Jump to content

ruxpin

Member
  • Content Count

    22,278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    373

Posts posted by ruxpin

  1. Look, I'm sorry, not to speak ill of the dead,but the biggest problem with this organization was Ed Snider and now his continued legacy.

     

    Thank you, Ed, for bringing the organization and the sport to Philly, but the organization has been fatally flawed pretty much since Keith Allen stepped away.  The myopia and Luriesque attachment to people failing at their jobs at the top, a losing philosophy, and an utter lack of ingenuity and forethoughtedness (is that a word?) has been glaring for literally decades.

     

    When was the last time the Flyers were at the forefront or anyone was copying their new approach?   I don't recall one.

     

    All I recall is the Johnny come lately Flyers copying other teams' formula that was 4-5 years into development but already being replaced by the next success story that was 2-3 into theirs.  Always a generation, if not two, behind.

     

    If you're copying anyone, you're already behind the next wave.

     

    And that's the lack of vision of people all the way at the top and their successors.

     

    And now the Flyers are owned and operated by a company drenched in lack of originality or innovation.

    • Good Post 2
  2. 46 minutes ago, Howie58 said:

    Greetings:

     

    I grew up in Vineland, NJ, not too far from Philly.  At the time, the paper was known as the Vineland Times Journal.  Now it's the Daily Journal.  Every blue moon I go online to see what's up.  Today, I saw the following article:

     

    https://www.thedailyjournal.com/story/sports/pro/2021/04/09/flyers-most-disappointing-team-season/7146530002/

     

    I agree with this assessment.  The last decade has been disturbing and as we've been saying for months, this year's squad is barely watchable.  Fans have a right to be angry and CF/Comcast have a lot of soul searching in coming weeks and months even if we miraculously make the playoffs.  

    Biggest disappointment to whom?  To me?  Yes.

     

    Actually, it's neck and neck with "The Society" being unexpectedly cancelled by Netflix because of production delays due to COVID.

    • Like 1
    • Good Post 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

     

    Then we have to split them up and find them some help maybe new partners.

     

    This kids need to be coached up....hard. Eat some ****** food. Hit the weights. Find some toughness from somewhere deep down or they are fcuked!

    Again, I don't think that's the problem.  They played together before and did well. The near universal refrain was DON'T ever break them up.

     

    I'm telling you, you can go up and down this roster and there's a similar pattern and we can get lost in the minutia of what is wrong in each case (and not be wrong, btw).  But there is an undercurrent pattern and unless we find the cause of THAT and address it, any player you move will only be replaced by the next victim of that existent pattern/cause.

     

    I tell you what, though, pattern aside I also agree with the "coaching up" and those who aren't happy with the assistants. If you remember, I was looking for a bridge when their hiring was announced. They've done nothing to change my mind.   If they were moved out, I wouldn't cry.  While that would be appropriate, I don't think it solves the root cause.

    • Like 1
  4. 6 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

     

    I'ts why you have to give something of value back. Exchanging pieces. 

     

     

    Sure but how much longer you going to wait??

     

    all the ones we have everyone wants gone except one.

     

    And you shouldn't have to blow a hole in your roster...but give up prospects and a roster piece at least with draft picks.

     

    So no NHL 2022 moves please.

     

    I only want two players gone.   And just one of them might work.   They start with the same letters as "Vaginal Ggonorrhea."  Or, "Gross!  Vulgar!"

     

    The rest, I don't actually have to wait.  We've already seen it.  And then it withered and died.  It's still there.  And if you get rid of one or both of the VGs, and they don't come back to life, then you get rid of them.

     

     

    Barring that.  If we're going to pretend that the VeeGees aren't the problem, then I move Patrick first and foremost.    I think he's actually played better in some ways.  It's not showing on the scoreboard though.   And "better" might be only in relation to how pathetic he was.   But I also allow for the idea that at this point this season was a killer one to come back to after missing the time he did.   At some point, though, you start to run out of excuses.   I move him before other GMs run out their own excuses.   You're not getting a Kubalik or similar for him, but maybe he's the start of a package.    He's not the sort you're getting a lot for at the deadline, and no one is making that move only to expose him to the Kraken, so this is an offseason move.

     

    I'm moving Raffl at the deadline, if it's me.  I really like the guy.   He's been a loyal foot soldier and filled in wherever asked.   But he's UFA this summer and is the prototypical depth rental that you get a pick and/or a prospect for because the team who gets him knows that if one of their top six goes down, he can slide up.  He won't win you anything but he'll be a competent placeholder.    At 32, man, I'd cheer for whatever team he's on because there's a guy I'd like to see win something.  Or at least experience a deep run.

     

    Of the rest of the forwards making less than $7M, I'm not in a hurry.   I suppose I'd move NAK in a package, but I think it would have to be a package.  I have no idea what you possibly get for him straight up.   Except I'm fearful he's yet another example of someone who hits the black hole of our locker room, gets sucked in, and his ability disappears.  You were really high on him at one time, and I still don't think you were wrong.    Maybe some GM somewhere will think you were right, too.   Laughton is another who, like NAK, I'd move for the right deal.  I just wouldn't be enthusiastic about it.

     

    I move defense in the absence of forwards to trade.   Ghost, Hagg, Braun--who Fletcher inexplicably gave TWO years.   No one in their right mind is trading for Gus at the deadline.  I don't think.   

    I'm keeping Sanheim and Myers.   I think they're emblematic of the organizational dry rot I keep harping on.  I don't think Sanheim played himself into a huge contract, so he could be extended modestly.

    And I don't think there's a market, but I move Elliott at the deadline if I can get someone interested.    If they can't pull down either Bernier or Reimer, I give Colorado a call.   Depending on Rask & Halak's situation, I'd kick their tires.  Even Arizona.   Hell, both goalies in St. Louis suck, maybe send him back there.

     

    There are definitely some options.    And I think you're thinking the right player type.   Maybe the same type of player but on a team where he's blocked from the top 6.  No, I don't have an example.   Kubalik isn't blocked, though, and I think he's got to be in their plans.  He's been playing up roster but just has hit a rough patch so they slid him down.

     

    I think Fizz is right -- I think it was Fizz -- that the NMC hampers the return on Giroux, even if he would waive it.  Because he'd naturally have a list and that reduces the return when you  limit the customer base.  And I don't think either of the VeeGees move at the deadline given their cap hit.   If they move, it would be an offseason and possibly draft time trade.

     

    As much as I think it's exactly what needs to be done, I'd be beyond stunned (there is no word!) if they actually traded either of them.

     

     

     

     

  5. 4 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

    find guys like i suggest here like Dominik Kubalik and go get him he can put the biscuit in the basket

     

    I'm curious what team would trade away a guy like Kubalik.   I mean, they know what they have in him, he's still fairly inexpensive, and is still RFA at the end of next season.  He's actually spent a lot of the season on higher lines, but he's going through a slow patch.  I mean, they're rebuilding too, so I don't think we get him.   I personally wouldn't trade him for anything on the Flyers if I'm Chicago.

     

    I know he's one example and I also get that maybe with some kind of package, but I'm also not blowing a hole in the roster to get him, either.  (I do like him.   Good call on the type of player we need).   I'd certainly kick the tires; I'm just not expecting that particular example to go anywhere.      

     

    But again, I actually do think we have those types here.   Something repeatedly is taking players that have done well and crushed the life out of them.  They go elsewhere after and suddenly it's like someone used the paddles and they sprung back to life.    Whatever is causing that circumstance is what needs to be rooted out and destroyed.

  6. 10 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

    So, during that time, who would you have built around or tried to build around ?

     

    There was no other option, but that's not really the point.    The people you mentioned weren't here long enough (Konecny on the back end, Timonen on the front) or reasonable choices (Konecny) or whomever.

    The point is --and this part is certainly not Giroux's fault -- is that they never brought that in.   And by the time Giroux was in the role for multiple years--and especially with V as the wingman -- you couldn't bring someone else in and expect it to work as long as the VeeGees were here.    So, it's time to move on.

     

    Honestly, I have quite a bit of vitriol pointed toward Voracek.  I realize that's "pretzel logic" to some, but I prefer to refer to is as "possessing eyes and a working brain stem."

    But none of this is to say it's Giroux's fault or even Voracek's.  In the absence of a viable captain, Giroux stepped in and took it--or was handed it, but he could have said no.   And it's not like he's publicly grumbled or whined about it.   I think he's actually tried his best with it.   And he has produced.   It's nearly impossible to soberly argue that point.  But he is never going to captain a winning team and you can't bring in that type with him here.   So move on.   He'll come back and rightfully have his jersey retire and all of the people who kvetched about him for the last 5 years will stop the world for the game they're honoring Giroux and nearly uniformly everyone will wax nostalgic about how great he was, nevermind that in real time half the board would put him in front of a wall with a blindfold on.

     

    But he'll rightly have his number retired.     He tried his best.  He produced.   True and true.   But none of that means that the rest isn't true either.  That whether because of him or despite him and and Voracek, the culture is toxic and it's emanating from the core.  The only way to wake up the room with out unnecessarily gutting it is to change the core that has existed through every other change possible (barring Comcast selling the team to a DeVos or something).  

     

    I don't think you and I actually disagree on a lot of this.  Neither one of us really blame him.  Neither one of us think he's as bad as at least some on here seem to think.  And we're both kind of resigned to moving him.   I think we differ in that where you're more "what the hell, get on with it then,"  I'm a little further down the road at "do it NOW and get on with it."  Because I do think fault or not, it's at the heart of what needs to be done at this point.

    • Like 1
    • Good Post 1
  7. Just now, ruxpin said:

    It's not exactly self-explanatory, apparently.   And it's incriminating in the sense it's a stupid statement.  Unsurprising given the caveman who said it.   It's right up there with "It's only one game."   Of course it's only one game!  It clearly wasn't 12!

    But if every game is important, if every minute isn't important, why bother at all?   Certainly some shifts will be better than others.  Some games better than others.   But the "play 60 minutes" is about effort and giving a damn.  His quote (and Richards' "it's just a game" before it) is indicative of a 'screw it, we'll turn it on when we need to" thought when clearly they're NOT turning it on when they need to.   It's about playing stupid or not giving a rip because there's always another shift or another game.

     

    Sure, the results won't always be there.  Sure, the best players will make boneheaded mistakes and they'll make mistakes while tying their best.  Of course...they're human.  And there's another team out there.    But Jesus, no one's asking the team to control all 60 minutes.   Just show the hell up .   The whole statement from Voracek i is just simply absurd on its face, is whiney excuse-making "duh...nobody is perfect [scratch scratch grunt]," and is entirely missing the point.

     

    You lost 9-0 and 7-2 or whatever, dipshit.   Start by controlling SIX MINUTES you fleabag punk!

     

    Other than that, I really don't have much of an opinion on the subject.   Pretty much undecided on him.

    • Like 2
  8. 44 minutes ago, radoran said:

     

    I kinda get that - and kinda don't get that.

     

    The guy has all of three goals since February 1. And for a lynchpin of PP1 he has all of four PPP (all A) in that time frame.

     

    And while I'm "happy" they weren't shut out against Buffalo, his assist on the goal that made it 6-1 was... :hocky:

     

    Others definitely "hate" him more than I do. I'm just not terribly impressed with him as a cornerstone of the franchise.

     

    hate him.   For the record, I completely despise him.   Like I did Lecavalier, except that unlike Vinny, I didn't hate Voracek from the moment he arrived.

    First, he's not the only one that reliably contributes offensively.   First of all, it's hardly "reliably," and second, the amount of offense he contributes the other way due to sheer idiocy and arrogance is mind-numbing.    He simply makes utterly asinine plays in the neutral zone and high in the offensive zone.    They don't ALL end up in the Flyer net, but he puts an absurd amount of pressure on the Flyers' defense and goaltending as a result.   Just simply a stupid player.  Yeah, so he "picks things up and puts them down."    Terrific.  The s**t ended up exactly where it started.  Yippee.

     

    41 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

    "Everybody says play 60 minutes. It's a hockey cliche. I've never seen a team control all 60 minutes."

     

    Isn’t this is the quote in question? If not my apologies. It sounds completely self-explanatory to me no interpretation needed. You really have to twist yourself pretzel-style to make it into something incriminating. 

     

    It's not exactly self-explanatory, apparently.   And it's incriminating in the sense it's a stupid statement.  Unsurprising given the caveman who said it.   It's right up there with "It's only one game."   Of course it's only one game!  It clearly wasn't 12!

    But if every game isn't important, if every minute isn't important, why bother at all?   Certainly some shifts will be better than others.  Some games better than others.   But the "play 60 minutes" is about effort and giving a damn.  His quote (and Richards' "it's just a game" before it) is indicative of a 'screw it, we'll turn it on when we need to" thought when clearly they're NOT turning it on when they need to.   It's about playing stupid or not giving a rip because there's always another shift or another game.

     

    I'm sure the pay for every game is pretty damn important to him.

     

    Sure, the results won't always be there.  Sure, the best players will make boneheaded mistakes and they'll make mistakes while tying their best.  Of course...they're human.  And there's another team out there.    But Jesus, no one's asking the team to control all 60 minutes.   Just show the hell up .   The whole statement from Voracek i is just simply absurd on its face, is whiney excuse-making "duh...nobody is perfect [scratch scratch grunt]," and is entirely missing the point.

     

    You lost 9-0 and 7-2 or whatever, dipshit.   Start by controlling SIX MINUTES you fleabag punk!

    • Like 4
  9.  

     

    1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

    Everyone here knows I don't buy into the G is suk narrative so I'm not going to dive into that anymore.

    If people want him gone, fine. 

     

    I'm over seeing 10k posts about how he's the reason this team is bad. 

     

    I'm not saying G is suk and haven't.  He doesn't.  I get what you're responding to with this, and I hear you, but I  am not saying that.

    This isn't about his skill.   Richards was quite frankly a horrible captain.   I'm still fine with trading him because he simply was horrible captain and there, too, there was something horribly wrong with the group.  He and Carter were shipped out not because Richards is suk or Carter is suk but because they represented the leadership and their "It's just one game" and you can just screw off and 'f[orget] the coach!" mentality was permeating.   What we got in return is another topic altogether.  And their play on the Kings is actually beside the point:  neither was captain in LA.  They had other strong voices in the room.   Both players were able to play and do their thing and the room followed those other strong, positive voices that mirrored the coach's direction.  I'm arguing the same concept with Giroux.  And Voracek.  Just, for the love of God, be smarter about the return!   (In many ways, the return wasn't bad with Carter/Richards, but there's no reason at this moment to trade Grioux/Voracek for players and picks that are several seasons away from contributing in a meaningful way).

     

    1 hour ago, mojo1917 said:

    I also don't know if I understand how G and V ruined Myers? Are they telling him, "hey pass it away from your support ?" or "rather than taking the extra stride to get beside the cage and clear the puck high down the center of the ice just throw that **** off the high glass and hope".  I don't see where those 2 guys have that kind of influence.

     

    To me it is far more likely that Myers is having a bit of a sophomore slump and is developing at the normal pace for an NHL defenseman who's also relied upon to be 2nd pair.

     

    Your second statement in the above quote is certainly plausible.   But your super focusing on his name when he was just a single name I used as an example of many.  Let's not lose the forest for the moss mound beneath the tree.   I reversed the order of the quotes here because I'm hoping this answer is apparent given my answer to the first quote. 

     

    This isn't about a decision to throw a puck up the boards blindly or missing coverage, etc.   Those things happen because of laissez faire attitudes and approaches to their jobs.   This is exactly the culture I'm talking about and a decade later and the fact it continues across coaches --2 of whom have won a cup elsewhere and one who has repeatedly gone to the finals--GMs and enough players to populate a medium sized town, you cut the head off at the top; you don't screw around with the foot soldiers.    Once you've replaced the top, you'll have a better understanding of the lower personnel who aren't ready to follow the new leader.   

     

    To put the metaphor closer to the language you were trying to use (your quote below).   On the manufacturing floor, sometimes when you see a stream of injuries and quality issues occur over time, the problem doesn't necessarily have to be training or process (I'm not implying it never is or that it's not a valid place to start!).  But when you have changed training and process, etc., and have repeated anecdotal evidence that the employees are simply being careless and skipping steps of process and their training and you have evidence of the floor leadership looking the other way or, worse, also cutting corners, usually the most effective approach isn't to replace 10+ operators.  You move out the supervisor.   So, if we want to quibble over allegory, I'm fine with meeting at the supervisor/floor leader  level if that's the context we want to place Giroux and Voracek. 

     

     

    Quote

    I don't know if I quite cotton to the last paragraph either. The captains and alternates would be supervisor or floor level leaders in almost every instance I can think of aside from pick-up games.

     

    However, the captains and alternates were not supervisor or floor level leaders in the context I was stating/framing it, though it doesn't change the point.    First,  supervisors and floor level leaders don't make 2-3 times more than the leaders.   And the player group follows the lead of the captain and alternates much more than they follow the coach--especially and clearly in Philadelphia.   I'm talking in relation to the guys actually on the team.  I'm not talking about Comcast shirts or front office people or even coaching staff.  Those are all the corporate people in this context, not the guys at the "plant" or "branch" level, which would be the players.  In that context, Giroux is senior leader.  In the context of the Flyers' team, Giroux and Voracek are the senior leadership.    And I'm talking in terms of if the culture is bad and permeating, benching or trading the 3rd or 4th line guys or the bottom two defensive pairings (or 7-8th) isn't changing a systemic culture.   You need to change the leadership.   And we've been through 5 coaches and three GMs.  And several different lineups.   At some point the root cause should be clearly apparent even to Helen Keller three weeks after she slipped into a coma.  Giroux and voracek have survived while culture has not changed despite the wake of coach, GM and player bodies strewn behind them.   Let's once and for all change them and stop being naïve.   This isn't about them sucking.  They have enough left that they can prove successful yet elsewhere.   Broadcasters seem to think Voracek is terrific despite the fact that when I watch him he's among the dumbest, most irritating players I've ever watched.   Clearly, that's a matter of perception.  So, trade him and let him be wonderful elsewhere.

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Good Post 2
  10. 37 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

    I don't know why Niskanen retired. I don't think you do either. It could be that he just bought a bitchin chainsaw and those trees by the lake aren't going to cut themselves down for all we know. Projecting your idea onto his action is just that. 

     

    I completely agree with this.

    But I do think it's plausible.

    But so is the chain saw and the teenagers...er...trees by the lake.

     

    Niskanen, specifically, is wild speculation at best.   But from my vantage it fits in nicely with what to me is several seasons of mounting symptoms.

    • Haha 1
  11. 25 minutes ago, tucson83 said:

     

     

    i mean that's the thing why in 2007 the rebuild was success because homer was going after leadership quality type of players, timms, smith, hartnell, briere, lupul, that's the thing that fletch has to do in offseason, get more cap space and try to go after leadership type of players.

    Agreed.

     

    I don't want to overstate what I've said (although I already have), because while 2007 is a great of example of  how this should work, there was presumably this idea when we threw Richards & Carter out.   Even in retrospect, I think the Richards & Carter reasoning was the right one, but the execution flat out sucked and it's derailed us for quite awhile.

     

    So, I would still move BOTH of Giroux and Doorcheck and let's close the Amish Outhouse chapter of FlyersLivesFightForWives and move on.

    • Like 1
  12. I would not trade Giroux, Vorachek, or Hayes for prospects or picks.  We have a lot and they're actually skilled enough.

     

    Again, what we have is a radioactive core that is infecting the kids (and others) once they get here. 

     

    I find it interesting--and telling--that Myers was really good in his first season and suddenly forgot how to play. More telling, and almost proof in my mind, is that Niskanen played one season on a TWO year contract and ran from the building after one season.  

     

    Voracek and Giroux, in particular are aging, radioactive, and have huge contacts.  Again, I don't have specific names, but I would trade them for similarly priced and aged people with similar term.  It doesn't matter whether it appreciably alters the skill level (I'd even step back slightly) or that those coming in are younger (preferable).  The idea is to break up the generators of culture and start new on that front.  Trade for Toews, if you can.  Getzlaf.  Whatever.  Just the sooner you do this, the sooner you can even begin to correct the rest of the crew.

     

    Seriously, my experience elsewhere is I haven't had to make changes at the supervisor or even floor level.  Actually, when those changes have been made, it hasn't changed anything appreciably. A couple strategic moves at senior leadership moved the needle a ton.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...