pilldoc Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 2 hours ago, radoran said: 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? It is the proverbial ...."letting the inmates run the asylum". Seriously, IMO, there was no accountability in that locker room and I really don't think many players respected Berube. I could be wrong, but it just seems like there was so much wrong with the locker room. Was Hartnell a part of that, I would hope not, but one never knows. 25 minutes ago, radoran said: 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'. Very true and a very astute point, BUT lets pretend the Flyers keep both Hartnell and Coburn. Maybe it garners a few more wins for the Flyers. Maybe the Flyers are a bubble playoff team. Just maybe the Flyers draft in the 12-15 range. Maybe the Flyers don't get Provorov...but as you pointed out it is all pure speculation and I agree. No one can predict the future. However by moving Hartnell when they did, the Flyers were setting themselves up for a less than stellar season. That in itself was gonna hopefully set the Flyers up for a very draft pick. Provorov or not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Just now, pilldoc said: It is the proverbial ...."letting the inmates run the asylum". Seriously, IMO, there was no accountability in that locker room and I really don't think many players respected Berube. I could be wrong, but it just seems like there was so much wrong with the locker room. Was Hartnell a part of that, I would hope not, but one never knows. Well, they didn't exactly get better after moving him... And it still doesn't really reflect well on the franchise. And Berube was a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good coach. Hard to blame the players for that. 1 minute ago, pilldoc said: Very true and a very astute point, BUT lets pretend the Flyers keep both Hartnell and Coburn. Maybe it garners a few more wins for the Flyers. Maybe the Flyers are a bubble playoff team. Just maybe the Flyers draft in the 12-15 range. Maybe the Flyers don't get Provorov...but as you pointed out it is all pure speculation and I agree. No one can predict the future. However by moving Hartnell when they did, the Flyers were setting themselves up for a less than stellar season. That in itself was gonna hopefully set the Flyers up for a very draft pick. Provorov or not.. So, you're saying they won the trade? Let's get that on the banner! Seriously, though, with an actual coach (i.e. one that isn't "the best hockey mind" Homer knows) this team should have been a playoff team. Not a no doubt(TM) playoff team, but a playoff team nonetheless. And I think they're showing that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, radoran said: 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. I said at the time that it would make the Flyers worse. Pointed out a bunch of stats that showed Hartnell was likely to outperform Umberger. And it's hard not to look at a team that had one of the best records in the league after the coaching change, coming back with the exact same personnel, and think they'd make the playoffs again. Outlook changed a bit after swapping out Hartnell for Umberger, at least from my perspective. 1 hour ago, radoran said: 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 years later - is still trying to fill. The trade was made a year and a half ago. Not three. The season before the trade, Umberger put up a whole two goals less than Hartnell. It's one of the reasons many around here (not you or I) thought that Umberger would be an improvement. 1 hour ago, radoran said: 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. Sure, but based on his whole body of work, which scenario is more likely? Again, it was no secret that Columbus was most likely going to use a compliance buyout on Umberger. If we knew it, Hextall knew it. Why trade an asset for a guy you could pick up off the street in a couple of days? It just doesn't fit with everything else he's done to date. The most logical explanation is that Hextall wanted to move Hartnell (for whatever reason), tried, and the best he could get was Umberger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, radoran said: So, you're saying they won the trade? Let's get that on the banner! Seriously, though, with an actual coach (i.e. one that isn't "the best hockey mind" Homer knows) this team should have been a playoff team. Not a no doubt(TM) playoff team, but a playoff team nonetheless. And I think they're showing that now. Time to raise the banner! YES!!! Yes I agree with you, regardless on how well or not well RJ was gonna play or for the matter of fact the whole team, had they had a real coach and not promote one of the good ol' boy's, then yes I agree with you, they could have been a playoff bubble team. As far as who "won" the trade, personally don't look at winning or losing a trade. Short term , yup Columbus won the trade. Hartnell, statistically had a better a better season than RJ last year. That is a fact and cannot be disputed. So where did it get them....drafting 8th instead of 7th in relation to where the Flyers were picking. There is no doubt in my mind had the teams been reversed then the Blue Jackets pick Provorov and the Flyers get maybe Werenski. I agree there is no way Hexy pulled out his crystal ball and predicted how by trading away Hartnell he was gonna get Provorov. To think otherwise is just plain foolish. In all honesty, I think he saw a way to get rid a of a long contract, switch it it for a shorter one and trading a good player for one who statically looked only a step or two behind Hartnell. No one else was gonna bite at Hartnell, so Hexy saw his shot and took it. No one and I mean no one ever saw it coming on how bad RJ was gonna be last year, injury not included. And...that wretchedness of RJ's play continues into this season. Hands down Columbus wins. This year RJ is just as horrendous and Hartnell is performing as well as can be expected on a bad Columbus team looking for a possible Austin Matthews savior. So yea...short term the Jackets won the trade hands down. Long term...the Flyers did finish with a worse record than the Blue Jackets and picked 1 spot ahead of them in the draft and thus drafting Provorov who looks absolutely the stud defenseman this team needs. So in the long run yeah the Flyers maybe made out, but I agree....at the the time of the trade...you cannot make that prediction. I guess it just depends on a team's goal to determine if they "won a trade" or not. Totally agree with your last statement....last year's team needed a real coach and not a puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 5 hours ago, AJgoal said: Why trade an asset for a guy you could pick up off the street in a couple of days? It just doesn't fit with everything else he's done to date. The most logical explanation is that Hextall wanted to move Hartnell (for whatever reason), tried, and the best he could get was Umberger. It was a give in order to get rid of type of deal is why they did it they (Hexy and Chief) i think wanted to get rid of Scott fresh off a disappointing 2nd half of the season and playoffs. In his last 33 games of the regular season Hartnell had 1 even strength goal and then it carried into the playoffs series with the Rags he had just 3 assist. And what stuck in their crawl more i think is his dogging it to get back in that series in a few games to back checking and the Rags scoring...i think after that series the brain trust just didn't think he could be effective any longer...and that was more or less his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie58 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I don't know whether to be happy or sad with Gagner's call up. I doubt he is around next year. He may not even be deadline trade material. I suspect he's sent down almost immediately. So I'd rather get a youngster some experience, even if Gagner shows some offensive flair. Laughton is tough to assess. At times he looks with it...times he isn't. I don't know if that is rookie status or talent marker. Ghost may be spoiling us. We know he's the real deal. Scott...don't know...heck, we still wonder in many ways about Schenn in terms of performance and potential. Weal is is a tough spot...He doesn't build experience in the big leagues...he can't be sent down. Hexy got him for a reason.....but it isn't clear why..or what for? Maybe he is traded out by the deadline. . . . Howie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Howie58 said: I don't know whether to be happy or sad with Gagner's call up. I am going with happy. Gagner is an improvement over Umberger and I think that will in turn improve the play of Laughton. Umberger has been given 40 plus games this year to show he is improved and worthy of a slot. He has done just the opposite. I say run with Gagner for the second half of the season and see what he brings. Worst case, carrying Weal's 632k to sit in the box is not quite as restrictive as VLC's amount was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, Howie58 said: I don't know whether to be happy or sad with Gagner's call up. Well if he doesn't look good after this recall maybe his next move is out of town no sense in keeping him if he can't help...just move him for a 18th round pick and salary cap relief so they'd have plenty of cap space to maybe make a nice acquisition............and by that i don't mean no over 35 center they can put on the wing!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ8812 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 so useless. I don't even know why Hakstol keeps playing him Can't see him not being bought out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samifan Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, RJ8812 said: so useless. I don't even know why Hakstol keeps playing him Can't see him not being bought out Yep. Bumberger with a quality 4:31 ice time tonight. What is the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ8812 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Samifan said: Yep. Bumberger with a quality 4:31 ice time tonight. What is the point? When you're making as much as he is, you have to be able to offer more than just a roster spot. Does he play the PK? No. Does he play the PP? No. Can he win face-offs? No. Can he be effective on a checking/shut-down line? No. He offers absolutely nothing and is not part of the future. He shouldn't be in the line-up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthbal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 RJ was bad tonight, I don't get why Hakstol is not playing Weal... The Laughton-RJ combo is not working at all... What about doing the following lines for next few games if Coots is back: Jakub Voracek - Claude Giroux - Wayne Simmonds Michael Raffl - Sean Couturier - Brayden Schenn Chris VandeVelde - Pierre-Edouard Bellemare - Ryan White Matt Read - Sam Gagner - Jordan Weal Doesn't really hurt the team, and they can't do worse... Then send both Laughton and RJ to the Phantoms... Scott should get more ice time and it would do him some good... Just my 2 cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 59 minutes ago, darthbal said: Then send both Laughton and RJ to the Phantoms... Scott should get more ice time and it would do him some good... @darthbal, Can't do either of those. Laughton has to pass through waivers (which won't happen, someone would claim him) and Umberger has a No Movement Clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 4 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said: @darthbal, Can't do either of those. Laughton has to pass through waivers (which won't happen, someone would claim him) and Umberger has a No Movement Clause. They can't send Laughton down? Why is that? Anyhow, would it be terrible if someone picked him up? I know he's young and has time to blossom, but I've lost faith in him. I was a big fan when he first came up last year, but he seems like a guy that's turning into a "Sam gagne" type. He has the skill but he just goes out there and goes through the motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 5 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said: @darthbal, Can't do either of those. Laughton has to pass through waivers (which won't happen, someone would claim him) and Umberger has a No Movement Clause. He does not. Since he signed his ELC at age 18, he is waiver exempt for 5 years or 160 NHL games. He has neither 5 seasons, nor 160 NHL games (80). Scott Laughton Waivers (https://www.hockeyscap.com/waivers_calculator/scott_laughton) Exemption Determination ELC signing age: 18 Position: skater 7 (Prorated for 48/82 games in the 2012-13 lockout season) GP in first season: No 11 GP in second season: No Years Exempt: 5 NHL Games Played Exempt: 160 Seasons NHL Games Played Required 5 160 Completed 3 80 2012-13 games played: 5 2013-14 games played: 0 2014-15 games played: 31 2015-16 games played: 44 Remaining 2 Following the 2016-17 season 80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 hour ago, icehole said: They can't send Laughton down? Why is that? Anyhow, would it be terrible if someone picked him up? I know he's young and has time to blossom, but I've lost faith in him. I was a big fan when he first came up last year, but he seems like a guy that's turning into a "Sam gagne" type. He has the skill but he just goes out there and goes through the motions. A 21 year old 1st round centre? Geez. Giroux couldn't even make the Flyers til halfway through his 21 year old season. Guess they should have given up on him. You can probably say the same about 75% of NHLers. Holmgren and Clarke taught the patience out of a lot of Flyer fans. They aren't the gms now. Better learn how to watch prospects develop...Hextall isn't giving them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 52 minutes ago, flyercanuck said: A 21 year old 1st round centre? Geez. Giroux couldn't even make the Flyers til halfway through his 21 year old season. Guess they should have given up on him. You can probably say the same about 75% of NHLers. Holmgren and Clarke taught the patience out of a lot of Flyer fans. They aren't the gms now. Better learn how to watch prospects develop...Hextall isn't giving them away. Here's how I look at it. First, I like to look at a players assets. Does he skate well? Does he have a good shot? Does he have good hands? Is he a fighter (not fists but determination)? If I don't see those things, I don't mind letting that player go. We can discuss what the cut-off line is to say when a player should be developed, but if a player isn't developed yet, he should be in the AHL making less than $1mill. I don't like having a $1 mill+ player on my NHL team in his developmental stages. Baseball players get into their mid 20's before they make the big team sometimes. I don't want that either. So if a player reaches a certain age and still undeveloped, let someone else develop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 10 minutes ago, icehole said: Here's how I look at it. First, I like to look at a players assets. Does he skate well? Does he have a good shot? Does he have good hands? Is he a fighter (not fists but determination)? If I don't see those things, I don't mind letting that player go. We can discuss what the cut-off line is to say when a player should be developed, but if a player isn't developed yet, he should be in the AHL making less than $1mill. I don't like having a $1 mill+ player on my NHL team in his developmental stages. Baseball players get into their mid 20's before they make the big team sometimes. I don't want that either. So if a player reaches a certain age and still undeveloped, let someone else develop him. It's a good thing that Laughton only makes $893,000 then. EDIT: I'm sorry, 863,000 (cap) or $832,500 (real money) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 hour ago, flyercanuck said: A 21 year old 1st round centre? Geez. Giroux couldn't even make the Flyers til halfway through his 21 year old season. Guess they should have given up on him. You can probably say the same about 75% of NHLers. Holmgren and Clarke taught the patience out of a lot of Flyer fans. They aren't the gms now. Better learn how to watch prospects develop...Hextall isn't giving them away. Also, if you're afraid of losing him, I hope that info that ajgoal posted was correct. In that case, he should develop in the AHL, come up for 10-15 games to see if he's ready, send him back if he's not, and bring him back up when you think he is ready. He shouldn't be up for the entire season during "developement". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 2 hours ago, AJgoal said: He does not. Since he signed his ELC at age 18, he is waiver exempt for 5 years or 160 NHL games. He has neither 5 seasons, nor 160 NHL games (80). Scott Laughton Waivers (https://www.hockeyscap.com/waivers_calculator/scott_laughton) Exemption Determination ELC signing age: 18 Position: skater 7 (Prorated for 48/82 games in the 2012-13 lockout season) GP in first season: No 11 GP in second season: No Years Exempt: 5 NHL Games Played Exempt: 160 Seasons NHL Games Played Required 5 160 Completed 3 80 2012-13 games played: 5 2013-14 games played: 0 2014-15 games played: 31 2015-16 games played: 44 Remaining 2 Following the 2016-17 season 80 Nice so send him down...no use for him to stay up and play only 8 minutes and just look ok in those 8 minutes...send him to the Phantoms where he can play 18-20 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 @icehole I'm all for giving him more time in the A. He doesn't look NHL ready yet. But you don't give away assets for free. That's how you end up with the prospect pool Holmgren had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ8812 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Laughton doesn't have to pass through waivers. I've been saying he should be sent down to work on his game for a month or so now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 4 hours ago, AJgoal said: He does not. Since he signed his ELC at age 18, he is waiver exempt for 5 years or 160 NHL games. He has neither 5 seasons, nor 160 NHL games (80). Scott Laughton Waivers (https://www.hockeyscap.com/waivers_calculator/scott_laughton) Exemption Determination ELC signing age: 18 Position: skater 7 (Prorated for 48/82 games in the 2012-13 lockout season) GP in first season: No 11 GP in second season: No Years Exempt: 5 NHL Games Played Exempt: 160 Seasons NHL Games Played Required 5 160 Completed 3 80 2012-13 games played: 5 2013-14 games played: 0 2014-15 games played: 31 2015-16 games played: 44 Remaining 2 Following the 2016-17 season 80 @AJgoal if this is right then I stand corrected. Obviously, I'm not a CBA or capologist and whatever I read was not correct. (it said 80 professional games if he is 3 years past signing his ELC). I'm all for sending Laughton down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I think you should send Laughton up and call Cousins up if you're not going to play Weal. I rather call him up play Weal and sit RJ. I'm starting to wonder if the reason Hexy isn't calling Cousins and Alt up is a negotiation play since they are in the last years of their ELC contracts...i hope not. I'd like to see him reward them for playing well down there i think it would send a positive message to the other kids there. Play well...get rewarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 So it was either: To get cap space four years later Or because they thought Hartnell couldn't play Or Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Candlestick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.