radoran

12 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

According to Moneypuck, the Flyers have a 5.9% chance of making the playoffs.  Sounds a little low to me.

They need three teams ahead of them to lose in regulation.

Something like two weeks ago it was around 70%...

It wasn't that good then.

2 hours ago, Brewin Flames said:

The Sabres haven't made the playoffs since 2010-11.

Can't possibly be ownership.

Fire the coach. Fire the GM.

3 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

But I doubt that was the plan.

And, to the overall point, that's the problem.

"The plan" changed several times throughout the season, morphing from "rebuild culture and establish accountability" and "don't fall in love" to "make the playoffs, anything can happen" and "this journeyman waiver wire pickup is essential to our team culture."

It was predictable to the extent that many predicted it that the style being played - while entertaining and winning in the regular season - was going to wear them out by the time they got to the playoffs, if they got there.

Now, having put a lot of stock into "making the playoffs" because #goodthing they face planted and are extremely likely to miss out entirely #badthing.

And I obviously have "concerns" about the protege of Bob Clarke's protege being "the guy" running the "rebuild" while his law partner tells his former radio media colleagues that the whole "rebuild" thing was a sham from the moment they said it.

It may all still work out.

No, really.

4 minutes ago, CoachX said:

i completely agree with this. and it does irritate me

 

I will hold out though til next season. Let's see what the rest of the off season will bring

I've been entertained. I'm not saying this hasn't been "fun to watch." I've been to games.

"Entertaining" and "fun to watch" don't necessarily equal "rebuilding a Cup winner".

We're going on 50 years here...

2 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

The 12th pick could be a pretty decent player.

Maybe you should be thanking Briere for bringing in a washed up 35 year old to tank the season with a -10 in 16 stretch games?

Savvy mover, that one.

44 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Those aren't anywhere near the only guys who played in the NHL.  What I'm getting at is throwing away picks for washed up 35 year olds has never helped us win anything...so maybe stop doing it?

I haven't disagreed with the general theory, just noting the actual impact.

You're right, it's probably more like 10%

Briere also got a 5th back for brokering cap space.

Added Johnson as a salve to his locker room after he shipped out Walker for a first, replaced part of the cost for cap space.

All in all, I find it kinda hard to come down on him for it - in that context.

The context where picking in the middle of the first doesn't help a "rebuild" puts it in a different light, but they were already there.

Maybe Johnson's -10 helped them improve their position.

2 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Looking at Phillys first round picks over the last 20 years, they haven't exactly set the world on fire. 

 

Other teams 4th rounders (or later) include Joe Pavelski, Ryan Callaghan, Dustin Byfuglian, Kris Versteeg (we traded a 1st and a 3rd for him) , MarkStreit, Keith Yandle (look at all these Flyers that we acquired years after they were drafted with low picks, genius) Darren Helm, Andrew MacDonald (look, yet another guy we gave up higher draft choices than where he was taken) Jamie Benn, Justin Braun (another!) Patrick Maroon (we threw him away....he's STILL playing and winning cups!) TJ Brodie, Jared Spurgeon, Cam Atkinson (well look at that) David Savard, Mattias Ekholm, Craig Smith, Mike Hoffman, Zack Hyman (who needs a 50 goal scorer),John Klingberg, Brendan Gallagher, Mark Stone, Johnny Gaudreau (coveted by many on this board, praying Fletcher would sign him, became a bum as soon as he got paid), Ondrej Palat, Devon Toews, Victor Arviddson, Kirill kaprizov, Jesper Bratt, Drake Batherson. And doesn't include several starting goalies (Shesterkin, Hellebyuk off the top of my head)

Yeah, you got 30 or so guys there.

Over the past 20 years (Pavelski, 2003) there have been ~600 4th round picks.

Your 5% chance here sounds a lot like "pick in the fourth round and anything can happen!"

Just think what could happen if they make the playoffs!

Win and you're in.

Anything is possible.

3 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

Flyers defeat Washington in regulation (Tues) 

 

Canadiens defeat Detroit in regulation (Tues)

 

Islanders defeat Pittsburgh in regulation (Wed)

 

…then Flyers are IN

26 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

They were just a bad team

They never had to tank. They had more money than most.

They've never adapted to the league they insisted upon creating.

They keep giving out four year deals to players like Seeler and Deslauriers - at double previous rates - and committing themselves to Laughton and Sanheim - to remain a middling bubble playoff team.

Only this year, again, they're going in the right direction.

No, really.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

21 minutes ago, SCFlyguy said:

We had to destroy the season to save the season.

2 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Thank God...

 

...did you see what they did with the ones they had good lord yes now i know why they trade them...

I did a whole post on it...

12 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

See? There's good players there.

He's the Scott Laughton of Lehigh Valley.

9 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

but damn looking at their 4th round picks the last 20 years man they have been dogshit picking in that round

They didn't even have a 4th in six of those years...

Connor "Echo and the" Bunnaman!

44 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Meanie

2 minutes ago, CoachX said:

See, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, given what they gave up. You make a safe move that doesn’t cost anything, and if you make the playoffs it’s a bonus

 

correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a business, right? If they make the playoffs that means more money for everyone, including the players. I would assume you’d have some pissed off guys in the coveted “room” we all talk about, if you just packed it in when they could get paid

You were saying they didn't make a move to spend assets to make the playoffs.

6 hours ago, CoachX said:

I don’t recall reading anyone saying not to rebuild, or that assets should be traded for a player or two to get this team into the playoffs 

There. That's what I was responding to.

The fact that you apparently now support the thing you said no one was in favor of - checks notes - six hours ago is your own issue.

24 minutes ago, aziz said:

Have most cup winners been noted as having a bunch of guys coasting now and then through the season,

It's not "coasting" as much as it is letting the feel of the season play out. A lot of recent Cup winner have guys who took the year (or months) off on "LTIR" and came back for the playoffs (ask JR lol). See: Vegas, Colorado...

If your goal for the season is to "restore culture and accountability" and see what the youth on your roster can do that's a different goal than "make the playoffs."

I'm not saying "don't play hard" but playing balls to the wall night in and night out drains a player and a team.

It's one reason why nobody "wants" the President's Trophy.

You've certainly seen the "extra gear" of the playoffs. Guys ramp up their play, dive further, push harder.

Well if you have "lunch pail" guys giving that "extra" not for 16-28 games but for 82 they aren't going to have the "next gear" that other teams are ramping up to.

You're already on boost.

You also are dealing with a league where the top to bottom talent is miles beyond what it was "back in the day", where the equipment means everyone is faster and the training means they're stronger.

It's a different level of game than it was even 20 years ago, much less to the Bullies years.

Now, take the example of a guy who hasn't played hockey for over a year coming back from a debilitating back injury and start him off at 20 minutes a night against the top lines of the NHL.

He's out of gas 60+ games in to your "playoff run"?

Color me surprised.

Regardless of whether "my way" (which is far from "mine") works, we know unequivocally that the way they've been doing it DOESN'T.

Make the playoffs. Anything can happen.

47 minutes ago, flyerrod said:

I don’t know anyone on this site that thought #77 was a good idea. Most understand the reason management made the choice but mo one on here agreed with it unless Jonesy or Briere are secretly members here…..

I was fine with it as far as it went.

Just saying they actually DID trade an asset for a player "to make the playoffs" that's all.

2 hours ago, CoachX said:

After they traded Walker, with the injuries they had, someone had to play defense.

Sure, and they had warm bodies that could do that.

They made the move "to make the playoffs" - regardless of how the pylon actually turned out, that was the rationale. Such as it was...

8 minutes ago, CoachX said:

I don’t recall reading anyone saying not to rebuild

I think it's the definition of "rebuild" that's at issue here - like whether an effective rebuild can be done drafting in the middle-to-late parts of the draft consistently.

8 minutes ago, CoachX said:

or that assets should be traded for a player or two to get this team into the playoffs 

They actually did just that, and there were people who supported/still support the idea. See: the pylon wearing the #77 sweater acquired from a 4th rounder that could have been the next Gustav Nyqvist, Andrew Copp, Hardy Haman Aktell, or Ethan Del Mastro*.

Others are disappointed they didn't get a goalie to backup Ersson and/or add some additional scoring.

* no, really!!

42 minutes ago, CoachX said:

It’s Funny how they always know what they want in spite of what we think

Yep. Just look at ol' 21 skating around with the big A on his sweater.

Geniuses.

56 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

The difference between bad teams and decent teams is slim too.

The difference between "good" and "decent" teams is not insignificant and the gap between "good" (DAL/COL) and "bad" (CBJ/SJS) is vast.

There's a 20 point difference from the top of the standings to the bubble. There's another 20 points (in the East) to the bottom of the standings - it's wider in the West.

Teams with 14, 15, 16 more wins in the W column are significantly better.

Again, not to say "bottom" teams "can't" beat "better" teams, it's whether they can do it 4 times each against "better" teams in the playoffs that matters.

32 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

If only there was a way of acquiring said talent.... 

Chicago, Anaheim, and San Jose seem to be working on a method. So's Columbus, as if that counts for anything.

But, hey, the Flyers have a 6.2% chance to make the playoffs. And they just beat the Rangers.

Anything can happen.

14 minutes ago, Puck_Pun said:

 

Seems like the politically smart thing to do. After the vote, it was clear a lot of people are actively uninterested in having a local team so appealing to them would be an overall gain

Actively uninterested in PAYING to have a local team - and who can blame them?

46 minutes ago, Math said:

The NHL made it clear that the current Delta Center in SLC is only a temporary solution and that a new arena should be built there. So if it fails, Salt Lake could move to a large market without an NHL team like Arizona... 

Yeah, wouldn't want to have professional athletes playing in substandard conditions.

It would be a complete embarrassment to the league from which they might never recover.

Salt Lake Licks is sitting right there...