Hartnell

[Jmdodgesrt4]

What happened?

[doom88]

LBI.

My speculation: pulled groin?

[pensuck]

LBI.

My speculation: pulled groin?

I'm sure Sheena Parveen can help him out with that ...

[doom88]

I'm sure Sheena Parveen can help him out with that ...

There's a lot of tension right over ...

[hf101]

As per Holmgren both Hartnell and Vinny out at least a week.

[hf101]

Update:  Seems to be a UBI than the LBI as previously reported.  Both Hartnell and Vinny were to have a MRI done today.

[hf101]

Update:  Hartnell expected to be out 2 to 4 weeks after MRI

[doom88]

Update: Hartnell expected to be out 2 to 4 weeks after MRI

The guy can't catch a break. Hope he heals up fully, soon.

[Jam1986]

needs a change

[ruxpin]

Hartnell needs to go. So does the imbecile who gave him the utterly ridiculous contract. One of my all time LEAST favorite Flyers.

[Bertmega]

This is the best news I have read all season. When I first read one week IR I was pissed. Then when I saw 4 weeks IR, I am thinking there is hope. 

 

Hartnell is awful and has no business being on a line with Giroux.

[murraycraven]

For the sake of oxygen conservation I just stopped talking about Hartnell... it is too much effort and he is going nowhere w/ his contract.  I dont blame him I blame the GM who gave him that ridiculous contract.

[canoli]

I don't know why you hate this guy so much. I mean I get it on *some* level of course; he's easy to mock and he's only had 1 really outstanding season - no coincidence it came while he was playing with Giroux and Jagr. OTOH he was just as important as Gagne or Pronger or Richards in the 2010 run against Boston: you could say without him we don't pull off that miracle comeback.

 

But okay, so he's come up with some key goals over the years. Big deal, lots of guys have. But besides the goals he has that nasty edge that opposing players hate to face. Where he plays, down low in the goaltenders's face basically, that's an important strength. Maybe it doesn't show up on the scoreboard. OTOH maybe it does, just on somebody else's stat line. You rattle a goalie enough and things open up for other shooters. Also he seems to be a real good guy off the ice, in the locker room, which I know is easily downplayed - "so what we need skill!" - but you can't discount that factor completely. Too many guys don't have it. When things are going well for the Flyers (been awhile) I am sure he's great to have around but I wonder, when the team is struggling is he even more important? Maybe.

 

Would I like to move him for a real sniper-type forward? Absolutely - if we could find one. But I guess he's locked in with the NT (or is it NM?) clause. So ... I guess we've got him for better or worse. Does he warrant top line minutes? That's a fair question. I hope when he gets back he has to earn those minutes because I figure that top line really should be about skill more than anything. Skill=shooting skills, puck-movement, etc. I like the edge and all that Hartnell brings but he can bring that on the 3rd line just as well.

[brelic]

I don't know why you hate this guy so much. I mean I get it on *some* level of course; he's easy to mock and he's only had 1 really outstanding season - no coincidence it came while he was playing with Giroux and Jagr. OTOH he was just as important as Gagne or Pronger or Richards in the 2010 run against Boston: you could say without him we don't pull off that miracle comeback.

 

But okay, so he's come up with some key goals over the years. Big deal, lots of guys have. But besides the goals he has that nasty edge that opposing players hate to face. Where he plays, down low in the goaltenders's face basically, that's an important strength. Maybe it doesn't show up on the scoreboard. OTOH maybe it does, just on somebody else's stat line. You rattle a goalie enough and things open up for other shooters. Also he seems to be a real good guy off the ice, in the locker room, which I know is easily downplayed - "so what we need skill!" - but you can't discount that factor completely. Too many guys don't have it. When things are going well for the Flyers (been awhile) I am sure he's great to have around but I wonder, when the team is struggling is he even more important? Maybe.

 

Would I like to move him for a real sniper-type forward? Absolutely - if we could find one. But I guess he's locked in with the NT (or is it NM?) clause. So ... I guess we've got him for better or worse. Does he warrant top line minutes? That's a fair question. I hope when he gets back he has to earn those minutes because I figure that top line really should be about skill more than anything. Skill=shooting skills, puck-movement, etc. I like the edge and all that Hartnell brings but he can bring that on the 3rd line just as well.

 

My issue with a guy like Hartnell is his contract. He's got 6 years @ $4.75M.

 

He is the highest paid forward on this team. No, that's not a typo.

 

He is the 3rd highest paid active player on this team (excludes Pronger). Also not a typo.

 

Here's the big rub: there's absolutely no pressure on him to get better - he's got a full 6 years of guaranteed salary from the Flyers, and he can't be moved without his consent. 

 

That's the frustrating part to me. Yes, Homer gave him the contract. But now Homer has absolutely no leverage. Hartnell has all the power. Salary, length, NMC.

 

Once again, well done Homer.

[ruxpin]

I don't know why you hate this guy so much. I mean I get it on *some* level of course; he's easy to mock and he's only had 1 really outstanding season - no coincidence it came while he was playing with Giroux and Jagr. OTOH he was just as important as Gagne or Pronger or Richards in the 2010 run against Boston: you could say without him we don't pull off that miracle comeback.
 

 

Agreed.  And I like the point of your overall post.  

 

Not speaking for anyone else (obviously--I can barely speak for myself), but I don't hate the guy.   I think, though, that he ends up being the poster child for Holmgren insanity in regard to paying too much, paying too long, and giving out NMC contracts.

 

You mentioned something about 3rd line.  Yes, 3rd or 4th line and maybe some PP time would be a more appropriate role for him.   Unfortunately, that's a heckuvalot of money to pay for that role.   But I kind of prefer it, at this point, to the amount of money for someone playing way above role.

 

He would be well-received on most teams and has enough character and is enough of an instigator that I think most fan bases would like him on their team as well (maybe not in Pittsburgh); just not on that contract or on a first line.

[fanaticV3.0]

I don't know why you hate this guy so much. I mean I get it on *some* level of course; he's easy to mock and he's only had 1 really outstanding season - no coincidence it came while he was playing with Giroux and Jagr. OTOH he was just as important as Gagne or Pronger or Richards in the 2010 run against Boston: you could say without him we don't pull off that miracle comeback.

 

But okay, so he's come up with some key goals over the years. Big deal, lots of guys have. But besides the goals he has that nasty edge that opposing players hate to face. Where he plays, down low in the goaltenders's face basically, that's an important strength. Maybe it doesn't show up on the scoreboard. OTOH maybe it does, just on somebody else's stat line. You rattle a goalie enough and things open up for other shooters. Also he seems to be a real good guy off the ice, in the locker room, which I know is easily downplayed - "so what we need skill!" - but you can't discount that factor completely. Too many guys don't have it. When things are going well for the Flyers (been awhile) I am sure he's great to have around but I wonder, when the team is struggling is he even more important? Maybe.

 

Would I like to move him for a real sniper-type forward? Absolutely - if we could find one. But I guess he's locked in with the NT (or is it NM?) clause. So ... I guess we've got him for better or worse. Does he warrant top line minutes? That's a fair question. I hope when he gets back he has to earn those minutes because I figure that top line really should be about skill more than anything. Skill=shooting skills, puck-movement, etc. I like the edge and all that Hartnell brings but he can bring that on the 3rd line just as well.

 

Inconsistent, overpaid, kind of dumb at times, we can't move him. It's more than those things too, because nobody is at the top of their game every day, but he will do something great and then follow it up with something completely moronic.

[krasy]

I don't know why you hate this guy so much. I mean I get it on *some* level of course; he's easy to mock and he's only had 1 really outstanding season - no coincidence it came while he was playing with Giroux and Jagr. OTOH he was just as important as Gagne or Pronger or Richards in the 2010 run against Boston: you could say without him we don't pull off that miracle comeback.

 

But okay, so he's come up with some key goals over the years. Big deal, lots of guys have. But besides the goals he has that nasty edge that opposing players hate to face. Where he plays, down low in the goaltenders's face basically, that's an important strength. Maybe it doesn't show up on the scoreboard. OTOH maybe it does, just on somebody else's stat line. You rattle a goalie enough and things open up for other shooters. Also he seems to be a real good guy off the ice, in the locker room, which I know is easily downplayed - "so what we need skill!" - but you can't discount that factor completely. Too many guys don't have it. When things are going well for the Flyers (been awhile) I am sure he's great to have around but I wonder, when the team is struggling is he even more important? Maybe.

 

Would I like to move him for a real sniper-type forward? Absolutely - if we could find one. But I guess he's locked in with the NT (or is it NM?) clause. So ... I guess we've got him for better or worse. Does he warrant top line minutes? That's a fair question. I hope when he gets back he has to earn those minutes because I figure that top line really should be about skill more than anything. Skill=shooting skills, puck-movement, etc. I like the edge and all that Hartnell brings but he can bring that on the 3rd line just as well.

 He, Briere and Leino was our best line in 2010 playoffs, so you must put that also as outstanding performance

[radoran]

I don't know why you hate this guy so much. I mean I get it on *some* level of course; he's easy to mock and he's only had 1 really outstanding season - no coincidence it came while he was playing with Giroux and Jagr. OTOH he was just as important as Gagne or Pronger or Richards in the 2010 run against Boston: you could say without him we don't pull off that miracle comeback.

 

I don't hate Hartnell. I hate the contract.

 

I don't take away from him the effort in 2010. And he was duly compensated for that effort at the time.

 

What that has to do with giving him a six-year, $4.75M contract with a NMC is the question at hand here. Were there other teams lining up to give a guy who "only had 1 really outstanding season - no coincidence it came while he was playing with Giroux and Jagr" a six-year deal that the NMC was absolutely necessary?

 

We'll never know, because the GM decided that six more years of Hartnell at $4.75M was absolutely essential to the success of the team.

 

Same guy thought the same thing about Bryzgalov.

[doom88]

Didn't aziz breakdown this contract within the last year? At the time, that was the going rate.

[radoran]

Didn't aziz breakdown this contract within the last year? At the time, that was the going rate.

 

I've broken down in many threads where the "going rate" for a 20/50 guy is around $4-$4.5M.

 

Here's the UFA signings from last year:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=25880

 

It could work out for them. Weiss got five for $4.9 with a NMC. Clowe got $4.85 for five with a NMC. Clarkson seven for $5.25M (NMC).

 

That said, you want anything to do with those deals? I think the back end of all of them are disasters waiting to happen. Just like the original Briere deal (he just signed for 2Y, $4M per, NMC btw).

 

For me, from a business perspective, in long term deals you want to slightly overpay at the beginning for what you hope will be value at the end. I think Hartnell's first contract did that quite well. Unfortunately, you now have a contract that - again, my opinion - is "market value" now and has a better than average chance of being overpaid at the end.

 

Time will tell.

 

 

Caveat: right after signing the deal, the Flyers championed the concept of the "20% haircut" so It's possible that they really thought they were signing a $3.8M contract when they signed the $4.75M contract. But they didn't get that. So it's a $4.75M deal.

[canoli]

thanks for your answers you guys -

 

So... the contract. I understand it has some bearing on what the Flyers can do going forward...but it's not like Hartnell's salary / cap hit is hamstringing the team it's that damn NMC. That does hurt the Flyers; god only knows why Holmgren insists on including them so often (it seems); I thought they were supposed to be perqs (or "props" as they've somehow come to be known) given only to special, marquee players, or maybe a veteran who "deserves" some stability at the end of his career.

 

But whatever - contract shmontract all I really care about is how a guy plays (unless it's really out-of-whack = bryzgalov, redden, dipietro, etc) - and what his rep is off the ice, in the locker rooom. Hartnell plays well enough for me to like him. We don't have an agitator type to replace him. Maybe Simmonds...but if you think Hartnell has stone hands ... ha!

[radoran]

thanks for your answers you guys -

 

So... the contract. I understand it has some bearing on what the Flyers can do going forward...but it's not like Hartnell's salary / cap hit is hamstringing the team it's that damn NMC. That does hurt the Flyers; god only knows why Holmgren insists on including them so often (it seems); I thought they were supposed to be perqs (or "props" as they've somehow come to be known) given only to special, marquee players, or maybe a veteran who "deserves" some stability at the end of his career.

 

But whatever - contract shmontract all I really care about is how a guy plays (unless it's really out-of-whack = bryzgalov, redden, dipietro, etc) - and what his rep is off the ice, in the locker rooom. Hartnell plays well enough for me to like him. We don't have an agitator type to replace him. Maybe Simmonds...but if you think Hartnell has stone hands ... ha!

 

This is part of the point - his game is certainly around the market value today.

 

The question is whether his game will still be at market value in Y 3, 4, 5, 6.

 

Again, the comparison is with players like Weiss, Clarkson and Clowe. 29-31 yo guys who are 20/50 players and got long term contracts with NMCs.

 

You want any of them under those terms?

[iban3z]

Here's the big rub: there's absolutely no pressure on him to get better 

"He's in the best shape of his life," general manager Paul Holmgren said after Monday's practice in Voorhees. "His body fat is 7 percent lower than it's ever been, so he did the work in the offseason that we asked him to do." "But he was [ticked] at the end of the year that we didn't make the playoffs; he was [ticked] at his game and he did something about it this summer, so I'm excited for Scott to see what he can do with the shape he's in. 

Edited October 15, 2013 by iban3z

[radoran]

"He's in the best shape of his life," general manager Paul Holmgren said after Monday's practice in Voorhees. "His body fat is 7 percent lower than it's ever been, so he did the work in the offseason that we asked him to do." "But he was [ticked] at the end of the year that we didn't make the playoffs; he was [ticked] at his game and he did something about it this summer, so I'm excited for Scott to see what he can do with the shape he's in. 

 

Unfortunately, to this point of the season that means five hits in five games, -2, zero points and an injury.

 

Not exactly the start to the six-year deal we might have liked to see.

[iban3z]

Unfortunately, to this point of the season that means five hits in five games, -2, zero points and an injury.

 

Not exactly the start to the six-year deal we might have liked to see.

 

Agreed, but let's face it, Giroux is soon to be 8mil man and he's off to a horrible start as well. They all are unfortunately.