Oh, Heck, We Have Time: Revisiting the Sharp Trade

[radoran]

It doesn't matter where he was picked, anyone can be overrated by the fans. I did one of my college internships with the Phantoms when they were still in Philly during the stretch run of their 01-02 season, and their very short PO season, the organization was a buzz about how "this was it" as far as his AHL career was concerned. I heard it everywhere those few months. At work, amongst my buddies, online, the radio, it was a given. Much like with Woywitka just a few years later, hew as the "defenseman of the future". It's the same mindset that thought Mike Maneluk was actually going to play with Lindros and Leclair. It's the same people who thought Jean Marc Pelletier was going to be even better than Boucher (who himself wasn't even as good as people expected).

 

I've seen this countless times from my fellow Flyers fans (and even the organization at times, because Maneluk was actually taken from the AHL and put on the top line for all of 13 games and people thought that would work). I've been guilty of it myself too. I hear you on Seidenberg, but guys like him are the exception, not the rule. More often than not the ones overhyped don't pan out vs ones being trashed later blossoming.

 

I forgot Ryan Bast existed until you even mentioned him, but I think you are right. I think he was another "he's going to be great" one.

 

There were people who were dead set SURE that the Flyers "won" the Sharp trade when it happened. Some of them were "insiders" with "information" that "we didn't have."*

 

I remember MANY saying Seidenberg was no great loss and would never amount to anything. Getting Shutdown Nedved for him (-28 in 49 games, -20 in 21) was a steal and a great move by the GM.

 

The general rule of thumb for the KoolAid Set is - whoever the Flyers draft is going to be the greatest player at their position until they are traded at which point they were never going to amount to anything; and whoever the Flyers trade for will be obviously better than the stiff that they sent packing.

 

 

 

* a source is a source of course of course...

[fanaticV3.0]

There were people who were dead set SURE that the Flyers "won" the Sharp trade when it happened. Some of them were "insiders" with "information" that "we didn't have."*

 

I remember MANY saying Seidenberg was no great loss and would never amount to anything. Getting Shutdown Nedved for him (-28 in 49 games, -20 in 21) was a steal and a great move by the GM.

 

The general rule of thumb for the KoolAid Set is - whoever the Flyers draft is going to be the greatest player at their position until they are traded at which point they were never going to amount to anything; and whoever the Flyers trade for will be obviously better than the stiff that they sent packing.

 

 

 

* a source is a source of course of course...

 

I wouldn't mind having either of those guys on the team right now, but we've lost more guys that haven't panned out vs those who have. It's just the nature of the beast.

 

I look at Sharp as a bit of a different situation too, because I think you can pin his departure exclusively on Hitch. The organization didn't give up him on, Hitch pretty much declared he didn't want him around.

[radoran]

I wouldn't mind having either of those guys on the team right now, but we've lost more guys that haven't panned out vs those who have. It's just the nature of the beast.

 

I look at Sharp as a bit of a different situation too, because I think you can pin his departure exclusively on Hitch. The organization didn't give up him on, Hitch pretty much declared he didn't want him around.

 

The head coach is part of "the organization" - hand-picked by the general manager.

 

The general manager is part of "the organization" - the general manager made the trade.

 

You can parse all you like, but it does start to sound a lot like apologizing for the actual actions of the organization.

[aziz]

I look at Sharp as a bit of a different situation too, because I think you can pin his departure exclusively on Hitch. The organization didn't give up him on, Hitch pretty much declared he didn't want him around.

 

alternately, you could pin his departure on sharp coasting around thinking he deserved more than he earned, being allergic to the ice anywhere near the boards, being more concerned about his hair than backchecking, etc.  could pin sharp's departure on sharp.

[radoran]

alternately, you could pin his departure on sharp coasting around thinking he deserved more than he earned, being allergic to the ice anywhere near the boards, being more concerned about his hair than backchecking, etc.  could pin sharp's departure on sharp.

 

The grapes were probably sour.

 

The Flyers won that trade.

 

[fanaticV3.0]

The head coach is part of "the organization" - hand-picked by the general manager.

 

The general manager is part of "the organization" - the general manager made the trade.

 

You can parse all you like, but it does start to sound a lot like apologizing for the actual actions of the organization.

 

If by parse you mean not paint the canvas with a broad stroke, make blanket statements, and not going all black/white on situation, consider me guilty.

 

Do you blame the general manager every time a player takes a penalty too?

[aziz]

The Flyers won that trade.

 

patrick sharp won that trade.  his first three years in the league, he had a terrible attitude and a very incomplete approach to the game.  he picked his spots, did the things he felt like doing, did everything else at half speed.  i think having an NHL coach tell him that was unacceptable, and then having an NHL GM back the coach instead of him woke him up.  he has turned himself in to a very very good hockey player.  he always had the talent, obviously, but his attitude was completely in his way in philadelphia.  i think it if he had not been traded, there was a fair chance he turned into a career minor leaguer, massive skillset or no.  he was incredibly frustrating for me to watch, i can only imagine he had hitch climbing the walls.  which, if you think about it, is pretty impressive.

[radoran]

If by parse you mean not paint the canvas with a broad stroke, make blanket statements, and not going all black/white on situation, consider me guilty.

 

Do you blame the general manager every time a player takes a penalty too?

 

No, I blame the general manager for making bad trades when he makes bad trades. And I don't excuse the bad trades because of a few good ones.

 

The "organization" that you claim "didn't give up on Sharp" traded him away.

 

You want to claim that's not "giving up on the player" - what was it?

 

 

patrick sharp won that trade.  his first three years in the league, he had a terrible attitude and a very incomplete approach to the game.  he picked his spots, did the things he felt like doing, did everything else at half speed.  i think having an NHL coach tell him that was unacceptable, and then having an NHL GM back the coach instead of him woke him up.  he has turned himself in to a very very good hockey player.  he always had the talent, obviously, but his attitude was completely in his way in philadelphia.  i think it if he had not been traded, there was a fair chance he turned into a career minor leaguer, massive skillset or no.  he was incredibly frustrating for me to watch, i can only imagine he had hitch climbing the walls.  which, if you think about it, is pretty impressive.

 

Yeah, everybody gets a "wake up call" when they leave here. Interesting that the organization seems incapable of giving a wake up call in any other manner.

 

Sharp played an entire half a season and then 22 games (66 games total) before being traded. In between he was a point per game player in the AHL Calder Cup in 04-05 and scored 52 points in 75 games of the "lockout" season.

 

So, pleased to be telling me again about his "first three years" in the league?

[fanaticV3.0]

alternately, you could pin his departure on sharp coasting around thinking he deserved more than he earned, being allergic to the ice anywhere near the boards, being more concerned about his hair than backchecking, etc.  could pin sharp's departure on sharp.

 

He was playing 8 minutes a night here on mostly the 4th line. He was clearly used in the wrong role here. Hitch didn't try to give him a shot in a role that better suited him. Hitch is one of those guys that if you don't fit his idea of what a hockey player is, regardless of your talent, he has no interest in you. You can't mold every guy into the same type of player. He did the same thing to Comrie and Williams, both of whom he also relegated to the fourth line. It's like putting a goon on the top line and expecting him to score. You have to play a guy to his strengths. That's not to say players are never in the wrong, but Hitch didn't even try to work with a certain type of player. He didn't like you he'd stick you on the fourth line until you got traded.

 

He refused to play Niittymaki for a time too, no matter how bad Esche or Burke were during that same time.

[fanaticV3.0]

No, I blame the general manager for making bad trades when he makes bad trades. And I don't excuse the bad trades because of a few good ones.

 

The "organization" that you claim "didn't give up on Sharp" traded him away.

 

You want to claim that's not "giving up on the player" - what was it?

 

 

 

Yeah, everybody gets a "wake up call" when they leave here. Interesting that the organization seems incapable of giving a wake up call in any other manner.

 

Sharp played an entire half a season and then 22 games (66 games total) before being traded. In between he was a point per game player in the AHL Calder Cup in 04-05 and scored 52 points in 75 games of the "lockout" season.

 

So, pleased to be telling me again about his "first three years" in the league?

 

 

What else are they going to do at that point? The coach refuses to play him, he was of no use to the team. GMs hire coaches to make the on-ice decisions. It's the coaches call and responsibility for how he uses the personnel given to him. If he decides to not use a player, that's on him. This has nothing to do with Homer, Clarkie, or Snider and all the bad decisions they've made over the years. It has to do with Ken Hitchcock being a one-dimensional, stubborn ass hole. Stop being obtuse because you refer to blame "the man".

[fanaticV3.0]

patrick sharp won that trade.  his first three years in the league, he had a terrible attitude and a very incomplete approach to the game.  he picked his spots, did the things he felt like doing, did everything else at half speed.  i think having an NHL coach tell him that was unacceptable, and then having an NHL GM back the coach instead of him woke him up.  he has turned himself in to a very very good hockey player.  he always had the talent, obviously, but his attitude was completely in his way in philadelphia.  i think it if he had not been traded, there was a fair chance he turned into a career minor leaguer, massive skillset or no.  he was incredibly frustrating for me to watch, i can only imagine he had hitch climbing the walls.  which, if you think about it, is pretty impressive.

 

I don't remember him actually being that much of a problem to be completely honest. I remember Hitch and his mouth piece claiming he was, but actual stories about him being a distraction were nonexistent from what I remember.

[aziz]

Sharp played an entire half a season and then 22 games (66 games total) before being traded.
 
So, pleased to be telling me again about his "first three years" in the league?

 

my bad on this one, too, three seasons in philly, only 2 seasons with real time in the NHL.  

 

Yeah, everybody gets a "wake up call" when they leave here. Interesting that the organization seems incapable of giving a wake up call in any other manner.

 

what else do you do?  the guy was scratched, demoted lines, sent back to the AHL, talked to, talked about, what else are you going to do with him?  what do you do with a 24 yearold player who is offended that he is being asked to earn his time, refuses to go within 5 feet of the boards, and thinks backchecking is what you do right before you reverse out of a parking spot at the local hair salon?  you have less talented players who are outproducing him, thugs who are pacing him, and a handful of similarly aged players about to come up looking for icetime themselves who don't seem to have the same motivation problems?

 

i get that sharp has become a favorite since finding himself in chicago, but as a 22/23 yearold, he was a hot mess.  i was glad the day he was traded and haven't been the least bit unhappy about it since.

[aziz]

Hitch didn't try to give him a shot in a role that better suited him. 

 

he did.  sharp saw time on the top two lines, mostly with gagne and roenick.  he did crap with it, because he refused to actually work for anything.

 

You can't mold every guy into the same type of player. He did the same thing to Comrie and Williams, both of whom he also relegated to the fourth line.

 

williams had 26 points in 47 games that last season, comrie 9 in 21.  sharp 7 in 41.  

 

besides, it wasn't just about production, it was about attitude.  sharp was unhappy in how he was being used, and it showed in his play.  he coasted around, with short sprints when he thought he was about to given the puck...then coast some more again.  if the puck went into the boards, sharp would hover 10 feet off the wall waiting for someone to go in and get it.  

 

if you are a middle round pick and someone puts you on an NHL team, assume you need to earn respect.  assume that no one has reserved a top 6 slot for you, just waiting for you to slide on in.  if you are given 4th line minutes, then make sure every second of every shift lets the powers that be know you deserve more.  work the time you are given and climb your way up.  as opposed to mopping around being unhappy that no one is treating you like the superstar you know you secretly are.

 

i have no idea what he was like in the lockerroom.  watching him, he was an entitled dog.  which was particularly weird, given he didn't exactly have a crazy pedigree coming in.  

[radoran]

my bad on this one, too, three seasons in philly, only 2 seasons with real time in the NHL.  

 

I can't wait to see Laughton's "third season" in the NHL next season.

 

Sharp played NOT EVEN AN ENTIRE SEASON in Philadelphia. That's a fact.

 

watching him, he was an entitled dog.

 

Watching him for the "three seasons" you saw him play - 66 total games, 3, 41 and 22 in "three seasons"

 

Forgive me if I'm not taking your hyperbolic assertions with complete seriousness here...

[radoran]

What else are they going to do at that point? The coach refuses to play him, he was of no use to the team. GMs hire coaches to make the on-ice decisions. It's the coaches call and responsibility for how he uses the personnel given to him. If he decides to not use a player, that's on him. This has nothing to do with Homer, Clarkie, or Snider and all the bad decisions they've made over the years. It has to do with Ken Hitchcock being a one-dimensional, stubborn ass hole. Stop being obtuse because you refer to blame "the man".

 

This, coming from the King Linus of blanket statements.

 

Hope that works out for you.

[aziz]

Watching him for the "three seasons" you saw him play - 66 total games, 3, 41 and 22 in "three seasons"

 

Forgive me if I'm not taking your hyperbolic assertions with complete seriousness here...

 

replaced a wall of text with this:  we saw ryan potulny and stefan ruzicka less than we saw patrick sharp.  how unsure were you of their future by the end of their flyers careers?  were the flyers being precipitous?

 

now, add in the fact that they produced at a better rate than patrick sharp over that period, and tell me that 66 games wasn't enough to get a read on what kind of player patrick sharp was at the time.

Edited February 19, 2014 by aziz

[radoran]

replaced a wall of text with this:  we saw ryan potulny and stefan ruzicka less than we saw patrick sharp.  how unsure were you of their future by the end of their flyers careers?  were the flyers being precipitous?

 

now, add in the fact that they produced at a better rate than patrick sharp over that period, and tell me that 66 games wasn't enough to get a read on what kind of player patrick sharp was at the time.

 

66 games obviously wasn't enough time to get a read on what kind of player Patrick Sharp was. The man has as many Cup rings as any Flyer in history.

 

But, your position is that Ken Hitchcock played a third round rookie on the top two lines of the 03-04 team with Roenick and Gagne. A team that - in addition to Gagne's 80 games - featured John LeClair (75), Michal Handzus (82), Tony Amonte (80) and Mark Recchi (82) all playing 75+ games (Roenick played 66) plus Sami Kapanen at 74. I think you may have something of a convenient memory there. At what point were any of those guys put down to the 3/4 lines to make room for the burgeoning (41 games) Sharp?

 

Simple. They weren't.

 

And it certainly wasn't during 04-05 lockout season or the 22 games of the 05-06 season, with Roenick playing in Los Angeles.

 

So, when, in Sharp's "three seasons" in Philadelphia did he get "significant time" on the top two lines with Roenick and Gagne? Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

But, the grapes were probably sour anyway. Good thing they maximized their value on their investment. Good trade.

[fanaticV3.0]

he did.  sharp saw time on the top two lines, mostly with gagne and roenick.  he did crap with it, because he refused to actually work for anything.

 

 

 

williams had 26 points in 47 games that last season, comrie 9 in 21.  sharp 7 in 41.  

 

besides, it wasn't just about production, it was about attitude.  sharp was unhappy in how he was being used, and it showed in his play.  he coasted around, with short sprints when he thought he was about to given the puck...then coast some more again.  if the puck went into the boards, sharp would hover 10 feet off the wall waiting for someone to go in and get it.  

 

if you are a middle round pick and someone puts you on an NHL team, assume you need to earn respect.  assume that no one has reserved a top 6 slot for you, just waiting for you to slide on in.  if you are given 4th line minutes, then make sure every second of every shift lets the powers that be know you deserve more.  work the time you are given and climb your way up.  as opposed to mopping around being unhappy that no one is treating you like the superstar you know you secretly are.

 

i have no idea what he was like in the lockerroom.  watching him, he was an entitled dog.  which was particularly weird, given he didn't exactly have a crazy pedigree coming in.  

 

When?! For two shifts when Hitch was juggling lines? Sharp played 8 minutes a night under Hitch.

 

Hitch is also quoted as saying he was a center and we didn't need centers. Sharp was moved to the wing soon after being traded to the Hawks and has been a pretty good player since. His reasons for trading him were 100% bullshit.

Edited February 20, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[Mad Dog]

@aziz

 

I have to side with Fanatic on this one. I honestly don't have a memory of him being disinterested, lazy player who drifted along and showed no passion. What I *do* remember is a confused and lost player, who was yo-yo'd from line to line, who was never given a clear direction as to what exactly he was expected to do when he was on the ice. To me, he was not Mike Comrie. Comrie was a good example of a player who cruised along, went in motions... Again, I didn't see much of that with Sharp.

 

And I actually have always been a big advocate of Hitch. I still think the man is a very, very bright coach. But this was one of his major flaws. By his own testimony, he divided players on "scorers" and "workers", leaving nothing in between. It was easy for him to handle players like Gagne, Roenick, Primeau, Recchi, LeClair, Amonte, and later Zhamnov, because those players could score in bunches, so there was no need to have something in between. Then you also had players like Kapanen and Handzus, who were your typical checking players, or the "workers", as Hitch would label them.

 

The good examples are players like Somik, John Slaney, Umburger, and Branko Radivojevic. They could not possibly succeed in his system. They gravitate more towards scorers, but they didn't have an offensive prowess of the Gagnes and Roenicks of the world. And they don’t fore check enough… not necessarily because they are lazy or disinterested, but because not everybody in the NHL can actually do it. Not everybody is Brind’Amour or Joel Otto.  So Hitch viewed them as addendums, appendixes to the team, who neither hurt nor helped the team that much. Sharp was sort of in the same category.

 

He arrived at Chicago, he came to a team who sorely needed scoring and he clicked with the top-line players.  Retrospectively though, I am not sure how much could’ve been done to keep Sharp other than trying to develop and nurture him a little better.  But again, when you are so stacked up offensively, there really isn’t that much need to do that.

[fanaticV3.0]

@aziz

 

I have to side with Fanatic on this one. I honestly don't have a memory of him being disinterested, lazy player who drifted along and showed no passion. What I *do* remember is a confused and lost player, who was yo-yo'd from line to line, who was never given a clear direction as to what exactly he was expected to do when he was on the ice. To me, he was not Mike Comrie. Comrie was a good example of a player who cruised along, went in motions... Again, I didn't see much of that with Sharp.

 

And I actually have always been a big advocate of Hitch. I still think the man is a very, very bright coach. But this was one of his major flaws. By his own testimony, he divided players on "scorers" and "workers", leaving nothing in between. It was easy for him to handle players like Gagne, Roenick, Primeau, Recchi, LeClair, Amonte, and later Zhamnov, because those players could score in bunches, so there was no need to have something in between. Then you also had players like Kapanen and Handzus, who were your typical checking players, or the "workers", as Hitch would label them.

 

The good examples are players like Somik, John Slaney, Umburger, and Branko Radivojevic. They could not possibly succeed in his system. They gravitate more towards scorers, but they didn't have an offensive prowess of the Gagnes and Roenicks of the world. And they don’t fore check enough… not necessarily because they are lazy or disinterested, but because not everybody in the NHL can actually do it. Not everybody is Brind’Amour or Joel Otto.  So Hitch viewed them as addendums, appendixes to the team, who neither hurt nor helped the team that much. Sharp was sort of in the same category.

 

He arrived at Chicago, he came to a team who sorely needed scoring and he clicked with the top-line players.  Retrospectively though, I am not sure how much could’ve been done to keep Sharp other than trying to develop and nurture him a little better.  But again, when you are so stacked up offensively, there really isn’t that much need to do that.

 

That's pretty much my only - or at least only really significant one - complaint about the guy. If he doesn't like your game or think you play the right way, he's not willing to work with you at all. Once he makes up his mind about a guy it's over. I have absolutely no problem with trying to teach somebody to play a more well rounded game, and I absolutely think the brat pack quit on him, but you have to be flexible too. Not everyone is the same type of player.

[flyercanuck]

Maybe Sharp should have brought him a few dozen timbits?

[mojo1917]

My memory or Patrick Sharp the Flyer jives with @aziz I remember thinking occasionally "whoa, where'd that burst come from.?" But for the most part he was invisible on the ice and didn't strike me as a guy with a high compete level. I remember thinking he had some talent but must have been hurt or a head case because he wasn't playing much and when he did , he mostly took his stick for a skate except for the occasional burst of speed for a loose puck or a blistering shot from the left FO circle. 

I don't remember the deal that sent him away ,as it was around the lockout and i was angry at hockey so i didn't play a whole lot of attention to the transactions.

[radoran]

My memory or Patrick Sharp the Flyer jives with @aziz I remember thinking occasionally "whoa, where'd that burst come from.?" But for the most part he was invisible on the ice and didn't strike me as a guy with a high compete level. I remember thinking he had some talent but must have been hurt or a head case because he wasn't playing much and when he did , he mostly took his stick for a skate except for the occasional burst of speed for a loose puck or a blistering shot from the left FO circle. 

I don't remember the deal that sent him away ,as it was around the lockout and i was angry at hockey so i didn't play a whole lot of attention to the transactions.

 

He was traded 22 games into the 05-06 season. If you weren't paying attention then, you missed about 1/3 of his "Flyers" games in his "three seasons."

 

So, that leaves 41 games on a veteran-stocked 03-04 Flyer squad under Ken Hitchcock upon which you are basing your evaluation.

 

Given that @aziz remembers Sharp playing on the top line "with Gagne and Roenick" and the Flyers' top forwards at that time were Gagne, JLC, Recchi, Handzus, Amonte, Kapanen, Roenick and Primeau, Sharp apparently made some long-lasting impressions on people as a third round rookie during his eight minutes of ice time.

 

Memories that IMO just might be coloured by what Sharp turned into and what the Flyers got for him (Matt Ellison).

[blocker]

I watched Sharp at UVM.  He was a pistol.  He didn't learn how to play hockey on the plane ride to Chicago.  Coaches are supposed to know how to get the best out of players.  Hitchcock (and the Flyers) sure dropped the ball in his case.

 

Funny how many ex-Flyers were chosen to play in the Olympics.   Carter, Sharp JVR, Bob, just to name a few. 

 

Makes you wonder about Flyers management's evaluation and development ability.

[mojo1917]

@radoran

 

actually there were a lot of guys that kind of "disappeared " from the team for me and it was around that time that this happened. there was the lock out and i became a dad so when i got back to NHL hockey, it was like wow, where's Siendenberg , where'd this Umberger guy come from ? what's the coaches name Stevens, what the hell happened to Hitch ?.... so i don't for one second claim my memory to be steel trap from that time.  the team that lost to the 'Ning was gone in it's place was jayson smith and a bunch of Phantoms ...it was  disorienting but nothing compared to  fatherhood. 

 

I remember thinking that Sharp maybe could  have fit in with those high draft picks Richards and Carter and was curious as to why he wasn't around, then I saw him playing on a bad Blackhawks team....and was like oh, so they ditched him.  I wasn't mad or thinking that will haunt us by any stretch though.