vis

6 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

This is my concern. It's been five seven years of "we're definitely a playoff team" and not much to show for it.

 

I want to see some edge to their game and some spring in their step.

 

They've gone from zero NHL head coaches to three NHL head coaches. No more excuses.

Yep.  It's the biggest question mark.

35 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Tampa and Toronto both have moves to make before they can sign Point or Marner.  

I remain convinced that Marner isn't signing until the first day of the season to take advantage of the LTIR cap relief on Andersen.   Point is likely waiting out the Marner deal before he signs. 

The whole situation is a mess.  Agree that Marner/Point are holding things up for the other RFAs forwards in the same way that Werenski/McAvoy are probably holding things up for the other RFA D-men.  The problem is that Toronto is waiting to sign Marner in order to take advantage of the LTIR space.  So are we going to have to wait until then for the other RFA forwards to sign?  Really don't like that one bit.  Would suck if Konecny misses camp.

4 hours ago, AJgoal said:

I personally love Donkey's in Camden. Or John's Roast Pork for... Roast pork.

Donkey's is great (even though they only do American cheese).  Totally different approach.  Sometimes our work lunch group heads over during the week.  End up smelling like a steak for days afterwards.  My wife always comments when I come home: "Donkey's Day?"

19 hours ago, radoran said:

I don't disagree. But I might say "could" have been. I'm not yet convinced this team is as good as we/they think it is.

That top 9 should be enough to get them into the POs.  Thought the same thing last season, but the goalie carousel, questionable coaching and general lack of player "effort/assertiveness" in certain circumstances undid them.  Hopefully all that is now rectified, though the effort/assertiveness is still a question.

19 hours ago, Podein25 said:

 

Prov? Whiz? Help a brother out, all I got is Google

Provolone is my go-to.  Actually, I was forced to eat an American w/o last night at the Eagles pre-season game.  Not my preference, but when duty calls...

2 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Says the guy who just ordered an American widdout for the 10,00th time.

 

You're not fooling anybody man.

American?  C'mon...

On 8/7/2019 at 2:43 PM, radoran said:

My point was that the season before Hextall "should have" fired Hakstol was the best Flyers season in four years and once can see where Hextall might not have thought the foundation was cracked and the roof was on fire. 98 points. Third place in the division. Lost in the first round to the two-time defending Cup champions.

I see your point better now.  It seems there was just enough "good" or "reasonable justification" each season, particularly the one you cite above, to give Hextall cover for not firing Hakstol.  I still submit that the team was never as good, consistently, as it should have been.

52 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

I think I hit the trifecta for responses here!

 

Gordie Howe hat trick of message board posting.

On 8/7/2019 at 1:53 PM, King Knut said:

Sorry, I think I was confusing in my original statement.  I wasn't referring to the hiring of him, I was referring to the people now who are sort of making apologies and painting a little bit of a "Hakstol wasn't so bad" picture... not saying that's you either.  Forget who was implying it actually.

Got it.

On 8/7/2019 at 1:53 PM, King Knut said:

Long story short, giving Hak a shot can be an okay thing to try and keeping him a year and a half past him making it obvious he didn't belong aren't mutually exclusive.  That's all I meant. I phrased it poorly. 

Got it.

On 8/7/2019 at 1:53 PM, King Knut said:

I feel good about his future.  I don't see the same things I saw in Couturier back when I kept trying to tell everyone he was actually really good, but I see other things.  I wouldn't say my confidence in Patty is as High as it was in Coots either... but I think the offensive ceiling could also be a lot higher if he can get it to start clicking.  New Coach, new line... all the ingredients are there for it!

I'm still surprised by Couturier's offensive turnaround.  I know he put up tons of points in the Q, but he didn't look offensively capable in the NHL.  And it wasn't just because he was saddled with hard minutes.  He looked, to me, like he he didn't have NHL-level skill or skating ability.  But you could see he was a smart player and he worked hard.  I don't know what happened, but his offensive skill seemed to improve overnight and, coupled with the smarts and work ethic, he blossomed.  All of this to say that with Patrick, I see more skill than I did with Couturier, but not the same smarts/dedication.  Couturier struck me as a kid who didn't need to be pushed at this level.  But Patrick strikes me as someone who needs a coach in his ear to max out his potential.  Hoping the new staff can do that.  I worry a little bit about Therrien in this regard.  I don't think players react well to Therrien's abrasiveness, especially younger kids.  

3 minutes ago, brelic said:

This is the primary reason I’m not sold on Elliott. I like his fight, and he’s a fine goalie when healthy. But the last few seasons have not been kind to him.

I'm with you.  I'm not terribly keen on penciling in Hart for 60+ starts, but that's what I think will happen.  I worry about him breaking down and then having to live (or die) by Elliott.  I think Elliott is a good mentor - seems like a solid, cerebral person.  But not necessarily a guy you can rely on to shoulder a load if the starter goes down.  Maybe one of the other young goalies on the farm could step in and be a surprise for a bit, but even that is asking a lot. 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Not sure why you think that.  I'm assuming he thought that if they missed the playoffs Hakstol was gone and he was probably really not into the idea, but like Berube, he likely knew it was coming.

Possibly.  I'm just going off my recollection (perhaps inaccurate) that Hakstol came to the Flyers because Hextall promised him he'd get the full benefit of his contract term.  I think Hextall would keep true to that promise.  I think that's the type of guy he is.

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Hak was an insurmountable problem for this team.

Agree, which is why I think a coaching change alone should return this team to the POs.  The on-ice personnel isn't perfect, but at least the coaching should improve.

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I can't get on board with the second thoughts regarding Hakstol's tenure.  It wasn't a bad idea to try.  It lasted a year and a half too long.  

Eh, I think the results speak for themselves re: his tenure, but I can see where you're coming from.  Post-Berube, I think most fans were happy they went outside the org to hire someone.  But, I still think there were some other, more qualified candidates that seemed to get overlooked.  Now, maybe Hextall knew no one had interest in the job.  Seems unlikely, but possible.  Or maybe Hextall also wanted someone that would be loyal to him and not clash personality-wise.  Who knows?  But the hiring of Hakstol was unconventional and when unconventional things don't work out, it's typical to second-guess the decision in the first place.

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I think Patrick is likely to break out under Vigneault.

As mentioned above, Patrick should find some more favorable matchups with Hayes on the roster.  He should have room to develop and build confidence.  He has shown some glimpses.  Hope it becomes more consistent.

10 minutes ago, King Knut said:

That really implies that most GMs just aren’t that fond of his game, doesn’t it?  

It's a fair point.  Maybe GMs view him as one dimensional?  Maybe he's got personality/dedication issues.  In that regard, there were some knocks on him early in his career that may linger as a vet.  Of course, they aren't paying him like Hayes.

17 hours ago, radoran said:

I think we mostly agree that there was a fair amount of smoke and/or mirrors in that 3rd place finish (only behind the Pens and Caps!) and the "close" 4-2 first round loss to Pittsburgh. And I'm not "defending Hakstol" here - just trying to put some perspective on where Hextall's head could have been at the time.

I don't think Hextall ever had an inkling to fire Hakstol.  I think he was going down with Hakstol one way or another.  That said, another GM may not have been as patient with the "smoke and mirrors" and lack of progress under Hakstol.  Plus, I question whether the young players were developing well under Hakstol.  When a team isn't meaningfully improving, you have to start thinking of making a coaching change.  I'm not totaling absolving the personnel, by the way.  Actually, there were times where I thought Hakstol was getting more out of the roster than I expected.  But, in the aggregate, I think the team should have been better based on its roster.

17 hours ago, radoran said:

Which is one reason I'm ambivalent about where they will go next season. I'm not entirely convinced it was entirely the "coach's fault." Or even "bad coach" plus the "goalies' faults." Something has to fall at the feet of the 18 skaters.

I don't think it was entirely the coach's fault.  Goaltending was certainly an issue.  The players share blame as well.  I have doubts about the leadership in that locker room and I wonder if they are too cavalier and don't hold each other accountable.  I think there was a lot "wrong" with the team.  But, I think they did a good job in addressing the coaching issue and bringing in a solid, veteran staff.  Goaltending should be addressed, provided Hart stays healthy.  They brought in some leadership on defense.  Still think they need a leader up front.  I think Hayes helps with matchups and I am hopeful Patrick breaks out a bit as a result.  I think (hope?) all of that leads to a PO spot.  Really, they should have been a PO team last year.  

17 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

this off-season has felt sooooo long.

Yeah, no playoffs means a long offseason.  We are in the dog days of it now, but camp will be here soon.  At least some of the media types are starting to put out their team previews for the season, which should stoke some conversation.  

@mojo1917 Ha, never noticed your signature until now!!  How could I have missed it?  Maybe I had sigs turned off.  Anyway, man, was I wrong about this offseason.

3 hours ago, King Knut said:

I have no problem with him giving Hakstol a try.

At least he was from outside the organization (other than coaching Hextall's kid), but, at the time, I recall there being other, more established coaches available.  With hindsight, we can see that hiring a coach with no professional experience was not a good decision (and sticking by Hakstol as long as Hextall did was probably an even worse decision).

Really have no idea how the Metropolitan shakes out.  It may not have the best teams in the league, or even in the conference, but I think it will be the most competitive within the division from top to bottom.  I still think Washington is at the top of the division, but I see very little separating the rest of the teams.  Every team in the division will be a challenge to play.  Honestly, I can see the teams below the Caps finishing in any order.  Anyway, here are my thoughts:

1 -- Capitals - Still the team to beat.  Best roster in the division.  Can't see them losing this spot.

2 -- Penguins - Until the Penguins don't make it to the POs, I have to keep them as a top 3 team in the Metro.  That said, I do think almost any of the teams below can unseat them and can see them landing as far as 6th below.

3 -- Flyers - The Flyers' success will depend on Vigneault's ability to get the players to play his way and on Hart's ability to take on the load of a starter.  Yeah, Provorov needs to be better as do some other players.  But, I definitely think the roster is talented enough to be a PO team.  It's on Vigneault to get them to play up to their potential (and on the players to have the desire to do so).  I feel pretty confident that they will make the POs, but it will be a dogfight.

4 -- Hurricanes - Like most teams in the division, I'm not completely sold on this team and can see them returning to earth a little bit.  Thought they caught lightning in a bottle last year and definitely had the "underdog" thing going for them.  Still, defense is a strength and they have good talent up front as well.  But, I don't trust Mrazek and I don't know who they have as a backup.  Their style of play and strong defense may mask the weakness of their goaltending.

5 -- Devils - Questions in goal, but damn they had an excellent offseason.  This team can be very dangerous, especially if they can get capable goaltending.  Mackenzie Blackwood might be their Carter Hart.  Again, maybe their style of play and talented offense can make-up for the goaltending if it's not up to par.

6 -- Islanders - Not sold on the Islanders.  Trotz is a great defensive coach, but I wonder how much Lehner's departure will matter.  Also, they had an underdog mentality about them last year that may not be as prevalent this year.

7 -- Rangers - Lack of depth down the middle and on defense really hurts this team.  Panarin and Trouba are great additions, but I just don't think either lifts the rest of the team enough.  

8 -- Blue Jackets - Departures really hurt their chances.  Still, they might have an "us against them" mentality a la the Islanders last season and could surprise the same way the Isles did.  I do think Torts is nearly as good as Trotz and he can get a lot out of his teams.  They do have some talent, but probably not enough to be a PO team.  Will be interesting to see how this team responds.

1 hour ago, brelic said:

 

Actually, the Flyers couldn't offer him 8 years. Only Winnipeg could. 

Here I was totally wrong about the term thing.  I thought the Flyers could offer him the max since he was their property.  Guess not since he wasn’t on the reserve list at the deadline.   Thankfully Fletcher couldn’t give him the extra year.  

Quote

 

But the exclusive negotiating window was probably helpful to convince a player to come to Philly which apparently was not his top choice. 

 

Either way, definitely worth the 5th rounder. 

Yeah, it was definitely helpful. 

5 hours ago, radoran said:

I think you also had a situation where a team that had been in the Conference Finals in 15-16, had lots of regular season success, and nosedived in 17-18 came to the conclusion they had something to prove. And they proved it.

In all honesty, I think the Blues caught a bit of lightning in a bottle.  Honestly, I thought their moves last offseason wouldn't translate into success, largely because I didn't think they would be fast enough to compete.  Also wasn't sold on ROR (that said, he was even good in the regular season).  I was way wrong on all of that obviously.  I'd also say the Bruins play a pretty tough, in your face game, like the Bruins and they had success as well.  Point is, the POs still require teams to play somewhat of an "old school" heavy, tough game.

6 hours ago, radoran said:

I'm not against Grabner, I just don't think he does much to change the direction of the team. I wouldn't have been up in arms against it, but don't see it as a major "missed opportunity."

I don't think it's a major problem, but when the team had a clear need and it went unfulfilled and the PK continued to struggle, you wonder if it was a "miss."  Maybe Hextall was saving hi pennies for going "all-in" this offseason.  Who knows?  

6 hours ago, radoran said:

Moreover, put Granber's $3.35M onto this year's cap and it's getting pretty tight to ink Konecny and Provorov (who remain unsigned) with just over $10M in cap space.

I think you're judging not signing Grabner (or any other UFA) last year in hindsight.  At the the time, the expectation was that Patrick would fill the 2C and there wouldn't be a need to sign Hayes to that contract.  I don't know that Hextall foresaw, at that time, a need to sign one of the top 3 centers this offseason.

6 hours ago, radoran said:

I don't think Hextall was thinking "how to fix X for next season" I think he was thinking "how do I develop a team for the long term."

Possibly.  But, again, isn't that the problem with Hextall?  Thinking too far ahead and sacrificing the near term?

6 hours ago, radoran said:

And I think there was a lot that could have been done on the PK without necessarily adding folks to do it. The biggest thing - as we've all noted - would have been to change the coaching staff. Without that, from where I sit there's a lot of shuffling of deck chairs...

Yeah, and Hextall/Hakstol didn't change the assistant either.  They rolled into the season with the same staff and personnel in place.  If they moved on from Lappy at the end of last year, I could see maybe giving the existing personnel another chance.  But they didn't can Lappy, so the next logical thing to do would have been to change personnel.  But they didn't do that either.  Failing to address the PK was a big failure last offseason.  do anything.  I'm still not sure if they have the right personnel for the PK (other than Hart).

6 hours ago, radoran said:

Was it the best call? In retrospect not so much, but not everything Hextall did was gold.

At the time, even without the benefit of hindsight, relying on the likes of Laughton, Vorobyev and Lehtera to capably fill the 3C was foolish.

Yes, all wudder under the bridge.  Merely academic at this point.

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, King Knut said:

Lee has all the appearance of a more dynamic and productive player that elevates those around him.  But that doesn't mean I disagree with you, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.  

I liked Lee as well, but pretty sure he spent a good deal of time at LW.  I think of Hayes as more of a true center than Lee.  Also, I think Vigneult's familiarity with Hayes is favorable.  Plus, Hayes is a little younger, so hopefully you get a few more useful years out of him.  I also think of HAyes as a better two-way player, but maybe I'm wrong about that.  Just think Hayes is more versatile.

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, King Knut said:

I think earning $2million per year more than he's worth and getting a a good 2 extra years of term than he should have PLUS the NMC/NTC probably had a bit more to do with it than the schmoozing though.

For sure, but trading for Hayes put Fletcher in position to offer and extra year that other teams couldn't and allowed him to make his pitch without a lot of "noise" coming from other teams.  I'm not saying I would have given him all that, but Fletcher put the Flyers in the best position to sign the player.  

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, King Knut said:

 

Hakstol didn't demonstrate any outside the box thinking IMHO.  He demonstrated a whole lotta outta his league thinking though.

And frankly, I think it worked out very well for Hextall.  Or at least Hextall's outside the box and creative thinking will have worked out very well for Fletcher and Dave Scott in the end.   Hextall had a block about Hakstol.  I don't get it.  It's sad because it cost him his job, a job I believe he was quite good at otherwise.  

My point was that Hextall thought out of the box in hiring Hakstol.  Didn't work out great for either of them.

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, King Knut said:

This one I think I actually do disagree on.  The Blues made some interesting moves in the years leading up to their cup run, but it didn't work out for them at all at first.  They were worse than the Flyers.  Until they switched to the right coach.  And Berube isn't necessarily a great coach... or at least he wasn't for the Flyers (who, to be fair only had about two good players and 3 decent players at the time).  But it ended up that he was the right coach for a very talented Blues team. 

They played an "old school" brand of physical, tough hockey (with skill mixed in) and it worked out at the end of the day for them.  Berube is an "old school" coach big on holding players accountable.  "Old school" type-players and and "old school" thinking coach got them pretty far.

On 8/1/2019 at 3:51 PM, radoran said:

 

I'm looking at it from the perspective of "this is around where LA was when they dealt Johnson, Simmonds, and Schenn." Maybe not this exact position (LA at least had been in B2B first round losses) but somewhere close. If one believes the VeeGee/Coots/Ghost/Hart/etc. core is in a position to break out with the addition of a "Richards" and a "Carter" then you may be inclined to make that move.

 

I'm not talking about a wholesale firesale of assets, but in the "you have to give to get" scenario, dealing from depth isn't a bad position to be in.

Fair points.  Hard to predict what Hextall would have done.  It's certainly logical that, given the cap space he created, he'd have gone out and tried to make some sort of real splash in FA or via the trade route.  

On 8/1/2019 at 3:51 PM, radoran said:

Not entirely sold on Nylander, but I'd rather be paying less than $7M to a two time 20/60 guy at 23 than, say, more than $7M for a 27-year-old who hit 20+ once and 50+ once. If that meant giving up a "Myers" and "Ratcliffe" (to be the "Johnson" and "Simmonds" - not proposing this specific trade) is that worth it?

I suspect the Leafs wanted a roster player and probably a young prospect.  Maybe it would have been Myers.  Tough call, but I may have made that trade depending on what other pieces are involved.  Maybe I'm just not that certain that Myers is going to be more than a 3/4 d-man.  

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

I do think this was the  year he was targeting to make some acquisitions and trades.

Given the cap space he'd created, he must have been.

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

Would he have signed Hayes or traded for Point ? I don't think he would have done the term and AAV for Hayes- 

So where would that have left them at C?  I suppose Hextall might be more adept at sourcing a "creative" trade for a C than Fletcher.  

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

I do think moves on the blue line were coming so perhaps Gudas and more for a higher profile player.

Yeah, there would have been moves on defense.  Too crowded.

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

He may have drafted exactly the same way, I am pretty high on that York kid, I think that was a good pick, he's pretty dominant versus his peers on the world level. 

Yeah, absolutely no qualms with the draft.  There was some handwringing that Fletcher's draft would be a problem.  

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

It is interesting to think about, I'm sure he would have been active at the draft and during F/A. He knew where the team was weak. 

There is no way he couldn't have been active.  Just really curious about what he would have done.  Impossible to predict and irrelevant anyway,  I suppose.

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

I also think he would have moved on from Hakstol at the end of the year. I do think he wanted to finish the year though.

I am not 100% sure of this.  Hakstol was his guy and I think her personally committed to giving Hakstol the full term on his contract.  I think Hextall would have kept that promise.

On 8/1/2019 at 3:43 PM, radoran said:

 

Right, but neither of those guys really moves the needle. I don't mind not putting $10M over three years for Grabner, or $15M for Bozak.

At the time, the thinking was that Patrick would take over 2C and we still had a gap at 3C.  Bozak would have filled that gap.  In retrospect, given that Patrick didn't ascend to the 2C role, yeah having Bozak and Patrick on the roster doesn't move the needle.

We will disagree on Grabner.  I think he would have helped an ailing PK.  

Not saying we needed to sign both, btw.  Either would have filled a need based on expectations at the time.  And I don't think either would have jeopardized signing and of the players you mentioned.

Of course, the team was worse than expected and, as it turns out, needed more than someone like Bozak at C.

Were you OK with Hextall having not addressed the C position or the dismal PK last offseason?

20 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Not a strike. Lockout. Both times (last three, actually).

 

20 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

I know, I know... right you are.   Important differentiation.  

Not really an important differentiation.  Neither side was going to given in without a stoppage.  Both at fault.

Plus, sometimes, it's in the workers' benefit to force a lockout instead of going on strike.  In the case of a lockout, the owners can only hire temporary replacement workers and cannot permanently "fire" any union workers.  Not sure how that plays out with players who are under contract, but those who are not?  Though, I suppose there were few guys who weren't under contract.

Also, the lockout blocks any union worker from "crossing the picket line."  Picket line crossing can be detrimental to a union's solidarity.  So, in a way, the workers are forced to be in it together.  

A lockout also gives workers the higher moral ground, which is particularly important in the eye of the public.