What becomes of Holmgren?

[radoran]

with Downie it's called post concussion syndrome and the fact that he was "tuning out" may have had something to do with actual hearing loss he's been dealing with since 2011.

 

http://www.sportsinjuryalert.com/2014/04/flyers-steve-downie-out-indefinitely.html#.U2fO7PldVIE

 

as for Talbot, that was a really strange turn around, as i stated all speculation, but there was something going on with him, because he looked disinterested while he was here this year.

 

Sure, but it's a heluva lot more than Downie.

 

vanRiemsdyk, Crater, Richards, Umberger, Upshall, Lupul - hell, just about anybody who is ever traded is "disappointing" and "tuning out the coach" and "needed a change of scenery."

 

And, yes, that happens. And, yes, players and teams can benefit from "changes of scenery."

 

But does it happen as often other places as it seems to here?

 

Or is "tuned out" and "needed a change of scenery" really just "sour grapes"?

 

And, no, I "don't want (insert player name here) back" - that's not the point. The point is the seemingly staggering number of guys who this happens to here (or, perhaps, of whom it is said to have happened). And this is, by all accounts, one of the top, most treasured destinations in the league.

 

"The second happiest day of my life is when I was traded to Philadelphia. The happiest day was when I was traded away." - Sean Burke.

[brelic]

Sure, but it's a heluva lot more than Downie.

 

vanRiemsdyk, Crater, Richards, Umberger, Upshall, Lupul - hell, just about anybody who is ever traded is "disappointing" and "tuning out the coach" and "needed a change of scenery."

 

And, yes, that happens. And, yes, players and teams can benefit from "changes of scenery."

 

But does it happen as often other places as it seems to here?

 

Or is "tuned out" and "needed a change of scenery" really just "sour grapes"?

 

And, no, I "don't want (insert player name here) back" - that's not the point. The point is the seemingly staggering number of guys who this happens to here (or, perhaps, of whom it is said to have happened). And this is, by all accounts, one of the top, most treasured destinations in the league.

 

"The second happiest day of my life is when I was traded to Philadelphia. The happiest day was when I was traded away." - Sean Burke.

 

Well, one common thread that applies to most of the guys you mentioned is that they were signed to big contracts that placed big expectations on their shoulders, and at the hint of not being able to live up to those expectations, things went south. I think that was at least partly the case with JVR, Richards, Carter, and Lupul. Three of those guys were signed to big extensions and traded away just before or during the first year of their huge extension.

 

Kinda makes you think that huge extension shouldn't have been offered in the first place, huh?

 

If Talbot had been signed to 2 or 3 years, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and Talbot would either be gone already or in the last year of his contract, in which case I'm sure he would have sucked it up and played hard.

 

Clearly all speculation on my part, but add to that list guys like Bryzgalov in the past who could not possibly live up to that contract, and right now we already have four guys who most of us would say are overpaid/overcommitted - VLC, Streit, Hartnell, and MacDonald.

 

MacDonald's lustre didn't even last 25 games. Neither did VLC's. Can you imagine 2 years from now, let alone 6?

[CoachX]

@radoran

 

I completely agree with your assessment here. I was wondering the same thing. What is the issue that some players, and it looks like quite a few, can't cut it in Philly. Is it the expectations? the Fans (doubtful), the press?

 

Downie is a guy who will never cut for this franchise. I wish they would have known that before they dealt for him AGAIN

[AJgoal]

Granted he didn't light the world on fire before it, but I wonder if Talbot's downturn in play was a result of the broken leg he suffered last year. I was ok with trading him since he didn't really fit anymore, but would have preferred to bring back a draft pick or use him in a package for something more significant than Downie.

[Howie58]

Greetings:

 

I have a feeling when the final chapter is written on Homer, it will be that he excelled in assessing talent but did a relatively poor job in developing it. I very much respect the man and think we have done well to have him on board. That said, a new set of eyes might help the franchise.

 

It is sad that so many folks who've left the fold perform so well elsewhere.  The sad truth is that Homer's desire to hold together his band of young forwards may be compromised by the need to dump one or more to make up for the boneheaded defensive moves + VLC.  That one didn't sit well with me from moment one. And it didn't with most here, and this board is knowledgeable. I can't figure if there was a desire to have veteran presence or whatever.

 

Timonen may present another interesting case. Yes...having him around might help. But it might hinder development. And it may cost a lot more than its worth.  

 

I think the bottom line is simple--it is in the seventh or eighth inning of Homer's tenure.  Whether it is Hextall or someone else, the fact that there is talk about "the end" says it is being contemplated by a number of folks.  The one plus I see on the event horizon is the Phantoms being a lot closer. It ain't the parking lot but this has to make management easier.  

 

Best,

 

Howie

[murraycraven]

Granted he didn't light the world on fire before it, but I wonder if Talbot's downturn in play was a result of the broken leg he suffered last year

 

 

 

AJ, stop w/ the logical reason for bad play and look at the true reason - he was a pouting, mopey rabble-rouser who needed to be traded b/c he just gave up    :blink: 

 

Nevermind the broken leg, meh... easy injury to come back from plus Downie saved the season

Edited May 5, 2014 by murraycraven

[brelic]

Timonen may present another interesting case. Yes...having him around might help. But it might hinder development. And it may cost a lot more than its worth.  

 

Good post, Howie.

 

I've been thinking about this too, and I've come to the conclusion that I would rather keep Timonen around for one more year at $2-3M as long as he is treated as a 2nd pairing defenseman.

 

There are a few reasons for this:

 

1. I prefer Timonen to Grossmann. I know Grossmann blocks a lot of shots and can deliver some nice hits, but I would prefer a more mobile 'smart' defenseman like Timonen - even if he has lost a step - on the 2nd pairing for one more year. If they can bring him down to 18 minutes per night, he might be a little fresher.

 

2. For the next 2 years, we're committed to 5 defensemen (Streit, Coburn, Grossmann, Schenn, MacDonald). Add in Timonen to that, and we have zero roster spots open this year. Moving Grossmann and/or Schenn opens up one or two roster spots.

 

If our blueline looked like this next year, I wouldn't be too disappointed:

 

Coburn/Streit

Gus/MacDonald

Ghost/Timonen

Lauridsen

 

There will be some growing pains for sure. And it looks rather 'soft' for lack of a better word. And small. Real small. But I would rather that than Grossmann and Schenn in there. Hits are nice, but turning over the puck and skating in cement are not so nice. The Rangers exposed that over and over.

 

Any better suggestions?

[aziz]

Just not buying into he was mopy and pouty is all.

 

i don't remember if there was any ink about anything specific being said/done, but he WAS mopy and pouty on the ice.  yes, the whole team was in a real funk, but talbot specifically was completely dogging it out there.  a team not being able to get things done and playing like crap generally is one thing, a particular player consistently (and suddenly) at half speed is another.

 

i can/could only speculate as to why, but the max talbot that was with the flyers this year was an ENTIRELY different player than we'd ever seen before.  up to that point, he was a heart and soul always gives you 100% guy.  and then suddenly 60% became a good night.  imo, he wanted out.  for whatever reason.  and allowed his play to communicate that.

[doom88]

AJ, stop w/ the logical reason for bad play and look at the true reason - he was a pouting, mopey rabble-rouser who needed to be traded b/c he just gave up :blink:

Nevermind the broken leg, meh... easy injury to come back from plus Downie saved the season

So it's okay for Talbot to play months later after a broken leg, but Downie gets no slack for post-consussion syndrome? Really?? In Philly???

[radoran]

Kinda makes you think that huge extension shouldn't have been offered in the first place, huh?

 

B-b-b-b-but why wouldn't we extend guys to long terms with no accountability?

 

Maybe they just need accountabilibuddies.

 

That way they are all accountabilibuddiable.

 

[radoran]

imo, he wanted out.  for whatever reason.  and allowed his play to communicate that.

 

Yeah, and that's my point.

 

Why does this greatest of all possible franchises that always picks guys who are going to be can't-miss NHLers and is the place where all free agents want to go and every GM wants to trade valuable assets to obtain guys that we know just simply aren't worth crap anymore have this problem so frequently?

 

[aziz]

Why does this greatest of all possible franchises that always picks guys who are going to be can't-miss NHLers and is the place where all free agents want to go and every GM wants to trade valuable assets to obtain guys that we know just simply aren't worth crap anymore have this problem so frequently?

 

i'm on board with the sarcasm there, but i think talbot is an interesting example.  philly does the weird best-fit thing where talbot gets the chance to put up a flukey 35 points, and then thinks he's a top 6 player.  coach says, "yeah, no, you really aren't, nice work skating with lines above your level, but you belong as a fourth line/PK specialist," and the guy get disillusioned.  philly has a tendancy to get more out of marginal players than most teams, i think, but over the long term that is more problem than asset.

[radoran]

i'm on board with the sarcasm there, but i think talbot is an interesting example.  philly does the weird best-fit thing where talbot gets the chance to put up a flukey 35 points, and then thinks he's a top 6 player.  coach says, "yeah, no, you really aren't, nice work skating with lines above your level, but you belong as a fourth line/PK specialist," and the guy get disillusioned.  philly has a tendancy to get more out of marginal players than most teams, i think, but over the long term that is more problem than asset.

 

If that was the problem - and I have no skin in this game one way or the other - then, yes - deal the guy.

 

I am all about that. I root for the crest on the front and there is precious few times the name on the back is more important.

 

Never, actually. There are always players I am fans of on other teams, but I never want them to beat the Flyers.

 

If Talbot was insisting he was a 2nd line center - on a team that had just traded for a young potential second line center* - and was a malcontent because of it or if, more likely IMO if still a longshot, he wasn't happy that Gervais was riding a bus in Glen Falls, and was being a problem, fine. Yes, get rid of him.

 

But there is no real evidence of that in his character before coming to Philadelphia. We'll see if there is evidence going forward in Colorado, because I'm pretty certain that Patrick Roy isn't going to accept that.

 

But if we go to the "he didn't get along with Lavvy" idea - he got dealt after Lavvy was fired. 

 

For me, the problem was - again - that the Flyers signed a very effective third line center when they already had a developing third line center (which, I grant you, they couldn't have known for certain, yet still solved an immediate problem with a five year contract). Talbot came to the team to be an integral part of a developing core that would compete with his former team and was being told that any center can play wing two years later.

 

When criticizing Homer, I say up front and forthrightly that he had a plan after trading Crater and Richards. He added Couturier and Schenn and had Giroux. 

 

And then he decided to solve immediate "need to make the playoffs and anything can happen" needs with long term contracts with players that - and I do believe this - he misrepresented their potential roles.

 

That's exactly why Jagr walked. Again, IMO.

 

And, again my opinion, far too often fans are willing to make it "he wanted too much" or "he didn't like his role" or "he was disappointing" or "so-and-so-banged so-and-so's girlfriend/wife/boyfriend" when the team had traded away valuable assets for mediocre return.

 

YMMV (and I don't mean just "you" @aziz). I do honestly respect that.

 

 

* that's what they saw in Schenn

[aziz]

And, again my opinion, far too often fans are willing to make it "he wanted too much" or "he didn't like his role" or "he was disappointing" or "so-and-so-banged so-and-so's girlfriend/wife/boyfriend" when the team had traded away valuable assets for mediocre return.

 

that's true.  in this case, though, there really was a drastic drop off in his participation level (not even compete level, but straight up participation) that i'd never heard of or seen from him before.  he was completely mailing it in, which was supposed to be the antithesis of max talbot.  what it was, exactly, that precipitated that situation, i don't know.  i have guesses, but regardless, the end result was a player that more than didn't carry his weight.  he was a full on problem on the ice.  an effort black hole.  i was glad to see him go.  not in a "that jackass" kind of way, but in a "good, that whole thing was going to get ugly, better to head it off" kind of way.  

[radoran]

that's true.  in this case, though, there really was a drastic drop off in his participation level (not even compete level, but straight up participation) that i'd never heard of or seen from him before.  he was completely mailing it in, which was supposed to be the antithesis of max talbot.  what it was, exactly, that precipitated that situation, i don't know.  i have guesses, but regardless, the end result was a player that more than didn't carry his weight.  he was a full on problem on the ice.  an effort black hole.  i was glad to see him go.  not in a "that jackass" kind of way, but in a "good, that whole thing was going to get ugly, better to head it off" kind of way.  

 

The amount of concern I have for Maxime Talbot is roughly equal to the level of concern I have for every other human being on the planet.

 

The question for me isn't "why did this happen to poor Max?" - it's entirely "why does this seem to keep happening?"

[Howie58]

Good post, Howie.

 

I've been thinking about this too, and I've come to the conclusion that I would rather keep Timonen around for one more year at $2-3M as long as he is treated as a 2nd pairing defenseman.

 

There are a few reasons for this:

 

1. I prefer Timonen to Grossmann. I know Grossmann blocks a lot of shots and can deliver some nice hits, but I would prefer a more mobile 'smart' defenseman like Timonen - even if he has lost a step - on the 2nd pairing for one more year. If they can bring him down to 18 minutes per night, he might be a little fresher.

 

2. For the next 2 years, we're committed to 5 defensemen (Streit, Coburn, Grossmann, Schenn, MacDonald). Add in Timonen to that, and we have zero roster spots open this year. Moving Grossmann and/or Schenn opens up one or two roster spots.

 

If our blueline looked like this next year, I wouldn't be too disappointed:

 

Coburn/Streit

Gus/MacDonald

Ghost/Timonen

Lauridsen

 

There will be some growing pains for sure. And it looks rather 'soft' for lack of a better word. And small. Real small. But I would rather that than Grossmann and Schenn in there. Hits are nice, but turning over the puck and skating in cement are not so nice. The Rangers exposed that over and over.

 

Any better suggestions?

Bre:

 

I would love to see Lauridsen come up. There were some positive flashes and the guy's size is intriguing. I like your idea of mating the rookie and the wise man. Gus is a hard assessment. He has offensive skill and mobility we desperately need. But he gets pushed off the puck quite easily. 

 

I hope we don't see a strange pickup in free agency ala Gervais....

 

Best,

 

Howie

[aziz]

The amount of concern I have for Maxime Talbot is roughly equal to the level of concern I have for every other human being on the planet.

The question for me isn't "why did this happen to poor Max?" - it's entirely "why does this seem to keep happening?"

That is an excellent question. The Flyers fan in me who wants to see something positive that says it's because the team gives these guys a chance to skate beyond their weight, a chance they likely wouldn't get from most teams, and they are disappointed when it doesn't work out. The realist in me says the Flyers continually try to shoe horn guys into roles they don't fit, creating unrealistic expectations and bad feelings when the team goes looking for better solutions.

[radoran]

That is an excellent question. The Flyers fan in me who wants to see something positive that says it's because the team gives these guys a chance to skate beyond their weight, a chance they likely wouldn't get from most teams, and they are disappointed when it doesn't work out. The realist in me says the Flyers continually try to shoe horn guys into roles they don't fit, creating unrealistic expectations and bad feelings when the team goes looking for better solutions.

 

This is why I like being a fan with you.

[ruxpin]

If that was the problem - and I have no skin in this game one way or the other - then, yes - deal the guy.

I am all about that. I root for the crest on the front and there is precious few times the name on the back is more important.

Never, actually. There are always players I am fans of on other teams, but I never want them to beat the Flyers.

If Talbot was insisting he was a 2nd line center - on a team that had just traded for a young potential second line center* - and was a malcontent because of it or if, more likely IMO if still a longshot, he wasn't happy that Gervais was riding a bus in Glen Falls, and was being a problem, fine. Yes, get rid of him.

But there is no real evidence of that in his character before coming to Philadelphia. We'll see if there is evidence going forward in Colorado, because I'm pretty certain that Patrick Roy isn't going to accept that.

But if we go to the "he didn't get along with Lavvy" idea - he got dealt after Lavvy was fired.

For me, the problem was - again - that the Flyers signed a very effective third line center when they already had a developing third line center (which, I grant you, they couldn't have known for certain, yet still solved an immediate problem with a five year contract). Talbot came to the team to be an integral part of a developing core that would compete with his former team and was being told that any center can play wing two years later.

When criticizing Homer, I say up front and forthrightly that he had a plan after trading Crater and Richards. He added Couturier and Schenn and had Giroux.

And then he decided to solve immediate "need to make the playoffs and anything can happen" needs with long term contracts with players that - and I do believe this - he misrepresented their potential roles.

That's exactly why Jagr walked. Again, IMO.

And, again my opinion, far too often fans are willing to make it "he wanted too much" or "he didn't like his role" or "he was disappointing" or "so-and-so-banged so-and-so's girlfriend/wife/boyfriend" when the team had traded away valuable assets for mediocre return.

YMMV (and I don't mean just "you" @aziz). I do honestly respect that.

* that's what they saw in Schenn

For whatever it's worth, I would bet anything that this is spot on.

[brelic]

For me, the problem was - again - that the Flyers signed a very effective third line center when they already had a developing third line center (which, I grant you, they couldn't have known for certain, yet still solved an immediate problem with a five year contract). Talbot came to the team to be an integral part of a developing core that would compete with his former team and was being told that any center can play wing two years later.

 

Yes, this. They solved an immediate problem with a long-term contract.

 

They solved an immediate goaltending problem with a 9 year contract.

 

They solved an immediate problem on defense with a 4 year 35+ contract.

 

They solved (which problem exactly?) something, I guess, with a 5-year, NMC contract to VLC.

 

They solved a mobility issue on defense with a $30M 6 year contract.

 

Maybe VLC was an insurance policy on Schenn. They may have already been on the fence with him, and if they move him, they have a guy who can replace him.

 

Either way, I completely agree with your point that they have a tendency to solve immediate and short-term need with inordinately large contracts that fans end up hating almost immediately.

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

 

 You forgot to mention the Briere contract that they bought out, or the Pronger contract they're still paying. Or JVR. NONE of Holmgrens longterm deals have panned out for the duration....NONE.

[brelic]

@brelic

 

 You forgot to mention the Briere contract that they bought out, or the Pronger contract they're still paying. Or JVR. NONE of Holmgrens longterm deals have panned out for the duration....NONE.

 

For Pronger and Briere it's clear they were designed to circumvent the cap. I think most of us agreed that Briere would not play 8 years for the Flyers and that the contract would look pretty bad about halfway through. Pronger's freak accident is really a shame because that did set us back many years in terms of defense. You can't replace a HOF defenseman with the likes of Coburn, Streit, and MacDonald.

 

I agree with you... more bad contracts. In JVR's case, I think it was a good contract, and the kind you hand out to a core building block. Six years for a 23 year old, 2nd overall pick still in development at a $4.25M hit was actually very nice. The problem, of course, is that he was traded before that extension even kicked in. Just like Carter. How messed up is that? You commit 6 years and 11 years to core players and trade them before their extensions even kick in.

 

I will say that Timonen's contract worked out... and so did Hartnell's first contract. We're already bemoaning this new one.

 

Let me ask you guys this: we already have the most expensive defense in the league. To call it mediocre is an insult to mediocrity. A lot of the talk around upgrading has involved jettisoning bottom pairing guys like Schenn and Grossmann. Does it make sense to get rid of our cheaper defensemen to spend even more on defense? Or does it make sense to get rid of our higher paid defensemen (Streit, Coburn, MacDonald) and upgrade the top end while keeping the 'cheaper' (by Flyers standards only) guys as 4/5/6 defensemen? 

 

And before someone says they won't trade MacDonald, I think the first part of this very post demonstrates otherwise.

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

 

 Timonen and Hartnell (1st time - this one nullifies that positive) worked out, forgot about that. But when you consider Briere, Pronger, Carter, Richards, Bryz, JVR, hardly anyone likes the VLC deal IN YEAR ONE, and I doubt the Streit contract has a happy ending, you'd think somewhere along the line a light would go on, a signal fire would be lit, a red flag waved?

 

 As for the D, I used to laugh at Leaf fans for having the most expensive lousy D in the league. They're still up there, but we passed them in cost and futility.

[brelic]

But when you consider Briere, Pronger, Carter, Richards, Bryz, JVR, hardly anyone likes the VLC deal IN YEAR ONE, and I doubt the Streit contract has a happy ending, you'd think somewhere along the line a light would go on, a signal fire would be lit, a red flag waved?

 

Up until a few days ago, I thought the same way. But @fanaticV3.0 did raise a good point that these kinds of contracts/deals don't seem to really hurt us. Homer/Flyers always seem to find a way out of it. Richards and Carter had deals that I thought were untradeable... he shipped off both of them in the same afternoon. Bryz? Bought out. 

 

Let's see what he has up his sleeve for VLC, Hartnell, MacDonald....  

 

Unless Streit gets hurt, I think that's an ok contract.

[radoran]

Up until a few days ago, I thought the same way. But @fanaticV3.0 did raise a good point that these kinds of contracts/deals don't seem to really hurt us. Homer/Flyers always seem to find a way out of it. Richards and Carter had deals that I thought were untradeable... he shipped off both of them in the same afternoon. Bryz? Bought out. 

 

Let's see what he has up his sleeve for VLC, Hartnell, MacDonald....  

 

Unless Streit gets hurt, I think that's an ok contract.

 

Richards and Crater got dealt before their NMC/NTC kicked in. VLC and Hartnell - both with full NMCs - not so much.

 

We lost half a season of hockey so the Flyers could buy out Bryzgalov.

 

MacDonald? I expect great things. Great. Things.