vis

Agree with that! (Btw, not saying you were one of the folks saying that.)

My comment was a poke at the folks who say Chuck Fletcher was a "good ol' boy" hiring citing ties to Clarke in 1992.

Somewhat of a non-sequitur, but I just read that Rick Wilson played college hockey and later coached at North Dakota (albeit at different times than when Hakstol was there). Another "good ol' boys network" hiring, I tell ya!!

For sure. Tolerance of that behavior rises and falls in accordance with success (or lack of). I certainly think the "toxic" part made it easier for them to part ways. I initially questioned how much of that kind of talk was just spin, but it certainly seems like there is some fire to that smoke. Lol, I hear you. Thought I read somewhere that Hakstol was at least consulted about the hiring. I do hope we are going to see some different things on the ice, specifically more aggression. Maybe they will even practice a little harder. Point is, I wonder if Hextall wanted them to play a safer game and Hakstol will now have the chance to coach the way he wants. After all, Hakstol was touted as always having aggressive, hard-working teams. No one would describe this team that way. The fact that Clarke (or whoever) talked with Hakstol before Hextall was fired and the fact that Hakstol had a hand in firing Murphy leads me to believe that the org sees Hakstol as a victim of Hextall's reign and not as an accomplice. If Homer & Crew thought Hakstol was an issue, he would have been fired along with Hextall. That's not to say that Fletcher won't decide to can him anyway...

Sure. My comment above was more about timing. Of course, I expect there to be activity as the deadline draws near . But I am not expecting him to trade a slew of players in the next two weeks. That was my point. I don't think they trade anyone in the "core" given the mandate to "win" now. However, none of them are untouchable in my opinion. That's my point. I don't think Ghost or Sanheim can "destroy" or win cups on their own. That's a bit of hyperbole. On the flip side, what if one of them brought back players that could "destroy" or win a cup here? You wouldn't make a move like that? Well, he's been hurt most of the season. Don't think that's the "narrative" at all. I think the complaint has been that he's too beholden to prospects and to the "future" than the present. You realize GMs can make trades, right? That not all player acquisitions come through the draft or via FA? You realize that when teams underperform, that GMs seek to upgrade or make changes in the middle of the season via trades, right? Especially where there are glaring holes in the lineup. Yes, and in year 5 his team was almost dead last in the league with little to no improvement. That's damning. The team should have been performing much better than it is at this point. This question has been asked and answered. Search under my posts. I don't think anyone faulted him for not getting Panarin. But I can see how saying that fits your "narrative." Look, I'm not in love with the idea of Fletcher. But I'm not dismissing him either. George McPhee failed the Capitals for years. But he went on to build a great Vegas team. Dean Lombardi didn't win **** in San Jose before going to LA. Jim Rutherford won a cup in Carolina, but many thought he was washed up before he joined the Pens. Just because a guy didn't have great success doesn't mean he can't find it somewhere else. He's not a good head coach no matter how many times you try to say it. Last thought on Hextall: Have you ignored all the other reports about how "toxic" the environment had become under Hextall? Do you not think that played a role, if not a primary role? It's one thing to act the way Hextall allegedly did when the team is successfull. You can swing your dick any way you want when you're winning. But the team wasn't winning. And when you're not succeeding, people don't tolerate that kind of behavior. I bet if he fostered a different type of environment and been less of a dictator (if you believe what you read), he'd still be here.

You know, it may not. If he's got any sense about him, he'll watch this team - on and off the ice - and see what he has. Maybe with Hextall removed, this team starts playing to its potential. He still has holes to fill. But maybe we won't see anything too drastic - at least not in the short term. Other than Simmonds, no one wants that trash. If this team continues looking like it has for the better part of the season, I'm open to trading almost anyone from the roster other than Provorov, Konecny and Patrick. He may have known it, but whether he would have done something about it - and done it right - is another story. Depends on a few things. I'm not sure Varlamov or Nilssen are the rights guys with Carter Hart waiting in the wings. I really don't know if they should make a play for Panarin. I think it will cost too much. Yes, all that cap space will go to some important signings this year. Less concerned about Stolarz and Laughton. I think Sanheim gets a reasonable deal. I don't know about Morin and Myers. Morin is going to have a difficult time making it back. I was hoping Myers would be dominant in the AHL, but I'm not sure that's been the case. Any insight? They passed on Zito and they will pass on Keefe. They seem to want established NHL guys. Absolutely not.

Well, one is already here... Seriously, the Leafs are going to have a cap crunch. They need to start figuring things out sooner rather than later. And given his production and contract, it's something I would consider. Yes, I recall that he's a bit of a douche...

I kind of hear you on this. I'm not trying to defend Hakstol that much, but if Hextall has been preventing him from putting his stamp on the team - i.e., playing the way Hakstol wants them to play - is that really a bad reflection on Hakstol? Plus, I have some sympathy for Hakstol because he's been given a **** sandwich in net for years and at times I've wondered how he's been able to get the team to perform given the roster. I'm kind of giving Hakstol a clean slate, actually - for the rest of this year. But, if Q says he wants the job.... I'm cool with that, depending on what goes the other way. The Leafs are crowded down the middle, no? Kadri seems to be the odd man out and he has a reasonable deal. Flyers don't play until Thursday. What are the chances he makes a trade before then?

This is where I am. I hope Fletcher - and Holmgren - have learned from past mistakes and put those lessons to good use. However, I'm not feeling all that great about it.

http://www2.philly.com/flyers/chuck-fletcher-philadelphia-flyers-general-manager-gm-hired-source-20181203.html Should get interesting quick...

Thanks. I wonder if he'll catch on elsewhere. There was such a buzz about him and then he was released. Put up decent stats this past year and still went undrafted.

Thanks. Didn't see this until now. Any significance to jersey numbers? I seem to recall not, but figured I'd ask. Looking forward to hearing reports on Hart, Frost and Allison in particular. Myers should dominate.

Did that Korosenkov kid get drafted this year? Thought he was eligible this year again. Wonder if we will see him invited back. Some stats from this year: Regular Season: 63GP 36G 46A 82PTS 46PIMS +33 Playoffs: 14GP 4G 12A 16PTS 16PIMS +2

Fair points. Good chat.

And I suppose that's the rub. Was this season an outlier, or part of an overall trend? Even if this season is an aberration, is it realistic to expect that his production jumps 12-15 points to where it should be in light of his contract? Honestly, I can't see his production slipping further (of course, I thought that coming into this year as well). But I don't see it increasing to an extent that would justify his cap hit. Bottom line: this is all academic. I'd be shocked if the Flyers would trade Giroux unless they were blown away by the deal or there were other issues at play. But I also think it's a bit of wishful thinking that Giroux will regain 75pt+ performance. I just don't think he'll become a top 10 forward in the league again, even though his contract says otherwise.

@mojo1917 Over the past three seasons, his point totals have decreased from 86 to 73 (-15.1%), 73 to 67 (-8.2%) and from 67 to 58 (-13%). It's three years of decline. I'm not sure where you draw comfort that he will produce an increase in production. They literally signed a player to take away some of his "hard minutes" and his production still fell. Do do you think $8.25m for less than 70 points is value? I could be ok with mid-70s. But that's a 15 point increase over last year. That's seems like a tall order. I hope his production doesn't dip further. I didn't think it would this pst year. But it needs to drastically improve, imo, above where it was the season before this. I don't see a lot of evidence that it will.

@csummers Does declining performance over the past three years give you much faith that he will regain $8.0/year performance? Again, it's not a one year phenomenon. I don't know why you keep saying that. And, yes I think continuity is important. You need to build and maintain an identity. But I don't think you can retool or whatever they want to call it. I think you're more apt to remain a middling team, rather than a team with a legitimate chance year after year. If you're going to rebuild, I think you have to go all-in. And that means evaluating everyone on your roster. There can be no sacred cows. That's all, I think, the "trade Giroux" crowd are saying. It's something to consider, not something that must be done. If it may help you in the long run, why not consider it? Right...that's exactly what I'm advocating...

I wouldn't consider any of those players grinders (i.e., third/fourth checkers). Are they overpaid? Yes. I'm not a huge Lucic fan - and I think his contract is bloated - but he has scored 20+ goals had at least 50 points in each of his last two seasons. Ryan O'Reilly - again, a bloated contract - had 60 and 55 points in his last two years and is three years younger than Giroux. Kopitar's contract is absolutely ridiculous. Rick Nash's deal has been laughable for years (but only has one year left). But these guys aren't "grinders." As for Kesler, his cap hit is $6.875m - not $7.8m. He had 22G and 36A (58pts - same as Giroux). Less than half of his points were on the PP. For the record, Giroux's cap hit is $8.275m (not $8.0m). So, as long as we are being accurate, that's a difference of $1.4m and not "almost the same as girouxs." I am. And right now, he is overpaid and likely will be again next year if recent trends in his "production" persist or don't reverse drastically. His point totals have been in steady decline for the last three years. And it seems that injuries have played a part in each of those years, which is also concerning. In those three years, they missed the POs twice and in the other year lost in the first round (in which Giroux had 1A and the team could have been out sooner but for Neuvirth's heroics). Still didn't answer my question: do you think Claude Giroux is performing up to his contract? At what point do you think the Flyers are getting value for his contract?

Among forwards, Giroux is a top 10 cap hit but nowhere near top 10 in production. You don't think he's under performing his contract at the moment? Do you think he'll become a better "value" going forward? What "grinders" are getting $6m against the cap in what are considered market deals? Sure, you do long term deals hoping that as production falls, the median rises. Ideally, it works that way. But Giroux seems well ahead of that curve, absent a sizable turnaround (e.g., around 75 points next year). The reason "a certain bunch of flyers fans" want to "get rid" of the best players is because Giroux will be well past his prime by the time this team could be ready to seriously contend for the Cup on a regular basis. If you can get something of reasonable value for him today which could help you in the future, why wouldn't you do that? I don't think anyone is suggesting to trade him for nothing. But he should not be off-limits, either.