Decent Article on Simon Gagne

[fanaticV3.0]

Completely agree. Yes, he's healthy now and should be grateful for that, but he's injured if he pays again. The guy is done.

People can believe whatever they want. People can believe he's not done. They can believe clouds are really the asses of cute ethereal bunnies.

But if we're keeping this to reality, he's done.

 

Every single person on this thread who said they would sign him would cry bloody f-cking murder if he was the same exact player with the same stats and injury history, but no affiliation with the Flyers. This is nothing more than nostalgia.

 

I never really understood his level of popularity either. People trashed the organization for letting him go the first time, not signing him last summer, and cry for them to resign or reacquire him every time his name comes up. I have nothing against him at all, but like you said his reputation amongst the "Flyers faithful" is completely overstated.

[fanaticV3.0]

In the context of signing Gagne vs. signing VLC, it's hard to argue with you.  The knock I have on Gagne is his ability to stay healthy.  I don't think VLC does any better in that department.

 

When you figure Gagne probably would have been a 1-2 year contract for a lot less money AND played a position we actually needed help with (as opposed to center where we already had a baker's dozen).

 

So, in that context I agree with you.

 

I'm not saying VLC doesn't have some health problems, but to say he's no better than Gagne in that department is simply untrue. He's played more game than Gagne every year for the last several years and will again this year. He'll probably play more games this year than Gagne has in the last two.

Edited March 3, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[ruxpin]

Every single person on this thread who said they would sign him would cry bloody f-cking murder if he was the same exact player with the same stats and injury history, but no affiliation with the Flyers. This is nothing more than nostalgia.

 

I never really understood his level of popularity either. People trashed the organization for letting him go the first time, not signing him last summer, and cry for them to resign or reacquire him every time his name comes up. I have nothing against him at all, but like you said his reputation amongst the "Flyers faithful" is completely overstated.

 

I really think that's true.  If his career went exactly the way it did but instead of first being the Flyers it was the Wild or the Thrashers/Jets or something and the Flyers were talking about a 2 year $4M contract with him, I think you would hear the howling on this site with the computer turned off.

 

I'll entertain the Gagne vs. VLC argument (because of the two I think he would have been the better option), but I don't think it has to necessarily be either/or.  I would personally have done neither.  

 

Without his having been a "Flyer legend" ("legend is actually a good term in this case because it implies an overstatement of reality), we would have heard how a veteran was taking the place of a kid AND that this particular veteran has been banged up for several years, his numbers diminished, and would be unreliable given health risks.

 

But the reality is that he IS a former Flyer prospect and was a very integral part of the team in his time here.  So I get the allegiance some have.  Sadly, I really do think his time has passed.

 

I think it was Rad--possibly others--who commented that his status is more due to his fumbling the summer away mixed with cap issues this year league-wide rather than his health. I think there's a fair amount of truth to that.  Someone will take a flyer (no pun) on him next year.  I just really hope it's not Philly.  I think it's time to move on there.

[ruxpin]

I'm not saying VLC doesn't have some health problems, but to say he's no better than Gagne in that department is simply untrue. He's played more game than Gagne every year for the last several years and will again this year. He'll probably play more games this year than Gagne has in the last two.

 

Well, it's certainly stretching it a bit, I'll give you that.   But VLC hasn't played a full season since 2010 and has missed roughly 20% of each season since.(21% total during that time).  I won't insult you with the math, but for others that's 1 out of every 5 games.

 

Better than Gagne?  Certainly.   I guess all I'm saying is that IF my knock on Gagne is durability (it is), that argument loses a bit of it's luster when compared against VLC since he's not exactly an iron man either (and I'm guessing he will actually worsen throughout the duration of his absurd contract).

[fanaticV3.0]

I really think that's true.  If his career went exactly the way it did but instead of first being the Flyers it was the Wild or the Thrashers/Jets or something and the Flyers were talking about a 2 year $4M contract with him, I think you would hear the howling on this site with the computer turned off.

 

I'll entertain the Gagne vs. VLC argument (because of the two I think he would have been the better option), but I don't think it has to necessarily be either/or.  I would personally have done neither.  

 

Without his having been a "Flyer legend" ("legend is actually a good term in this case because it implies an overstatement of reality), we would have heard how a veteran was taking the place of a kid AND that this particular veteran has been banged up for several years, his numbers diminished, and would be unreliable given health risks.

 

But the reality is that he IS a former Flyer prospect and was a very integral part of the team in his time here.  So I get the allegiance some have.  Sadly, I really do think his time has passed.

 

I think it was Rad--possibly others--who commented that his status is more due to his fumbling the summer away mixed with cap issues this year league-wide rather than his health. I think there's a fair amount of truth to that.  Someone will take a flyer (no pun) on him next year.  I just really hope it's not Philly.  I think it's time to move on there.

 

I won't and I'll tell you why.

 

Replace VLC with Gagne and this roster and replace him with Gagne and they are no better. Gagne does not make this team better. Cost doesn't matter if you can't/don't play. VLC will likely play between 60-70 games this year. Gagne will play 0.

 

If you or anyone else doesn't like or want VLC, that's perfectly fair. But this whole either or part of the conversation is beyond stupid. If someone sees the VLC signing, doesn't like it, and the next name on their list is Gagne, they are an idiot.

 

Gagne represents everything critical anyone has ever said about Snider, Homer, and Clarke: injured, past his prime, former Flyer (we don't need to change our culture).

[fanaticV3.0]

Well, it's certainly stretching it a bit, I'll give you that.   But VLC hasn't played a full season since 2010 and has missed roughly 20% of each season since.(21% total during that time).  I won't insult you with the math, but for others that's 1 out of every 5 games.

 

Better than Gagne?  Certainly.   I guess all I'm saying is that IF my knock on Gagne is durability (it is), that argument loses a bit of it's luster when compared against VLC since he's not exactly an iron man either (and I'm guessing he will actually worsen throughout the duration of his absurd contract).

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

I can't predict the future, though I agree he's likely to have injury problems. But right now and for the last several years he's played more than Gagne (and will for the forseeable future). If Vinny is "cooked" Gagne is a corpse.

[ruxpin]

I won't and I'll tell you why.

 

Replace VLC with Gagne and this roster and replace him with Gagne and they are no better. Gagne does not make this team better. Cost doesn't matter if you can't/don't play. VLC will likely play between 60-70 games this year. Gagne will play 0.

 

If you or anyone else doesn't like or want VLC, that's perfectly fair. But this whole either or part of the conversation is beyond stupid. If someone sees the VLC signing, doesn't like it, and the next name on their list is Gagne, they are an idiot.

 

Gagne represents everything critical anyone has ever said about Snider, Homer, and Clarke: injured, past his prime, former Flyer (we don't need to change our culture).

 

I don't disagree.  Especially from the vantage point of now.   But IF-- and I don't know that this was the case--but IF it came down to VLC vs. Gagne in the conversation among the Flyers front office.   If it was VLC, Gagne, or Door #3, I personally try my luck on Door #3.

 

I think there is an assumption being made by some that it was Vinny vs. Gagne.  Given the immaculate wisdom of our GM, that may very well be the case.   So in the context of the assumption that it was at that time I have to take Gagne of the two for the reasons I won't bore you with repeating.

 

Again, though, I'm with you on whatever the third option might have been. 

[ruxpin]

@fanaticV3.0

 

You know, the truth to the matter is that I don't think it was Vinny vs. Gagne.  Well after the Vinny signing, the Flyers front office went after Daniel Cleary, who would presumably have taken Gagne's roster spot.    Even when that fell through, they still didn't bring Gagne in.

 

The truth is that it wasn't Vinny vs. Gagne.  And it wasn't even Cleary vs. Gagne.   They simply had no intention of offering Gagne a spot.

[fanaticV3.0]

I don't disagree.  Especially from the vantage point of now.   But IF-- and I don't know that this was the case--but IF it came down to VLC vs. Gagne in the conversation among the Flyers front office.   If it was VLC, Gagne, or Door #3, I personally try my luck on Door #3.

 

I think there is an assumption being made by some that it was Vinny vs. Gagne.  Given the immaculate wisdom of our GM, that may very well be the case.   So in the context of the assumption that it was at that time I have to take Gagne of the two for the reasons I won't bore you with repeating.

 

Again, though, I'm with you on whatever the third option might have been. 

 

I think the Vinny vs Gagne thing is something completely made up by fans who can't let Gagne go and want another reason to criticize management. I don't think for one second managment had it boiled down to those two.

[murraycraven]

The truth is that it wasn't Vinny vs. Gagne. And it wasn't even Cleary vs. Gagne. They simply had no intention of offering Gagne a spot.

 

I don't think for one second managment had it boiled down to those two.

 

I am in total agreement w/ both of these...   My point was that I rather have Gagne at 1 year than VLC for 5 years.   I like VLC but I hate the contract...

[radoran]

I think the Vinny vs Gagne thing is something completely made up by fans who can't let Gagne go and want another reason to criticize management. I don't think for one second managment had it boiled down to those two.

 

I'm not sure that anyone on here "boiled it down" to "they signed VLC instead of Gagne" - except maybe you.

 

Saying that one would rather have signed Gagne than VLC doesn't by itself state that someone "wanted Gagne." In furthering the conversation, noting that Gagne played the position (wing) that they needed is just extending the original hypothesis.

 

It's like choosing between a mild flu (Gagne) and walking pneumonia (VLC). Both make you feel like crap, but one will be over sooner.

 

In the end, you'd rather avoid both and be healthy.

[fan4ever]

@radoran

 

Nice comparision!!!!

[fanaticV3.0]

I am in total agreement w/ both of these...   My point was that I rather have Gagne at 1 year than VLC for 5 years.   I like VLC but I hate the contract...

 

I hate the VLC contract too, but he plays and produces more than Gagne. I wouldn't touch Gagne for any period of time. He's not worth the investment. You know how people say "it's time to move on"? We're so far past that with him it's not even funny.

[fanaticV3.0]

I'm not sure that anyone on here "boiled it down" to "they signed VLC instead of Gagne" - except maybe you.

 

Saying that one would rather have signed Gagne than VLC doesn't by itself state that someone "wanted Gagne." In furthering the conversation, noting that Gagne played the position (wing) that they needed is just extending the original hypothesis.

 

It's like choosing between a mild flu (Gagne) and walking pneumonia (VLC). Both make you feel like crap, but one will be over sooner.

 

In the end, you'd rather avoid both and be healthy.

 

Of those two players, if there's one you absolutely want to avoid, it's Gagne. The hell with cost, Vinny simply produces more than Gagne and has for the last several years. Both have had health problems, but Vinny has played more and produced more than Gagne every single year. I don't care how cheap Gagne would come, he's even less healthy than Vinny. I wouldn't sign him if he offered to play for free. He represents everything you all complain about Homer on a daily basis (old, injury prone, former Flyer).

[radoran]

Of those two players, if there's one you absolutely want to avoid, it's Gagne. The hell with cost, Vinny simply produces more than Gagne and has for the last several years. Both have had health problems, but Vinny has played more and produced more than Gagne every single year. I don't care how cheap Gagne would come, he's even less healthy than Vinny. I wouldn't sign him if he offered to play for free. He represents everything you all complain about Homer on a daily basis (old, injury prone, former Flyer).

 

Right, which is why the operative phrase in that post is:

 

In the end, you'd rather avoid both and be healthy.

 

Again, you have made this into a choice between the two.

 

I'm not supporting the idea of signing Gagne. I don't give a rat's ass if he ever plays the game again.

 

I'm supportive of doing things that help the Flyers. I don't believe that either move was a good idea.

 

But, since you seem intent on the idea that one of the two must be picked, enjoy the walking pneumonia while it lasts.

[ruxpin]

But, since you seem intent on the idea that one of the two must be picked, enjoy the walking pneumonia while it last

 

In fairness, I think he (and I) are responding to those that present that as a choice.   I think he indicated agreement in posts with me (actually, I think he asserted it first) that it was not a choice.  Just saying.

 

But I'll get on the USS Neither with you.

 

In other news, I don't mind walking pneumonia.  I love to walk.  (who am I kidding? I drive to my mailbox!)

[fanaticV3.0]

Right, which is why the operative phrase in that post is:

 

 

Again, you have made this into a choice between the two.

 

I'm not supporting the idea of signing Gagne. I don't give a rat's ass if he ever plays the game again.

 

I'm supportive of doing things that help the Flyers. I don't believe that either move was a good idea.

 

But, since you seem intent on the idea that one of the two must be picked, enjoy the walking pneumonia while it lasts.

 

You're blind. This thread is filled with Gagne over Vinny comments and was before I even showed up. It only increased once I told those people they were nostalgic fools.

Edited March 4, 2014 by fanaticV3.0

[radoran]

In fairness, I think he (and I) are responding to those that present that as a choice.   I think he indicated agreement in posts with me (actually, I think he asserted it first) that it was not a choice.  Just saying.

 

But I'll get on the USS Neither with you.

 

In other news, I don't mind walking pneumonia.  I love to walk.  (who am I kidding? I drive to my mailbox!)

 

I've seen people who say they would "rather" have signed Gagne than VLC. That's not saying "they should have signed Gagne" - just that Gagne would have been a better choice than VLC (for contract length, impact in the locker room, correct position of need, whatever).

 

 

You're blind. This thread is filled with Gagne over Vinny comments and was before I even showed up.

 

Yes, in the context that I am quoting. If you had to pick between the two then Gagne was their choice.

 

That's a fallacious argument from the jump. There was no need to pick between the two - as you yourself have noted.

 

For example, your comments directly to me ("He represents everything you all complain about Homer on a daily basis") indicate that you feel that I've been advocating for Gagne - which has never been the case, anywhere.

 

So, rather than rise to the hyperbolic bait of "I'd have rather signed Gagne" and take that to mean "the Flyers should have signed Gagne" understand that there are people - most people as I read it - who, given the false choice between the two, would have picked the one on the 1 year, $2.5M deal over the 5 year, $22.5M deal with a NMC.

 

Given that (false) choice, I would go with Gagne.

 

In reality - as I have specifically stated - I go with neither.

 

NEITHER is the correct answer.

[ruxpin]

I've seen people who say they would "rather" have signed Gagne than VLC. That's not saying "they should have signed Gagne" - just that Gagne would have been a better choice than VLC (for contract length, impact in the locker room, correct position of need, whatever).

 

Okay, but understand, that invites disagreement to the statement "Gagne would have been a better choice."   It doesn't have to necessarily mean that it was a choice, just a debate in that context.

 

I think you and I agree that it wasn't.  I think evidence points otherwise.  My vote is for neither.  But with a gun to my head...nah, I still want neither.  I just drop my Skittles and run.

[radoran]

Okay, but understand, that invites disagreement to the statement "Gagne would have been a better choice."   It doesn't have to necessarily mean that it was a choice, just a debate in that context.

 

I think you and I agree that it wasn't.  I think evidence points otherwise.  My vote is for neither.  But with a gun to my head...nah, I still want neither.  I just drop my Skittles and run.

 

Sure, but it's important to keep the debate in context.

 

fanatic is absolutely correct that signing Gagne in that situation would have been tantamount to what many - including myself - think is a recurring problem for the organization.

 

But he immediately clings to "you wanted Gagne" as if that was the crux of the debate. It's not. The debate is whether or not VLC at $22.5M for 5 years with a NMC is a better choice than a one-year deal for Gagne at $2.5M.

 

Under those circumstances, I think Gagne comes out on top "in the best interests of the organization."

 

That's not because "I want Gagne" - it's because taking a short-term "flier" on a wing is different from committing to a five-year deal to a player at a position that was already a strength after buying out a 30+ year old at the same position. Take out "Gagne" and put in (for example) "Raffi Torres" and the argument remains the same - without the "nostalgia for a Flyer legend angle".

 

VLC has all of FIVE more points than Danny Briere this season. Saying that, I'm not saying "they should have kept Briere" - I'm saying that the same people who are laughing and patting themselves on the back for how "awful" Briere has been in Montreal should take a good hard look at what replaced him in the lineup.

 

'cause it ain't much better.

[ruxpin]

Sure, but it's important to keep the debate in context.

 

fanatic is absolutely correct that signing Gagne in that situation would have been tantamount to what many - including myself - think is a recurring problem for the organization.

 

But he immediately clings to "you wanted Gagne" as if that was the crux of the debate. It's not. The debate is whether or not VLC at $22.5M for 5 years with a NMC is a better choice than a one-year deal for Gagne at $2.5M.

 

Under those circumstances, I think Gagne comes out on top "in the best interests of the organization."

 

That's not because "I want Gagne" - it's because taking a short-term "flier" on a wing is different from committing to a five-year deal to a player at a position that was already a strength after buying out a 30+ year old at the same position. Take out "Gagne" and put in (for example) "Raffi Torres" and the argument remains the same - without the "nostalgia for a Flyer legend angle".

 

VLC has all of FIVE more points than Danny Briere this season. Saying that, I'm not saying "they should have kept Briere" - I'm saying that the same people who are laughing and patting themselves on the back for how "awful" Briere has been in Montreal should take a good hard look at what replaced him in the lineup.

 

'cause it ain't much better.

 

Fair enough.  Hard to argue with that since we're the same person.

[jammer2]

[ruxpin]

What's wrong with green?

 

 

(Also not Mrs. Ruxpin)

[radoran]

Fair enough.  Hard to argue with that since we're the same person.

 

One might also note that VLC was signed on July 3.

 

Simon Gagne wasn't "snubbed" with no tryout invite until September.

 

The two moves aren't related and weren't related in any way, shape or form. There was never an option to sign "G" over "V" and the entire discussion on this thread is on a theoretical level which relates directly to the discussion of the nature of the deal and the position the players occupy (wing v center). This has been expressed several times by many posters.

 

The so-and-so over Gagne "choice" was Danny Cleary - and the reaction to that was exactly the context of "why are we signing another team's broken down, declining player when we could sign our own broken down, declining player."

 

Not that there were many people who thought that signing ANY broken down, declining player was a particularly good idea.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into "you just wanted Gagne because you wuv him so much" isn't in any way relevant.

[ruxpin]

One might also note that VLC was signed on July 3.

 

Simon Gagne wasn't "snubbed" with no tryout invite until September.

 

The two moves aren't related and weren't related in any way, shape or form. There was never an option to sign "G" over "V" and the entire discussion on this thread is on a theoretical level which relates directly to the discussion of the nature of the deal and the position the players occupy (wing v center). This has been expressed several times by many posters.

 

The so-and-so over Gagne "choice" was Danny Cleary - and the reaction to that was exactly the context of "why are we signing another team's broken down, declining player when we could sign our own broken down, declining player."

 

Not that there were many people who thought that signing ANY broken down, declining player was a particularly good idea.

 

Trying to turn the discussion into "you just wanted Gagne because you wuv him so much" isn't in any way relevant.

 

 

Yep, I was one of the posters who pointed to the Cleary thing on this very thread and then reasoned that when that fell through it wasn't even about Cleary vs. Gagne.

 

The truth is that I think the Flyers made it abundantly clear it wasn't Gagne vs. anyone.  They apparently simply didn't want Gagne.