Can we Trade for Martin St. Louis

[terp]

My point with Lecavalier wasn't that it traded youth, but more that its long term big money which may be taking up needed cap space as your younger talents grow and earn bigger pay checks. I put it in a separate paragraph but should've made the point more clearly.

This is an important point. Ask Brayden Schenn or Matt Read or Sean Couturier. Those guys may think, with reason, that if given the minutes and the role that they could produce more. Holmgren doesn't see it that way, so we have Vinnie.

[Polaris922]

@radoran

I disagree. That $4.5 million is wasted in my opinion. Vinny may have a good year left in him. If you're lucky he'll have two. But if you need that cap space to keep a Schenn or Read down the line... THAT is the problem I would have with it if I were a Flyers fan.

As is often pointed out, Holmgren is investing in a has been and it may cost you in the future.

[aziz]

Detroit would never give up young talent to land has beens like Paul Coffey a few years away from retirement. Adam Oates, Dale Hawerchuck, Darryl Sittler, the list goes on and on and on.

sure they would. they have. fleischmann, a 1st and a 4th for lang. shawn matthias for todd bertuzzi. kozlov and 2 1sts for hasek. avery, kuznetsov, a 1st and a 2nd for mathieu schneider. anders eriksson and 2 1st round picks for 37 yearold chris chelios. yes, you said "has beens", and most of the wing's adds helped them for at least a couple seasons, whereas many of the flyers' fell on their face right away. i know. i would argue that is a matter of effective implementation of the approach, not the approach itself. the argument here is whether the *way* the flyers go about things works or not. i won't argue that they've done an awesome job, they haven't. but the issue is not in philosophy, it is in the application.

Clarke, Farwell and Homer (might as well toss Ed in that mix) have no plans, it's fly by the seat of your pants GM'ing at it's finest.

what plan was adding todd bertuzzi part of? or having dominic hasek, curtis joseph, and manny legacy under contract at the same time. responding to a thin post-lidstrom blueline by signing alfredsson and weiss?

detroit has no more solid a plan than any other team. they go out and get the best player they can and figure out how to fit him in later. you can't tell me todd bertuzzi was part of a well thought out "plan". or jordan tootoo. the only real difference in approach is that detroit tends to sign FAs and trade draft picks, with trading players a distinctly 3rd option. i'm not sure i see a huge functional difference between trading 1st round picks and trading prospects, though; seems to me moving the egg or the chicken is essentially the same thing.

Of course, these are all generalties, you can find instances where Holland and Homer had successes and failures, but again, in general Holland has 4 cups and Homer as a big goosegg. In Homers case, his love for Groundhog day GM'ing (you know, Striet and Vinny present day) takes precedence over actually winning. His way has continually failed, yet here we are again!! Holland also adds vets, but results are usually night and day.

ok, but again, does that mean that the *approach* is wrong and something fundamentally different needs to happen, or does it mean the *implementation* has been wrong and holmgren needs to be a better job, but fundamentally should continue in the same direction? this summer's moves have had a distinctly detroit feel to them: two high end players added as free agents who have several years of effective play left, but are realistically beginning to wind things down. in the brett hull or luc robitaille or steve duchesne mold.

[aziz]

The difference is Detroits adds are still very useful players AND they fit the style of play they employ, they are not square pegs in a round hole. Clowe adds grit, but does not skate well, Ryder will score 25 goals but plays lacklustre defense. Alfie will play good defense, supply leaderhsip and chip in with offense, ditto for Weiss. They both play a really nice all round game which is the exact type of player that Detroit requires. Holland does not bring in warm bodies, he makes sure the players are suited for their needs, thus the success they usually have when making adds.

my comment was in response to the idea that the "right" way to do things for a team that is not a favorite to win the cup is to suck, that adding talent that will not put you into the elite-of-the-elite catagory is counter productive and only serves to rob your team of high draft picks. detroit refuses that approach, and continue to illustrate there are other ways to be successful than extended basement dwelling, and it can be ok to keep your team competitive year after year.

edit: ultimately, the point being that after those adds, detroit is still a flawed team that is unlikely to be a real contender for a cup in the next couple of years. there is a still a gaping void on the blueline, questionable depth on the wings, and little behind howard should he miss any time. imo, they are not in a terribly different situation than philly, and are responding to that situation in a similar fashion. but are help up by people as a shining example of how things should be done, those same people then claiming a team must visit the suck bucket for 5 years to have a chance of being a strong team.

Edited August 4, 2013 by aziz

[aziz]

You take Carle and his hollow stats, and I'll take weber or chara's turnovers, with the other attributes that come along with it.

i never said carle was better than those two. obviously he is not. only pointing out that if his turnovers are a dealbreaker for you, he commits them less than chara and weber. also pointing out that he blocks a surprising number of shots, has impressive stamina, and manages to consistently contribute offensively. yes, he's a no-check dman, and yes, he has basically no slapshot. but he does bring upside if he is paired well.

[aziz]

Detroit spends CASH like Philly, but doesn't spend youth like Philly.

kind of. in the last 14 drafts, detroit has made 6 1st round selections. people joke about philly loving to get rid of 2nd round picks. philly has made 6 2nd round selections over that time span.

so, no, detroit doesn't tend to move young players as much as philly, but they tend to move the draft picks that become young players at the same pace, except they move the more valuable ones. is there *really* a huge difference there?

[aziz]

No it hasn't. But if you rolled a die THIRTY-EIGHT times and it doesn't win a cup, shouldn't you try rolling it a different way?

honestly, no, not if it is a 30-sided die. i mean, again, the crazy crazy thing with this kind of mindset is that it is invalidated entirely by one moment of success. the kings went from doing it all wrong for, what, 46 years, to doing it exactly perfectly in one spring. if toronto should hit a stride and bernier gets real hot at the right moment and a bunch of pucks bounce their way next april/may/june, then they go from the ZOMGTHEYREDOINGITWRONG to "what an amazing rebuilding job they did, what a turnaround" in a matter of months. weeks. vancouver and new york have, to my mind, done pretty impressive jobs building their teams over the last 10 years or so, all things said...but things never quite went their way when it counted, and so their approach was incorrect. michael leighton makes one save and the flyers have one last strong game and "they have to do it different, they've proven this can't work" becomes, "well, hey, that worked out pretty good, holmgren built a winner, nice job." one shot and one solitary extra game is the difference between those two extreme interpretations.

you roll the die over and over. if a particular number doesn't come up, people announce it can't possibly. until that one time it does come up, and the conception of the die's reality changes entirely. when a conclusion that is drawn changes so utterly based on something with so much random baked into it, i really have to question that conclusion.

edit: i do have to concede, though, the wing's last cup team's core was largely homegrown. their previous cups, not at all, but that last one, yes.

Edited August 4, 2013 by aziz

[aziz]

It's a little disingenous as aziz knows that many people who are talking about past moves were highly critical of them at the time.

no, it was not a little disingenous. the matter at hand was the pronger deal, and it being thrown down as a travesty because he no longer plays for the team, as an example of holmgrem making bad deals for players who couldn't help the team long term. the injury to chris pronger was in no way forseeable, was not a result of age or wear and tear on his body, and to use it to make a point about what should or should not happen going forward is crazy. it is entirely hindsight, and while people may have been critical of the deal when it was made, the possibility that he would be forced permanently onto the LTIR due to a stick in the eye was not one of the stated concerns.

[radoran]

@radoran

I disagree. That $4.5 million is wasted in my opinion. Vinny may have a good year left in him. If you're lucky he'll have two. But if you need that cap space to keep a Schenn or Read down the line... THAT is the problem I would have with it if I were a Flyers fan.

As is often pointed out, Holmgren is investing in a has been and it may cost you in the future.

You're preaching to the Pope on that one, sir.

What I'm saying is that VLC has an upside that can't be denied and has obvious ample opportunities to fail.

I think Tampa gave up on him too soon, is my position. And I think for the number he signed with he can be as effective as Jagr was at 39 for the next 2-3 if not 4 years.

[radoran]

no, it was not a little disingenous. the matter at hand was the pronger deal, and it being thrown down as a travesty because he no longer plays for the team, as an example of holmgrem making bad deals for players who couldn't help the team long term. the injury to chris pronger was in no way forseeable, was not a result of age or wear and tear on his body, and to use it to make a point about what should or should not happen going forward is crazy. it is entirely hindsight, and while people may have been critical of the deal when it was made, the possibility that he would be forced permanently onto the LTIR due to a stick in the eye was not one of the stated concerns.

I hated the Pronger deal the day it happened. The evidence is on one of the few websites I've posted on. May even be here. Can't remember chronology.

Gave away too much for too long with too much immediate risk.

Everything - everything - played out in the worst case scenario. That doesn't mean there weren't Cassandras warning against taking the Horse into Troy.

It also doesn't mean that everything will play out in exactly the worst case again.

It just happened to with Bryzgalov.

So, that's two of the three major moves of the Holmgren administration (Pronger, Bryzgalov, Carter/Richards) that were complete disasters. The other gave the other two a Cup and were directly related to L'Affaire Bryzgalov.

But I'm sure it will work out this time.

And, as I've said repeatedly, it may very well work out.

That's what happens when you can wipe away all your mistakes by cancelling half a season and paying a huge sum of money.

[murraycraven]

Quint...

Look... I am in no way saying Carle is anywhere near a Weber type player but when he left he was sorry missed. He moves the puck incredibly well and can lead a breakout. Something this team has lacked since he left.

He makes a very good first pass and is an above average skater who can recover. We let him go in his 20s and signed the same player in Streit. Streit gives us more on the power play and has great shot...

You cannot honestly say that the Flyers would not have been better if he were still around? Seriously...

Last I did not mean any disrespect with my previous post. Your retort kind of rubbed me the wrong way and it seemed like you were just making fun of the posts instead of providing a critique.... I did not mean anything by it and thinks you are a good poster.

Either way you cut it Carle would have helped this team went very the past year....

Edited August 5, 2013 by murraycraven

[jammer2]

@murraycraven The really promising thing is I'm spoting a lot of the little nuances that Carle previously showed in Gus. He skated the puck out of trouble instead of the easier pass that most rookies would have made. He seems to see the game better than the average NHL young d-man. I think he's the puck mover we are looking for and I'm can't wait to watch his game evlove next year. Gus has the upside to go to the All-Star game in a few years. I'm expecting a 37 point year from him, and it might be the last year in quite a while where he does not break the 40pt barrier. Like the fact he's gonna learn the offensive side of the game from a pro like Timmonen.

[flyercanuck]

honestly, no, not if it is a 30-sided die. i mean, again, the crazy crazy thing with this kind of mindset is that it is invalidated entirely by one moment of success. the kings went from doing it all wrong for, what, 46 years, to doing it exactly perfectly in one spring.

Disagree. Lots of people were saying the KIngs were building something there. They had patience, a good group of forwards, defence and not one, but two goalies. Then they added the missing pieces in, not old over the hill players, but guys in their prime in Richards and Carter. if toronto should hit a stride and bernier gets real hot at the right moment and a bunch of pucks bounce their way next april/may/june, then they go from the ZOMGTHEYREDOINGITWRONG to "what an amazing rebuilding job they did, what a turnaround" in a matter of months. weeks.

Months? Weeks? How about a decade? Remember Jeremy Roenicks goal that eliminated the Leafs waaaaaay beck when? That was the last game the Leafs played that mattered until last spring.

vancouver and new york have, to my mind, done pretty impressive jobs building their teams over the last 10 years or so, all things said...but things never quite went their way when it counted, and so their approach was incorrect. michael leighton makes one save and the flyers have one last strong game and "they have to do it different, they've proven this can't work" becomes, "well, hey, that worked out pretty good, holmgren built a winner, nice job." one shot and one solitary extra game is the difference between those two extreme interpretations.

The problem with Holmgren is he never seems to have a plan. Who trades their top 2 centers for youth/prospects/picks and signs a 30 year old goalie in the same breath? Who isn't even any good? Or buys out a Briere to sign a LeCavalier? Or has a record of using his top picks really well, but trades most of them away? Or doesn't know about over 35 contracts, then gets a redo on it but says "nah, we'll do it anyway'.

you roll the die over and over. if a particular number doesn't come up, people announce it can't possibly. until that one time it does come up, and the conception of the die's reality changes entirely. when a conclusion that is drawn changes so utterly based on something with so much random baked into it, i really have to question that conclusion.

edit: i do have to concede, though, the wing's last cup team's core was largely homegrown. their previous cups, not at all, but that last one, yes.

[flyercanuck]

honestly, no, not if it is a 30-sided die. i mean, again, the crazy crazy thing with this kind of mindset is that it is invalidated entirely by one moment of success. the kings went from doing it all wrong for, what, 46 years, to doing it exactly perfectly in one spring.

Disagree. Lots of people were saying the KIngs were building something there. They had patience, a good group of forwards, defence and not one, but two goalies. Then they added the missing pieces in, not old over the hill players, but guys in their prime in Richards and Carter. if toronto should hit a stride and bernier gets real hot at the right moment and a bunch of pucks bounce their way next april/may/june, then they go from the ZOMGTHEYREDOINGITWRONG to "what an amazing rebuilding job they did, what a turnaround" in a matter of months. weeks.

Months? Weeks? How about a decade? Remember Jeremy Roenicks goal that eliminated the Leafs waaaaaay beck when? That was the last game the Leafs played that mattered until last spring.

vancouver and new york have, to my mind, done pretty impressive jobs building their teams over the last 10 years or so, all things said...but things never quite went their way when it counted, and so their approach was incorrect. michael leighton makes one save and the flyers have one last strong game and "they have to do it different, they've proven this can't work" becomes, "well, hey, that worked out pretty good, holmgren built a winner, nice job." one shot and one solitary extra game is the difference between those two extreme interpretations.

The problem with Holmgren is he never seems to have a plan. Who trades their top 2 centers for youth/prospects/picks and signs a 30 year old goalie in the same breath? Who isn't even any good? Or buys out a Briere to sign a LeCavalier? Or has a record of using his top picks really well, but trades most of them away? Or doesn't know about over 35 contracts, then gets a redo on it but says "nah, we'll do it anyway'.

you roll the die over and over. if a particular number doesn't come up, people announce it can't possibly. until that one time it does come up, and the conception of the die's reality changes entirely. when a conclusion that is drawn changes so utterly based on something with so much random baked into it, i really have to question that conclusion.

edit: i do have to concede, though, the wing's last cup team's core was largely homegrown. their previous cups, not at all, but that last one, yes.

[fanaticV3.0]

I agree. That's where I think the loss of Jagr and Carle cost them - at least the six points they needed to make the playoffs.

It may also be that there is a vet of the type you describe out there.

I just (unfortunately) don't think it's MSL.

I would have loved to have kept Jagr. I would love to get St. Louis if it doesn't cost the farm. Carle, I can live without. I just don't have much interest in one-way defenseman. I can recognize what they're good at, but if you are a defenseman who can't play D, you can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.

[fanaticV3.0]

I agree you're never going to win with a bunch of kids. And the Flyers have also proven time and time again that you're never going to win by going for it every single year. I'm patient enough to let a group of kids develop over a period of say, 5 years, with some vets (Timonen, Gagne for example) showing them the ropes. Then when you look like you're a piece away, instead of every single year, you make that trade for the seasoned vet.

The problem I have with the Flyers is, they don't have the patience. They can't let the team evolve, they always have to force the issue. The team bottoms out (of course the year of one of the lamest drafts ever) and instead of letting it rebuild like championship teams do (another tough year would have netted us Stamkos, or Doughty, or Pietrangelo) we just finished buying out Briere who we just had to have (along with Drury AND Gomez). Follow that up by trading basically 4 first rounders for Pronger who holds up 5 million in cap to start each season for years to come. Hmmm, would I rather have those two, or one of the three guys mentioned prior to that who haven't even reached their prime yet? So we have a tough year this past year, get rid of Briere and Bryz, look to maybe FINALLY address the D through the draft and Homer runs out and signs LeCavalier....FOR FIVE FRICKIN' YEARS!!!. Is he going to "put us over the top"? Ya, right. But he will keep us out of the lottery when a franchise defenceman like Aaron Ekblad is available. So we'll likely make the playoffs, lose in the first or second round, and another year gets added on to the cupless drought. And in the meantime, I won't be surprised one bit if one or two of our talented young players that will win a cup, elsewhere, gets dealt off for a 30 something year old guy on his way out. Been watching this same formula for how long now?

I disagree. Now, that's not to say I think they have always been patient and there aren't a few young players I wish we waited longer on, but I don't agree that overall they just throw away youth. Richards and Carter were here for 6 seasons. Gagne and Lindros longer than that. All drafted by the organization. All of these players were given plenty of time to develop.

If you are going to throw Sharp, Williams, or Pitkanen in my face, I'm going to call BS on all 3. Unfair or not, Sharp and Williams were in Hitch's dog house. Sharp wasn't even given a chance and Williams - in addition to being in Hitch's dog house - was floundering here. Same for Pitkanen. There are some players who have to be traded sometimes. They are not going to work out in their current situation and the trade is why they do work out in their new situations. Would I like to have Sharp on the roster? Yes. But what I'm saying is that he was unfairly treated by his coach here and would have never blossomed had had stayed. Williams and Pitkanen, I could personally not care about. I don't regret trading them at all.

[flyercanuck]

Lindros wasn't drafted by Philly. We traded 6 players, 2 -1st round picks and $15 million for him...I'd HOPE they'd have some patience. Richards and Carter were traded for whatever reasons before they reached their prime. That leaves Simon Gagne, drafted in 1998. What about Bobrovsky? JVR? Sbisa? Seidenberg? I'm just talking about Holmgren whose been gm since 2007.(Clarke was worse) In that time he's traded away 4-1st round picks, 8 - 2nd round picks, and 8- 3rd round picks. That ain't patience.

[JackStraw]

I can recognize what they're good at, but if you are a defenseman who can't play D, you can take a hike as far as I'm concerned

Just because he wasn't particularly physical doesn't mean that Carle couldn't play defense. He was fine in his own end. Not a shut down guy, but good enough. Almost certainly Streit (who I like) will be worse defensively. I think a lot of people tend to judge Carle through glasses that are tinted by the things he lacks (shot, hitting) and they overlook the reality that he was pretty good at pretty much everything else. Mike Green is a one way defenseman, Carle isn't.

[aziz]

Disagree. Lots of people were saying the KIngs were building something there.

a lot of teams build something at one point or another. including the flyers. there have been some really good flyers squads, even over the last 7 years. the argument that 3 decades of cup-less-ness proves an incorrect approach establishes a cup win as the only valid result of a successful approach. thus, the kings approach was incorrect until it very suddenly wasn't. a cup finals loss puts the kings in the same position the flyers have been in several times, and your definition says that equals doing it wrong.

Months? Weeks? How about a decade? Remember Jeremy Roenicks goal that eliminated the Leafs waaaaaay beck when? That was the last game the Leafs played that mattered until last spring.

my point was to restate what i just said, that your point of view is that a cup win changes everything immediately. if the leafs put some weird crap together this spring and bizarrely win a cup, a decade's worth of managerial incompetence instantly becomes the right way to build a team. that tells me that the criteria being used is flawed. the stanley cup playoffs are an unpredictable and fickle thing. luck, the roll of the dice, plays such a huge part in so many ways, from the obvious getting good bounces and good calls, to the less obvious goalies getting hot/cold, injuries, and so on, that to hold it up as generating wisdom as to what formulas should be followed and what shouldn't is, well, tenuous doesn't begin to cover it.

to me, the most that a managerial staff can be held accountable for is having their team in the mix as well positioned teams on a regular basis, in the hopes that the dice roll their way eventually. they can't control the dice. i won't argue that the flyers haven't made mistakes with their roster over the last five years, but for the most part their approach has kept them in the last conversations of the season.

[flyercanuck]

@aziz

Isn't this about winning the cup? The Kings won. They built a team without any help from anyone, added a couple of pieces and won. THAT is how you do it. The Flyers haven't won in over 3 decades. Yes they've had some great teams, but never a goalie. So that ISN'T how you do it.

[Polaris922]

I think in recent years a lot of teams who have won the Cup have done so by raising a core of youth together so they mature together. I don't think Philly has done that until this past season. They seem to be allowing Giroux, Schenn, Couturier, Read, and other young talents a chance to solidify into something together. That is a change in philosophy from past years from my point of view.

Having acknowledged that, trading Bobrovsky was a mistake. How bad of a mistake depends on Mason now.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Polaris922

[flyercanuck]

@Polaris922

Thank you. Been preaching this exact thing for, well, as long as I've been on here and the philly.com board

[aziz]

Isn't this about winning the cup?

of course it is about winning the cup. like most games, though, winning is not purely the result of "doing it right" and losing is not purely the result of "doing it wrong". you can double down on 12, pull a 9 and win, but you most definitely did it wrong. things worked out, but no one should look at your strategy and say, "oh, that's how you do it." you can stand on 20 and lose, but no one should look at you and say, "ah, that must be the wrong way to do it." the absolute end result can not be the single criteria by which your approach is judged, because the absolute end result comes from more than just the things you are able to control.

in a 30 team NHL, you have to be both good and lucky to win a cup. the flyers have been good, and the flyers have been lucky, but they haven't been both at the same time. that's not the fault of the guys building the team. again, this is not to say that flyers management should be held blameless for the obvious mistakes they made, but the proof is not in the lack of a cup. the proof is in the eyeball test of bobrovsky/bryzgalov being an insane set of moves, of carter/richards working out just fine in new surroundings, of hatcher/rathje being obviously an era behind the game played at the time, of jeff hackett having never been a capable goalie and marty biron a capable backup at best.

the goal of constant competitiveness isn't the problem, at-times poor choices when chasing that competitiveness is. but evaluate the poor choices on their own, not as parts of continued cup-less-ness. a team can do things exactly correct for twenty years and never win a cup. the canucks' likely window is closing, but they built a very very strong team over the last decade. the fact they haven't won has nothing to do with their fundamental construction. arguably san jose is in the same boat. the rangers were strong enough over the last few seasons to say they did it right, but it looks like that opportunity has passed them by. melting it all down to "they didn't win, so they must have built their team the wrong way" overgeneralizes to the point of uselessness.

[flyercanuck]

@aziz

Great post.

Luck has plenty to do with cup wins. Obviously being a great team to start helps. But injuries, bounces, bad calls, good calls, all matter. The difference I see with a team like Vancouver, for example is, they haven't been using the same gameplan since the 80s. I mean as a Flyer fan all you have to do is go to a Philly discussion board the day after the season ends and fans are calling for a trade, ANY trade and sign that big name FA. It's become Flyers fans birthright. And LeCavalier is just the next one in the long line.

Me, I'm more along the lines of following Giroux, Simmonds, Voracek, Schenns, Read, Couturier, Laughton, Morin, Hagg and Masons progress. They weren't all Flyer picks, but were brought in for their potential, not what they did once upon a time.

[Quint]

@ Murraycraven

Life's not love and roses all the time, right? We'll have disagreements and arguments like brothers.

I am not a sensitive person by nature. Which can be a positive and negative attribute.

I do not take myself seriously ( only my work), however I assume others are the same. So sometimes I can get taken out of context, or sometimes I just rub someone the wrong way...such is life. Now back to hockey.

I will never concede on carle. Certain players over the years I have disdain for...and he is one of them. Just flat out do not like his game, period. So I do not think he would have helped last year ( assuming no injuries). And I would never measure carle up against a weber type player either. Aziz mentioned weber in a retort, which I thought was slightly off base, because he compared weber and chara negative attributes against carle's, while leaving out their positive attributes to make his point. Generally, that's why I'm not a huge fan of statistics and do not get into debates over them. They can be skewed and slanted in any which way. I look at player, I watch his game, I don't care how many goals he scores how many assists he has, how many hits, fights etc... If I like how he plays, I like him. That's why I enjoy reading posts describing a players game that I haven't seen play ( a la junior players). I like the point of view.

Regarding POV on carle...lets agree to disagree.

@ jammer

That's an optimistic view on Gus, and not far fetched. However, I fear injuries throughout his career may side track his game. Hopefully not, but I like his game (I'm not sure of all star level though).