icehole

44 minutes ago, Cheesesteak said:

"He's regarded as a talented offensive defenseman, but he struggles defensively."

 

Boy, that's something you wanna hear about a guy your team trades for...a Dman who can't play D.  

 

I hate to say it, but the defense of a defenseman isn't that important anymore. Erik Karlson wasn't a good defenseman. Does Makar have great defense (I honestly don't know).  There's a lot of Norris trophy winners that weren't great a defensemen. 

I started reading through this, but there's a lot of reading and I'm not good at reading.  I'm torn on the Johnny G thing.  Whenever it's been mentioned, I initially don't want anything to do with it.  I don't want any tiny guys on this team.  I think size has something to do with disappearing in the playoffs.

However, 115 points is 115 points.  Contract year or not Giroux never had 115.  Sure the price tag will be high.  Sure, they'll be tight on cap.  Who cares.  I hope they go for it every year.  Get the biggest most expensive names you can get under the cap.  If it fails, you might be at the bottom of the league for a while (sounds like a familiar spot)  Maybe a player like that can bring some excitement for once.

Think about this. I'm 41 years old. I don't remember the 80s flyers or most of the 90s flyers. Starting in 2000, this is the first time the flyers will go into a season without a true star on the team (unless they sign or trade for a big star, which nobody expects will happen). They went from Lindros and LeClair to Primeau and Roenik to Foresberg to Carter and Richards and Gagne to Briere and Giroux and Jagr to only Giroux to....a bland team with no expectations. This past season was the first season I ever remember when the flyers had to trade their star for prospects because they're not going anywhere and they don't want to give him another contract

Who's pumped for 2022/23!

Yeah I don't think Tocchet is the answer. His coaching career hasn't really been impressive to this point.

At this point, I don't really care though. If they want to put a goon team together with a goon coach, I'm in. I'll either take a winning team or a goon team. That's where I'm at. The last thing I want to see is a small young team that will slowly develop into a mediocre team.

26 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Did you see the mess Hextall inherited? 

 

He spent his first few years trying to rebuild a totally depleted farm system and getting rid of Homers terrible contracts. he FINALLY got the Flyers a goalie, maybe 2, maybe even 3. That in itself deserves praise. He also got some defencemen, who looked pretty damn good until Fletchers crew "groomed" them. The same could be said about Konecny...and Farabee....Lindblom looked good until cancer. Patricks health. 

 

 I don't think Hextall was great by any means, but he inherited a pile of crap and had it on the rise, albeit slowly (which I had no problem with). Fletcher took over that team on the rise, and after adding a bunch of terrible contracts and old washed up bums, we're picking 4th overall. 

I think a lot of GMs start strong but will eventually fall off. That's why they get fired. If they didn't fall off, they would not get fired. A lot of good teams make bad moves and sign bad contracts to do their best to win. Holmgren is a perfect example of this. He had some success by overpaying and trading assets. Then it came back to bite him, and he got fired. He hit a peak and then fell off.

Hextall picked up the mess, he got about halfway up the peak, and he got stuck there for a while. There are a few players that came from his drafts, but nothing with huge impact yet. Hextall's draft picks range from "he can skate" to "he doesn't look out of place out there". Are there any stars or anything to build around? TK, Hart, Sanheim and Provorov maybe. No superstars to be afraid of. I won't argue goalies because they're only as good as the team in front of them. Defensemen...what do they really have...2 top 4 Defensemen? I like Farabee as a top 6 guy...not a star. Frost has shown nothing. Patrick never looked good. He may have always been injured, but if that's the case, wouldn't you stay away from him at #2?

Once Hextall was fired, Fletcher came in, added bad signings, traded some assets, and here we are.

1 hour ago, radoran said:

Interesting that you note Hextall as the source of all the problems and the first player you list - "Lazy" - is Fletcher's signature move.

 

That was then doubled down on by bringing in his buddies Brassard and Yandle.

 

Fletcher "fixed" the Hextall problem by creating what is one of the worst seasons in franchise history.

 

Heckuvajob.

Hextall was the start of the problems. I'm not defending Fletcher...he hasn't done a very good job either. Fletcher signs bad contracts and Hextall drafts bad players. It's a bad combination for success. 

1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

I posted a portion of the article that explains his point on the first page of this thread.  It's long but kindly take 4 minutes and read it.

 

Failing to account for the metrics and the fact that Ristolainen is a 3rd pairing player who hits but paying him like he is more is the culture that isn't working.

Filling a 2 year problem with a 7 year contract is the culture that isn't working.

Thinking that signing guys to large contracts because the team has money hasn't worked since the cap...That was/is part of the culture that has borne not much in the way of success.

Where you're getting Charlie doesn't like toughness from I don't know?

Toughness has to play in today's league. He knows that.

Toughness without skill is the lottery.

 

I agree with most of what you're saying, and I'm not trying to defend the Risto extension. I think it could be a bad move just because he's not good enough to deserve that extension. 

To be honest, I didn't read the article at first. I just went through the first couple of paragraphs and I found what I assumed to be Charlie's view on culture.

"the Flyers doubled down on him, paying him like a solid second pair defenseman when every objective metric grades him out as a third-pair guy at best. The reason? Well, it’s true that Fletcher has liked Ristolainen as a player dating back to his time in Minnesota. But it’s a near-certainty that Ristolainen’s size and physical style of play was a major factor. And it’s also a near-certainty that the older voices in the brain trust were very much in favor of bringing back a player who screams the traditional notion of what Flyers hockey should be."

His problem with the signing is that the Flyers did it because of his size and physical style of play. Then he goes onto say the "older voices in the brain trust were very much in favor of bringing back a player who screams the traditional notion of what Flyers hockey should be." Thats the narrative I don't agree with. For one, the flyers haven't signed a player like Risto for a while...this isn't the norm. Secondly, there isn't a problem with signing a player like this if he can actually play...those players do exist. And third, there's nothing wrong with ex flyers that are tied in with the team and city and worked under Snider running the team. The older voices in the braintrust brought a lot more success than we've seen in the past 8 years.

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I didn't read the article. But in regards to Risto they just chose the wrong "physical" defenseman in my opinion to hitch their horse to.

 

I agree...and it has nothing to do with culture. It has to do with a GM that doesn't have an eye for the right guy.

10 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Let me say it easier...

 

 

...they've gotten SOFT!

Absolutely. So is that the culture that Charlie is talking about getting away from when he talks about signing Risto? There seems to be a huge misconception of what culture the current team has. Charlie picks one deal to keep a guy that is a little slower and plays physical, and he says "Typical Flyers...gotta get away from this culture".

That's very near sighted and slightly lazy journalism. Maybe next time he can mention throwing snowballs at Santa and talk about cheesesteaks. Maybe he should dig deeper and see that the culture consists of "Lazy" Hazey, "mouth guard" JVR, "frosty" Frost, "chirpy but never fight" Konecny, "hasn't been the same" (no fault of his own) Lindblom, "overhyped" Provorov, "nice kid" Sanheim, and "heart not in it" Hart.

Does that sound like a slow, tough, gritty, grind it out roster?

On 5/1/2022 at 10:59 AM, mojo1917 said:

@icehole

I'm wondering if you missed most of the article's point ?

Sometimes I'll see something in an article that shuts out the flow of information because it made me angry. 

I know you're not going to tell me the last 2 years of Flyers hockey have been successful, fun and interesting. 

My take away from this article was there is a disconnect between reality and the perceived "Flyers way" aka culture. 

This team hasn't played "Flyers hockey" since the Lindros era, almost 25 years ago. The league, players and team have all changed dramatically since then. Where the culture is getting in the way is by failing to recognize this and adapt. 

From the types of players the organization picks to the insistence that a roster of mismatched and middle talent players can be fixed with a shrewd move or two. Those ideas are hold overs from a time that is long past. 

 

 

I guess that's where my idea of "Flyers Hockey" differs from others. These past years have not been fun, and it definitely wasn't Flyers hockey. But I don't think it ended in the Lindros era either. They played tough up until Hextall came in. Emery rag dolling holtby. Simmonds was once the most feared fighter in the league. Rinaldo (everyone's favorite) could really hit.

I believe that's what Charlie and others are trying to get away from. You can be fast and skilled and keep toughness. You can hire ex flyers and be successful. I just hate when they bash a style that brought lots of fun and success to this organization. In my opinion they have gotten away from Flyers hockey, and that's why they are where they are.

1 hour ago, CoachX said:

They are. Problem is, they aren't physical either

Exactly. People associate physicality with slowness. So now that they aren't physical, they must be fast and skilled right? The previous culture had toughness and skill. They never had a ton of speed.

On 4/30/2022 at 7:54 PM, pilldoc said:

In your opinion what exactly is “back to Flyers” culture? Please define what that culture looks like? Thanks….

I apologize if I didn't read this from Charlie, but when I hear "change Flyers culture", it usually refers to Paul Holmgren, Bobby Clarke, and Ed Snider. It's about getting away from hiring ex flyers to run the team. It's about getting away from the physical game the Broad Street Bullies were known for. It's about thinking they're too slow and unskilled to compete.

The flyers have changed that culture, and that puts them where they are today. I have a hard time wanting to change that culture when it brought winning and excitement. Clarke and Holmgren made some big mistakes, but I was excited for any one of those teams more than any of the flyers teams I've watched since Hextall started to rebuild it. The 2012 flyers looked like they were on fast forward compared to 2022. The team hasn gotten slower, less physical, and less skilled since then. But everyone was excited at the time because Hextall brought a new culture from his time in LA.

And now, there are some that want to move even further away from the old flyers culture. They don't want Rick Tocchet as coach because he played for the flyers. They don't want Danny Briere as GM because he played for the flyers. Those two guys might not be qualified for the job, but don't discard them because they played on the team. I sure would love to have that guy that coaches Carolina.

So my idea of flyers culture is exactly what the flyers did before Hextall. There's nothing wrong with it and it worked. They don't have to be afraid to be physical either. There's a reason Ryan Reeves always seems to find a winning team. There's a reason Pat Maroon has won a few cups. There's a reason Florida had a fight last week. Physicality still has a purpose. Fletcher may be trying to add that with a player like Risto, but he hasn't done a very good job at it. Risto can be physical but he doesn't have the energy level, speed, or smarts to be effective. 

The problem with the Charlie O'Conners of the world bashing Flyers culture is that the culture they bash is the culture that brought winning. This isn't Flyers culture that we're seeing today. This is Hextall's mess that Fletcher tried to fix, but he isn't doing a very good job. They both have completely different approaches. Neither one is wrong, but neither of them was able to make the right moves. Hextall failed at building through the draft, and Fletcher failed at signing the right FAs.

They need to get back to Flyers culture. Maybe the smart move for the franchise would be to build slowly and not spend money on high price FAs. I can't wait through that though. I'm 41 and need to see some winning soon.

My brother showed me a Facebook post showing when teams like Carolina and Florida were picking at the top of the draft. He was basically saying that things will turn around like it has for those teams. That post was from 2013. If the flyers turn it around like those teams did, they'll be good when I'm 50. That's really depressing. 

13 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

 It's not Fletchers worst trade. It's not even close. It's the fact that he seems to give the other team the better deal every...single...time. That's how he's taken an up and coming Flyer team...all the way to 4th from the bottom of the league...while somehow trading away youth and draft picks. And adding multiple bad long term contracts.

 

 If this was one of the few bad trades he made maybe people wouldn't be so frustrated. But it's come to be expected.

 

 And if Giroux said he'd only go to one team what was with his comment about Florida being at the top of his list? A list isn't one team. 

 

 Why do so many of his trades need explaining on why he didn't get value out of it?

 

 It's pretty sad when one of your GMs best trades of all time is Brassard for a 4th.

I don't want to defend Fletcher, because the state of the team speaks for itself.  I just don't know if he could've done anything more than what he did here.

I'm a fantasy GM so I don't get into who got the better "value" or what lower level prospects and picks are involved (unless they are starting a rebuild...that's when picks and prospects are important). Chucks problem isn't giving up picks and prospects and getting less value in a trade. His problem is he just doesn't find good players. He brings in Hayes and JVR (I think that was a chuck move). Two of the laziest players in the NHL. Atkinson and Risto are OK. Yandle is horrible. I don't even know who the guy with the long beard is.

This team still has a lot of Hextal stank on it though. TK is underwhelming. Provorov has dropped of. Hart is average. Hagg and Myers are gone. Sanheim is average. Frost can't even make the team.  This was the highest ranked farm system at one point.

13 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Lol yes, but don't worry. All roads here are circles.

 

 

The Giroux trade kind of stinks in the "what could have been" way, but Fletcher seems to have gotten as good as he was going to under the circumstances. 

 

This isn't really the place for the comment, I guess, but I'm still more upset about the Risto signing. Especially given the picks that were flying off the shelves for dmen.  The other two moves today weren't exciting, but they were decent.

I was actually OK with the Risto signing when it happened. He has played OK on a defense that is garbage. After he signed, I feel like his play has gone downhill. My biggest problem with the signing now is there is no reason for it. They should be in rebuild mode and shouldn't be handing out long contracts.

I want to torch Hextal because this is mostly his fault. He half-assed a tank. He accumulated picks and prospects while refusing to make any big signings. But for some reason he kept giroux and voracek. Trade giroux 5 years ago and maybe we wouldn't be complaining about not getting much back in return. Maybe we'd have a good young team at this point. Instead we must trade one of the best players to play for the flyers for a few picks and a 3rd liner.

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Panarin and what?  Go big or go home, I always say.

 

We need a center, so I would think Panarin and Zibby would have been minimum.

Well, a good GM could have gotten a few firsts and a few second rounders.

3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

The same reason the 1929 stock market crash was Fletcher's fault!  What is wrong with you?!  This is the hate zone!   Reason and logic was several exits back.

 

Sorry, no U-turns.

I'm down for some Fletcher torching but this is not the time. I'm also down for Hextal torching...did I miss that exit?

18 minutes ago, MaineFlyFan said:

To the Rangers!

 

And...... Discuss.

Once again Fletcher got taken. I expected Panarin in return...at least.

2 hours ago, pilldoc said:

If and when Giroux is traded from the Flyers ......  (Assuming here that he will be traded sometime this weekend)

 

Where do you rank Giroux with the All Time Great Flyers Forwards? (do not include goalies or D-men)

What will you remember about Giroux ...face it, good or bad he has left his mark on this franchise for years to come.  

 

What is your rank from 1-12 of All Time Great Flyer Forwards?

 

My ranking:

1. Bob Clarke (player only! Not as a member of the FO)
2. Bill Barber
3. Eric Lindros
4. Tim Kerr
5. John LeClair
6. Claude Giroux
7. Rick MacLeish
8. Brian Propp
9. Rod Brind' Amour
10. Mark Recchi
11. Simon Gagne
12. Reggie Leach
13. Rick Tochett (I really want to put him higher but where?)

Thoughts?

I love this topic. Unfortunately, I started watching toward the end of Kerr, and I was probably too young to know what he meant to the team. I have Clarke at 1, only because of the stories I've heard. Lindros at 2 because he was so dominant. I have Giroux at 3, and he might be the most "talented" flyer I've ever seen. If Lindros was Giroux's size in an era where goals are sometimes hard to come by, I don't think he would have been as good as Giroux.

The rest is pretty much up in the air for me. There were some good ones like LeClair and Brimdamour and tochett but I don't think they had an impact like Giroux did. It's such a shame they wasted much of his career.

12 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

 

 

 

Everyone seems to forget, IMHO, "the" player who helped Giroux attain those points ... --->J. Jagr (19G, 35A = 54 PTS).

 

Though he only scored 54 points, he was very instrumental in developing Giroux that season.  I have said it before and I will continually say it again and again.  The BIGGEST mistake this or-gani-zation ever made was not bringing back and resigning Jagr for the next season.  Jagr was THE perfect role model for Giroux to further develop.   But no ....the Flyers moved on from Jagr after 1 year.  Dumb ... Dumb ... Dumb......

I loved Jagr and wouldn't have been mad if they signed him that year. However, at that time, just making the playoffs and maybe winning a round wasn't the expectations. They were expected to do more. I think Jagr showed his age in the playoffs. I remember watching him play for Boston then, and he just didn't have anything left in the playoffs.

So I didn't think it was a terrible move when they let him walk.

14 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Yeah that was the last year Bob was here.

 

The forwards were deep and skilled.

 

Pronger was the Captain but for only 13 games and his career was over.

 

That was not an easy one to lose.

 

So instead of Kimmo getting the C the handed to a not ready Claude Giroux and it has slid backwards ever since.

I just think Holmgren gets too much criticism on here. I get it...he gave up on the future a few times, but he seemed to get good return. This entire team, besides giroux, JVR, and Bob was constructed by trade/FA.

I'm going to dive into what he gave up, but this team had a very good Briere, old but still good Jagr, older but still effective Pronger, young Giroux, timmonen, hartnell, young schenn, young Simmonds, young voracek, and young JVR. This wasn't a team of Paul Coffee and Adam Oats. He was able to put together a team of 2 contributing HOFers, vets that were close to prime, and young guys that would go on to have pretty good careers. Compared to the state of the team today, Holmgren did pretty good, and we got to see some pretty good hockey.

9 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

The year they fooled us all...

 

 

...I really thought maybe they were building something that was heading in the right direction.

Couple things I get from this video:

1. Man we had it good 10 years ago

2. This team was tough and highly skilled

3. Was this team put together by the most hated man on this forum?

4. Where has this team gone since Ronnie took over shortly after?

14 hours ago, MaineFlyFan said:

$50 says Giroux is taking the opening faceoff, opening night, at the WFC next year....

 

Come on? Whose gonna bite!?

If there is a way trade giroux at the deadline for a decent package and resign him for a discounted rate, I'd be all over it. He is still the best player on this team, has been forever, and in my opinion he's a top 5 (at least) player that ever wore the orange and black. If they want to play the "if we didn't have so many injuries and covid" card, and they think they are 2 pieces away in a healthy season, Giroux can still be a main piece.

We don't think that it true though. I want a tear down. That could still include Giroux but I feel like it would be a waste of his talent to be on a team that's starting from scratch.

On 3/4/2022 at 1:58 PM, CoachX said:

yeah, I don't think so. Don't poke the sleeping Bear. Philly is a passionate sports town. It's still a hockeytown, but the fans are smart enough to know you can't piss down our back and say its raining. This isn't a fair weather town. No way. No Sir. Watch what happens if they bring a tough as nails, offensive wizard in. If and when this franchise decides to pull Holmgren's head out of Clarke's ass, you will see those same fans. We are all still here. Dormant. Lying under the surface just waiting for a reason

If and when the team gets good again, hockey fans will come out. That's just how major sports work though. The question is will it ever be enough to take over any of the other major sports in popularity? I don't think it will. Football obviously not. Baseball is slow and boring most of the time, but people gravitate to it for other reason such as nice weather and socialization. Flyers are essentially competing with the sixers.

And they're losing...badly. During the process, attendance was low. The team was really bad. But you know what, people talked about how low attendance was. People talked about how bad the team was. People talked about the tank. Groups of nerds gathered to support the tank. Everyone has just given up on the flyers. They don't care to talk about it.