aziz

sorry, double post, because I'm dumb.

And that's the twist, right? A team of jobbers can't have people taking shifts/periods/games off, because then they miss the playoffs. But if NOT taking those times off inevitably leaves them DOA come May.... Is that how it works, though, and I've just never put it together? Have most cup winners been noted as having a bunch of guys coasting now and then through the season, and the coach unconcerned (or even encouraging)? Does it mean the real secret to success isn't having an amazing top 6, but having an excellent bottom 6 that can allow the top 6 to conserve energy throughout the season? Does the same apply to the d-corps?

This is a really interesting idea I'd not thought of before. Asking for a blue collar 100% effort out of 18 skaters, 60 minutes a game for 82 games is maybe NOT the greatest approach ever. Let them pace, let the third and fourth lines eat time to cover for slow night from the top 6, allow for slow nights from the top 6. Allow some players to play a 90 foot game now and then. Basically, allow the players to see the season as a long journey they don't have to be killing every minute along the way. And a journey with extra distance to go at the end, should things turn out well. It's an interesting idea. It makes some sense, and it does explain what we've seen of Tort's results for the last two decades. Has anyone noticed successful teams coming off the throttle throughout the season in this way? I can't say that I have, but then I've never really watched for it. Nor have I followed any particular team other than the flyers game in/game out through a season. Then again...it could explain that 09-10 finals run. They definitely took long naps through that season. Would you accept a team that regularly has players/lines taking shifts/periods/games off, if there was some idea it'd pay off in the long run? Interesting idea.

I *think* the settlement was with Hockey Canada, not the players. Could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting. So, two separate things about the same situation.

this is why I've always said building through the draft exclusively (or almost so) is a bad call. these are children, 17 in most cases, no way of knowing how they are going to turn out. some will throw tantrums and be unworkable. what a mess

Fair enough. Demographers began predicting a general invasion of Ukraine ten years ago, based on their collapsing population/age ratios. And those predictions have come true. The predictions also indicated the ultimate goal would be to re-establish the territorial boarders of the USSR, securing geographic positions that would be more defensible than the open steppe of Russia proper. Two of those geographic positions are in Poland and the Baltics, with Crimea being another. All would be required (plus more to the east). You are right, though, they are all just predictions and projections. That would also almost certainly mean a nuclear exchange between the two sides. A desperate man who does not wish to die, but whose hold on power (and in Russia, that also means an increasing threat to his life) is in jeopardy, might very well believe the West would rather let Poland fall than poke a nuclear-armed bear. "We defend Poland and many millions will die, we find some kind of Molotov–Ribbentrop situation where Poland is cut up and no one dies." What would the West choose? Just saying, the things we've thought unthinkable for the last 30 years were only unthinkable for the last 30 years. It is not "normal", over the course of history, for those things to be unthinkable. And we are returning to the norm.

Mostly true. I would suggest Russia's attitude towards corrupting systems to suit momentary desires and lack of caps on what they pay their players are facts, as is Russia's recent and dramatic change of focus from impressing on the international stage to re-establishing internal stability. None of these bode well for making an exodus of talent to the west easy, but you are right: they don't prove anything, or rule anything out. Definitely. I'd also suggest you have no more "facts" than I do. Arguably less, but only arguably. Neither of us know what is going to happen, I just don't see any reason to think things working out well are more than 50-50. We'll see.

Russian politics and related things are now entirely internalized. If Putin could somehow force Ovechkin back to Moscow, he would. Presenting the Russian people with excellence in-person is now way more effective and desirable in sustaining his position than saying, "hey, we sent him to the west and he is doing great." Really, players going west undermines his position, as it means the only way for a hockey player to really prove himself is to not be in Russia. Which is true, and always has been. Where it used to be that the "we beat them in their own system" thing was valuable, it now begs the question, "what is wrong with our system that they have to go elsewhere and play for American fans?" Again, things are no longer as they have been. Yes, be afraid. We've lived a global situation that was unprecedented, has never been seen before in the history of the planet. Since 1945, generally, but specifically over the last 35 years. Globalization's sharing of wealth and resources across increasingly theoretical national boarders did amazing things we can't really appreciate, given our built-in perspectives. We grew up in it, and it feels like the normal way things are done. But it isn't. "Normal", geopolitically and historically speaking, is not one of unified cooperation and purpose. It is conflict and jealousy. Some areas are showing that breakdown more than others. Russia is leading the way. China will follow soon. None of this is meant to predict what is going to happen. Only to say if your prediction is based on how things have worked for the last 40 years, they aren't based on current reality. Personally, I think whether and when Michkov comes over will come down to his personal ideals; where he ultimately wants to play and where his "allegiances" are. His first NHL contract will be capped around $1mil/year, with bonuses not exceeding 10% of the total value of the contract. Which is itself limited to 3 years. His first contract will be 3 years at $1mil, he could make $3.3mil total. Some oligarch that wants to impress Putin with how he is protecting the motherland and her assets, and offers him $3mil/year, what do the Flyers do? What if the offer is $8mil/year? How good is the kid? Slide the scale to match. How could the Flyers/NHL match? He could be offended at how Russia decided to be the vanguard of the collapse of sporting globalization and want out. That'd put him in the Flyers' hands, maybe sooner than hid KHL contract suggests (because those negotiated agreements are going out the window). Or, he could be a proud Russian offended at how diminished his nation's reputation has become and decide to stay around to show the Russian people how amazing their own product is. Plus accepting a gigantic (and prohibited in the NHL) contract offered to him by a guy stinking of day old vodka and money laundering. It's a very weird time to be alive, people. Expect to be surprised in all kinds of directions over the next decade. Things will not be as they have been. Still like the draft pick, but it's one of the more "who can say, call it 50/50" picks I've seen.

Things are decidedly NOT fine in Russia, aside from the war. They are not fine now, and will get worse over the next 10 years, again regardless of the war. Russia is in a terrible existential situation for a number of reasons, from demographics to an education system that effectively collapsed 25 years ago to an aging industrial base that cannot be rebuilt due to the aforementioned educational situation. Life in Russia could be very good for some people, so long as they know the right other people. it's gonna suck really bad for everyone else. Michkov has the opportunity to know the right other people. We'll see where his priorities end up. Also, my prediction if the Ukraine does full-on lose the war, Poland will be next. Ukraine was never the point, strategic geography in Poland and the Baltics are. Ukraine is just on the way to those. The fighting over the last 15 years in Georgia and Crimea were for the same reasons (though different strategic locations). Again, don't carry any of the "that's how nations deal with each other" we've come to expect since the USSR collapsed forward. They aren't relevant anymore in that part of the world.

Why would you say that? Who would stand to be embarrassed or threatened by refusing to allow a high profile player leave Russia to play elsewhere? I don't think any kind of public outcry from any quarter would stop someone from doing that if that was what they wanted. I mean, international pariah-hood didn't stop Russia for starting the first major land war in Europe since WWII, why would anyone of a Russian mindset balk at blocking a hockey player's exodus? There's the defection thing, like you mentioned. Which would require Michkov to want to defect. Oligarchs can make your life really really nice if they decide convincing you to stay is a priority. And can make your family's lives really not fun were you to go anyway. Assume the international niceties we've come to expect from the last 40 years to not matter anymore, in regards to Russia. They are done playing that game and are trying to start a brand new one. And we don't know what that will look like, but we do know the psychology that will birth it.

wow, really is a small world, I graduated high school in Va Beach in '92, my parents and brother still live there. either of you ever play at Iceland, right off Va Beach Blvd near the Norfolk boarder?

I...don't think that's a thing. I've been out of the loop for a bit, but that seems on its face to be a not-thing. You have a contract, it either gets paid over its negotiated course, or you buy it out, at 2/3rds of the remaining value, spread over twice the remaining term for cap-hit purposes. The only exception I can think of is retirement. Retirement can void a contract, I think, but there are consequences. One being a mandated amount of time out of the league (I *think* it's just one year, and then you can un-retire, but again, it's been a while). There is no "we waived him, no one claimed him, so now his contract goes away". The NFL has that, the NHL does not. Here's the thing, people: draft rankings are based on children playing against children. Yes, they may play some against 20 year-olds (who are only still in junior because they aren't good enough to not be), but they've not stood against 29 year old NHL vets, players a decade removed and refined from the diluted talent of major juniors. The evaluation has huge blind spots. Some percentage of the time, things just don't play forward from there as you'd expect. Dude didn't live up to expectations at all, and the Wings lost patience, and want him gone, for whatever reason. The weird thing here is, like I said before, there's no cap relief from demoting him. Which means there isn't really any point to waiving him, other than A)he's that bad, and is in the way of better up and coming players, and you need the roster spot, or B)please please please someone claim him.

waiving him doesn't remove the cap hit, it's a one way deal. so taking him on is taking his contract on, for the next two seasons. and his numbers aren't great, but that's all i have to go on. maybe diamond in the rough? or, high pick bust? looks a bit like the latter, and it seems most team scouts agree, but they are wrong most of the time, so hey. in the end, a team would be limiting some cap availability for a couple of years in exchange for a maybe-but-probably-not. i agree, i don't know why the flyers wouldn't, you know, take a flyer there. it isn't like they plan on doing anything with $1.8mil of cap space in the next two years. why not try?

dude, and those chairs don't last forever..............

Yes, but that is already down from the pre-war revenue of $87bil. In fact, their 2022 profits were down to $16bil (all in the first half of the year, they made literally nothing in the second). They aren't allowed to sell externally. Or, more exactly, western-aligned countries won't buy from them (nevermind their pipelines being bombed). Let this situation fester for another year or two, and let a tanker or two run into pirates the west won't defend them against, and Gazprom's customer base becomes Russia and Belarus. A far cry from the income when they serviced all of Europe and China. Really, hockey aside, Russia is in very real trouble as a functional 21st century nation. Pre-industrial realities are not off the table. Like, a neo-feudal situation run by oligarchs-cum-warlords. Anyone that can leave, will leave.

exactly. Think early '30s USSR, but with the industrial base deteriorating rather than growing. Could be a really ugly scene, and one that won't be attractive to people with a ticket west.

The thing is, Russia is likely to be a profoundly different place in a few years. And not in a good way. Between crippling sanctions, a likely political implosion, and the ongoing demographic collapse, fair chance Russia ends up a really not fun place to be for just about anyone by the time his current deal expires. Gonna be really hard to predict how things like this will play out.

^^^

I'd be curious what fans of other teams think about this. Obviously no one would mistake Hayes for a high end player, but he is a pretty consistent .6+ p/g. By no means elite, but those are legitimate 2/3C numbers. He probably would have had 20 goals and 40 assists on a slightly better team last year, and that's not nothing. Would $3.5mil for a 60 point player *really* be a stretch for someone not a flyers fan, such that more sweeteners would be needed?

fwiw, i think that's exactly part of tort's approach: his personality will override the players, in situations where the player's personality conflicts with the coach's plan. a coach's philosophy is in a large sense a manifestation of his personality, and a team's structure and deployment is built from that. if that coach has a player that insists on manifesting his own "-ness", that is a problem. a fly in the ointment. sand in the oil. if torts put the dude out game after game, and he refused to play ball, resulting in the 26th worst +/- in the league, yeah, bench the a**hole (full disclosure, i have a real problem with defensemen that "lead" their team in negative +/-). that guy isn't playing a team game. that's the thing with torts, he doesn't tend to see the game as being won by big numbers, he sees the game being won by collective effort, 18 skaters on the same page. naive? maybe. i can't help but support it, though. 18 mediocre players can do impressive things, if they are on the same page. they HAVE to be on the same page, though. anyone not buying in....... go-my-own-way players like TDA and hayes, they deserve no time on a team desperate for an identity. they are the opposite of a team concept. yes, they may be able to help a team with a rock solid core, as plug-ins around the edges. they do not, however, offer anything worth building around, and represent an actual obstacle to that end. torts benching TDA changes nothing about him in terms of trade-worthiness. no one is or was stupid enough to think he was a trade-off-free add to their team. then and now, it is and was understood he will hurt you badly taking regular shifts, but can help in very specific situations. a team with the luxury of building around those situations will see him as valuable now as they did before his benching. there was never any way to showcase him as anything else. his team leading -27 was achieved while dressing, after all. the point is: yes. torts instigated a personality pissing match with his overpaid players. and frankly, good. the point of a coach is to establish a team identity, and get players to buy into and execute it. players like hayes and TDA don't do that. they play their own game, regardless of demands, feedback or results, and so see pine. to my mind, that's exactly correct. torts didn't destroy TDA's trade value. TDA did that all by himself. torts just stopped letting him hurt the team further. right on. and that is best for the franchise. edit: i should add, the team-before-name approach doesn't work very well with legitimate star players. in those cases, that/those players actually should advise the team's character, and torts doesn't do well with that. if you have a lineup of jobbers, he's really the guy to have at the helm. if you have standouts on the team, though, players that really move the needle at a league-wide level, probably need to find someone else. if the flyers pull through with their 6.5% chance at bedard, for example. would make for a really interesting offseason for briere, because i don't know the coach and the marque would be well matched.

but -and i don't mean to be argumentative, but- how? A GM will obviously have access to other GMs. Knowing players by first name, I guess that can help, maybe. What else? What contacts are there that would be advantageous to a GM? He has his scouts, he has his coach, and everyone outside of his team is either an adversary or an opportunity. What do "contacts" mean? How do they translate to making good decisions about current and future rosters? I'm not saying they don't, just asking how do they? I feel the role is clouded in mystery and backrooms, but I see very little of that translating to on-ice impact. Seems to me smart deals are smart deals, clever strategies are clever, and the number of people you can call by their first name is irrelevant.

@mojo1917 fair enough, you're right, he has some experience there. Not particularly great results, but he's been there, anyway. You point out a real problem, though: how do you identify a GM candidate who hasn't been a GM for an NHL team before, or at least high up in an NHL organization? And even then, "experience" high up in an organization doesn't mean that person did anything of value while in that spot. A lot of people like Mellanby were handed jobs that show experience, but give no clues as to expertise. Briere is now the "interim GM" for the Flyers. Whether he gets the job for real or not, that's on his resume, and puts him on a short list of candidates for other GM gigs. There is no objective reason to think he has any idea what he's doing, but he's had the title for a bit, so that puts him over the top. It isn't like there's a college degree about managing an NHL team. What qualifications other that having already done the job are there? How do you find new talent for that role? What parameters are there for the General Manager of an NHL team? I am sure there are literally tens -if not hundreds- of thousands of people out there who know enough and are smart enough to be absolutely brilliant in that job, but there is no effective way of finding them. "Did he play in the NHL" seems to be the only metric anyone can find, and that's a useless measure. I'll be honest: if I were a team President, I'd be looking at forums exactly like this. At least to build perspective. The current litmus test of, "has the hockey world heard of this guy, and has he proven himself in an unrelated role to said hockey world" is worthless. My ego being as tiny as it is, I think I'd make a great GM. As would others on this site. Not to mention all of the other deep hockey forums across the continent. None of those people have credentials, as the only recognized credentials are having done it already. Or impressed people with their point totals 15 years ago. The salient requirements for an NHL GM are: 1. understands hockey 2. understands the current meta of the NHL game 3. is able to project forward how the meta might shift 4. is analytical and thoughtful as to the holistic composition of an NHL team 5. is clever enough to leverage the language of the standing CBA to best effect, both immediately and over the course of a proposed contract 6. is a strong and cunning negotiator, able to find the most profitable exchange when trades are required 7. able to walk away when a profitable exchange cannot be secured 8. understands the timing and opportunities of the various touchpoints of a season: how to handle pre-season rosters, first day rosters, pre-trade freeze rosters, trade deadlines, post-elimination, pre-draft, post-draft, FA expirations. These all represent opportunities for advantage. Advantage can't be found in all, but certainly some. And walk away from those that do not. And....that's it. That's what makes a successful GM. None of those are the skills of a hockey player. None of those are reserved to people that put up good numbers as a winger. Several people on this site have those. It's a deeply weird thing, where probably the best people for that particular job have no previous experience as employees of the NHL or one of its franchises. But how do you sell some career IT guy in Virginia to the executives and the public as the team's next GM? I included myself in the above, but probably shouldn't have. The point is the most capable people to do that specific job likely haven't done anything resembling that job before, or have any professional attachment to the league/game. The "you have to be highly visible in NHL circles already" limitation placed on candidates means teams are almost always working with a hugely reduced candidate pool. A candidate pool qualified by a quality that has nothing to do with managing a team. The people most likely to do the best job in that spot are likely way way way outside of consideration for that job. And that means it will always be a sh|tshow that occasionally works, and often makes us all laugh. So long as it remains insular, so long as "have the fans heard of him" remains a requirement, the GM spot for any team may or may not be filled by a person actually capable of answering the 8 points above. And in most cases, messes will follow.

Not really, he smells way more like a Panther than a Flyer, but.... He DOES have too much "why would you even consider him" stink, imo. There is absolutely zero about being a hockey player that has anything to do with being a hockey executive, other than a basic understanding of the game. And Mellanby's understanding of the game is really specific to three decades ago. Why do you bring him up?

Or, you incorporate it, but as a seasoning for the meal, rather than being the meal itself. Boston does a good job of maintaining that "Bruins" identity they've always had -not far from Philly's- but as a take on the meta, not in favor of the meta. They bring in high end skill, but favor high end skill that comes with some attitude. The high end skill is still the first consideration, the attitude comes second at best. I DON'T want to see a Flyers team of delicate high speed stick handling flowers. But it isn't a binary, it isn't one or the other. You can build a team -Boston is a good example- of highspeed stick handlers that sometimes punch a guy in the mouth.

this is really interesting, factoring in when-in-the-season for inter-conference games. I'd be into someone exploring bulking inter-conference games to the middle of the season, leaving the start and end as intra-conference play. That makes a ton of sense to me. Have rival teams see each other early and often, and then see each other again late as they are competing against each other for standings. The middle of the season sees a lot of cross-conference play as those teams position themselves, but then back to putting your own hands on the throats of your rivals. No idea what logistical nightmare that might be, but a really interesting idea. Love it.