Since our team sucks and theres nothing to talk about... how about some trade ideas

[flyercanuck]

I get the argument for it. But to me it would just be more of the same for the Flyers. Always hitting reset because they don't believe in what they have. The grass is greener elsewhere.

 

Giroux and Voracek are excellent foundations for any team. If they'd be good enough for Edmonton, why wouldn't they be good enough for Philly?

 

Objectively, would you trade Toews and Kane for McDavid and Nurse? Getzlaf and Perry? Ovechkin and Backstrom? 

 

Actually, Getzlaf and Perry I could see. They're 3-4 years older than Giroux and Voracek. 

 

 

But, yeah, Giroux is great now. McDavid is not. For anyone not wearing 28 or 93, though, I'm in

 

 

Its not Giroux AND Voracek. Nor is it Giroux straight up for McDavid. 

 

Giroux is a great player. Which is what makes this deal discussion worthy. You're not getting McDavid for Luke Schenn...let alone McDavid AND Nurse. 

[brelic]

Its not Giroux AND Voracek. Nor is it Giroux straight up for McDavid. 

 

Giroux is a great player. Which is what makes this deal discussion worthy. You're not getting McDavid for Luke Schenn...let alone McDavid AND Nurse. 

 

I was responding to @Quint, who was suggesting trading both G and Jake.

[Quint]

So what you're saying is that to fix the club we should trade away our captain and the team's (currently league's) top scorer?

Both of whom haven't even hit their primes yet?

Homer? Is that you?

Yes that is exactly what I want to do. By the time we turn this around there value to us or others won't be there. I see no quick turnarounds.

No not Homer, nor am I a homer evaluating our talent. Best trade he made was getting rid of Richards and pretty boy, and getting back our leading scorer.

[ruxpin]

I get the argument for it. But to me it would just be more of the same for the Flyers. Always hitting reset because they don't believe in what they have. The grass is greener elsewhere.

 

Giroux and Voracek are excellent foundations for any team. If they'd be good enough for Edmonton, why wouldn't they be good enough for Philly?

 

Objectively, would you trade Toews and Kane for McDavid and Nurse? Getzlaf and Perry? Ovechkin and Backstrom? 

 

Actually, Getzlaf and Perry I could see. They're 3-4 years older than Giroux and Voracek. 

 

 

But, yeah, Giroux is great now. McDavid is not. For anyone not wearing 28 or 93, though, I'm in

 

For me, this is apples and oranges for a couple of reasons.

 

1) We're talking about one player for McDavid and Nurse, not two.   The above examples have two.  To make it an "objective" comparison it would need to be Toews OR Kane, etc.

 

2) Even changing it to "OR," now you objectively have entirely different situations for organizations (especially the Chicago and Anaheim examples.  Much less so with Washington, but still a different situation).    In Anaheim and Chicago, you have two organizations that are each built to win right now.  They have other significant pieces in place.  Stepping back to McDavid/Nurse in such a situation would make absolutely no sense. By the time McDavid and Nurse are ready to contribute in a very real way, the other pieces will have aged 2-3 years.   Even Washington is in a position to compete (for the playoffs, anyway.  I don't pretend to think they're actually a threat for the Cup).   They at least have to think they have the major pieces in place and either have to get on a roll at the right time or maybe add/change periphery pieces.

 

Not so with the Flyers, clearly.  They have two pieces that will have aged before there is any significant help (so the argument would go).  You would be adding a significant and much-needed piece on defense while exchanging Giroux for arguably an equal but younger piece.  In the Flyers' case, you'd be acknowledging that this is building for a bang in 3-4 years while also acknowledging now has no chance of happening.

 

All of this to say I'd be tempted.  But I do have to acknowledge the Richards/Carter trades for a very similar theory a couple years ago.  Because the motive was admittedly similar.  What might make this different, however, was that in that instance they got younger at forward with nothing on the back end to grow at a similar time.  In other words, they traded to get younger for 3-4 years later without considering the fact that their then defense would be ancient by the time that happened.

 

I don't know that I'd actually pull the trigger on any of this.   I'd be hesitant for the reasons you've stated.   But I'd think long and hard about it and at least be tempted.

[ruxpin]

I was responding to @Quint, who was suggesting trading both G and Jake.

 

I interpreted him as meaning trading Jake for other parts.  Absolutely wouldn't include trading him as part of the McDavid/Nurse thing.  

 

But honestly, I would not trade them both in any case.

[Quint]

@ ruxpin you interpreted correctly.

[Podein25]

@ ruxpin you interpreted correctly. 

 

 

Don't encourage him. He's already insufferable.

[briere48]

For me, this is apples and oranges for a couple of reasons.

 

1) We're talking about one player for McDavid and Nurse, not two.   The above examples have two.  To make it an "objective" comparison it would need to be Toews OR Kane, etc.

 

2) Even changing it to "OR," now you objectively have entirely different situations for organizations (especially the Chicago and Anaheim examples.  Much less so with Washington, but still a different situation).    In Anaheim and Chicago, you have two organizations that are each built to win right now.  They have other significant pieces in place.  Stepping back to McDavid/Nurse in such a situation would make absolutely no sense. By the time McDavid and Nurse are ready to contribute in a very real way, the other pieces will have aged 2-3 years.   Even Washington is in a position to compete (for the playoffs, anyway.  I don't pretend to think they're actually a threat for the Cup).   They at least have to think they have the major pieces in place and either have to get on a roll at the right time or maybe add/change periphery pieces.

 

Not so with the Flyers, clearly.  They have two pieces that will have aged before there is any significant help (so the argument would go).  You would be adding a significant and much-needed piece on defense while exchanging Giroux for arguably an equal but younger piece.  In the Flyers' case, you'd be acknowledging that this is building for a bang in 3-4 years while also acknowledging now has no chance of happening.

 

All of this to say I'd be tempted.  But I do have to acknowledge the Richards/Carter trades for a very similar theory a couple years ago.  Because the motive was admittedly similar.  What might make this different, however, was that in that instance they got younger at forward with nothing on the back end to grow at a similar time.  In other words, they traded to get younger for 3-4 years later without considering the fact that their then defense would be ancient by the time that happened.

 

I don't know that I'd actually pull the trigger on any of this.   I'd be hesitant for the reasons you've stated.   But I'd think long and hard about it and at least be tempted.

 

i would trade him because we dont know long this team will be in contention again and by the giroux hits in this 30s he will regress and we are stuck with his contract just like vinny that cant be traded. getting rid of the big contracts makes sense right now because it's hurting this team.

[mojo1917]

rading giroux for prospects and draft picks is the only way we're getting out of cap hell. I would trade Jakob too, his value I believe will never be higher (contract status, age, career year). I know I'm probably in the minority here, but we're in Dante's inferno and I want to at least climb up to pergatory before we have the flexibility in a few years... money wise.

I definitely want to take a few steps back before we go forward. Let's get some lottery picks from others and ours for a couple years. Those two are our only obi WANs. Everyone else has little to no value blue chip wise.

 

the thing with taking the steps back is sometimes it takes many many many steps to get to where you want to go, ask the Baltimore Orioles and New York Islanders how that works...i'm in no hurry for the Flyers to spend 15 to 20 years "getting it right" . the losing stink is hard to get off a team once it sets.

 

I don't think Giroux's contract is bad for his prime years which we're in now. I would like to keep and pay Jake too.... i don't know that i understand where dumping their salaries is a thing that will help fix the empty roster spot problems of Umberger , VLC et al.

[Quint]

the thing with taking the steps back is sometimes it takes many many many steps to get to where you want to go, ask the Baltimore Orioles and New York Islanders how that works...i'm in no hurry for the Flyers to spend 15 to 20 years "getting it right" . the losing stink is hard to get off a team once it sets.

 

I don't think Giroux's contract is bad for his prime years which we're in now. I would like to keep and pay Jake too.... i don't know that i understand where dumping their salaries is a thing that will help fix the empty roster spot problems of Umberger , VLC et al.

Mojo I hear what your saying. It's definitely the pink elephant in the room, and if I was an islanders fan or a buffalo bills fan or a Phillies faaaaa....oh wait a minute... damn it!! I am. I would think differently. That's why I'm hesitant trading Hamels...anyways I digress.

I have faith in the organization that that would not happen. Hell, they never missed playoffs for what? More than five years?

As far as the cap. Giroux contract isn't atrocious it's just that it can be dumped without possibly taking salary back. Voracek will eventually cost big money too. So this to me becomes a timing issue. If our d prospects pan out and come into their own (that alone will take atleast a few years), and some draft picks and prospects from trades workout. Than the core is relatively the same age with a strong chance of contention yearly.

Relieving us of giroux's contract isn't a big concern. It's just our best option to relieve some salary with highest return value. So in a few years when umberger, pronger, MacDonald and other dead weight is off the books...(and if our core is in place) we can have flexibility to go for some big free agent(s) to hopefully put us over the hump (if needed).