murraycraven Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 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. Can't argue that one... I am in the minority here but I dont get all the hate for Hartnell. The guy goes out and plays is ass off every game and is willing to sacrifice his body like no other Flyer (other than Simmonds) will. When you look at his deal it is not that far out of line w/ similar players around the league. Does he take dumb penalties? yes... but you know what? So does the rest of the Team... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Can't argue that one... I am in the minority here but I dont get all the hate for Hartnell. The guy goes out and plays is ass off every game and is willing to sacrifice his body like no other Flyer (other than Simmonds) will. When you look at his deal it is not that far out of line w/ similar players around the league. Does he take dumb penalties? yes... but you know what? So does the rest of the Team... Care to address the points that have been made in response to these points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 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. Giroux is 25. Hartnell is 31. I don't at all mind long-term "market value" deals for guys in their mid-20s (one might quibble with whether Giroux is an $8M player, but that's another thread). Guys in their early 30s? Something else entirely. If one thinks the deals for Weiss, Clarkson and Clowe were ridiculous - and I do - then it's not a stretch to think the same about Hartnell's deal (as opposed to the player). Happy to be wrong. But I was also happy to be wrong about Briere, Bryzgalov and Pronger and still am happy to be wrong about Streit and Lecavalier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iban3z Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Giroux is 25. Hartnell is 31. I don't at all mind long-term "market value" deals for guys in their mid-20s (one might quibble with whether Giroux is an $8M player, but that's another thread). Guys in their early 30s? Something else entirely. If one thinks the deals for Weiss, Clarkson and Clowe were ridiculous - and I do - then it's not a stretch to think the same about Hartnell's deal (as opposed to the player). Happy to be wrong. But I was also happy to be wrong about Briere, Bryzgalov and Pronger and still am happy to be wrong about Streit and Lecavalier. Hartnell has way better stats then Weiss Clarkson and Clowe. If you're going to compare those contracts to Hartnell's who have o look at the stats. Hartnell 230 G 255 AWeiss 145 G 249 AClarkson 93 G 73 AClowe 104 G 75 A I can agree that his contract is horrible, but he didn't give himself that contract. That's Homer's fault. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 "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. Yes, he got in shape. Kind of a prerequisite to play professional hockey, no? He was out of shape before. So good for him for doing what is typically required and expected of a professional athlete. And if he doesn't do it next year, and the year after that? Can Homer trade him or pressure him to get better? Nope. It's all up to Hartnell... that's crystal clear in the quote, where he was ticked off at himself. Only he can really motivate himself because he has guaranteed security and control regardless of what he does. I guess they could bench him... yeah, that happens a lot. He's 31, and will not improve on his numbers, but is being paid like he will at least maintain them. He won't. He is on the decline. That's where the big disconnect is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Hartnell has way better stats then Weiss Clarkson and Clowe. If you're going to compare those contracts to Hartnell's who have o look at the stats. Hartnell 230 G 255 AWeiss 145 G 249 AClarkson 93 G 73 AClowe 104 G 75 A I can agree that his contract is horrible, but he didn't give himself that contract. That's Homer's fault. Which is why I've been very clear that it's NOT about the player, it's about the contract. And I've been near the front of the "Fire Homer" bandwagon for quite a while now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Yes, he got in shape. Kind of a prerequisite to play professional hockey, no? He was out of shape before. So good for him for doing what is typically required and expected of a professional athlete. And if he doesn't do it next year, and the year after that? Can Homer trade him or pressure him to get better? Nope. It's all up to Hartnell... that's crystal clear in the quote, where he was ticked off at himself. Only he can really motivate himself because he has guaranteed security and control regardless of what he does. I guess they could bench him... yeah, that happens a lot. He's 31, and will not improve on his numbers, but is being paid like he will at least maintain them. He won't. He is on the decline. That's where the big disconnect is happening. Again, assuming you are righ, would that not be Homer's fault for handing out the deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 No argument that Hartnell has been underwhelming this year. That said, he's a finisher not a playmaker. He's had good chemistry with Giroux in the past, but Giroux is struggling (and has admitted as much). Hartnell's job is to muck in the corners, get in front of the net, find some soft spots where Giroux can set him up. Hartnell's not going to produce much when the rest of the team isn't generating any offense. His contract is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 No argument that Hartnell has been underwhelming this year. That said, he's a finisher not a playmaker. He's had good chemistry with Giroux in the past, but Giroux is struggling (and has admitted as much). Hartnell's job is to muck in the corners, get in front of the net, find some soft spots where Giroux can set him up. Hartnell's not going to produce much when the rest of the team isn't generating any offense. His contract is what it is. As underwhelming as his zero points, five hits, -2 in five games has been, it's coming after a 32-game, 8-goal, 3-assist campaign. (20 goal, 7 assists per 82 game pace). His contract, as has been noted again and again and again, is what it is - the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 His contract, as has been noted again and again and again, is what it is - the problem But it's not my problem... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 But it's not my problem... well played sir... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 well played sir... Is your point really that the player is underwhelming and overpaid for the underwhelming production and the contract is a potential anchor around the team's neck, but we shouldn't blame the player but rather blame the GM who signed him to the contract? Ilya Bryzgalov says :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Is your point really that the player is underwhelming and overpaid for the underwhelming production and the contract is a potential anchor around the team's neck, but we shouldn't blame the player but rather blame the GM who signed him to the contract? Ilya Bryzgalov says :blink: The key word there is "potential". If the team starts playing well and Hartnell continues to suck, well, then it's still not my problem really but I promise I'll start to think about who to blame. Right now the team has bigger problems than Hartnell's contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Again, assuming you are righ, would that not be Homer's fault for handing out the deal? Absolutely. How can you blame the player for accepting that deal? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) Partly yes... Is the deal comparable to other contracts in the NHL? Absolutely and based ont he stat lines we get far more production from Hartnell. If you take him out of this lineup the Flyers are a pretty soft group of forwards to play against. Do I like his contract? No... too long for my liking but think the annual hit is not terrible... just wish it was shorter. Homer made the deal and the terms are on him. Just as it is on Hartnell to perform... It is like buying a car and complaining that you paid too much for it... well, you should have haggled a little better. As JS said, it is what it is... there are a hell of a lot of other things to complain about before we get to Hartnell. Edited October 15, 2013 by murraycraven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Absolutely and based ont he stat lines we get far more production from Hartnell. Nobody can claim that. His contract starts this year. So far, his contract has 0 points, -2. Based on average historical player performance arcs, his production will decline. Giroux is still on his old contract, so he's not an $8M player struggling. He's a $3.75M player struggling. He's only 25. In his case, performance is projected to increase. There are no guarantees in either case, of course. Hartnell at 25 is worth $4.5M. It's to be seen if Hartnell at 31 is worth it. But I would wager big that he will never sniff 50 points again. And maybe that's a trade off for what he does in the community, his personality in the locker room, etc. But for 6 years with an NMC? On almost certain continual decline? It's not my money, but I'm sure it could be spent more wisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Nobody can claim that. His contract starts this year. So far, his contract has 0 points, -2. Based on average historical player performance arcs, his production will decline. Giroux is still on his old contract, so he's not an $8M player struggling. He's a $3.75M player struggling. He's only 25. In his case, performance is projected to increase. There are no guarantees in either case, of course. Hartnell at 25 is worth $4.5M. It's to be seen if Hartnell at 31 is worth it. But I would wager big that he will never sniff 50 points again. And maybe that's a trade off for what he does in the community, his personality in the locker room, etc. But for 6 years with an NMC? On almost certain continual decline? It's not my money, but I'm sure it could be spent more wisely. What we are comparing are the stats compared to what Clowe, Calrkson, et al were signed to... You say that but then claim he is ont he downside and will never put up good numbers again - You are playing both sides of the fence here. Which one is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Partly yes... Is the deal comparable to other contracts in the NHL? Absolutely and based ont he stat lines we get got far more production from Hartnell. If you take him out of this lineup the Flyers are a pretty soft group of forwards to play against. Do I like his contract? No... too long for my liking but think the annual hit is not terrible... just wish it was shorter. Homer made the deal and the terms are on him. Just as it is on Hartnell to perform... It is like buying a car and complaining that you paid too much for it... well, you should have haggled a little better. As JS said, it is what it is... there are a hell of a lot of other things to complain about before we get to Hartnell. Fixed it for you Again, I liked the first deal - thought it did exactly what long term deals are supposed to do. A six year deal to a 25 year old is much different than a six year deal to a 31 year old. And the terms are exactly the problem - I wouldn't have anywhere near the same concerns with, say, a three or four year deal (even at a slightly higher number). Hartnell is also now the highest-paid forward on this team (cap hit) - true story. If we're not concerned that the highest paid forward on the team is zero points, -2, five hits in five games and is now injured, what exactly would you suggest we be concerned about? And it's not just "complaining" about now, but looking into the future at a contract and cap hit that no one seems happy with. Again, the Ghost of Ilya haunts the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 What we are comparing are the stats compared to what Clowe, Calrkson, et al were signed to.. Ok, gotcha. You were comparing past stats for players who signed similar contracts... my bad. You say that but then claim he is ont he downside and will never put up good numbers again - You are playing both sides of the fence here. Which one is it? I'm not playing both sides of the fence; I'm saying that when you sign a player to a contract - particularly to a long one - you would expect that the organization projects out how similar and/or average NHLers perform over the same period of their careers. I'm saying that Hartnell at 31 through 37 will be on a continual decline if he follows the normal historical path of players. There's no reason to think he will be an exception to the rule - in other words, he's no Teemu, Lidstrom, Pronger, Datsyuk, Brodeur, Jagr, etc. That's normal and expected. But he's being paid / rewarded for the 67 points he put up TWO years ago, at 29. Something doesn't compute. He was overpaid in the early part of his last deal, and probably a little underpaid at the end. So it ended up fair. Again, it's not my money, and I don't care from that perspective. I only care in the sense that it may or may not affect the product on the ice - Homer (or more likely, his successor) may be handcuffed by overzealous deals. We're seeing it right now. We have the most expensive blueline in the NHL, and they mostly have NMC/NTCs of some sort, so it really limits how the GM can improve this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 . We have the most expensive blueline in the NHL, and they mostly have NMC/NTCs of some sort, so it really limits how the GM can improve this team. Sorry Brel... I think we are debating the same point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) seems like there's one conversation happening in this thread when there should be two. We should separate the player from the contract. Either that or have a whole different one about the Flyers' ROI in Hartnell. Nothing wrong with armchair-GMing but it is different than discussing what Hartnell brings (or doesn't bring) as a player. Me I like his game, I always have. But with Giroux struggling to find his confidence it's time he and Hartnell are separated - at least temporarily. Now that Hartnell is out it's a good time to see who can click with Giroux. I like Jake and Schenn up there but Schenn looks too good at center. I wouldn't fool with that more than I absolutely had to (when Vinny comes back it'll be interesting to see what Berube does). I don't think Simmonds belongs on the top line at all. Other candidates? McGuin can stay at LW; he sure looked good the other night. Anyway... If the topic is "What should the Flyers do with Hartnell?" the discussion has got to be about linemates, minutes, special teams etc. because the Flyers "negotiated" away their right to do anything with Hartnell. Even assuming a NMC was the only way the contract got done I wonder why they offered it - and I like the guy's game. Edited October 15, 2013 by canoli 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I think we should separate the player from the contract in this discussion. Either that or we have a whole different conversation about ROI. Nothing wrong with armchair-GMing, most of us do it here all the time. But it is a different conversation than discussing what Hartnell brings (or doesn't bring) as a player. Me I like his game, what he brings to the Flyers I always have. But with Giroux struggling to find his confidence I think it's time Hart gets moved away from him - at least temporarily. Now that Hart is out a week or so it's a good time to see who can click with Giroux. I like Jake and Schenn up there with Giroux but I also really like Schenn at center. I don't think Simmonds belongs on the top line at all. Other candidates? Maybe McGuin can stay at LW; he looked the other night. Anyway... If the topic is "What should the Flyers do with Hartnell?" the discussion has to be about linemates, minutes, special teams etc. because the Flyers "negotiated" away their right to do anything with Hartnell. Even assuming a NMC was the only way the contract got done I wonder why they offered it - and I like the guy's game. I went back through this whole thread and find no one - no one - who "hates" the player. Everyone - everyone - who has been "anti-Hartnell" has couched it in terms of his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canoli Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Uh yeah... that's my point. I thought maybe, just possibly we could turn our attention to the guy's game instead of indulging in more of the same old (and getting older) Ed and Homer bashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Agreed canoli... This thread is as dead as Giroux confidence... Moving on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.