Take a mulligan on which trade?

[OH1FlyersFan]

The Richards trade, for sure. He was the captain and leader of this team until Pronger came along.

@OH1FlyersFan You say you like those trades especially for the reasons they were made at the time, but I don't think the team really ever properly explained why it traded away its captain and leading goal scorer to whom they had committed 23 years and over $100M. It just makes no sense, and they never really told the fans why. I mean, they made up a bunch of stuff, but the whole thing is just bizarre.

No other organization in the NHL functions that way.

The reason I always assumed they were traded away was the character and attitude issue that was becoming a distraction for the team.  But I had to assume that because you're right - the organization never did offer a clear explanation.  I understood that it was more along the lines of a housecleaning, improve the locker room atmosphere trade rather than a trade due to poor performance.  And those types of trades can hold value in their own right, so I don't dismiss making a trade for that purpose.  I also don't disagree that both of those players were good.  If I had to keep one of the two, it would have been Richards.  Carter was too erratic and inconsistent and prone to collapsing and disappearing in the playoffs - his performance wasn't stellar.

 

My response to the question looked at the flip side of the coin - not who we gave away, but who we got in return.  The basis of my answer was, of the players we acquired in those trades, who would I rather give back if I had the opportunity for a mulligan.  I'd give back L. Schenn before any of the others - and that would bring us back JVR. If I answered it the other way - who would I have not wanted to give away, it'd be Richards.  Carter, despite his goals scored stat, couldn't have been traded fast enough for me.

Edited November 8, 2013 by OH1FlyersFan

[pilldoc]

Well, and that's the problem with the trades. The moves are made and they "look good" in the moment that they happen. They're made for reactionary reasons with a total lack of patience. They are addressing a "need" that exists because they won't wait to fill it - it has to be filled now. Preferably this immediate need also needs to be filled with a long term multi year contract with a clause that makes it difficult to get out from under.

I am sick to death of hearing what an OK trade the JVR deal was and how JVR just needed that change of scenery. Everybody here would benefit from a change of scenery because the "winning culture" of this organization is a joke. JVR scored 21 as a sophomore in this league. He's projected to be a 30+ guy and is playing like it. The whole "change of scenery" mantra is an excuse for this organization's ineptitude.

JVR "wasn't producing" and "looked like he was floating" and all the other stuff we can say about a guy who, after all, only scored 21 goals as a second year player - for an organization that can't figure out how to run the same lines for more than a handful of shifts. Was it a reflection on JVR? Looks a heckuva lot more to me that it's a reflection of this organization's failures.

EVERYBODY who gets traded "wasn't a big loss" and "we got good value for" and all the other blah blah blah nonsense. The ice is always smoother, the Flyers always make the right moves and the player we lost wasn't going to be very good and we're glad he's gone.

The Flyers are incapable of developing players. If I'm Scott Laughton and Sam Morin, I'm staying in Junior and hoping like hell I get sent somewhere else to play in the NHL.

Great post! I can't add much more to what you said. I think you hit the nIl on the head. Bottom line this organization has no patience with its younger players. This team has no patience period! It is a fundamental flaw in their overall team philosophy and strategy. Until this this changes none of us will see a cup raised in Philly anytime soon. IMO it now make the cup run a few years ago seem like a total fluke and we failed to take advantage of it. Damn you Leighton!!!

[radoran]

The reason I always assumed they were traded away was the character and attitude issue that was becoming a distraction for the team.  But I had to assume that because you're right - the organization never did offer a clear explanation.  I understood that it was more along the lines of a housecleaning, improve the locker room atmosphere trade rather than a trade due to poor performance.  And those types of trades can hold value in their own right, so I don't dismiss making a trade for that purpose.  I also don't disagree that both of those players were good.  If I had to keep one of the two, it would have been Richards.  Carter was too erratic and inconsistent and prone to collapsing and disappearing in the playoffs - his performance wasn't stellar.

 

My response to the question looked at the flip side of the coin - not who we gave away, but who we got in return.  The basis of my answer was, of the players we acquired in those trades, who would I rather give back if I had the opportunity for a mulligan.  I'd give back L. Schenn before any of the others - and that would bring us back JVR. If I answered it the other way - who would I have not wanted to give away, it'd be Richards.  Carter, despite his goals scored stat, couldn't have been traded fast enough for me.

 

Which goes right back to Brel's point that they just committed 23 years and over $100M to the two players - two players that apparently had character and attitude issues?

 

Did they just suddenly erupt with "character and attitude issues" after signing? Well, if the Lupul, Upshall, etc. moves to break up the "Old City Krewe" are any indication, they knew full well that there were "character and attitude issues" BEFORE signing them to long term deals.

 

Do they learn anything from this experience? Do they change their behavior?

 

No, they sign a goalie to a nine-year NMC deal (and buy him out two years later), sign Hartnell for six more and then extend their "captain" for eight years.

 

Big, bold moves - the Flyers love them. It shows that they are decisive and that they are willing to do "anything to compete for the Stanley Cup."

 

And then they regret the move, deal it away or buy it out, and proceed to the next big, bold move that can show how decisive and committed they are.

 

My high school motto (and that of the State of North Carolina) is "esse quam videri" - "to be rather than to seem to be".

 

The Flyers SEEM like a "winning franchise" with a "winning culture."

 

They're not.

[brelic]

So it's Pronger's fault Richards turned into a whiny and generally poor captain?

No, it's the organization's fault for - once again - not trusting its own players to sort things out and grow into their roles, and cause great disruption by moving a bunch of its own players and assets for someone from the outside.

Richards was 25 when he was moved. He's been a captain and/or winner at every single level he's played. OHL, WJC, Olympics, AHL, and now NHL. He was learning to be captain in the NHL, and at 25, he hadn't quite mastered it. But he wasn't terrible either.

The same pattern is happening with Giroux. He's 25, and they need to let him grow into the role. Great captains are not born out of success, they are shaped through failure. And this season right now, is a massive failure. Giroux is different from Richards in that he was not captain in junior.

He will learn from this. Including what happened last night.

If we look at it game by game, this team is in crisis... if we look at it over the next 2-3 years, this team is learning. You can shift a few pieces around, but you don't make fundamental core changes.

So, look for Giroux to be traded by the end of the weekend.

[OH1FlyersFan]

Which goes right back to Brel's point that they just committed 23 years and over $100M to the two players - two players that apparently had character and attitude issues?

 

Did they just suddenly erupt with "character and attitude issues" after signing? Well, if the Lupul, Upshall, etc. moves to break up the "Old City Krewe" are any indication, they knew full well that there were "character and attitude issues" BEFORE signing them to long term deals.

 

Do they learn anything from this experience? Do they change their behavior?

 

No, they sign a goalie to a nine-year NMC deal (and buy him out two years later), sign Hartnell for six more and then extend their "captain" for eight years.

 

Big, bold moves - the Flyers love them. It shows that they are decisive and that they are willing to do "anything to compete for the Stanley Cup."

 

And then they regret the move, deal it away or buy it out, and proceed to the next big, bold move that can show how decisive and committed they are.

 

My high school motto (and that of the State of North Carolina) is "esse quam videri" - "to be rather than to seem to be".

 

The Flyers SEEM like a "winning franchise" with a "winning culture."

 

They're not.

Totally agree with all of this.  Rational and logical.  I have no explanation for why the organization did what it did.  But when you have character issues you know it.  They knew it with Carter and Richards but signed them to those contracts anyway.  Then, like you said, regretted it when things got worse instead of better.  Maybe they thought those two would grow or snap out of it.  Maybe they thought the stability and predictability of those long-term contracts would have a stabilizing effect on those two players.  Apparently it didn't.  Makes you wonder what's going to happen with Giroux and his long term deal.  Personally, I think those type of contracts lead to laziness and complacency - at least for the Flyers.  Sight them to short term deals and keep them hungry.

[radoran]

No, it's the organization's fault for - once again - not trusting its own players to sort things out and grow into their roles, and cause great disruption by moving a bunch of its own players and assets for someone from the outside.

Richards was 25 when he was moved. He's been a captain and/or winner at every single level he's played. OHL, WJC, Olympics, AHL, and now NHL. He was learning to be captain in the NHL, and at 25, he hadn't quite mastered it. But he wasn't terrible either.

The same pattern is happening with Giroux. He's 25, and they need to let him grow into the role. Great captains are not born out of success, they are shaped through failure. And this season right now, is a massive failure. Giroux is different from Richards in that he was not captain in junior.

He will learn from this. Including what happened last night.

If we look at it game by game, this team is in crisis... if we look at it over the next 2-3 years, this team is learning. You can shift a few pieces around, but you don't make fundamental core changes.

So, look for Giroux to be traded by the end of the weekend.

 

That's just it, Brel - the organization doesn't have a 2-3 year viewpoint. They have a "win now" viewpoint. They don't rebuild, they reload. They have a winning culture. They're the gold standard for the league (oh, wait...).

 

If they had a 2-3 year viewpoint, they don't trade Crater/Richards, they don't jettison Sbisa for a desperate grab at the Cup.

 

They have an immediate view of the season right in front of them, they make moves that commit the franchise for 5-8 year periods and then the next year are looking at the season right in front of them. Make the playoffs - anything can happen! Deal a productive scoring winger (who is, of course, "disappointing" that he's not fully formed yet) for a stay at home defenseman! Change the scenery!

 

They sad thing is, the organization seems to believe it's own delusions.

 

And so it goes.

[fanaticV3.0]

No, it's the organization's fault for - once again - not trusting its own players to sort things out and grow into their roles, and cause great disruption by moving a bunch of its own players and assets for someone from the outside.

Richards was 25 when he was moved. He's been a captain and/or winner at every single level he's played. OHL, WJC, Olympics, AHL, and now NHL. He was learning to be captain in the NHL, and at 25, he hadn't quite mastered it. But he wasn't terrible either.

The same pattern is happening with Giroux. He's 25, and they need to let him grow into the role. Great captains are not born out of success, they are shaped through failure. And this season right now, is a massive failure. Giroux is different from Richards in that he was not captain in junior.

He will learn from this. Including what happened last night.

If we look at it game by game, this team is in crisis... if we look at it over the next 2-3 years, this team is learning. You can shift a few pieces around, but you don't make fundamental core changes.

So, look for Giroux to be traded by the end of the weekend.

 

Wait a minute here. No conflict existed until they went out and signed Pronger? So the team was headed in the right direction and Pronger's signing ruined that?

Edited November 8, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[brelic]

Wait a minute here. No conflict existed until they went out and signed Pronger? So the team was headed in the right direction and Pronger's signing ruined that?

What I'm saying is they didn't trust their own players to figure it out. They never trust that what they have is good enough.

Under Richards' captaincy, the Flyers lost in the 1st round, lost in the SCF, and lost in the 2nd round. Hardly failures.

It's clear the Pronger trade accelerated our chances at a SC. And it also led to the destruction of that club. There are 4 players left.

I think the Pronger trade was just another one of those typical Flyers moves. Short-sighted and disruptive.

[DaGreatGazoo]

If we look at it game by game, this team is in crisis... if we look at it over the next 2-3 years, this team is learning. You can shift a few pieces around, but you don't make fundamental core changes.

So, look for Giroux to be traded by the end of the weekend.

 

This has me laughing out loud.  Well done.

[fanaticV3.0]

What I'm saying is they didn't trust their own players to figure it out. They never trust that what they have is good enough.

Under Richards' captaincy, the Flyers lost in the 1st round, lost in the SCF, and lost in the 2nd round. Hardly failures.

It's clear the Pronger trade accelerated our chances at a SC. And it also led to the destruction of that club. There are 4 players left.

I think the Pronger trade was just another one of those typical Flyers moves. Short-sighted and disruptive.

 

What I'm seeing here is you blaming management and Pronger's presence (not necessarily him, but his presence). You even take it as far as to say his presence led to the destruction of the club.

 

What I'm not seeing is any acknowledgement whatsoever that he did anything wrong during his time here. I don't really feel like delving into this too much, but just on the surface level, what kind of captain takes offense that the team went out and got his team one of the best defensemen in the game and a guy who can help take some pressure off him? What kind of leader feels threatened about getting help? Stuff like that is exactly why he was not a good captain.

[OH1FlyersFan]

If they had a 2-3 year viewpoint, they don't trade Crater/Richards, they don't jettison Sbisa for a desperate grab at the Cup.

 

First, let me say that I do tend to agree with you relative to the Flyers "win now" viewpoint and approach to building teams.  I hate it.  

 

Second, let me play devil's advocate.  Maybe it was a long term point of view the organization took when it traded Carters and Richards - things certainly weren't getting any better. Leaving them in place for another eight years could have only made things worse.  The situation could have been made worse when Pronger was brought in - creating an even more contentious locker room. Who's in charge - the young guy or the new old guy?  Maybe the long-term solution WAS to trade Richards and Carter.  At the time that seemed like a pretty good bet.  Nobody predicted what would happen to Pronger.  He seemed like a decent long(er) term risk, despite his age.  We had some young offensive players coming up - Giroux - and that we traded for who could all pitch in to make up for and perhaps even exceed the offensive production we'd lose long term by trading Richards and Carter.  Nobody predicted that our offense would totally disappear and that those young, talented forwards would completely and inexplicably implode  this season. Nobody predicted the devastating, career ending injury to Pronger.  Those two things have blown up the organization's grand plan. Had neither happened, I don't think we'd be having the season we are.

Edited November 8, 2013 by OH1FlyersFan

[brelic]

What I'm seeing here is you blaming management and Pronger's presence (not necessarily him, but his presence). You even take it as far as to say his presence led to the destruction of the club.

There are so many unknowns that I don't really know one way or another exactly what happened.

Let me correct myself... The Pronger trade by itself didn't lead to the destruction of the club, but if the media reports are to be believed, it caused a rift in the room, which is *one* of the factors that led to the destruction of the team.

What I'm not seeing is any acknowledgement whatsoever that he did anything wrong during his time here. I don't really feel like delving into this too much, but just on the surface level, what kind of captain takes offense that the team went out and got his team one of the best defensemen in the game and a guy who can help take some pressure off him? What kind of leader feels threatened about getting help? Stuff like that is exactly why he was not a good captain.

In terms of what Richards did wrong here, I honestly don't know. On the ice, I thought he did a fine job. He wasn't perfect by any stretch, but he often raised his level in big games, and generally played well. He seemed to be in control of this team, at least for the one year he was captain before Pronger arrived.

Off the ice, there's only speculation and a few pictures from Crossing Broad about them having a good time at parties. Holmgren acknowledged in one interview that "if we're talking about it, then I guess that means it's a problem." Ok, so there's that. Kane had the same problem, and I would say MUCH worse. Somehow Chicago made it work because he was and is an integral part of their franchise. In the Flyers case, there's so much missing from the entire context, and I know we've discussed and heard a lot of rumours, but the truth is we really don't know. I think it's clear there was a problem... otherwise, Snider and Holmgren should just be institutionalized right now.

This is not absolving Richards of responsibility. Maybe he did really feel threatened by Pronger, or they had strong differences on how to lead this team. And maybe Richards was unable to rise above it and mature. Maybe there were some really serious off-ice issues with behaviour and substance abuse. He was named captain at 23, and traded at 25. I would argue that they gave up on him at 25 because the Flyers have no patience. That's their window, apparently, and that's how they roll.

But haven't we seen this movie before? How is it that our captains keep running afoul of the media and the front office? Lindros, Richards, Giroux. These are 3 franchise players that got messed up in Philly. All for different reasons, but the fact that it keeps happening is disturbing.

All that to say that there's enough blame to go around, and Richards can't escape it.

[radoran]

First, let me say that I do tend to agree with you relative to the Flyers "win now" viewpoint and approach to building teams.  I hate it.  

 

Second, let me play devil's advocate.  Maybe it was a long term point of view the organization took when it traded Carters and Richards - things certainly weren't getting any better. Leaving them in place for another eight years could have only made things worse.  The situation could have been made worse when Pronger was brought in - creating an even more contentious locker room. Who's in charge - the young guy or the new old guy?  Maybe the long-term solution WAS to trade Richards and Carter.  At the time that seemed like a pretty good bet.  Nobody predicted what would happen to Pronger.  He seemed like a decent long(er) term risk, despite his age.  We had some young offensive players coming up - Giroux - and that we traded for who could all pitch in to make up for and perhaps even exceed the offensive production we'd lose long term by trading Richards and Carter.  Nobody predicted that our offense would totally disappear and that those young, talented forwards would completely and inexplicably implode  this season. Nobody predicted the devastating, career ending injury to Pronger.  Those two things have blown up the organization's grand plan. Had neither happened, I don't think we'd be having the season we are.

 

As a frequent advocate for the Devil, well done

 

I'll return serve.

 

The team committed to Richards/Crater for the long term. Immediately after doing so, they brought in Pronger and commited to Pronger for the long term.

 

Then they shipped out Richards/Crater.

 

Then they committed to Bryzgalov long term.

 

Then Pronger got hurt.

 

Then they bought out Bryzgalov.

 

Then they committed to Giroux long term.

 

And here we are. For the record, that's long term commitments to five players over the course of six years.

 

One guy is still here.

 

Quite frankly, I was saying over and over again last year that the team's problems were more than just the space cadet in goal - "defending Bryzgalov" I believe it was characterized as. The end result of jettissonning the space cadet has been the "implosion" of which you speak.

 

And there were more than a few people who were very hesitant for them to have committed the way they did to Pronger - given his over-35 status and the potential for injury with older players. Did anyone "predict" he would get a flukey concussion injury and never be able to play again? No, not specifically.

[brelic]

And there were more than a few people who were very hesitant for them to have committed the way they did to Pronger - given his over-35 status and the potential for injury with older players. Did anyone "predict" he would get a flukey concussion injury and never be able to play again? No, not specifically.

So after being burned on the long-term over-35 to Pronger, they gave a long-term over-35 to Streit.

Yup, lesson learned.

[pilldoc]

@brelic

 

reminds of jumping out of the frying and into the fire...we are screwed..... (hence my comic listed below)

 

[ZeZel25]

Lindros trade.

[murraycraven]

Can we take a mulligan on the whole franchise?  I mean maybe it would be different around these parts w/ a different owner?   Take the old Dolorean back in time and change fate:

 

[Claude Monet]

Trading bob and signing bryz

[King Knut]

Gagne was here for like 11 years before he was traded.

That doesn't exactly count as trading a first round pick.

So, you're saying the Flyers are horrible at developing players? If you're not, I am. Because they are.

The Flyers have traded the first round picks they chose 10 times since 1998. Two more they traded before they made a pick. Twice they brought the player back (Gagne, Downie).

That leaves Giroux, Couturier, Laughton and Morin. And there's all sorts of buzz on Giroux and Couturier...

Why bother to draft at all?

[Quint]

JVR trade.

Really disappointing.

Matter a fact. I can't stand the "Schenners". I consider myself a patient fellow, but those Schenn brothers are really testing my patiences.

Especially B. Schenn.

[icehole]

A lot of these trades look bad now but I can't blame homer for make most of the trades. I thought Richards became a punk who wasn't really captain material. He went to LA where he didn't have to be captain and he blended into the middle of a solid team and has become a reliable player. We were getting a strong, gritty, tough player with some heart and skill plus the "top prospect" in the league at the time. Also, we were dumping a long, expensive contract.<br />I would have been happy with spectrum ice coasters to get rid of carter but we dumped his contract, picked up voracek (talented young potential) and we freed up money for a goalie. Carter also fit into a nice role in LA.<br />JVR for Schenn didn't bother me either. JVR was severely underperforming and we needed defense. Little did we know, JVR just needed a different coach and trainer to help his skating. Schenn became a stiff.

[radoran]

@King Knut

Right, so that's two.

In 13 years.

[mojo1917]

I love how people still like to diminish Richard's role on the Kings during that cup run.

He no longer had to be counted on for scoring and pulling idiot linemates around every shift, true, but Sutter had him on the ice whenever a game needed to be won. And Mike found a way weather it was fighting in St Louis , winning defensive face-offs vs the extra man, or manning the point in the opposite situation he was playing and leading.

It is Disingenuous sour grapes to say he blended in and became a solid player, he was and is relied upon by the Kings, we will see it this year in the playoffs too, when the coach needs a guy he can count on 10 will be on the ice.

For, me Richards is the trade mulligan to take.

Edited November 9, 2013 by mojo1917

[doom88]

I'd mulligan JVR. Lavy never used him properly, nor had patience when JVR did get into the top 6. Injuries didn't help, but I can't shake the feeling he could have broken out in Philly. All he needed was patience and consistent, legitimate linemates.

[brelic]

I'd mulligan JVR. Lavy never used him properly, nor had patience when JVR did get into the top 6. Injuries didn't help, but I can't shake the feeling he could have broken out in Philly. All he needed was patience and consistent, legitimate linemates.

 

We didn't do anything wrong with JVR except give up on him. Period. 

 

The team determined that he was a bust at 22. All he did was increase his PPG ratio every year he was in Philly, and surprise surprise, it has continued to climb in Toronto.

 

Phi, 0.45 PPG

Phi, 0.53

Phi, 0.56

Tor, 0.67

Tor, 0.93

 

He was frustrating to watch early on because he was young and inconsistent. Much like Richards, Carter, Giroux, Gus, Couturier, Brayden Schenn, etc. That's how 90% of the players are at that age. 

 

Anyway, as much as that was a terrible trade, I still think the Richards trade was more significant in terms of what it meant. It was a complete shift in direction, and one that has been schizophrenic at best since then.