murraycraven Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 to doc's point it is all over the twittersphere that he may have asked to be traded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Hartnell takes more penalties and Umberger plays on the PK that's a great point. the flyers won't have hartnell's hitting, anymore, or his occasional fight...so they will be "easier to play against", i guess. then again, the flyers are likely to be shorthanded like 40 times less over the course of the season. which makes a team actually harder to play again? hitting, or being shorthanded a lot? i kinda think the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digityman Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I'm happy to see this trade. Hartnell didn't fit in on any of the lines (as stated earlier in the thread).Hartnell was my least like Flyer so for personal reasons, I liked it.As for the Flyers getting better or worse, I think it's a push. Still need a D1-3 and L1 for Giroux and Jake (unless the idea is to keep VLC as 2nd line center and B.Schenn as L1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 simmonds or schenn, i would think, unless someone else is brought in. Well, Simmonds has been a RW so there's no guarantee he'll fit well at LW. Schenn has not looked good at wing. The Flyers best LW right now might be Michael Raffl. If someone else is brought in (someone good that is), then that's a different story. But just as far as this trade goes, I don't particularly like it. In an article on philly.com Hextall says they wanted to get quicker up front, and mentioned RJ's versatility and shorter contract. I can't really argue any of those things but absent additional moves yet to be made they don't seem like good reasons to trade your 1st line LW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think the assumption is that Schenn gets a crack at it, Jack. Schenn has gotten multiple cracks at playing wing and hasn't been very good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 that's a great point. the flyers won't have hartnell's hitting, anymore, or his occasional fight...so they will be "easier to play against", i guess. then again, the flyers are likely to be shorthanded like 40 times less over the course of the season. which makes a team actually harder to play again? hitting, or being shorthanded a lot? i kinda think the latter. And in my first post I did say that, money aside, I wouldn't mind having both of them. Neither are great players, but I think the team could benefit from the separate things they both bring. I've got nothing against Hartnell, but facts are facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Hartnell takes more penalties and Umberger plays on the PK, but you're rationale for this statement is what exactly? Is it anything other than your like of one player and dislike of the other? Hartnell plays a more physical in your face game = tougher to play against. Been hoping to get out of Hartnells contract since he signed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Well, Simmonds has been a RW so there's no guarantee he'll fit well at LW. Schenn has not looked good at wing. The Flyers best LW right now might be Michael Raffl. If someone else is brought in (someone good that is), then that's a different story. But just as far as this trade goes, I don't particularly like it. In an article on philly.com Hextall says they wanted to get quicker up front, and mentioned RJ's versatility and shorter contract. I can't really argue any of those things but absent additional moves yet to be made they don't seem like good reasons to trade your 1st line LW. Jack, I agree.... just kind of confused by this trade. Cant say I like it to be honest and I cant say I hate it... it is just an odd one to me. Really odd in fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Schenn has gotten multiple cracks at playing wing and hasn't been very good at it. Schenn has flat out sucked on the wing and becomes invisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I can't really argue any of those things but absent additional moves yet to be made they don't seem like good reasons to trade your 1st line LW. This 1st line LW of which you speak scored ZERO goals with Giroux and Jake and only 3 assists. So miscast as a 1st line LW is a better description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Well, Simmonds has been a RW so there's no guarantee he'll fit well at LW. he skated with giroux and voracek from time to time last season. and plays the left side on the PP, as i recall. simmonds isn't ideal, he isn't really first line material. he is exactly what a good 2nd liner looks like, imo. so, i would hope to see another acquisition for that top line. failing that, while hartnell was the de facto #1 LW, it was definitely a de facto situation. that's the biggest thing for me: had the flyers brought in a for-real #1LW over the summer while hartnell was still on the roster...what do you do with hartnell? minus hartnell there is a hole, but it is also an opportunity that didn't exist while hartnell's boat anchor contract was on the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 So miscast as a 1st line LW is a better description. So we can apply that same logic to Vinny right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheesesteak Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 He's not a top line LW in my opinion, I have a hard time seeing him being effective with Giroux. Hopefully Hextall has more up his sleeve. Neither was Hartnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 he skated with giroux and voracek from time to time last season. and plays the left side on the PP, as i recall. simmonds isn't ideal, he isn't really first line material. he is exactly what a good 2nd liner looks like, imo. so, i would hope to see another acquisition for that top line. failing that, while hartnell was the de facto #1 LW, it was definitely a de facto situation. that's the biggest thing for me: had the flyers brought in a for-real #1LW over the summer while hartnell was still on the roster...what do you do with hartnell? minus hartnell there is a hole, but it is also an opportunity that didn't exist while hartnell's boat anchor contract was on the books. Wonder what kind of LWer we can get for the 15 grand in savings this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 So we can apply that same logic to Vinny right? No word is from Berube he will be centering the 5th line heading into next season....more news at 11!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Man Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Harnell's gonna be missed by a lot of fans......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 he skated with giroux and voracek from time to time last season. and plays the left side on the PP, as i recall. simmonds isn't ideal, he isn't really first line material. he is exactly what a good 2nd liner looks like, imo. so, i would hope to see another acquisition for that top line. failing that, while hartnell was the de facto #1 LW, it was definitely a de facto situation. that's the biggest thing for me: had the flyers brought in a for-real #1LW over the summer while hartnell was still on the roster...what do you do with hartnell? minus hartnell there is a hole, but it is also an opportunity that didn't exist while hartnell's boat anchor contract was on the books. aziz... point taken but you replace Hartnells bad contract w/ another bad contract. In the grand scheme of things this does not help the Flyers next year, in 2015 or 2016. It only helps for those last two years. I just dont see how this move helps the Flyers get any closer to getting back into the playoffs or making a run. If there is something else to come than I am fine with it but right now Hexy lost that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 This 1st line LW of which you speak scored ZERO goals with Giroux and Jake and only 3 assists. So miscast as a 1st line LW is a better description. Are you talking about the playoffs? That's a pretty small sample size. Hartnell isn't great but he has a proven track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Hartnell plays a more physical in your face game = tougher to play against. Been hoping to get out of Hartnells contract since he signed it. That's a little...basic. It's like saying the guy who hits the hardest wins the fight or the toughest team in the league will win it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 i would hope to see another acquisition for that top line Same here. that's the biggest thing for me: had the flyers brought in a for-real #1LW over the summer while hartnell was still on the roster...what do you do with hartnell? You could drop him down to 2nd line, it's not THAT big a difference. I don't think Hartnell prevented the team from going out and getting a true top line LW. His contract sucks but more because of the term than the cap hit (which Umberger's is about the same anyway). My problem is not with trading Hartnell so much as it is with trading Hartnell for Umberger and a 4th round pick. I think you trade from a position of strength to address a position of weakness. LW is not a position of strength for the Flyers and I don't think Umberger significantly addresses any real position of weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunatic Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Last year the Flyers did not have a first line LW. After this trade they still don't. What they have in Umberger is versatility and probably a good fit @ Couts and Read, and two years relief from a terrible contract. Having said this I will miss Hartsy. He is a class act who added to our community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Same here. You could drop him down to 2nd line, it's not THAT big a difference. I don't think Hartnell prevented the team from going out and getting a true top line LW. His contract sucks but more because of the term than the cap hit (which Umberger's is about the same anyway). My problem is not with trading Hartnell so much as it is with trading Hartnell for Umberger and a 4th round pick. I think you trade from a position of strength to address a position of weakness. LW is not a position of strength for the Flyers and I don't think Umberger significantly addresses any real position of weakness. 1. Hartnell is not a first line winger.2. Umberger can play both wing and center. He also plays on the PK.3. Hartnell does not play on the PK and takes more penalties.4. They got a pick in return.5. Umberger's contract is slightly "less bad" This is a win even if Umberger isn't a great player. I think you're just upset somebody you like was traded. Truthfully, I'm kind of bummed he's gone too, but it's not relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 aziz... point taken but you replace Hartnells bad contract w/ another bad contract. In the grand scheme of things this does not help the Flyers next year, in 2015 or 2016. i guess i just don't agree with that. to me, hartnell was fun to watch, was a great interview, pissed other teams off a lot - always fun. but, as a hockey player, was not worth a whole lot. he took penalties all over the place, had a really tough time skating, picked up most of his points on one timers from great feeds by way-better-than-him linemates. it was a bad contract on a severely limited player. umberger doesn't have any better offensive anything (other than skating) that hartnell, but he bring a defensive game. he can play any forward position, can slot into any line needed (at least temporarily), and can find a valuable home on a defensive line. he can kill penalties. there are actual things he is good at on the ice. the flyers lose a not-even-one-dimensional player who is able to incite hulk hogan look-alikes to riot, while they pick up a rounded if middle of the pack player who can be used in several different situations. contract terms aside, i think the team is better for the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 That's a little...basic. It's like saying the guy who hits the hardest wins the fight or the toughest team in the league will win it all. Hartnell plays a gritty game. He wreaks havoc in front of the net. He fights. He slashes. He's the kind of guy you hate playing against. Neither one of them is a game changer, but Hartnell, to me anyway, is harder to play against. Or tougher. Or meaner. I doubt many people say "I hate playing against RJ Umberger." But in years 4 and 5 of his contract my guess is we're all glad he's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 You could drop him down to 2nd line, it's not THAT big a difference. I don't think Hartnell prevented the team from going out and getting a true top line LW. His contract sucks but more because of the term than the cap hit (which Umberger's is about the same anyway). My problem is not with trading Hartnell so much as it is with trading Hartnell for Umberger and a 4th round pick. I think you trade from a position of strength to address a position of weakness. LW is not a position of strength for the Flyers and I don't think Umberger significantly addresses any real position of weakness. re: dropping him to second line, i think it is a pretty large difference. taking passes from giroux versus taking passes from schenn/VLC. hartnell didn't bring a ton of his own offensive ability to the table, he just converted others' ability into goals. that's a thing, but his ultimate effectiveness road on who was setting him up. i don't have numbers, but as i remember he essentially dissappeared when not skating on the top unit. re: position of strength to position of weakness, that's a great point. i have nothing. would have been better to have gotten johnson or wisniewski instead. i think umberger is more a positive than hartnell, so i'm ok with the deal, but you are right that the move didn't target anything the flyers needed, other than moving hartnell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.