Jump to content

Danny Briere: Flyers’ New GM Says ‘Rebuild,’ Welcomes the Challenge


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

He had a career year in PIMs this year.

 

Also played more games than in any season since 2014-15.

 

So did Nick "Too important to move" Seeler. ok, 2nd most PIMs in career. 

 

And also, NOT a keeper. 

Edited by flyercanuck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

It's a new day until it isn't.

 

And it might not be.

 

 Yes, and my referral to "the guys building" was to the ones who had to have DesLauriers. And hopefully, please God, not the current GM.

 

22 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

 

Is Deslauriers "the reason" they are picking 7th?

 

No.

 

Is he "a reason" they will be better next year?

 

Probably not.

 

Doesn't "need" to go, doesn't "need" to stay.

 

Like anybody else over 27 if you can get something useful for them, seriously consider it.

 

 

Pretty much what I said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

I don't see any need to retain a 32 year old goon who plays less than 10 minutes a night.

 

Ok see right here not sure where you got the fact that i was saying don't move him.

 

Either way not what i was getting at. But the guy earns his money. He shows up to work.

 

I am at a point that i have never been too with this team since 1991. Make me an offer for anyone.

 

Years past there has always been at least one player i don't want to part with.

 

With this team make me an offer for anyone under the Flyer umbrella....anyone.

 

That is how feed up i am with them...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GrittyForever said:

I probably wouldn't look to trade anybody born 1999 or more recently, but even with them, if the offer was good enough I would. 

 

I wouldn't trade Hart among a few others unless I was blown away with an offer. But the thing with goalies, for whatever reason, they just don't bring in much of a haul. So it's probably not worth the hassle of trading him away and trying to find a replacement. Ersson is still a big ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I wouldn't trade Hart among a few others unless I was blown away with an offer. But the thing with goalies, for whatever reason, they just don't bring in much of a haul. So it's probably not worth the hassle of trading him away and trying to find a replacement. Ersson is still a big ?

 

There's nothing less than a franchise changing deal that I move Hart for.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CoachX said:

And yet he still has a job. Teams keep signing him. Im sure all us forum experts know more than all the Gm's in the league. That's why there are more of us then there are of them. And if they were all smarter they would probably be on this forum instead of deciding who ACTUALLY plays on their teams. But I think I will forgo my infinite hockey wisdom and extend them an ounce of courtesy that there is reason ND is employed.

 

My initial post, albeit honest, was a joke. However, as pointed out, ND is not the reason this team sucks. And he won't be the reason they keep sucking. Considering where they are as team, and where he is a player, I think he is useful and valuable. I know if I'm Morgan Frost, having a guy like Delauriers watching my back, would give me a boost of confidence

heck look at the kraken, they are physical from top to bottom, i dont understand how fans are just thinking that players cant play defense and being physical is going to make things better? like unless the hitting goes away then i would say we wouldnt need any physical players.

 

heck when columbus beat tampa in the playoffs they were physical on them, that's why they swept them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GrittyForever said:

I probably wouldn't look to trade anybody born 1999 or more recently, but even with them, if the offer was good enough I would. 

age should not be the determining factor. Skill should

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CoachX said:

age should not be the determining factor. Skill should

 

Luckily, the venn diagram of people older than 27 and pretty much not going to be a part of the rebuild looks a lot like a circle.

 

Who are you keeping of:

Hayes

Laughton

Deslauriers

Lemieux

Ristolainen
Deangelo
Sanheim
Seeler
Couturier
Atkinson

 

I know you're big into Laughts, but I think you should look at this with a clear head and not let your personal feelings get in the way. :hocky:

Edited by radoran
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have clarified that I was speaking in general. As for the Flyers, they're screwed. Trade anybody. I wouldn't even notice they were gone :smileyandcomputer:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I wouldn't trade Hart among a few others unless I was blown away with an offer. But the thing with goalies, for whatever reason, they just don't bring in much of a haul. So it's probably not worth the hassle of trading him away and trying to find a replacement. Ersson is still a big ?

To be devil's advocate on that, if you see this as a long rebuild, best way to get better is to add lots of picks and prospects and suck for a number of years. So trade the goalie away and lose more. Semi tanking. 

 

I wouldn't look to trade Hart myself. I think you start a rebuild from the goal and move out from that, but if the haul was really good I'd do it. 

 

Here's a wild idea. Take Ullmark off the Bruins hands as they aren't happy with his playoff performance, then trade Hart for 1st rounders etc. We run with Ullmark for several years while Ersson develops. idk if Bruins really would want to ditch him, but they do have cap problems and they might prefer to make Swayman a true #1. Just a crazy idea, but they should look at ALL ideas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CoachX said:

age should not be the determining factor. Skill should

To some extent, but what I'm getting at is keep younger guys who Torts can mold and develop and still have upside. Also, guys not covered in the stink of what this team is and has been. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Who are you keeping of:

Hayes

Laughton

Deslauriers

Lemieux

Ristolainen
Deangelo
Sanheim
Seeler
Couturier
Atkinson

 

Far too easy of a question obviously. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, GrittyForever said:

To be devil's advocate on that, if you see this as a long rebuild, best way to get better is to add lots of picks and prospects and suck for a number of years. So trade the goalie away and lose more. Semi tanking. 

 

I wouldn't look to trade Hart myself. I think you start a rebuild from the goal and move out from that, but if the haul was really good I'd do it. 

 

Here's a wild idea. Take Ullmark off the Bruins hands as they aren't happy with his playoff performance, then trade Hart for 1st rounders etc. We run with Ullmark for several years while Ersson develops. idk if Bruins really would want to ditch him, but they do have cap problems and they might prefer to make Swayman a true #1. Just a crazy idea, but they should look at ALL ideas. 

 

I agree with what you're saying and had thought of that. Hart probably won many games we had no busuness winning this year, especially early on in the season when he was hot. So in that aspect it makes sense.

 

The part I don't want to trade him is in trying to replace him, and that I highly doubt you're getting "1st rounders etc "....goalies just don't get that. And Hart, no fault of his own, has been pretty up and down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I agree with what you're saying and had thought of that. Hart probably won many games we had no busuness winning this year, especially early on in the season when he was hot. So in that aspect it makes sense.

 

The part I don't want to trade him is in trying to replace him, and that I highly doubt you're getting "1st rounders etc "....goalies just don't get that. And Hart, no fault of his own, has been pretty up and down. 

If that's the case, no point in trading him. He's not an addition by subtraction guy like Hayes or De'Angelo. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

The part I don't want to trade him is in trying to replace him, and that I highly doubt you're getting "1st rounders etc "....goalies just don't get that. And Hart, no fault of his own, has been pretty up and down. 

 

Like anything else you need to look at fit and who's got the opportunity.

 

If a contender that needs a goalie and cap room can create both in a deal, you may get a better return than expected.

 

And, as always, if you don't get the return you want, you don't do the deal.

 

There's no NEED to trade Hart.

 

If you can improve the franchise by doing it - and it's definitely a tricky situation as to whether that happens - it's not something to be rejected out of hand.

 

And, no, you're not getting multiple firsts and quality players for a guy who has played well but hasn't set the world on fire.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OccamsRazor

Cue the rightfully righteous howls of good old boy nepotism.

 

I don't think Jonesy has had any front office experience. 

He's a fine commentator, maybe he could grow into the role. 

He's not the last person I'd want for the job  but he doesn't crack my top 50

Edited by mojo1917
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

This looks like as good as a place as any.

 

Thoughts?

I think Jones empathizes with the fans. He hates that the team sucks. Maybe that would make it work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, CoachX said:

I think Jones empathizes with the fans. He hates that the team sucks. Maybe that would make it work

 

Yeah I guess ... and if his heart is set on working for the Flyers I can understand finding him a job somewhere in the organization....but President? Jones strikes me as an intelligent, thoughtful guy and I appreciate his hockey commentary but if he has no experience how is he qualified?

 

This doesn't look like a considered step in a patient rebuild. This looks more like the same ol' Flyers doing things their way taking shortcuts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

Jones strikes me as an intelligent, thoughtful guy and I appreciate his hockey commentary but if he has no experience how is he qualified?

oh, Im sorry, I thought you said Danny Briere. My bad

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

 

Well to be fair I'm sure you know Briere's journey to the (interim) "top" has been a whole lot different than Keith Jones'.

Has it? He did a short stint on a minor team where he ran day-to-day operations and Paul Holmgren was the governor. Then he was some made up position with the Flyers after that minor team was taken over by the Bruins. So his management resume is at best, lacking.

 

Jones has no hockey management resume that Im aware of. He was one of the partners that owned a horse that won one the 2005 Queens Plate.  Canada's most prestigious horse race.  I would assume that indicates he has business/finance background

 

Both are equally qualified, they are ex-flyers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

This looks like as good as a place as any.

 

Thoughts?

 

I love the concept of bringing a guy in for an interview while simultaneously saying they will fill the position this week.

 

"So, am I a finalist?"

 

I wonder who it will be...?

 

:hocky:

  • Good Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...