Tanking is hard

[pilldoc]

So you think these three kids will win right away. It will take other players to make that happen!

 

Figure of speech...no they will not play away...but they will better than at least half the team of stiffs we have now....

[JackStraw]

You're absolutely right. It's just that the Flyers seem to go out of their way to sign whatever player happens to be shiny at the moment, without regard to whether or not that player would be a fit for the team.

 

I don't disagree with that at all. Hopefully Hextall is bringing a "fresh perspective".

 

After a while of signing the wrong players, and then having to turf them when they don't 'fit' in, I just start to wonder if other players think twice when their agent gets a call from the Flyers.

 

Well, hopefully Hextall won't have such an itchy trigger fiinger when it comes to signing free agents in the first place. That way maybe there's a better chance that everyone is happy with the fit.

 

Im also saying that the evidence seems to indicate that the Flyers have a serious tendency to overpay and overlength.

 

Speaking of overpaying and overlengthing, does the name Ville Leino ring a bell? The Flyers aren't the only ones suffering from this disease.

 

But the fact remains that of top line FAs the Flyers have really bid for, we can point to Briere and VLC that have chosen to come here over the past decade.

And both of them were big money, long term contracts.

 

Sorry, but I just don't really see your point. That's what free agents tend to do.

 

Jagr signed with the Flyers (and it was a one year deal for not big $$$). He signed with the Flyers specifically because of the "fit". He wanted assurances that he would play RW on the top line, with first unit PP time. The Pens wouldn't give him that, the Flyers did. The following season, the Flyers wouldn't give him that so he signed elsewhere.

 

Maybe you and brelic are right, but I don't see it. It's just the way things go. What we should be worrying about is not so much whether or not free agents want to play for the Flyers but whether or not the Flyers have learned that buying shiny new/old toys is not the way to build a championship team. And if the Lecavalier debacle doesn't teach them that nothing will.

[Vincent05]

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/flyers/20141205_Should_Flyers_tank_for_top_pick_.html

[Polaris922]

Jagr signed with the Flyers (and it was a one year deal for not big $$$). He signed with the Flyers specifically because of the "fit". He wanted assurances that he would play RW on the top line, with first unit PP time. The Pens wouldn't give him that, the Flyers did. The following season, the Flyers wouldn't give him that so he signed elsewhere.

Actually... Jagr signed with the Flyers because it was more money than anywhere else. The Pens withdrew their offer to use the money for other players before Jagr signed with your squad. Money talks...

Carry on with the tanking talks. I think you can get plenty of first rounders for Giroux...

[radoran]

Sorry, but I just don't really see your point.

 

I'll reiterate from where this first took off from:

 

If the team always competes, loves its players, treats them like gold and FAs "want to come here" to be a part of that - why do they seem to feel the need to overpay???

 

So this really isn't about the "why players don't want to come here" that you've made efforts to turn it into, it's about why the Flyers have continually put themselves into bad negotiating positions and then overpay if they are a desirable team and players "want to play here."

 

For example, MacDud isn't a core player - I don't think anyone would say that - but they locked up a player making $575K for a six-year, $30M deal after 19 regular season games. If the Flyers are a more desirable destination than, say, the Islanders (which if you compare them to Uniondale I think they undisputably are, but Brooklyn could be a game changer for the Islander franchise) why did it take more money and longer term for MacDonald to sign?

 

Lastly, I've said many, many times that I do believe Homer had a plan that was executed up and until the point they got to the Finals, at which point they went gaga nutso and started grasping at whatever straws were available - blowing up the carefully constructed core and then flailing around for four years. Was that the old man? Homer? Clarke? Whoever, it doesn't really matter, because the Flyers reverted to their previous Oatesian form in chasing the dragon.

 

As we've both said here, the question is does Hextall represent a "new era" or will he follow the Flyer tradition?

 

I'm hopeful that it is a "new era" but we are going to see what happens this season because the rubber is hitting the road.

 

Actually... Jagr signed with the Flyers because it was more money than anywhere else. The Pens withdrew their offer to use the money for other players before Jagr signed with your squad. Money talks...

 

I really have to agree with this - especially because of how he left and where he went.

 

Sure, Homercoaster™ was playing Parise Squares, but Jagr was far more concerned about making sure he had a deal than the right "fit" - it's a big reason why he was beating the bushes to sign rather than wait a few days to see how the Suter Sweepstakes turned out. He got $4.5M (which no one really expected the Flyers to offer regardless of "role") as the Stars were looking to buy a draft pick and, in fact, got two prospects and a pick for him.

 

His "fit" in Dallas was on a team that had missed the playoffs four consecutive seasons and did worse the season he was on the team (dropping from 4th to 5th in the Pacific).

[Polaris922]

@radoran

I'm unaware of how the franchise reported his signing, and in fairness the Pens didn't really discuss it, they just moved on. Just looked like money to me.

Your point of view is appreciated.

[JackStraw]

So this really isn't about the "why players don't want to come here" that you've made efforts to turn it into, it's about why the Flyers have continually put themselves into bad negotiating positions and then overpay if they are a desirable team and players "want to play here."

 

I disagree with this premise.

[fanaticV3.0]

They traded for Hartnell and Timonen's rights and signed them to long term big money deals before they got to the FA period.

 

They traded for Pronger's existing contract and then gave him a "seven" year $34.5M contract that paid him $33.5M in five years.

 

The last "big name" FA that came here "of his own volition" was probably Briere.

 

 

 

 

Fixed the rate of increase for you

 

Completely agree that MacDud was after money. And that's what he got.

 

He rejected the team that gave him a chance and signed here for a million more per year and two more years after playing 19 (regular season) games in Philadelphia.

 

Since he clearly only wanted the money, what's his big incentive to perform now that he has a six-year, guaranteed, $30M contract?

 

Answer - nothing. Scratch him, trade him, cut his minutes, drop his PP time, whatever - he's got what he wanted regardless.

 

Which just adds to the boneheaded nature of the signing.

 

I know it's not technically the case, but that's a FA to me. They didn't have to sign with the team their rights were traded to, but chose to be here because they wanted to be. Even with Pronger, wasn't he one of those guys that had a list of "approved" teams? It doesn't have to be a FA. I was wrong for wording it that way. I just mean guys who actually wanted to come here.

 

I loved the Pronger trade and still don't get that aspect of it. When it comes to talent acquired, I think Homer was actually quite good at making deals. We got the better end of the deal more than a few times. He has an eye for talent and a knack for being able to pull lopsided deals off. The only thing that matches that skill is his unique ability to completely fail to understand and work with a cap.

[radoran]

I disagree with this premise.

 

Fair enough.

[fanaticV3.0]

Well, Shea Weber did sign the Flyers offer sheet. Streit was arguably the top offensive d-man on the FA market and the Flyers go him. Honestly, there haven't really been a lot of big name free agents available recently, teams are locking their key guys up. And believe it or not, Bryz was the biggest name free agent goalie on the market at the time, and (for better or worse) the Flyers got him.

 

Weber is a top name and I can agree with you there. Streit was the top defenseman on the market....that year. There's a difference. Streit actually isn't awful. If he was on our 2nd pairing and we had a legit top pairing, he'd be a nice complimentary player.

[brelic]

I disagree with this premise.

 

Well, they've done it with Hartnell, Timonen, Bryzgalov, Streit, and MacDonald.

 

All of those guys were acquired before they hit UFA status, and Homer gave up something to get them - so they had a vested interest in re-signing them.

 

You know the Nigerian scam? They don't start by bilking you for everything you've got. They get you to invest a few bucks, maybe $50 to cover an 'account' fee problem that 'suddenly' shows up. The reason people get bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars on these scams is because they started with the $50. The person being scammed now has a vested interest in seeing this through and has a hard time calling it quits.

 

That's Homer in a nutshell.

[JackStraw]

Well, they've done it with Hartnell, Timonen, Bryzgalov, Streit, and MacDonald.

 

In your opinion. Like I said to rad, I disagree. First, I have no problem with the contracts given to Streit and MacDonald. I think they're both about what those guys would have gotten on the open market. Timonen? What's the problem with his contract? He's been fantastic for the Flyers, and his last two contracts have been one year deals- just like Detroit did with Lidstrom. Hartnell and Bryz, yes, contracts were for too many years. So for that matter, was Pronger's- but nobody seems to complain about that. Anyway, you don't honestly think that the Flyers are the only team that does this do you?

[radoran]

I know it's not technically the case, but that's a FA to me. They didn't have to sign with the team their rights were traded to, but chose to be here because they wanted to be. Even with Pronger, wasn't he one of those guys that had a list of "approved" teams? It doesn't have to be a FA. I was wrong for wording it that way. I just mean guys who actually wanted to come here.

 

According to CapGeek, Pronger's first contract clause was on his Flyer deal.

 

No, players don't need to sign with the team that traded for them. But the team has a vested interest in making sure that the assets that were expended to get the player weren't "wasted." That puts them into a bad negotiating position.

 

If an agent knows that you've given up, for example, a 2nd and 3rd to acquire your client (or a former 1st round pick) and that you're hot to sign a deal before hitting the open market then you are in a bad negotiating position and are essentially bidding against yourself.

 

I loved the Pronger trade and still don't get that aspect of it. When it comes to talent acquired, I think Homer was actually quite good at making deals. We got the better end of the deal more than a few times. He has an eye for talent and a knack for being able to pull lopsided deals off. The only thing that matches that skill is his unique ability to completely fail to understand and work with a cap.

 

And that's the problem with putting yourself in a bad position from the jump.

 

I think there are a lot of things that Homer did well. Simmonds' contract. Read's signing and subsequent deal (despite his current situation). Couturier's bridge deal. Finding Raffl and Bellemare. Mason. And, yes, the return on the Crater/Richards trades. I think his drafting was pretty strong.

 

But then there's the Luke Schenn deal, the VLC signing, the Hartnell extension, Bryzgalov, Bobrovsky, MacDonald, the Parise/Suter Sweepstakes...

 

As I've said before, I do think he had a plan, all the way up to getting to the Final.

 

Then all hell broke loose and everything went out the window. They may be getting out from under the last four years for a while.

[radoran]

 Anyway, you don't honestly think that the Flyers are the only team that does this do you?

 

I don't think anyone is saying that they are. I think we're questioning the effectiveness of the policy and the results.

 

Then there's the classic cliche: if everyone else is jumping off a bridge, would you jump off, too?

 

You brought up Leino. Your place of comparison for the Flyers under Homer is Buffalo under Regier? Really?

 

Unfortunately, it turns out it may not be a bad comparison, as the Flyers currently have as many points as the Sabres.

 

So... well done, then?

 

If some damn fool wanted to sign MacDonald to $5M, they should have let him.

 

Unfortunately, they did and the damn fool was working for the Flyers.

[JackStraw]

@radoran - I hope you're not somehow under the impression that I think trying to build a team by relying on free agents is the way to go. I've been begging for "draft and develop our own" for years. I still have dreams that one day the Flyers will draft and develop the next Bobby Orr. It COULD happen!

 

Almost every team "overpays" for free agents. Sometimes they overpay for their own players who are not free agents (Roberto Luongo anyone?). The Flyers are certainly worse than some teams when it comes to this, probably no worse than some others. The Rangers say "hi" and "where are you now Wade Redden"?

 

Like I said, hopefully Hextall is bringing a "fresh perspective".

[radoran]

I hope you're not somehow under the impression that I think trying to build a team by relying on free agents is the way to go.

 

Not at all. I'm not stretching to infer.

 

You're a level headed guy and we agree on most things, IIRC.

 

I think here we're just coming at this issue from slightly different perspectives - which is fair, honest and one of the great things about this board.

[Podein25]

 I still have dreams... 

 

 

Considerable yourself one of the lukcy - it's all nightmares here:  Stickle, Pelle, Lindros/Stevens, Mike York, RJ ****inglousyburger etc etc

[brelic]

In your opinion.

 

It's not my opinion - it's a fact that the Flyers gave up assets to acquire pending UFAs for the purpose of signing them. They were never going to be rentals. The Flyers are not unique in doing this.

 

I have no problem with the contracts given to Streit and MacDonald. I think they're both about what those guys would have gotten on the open market.

 

Maybe so. But the 'premise' was that the Flyers put themselves in bad negotiating positions because they gave up assets just for the rights to talk to a guy exclusively.

 

Timonen? What's the problem with his contract? He's been fantastic for the Flyers,

 

He absolutely has! He's been an excellent signing. The premise still holds, though, that the Flyers gave up something just to get him, and put themselves in a position of weakness, possibly because they felt that Philadelphia was not desirable on its own in an open market - they would need exclusivity. Would he have gotten 8 years @ $6.5M per way back in 2005 or whatever year they did that? Maybe, maybe not. 

[JackStraw]

I think here we're just coming at this issue from slightly different perspectives - which is fair, honest and one of the great things about this board.

 

Agreed. That and the halibut recipes.

[JackStraw]

Maybe so. But the 'premise' was that the Flyers put themselves in bad negotiating positions because they gave up assets just for the rights to talk to a guy exclusively.

 

Ok, well, I can't argue with the fact that the Flyers gave up assets to get their rights. I personally don't have a problem with that tactic and disagree that it necessarily puts them in a bad negotiating position. And again, the Flyers aren't the only team that does it. My guess is that players would be more likely to get more money by going on the open market as opposed to signing with the team that traded for their rights.

 

Question- did you think it was a bad move when the Flyers traded for and signed Timonen and Hartnell? I don't remember anyone getting upset about it. Here's how it was reported:

 

http://articles.philly.com/2007-06-18/news/24994271_1_flyers-trade-flyers-general-manager-free-agent-market

 

This is yet another stunning coup for Flyers general manager Paul Holmgren. The 5-foot-10, 195-pound Timonen, is considered the best free-agent, puck-moving defenseman who would have been on the open market this summer. At 32, he becomes the Flyers' number-one blue liner.

 

Although Timonen will be 38 at the end of the contract, the deal is front-loaded so that more money is paid out now, when he's still in his prime.

 

The 6-2, 208-pound Hartnell, 25, is a 20-goal scorer who can play either wing and gives the Flyers more options in their line, which already included fleet-footed Scotty Upshall, who came to the Flyers from Nashville as part of the Forsberg deal.

 

In one seemingly simple deal, the Flyers are quicker up front and quicker on the back end, and all they lost in the trade was a late pick in this weekend's NHL draft in Columbus, Ohio. This year's draft is one of the weakest on record, so losing that pick means nothing to the Flyers, given the bonanza they got in return.

 

Even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (and the fact that it's Timmy the P) it's hard to disagree with any of that.

[JackStraw]

It's not my opinion - it's a fact that the Flyers gave up assets to acquire pending UFAs for the purpose of signing them. They were never going to be rentals. The Flyers are not unique in doing this.

 

That's not what I was referring to by "your opinion". But I do disagree that this is a bad tactic IF you are going after a free agent.

[radoran]

Question- did you think it was a bad move when the Flyers traded for and signed Timonen and Hartnell? I don't remember anyone getting upset about it. Here's how it was reported:

 

See, I think this speaks to my point that Holmgren had a plan at one point. I liked both of those signings and I think most people did.

 

As for the reporting, the stenographers in the media tend to write glowing stories about most of the Flyers signings when they happen.

 

For example, here's Seravalli on Lecavalier:

Lecavalier deal looks like a good one for the Flyers

http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-03/sports/40353792_1_paul-holmgren-the-flyers-jake-voracek

 

 

 

My guess is that players would be more likely to get more money by going on the open market as opposed to signing with the team that traded for their rights.

 

And that is a perfectly viable opinion.

 

But it is also saying that the players' agents aren't following their fiduciary responsibility to their clients (and themselves).

 

Hey, in a world where David Clarkson gets $36.75M or Jeff Finger gets $14M, anything is possible.

 

If one thinks the Leafs are a team to emulate, that is

[JackStraw]

For example, here's Seravalli on Lecavalier:
Lecavalier deal looks like a good one for the Flyers
http://articles.phil...rs-jake-voracek

 

Well, we all know that Seravalli is an idiot... 

 

But it is also saying that the players' agents aren't following their fiduciary responsibility to their clients (and themselves).

 

Maybe, but then isn't the idea that players would forego more money for a better "fit" doing the same thing? 

 

  (redundant ninja added for redundancy)

[brelic]

Question- did you think it was a bad move when the Flyers traded for and signed Timonen and Hartnell? I don't remember anyone getting upset about it.

 

No, I thought it was great. As rad said, I think there was actually a plan at one point. Plus, I believe this was one of the first times the Flyers used that tactic (trade a draft pick to get exclusive negotiating rights).

 

I personally don't have a problem with that tactic and disagree that it necessarily puts them in a bad negotiating position.

 

It might end up being the same 'contract' either way, but what I mean about bad negotiating position is that in these cases, my guess is the Flyers are less willing to walk away from a bad deal because they gave up a 2nd rounder, 3rd rounder, and minor leaguer (for MacDonald). It's like throwing money in the fire.

 

If they haven't given up those assets, it's a heckuva lot easier for Homer to say "take a hike MacDud."

[JackStraw]

No, I thought it was great. As rad said, I think there was actually a plan at one point. Plus, I believe this was one of the first times the Flyers used that tactic (trade a draft pick to get exclusive negotiating rights).

 

 

 

 

It might end up being the same 'contract' either way, but what I mean about bad negotiating position is that in these cases, my guess is the Flyers are less willing to walk away from a bad deal because they gave up a 2nd rounder, 3rd rounder, and minor leaguer (for MacDonald). It's like throwing money in the fire.

 

If they haven't given up those assets, it's a heckuva lot easier for Homer to say "take a hike MacDud."

 

But you don't know all the dynamics of the situation. It's certainly possible (and I would say likely) that giving a player (in this case MacDonald) time to experience playing for the Flyers, in front of consistently big crowds, for an organization that doesn't skimp and is historically committed to winning (however misguided we fans may think their methods have been) is likely to lead the guy to think, "this is a place I want to be". Let's be honest here, convincing someone to want to play for the Flyers is probably a much easier sell than a lot of other places.

 

Also, in the cases of Hartnell and Timonen, while I'm not sure of this I think the Flyers were allowed to negotiate with them or their agents prior to finalizing the trade. I'm not sure what the rules on that are but I seem to remember something along those lines.