elmatus

Solid post. I would add that we may not have a player currently in the system to replace a guy like Giroux. Frost and Farabee are nice to have around, but their ceiling may just be some sort top to mid-six players. I say "just", as if that's not quite a bit already. I'm wary of putting too much stock on these guys though. But to ask either of those guys to have a few 90-100pt seasons is asking a lot. I'd love to see it happen certainly, but that's a lot. This leads us to the problem you noted that, while I have no qualms at all about getting rid of JVR and Voracek, and I'm warming to the idea that we might be better off moving Giroux while we can still get a big return for the guy, losing that much production would definitely set the team back. We'd be looking at some down years almost certainly. That said, it's entirely possible that's exactly what this franchise needs.

Meh.

NSH just hired Hynes. They fired Lavy yesterday. I agree on the Isles and Knights though, that to me is hugely a coaching thing. It's telling how good Trots seems to be wherever he goes, not to mention how different all of his teams have been really. He seems to be very good at tailoring his game plan to whatever strengths his team happens to have at a given time. That kind of flexibility is tremendous. Rather than try to find players that fit the coach's style, he just seems to find a way to make it work with whatever tools he has at his disposal. That would seem such a tremendously useful skill in a coach. I'm going to want to see more success before I say that. Much to your point, Vegas and the Isles are possibly the two best coached teams in the league right now. We definitely have a more experienced coaching staff than pretty much anyone, which isn't nothing. Without results though, it's hard to say they're on par with the best. I won't lie -- I'm sort of getting tired of this refrain at this point. Again, it's possible, but I'm sort of in the wait and see camp now. I worry this is our fan bias showing across the board. Sure, Provo is doing well, but Sanheim has yet to figure out the physical game, which at this point is getting worrisome to me, Ghost seems to not be is clearly not the guy we hoped he would after his rookie season, and Myers is still too green to tell. Sure, Niskanen helps, but he's not going to be around forever either. At the same time, every year Voracek and Ghost remain on the team their value diminishes. For Ghost, I imagine things are at a pretty low point now. For Voracek, he's just digging himself a deeper hole every time he hits the ice. And that's all without talking about Giroux. It may be about the right time to start talking about trading him as well, while he would still fetch a substantial return. I'm not saying do it just yet, but I might by the off season... We slept on Simmonds and lost. We slept on Ghost and will now lose. We're sleeping on Voracek and will at least be getting less than we could have. When does Giroux get added to the list? I think missing the playoffs this season again probably pencils him in at the very least, and this is coming from a guy who has always liked Giroux (and I still do!). I'm just being realistic here, which is something that has been a challenge for this team for a while now. I really don't mean to be super negative here. I'm just at a point where I'm worried we may very well have been overvaluing our prospect pool and undervaluing the importance of true top-level talent in the modern NHL. The process has been in action for quite some time. Sure, each year brings a shiny new toy, but a number of them seem to be taking their sweet ol time showing their lustre (if they ever do), which only leads to more gaping holes as the Giroux of the world become less impactful on the ice. Do we need a Lafreniere to become relevant? We just might.

I'm pretty sure Patrick will make another go. Whether it'll work out better is hard to say, but I don't think he really has the high gear we might hope from a 1-2 overall pick. If it's any consolation, I don't really think Hischier is going to reach that level either. Lindblom I think should play again too. I'm just not sure when or what we'll get when he does. Morin I think is probably done. Even if he does get back on his skates, he's just had too many set backs. I feel like he's probably done.

At this point, I'm including them. Lindblom is about to start fighting for his life. There's really no telling what the future holds for him as a Flyer. How long does it take to recover from cancer treatment and return to NHL-level hockey player form? Certainly I wouldn't think next Oct is very likely, but I guess anything is possible. Patrick remains an injury prone mid-six guy until he proves otherwise. I think it's very fair to write him off as not being the guy we all hoped we would get. He may have some sort of career in the NHL, if he can find a way to stay healthy for any amount of time, but I highly doubt he'll ever be the kind of elite level talent I was talking about in my previous post. That seems very unlikely. Bottom line, as good as those players are, I really was talking about players who are a cut above that line. Even Lindblom with his break out season would likely cap out at a 60-70 pts, not 90-100. Based on previous play, Patrick might cap out around that same range, but even that would mean him taking a step forward from the 40-50 range he's shown early in his career. If we look at the real contenders in the league right now, we'd have: the Caps (Ovechkin, Backstrom, Carlson), Boston (Pasta, Bergeron, Marchand), the Pens (I don't want to type their names in), Colorado (Mackinnon, Rantanen, Makar), Toronto (Tavares, Matthews, Marner), Tampa (Kucherov, Stamkos, Hedman). What do we have that compares to that? Giroux, Couts, Provo? I mean, I like all three of those guys, and I do think they can be part of a contender, but those comparisons are pretty... bad. That does leave some unique teams like STL, Nashville, the Isles, and Vegas, who don't really have that superstar level guy either. Maybe the question we should ask is what do those teams have that we don't? Better centers? Better def? More depth? Coaching? Goaltending? STL and the Isles both play very heavy games, but Nashville and Vegas don't really, and none of the real contenders I mentioned above are very hard hitting. Still, is that something to consider for the 2020-21 Flyers? Maybe we should have kept Radko Gudas.

The Canes have tons of talent imo. The Isles are unique, and I think a lot has to do with coaching in their case. The Stars and Yotes are not contenders. They're bubble at best imo. They may sneak in to the playoffs, but they'll need some sort of miracle to stay relevant once there, and even making the playoffs is hardly a guarantee for either of them.

Who are you thinking, and how would you get them? Who are our biggest trade chips right now? We'd have a couple of young guns: Provo, TK. And a vet core members who would net a good return: Giroux and Couts. So let's say we trade Provo or TK. Plenty of teams would want these guys, as they are building blocks to build a contender with. Provo in particular would be worth a very nice haul. Who would you consider? Giroux would net a good return on a contending team looking for an edge. They'd have to have about 7M in cap space, which isn't bad at all. The return for him wouldn't give us a high first rounder of course, since those contender teams won't have an early 1st round to offer. He'd probably net a late 1st (maybe two) and a solid prospect and mid-six roster player. Is that worth losing him? Maybe. Couts would likely give us more. He's currently in his prime and plays a two-way game teams cry for all the time. We'd have our pick of suitor for him. What would you opt for? Aside from that bunch, none of the rest are going to change the team very drastically. The most likely trade candidates we have are Voracek and Ghost. I honestly think both are gone by next season, which is a good thing imo. But neither of those guys are going to give us that much in return. And what do we need? What is AV's type of player? His most dominant team was easily Vancouver. Those teams relied heavily on a pair of HOF-bound twins and one of the most successful goalies of this generation. Can we trade all of the above mentioned for that kind of trio? Would any team ever give up that type of trio? Let's say we offer Colorado all of Giroux, Voracek, Ghost, TK, Couts, and Provo. Would that get us Mackinnon and Rantanen? If so, would our team be measurably better losing all those guys? I'm with you in that it's obvious they're not going to contend with this current group. I just don't think it's nearly as easy as "move everyone and get the type of player AV needs." EDIT: I forgot to mention Hart in all that. Who do we get for Carter Hart?

I think we may see some of this, but I don't think we'll see a wholesale shift in the roster. Hiring the most experienced coaching staff of the last decade was a win now move, not a possibly be relevant at some point in the next decade move. Problem is the team as it stands is good enough to be a bubble team, which leads us to more mediocrity.

I agree completely. Looking around the NHL, serious contending teams have some remarkable similarities that we just don't share. We've mentioned this before of course, but one big one is the lack of truly elite level talent. Giroux had a couple seasons of that level, but he's really not a 90-100pt per year guy by any stretch, and we have no other players on the roster who project to be at that level. This is really the mediocrity curse the team has battled for some time now. Homer tried to buy his way to contention, which only really saw limited success, and Hexy opted to try to build a more rounded team that didn't require that level of talent. We've seen both approaches and what they lead to. To me, both of those options have been lacking an essential spark. It's not the only factor certainly. There are some contender-relevant teams who don't rely on top level talent (Nashville and Vegas come to mind), but these are anomalies whose success seems very hard to reproduce. When we look at the truly successful teams of the last decade, the pattern is pretty clear. These weren't stacked teams (aside from possibly Washington). They had a few motors driving the team forward, and a bunch of complimentary pieces mostly there to support and not screw up too badly. I hate to say it, but it's entirely possible what this team really needs most is just to suck very badly for a few years to get top three picks, or otherwise to get lucky on a few who turn out to be significantly better than anticipated. Neither of those are recipes for guaranteed success of course, but recent history seems to suggest it's the easiest way to become truly relevant.

Honestly that hit looks fine. Braun’s hospital pass is the only truly questionable thing there imo.

Err... some of us have more than just taken French at school. :cough cough:

That chart is definitely disturbing. I wonder if the increased costs for everything still allow them to come ahead financially in the end though (i.e. make more profit). It may be one of those things that makes sense on the business end in the aggregate but really sucks for individual consumers.

Yeah, and I agree with you for sure. I remember going from "oh, sweet, we got the rights to Hayes" to "yeah okay that contract is a hot mess" in pretty short order, precisely because I felt we were clearly overpaying for what he brings to a team. I do think he could be a 2nd line center (albeit a 45-50pt one), but Frost has been doing well so far, and frankly he has more upside than Hayes, so it makes sense to have Hayes at 3C given the circumstances. But something could happen, and he could be called upon to play the 2C role, and I think it's a good thing to have a guy like him who could play that spot without seeming out of place. By and away, I think the biggest challenge with Hayes is just that folks had unrealistic expectations of what he would bring. 7M for seven years in a locked NMC contract is a major deal that imo should only be reserved for guys who can live up to the term and provide solid production. Hayes is not really that guy, so the challenge of expectations vs reality becomes a problem. Again though, I do like him as a player and like what he brings. And if the team makes a cup run in the next bit while he's still a solid guy to have around, that would go a long way towards making me feel better about the contract, flaws and all.

Sure, to be fair, I was an advocate of his signing. I still think he's a great player to have on the roster. 45pts isn't nothing, and he brings solid possession play and defensive acumen, both of which are things great teams tend to have. The contract for Hayes is not good, but I'm plenty fine with the player, at least for this season and likely the next couple as well. I do absolutely think the contract will become an albatross in a few seasons though. At some point, he will be the new MacDonald. That's the sad reality of it. But for 19-20, 20-21, 21-22 or so, he should be a solid addition to give this team very important depth. It's also worth noting that if the team somehow wins a cup in that time, the overpayment will seem much more worth it. JVR is a garbage shoveler. He's good at standing in front of the net and shoveling in whatever garbage pops on to his stick. He's not the kind of guy who makes Hayes into a 60pt player unfortunately. To do that would require a Giroux, but we really only have one of those, and he's doing fine where he's at.

He has averaged around ~45pts yearly throughout his career, so that's probably about accurate. Again, he could probably get more than that if he had someone like Giroux on his wing, but otherwise I do think that's probably what we should expect from him anyway. He does offer other things of course, as was mentioned here. But in terms of production, a betting man would probably go in around that mark. I've mentioned a number of times before how the problem with Hayes isn't Hayes so much as the expectations set upon him. Asking a consistent 45pt guy to suddenly bump that up to say 60pts without the benefit of a very good player on his line seems like bad expectations to me.

Part of this comes down to winning games of course. Sure, the style of hockey isn't what we grew up watching, and many of us especially in flyersdom will always pine for the olden days, but a lot can be forgiven if the team makes a decent playoff run. The emotion and the jumping out of the chair and the shouting at tvs isn't a thing of the past, it's a thing that emerges when watching a team that actually has a chance to win fighting it out on the ice. The problem is this team for the past whatever has been so lifeless, there wasn't much to jump out of our seats over. Make the playoffs. Beat the pi$$ out of the Pens or something in the first round. That'll go a long ways towards bringing back some franchise luster. I'll settle for beating the Leafs actually. I hate the Leafs.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. There aren't a ton of those in the league now though, and those who are around are either past their prime (like Simmer) or highly unlikely to be moved to begin with (like say Tkachuk). I expect AV would love to have such a guy around also, which is why he held on to Chris Stewart for so long. Given how few there are anywhere, teams aren't super willing to give those guys up.

Is this even possible? You don't trade a guy who has 408pts in 423g who is still in his prime at 26 years old unless the return is huge. Also, he is a hell of a bargain at under 6.7M per year. Johnny Gaudreau would immediately contend for the scoring lead on our team now and likely for several years to come yet. He's making less money for less term than Giroux, Jake, Hayes, and JVR. Of those four, Giroux is the only one who can compete with the guy in terms of production and raw talent, and he's on the back side of 30 at this point. My guess is any trade involving Gaudreau would be sending a substantial amount back. Otherwise it just makes no sense. If Fletch can somehow package Ghost, Jake, or JVR with a 1st for the guy, he should do it in a heartbeat. I like mid to late 1st round picks as much as the next guy, but I'll take the sure bet top level scorer in Gaudreau any day of the week. That said, I just can't see it happening. If Gaudreau is moved, it'll be for a king's ransom. A mid-six roster player, bottom pairing dman, and an unknown mid 1st rd pick seems too little for a guy like him. That is, unless he really wants to play for his childhood team and somehow convinced his GM to make it happen. Still, I can't see it. I think the price would be too steep.

I kind of see Lindblom as a more talented Raffl. They're both solid possession guys who are tenacious on the puck and great at doing a lot of little things right. The difference is Lindblom can also score. That said, I don't think Lindblom is a true playdriver. He needs the TKs and the Couts to bring out his talent. Jake is... not the kind of guy who really makes other players better.

I agree with you. That said, I agree with @brelic in that this league is highly likely to continue pruning out fighting in the coming years. As far as lower leagues go, they will inevitably also follow suit. The writing is on the wall. And as far as the fan base is concerned, we may very well go down as the last of the old school hockey fans. Despite having no emphasis on fighting, other sports that are way more popular than hockey worldwide have absolutely no problem maintaining or even growing a fan base. I honestly think all it will take is time, before fighting in hockey is really just an afterthought for the sport history books. Now, is this what I *want* to see happen? No, not really. But it is what I think seems likely to happen at this point. This is fine, and obviously that's your choice to make. I just don't think making that choice is going to change anything as far as the NHL is concerned. They want to move away from the bruiser mentality (or at least the more dangerous parts of it), and I'm pretty sure they're going to do just that. Again, I'm not saying it's what I want either, but it's going to happen regardless of what I want or think. I also don't think it's going to be a death knell for the sport. I think hockey is very much still alive and well and growing worldwide. It will continue to grow no matter how often we lament on the current state of the game here on these boards.

For sure. A very obvious part of the problem for me is the sheer number of NHL teams. Cut the league by half, and suddenly every team would have enough elite players to beat most olympic teams. With 30+ teams, that’s just not ever going to happen to the sport of hockey without a huge worldwide bump in the playerbase. That’s just boosting the skill factor though. The hitting and fighting bit is another thing entirely. Fighting in particular is just so out of place when looking at the sport in a broader context, it’s very hard to imagine that part of the game surviving another 10 years at the NHL level. The NHL wants to be part of the sporting mythos. Soccer, baseball, football, basketball, friggin cricket. None of those hugely popular sports have a fighting element embedded in them. i should note that I too very much miss watching the hits and fights. I’m not taking myself out if this. I like the violence as much as the next guy. At the same time, I do recognize that: a) today’s society doesn’t tolerate brute force the way we used to; b) getting one’s head bashed in a few dozen times a year is a quick way to end your life in very bad shape. Put another way, I honestly hope no one who frequents this board ever suffers a concussion. I certainly don’t want anyone here to suffer multiple concussions over a fairly short career period mostly in their 20s. Yet, i’m totally fine when i see a huge hit on the ice or a fight. Worse than that even, I enjoy when i see it happen (as rarely as it has become). Again, I do think there’s a difference here between the entertainment value of hockey as an event that involves considerable physical pain, and the athletic value of a sport that is based on teams of players working together to out score their opposition.

This is the thing though, isn't it? We enjoyed the game back then for the same reason some will enjoy boxing or MMA. We like to watch violence. It's emotional and visceral. This is especially true I think of Flyers fans, where the team mythology is so steeped in being bullies who win by virtue of brute force and by imposing physical will. Of course, this isn't truly a combat sport. These aren't trained fighters really -- or at least the vast majority are not. They're elite level athletes not because of their ability to knock people out, but because of their skill on the ice playing a structured game that really is all about making more goals than the other team. More importantly, social acceptance of people getting their brains bashed in is not nearly what it used to be. At the same time, many of us are still drawn to violence like moths to a flame. As hockey fans, we've grown up watching it. It's part of the sport's DNA, and it's a hard thing to let go. That's really despite the fact the game awards exactly zero wins for knocking anyone out on the ice. It's a toss between the kind of twisted but human entertainment value of seeing crushing hits and fights and the interest factor in watching extremely high level athletes working together to win hockey games.

I think that really depends on what we need more, and what kind of player Friedman might be (when healthy). @RonJeremy is right in that what Ghost brings to the team is very limited to essentially rushing the play and being decent on the point during a PP. I think it's very valid to wonder whether that is what we need right now, or if having someone who may be less flashy but more defensively sound would actually make the team better overall. Ghost's primary usage is on the PP. He's no longer on PP1, cause Provo is flat out better all around at this point. He's on PP2 riding shotgun with Niskanen, but would he need to be? Not many teams ice two defensemen on a PP line. Hell, more teams ice five forwards than those that do two defensemen. Of the two, Nisky has been easily better than Ghost. So suddenly Ghost went from being our PP1 QB to being third best at the role. Defensively, he is easily among the worst on the roster, so it's not like he's providing much value there. If anything, he's been a straight up liability on the ice defensively. I'd almost rather put Hayes back there in his place. He's a one-dimentional guy, which can be fine if a team really needs whatever that one-dimention is. I'm just not convinced we do. You're not wrong that it leaves us with only Hagg though. Whether Hagg is worse than Ghost defensively, that I don't know. Neither are very inspiring frankly.

This seems like an expectations issue to me. I think it's totally fair to expect more out of Giroux. He's currently tied for 4th in pts on the team, but it's safe to say most would have expected him to be the team pts leader. That said, I do think keeping him on the wing is a good first step to helping him return to form. All in all, he's still extremely reliable when he's on the ice. He's just not scoring. Having him running on the wing with a shooter of some sort is probably a good way forward. Now, beyond Giroux, our best forwards in my opinion are Couturier, TK, and Lindblom. All three of those guys have been solid all year. I think Lindblom is surprising to me a bit, but it's been a pleasant surprise. Couts has been second best behind Giroux for some time now, and it's entirely possible he still has another gear, so that really shouldn't be shocking anyone. TK has had high potential written all over him since the first month he made the team. He really shouldn't be a surprise either. Farabee is rough around the edges but coming along nicely. Frost had a fantastic first game (the very definition of small sample size, but it's still worth mentioning). On the back end, Provorov is emerging into the best dman we've had since Pronger, and Niskanen has proven to be Fletch's best roster decision by a solid mile (which wasn't guaranteed by any stretch, so it also should be acknowledged). Myers is learning and progressing nicely as well, good enough in fact that he's largely usurped Sanheim as our third best dman right now (partially because Sanheim hasn't had a great start this season, but he's still very young and should be given some time yet). Now, if the expectation is for guys like Hayes, JVR, and Voracek to be our best players, than I would offer that's just not a plausible expectation. All three of those guys are limited players who do certain things well and other things not so well. None of that should be news to anyone though. They've all been remarkably consistent in what they bring to a team throughout their careers, and none of them are youngins who still have room to grow. We all should know exactly what those guys bring to the table. Voracek is currently tied for 4th on the team in scoring, behind only the TLC trio. I would offer that's mostly because TLC has been dynamite, whereas Voracek has been pretty much the same as always. JVR is performing at a rate we should probably expect for a grinder-type who only knows what to do when in the offensive zone (though I would say his lack of PPPs is very concerning to me). And Hayes is not an elite scorer in the NHL. He's a defensive forward, great on the PK and in the dzone who plays a solid puck possession game. Again, I would offer that he is living up to those expectations and providing that skill set. Now, do people expect Voracek to learn to pick a corner, or JVR to figure out what two-way play looks like, or Hayes to learn to score more than his avg ~45ish pts a season? Maybe, but that would be an expectations problem. Are those three making too much money? Well, that's a question for another post. But salary doesn't equate to best player status. Ideally it would, but there are countless examples all around the league where this just isn't the case (hello Nylander!). The Flyers are no different in that regard.

Wasn't that the name of the CIA mind control program from the 60s or whatever?