Part 2: Flyer trade assets in the rebuild: The "SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE" tier

[pilldoc]

Piggybacking off Charlie O'Connor's , here is Part 2 in his analysis of players who SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE trade wise.

 

The previous thread the focus was on the clear-cut trade options entering the first summer of the Philadelphia Flyers’ rebuild. The players who, given the realities of both their situation and the organization’s situation at large, make the most sense to move out for future assets.

 

Today, things get a bit murkier.

 

As with the previous post , each player projected to be under team control in 2023-24 was rated from a tradeability standpoint according to five separate categories, with a maximum of 50 points possible.

 

• Are we selling high/maximizing trade value? (10 = selling at peak value)
• Does he actually have trade value? (10 = would bring back the best possible assets)
• Might he not fit the culture/what John Tortorella is trying to build? (10 = doesn’t fit at all)
• Does his contract situation fit the timeline for contention? (10 = doesn’t fit at all)
• Does his age fit our timeline for contention? (10 = doesn’t fit at all)

 

Today, it’s time for the middle ground tier — those who fall between 25 and 30 points.

Not slam-dunk trade options, but ones who should at least be seriously discussed within the Flyers’ front office.

 

For these five players, a compelling case can be made that trading them in service of the rebuild is the right move. But each comes with viable reasons to instead hang on to him.

 

This will cause some controversy and hopefully some discussion.  So here we go .......

 

The “should be on the table” tier (25-30 points)

 

Scott Laughton

Are we selling high/maximizing trade value? Factor: 8
Does he actually have trade value? Factor: 8
Might he not fit the culture/what John Tortorella is trying to build? Factor: 1
Does his contract situation fit the timeline for contention? Factor: 5
Does his age fit our timeline for contention? Factor: 6

Total: 28

 

This is the one where you really have to ask yourself how much you value culture-building.

 

On many levels, Laughton makes just as much sense as everyone in the top tier as a trade option. He’s coming off the best scoring season of his career with 43 points (sell high). He’s a heart-and-soul gritty player on a reasonable cap hit with term remaining; Tampa Bay coughed up first-round picks in 2020 for two guys just like that (Blake Coleman and Barclay Goodrow) and was rewarded with two titles. And at 28 (he’ll be 29 later this month), it’s extremely possible that by the time the Flyers have (hopefully) turned the corner into contention, Laughton will have declined enough for age-related reasons that he can’t be a valuable part of that club.

 

Laughton also is probably the best locker room guy the Flyers have, someone who has fully bought into the infusion of effort and accountability that Tortorella has been preaching. There’s a reason he was the only Flyers player who wore a letter on his jersey last season (an “A”). From an attitude standpoint, he’s everything Tortorella and Briere want the Flyers to become.   That said, Briere and the Flyers can’t afford to keep him off the table entirely. There surely would be an offer where the tangible value of future assets outweighs the intangible value of Laughton’s locker room and on-bench presence.

 

This one will cause A LOT of controversy.

 

Carter Hart

Are we selling high/maximizing trade value? Factor: 7
Does he actually have trade value? Factor: 8
Might he not fit the culture/what John Tortorella is trying to build? Factor: 2
Does his contract situation fit the timeline for contention? Factor: 6
Does his age fit our timeline for contention? Factor: 4

Total: 27

 

And now we have the most intriguing rebuild debate of the summer for the Flyers: Should they heavily shop Hart?

 

The arguments in favor are straightforward. Hart should have significant trade value, given the fact that he’s re-established himself as one of the NHL’s better young netminders. He turns 25 in August, meaning that he’ll be well into his late 20s at least when the Flyers are looking to be turning the corner into contention, and goalies’ bodies have a propensity to break down at that age given the relentless demands of the position. Finally, Hart has just one more year left on his reasonable contract, and will be in line for a significant raise come the summer of 2024. Maybe it’s best to trade him now, rather than locking into a big-money long-term deal with him that very well might not fit the contention timeline.

 

But there are strong arguments against it as well. Twenty-five really isn’t that old, and if it’s a relatively efficient rebuild, Hart could still be just 27 or 28 when the rest of the roster starts to come together. Hart likely won’t require an extension that takes him deep into his mid-30s the way that Konecny almost certainly will — a six-year Hart deal, for example, would conclude at age 31, before the aging curve really tends to hit players hard. And then there’s the simple fact that the Flyers had been looking for a solution in goal for decades before unearthing Hart. Would it really be the right move to trade away a netminder who has already been through the worst of what Philadelphia can offer and came out standing on the other side?

 

Travis Sanheim

Are we selling high/maximizing trade value? Factor: 2
Does he actually have trade value? Factor: 2
Might he not fit the culture/what John Tortorella is trying to build? Factor: 7
Does his contract situation fit the timeline for contention? Factor: 10
Does his age fit our timeline for contention? Factor: 6

Total: 27

 

Should the Flyers try to trade Sanheim? Probably.

Will they be able to trade him for anything close to positive value? Probably not.

 

In retrospect, Fletcher’s decision to sign Sanheim to an eight-year, $50 million contract before the puck even dropped on Game 1 was his final act of unintentional sabotage. It’s not that Sanheim is a bad player — though he certainly played like one in 2022-23. It’s that a team on the verge of a rebuild — which the Flyers were back in October, even if they had yet to admit it to themselves — shouldn’t be giving out eight-year contracts with big cap hits to 27-year-olds, especially when they could have probably gotten back a first-round pick in a loaded 2023 draft had they sold him as a rental at the trade deadline. Add in the fact that they gave Sanheim the deal a year early, before determining how the reserved Sanheim and the demanding Tortorella would click (hint: not well)? It was nonsensical.

But now, the Flyers are stuck. It seems highly unlikely that another team would have interest in taking on the eight-year contract of a 27-year-old second-pair defenseman coming off probably his worst NHL season.

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by pilldoc

[pilldoc]

Rasmus Ristolainen

Are we selling high/maximizing trade value? Factor: 5
Does he actually have trade value? Factor: 4
Might he not fit the culture/what John Tortorella is trying to build? Factor: 3
Does his contract situation fit the timeline for contention? Factor: 8
Does his age fit our timeline for contention? Factor: 6

Total: 26

 

Ristolainen had a solid season for the Flyers in 2022-23 after a horrendous 1st month.

 

But given that he’ll be 29 come October and still has four more years left on a contract with a $5.1 million cap hit? Yeah, the Flyers should absolutely be open to moving him if a market exists.

 

So, does a market exist? It’s tough to say, because multiple teams (including, of course, the Flyers) thought he was worth a first-round pick when his tangible results were awful; at least this season, they weren’t. Then again, his offense dipped as well, and perhaps a 20-point Ristolainen just doesn’t come with the same sheen that 35-45 point Risto had, even if his advanced metrics have legitimately improved.

 

The good news for Ristolainen is that the adjustments he made to his game put him in Tortorella’s good graces, and I can’t imagine that the head coach will be arguing that he needs to be sent away. But Briere would be well served to at least see if teams have interest in Ristolainen. Clearing up $5.1 million of cap for the next four seasons currently allotted to a player in his late 20s certainly couldn’t hurt.

 

Tony DeAngelo

Are we selling high/maximizing trade value? Factor: 2
Does he actually have trade value? Factor: 4
Might he not fit the culture/what John Tortorella is trying to build? Factor: 7
Does his contract situation fit the timeline for contention? Factor: 7
Does his age fit our timeline for contention? Factor: 6

Total: 26

 

Perhaps you’re surprised that DeAngelo is so low on this list, given how his 2022-23 came to an end: in the press box for the final five games. But I’m still not sold that trading

DeAngelo is the right move. In addition, I don’t get the sense that the Flyers are sold on that course of action, either, Tortorella’s clear frustration with the player notwithstanding.

For starters, DeAngelo’s trade value is quite low right now. His play this past season — career-worst defensive results at even strength combined with just-OK scoring totals — isn’t worth a $5 million cap hit in the current market, meaning that the Flyers would likely have to retain significant salary just to find interested parties. DeAngelo likely will be a better player in the future, and by trading him now at the nadir of his value, the Flyers would be missing out on an opportunity to turn him into one of their top 2024 deadline trade chips.

 

But it goes beyond the fear of selling low on DeAngelo. Tortorella may have been frustrated with DeAngelo to close out the season, but I don’t get the sense that he views this as an unsalvageable situation the way he appears to see it with Hayes. Tortorella has been a fan of DeAngelo’s competitiveness from the start, believing that the rest of the team could benefit from emulating his fiery attitude to an extent. I’m not convinced Tortorella will want to jettison that — especially knowing that to do so, the Flyers will get an underwhelming return even after retaining salary.

 

Perhaps the Flyers truly are done with DeAngelo. But there are very good reasons for them to try and rehabilitate his value in the fall rather than sell him at a bargain price this summer.

[ruxpin]

14 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

Are we selling high/maximizing trade value? Factor: 5
Does he actually have trade value? Factor: 4
Might he not fit the culture/what John Tortorella is trying to build? Factor: 3
Does his contract situation fit the timeline for contention? Factor: 8
Does his age fit our timeline for contention? Factor: 6

 

Does his complete lack of ability to play the position fit a hockey team?  Factor:  10

[pilldoc]

There is a typo in the poll….

 

will fix when I get home from my son’s baseball game 

 

thanks @ruxpinfor letting me know 

[GratefulFlyers]

3 hours ago, pilldoc said:

Ristolainen had a solid season for the Flyers in 2022-23 after a horrendous 1st month.

From his high of 45 points in 79 games 7 seasons ago his point production has gone steadily downhill. The “solid season” he had for the Flyers this year consisted of 3 goals and 17 assists for a grand total of 20 points. In 79 games. This from an “offensive D-man” with a cap hit of $5.1mil. He’s offensive alright…

 

I can’t stomach another 4 more years of Rasmus Ristolainen. I guarantee Travis Sanheim feels the same way. The Flyers must find a way to get rid of this overpaid lunkhead. Pray it only costs the Flyers money to swing the deal.

[ruxpin]

26 minutes ago, GratefulFlyers said:

From his high of 45 points in 79 games 7 seasons ago his point production has gone steadily downhill. The “solid season” he had for the Flyers this year consisted of 3 goals and 17 assists for a grand total of 20 points. In 79 games. This from an “offensive D-man” with a cap hit of $5.1mil. He’s offensive alright…

 

I can’t stomach another 4 more years of Rasmus Ristolainen. I guarantee Travis Sanheim feels the same way. The Flyers must find a way to get rid of this overpaid lunkhead. Pray it only costs the Flyers money to swing the deal.

Money and the immortal souls of offsprings. Doesn't matter. Get it done.

[pilldoc]

2 hours ago, GratefulFlyers said:

From his high of 45 points in 79 games 7 seasons ago his point production has gone steadily downhill. The “solid season” he had for the Flyers this year consisted of 3 goals and 17 assists for a grand total of 20 points. In 79 games. This from an “offensive D-man” with a cap hit of $5.1mil. He’s offensive alright…

 

I can’t stomach another 4 more years of Rasmus Ristolainen. I guarantee Travis Sanheim feels the same way. The Flyers must find a way to get rid of this overpaid lunkhead. Pray it only costs the Flyers money to swing the deal.

Agree…. Those are the thoughts of Charlie O’Connor…..

[GrittyForever]

4 hours ago, pilldoc said:

There is a typo in the poll….

 

will fix when I get home from my son’s baseball game 

 

thanks @ruxpinfor letting me know 

lol, ya, 3 made no sense after 2. 

 

Nobody is untouchable on this roster. 

[pilldoc]

Question #3 has bee fixed

Edited May 4, 2023 by pilldoc

[CoachX]

I stopped reading after seeing that 57% of us want Laughton gone. I was too choked up with emotion to continue. Thank you all, I truly love you  

[GrittyForever]

14 hours ago, CoachX said:

I stopped reading after seeing that 57% of us want Laughton gone. I was too choked up with emotion to continue. Thank you all, I truly love you  

I think for most people the short list is who you DON'T want gone. 

[OccamsRazor]

7 hours ago, GrittyForever said:

I think for most people the short list is who you DON'T want gone. 

 

 

The Philadelphia Flyers Set an Asking Price For Defensemen Ivan Provorov

 

https://www.flyersinsider.com/The-Philadelphia-Flyers-Set-an-Asking-Price-For-Defensemen-Ivan-Provorov-232079

 

Reports have emerged stating that the Philadelphia Flyers are opposed to trading defenseman Ivan Provorov, although they are not actively seeking a trade for him. Provorov, who has been the Flyers' top defenseman this season, has two years remaining on his contract with an average annual value of $6.75 million. However, his performance over the past three seasons has been less than stellar.

While the Flyers are content with retaining Provorov, they may entertain the possibility of a trade if they receive a satisfactory offer.

Provorov is reportedly open to a trade, and the Flyers are looking for an appropriate price, citing recent deals for Mattias Ekholm and Jakob Chychrun as benchmarks. While they may not receive a similar package, the Flyers are unwilling to accept subpar offers.

Head Coach John Tortorella is said to be a fan of Provorov (surprisingly), and the Flyers may seek an additional first-round pick in the upcoming NHL draft as motivation to consider trading him.

[ruxpin]

The only one I disagree with the majority on is Scott Laughton.

 

He's 28, under a controlled contract, and is only making $3M/yr against a constricted cap.  And he plays multiple positions. He is at best average but he provides some leadership and shows up to every game.  He's worth more on a rebuilding Flyers team than they could possibly get in a trade. He's exactly the type you want in a legitimate rebuild. No, he's not in any way "the future," but he's of some value as a bridge.   The only way this changes to me is if at a trade deadline someone wants to wildly overpay for this type of depth player.

 

I won't be broken-hearted if he's moved and would probably forget him 20 minutes later, but he's the type that you keep.  I just don't believe that the likely 4th or 5th round pick in return gets you better value for the transitional period of the rebuild.

[OccamsRazor]

23 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

The only one I disagree with the majority on is Scott Laughton.

 

He's 28, under a controlled contract, and is only making $3M/yr against a constricted cap.  And he plays multiple positions. He is at best average but he provides some leadership and shows up to every game.  He's worth more on a rebuilding Flyers team than they could possibly get in a trade. He's exactly the type you want in a legitimate rebuild. No, he's not in any way "the future," but he's of some value as a bridge.   The only way this changes to me is if at a trade deadline someone wants to wildly overpay for this type of depth player.

 

I won't be broken-hearted if he's moved and would probably forget him 20 minutes later, but he's the type that you keep.  I just don't believe that the likely 4th or 5th round pick in return gets you better value for the transitional period of the rebuild.

 

 

You're just trying to piss @CoachX off!!!

 

Great job then I am all for it.

 

In fact if you want to see his head explode let's give him the C too...

[flyercanuck]

50 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

The only one I disagree with the majority on is Scott Laughton.

 

He's 28, under a controlled contract, and is only making $3M/yr against a constricted cap.  And he plays multiple positions. He is at best average but he provides some leadership and shows up to every game.  He's worth more on a rebuilding Flyers team than they could possibly get in a trade. He's exactly the type you want in a legitimate rebuild. No, he's not in any way "the future," but he's of some value as a bridge.   The only way this changes to me is if at a trade deadline someone wants to wildly overpay for this type of depth player.

 

I won't be broken-hearted if he's moved and would probably forget him 20 minutes later, but he's the type that you keep.  I just don't believe that the likely 4th or 5th round pick in return gets you better value for the transitional period of the rebuild.

 

I voted to move Laughton but only because he has value....you don't have to eat salary or throw in draft picks to get rid of him like most of Fletchers acquisitions or signings. If we're blowing this thing up (I'll believe it when I see it) then blow it up real good!

 

 

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I voted to move Laughton but only because he has value....you don't have to eat salary or throw in draft picks to get rid of him like most of Fletchers acquisitions or signings. If we're blowing this thing up (I'll believe it when I see it) then blow it up real good!

 

 

This is fair.

 

You won't see be crying if he's moved.  Maybe I'm actually undervaluing him while trying to value him because I just don't believe we'll get the return value vs the "serviceable" value he represents staying.

 

Sorry if you already wrote this elsewhere. What do you see as sensible return? I think it's likely higher at a deadline or as a throw-in with a pick to get a higher pick, maybe.  What are you thinking?

[ruxpin]

37 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

You're just trying to piss @CoachX off!!!

 

Great job then I am all for it.

 

In fact if you want to see his head explode let's give him the C too...

I actually think they should give him the C. He's been the best player in terms of consistency over the last 3 years. Hands down.  I'm all for it.

[flyercanuck]

9 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I actually think they should give him the C. He's been the best player in terms of consistency over the last 3 years. Hands down.  I'm all for it.

 

He could wear the C no problem. I've said that before. I'd also have no problem moving him for a 2nd. 

[mojo1917]

2 hours ago, ruxpin said:

He's worth more on a rebuilding Flyers team than they could possibly get in a trade. He's exactly the type you want in a legitimate rebuild. No, he's not in any way "the future," but he's of some value as a bridge.   The only way this changes to me is if at a trade deadline someone wants to wildly overpay for this type of depth player.

This x 1000

 

I voted to trade everyone for the right return. 

 

I would prefer to keep Laughton and TK because I like the style of hockey they each play.

 

I also understand with TK. He may be the only asset the team can sell high on. It would bring me sadness to watch him be really good and win on a different team.

Edited May 7, 2023 by mojo1917

[GrittyForever]

That's the thing, if you want big asset returns you're going to have to move players that other people might want. They have to think all that player needs is a different environment, different coach etc. Untapped potential. Presumably what Fletcher (wrongly) thought about Risto. So sure, set the price high on Provorov etc. but move them if the opportunity presents itself. 

As for the guys we want gone, like Hayes, it'll take creativity I think and the returns will be underwhelming, if dealing them is possible at all. 

 

Winnipeg and Calgary are two teams that come to mind that want to make roster moves. Maybe the Rangers. After this draft lottery happens on Monday Danny should start making phone calls. If he hasn't already. 

[OccamsRazor]

17 minutes ago, GrittyForever said:

That's the thing, if you want big asset returns you're going to have to move players that other people might want. They have to think all that player needs is a different environment, different coach etc. Untapped potential. Presumably what Fletcher (wrongly) thought about Risto. So sure, set the price high on Provorov etc. but move them if the opportunity presents itself. 

As for the guys we want gone, like Hayes, it'll take creativity I think and the returns will be underwhelming, if dealing them is possible at all. 

 

Winnipeg and Calgary are two teams that come to mind that want to make roster moves. Maybe the Rangers. After this draft lottery happens on Monday Danny should start making phone calls. If he hasn't already. 

 

Hayes if he goes anywhere it will be Boston or Columbus.

 

TDA maybe back to NYR or Carolina.

[FD19372]

The should be on the table tier:

 

Everyone on the Flyers roster, if a great deal comes along. Even Carter Hart.

[flyercanuck]

2 hours ago, GrittyForever said:

That's the thing, if you want big asset returns you're going to have to move players that other people might want. They have to think all that player needs is a different environment, different coach etc. Untapped potential. Presumably what Fletcher (wrongly) thought about Risto. So sure, set the price high on Provorov etc. but move them if the opportunity presents itself. 

As for the guys we want gone, like Hayes, it'll take creativity I think and the returns will be underwhelming, if dealing them is possible at all. 

 

Winnipeg and Calgary are two teams that come to mind that want to make roster moves. Maybe the Rangers. After this draft lottery happens on Monday Danny should start making phone calls. If he hasn't already. 

 

Hayes can be moved by eating salary. Whatever you can get is worth dumping him. But you're not moving him to Winnipeg...they gave up a 1st for 20 games of Kevin Hayes....and that was enough for them to say "cya".

[GrittyForever]

6 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Hayes if he goes anywhere it will be Boston or Columbus.

 

TDA maybe back to NYR or Carolina.

Oh man, the Bruins aren't going anywhere near Hayes. Even if they did want him, which they wouldn't, they have no cap room for that contract even if we eat part of it. 

[OccamsRazor]

2 minutes ago, GrittyForever said:

Oh man, the Bruins aren't going anywhere near Hayes.

 

They were rumored to be interested this past year before the deadline if the Flyers picked up some salary. 

 

I learned a long time ag o never say never...