Have we finally seen the end of Umberger?

[radoran]

@AJgoal

If he hadn't rebounded with a 20/50 season - which is right in line with a ~$4.5M player - I could see that.

That he then went 28/60 and is on pace for 27/56 AND was traded for RJ Umburglar makes the whole "had to trade him for cap space four years down the line" argument really hard to take.

If Hextall could unload Pronger and VLC I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have been able to deal Hartnell for more at some point.

[AJgoal]

2 minutes ago, radoran said:

@AJgoal

If he hadn't rebounded with a 20/50 season - which is right in line with a ~$4.5M player - I could see that.

That he then went 28/60 and is on pace for 27/56 AND was traded for RJ Umburglar makes the whole "had to trade him for cap space four years down the line" argument really hard to take.

If Hextall could unload Pronger and VLC I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have been able to deal Hartnell for more at some point.

Again, perhaps. But without the benefit of hindsight, say Hartnell goes 10/30 that next year, and can't stay healthy. Could you trade him at the deadline? With 4 more years on his deal? It's the only thing I can think of - they looked at not only the injuries that he missed time for, but the results of his physicals and decided that trading him then mitigated risk there. And let's not forget, they got RJ Umberger in the trade (and a 4th). That would appear to be about as valuable as Hartnell was at the time, which could lend impetus to getting rid of him now, as opposed to when his trade value might completely tank. I would think that Hextall would have taken a 1st/picks/prospects from another team, rather than Umberger, if that was on the table.

[radoran]

1 minute ago, AJgoal said:

Again, perhaps. But without the benefit of hindsight, say Hartnell goes 10/30 that next year, and can't stay healthy. Could you trade him at the deadline? With 4 more years on his deal? It's the only thing I can think of - they looked at not only the injuries that he missed time for, but the results of his physicals and decided that trading him then mitigated risk there. And let's not forget, they got RJ Umberger in the trade (and a 4th). That would appear to be about as valuable as Hartnell was at the time, which could lend impetus to getting rid of him now, as opposed to when his trade value might completely tank. I would think that Hextall would have taken a 1st/picks/prospects from another team, rather than Umberger, if that was on the table.

Well, we can agree to differ. He was injured during the lockout and had a subpar year (that said, his 8 goals in 32 games still projects to 20 in an 82-game season). Then he rebounded for the Flyers and was a 20/50 player again playing 78 games coming off (prior to the lockout) 82, 82, 81, 82, 80. He also had undeniable "chemistry" with Giroux and Voracek (and previously Jagr). I also (personal opinion) don't think his "game" is one that "breaks down" like many power forwards.

No one can see the future. And, yes, Homer had made some No Good, Very Bad calls before being promoted.

But, no, this isn't "hindsight" because I said these Very Same Things when the trade went down. And making a trade for cap relief four years later is "predicting the future".

And the justifications are much like reading about how Chip Kelly "made some good moves" - if the Flyers had HAD a top line LW in the pipeline, the trade could be excused. To make the deal with ZERO to replace him was just a "bad hockey move." He wasn't "blocking" anybody then. He still wouldn't be "blocking" anybody now.

[flyercanuck]

I think when Hextall took over he just saw a big pile of terrible contracts and felt he HAD to get out of them any way he could. Hartnells may not have been anywhere near the worst, but I guess he felt if he could gain anything as far as capspace goes, it was a step in the right direction. I hated the deal then, and I won't like it at least until Umberger is off the books.

Hartnell may never have been my favorite player, but he was always the guy I'd love to go for a beer with. He seemed like a great teammate, he was active in the community and he always kept the guys loose. 

[OccamsRazor]

2 hours ago, AJgoal said:

Sam Carchidi ‏@BroadStBull 2h2 hours ago

Sounds like Weal AND Coots will play Thurs. Laughton or Umby likely out.

I would have recalled Cousins and sit both RJ and Laughton...if Laughton didn't require waivers now i'd send him down he needs it to work on his confidence and game.

[peter puck]

I'm willing to give Laughton a little longer. He's been paired with slugberger and that will ruin just about anybody's game and confidence. Let's hope that Weal brings some jam to that line.

[OccamsRazor]

I guess i would give Laughton the benefit of the doubt RJ has been a boat anchor this year. So Weal would be a welcomed change to the lineup.

It would be nice if Hexy could do like he did Vinny and just pick up half his salary in a trade after they have room to carry salary this offseason...say 2.25mill and be done with him.

[OccamsRazor]

Couturier was injured against Toronto and was seen after the game in the X-ray room by Guy Lanzi, the Flyers' dentist/facial injury specialist.

Now, even if Couturier does play, there’s still a good chance Weal dresses but either R.J. Umberger or Scott Laughton sits against Pittsburgh.

Neither played in the third period against Toronto on Tuesday and both had little ice time in the loss as Hakstol changed his lines and shortened his bench that period.

http://www.csnphilly.com/hockey-philadelphia-flyers/decent-chance-jordan-weal-makes-flyers-debut-thursday-sean-couturier-shayne-gostisbehere

I think it's time to see what the kid has got.

[AJgoal]

15 minutes ago, radoran said:

Well, we can agree to differ. He was injured during the lockout and had a subpar year (that said, his 8 goals in 32 games still projects to 20 in an 82-game season). Then he rebounded for the Flyers and was a 20/50 player again playing 78 games coming off (prior to the lockout) 82, 82, 81, 82, 80. He also had undeniable "chemistry" with Giroux and Voracek (and previously Jagr). I also (personal opinion) don't think his "game" is one that "breaks down" like many power forwards.

No one can see the future. And, yes, Homer had made some No Good, Very Bad calls before being promoted.

But, no, this isn't "hindsight" because I said these Very Same Things when the trade went down. And making a trade for cap relief four years later is "predicting the future".

And the justifications are much like reading about how Chip Kelly "made some good moves" - if the Flyers had HAD a top line LW in the pipeline, the trade could be excused. To make the deal with ZERO to replace him was just a "bad hockey move." He wasn't "blocking" anybody then. He still wouldn't be "blocking" anybody now.

I guess simply put, I just don't think the Flyers are Scott Hartnell away from seriously being cup contenders. And if that's the case, why get worked up about not having him this year, or last year? Now, two years from now, if the Flyers defense starts coming on, and they're showing serious signs of having a chance of winning the darned thing, and Scott Hartnell at 35 is still putting up 25-30 goals, maybe then I'll worry about it. But maybe by then they'll have addressed it through the draft, or a trade, or FA.

[AJgoal]

25 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Couturier was injured against Toronto and was seen after the game in the X-ray room by Guy Lanzi, the Flyers' dentist/facial injury specialist.

Now, even if Couturier does play, there’s still a good chance Weal dresses but either R.J. Umberger or Scott Laughton sits against Pittsburgh.

Neither played in the third period against Toronto on Tuesday and both had little ice time in the loss as Hakstol changed his lines and shortened his bench that period.

http://www.csnphilly.com/hockey-philadelphia-flyers/decent-chance-jordan-weal-makes-flyers-debut-thursday-sean-couturier-shayne-gostisbehere

I think it's time to see what the kid has got.

"Neither of them played in the third period..."

Umberger maybe, but Couturier?

[peter puck]

42 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

"Neither of them played in the third period..."

Umberger maybe, but Couturier?

Slugberger and Laughton

[AJgoal]

Just now, peter puck said:

Slugberger and Laughton

Thanks. 

[radoran]

2 hours ago, AJgoal said:

I guess simply put, I just don't think the Flyers are Scott Hartnell away from seriously being cup contenders. And if that's the case, why get worked up about not having him this year, or last year? Now, two years from now, if the Flyers defense starts coming on, and they're showing serious signs of having a chance of winning the darned thing, and Scott Hartnell at 35 is still putting up 25-30 goals, maybe then I'll worry about it. But maybe by then they'll have addressed it through the draft, or a trade, or FA.

I can see that. - "not a Hartnell away" - that's fair.

But I think they are significantly better with him over Umburglar.

And fewer pieces away. 

[fishbulb]

27 minutes ago, radoran said:

I can see that. - "not a Hartnell away" - that's fair.

But I think they are significantly better with him over Umburglar.

And fewer pieces away. 

 

Significantly better... yes.... But further away from Provorov :-p

[flyerrod]

30 minutes ago, radoran said:

I can see that. - "not a Hartnell away" - that's fair.

But I think they are significantly better with him over Umburglar.

And fewer pieces away. 

Without going back and doing the research, most of the heartburn with Hartnell was his contract  length.  This is also a guy who continues to get scratched for boneheaded plays even though he is one of the top scorers on his team. Hartnell  did have a  lot of positives going for him but his contract length was not one of them.

[radoran]

1 hour ago, flyerrod said:

Without going back and doing the research, most of the heartburn with Hartnell was his contract  length.  This is also a guy who continues to get scratched for boneheaded plays even though he is one of the top scorers on his team. Hartnell  did have a  lot of positives going for him but his contract length was not one of them.

Two words: RJ Umburglar 

Two more: four years

That was better than keeping Hartnell?

I'm not saying Hartnell is the solution to this team's problems by himself. But he's a damn sight better then Umburglar who has brought NOTHING to this team.

And I'm saying Hartnell was worth MUCH MORE than a worthless contract for four years. And a 4th.

[OccamsRazor]

4 hours ago, AJgoal said:

"Neither of them played in the third period..."

Umberger maybe, but Couturier?

No RJ and Laughton didn't play much. 

[pilldoc]

12 hours ago, fishbulb said:

 

Significantly better... yes.... But further away from Provorov :-p

I was just thinking the same thing.  I was in the camp stating I was ok with the trade.  I think many of us on here thought RJ still had some skills.  Obviously I was wrong.  I get that Hartnelll is still playing well.  Kudos for him.  That contract was gonna hurt the Flyers in the long run so I believe Hexy took a shot.  However, with Hartnell's skill set, he might have propelled the Flyers for a few more wins.  With a few more wins, the Flyers DO NOT get Provorov.  In the long run it will be a win for the Flyers.  Short term pain for long term gain.

[Digityman]

18 hours ago, radoran said:

There was no pressing "need" to swap Hartnell for Umburglar when it happened

Rad - I agree with everything you said.  However there might be a piece that you/we are missing.  Maybe it was a personnel or lockeroom issue.   Maybe too many late nights as bachelors?   I agree the deal doesn't make sense in the financial/value sense but maybe there was something more...

[radoran]

3 minutes ago, Digityman said:

Rad - I agree with everything you said.  However there might be a piece that you/we are missing.  Maybe it was a personnel or lockeroom issue.   Maybe too many late nights as bachelors?   I agree the deal doesn't make sense in the financial/value sense but maybe there was something more...

Yeah, and I believe I've said in this thread and others that - as bad as it sounds - I HOPE there was something else going on.

That said, WHAT kind of franchise was Homer running!?!? So many players he signed long term and committed the franchise to had such serious problems they HAD to get rid of them?

Wow.

[Digityman]

Sorry I didn't read the whole thread so I missed where you said that. 

 

[radoran]

Just now, Digityman said:

Sorry I didn't read the whole thread so I missed where you said that. 

 

No worries.

Still amazed at how toxic Homer's team was/is. Apparently,

[flyercanuck]

11 hours ago, fishbulb said:

 

Significantly better... yes.... But further away from Provorov :-p

Who knows, maybe keeping Hartnell and losing Umberger makes the team good enough to be a playoff bubble team and Snider doesn't allow Hextall to trade away Coburn. 

So further away from Provorov and Konecny? 

[AJgoal]

8 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

Who knows, maybe keeping Hartnell and losing Umberger makes the team good enough to be a playoff bubble team and Snider doesn't allow Hextall to trade away Coburn. 

So further away from Provorov and Konecny? 

This is the main reason why I'm ok with the trade. The Flyers needed to rebuild if they wanted to be truly competitive. Moving Hartnell when they did probably sped the process up  -if the held onto him and were on the playoff bubble, they also couldn't trade him at the deadline (and at the time of the trade, Timonen's clots hadn't been diagnosed, so why wouldn't you expect the exact same team to be in the mix?). Maybe there was something else in the background, maybe not. At the very least, Hextall rolled the dice that Hartnell wouldn't be a productive player in the last two years of the contract when most of the prospects started arriving, and would be difficult to move. Maybe he loses that bet, but he was playing the odds and I'm ok with that.

It's apparent that what Hartnell was worth at the time was Umberger and a 4th, because that's what the Flyers got. I'm sure if the Flyers really wanted Umberger and there were better offers on the table for Hartnell, they would have just made the better trade for Hartnell and waited for Columbus to buy Umberger out, and then re-signed him at a cheaper deal. The fact that in order to trade Hartnell they had to take back Umberger's contract tells me that there was very little interest in Hartnell elsewhere. So the question is really, why was Hartnell's value so low? 

[radoran]

It's difficult on the one hand to criticize "hindsight" and then on the other use hindsight - the players they got from draft picks they "probably wouldn't have gotten" - to justify the move.

Jus' sayin'.

The fact remains that the Flyers traded a player who is still productive for a player who has brought nothing for three years and is still signed for next season. And one that created a hole that the team - three two years later - is still trying to fill.

For that matter, we also don't know what "negotiations" went on leading up to the trade. How many teams did Hextall talk to? We have no idea. As much as we'd like to think he canvassed the league looking for the best deal and the best offer he got was Umburglar and a 4th, it could easily be that pulled the trigger on the first deal that came along just to get cap relief years later. When, in fact, as it's looking at the moment, they would have had cap room even without making the move. And the $150K in extra space they got in the meantime had absolutely no effect on what they were able to do over the past three seasons including signing Voracek (who's contract starts next season with Umburglar still on the cap). And Hartnell, remaining a productive player, would have retained trade value and possibly even increased it.

Being "fine with it" is a perfectly valid perspective.

I just disagree.