fanaticV3.0

Are they doing this every year or two now? I think part of the reason  I don't bother buying any jerseys anymore, besides the fact that we haven't really had anyone whose name I would wear my back, is they continually change them. And they are often ugly.

On 6/20/2017 at 10:17 PM, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

• 

the new one looks naked.

The salary cap exists because owners keep offering ridiculous contracts to players.

 

There are far more examples of owners offering stupid money to players than there are examples of players "holding teams hostage."

 

And in the most egregious cases - say, MacDonald, Petry, etc. - it was the team putting itself into a ridiculously bad negotiating position in the first place that enabled "player greed" to enter the equation.

 

"We made a bad trade," they say "and now we need to overpay you because of our mistake."

 

I can't blame a Jagr for signing that ridiculous offer from the Capitals; or Bryzgalov accepting the Flyers' offer; or Weber for signing an offer sheet from another owner.

 

I can blame a Kane/Toews (or Crosby/Malkin to a lesser extent) for putting their myopic salary desires ahead of the team as a whole, but I can also blame the owner that gave into their demands. The two are far from mutually exclusive.

 

Chicago could potentially, for example, have gotten picks and more from, say, a Buffalo for hometown boy Kane that could have provided them long term benefits for a short term PR hit.

 

The "player greed" has seen their share of the "hockey related revenue" go from unlimited to 54% to 50% over the course of the past ten years.

 

Greedy bastards.

 

Meanwhile the owners have gotten a hard cap on player salaries and a guaranteed 50/50 split of "hockey related revenue" and the ability to rake in more "non-hockey related revenue."

 

Shrewd businessmen.

 

So what? That's nothing more than bonus money. It's not not their sole source - or even primary - of income. They all get salaries and we all know they haven't gone down over the last decade. Let them wipe away their tears from the loss of league revenue with all the extra dollar bills from their inflated paychecks.

 

I write this not as a disgruntled Flyers fan, but as a fan of great teams.

This current version of the chicago blackhawks is about the best a team can be built under the current NHL salary cap.

Yet, this is it for the 'hawks, they need to win now because their team will look vastly different  next season and not in a good way, Unless some lawyers can find some serious loop holes a team that was built by Tallon and Stan Bowman over the course of the last 10 years  will be dismantled.  The LA Kings are another team in a similar boat , not exactly but they too are in salary cap hell and will have to make major changes to a team largely built through the draft, with the well timed trade.

 

I think this is stupid. 

I wonder if the next go 'round with the CBA if an NBA type salary cap could be instituted ?

teams like Chicago could certainly benefit from the Larry Bird exemption, the 5/30% exemption, a yearly mid-level exemption, and a rookie exemption at the least.

I hate the thought of the 'hawks not having the room to pay for Brandon Saad even though they have the money and all things being equal he'd like to continue to play on this great team. It just seems stupid to me to draft a guy, develop him and then watch him play his prime  years somewhere else because of the salary cap.  

 

Their best players are their draft picks and you want to keep Jesus Towes and Patrick Kane right ?  hell yes. Something is not right about the salary cap when a team plays within the rules and is still penalized. 

The cap isn't the issue, the players salaries are. Player greed, while not the only issue, is the biggest problem here. Guys want more money regardless of what level of player they are, their production, or their team's situation. The salary cap exists because of player greed.

Okay, my case against Lindros has nothing to do with not liking him. Here goes.

 

 He disrespected the game with his BS that he pulled with the Nordiques.

 

 The trade that the Flyers made for him actually hurt the franchise in the long run.

 

 His parents. Yes, they should not count, but they do. To many voters, they certainly do.

 

 He put up damn good numbers, was a good scorer in the highest scoring era of all time, but his career was short and while his numbers are similar to Forsberg, Forsbergs were slightly better and he won 2 cups.

 

 Lindros was a disruptive force who hurt his own teams growth,

 

 He did win the Hart once, in a strike shortened season. Other than that he only received votes 4 other seasons and never finished higher than 3rd.

 

 He only played 760 games for his entire career, a very short career for a HOFer of the modern era.

 

His teams never won.

 

 Bobby Clarke put up with so much, the soap opera was appalling. If he really is campaigning for him, he must be the most forgiving man since Christ.

 

 The injuries, while severe, were a distraction and many wondered (then as now) just how much of it another player might have played through.

 

  The perception that he was going to put up numbers equal to the immortals of the game did not match the reality.

 

 Since his eligibility most years better players were on the ballot and forced him down the list. 

 

  There it is, a concise short list of why I feel he is not yet in. Again, I think he has to be considered a frontrunner for the honor next year, after Lidstrom there are a bunch of players with their own set of baggage. His best shor since he came upon the ballot has to be next year.

 

  I apologize for taking some comments personal. I understand that even after all of this time he is a polarizing subject, and to start it on a Philadelphia forum and not expect some heated debate would be foolish. I do not have an obsession with him, I go to Toronto every year or two and visit the Hall every time I am there, I suppose if he gets in I will continue to do so.

I appreciate the apology.

Lindros' personality, his parents, and all three of their relationship with Clarke has nothing to do with anything. It's the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Gossip. I think Pete Rose is a low-life who should never coach again, but the man deserves to be recognized for his on the field accomplishments. The same logic should be applied to Lindros. It should be about his stats, awards, cups (or lack thereof).

fan:

 

I suspect cap relief + ability to open up line space is a key driver of whatever our friend Hextall does. Sarah Baicker's piece on Comcast summarizes this very well.

 

Howie

I agree it's cap-related, but I also think Chief wants a more disciplined/defensive player.

Done with you. I just pointed out the case for his election in the next cycle, (a weak class, ect..) and you want to continue being, well, rather a bit of a douche. I guess I will just agree with you. You win. Lindros is the greatest player ever, maybe even better than Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr Combined. My apologies, I am even going to write a letter to king Eric himself letting him know that I am wrong, the Hall of fame voters (for 5 years running now) are wrong, the Nordiques brought it all upon themselves, the league needs to go back and award the Flyers the cup retroactively for 1997 and Scott Stevens, wherever he might be, needs to be hunted down and shot like a dog. Hope that helps.

Don't let the fact that I'm talking with another poster - on this very thread no less - about how I think he had an ego, was not a great team player, and the first words that come to my mind when thinking of his career are disappointing, get in the way of your rant. By all means continue.

Your entire argument for him not being in the hall is based the fact that you and others don't like him and you're "done with" (which lasted all of one post) me? Ha! That's rich.

Well, what does "sticking up for teammates" mean? Hartnell fought twice last season. Beyond that... Does puffing out his chest and talking smack really accomplish all that much?

It's more sincere than any of Carcillo or Rinaldo has done. Guys like that don't care what team they are playing for or who is in the locker room. They just want to hit somebody.

@fanaticV3.0

  I am not an advocate of Neely for the Hall, but a simple question for you, why have Neely and Forsberg who put up similar numbers during their careers been chosen for the hall and Lindros is on the outside?

  It is because of the other stuff. The stuff that did not happen on the ice. It is relevant and plays a factor in the voters minds. He is on the outside looking in because of the things that people without black and orange blinders remember.

  World class talent? Absolutely.

  Hall of fame statistics? Arguable, flip a coin. His type of numbers will likely eventually get him in but not necessarily. Players with better numbers are still on the outside looking in, but players with worse numbers are in.

  Is it only the numbers that should be/ are considered? Absolutely not. The whole picture must be and is looked at. In his case, it counts against him to a tremendous degree. He didn't exactly make friends with the writers and the people who vote for these things.

Clarke is now a member of the selection committee, in spite of what he says in public I cannot see him casting a vote or pulling hard for Eric for the hall. Others on the committee include Brian Burke, Scotty Bowman, Colin Campbell and Bill Torrey, a bunch of no nonsense executives. Retired players on the committee include peers such as Mike Gartner, Luc Robitaille, Lanny McDonald, and Peter Stastny.

  The way the committee is set up, he would require 14 of 18 votes. I believe he is such a devisive character that to get 78 percent of the voters to tab him in  agiven year will be difficult at best. From what I have read, Serge Savard and Pat Quinn who just left the committee were both advocates for his selection. Losing those two votes hurts him.

  I think if he is ever going to get in it will be next year. Nick Lidstrom is the only sure fire first ballot HOFer joining the ranks, along with guys with their own set of cases for and against, Mark Recchi, Sergei Federov, Jeremy Roenick. After Lidstrom the class is weak, one of the weakest in years. Lindros has as good of a case as anyone not named Lidstrom, he has been waiting five years, if Clarke really does push for him than Lindros very well might and even should make it next year.

 

  I don't like him, I feel what he was versus what he could have been is the widest chasm in league history. The fact that he still put up a near hall of fame career says something, though I am not sure what.

Nooo, you don't say?

Being liked by you or anybody else has nothing to do with anything. The HOF is about recognizing the player, not the human being. Your dislike of him reaches the level of obsession when you come up with conspiracy theories like saying Clarke would never vote for him, despite his public support for the man.

Not necessarily, but I have to base it on something. What do YOU base it on?? My point was that Hartnell is the type of player that has his teammates backs, he was neither the only one nor the primary one. 

Nobody said he was the only one.

Name one player who does it more, especially amongst this core, which is roughly around the time the douche twins were shipped out of town.

I am not sure I agree with that. Truthfully, I don't think he ever had the right fabric to be captain. Your best player does not need to be your captain (dustin brown says hello). I think Eric Lindros would have been 100% content to be second fiddle (or at least not the Captain). I think of Crosby in the same vein. Let guys like Crosby / Lindros just go play. Get someone else to be the anchor / rudder as far as the leadership goes. I always got the sense that Lindros just wanted to be one of the guys. But his parents, his enormous talent, early captaincy and enormous expectations easily alienated him from that possibility. 

Any guy who refuses to play for an organization before his first big league game has an ego. You can't pull a move like that and not have at least a little inflated sense of your own value.

And if you are going to blame his parents for him being alienated, you gotta blame the grown man who allowed that to happen too.

I do think he was given a lot of responsibility at a very young age, but you bring that kind of stuff on yourself when you think so highly of yourself you think you can dictate which team you play for before a single NHL game. I do think that he lacked talent around him and despite that, still did pretty well for himself. He could take over a game when the mood struck him. He also had legitimate injury issues. He was a force to be reckoned with, but also cracked very easily at times (but I freely admit he did a lot on his own as well).

2010-2011

 

Daniel Carcillo: 13

Jodey Shelley: 12

Sean Odonnell: 7

Scott Hartnell: 6

 

2011-2012

 

Zac Rinaldo: 15

Wayne Simmonds: 10

Tom Sestito: 7

Jodey Shelley: 6

Scott Hartnell: 4

 

2012-2013

 

Wayne Simmonds: 6

Zac Rinaldo: 5

Jay Rosehill: 4

Ty McGinn: 3

Scott Hartnell: 2

 

2013-2014

 

Jay Rosehill: 10

Zac Rinaldo: 7

Luke Schenn: 6

Wayne Simmonds: 6

Brayden Schenn: 4

Steve Downie: 2

Scott Hartnell: 2

 

Your perception of Hartnell being a "protector" is very misguided. Brayden Schenn / Luke Schenn combined for the same number of fights LAST year as Hartnell has had in the past 3 years (10). 

 

Truthfully, you don't want you top 6 playing that role anyway- that includes simmonds. Simmonds does it instinctively and mostly in the heat of the battle. But truthfully, he is better served on the ice than in the box serving 5 plus minutes. 

 

I wouldn't worry about the loss of Hartnell in that capacity as its not really a valid point. 

Wait, you think the guy that fights the most is automatically the best teammates/protectors? Like, for real? You actually believe that?

Who was Carcillo protecting when he fought Talbot in a game they were up 3-0? Or what about when he took on the raging lunatic Marion Gaborik? It's a good thing Carcillo took one for the team there, because there would have been a pile of bodies had he not stopped that situation. Most goons can't even control themselves. They just want to pound somebody's face.

IMHO Lindros the player had one of the top 5 to 10 skill sets of all time, and didn't have even one of the top 100 careers. Injuries? Sure. a lot of it he simply wasted his career. When he broke in I could not think of a way that he would not be a HOFer, now I cannot think of a way that you could justify putting him in. Was he Falloon or Daigle? Of course not. But you don't see anyone advocating them for the hall either. He coulda woulda shoulda been one of the all time greats and for reasons that I can only blame on him didn't. In my opinion no team with Lindros and all of his baggage could have won a cup. The Flyers, with Forsberg, Hextall, ect... would have likely won a cup during that era. Lindros quite simply IMHO was not a winner. I would never want him on my team under any circumstances.

It's stuff like this where your argument just completely falls apart. I have a lot of problems with him as a player and leader, but you take it to absurd levels.

In what universe are Ron Hextall and Peter Forsberg the key to the Flyers woes? Ron Hextall, as a player, was the key to nothing. Let's just get that out of the way right there. Fiery guy, fan favorite, nice enough player, but outside of that run in 87, that man was not a cup caliber goalie (and the rest of his career showed that).

Peter Forsberg here - at that time - is no different than Lindros here during the same time period. Both men are immediately thrust into the spotlight and expected to bring a dead organization back to life. Lindros did that. He took a pathetic franchise - and I can vouch for how bad attendance was during that era, because I used to walk up to the ticket window the night of games and get great seats - Forsberg did not. Forsberg had the benefit of playing with multiple all-time greats and when he did venture out on his own, he couldn't even create a fraction of that success.

When I look back on his career the first word that comes to my mind is disappointing. It's the very first thing I think of and what I think defines his career. I also think he didn't play well with others. But I don't outright deny - like you - how dominant he was, his stats (ppg particularly), the fact that he single handily resurrected a whole franchise, had injury problems, did not have great talent around him (in part because of his ego).

As we approach the draft I could see him packaged. Some team well under the cap might take him on as means of building character--my nearby Panthers are a possibility. We send him with a second rounder and some prospects and/or a Nick Grossman.  I can't see him being moved on a standalone deal. But i am no GM.  

 

The only "long-term" hope we have is a career stabilization that allows for trading later this season. But that is low probability. But if the Hartnell deal is an indicator, VLC has been sent some clear signals about his long-term fit or lack thereof. And that might pry loose the NTC.

 

Howie

That's funny, because one of my first reactions to the Hartnell trade was that maybe nobody is biting on VLC and they were looking for cap relief wherever they can get it.

The fourth line is for giving the first three lines enough of a breather so they can play at peak level, while not screwing the pooch in doing so. Its also for gooning it up when necessary so you don't waste skilled players sitting in the penalty box for 5 minutes at a shot. :-P

Nobody on this team stood up for their teammates than Hartnell in recent years. Simmonds is the heir apparent in that department (as well as a few others). They were 3rd and 4th in points last year and did so while being 2nd and 3rd in PIM.

I know this is absolutely the wrong forum to say this in as a Flyer forum but my opinion of Lindros is he squandered one of the top ten talents of all time. Did he still put up eye popping numbers? Sure. Were they anywhere near the numbers they should have been or did he win? God no. Lindros essentially stole his paycheck and wasted one of the worlds greatest skill sets of all time. Thousands upon thousands of players play with much more intensity and desire, through broken bones and other injuries. Lindros was not one of them and it is a damn shame. The legend of Eric could have and should have been so much more. What he did was not enough. Not enough by half.

Yeah....just stop it right there. You make it sound like he had the hype - and disappointing numbers - of Falloon or Daigle. He didn't deliver ultimately, but his career was better than words like "stole his paycheck" or "squandered" indicate. I think you can criticize him - a lot of which I'd probably agree with - without saying something that dumb.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Meltzer writes:

 

Nevertheless, this trade perplexes me a bit, unless it is the first of multiple moves. 

Umberger's cap hit ($4.6 million) is not that much lower than Hartnell's ($4.75 million) and his contract runs through 2016-17, so this trade cannot be characterized as one that has significant cap-related advantages. Hartnell and Umberger are both 32 years old. 

If the draft pick had been a higher one, I would have understood the benefit immediately. If Philly had gotten an extra second-round pick or some such, the deal could be explained as general manager Ron Hextall starting to collect assets. Umberger is strictly a third-line player, albeit a good one. The pick the Flyers got is a negligible additional asset in exchange for someone who has been a first-line left winger on the club and has been part of several successful line combinations over the years. 

Umberger is a definite upgrade over Steve Downie as a fit on the third line with Sean Couturier and Matt Read. He wins a lot of battles and usually plays a disciplined game, whereas Downie has rarely done the latter in his NHL and was not doing much of the former this past season. 

Now the big question: Who will be the Flyers new first line left winger? As of now, the job may go to Brayden Schenn, along with Hartnell's role on the top power play unit. If that's the case, it means the Flyers will be in the market for another top-six forward.

We shall see in the days and weeks to come what Hextall has planned. 

 

We shall see....

That's interesting to me, because for a while now I've thought that Schenn is not a center.

Sure.  But if their offensive skills/production offset them being a defensive liability, that alone is often enough for a team to justify not only keeping those players but paying their hefty salary.  Kovalchuk is a prime example.  The guy was doing absolutely ZERO defensively, but was one of the most offensively gifted players in the league.  And there are tons of other examples to support this.

Guys who are that good offensively are always going to find work, even if they are a defensive liability. Goals win games and players who score them have more value. A lot more value. Guys like that have more value than a 4th line mucker and grinder. It's not an excuse or defense for the Kovalchuck's of the world, it's just a fact. If money was no object, nobody is picking Zac Rinaldo over Kovy.

Partially agreed, only because I believe in a 4th line center who is strong on FO and PK.

Blair Betts and Adam Hall, while replaceable, were very helpful.

It's not a top priority, but sure shouldn't be ignored.

I love a 4th line that serves an actual purpose - rather than to just kill time - but it doesn't have to be that purpose. It can/should be if that's what you need or the more likely scenario, all you can afford, but shouldn't have to be. The idea that line has to be just that is incorrect. That is my point. Especially when you take into consideration that most of the time the top PKers on the team are usually from the top 9 (which is all the more reason for a 4th line that can give the top 9 a break without being a liability).

 There is one big flaw in your plan. Good offensive players that cannot maintain possession are useless in a 4th line role. Sure, the puck will be in the other teams end....for a brief flash, then Vinny will give up the puck cause he's not willing to take a bonecrushing hit to maintain possession. The missing part of the equation is players *must* have heart to play on the 4th line. They are there for a good time, not a long time as the song goes....either that or as aziz says, you take time away from more talented players in the top 6.

Good offensive players that cannot maintain puck possession and not willing to take a hit are useless (defensively) regardless of what line they are one. The 4th line has nothing to do with it.

sure, if you want to put it that way.  typically, the 4th line is for players who aren't defensively awesome, but are "not good enough" to score.  and that's ok.  the fourth line is for players you are comfortable only giving 5-10 minutes a night, but have enough faith in that they aren't going to give up a million goals over those few minutes.  that is the point.  

 

if you want an expensive 4th line that can score with the best of them, and want them to carry their full share of ice time, then you are reducing giroux's icetime to 15minutes/night.  couturier's, too.  everyone's.  if you want those actually high end players to get 18 minutes, someone else has to skate less.  the 4th line provides the elastic so that can happen.  they fill as much time as needed, and no more.

is for players who cost the least. It's got nothing to do with mucking and grinding, keeping the puck out of our own zone, or some other cliche hockey phrase meant to sugarcoat the fact that 4th liners are barely NHL players. Nobody goes out of their way to get guys like that because they need them.

good research. Briere produces more and is just (or close to) clutch. 

 

sometimes we (board) get gagga about would of, could of should have. In this case, the move was right. Markov was a dman we needed for the playoffs that year (sans the cigs and vodka). 

He defintiely deserves the accolades for what he did in the POs, but I hate "would of, could have" crap, especially when it's based on nothing more than a guy's current production. I like the guy, but ain't nothing says exaggeration like talking up a 16-goal a year man like he's a perennial all-star.

  Insert a soft, lazy guy into the 4th line role and your team is at a disadvantage. The 4th line is not intended to score, although it's a nice bonus when it does. There main purpose is to win the puck battles, try to maintain puck possession, try to take some steam out of opposing defensemen by obliterating them....and in general keep the puck out of their own end while you keep more talented players off the score sheet. I don't see how VLC's game accomplishes any of those things. Why would you even want a 5 million dollar player chipping in 6-8 minutes a game? VLC would get no where near the limited point production he had last year. Most of the 4th line starts are in their own end.

Don't give me this "not intended to" crap. No player's job is to not score. It's BS for "not good enough" to score. You want to keep the puck out of your own zone? Get good offensive players. That includes the 4th line.

I get what you're saying, but it might more about the gap between what the team thinks of Vinny (4th line center?) and what Vinny thinks he is (2nd line center, I'm guessing). There are certainly teams where he can fill that role - regardless of whether or not he actually lives up to that role. Some teams are just weaker up the middle and would be willing to take a chance on a stopgap. He does bring a wealth of experience with him too. 

 

So the smart conversation to have between Hextall / Berube and Vinny is about his expected role. That lays the cards on the table, and is what professional organizations do. That gives Vinny a chance to mull it over, and if he says he thinks he can play at a higher level that they're offering, he may be willing to accept a trade. In any case, the expectations are clear, and Vinny would have no excuse to be 'unhappy' in his role if he stays in Philly.

I'm not concerned with whether he's willing to accept a trade or not. I'm concerned about anyone actually wanting him.

  Maybe I'm just stating the obvious here, but playing Vinny on the 4th line is square peg in a round hole syndrome. He's a defensive liability, does not hustle, does not pursue the puck with reckless abandon, does not hit, can't sustain a forecheck....these are all prerequisites to playing the 4th line in the NHL. If you can't do those things, the Flyers will be at a disadvantage. I say sit him in the pressbox until his ego hurts to the point where he begs to be traded.

Who says your 4th line has to be one that plays defense or pursues the puck with reckless abandon? Couturier is already the guy we're leaning towards matching up against other teams best players, so you don't need a guy on the 4th who plays D; and it's a completely misnomer that the 4th line has any impact on the game anyway. It's not like you throw RInaldo or Hall out there when you need the team to play a shutdown game. Just doesn't happen.

Now that's dumb.