How much worse does it have to get? Is Homer in Sochi?

[fanaticV3.0]

Kane and Bogosian for Voracek and Luke Schenn.

Youth for youth. Change of scenery for 4 players that may or may not need it. Roughly fair in terms of value.

Make it happen, Hex.. uh, Homer.

Yesterday I saw a post saying we should trade Giroux because he's not elite. I remember a few guys wanted Schenn gone just a few weeks back. Now Voracek. I myself have even suggested trading Couturier at one point.

 

I think we all need to shut the f-ck up the next time we rag on the organIzation for not giving youth enough time to grow considering our suggestions.

 

Oh and are we really giving up on Voracek already? I know he's frustrating at times, but he's probably going to pass his point totals from his first two seasons as a Flyer, and is likely going to hit a career high this year. And we want to trade that?!

Edited January 28, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

I already answered that.

 

And I agreed it would be wonderful to get a solid impact player for bubkus.

 

We'll see how that works out.

 

Quite frankly, I'm not holding my breath. It will take a serious deal, not some pie in the sky thing "that doesn't affect the current roster," to get it done.

[fanaticV3.0]

And I agreed it would be wonderful to get a solid impact player for bubkus.

 

We'll see how that works out.

 

Quite frankly, I'm not holding my breath. It will take a serious deal, not some pie in the sky thing "that doesn't affect the current roster," to get it done.

 

There are people on this board willing to trade Schenn - a still improving, but proven commodity at the NHL level - because they want to make room for Laughton (a complete unknown). These people also talk about how he is dominating his league (despite the fact that it's against kids). I'm not one of these people, but that doesn't mean they do not exist, and I certainly wouldn't refer to Laughton as "bubkus". There are plenty of people willing to take a chance on potential, especially when it is at it's peak at the present moment. Dismissing that because you don't approve of the trade is a little disingenuous if you ask me.

[radoran]

There are people on this board willing to trade Schenn - a still improving, but proven commodity at the NHL level - because they want to make room for Laughton (a complete unknown). These people also talk about how he is dominating his league (despite the fact that it's against kids). I'm not one of these people, but that doesn't mean they do not exist, and I certainly wouldn't refer to Laughton as "bubkus". There are plenty of people willing to take a chance on potential, especially when it is at it's peak at the present moment. Dismissing that because you don't approve of the trade is a little disingenuous if you ask me.

Laughton is "bubkus" especially for a young team that's "thin up front" like Winnipeg. Laughton and a pick for an established 30-goal scorer like Evander Kane isn't even worth commenting on. You call Laughton a "complete unknown" - and he is - while Kane had potted 30, was "on pace" for 30 last year and is again this year.

 

Winnipeg is in the exact same position as the Flyers, but in a tougher division. If you think they will give up Kane for Laughton and an assortment of draft choices, terrific. I'm happy for you.

 

And I hope you brought enough of whatever it is you are on for everybody.

 

That said, I'd take that deal from the Flyers' perspective 140 times out of 10.

 

Winnipeg? May as well fold the tents and close up shop if they do that.

Laughton has value in a trade scenario. But Kane isn't it. As the marquee player in a major trade? No way. And if flyercanuck or jammer2 had suggested getting Kane for Laughton and picks, you'd probably have had a similar reaction to mine.

[mojo1917]

i was actually shocked you got my reference to schenn's happen of "swordfighting" for the puck instead of actually getting in their and battling.
 

 

you and @aziz have a good conversation going here... I saw this and it  better describes a thing i think has been a hole in Schenn's game , i always thought he was knocked off the puck a little too easily, and wondered about the cause of that issue, but i think this description is actually better than the way I was looking at it.  

[doom88]

Yesterday I saw a post saying we should trade Giroux because he's not elite. I remember a few guys wanted Schenn gone just a few weeks back. Now Voracek. I myself have even suggested trading Couturier at one point.

 

I think we all need to shut the f-ck up the next time we rag on the organIzation for not giving youth enough time to grow considering our suggestions.

 

Oh and are we really giving up on Voracek already? I know he's frustrating at times, but he's probably going to pass his point totals from his first two seasons as a Flyer, and is likely going to hit a career high this year. And we want to trade that?!

 

This post can't be quoted enough.  I know we rarely seem to agree, but this is dead on.

[radoran]

This post can't be quoted enough.  I know we rarely seem to agree, but this is dead on.

 

It is, in fact, "dead on" but at the same time has a number of straw men attached to it. You can't conflate all of the various opinions of the entire board and then assign them to everyone who shared even one of them.

 

Rather than dealing with "general" posts, deal with them specifically. For example, doom, I don't think you or I have been in on the "trade Giroux" or "BSchenn gone" or "Voracek is a problem" crowds. I'm not sure there are more than 2-3 people who share all of those opinions so there's hardly even a crowd.

 

The Flyers simply don't develop players well. They do draft well and they do have that eye for talent. Unfortunately that talent generally matures and contributes with other organizations because the Flyers have expended their assets to "make the playoffs and anything can happen." Richards, Crater, Gagne, Seidenberg, Willliams, Sharp (heck, Colin Fraser) have all been drafted by the Flyers and won Cups in the last 15 years. Just not in Philadelphia.

 

I have no problem if anyone wants to take something I have said - or, for that matter, me taking what other people have said - and taking issue with it. But I'm not going to sit around and listen to someone say what "we" need to do because of what "we" are saying when it is demonstrably true that "we" haven't said any damn thing of the sort.

 

So, you know, I don't think I need to "shut the f-ck up the next time (I) rag on the organization for not giving youth enough time to grow." No, I don't agree that "we" need to do that.

[murraycraven]

Yesterday I saw a post saying we should trade Giroux because he's not elite. I remember a few guys wanted Schenn gone just a few weeks back. Now Voracek. I myself have even suggested trading Couturier at one point.

 

I think we all need to shut the f-ck up the next time we rag on the organIzation for not giving youth enough time to grow considering our suggestions.

 

Oh and are we really giving up on Voracek already? I know he's frustrating at times, but he's probably going to pass his point totals from his first two seasons as a Flyer, and is likely going to hit a career high this year. And we want to trade that?!

 

 

awesome post and could not agree more!!!!!!!!

[doom88]

It is, in fact, "dead on" but at the same time has a number of straw men attached to it. You can't conflate all of the various opinions of the entire board and then assign them to everyone who shared even one of them.

Rather than dealing with "general" posts, deal with them specifically. For example, doom, I don't think you or I have been in on the "trade Giroux" or "BSchenn gone" or "Voracek is a problem" crowds. I'm not sure there are more than 2-3 people who share all of those opinions so there's hardly even a crowd.

The Flyers simply don't develop players well. They do draft well and they do have that eye for talent. Unfortunately that talent generally matures and contributes with other organizations because the Flyers have expended their assets to "make the playoffs and anything can happen." Richards, Crater, Gagne, Seidenberg, Willliams, Sharp (heck, Colin Fraser) have all been drafted by the Flyers and won Cups in the last 15 years. Just not in Philadelphia.

I have no problem if anyone wants to take something I have said - or, for that matter, me taking what other people have said - and taking issue with it. But I'm not going to sit around and listen to someone say what "we" need to do because of what "we" are saying when it is demonstrably true that "we" haven't said any damn thing of the sort.

So, you know, I don't think I need to "shut the f-ck up the next time (I) rag on the organization for not giving youth enough time to grow." No, I don't agree that "we" need to do that.

This post would make more sense if you pointed at the actual post I quoted, but I guess I'm still your favorite?

Generalities are not universal. Overall, look at this forum and honestly say it's a temple of patience, while hypocritically preaching it. It's getting a little ridiculous in some ways.

Fire (and trade) all the things!

[radoran]

This post would make more sense if you pointed at the actual post I quoted, but I guess I'm still your favorite?

Generalities are not universal. Overall, look at this forum and honestly say it's a temple of patience, while hypocritically preaching it. It's getting a little ridiculous in some ways.

Fire (and trade) all the things!

 

There are lots of people who apparently think they're my favorite. Fanatic might take issue. Phlfly, too. I also frequently comment on posts from aziz, flyercanuck and jammer. JackStraw. Gazoo. Irish. Rod. AndyS. Drew. Murray. Lots of people.

 

And ruxpin.

 

Who's my "favorite"? You all can discuss that amongst yourselves. I'm not telling

 

I don't think this forum is a "temple of patience" but I don't spend my time criticizing straw men and assigning opinions to a person or groujp based upon what people other than that person or group has said - I go after the actual issues using facts and reality to back up the position - hopefully engendering meaningful discussion.

 

Again, as specifically stated in my response to you - neither of us (no matter how much we "disagree" in your mind) have been calling for the many and varied things fanatic takes issue with "us" saying.

 

If I want to take issue with something you said. I do that. If I want to support you, I do that, too. There's nothing personal on my end. Others may have a different feeling on that.

 

So, no, I still don't think I should "shut the f-ck up the next time (I) rag on the organization for not giving youth enough time to grow." They haven't. That's not an opinion. That's hard, observable fact.

 

I might say that "everyone on here" is on crack because they think we should trade a pile of dingo's kidneys for an established 30-goal scorer, but I already told the guy who said that directly so I don't really need to say that everyone on here "should shut the f-ck up about trading a pile of dingo's kidneys for an established 30-goal scorer".

 

Because you never said that.

 

And I would never imply that you did.

 

Drop the puck and carry on.

Edited January 28, 2014 by radoran
MURRAY!

[murraycraven]

And ruxpin.

 

but, but... I thought you were rux?!?!

[doom88]

There are lots of people who apparently think they're my favorite. Fanatic might take issue. Phlfly, too. I also frequently comment on posts from aziz, flyercanuck and jammer. JackStraw. Gazoo. Irish. Rod. AndyS. Drew. Murray. Lots of people.

And ruxpin.

Who's my "favorite"? You all can discuss that amongst yourselves. I'm not telling

I don't think this forum is a "temple of patience" but I don't spend my time criticizing straw men and assigning opinions to a person or groujp based upon what people other than that person or group has said - I go after the actual issues using facts and reality to back up the position - hopefully engendering meaningful discussion.

Again, as specifically stated in my response to you - neither of us (no matter how much we "disagree" in your mind) have been calling for the many and varied things fanatic takes issue with "us" saying.

If I want to take issue with something you said. I do that. If I want to support you, I do that, too. There's nothing personal on my end. Others may have a different feeling on that.

So, no, I still don't think I should "shut the f-ck up the next time (I) rag on the organization for not giving youth enough time to grow." They haven't. That's not an opinion. That's hard, observable fact.

I might say that "everyone on here" is on crack because they think we should trade a pile of dingo's kidneys for an established 30-goal scorer, but I already told the guy who said that directly so I don't really need to say that everyone on here "should shut the f-ck up about trading a pile of dingo's kidneys for an established 30-goal scorer".

Because you never said that.

And I would never imply that you did.

Drop the puck and carry on.

Sigh, let me help you.

@fanaticV3.0

[doom88]

awesome post and could not agree more!!!!!!!!

@radoran

[radoran]

Sigh, let me help you.

@fanaticV3.0

 

Ahem. Sigh. Cough.

 

So, when you were saying that the post "couldn't be quoted enough" you meant... what, exactly?

 

Yawn.

[doom88]

Ahem. Sigh. Cough.

So, when you were saying that the post "couldn't be quoted enough" you meant... what, exactly?

Yawn.

I was agreeing, before you wrote an essay to the wrong guy.

I'm sure you'll get it right next time.

Yawn.

[radoran]

but, but... I thought you were rux?!?!

 

I'd respond to this, but we wouldn't want doom to think he wasn't my favorite anymore.

 

Would we?

[doom88]

I'd respond to this, but we wouldn't want doom to think he wasn't my favorite anymore.

Would we?

How cute, a glancing blow.

[caluso]

This post would make more sense if you pointed at the actual post I quoted, but I guess I'm still your favorite?

Generalities are not universal. Overall, look at this forum and honestly say it's a temple of patience, while hypocritically preaching it. It's getting a little ridiculous in some ways.

Fire (and trade) all the things!

bingo!

 

initially, i thought one of Gomer's strengths was drafting talent but the organization's player development was seriously flawed. after a few years of seeing the talent Gomer has acquired, i am not so sure my initial impression was correct. however, it doesn't change the fact that the organization lacks vision and lacks the systems to grow their own talent. and that has to be an issue with the whole organization, AHL to NHL. 

 

with the hard salary cap, it is imperative to develop your own. other "winning" organizations seem to find a way to do it. why can't we?

 

one of my biggest gripes with laviolette was his staunch insistence on relegating younger players to the third and fourth line irrespective of how they were playing. giroux is a perfect example. it was clear to me early on that this guy was special but it took a while - too long, in my opinion - before he was given more responsibility, responsibility that he clearly earned.

 

in my opinion, if a player is hustling and busting his butt, he should be rewarded and i don't care if he's a rookie or 10 year vet. it's that simple. the flip side of that is true, too. if your first round pick is dogging it, he should ride the pine. 

[brelic]

Yesterday I saw a post saying we should trade Giroux because he's not elite. I remember a few guys wanted Schenn gone just a few weeks back. Now Voracek. I myself have even suggested trading Couturier at one point.

 

I think we all need to shut the f-ck up the next time we rag on the organIzation for not giving youth enough time to grow considering our suggestions.

 

Oh and are we really giving up on Voracek already? I know he's frustrating at times, but he's probably going to pass his point totals from his first two seasons as a Flyer, and is likely going to hit a career high this year. And we want to trade that?!

 

It's not at all "giving up" on Voracek. I like Voracek, I'd want to keep him.

 

But if you seriously want Kane, you're going to have to give up a top line roster player in return. Winnipeg is playing well, they're fighting for a playoff spot, and I'm sure they don't want prospects, scrubs, or picks. They want impact roster players. If we were to trade Voracek, don't you think we'd want a top line winger in return (if we didn't have one in the system)? 

 

Some here have said that Voracek and Giroux are not complementary players because they play a similar game. If that's the case, why not exchange Voracek for a sniping winger in Kane? Kane is two years younger. 

 

And Bogosian is the same age as Schenn, but has much more offensive upside than Luke. They're both in the doghouse for underperforming, so again, a swap may make sense for both teams.

 

We can't always count on Scott Howson being on the other side of trade proposals.

[fanaticV3.0]

Laughton is "bubkus" especially for a young team that's "thin up front" like Winnipeg. Laughton and a pick for an established 30-goal scorer like Evander Kane isn't even worth commenting on. You call Laughton a "complete unknown" - and he is - while Kane had potted 30, was "on pace" for 30 last year and is again this year.

 

Winnipeg is in the exact same position as the Flyers, but in a tougher division. If you think they will give up Kane for Laughton and an assortment of draft choices, terrific. I'm happy for you.

 

And I hope you brought enough of whatever it is you are on for everybody.

 

That said, I'd take that deal from the Flyers' perspective 140 times out of 10.

 

Winnipeg? May as well fold the tents and close up shop if they do that.

Laughton has value in a trade scenario. But Kane isn't it. As the marquee player in a major trade? No way. And if flyercanuck or jammer2 had suggested getting Kane for Laughton and picks, you'd probably have had a similar reaction to mine.

 

Didn't the Isles trade Luongo because they planned on replacing him with DiPietro? The Flyers traded their two "best" players in the same off season for 4 players based on nothing more than potential. The Flyers also traded away half their organIzation because of what Lindros was "going to be". Don't give me this "bubkas" bullshit just because you don't like it. Plenty of people out there have and will trade for "potential". Happens all the time and for players a lot better (established is a better word) than Kane.

[fanaticV3.0]

This post can't be quoted enough.  I know we rarely seem to agree, but this is dead on.

 

A lot of people rip the organIzation for not being patient for youth, but don't seem to be practicing what they are preaching.

[fanaticV3.0]

It's not at all "giving up" on Voracek. I like Voracek, I'd want to keep him.

 

But if you seriously want Kane, you're going to have to give up a top line roster player in return. Winnipeg is playing well, they're fighting for a playoff spot, and I'm sure they don't want prospects, scrubs, or picks. They want impact roster players. If we were to trade Voracek, don't you think we'd want a top line winger in return (if we didn't have one in the system)? 

 

Some here have said that Voracek and Giroux are not complementary players because they play a similar game. If that's the case, why not exchange Voracek for a sniping winger in Kane? Kane is two years younger. 

 

And Bogosian is the same age as Schenn, but has much more offensive upside than Luke. They're both in the doghouse for underperforming, so again, a swap may make sense for both teams.

 

We can't always count on Scott Howson being on the other side of trade proposals.

 

Winnipeg is the third worst team in their conference, which happens to be the better of the two. They have no chance in a PO series even if a miracle happens and they do somehow make it. To me, that has "look to the future" written all over it.

 

The only way I'm trading one of our young roster players right now is if the return is something that is guaranteed (hyperbole for really likely) to make us better. The player or players coming back has to make up for losing the ones we're shipping out. Kane - and I have said I'd like to take a chance on him - doesn't do that to me. He's not "guaranteed enough" and I'd think we'd still need him and Voracek. If the guy we were bringing here were significantly better than the one leaving, sure I could part one of the kids. But other than that, I'm sitting on my hands and not trading any of the core. Does that make sense (even if you disagree)?

[fanaticV3.0]

It is, in fact, "dead on" but at the same time has a number of straw men attached to it. You can't conflate all of the various opinions of the entire board and then assign them to everyone who shared even one of them.

 

Rather than dealing with "general" posts, deal with them specifically. For example, doom, I don't think you or I have been in on the "trade Giroux" or "BSchenn gone" or "Voracek is a problem" crowds. I'm not sure there are more than 2-3 people who share all of those opinions so there's hardly even a crowd.

 

The Flyers simply don't develop players well. They do draft well and they do have that eye for talent. Unfortunately that talent generally matures and contributes with other organizations because the Flyers have expended their assets to "make the playoffs and anything can happen." Richards, Crater, Gagne, Seidenberg, Willliams, Sharp (heck, Colin Fraser) have all been drafted by the Flyers and won Cups in the last 15 years. Just not in Philadelphia.

 

I have no problem if anyone wants to take something I have said - or, for that matter, me taking what other people have said - and taking issue with it. But I'm not going to sit around and listen to someone say what "we" need to do because of what "we" are saying when it is demonstrably true that "we" haven't said any damn thing of the sort.

 

So, you know, I don't think I need to "shut the f-ck up the next time (I) rag on the organization for not giving youth enough time to grow." No, I don't agree that "we" need to do that.

 

 

Just an FYI, in case you didn't notice, I included myself in that statement. I even pointed out the specific young player I said I'd trade earlier in the year. I don't know why you are so bothered when included myself in the criticism.

[fanaticV3.0]

awesome post and could not agree more!!!!!!!!

I followed up my original post with another post to Bre saying that I would part with a young player if we were bringing in another young player in return who was a game changer. That's more of the exception rather than the rule, because other than that I'm sitting on my hands and shutting the f-ck up too.

[brelic]

Winnipeg is the third worst team in their conference, which happens to be the better of the two. They have no chance in a PO series even if a miracle happens and they do somehow make it. To me, that has "look to the future" written all over it.

 

The only way I'm trading one of our young roster players right now is if the return is something that is guaranteed (hyperbole for really likely) to make us better. The player or players coming back has to make up for losing the ones we're shipping out. Kane - and I have said I'd like to take a chance on him - doesn't do that to me. He's not "guaranteed enough" and I'd think we'd still need him and Voracek. If the guy we were bringing here were significantly better than the one leaving, sure I could part one of the kids. But other than that, I'm sitting on my hands and not trading any of the core. Does that make sense (even if you disagree)?

We'll you won't get anything guaranteed from Winnipeg. And in all honesty if a player were such a guarantee why would his team trade him? I guess Holmgren would but there's only one of him.

I wasn't actually suggesting we trade Voracek. I like him. It was more tongue in cheek and where I think Winnipeg would actually want to start the conversation. I can't imagine them wanting someone younger than Kane. That just brings the franchise backwards even more.

Voracek brings them forward a few years. Coots brings them back. Brayden Schenn isn't good enough to get Kane by himself.

In any case, I don't want them to trade anyone. Even Luke Schenn. He'll be fine as a second pairing defenseman if we ever actually have good defensemen.