for a return, but just in contract comparison, I wouldn't make that deal for Marchand in a million years.  

 

When will these GM's learn?

 

 

[King Knut]

3 hours ago, brelic said:

 

Anyone know why Columbus is looking to trade him? He scored 23 goals last year, still has 3 years left on his contract, and the Jackets want to get rid of him. Is it the contract? 

 

I still think it was right to trade Hartnell. Hexy may have gotten a more rotten return than he'd hoped for, but it was a longer term strategy. Locking him up at that age for an extra 6 years was a typical Homer move. 

 

Just look at the Marchand contract - IMO, it's a bad move and contract for a guy who has in all likelihood peaked statistcally. He'll be 37 when it expires. Yuck.

 

 

does anyone else feel like if we'd gotten Kane, he's just be making the roster now?

 

 

 

[King Knut]

On September 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, radoran said:

 

The thing is, it isn't a "big contract." It's market value for his production. 

 

You can look for yourself: https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/active

 

It's not out of line at all. We don't have to like it (I don't like where the salary structure of the league has gone) but it is true.

 

And even if he simply maintains his current production level, he's likely to be a "value" contract by the end of term.

 

To boot he hasn't taken steps back. 

That's ridiculous. 

 

He played 20 minutes a night against the best lines almost always starting in his own end.   Do we have any idea how good you have to be to pull off being halfway effective at that at any age?

 

Its a good contract.  We should Leave it alone and hope he scores more because it'd be nice. Not because he's a bum if he doesn't.  

 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

does anyone else feel like if we'd gotten Kane, he's just be making the roster now?

 

 

 

 

No