Jump to content

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL

LegionOfDoom

Member
  • Content count

    868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pennsylvania
  • Favorite Team
    Flyers

Recent Profile Visitors

3,452 profile views
  1. Simmonds seems to have split into two spots on these forums, so I'll post here as well since it's worth mentioning: Unless the Flyers where to be snakes, I don't see how two entities that have worked together and built trust in years, can see any wrong in an open honest dialogue about the organizational needs and the players personal needs. - Organizational needs: We need to field a team for the next 5 years to "win multiple" cups. We have to manage a cap for future assets in this five year process. We can spend extra money in the next two years, but after that we will be under some constraints in the next four or five years and will be up against the wall financially and asset-wise.  - Simmers needs: I need to be paid for my hard work. If you can give me top dollars as a show of gratitude for a few years(two or three) would be reasonable, then sign me for a fair, reasonable extension for 5 more years and possible retirement and work for the organization after to ensure I have income coming in for my later years, this would give me security for me and my family. ------------------------------------------------ I really see this as a win-win situation for both entities involved. I mean why can't both parties come to the table and state their view on needs and try to make it work, if need be as creative as possible to hit the numbers they're looking for. What real restrictions are really holding back this from getting done. I mean Simmer isn't going to flake out on the team. He gives 120% in his tenure with the Flyers. They should pay him big for two-three years, then a reasonable pay amount for another five years on a separate deal. In a way front loading for the first few years and cutting it off then. So on the second contract that money won't be tied into the cap hit for the new contract of five years at a reasonable amount. Is it possible to do a two year @ 7.5 even add a signing bonus of 500k per year or so, so Simmer gets big money. Then give out a five year incentive laden contract that if he hits the numbers outline he can be bumped up per year to year if he reaches those numbers during the second contract. I would think this is reasonable and a win-win way of solving two problems.
  2. Unless the Flyers where to be snakes, I don't see how two entities that have worked together and built trust in years, can see any wrong in an open honest dialogue about the organizational needs and the players personal needs. - Organizational needs: We need to field a team for the next 5 years to win a cup. We have to manage a cap for future assets in this five year process. We can spend extra money in the next two years, but after that we will be under some constraints in the next four or five years and will be up against the wall financially and asset-wise. - Simmers needs: I need to be paid for my hard work. If you can give me top dollars as a show of gratitude for a few years(two or three) would be reasonable, then sign me for a fair, reasonable extension for 5 more years and possible retirement and work for the organization after to ensure I have income coming in for my later years, this would give me security for me and my family. ------------------------------------------------ I really see this as a win-win situation for both entities involved. I mean why can't both parties come to the table and state their view on needs and try to make it work, if need be as creative as possible to hit the numbers they're looking for. What real restrictions are really holding back this from getting done. I mean Simmer isn't going to flake out on the team. He gives 120% in his tenure with the Flyers. They should pay him big for two-three years, then a reasonable pay amount for another five years on a separate deal. In a way front loading for the first few years and cutting it off then. So on the second contract that money won't be tied into the cap hit for the new contract of five years at a reasonable amount. Is it possible to do a two year @ 7.5 even add a signing bonus of 500k per year or so, so Simmer gets big money. Then give out a five year incentive laden contract that if he hits the numbers outline he can be bumped up per year to year if he reaches those numbers during the second contract. I would think this is reasonable and a win-win way of solving two problems. But I mean if greed, sex and magic is what your after,....then.....ya....screw-it!
  3. What I meant for Simmer to take a two year deal at 7+ mill. Then after that Hexy can discuss signing him on for longer at a home team discount of 5 years at a reasonable cap. So that way Simmer gets "Paid" for two years what he's worth then the next contract could be in the 5+ mill or lower depending how he's holding up and if any decline in goals or points. Nobody really wants him on a long contract for fear of injury or degradation in performance. But he deserves a nice paycheck and at 2 years if that would mean both sides can come to an agreement on the amount he deserves for two years that would be a win. After the two years resign him as a Flyer who took a home team discount to finish his career here in Philly. Two things: 1. That gives him his payday. 2. He can resign for an extended home team contract with both parties not having to sigh on the final years of remainder contract length. The second signing contract after his two year "paid" contract could be anywhere from 3+ to 5 mill a year for 5 more years at a reasonable cap hit.
  4. It would be great if they gave Simmer a 2 + 5 year deal. (First two year deal 7+ mill, then resign him @ 3+/4+/or 5+ mill "depending how he performs" for 5 years to retire a Flyer)
  5. The thing is, how much time are the coaches going to invest in the pre season on Power Play Units and different looks. Worst case is keep the same unit out there at the start and slip in the player/chemistry during practice to better allocate the pieces, but I believe they should really focus on Special Teams to make sure we have a good start to the season. since the refs might be calling it strict in the beginning and the games will seem to be affected by Specialty Teams in the first quarter of the season, since they like to call it tight to lay down the law. (stick taps and ticky tack holds on players)
  6. What about slotting Lindblom on Unit 2? That would have 3 Forward bodies that can rotate from behind the net and post themselves in front of the goalie with Konecny as another possible sniper from the dots and Provy barraging the Point. Though Laughton sounds OK too, as does Raffl. Just want to get Lindblom going this year and build up his goals for the year as a development to his game. Of course we can swap players in and out on the second Unit so he's not overloaded for the whole season. I think Weal can spot the LW on Unit 2 on occasion maybe a few games a month to throw off the opponent and see if he can contribute some goals as well.
  7. I was watching a NHL video on Toronto and how they were giddy about having Tavares on the team, when they got to the topic of Power Play possibilities, they brought up JVR and how he slotted in the power play as if he was a part of the team in a sense of how good he was in that position. Was kind of strange talking about oh wow we have this player now(Tavares) and then referencing JVR on how he was solid on the PP, and he's not even on the team. So thought what was the crews thoughts here on our power play options. Hope this doesn't start a war on personal ideas but was hoping a discussion would blossom out of this part of the team that can win us some games in an 82 game season and hopefully Playoffs. Do you drop JVR on Unit 1 having him be in the spot of Simmer/Patrick? And move Simmer and Patrick on Unit 2 with Konecny with Lindblom and Proverov? Or have G, Coots, JVR, Patrick and Ghost on Unit 1. Jake, Simmer, Konecny, Lindblom(/Sandheim) and Provorov on Unit 2?
  8. That was the dice roll that looked like it would of been Leighton to win it all, but his skate was his worst enemy. I remember the commentators saying that Leighton made his team feel confident in net and be able to play more aggressively.
  9. Waiting is such a hard thing, when I'm making a steak and want to add mashed potatoes or rice, grill some mushrooms or onions. I end up finishing 3/4 of the steak and by the time the rice or onions are plated, they look over at the the piece of meat, and ask it, "who are you?"
  10. A. This is such a valid point and possibly the crux of the matter: Thank you for pointing that out. Hakstol believes in structure, and the importance of it. I'd love to see Sanheim every game, every shift and watch him develop, but helter skelterly? No. Him sitting that many games? I don't know exactly what was going on in the locker room, or on the practice rink. Possibly Sanheim, was having immaturity issues, not necessarily a bad locker room guy, but an "expected to play, I'm good enough talent to be on the ice." This is the murky part. We don't have the full picture. He let Hagg play as a rookie alot of games, he let Travis and Provy play in crucial parts of the game. I mean if he doesn't like playing youth over whipping boys, it might not show to the jury this conviction if we have youth playing. Back to structure, you lose it you might lose the team, you could lose the bench, the locker room. This is such the hard part because we're crossing through murky caverns, spelunking and the guide says the path way is through here. Trusting the process is hard for many, including myself. But breaking out the tangibles, what exactly are they? Since Hakstol has been coach, I mean look at G's season, after several coaches look at Coots season, at Travis after second year? Provy? Ghost? ARE THEY GETTING BETTER??? I might be at odds sometimes with the decision making, but what are the results, I mean a coaching position changed Coots into being a Selke Candidate finally as I always knew he could be. B. This is also a very valid point and can't be construed as Hakstol doesn't play risky youth. Hagg's resume' is more filled than Sanheim, besides their different tools in the shed: Not all axes are the same. A felling axe, a splitting axe, shaping axe, etc. Unfortunately that's why Morin wasn't in the lineup. But begrudgingly understandable. Like getting punched in the face and your buddy holding you back and saying, "Hey,......will get them next time." This is not the NHL ALL STARS, (As candy coated fun as it would be) this is a team being developed and rooted for success. C. This one also got me bothered, annoyed because I thought Hagg was doing a pretty solid job, and Manning had a penchant for having an undesirable effect big time to go along with the positives he would sometimes bring. I don't know if Hakstol see's it that way. But I understand his reasoning over Manning, but if he had a year to look from the stands the full body of work of Manning, then he might come to the realization that Manning works great in small dosages, not for the duration of the whole predicament. You know it's real easy to sit back and say things and make 20/20 judgement calls, I try to fight from doing this as well. I remember as a young teen going out and building a half pipe to skate on, and I fronted the money while I had some buddies help with the build. 3/4 of completing it, they were already wanting to skate on it and pull off tricks, I was telling them if we start skating on it, it won't last long and starts coming apart in a short amount of time. They were like, "whatever, man let's just skate." I had to let them understand that ya, I want to skate on it just as bad, but to wait and let's just finish it. (adding more cross braces, top sheet of Masonite, grinding pipe. This year will be a more telling year on the coach. He has better pieces now.
  11. We have a few running vehicles that have sound frames and are solid starter projects that run well. They could eventually get upgraded skill parts to get to where we would want them and it's a process. EK, is the vehicle that we see that is what we want are rides to look like and step back and admire. But is he in his career now what we might consider him a "salvaged pickup". We sold the farm for Pronger. We tried to sell the ranch for Shea Weber, look at that now. Are we willing to sell the children for a full grown piece that we don't know exactly what the next two years we'll have with him? "IF" we keep the kids, in two years, how will they look like? In their projection for the next 10 years? Some times waiting till you gather all your upgrades and put it together with something you solidly have will end up lasting longer and give you more contentment, then buying something off the shelf, you had to gut yourself to acquire. Now in saying that, if you can score a nice ride and not have to give up anything too critical and keep your main parts, then that can be something to look at. Maybe a three way deal where we give up something lite(prolly' have to take back a couple of salaries and/Lehteras') to a team that can give Ottawa what they're asking for.
  12. S O A B, that was a long winded post, just to say..."The kids are ok!" As well as the coach.
  13. Hextall brought in Hakstol to develop the young assets he was aquiring to teach them to play the right way. That was his vision with the HC. Easier said than done. Hakstol's philosophy was in line with Hextalls' Now the fact of the matter is Hakstol never coached in the NHL and there's more moving parts to consider(feeling out momentum shifts, timeouts, In game fast line matchups, practices in an 82 game season, when to loosen the reigns on rookies, and develop players confidence and responsibleness/accountability and more. That's a lot of moving parts to manage. Hakstol might not of had the resume to say, I've done that in the Pro level. But Hextall liked his foundation and fiber of who the coach is and his philosophy on developing young talent. Hextall saw alot of solid things in Hakstol and believes this coach will develop as a great NHL coach in a few years. Like what others said of Babcock. I see Hakstol as mentoring this young team into playing Flyers hockey as well as building a team culture and tradition. He has made rookie mistakes and I think he will grow from them(just like a rookie player makes mistakes on the ice.) Do I rejoice? No. But I'm looking at the long game of this hire and see he has been given the space to develop this team into playing Flyers hockey and developing the youth movement funneling in. Now in saying this, yes frustration will surface and arm chair quarterbacking is what he will have to deal with in media and fanbase critique. He actually took it like a man and welcomed it. I see by next year is the year Hextall will evaluate Hakstol and see where he's at in the organization (by then, that would of been sufficient time to see what the hired hand has done with the seeds he was given to sow and reap. I think he leaned a little to much on the vets, and they where given more leniency in making mistakes with less ramifications to an extent. His choices in putting vet presence out on the ice, instead of youth at times, was him trying to err on the better side of choices that backfired. Again a learning experience. Imagine your hired and the CEO, CFO and CSO show up to see your day to day operations. Your going to put your more experienced and better decision looking personnel when issues arise and their looking down from the balcony and seeing how you handled that hurdle. Hextall is watching him from the balcony and I think this year Hakstol might put it together and understand the dynamics of in game coaching at the NHL level. I'mpatient with him because I too see the value in what Hextall believed he was bringing in to the organization. This was going to be a process, from the coaching staff, developing a farm/team and identity. Its all going hand in hand. Hextallis building something here. He's hoping the long view will setup this organization with multiple Cups and have a dynasty to look back on. In looking short sited on this matter, is I hate the guy what is he thinking? He's ruining the rookie by not playing them enough. I don't believe that's the case at all. The on the job learning mistakes are correctable and the coaching staff should be working on those things to minimize their impact in game results. At least, that's what I would be looking at. Again I'm not washing over his costly mistakes, which where few and somewhat far in between, but that's what was to be expected from bringing in a talented successful coach from college ranks to the NHL level. This coming season is a big one for the coach along with new pieces and hurdles to overcome. Disclaimer: I'm typing this gruelingly from a Mobile device and the screen real estate is smaller than normal, when I get a chance I'll re-edit this for clarity, grammer and punctuation.
  14. Again this would be a solid base to work around with, nothing set in stone for 82 games but this should help out the Flyers as a team build on the season till reinforcements arrive and shelter us from 10 game losing streaks during the season.
  15. Yes it would be Jake who can move off wing as he has done several times. Not Ideal but more palatable than Simmer. Absolutely I would not do this to the younger players, it would not be progressing their development( case in point: Schenn, Coots). But vet players for sure should be able to muster up the cajones and go out there and play. I think Haks system would help out as "team defense" would take over(override) the back checking offensive, neutral, defensive zones as a unit(if they follow protocol) These are definetly moving parts in this system that have to be in sync. That's the thing the vets would have the task of running this during the season. The youth would have more of a softer task to acclimate themselves to a grueling 82 game season and all that goes with it. 3rd line would be somewhat sheltered. Fourth line would be a conservative line with a dash hear in there of a rookie/call up to see how it pans out for the season on callups/first look players. Your first two lines would be your seniority line. being tasked with the difficult jobs, the third would be your not to recent hires in training for advancement to upper level responsibility. And the fourth line, your crew to go out there and close or also see what talent is up and coming.

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.

 

 

Contact Us

 

Recent Topics

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free
×