Flyers and leaving points on the table

[radoran]

Just now, King Knut said:

 

to be fair, a lot of those guys (including Grossman actually) kinda worked out for a season and then fizzled due to injury or retirement or something else.

 

Agreed.

 

As I said, there are a few gems (Timonen, for example - maybe Pronger) and, yes, some guys did OK.

 

But it's hardly like it was a guarantee that "experience" got good results.

[King Knut]

11 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Agreed.

 

As I said, there are a few gems (Timonen, for example - maybe Pronger) and, yes, some guys did OK.

 

But it's hardly like it was a guarantee that "experience" got good results.

 

No, I'd take magic beans like Provo, Sanheim, Morin or even Haag over most of these guys.

[icehole]

3 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

What if it doesn't work?

 

Haven't the Flyers tried it by signing/trading for veteran defencemen for FORTY YEARS? How'd that work out? 

I'm not saying Hextall's plan won't work out, but I always take offense when people say that the previous regimes didn't have any success.  There were a lot of fun years where the flyers were 4th or better in the conference and made a splash in the playoffs.

Those GMs made their mistakes and left some holes in the lineup (mostly goaltending), but they did pretty well for themselves (2nd highest winning % in history).

Hextall's moves look good so far, but the only move that he made to benefit the team to this point was hiring a coach.  How can you say that his method is better than the previous methods of building a team?  Maybe Hextall's hole in the lineup is that veteran leadership that briere ( or whoever it was) mentioned.

[flyercanuck]

@icehole

 

I don't know if Hextalls way is going to work or not....what I AM saying is we haven't won a cup since the 70s with the "buy veteran" blueprint. Yes we had some almosts. The almosts wore out for me personally in the 90s. 

 

How about after 4 decades of zero championships we try another method?

[radoran]

11 minutes ago, icehole said:

I'm not saying Hextall's plan won't work out, but I always take offense when people say that the previous regimes didn't have any success.  There were a lot of fun years where the flyers were 4th or better in the conference and made a splash in the playoffs.

Those GMs made their mistakes and left some holes in the lineup (mostly goaltending), but they did pretty well for themselves (2nd highest winning % in history).

Hextall's moves look good so far, but the only move that he made to benefit the team to this point was hiring a coach.  How can you say that his method is better than the previous methods of building a team?  Maybe Hextall's hole in the lineup is that veteran leadership that briere ( or whoever it was) mentioned.

 

It's hard to reconcile the pre-lockout/cap with the post-lockout/cap era.

 

Pre-lockout you could spend yourself out of problems - and the Flyers did.

 

After the lockout, the nature of management changed. You couldn't just buy yourself out of every problem (you could take advantage of losing a season and a half of hockey with compliance buyouts, but that's another story). And there is a more pronounced need to balance a "veteran" approach with developing your own players.

 

The Flyers had some success - a Finals trip, a Conference Final - but in 10 years since the first lockout they also have three first round exits and three missed playoffs.

 

60% of the time they are out in the first round if they make the playoffs at all. 20% of the time they get to a late round.

 

That's just not a good ROI from where I sit - and the trend line where they have five playoff rounds in the past five years since that Cup Final and one in the past three - is not encouraging.

 

What is encouraging is Hextall taking a more "developmental" approach. To be clear, I do see a time in the near future where adding a "veteran presence" for scoring and "leadership" will help the team get over the hump. Much like Chicago did with Hossa, Kopecky, Ladd and Madden in 2010. Or, for that matter, LA did bringing in Richards and Crater.

 

But he simply has not had the cap space "guns" to make those shots yet. This coming offseason is the first time he will have a real shot at doing something other than patchwork (and the FA crop, quite frankly, isn't all that great).

 

He's made some shrewd moves and opened up the ability to more fully form the roster.

 

And I fully expect him to do it.

[icehole]

43 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

@icehole

 

I don't know if Hextalls way is going to work or not....what I AM saying is we haven't won a cup since the 70s with the "buy veteran" blueprint. Yes we had some almosts. The almosts wore out for me personally in the 90s. 

 

How about after 4 decades of zero championships we try another method?

I don't mind change but I also don't measure success with championships.  I would feel more comfortable if Hextall "tweaked" the method rather than go a completely different direction.  We shall see how it works out in a few years.  I, unlike many others, would not have been happy with them being a sub .500 team and not making the playoffs.  I don't care if your stacking up first rounders until the cows come home, that's not acceptable.  They've held their ground and managed to make it exciting which is all I can ask for.

I see good teams getting Lucic, Ladd, oshie, and williams.  That's what I want to do to give my team the best shot.

[radoran]

Just now, icehole said:

I see good teams getting Lucic, Ladd, oshie, and williams.  That's what I want to do to give my team the best shot.

 

Because of the cap mess Homer created, the Flyers couldn't have added Lucic, Oshie or Williams in the off season. It sucks, but when those deals went down, they simply didn't have the space.

 

And if we were talking about giving up a 25+ pick in the 1st for a Ladd rental on a team that's looking for it's fourth Cup in the last six years, that's not such a bad deal. Giving up a top half of the round pick for a team that isn't even guaranteed to be in the playoffs is another thing entirely.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if the Flyers took at shot at Ladd in the off-season. Not advocating for it, but wouldn't surprise me.

 

As I say above, I expect them to be in that sort of a market market in the near future. This year wasn't it.

[King Knut]

57 minutes ago, icehole said:

I'm not saying Hextall's plan won't work out, but I always take offense when people say that the previous regimes didn't have any success.  There were a lot of fun years where the flyers were 4th or better in the conference and made a splash in the playoffs.

Those GMs made their mistakes and left some holes in the lineup (mostly goaltending), but they did pretty well for themselves (2nd highest winning % in history).

Hextall's moves look good so far, but the only move that he made to benefit the team to this point was hiring a coach.  How can you say that his method is better than the previous methods of building a team?  Maybe Hextall's hole in the lineup is that veteran leadership that briere ( or whoever it was) mentioned.

 

The problem with those teams and that way of building a team is that while every few years they'd do well in the conference and every 5 or 6 years they'd make a playoff splash, other teams were perennially doing both.    I want THAT kind of team.  A team built to systematically do well in both the regular season and the playoffs.  

 

Frankensteining a team from the outside in means that you're going to lose parts fairly regularly.  

Building a team from the inside out (combined with a disciplined system being incorporated in the scouting and the minors as well) means that you have interchangeable parts.  So if an Yzerman or a Fedorov has to retire, you have a Datsyuk or Zetterberg coming into place who knows how to play that game.  

 

The Flyers have been "one piece away" for 25 years.  The problem is that one piece wasn't Tkachuk or Zhamnov or an Oates or Smith or even Pronger (though almost).  That piece was a franchise wide system and idea of how a hockey team is built and how it plays when it's on the ice.   I believe Hextall is trying to do just that.  I hope it works because I'm a little damn sick of the way things had been going.

 

 

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

@icehole

 

I don't know if Hextalls way is going to work or not....what I AM saying is we haven't won a cup since the 70s with the "buy veteran" blueprint. Yes we had some almosts. The almosts wore out for me personally in the 90s. 

 

How about after 4 decades of zero championships we try another method?

 

Here here

[Podein25]

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

The almosts wore out for me personally in the 90s. 

 

Yeah, they only put out one decent album after their first one. 

[King Knut]

12 minutes ago, icehole said:

I don't mind change but I also don't measure success with championships.  I would feel more comfortable if Hextall "tweaked" the method rather than go a completely different direction.  We shall see how it works out in a few years.  I, unlike many others, would not have been happy with them being a sub .500 team and not making the playoffs.  I don't care if your stacking up first rounders until the cows come home, that's not acceptable.  They've held their ground and managed to make it exciting which is all I can ask for.

I see good teams getting Lucic, Ladd, oshie, and williams.  That's what I want to do to give my team the best shot.

 

 

By what measure if not championships? 

Conference Finals?  Fail.

Trips to the playoffs?  We fail that too.

Regular season rankings?  Pretty middling.

 

The completely different direction he's going in is the direction that got the Red Wings all those cups and into the playoffs 24 years in a row.  It got the Kings 2 cups in 4 years and the Blackhawks 3.  The Devils did something similar and they ended up with 3.  

 

And sure, you can add Lucic, Ladd, Oshie and Williams if you like, but first you have to unload the cap room of Vinny, MacDonald, Umberger, Read, etc (almost there!), but the at this point, this organization has those kinds of guys you want... it has them 5 years ago When you might have said, TJ who?  Milan who?  Schenn and Couturier are arguably already playing better than Oshie, Ladd and Lucic.  You want to give them up now at 24 and 23 in order to have guys they're already outplaying who are 29, 27, 30?  

You're nuts.  

 

Williams is the wild card.  I never wanted to trade that guy to begin with and I always though the way Hitchcock treated both Willy and Rusty was criminal.  The cups they went on to win with other teams support my belief in them.  Adding a 34 year vet like Willy for a run is probably a good idea.  That can help your team.  3.5 million for 2 years is a steep price for that kind of addition at 16 minutes a night, but sure... I'd accept him as the kind of "push you over the edge" kind of guy who can really help build character and work ethic within a game and prevent blow outs in the last minute and 4 seconds like the other night.  

 

Between what this team has now, what it's about to jettison, and what's about to come up through the ranks, trust me we all need to Chill and enjoy where this season goes and know that we are going to be very very good very very soon. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[flyercanuck]

1 hour ago, icehole said:

I don't mind change but I also don't measure success with championships.

 

Well what then? Playoff appearances? I'm sick of just playoff appearances. I want to win that final game.

1 hour ago, icehole said:

 

 I would feel more comfortable if Hextall "tweaked" the method rather than go a completely different direction.  We shall see how it works out in a few years.  I, unlike many others, would not have been happy with them being a sub .500 team and not making the playoffs.  I don't care if your stacking up first rounders until the cows come home, that's not acceptable.  They've held their ground and managed to make it exciting which is all I can ask for.

I see good teams getting Lucic, Ladd, oshie, and williams.  That's what I want to do to give my team the best shot.

 

Lucic, Ladd, Oshie and Williams aren't those teams cornerstones. They are what those teams hope to be the missing piece...in addition to their 1st overall superstars...players they got by absolutely sucking...not buying in free agency.

[icehole]

3 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Well what then? Playoff appearances? I'm sick of just playoff appearances. I want to win that final game.

 

Lucic, Ladd, Oshie and Williams aren't those teams cornerstones. They are what those teams hope to be the missing piece...in addition to their 1st overall superstars...players they got by absolutely sucking...not buying in free agency.

I think the flyers are a better franchise than the penguins, hawks, and kings.  When pens fans shove their three rings in my face, that means nothing to me.  Sustained winning is why I became a fan.  I was a little young in the early 90s so besides a few short stretches of losing, all I know is winning.  That's far more than what those other 3 franchises can say.  Edmonton could very well have a dynasty going soon but all I can think about is them being bad year after year while they get the number one pick year after year.  Same with the pens.  Kings were irrelevant until a few years ago.  The hawks have history but I don't remember them being a powerhouse ever since I started paying attention in the mid 90s.

Those teams do have good cores to build around with vets.  I think the flyers do too.  If not, we should start thinking about trading one of our top 6.

[radoran]

6 minutes ago, icehole said:

I think the flyers were a better franchise than the penguins, hawks, and kings.

 

Amended it a bit.

 

The Flyers were a "better franchise" but now you would have to say that the Hawks are certainly above them and the Kings have now won as many Cups (I know you don't care about Championships, but they are a measure). And all three franchises you note have been consistently in the playoffs in recent years while the Flyers have one playoff round in the past three years.

 

The Kings have already wrapped up their division this year. The Hawks are looking for their fourth Cup in six years. The Pens are the Pens, but their record since the lockout is pretty impressive.

 

Again, you can't compare these teams today to what was happening in the 1990s. It's like looking at Tronno and saying "they won 13 Cups!" while glossing over that the league was six teams and they've never made the Final since expansion. It's a completely different era under the Cap. The Flyers were consistently spending $80+M on their roster. Now 20 years later they can't even spend $72M.

 

The Flyers are at the very least entertaining for the first time in the past few years. That's the start, and it's the foundation upon which they will build.

 

Sitting around resting on lifetime win % isn't any better than being comfortable that the Bullies won Championships 40 years ago.

 

And you know who believes that 1000%?

 

The Flyers.

[icehole]

2 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Amended it a bit.

 

The Flyers were a "better franchise" but now you would have to say that the Hawks are certainly above them and the Kings have now won as many Cups (I know you don't care about Championships, but they are a measure). And all three franchises you note have been consistently in the playoffs in recent years while the Flyers have one playoff round in the past three years.

 

The Kings have already wrapped up their division this year. The Hawks are looking for their fourth Cup in six years. The Pens are the Pens, but their record since the lockout is pretty impressive.

 

Again, you can't compare these teams today to what was happening in the 1990s. It's like looking at Tronno and saying "they won 13 Cups!" while glossing over that the league was six teams and they've never made the Final since expansion. It's a completely different era under the Cap. The Flyers were consistently spending $80+M on their roster. Now 20 years later they can't even spend $72M.

 

The Flyers are at the very least entertaining for the first time in the past few years. That's the start, and it's the foundation upon which they will build.

 

Sitting around resting on lifetime win % isn't any better than being comfortable that the Bullies won Championships 40 years ago.

 

And you know who believes that 1000%?

 

The Flyers.

You're talking about a team or an era...I'm talking about a franchise.  I'll be right there with them when and if they make this plan happen.  If they did it the same old way and have the success they used to, I'd be happy with that too.

I know the times have changed and methods have to change.  I was just stating that I'm proud to be a fan of the flyers franchise.

Are you?  Do you just take it when pens fans taunt you?  I don't want to sound like a front runner but I don't think I'd cheer for an unsuccessful team.  My team might be inferior right now and that stings a little bit but I think they are still the better franchise.

[radoran]

5 minutes ago, icehole said:

You're talking about a team or an era...I'm talking about a franchise.  I'll be right there with them when and if they make this plan happen.  If they did it the same old way and have the success they used to, I'd be happy with that too.

I know the times have changed and methods have to change.  I was just stating that I'm proud to be a fan of the flyers franchise.

Are you?  Do you just take it when pens fans taunt you?  I don't want to sound like a front runner but I don't think I'd cheer for an unsuccessful team.  My team might be inferior right now and that stings a little bit but I think they are still the better franchise.

 

I've been on here talking about the Flyers since the site was founded. I have people on here I've talked Flyers with online for over a decade.

 

I've been a hardcore fan since 1980.

 

In terms of supporting a losing team, I lived through the Jay Snider years.

 

I literally wear orange and black sunglasses.

I wore Flyers gear around Buffalo for two years when I lived there.

 

I personally saw both sites where the Flyers won Cups torn down.

 

My kitchen is painted orange with the retired numbers on the wall with a Flyers clock, framed tickets and the framed Lindros/LeClair HOF induction poster.

 

My formalwear is an orange-and-black theme with Flyers cufflinks.

 

Am I proud to be a fan?

 

A little.

 

 

Do I give a rat's ass what Pens fans say? Oh, hell no.

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Well what then? Playoff appearances? I'm sick of just playoff appearances. I want to win that final game.

 

Lucic, Ladd, Oshie and Williams aren't those teams cornerstones. They are what those teams hope to be the missing piece...in addition to their 1st overall superstars...players they got by absolutely sucking...not buying in free agency.

 

Not that i disagree with your stance in this issue, but frankly, I'll take just a playoff appearance again.  Baby steps  

[radoran]

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Not that i disagree with your stance in this issue, but frankly, I'll take just a playoff appearance again.  Baby steps  

 

Yeah, exactly. "Development" takes time.

 

The Oilers have been "absolutely sucking" for, what? 15 years now? They've been past the first round of the playoffs three times since 1993 and missed the playoffs 15 times going on sixteen including ten years in a row.

 

And they're still in the cellar after how many top five picks?

[King Knut]

48 minutes ago, icehole said:

I think the flyers are a better franchise than the penguins, hawks, and kings.  When pens fans shove their three rings in my face, that means nothing to me.  Sustained winning is why I became a fan.  I was a little young in the early 90s so besides a few short stretches of losing, all I know is winning.  That's far more than what those other 3 franchises can say.  Edmonton could very well have a dynasty going soon but all I can think about is them being bad year after year while they get the number one pick year after year.  Same with the pens.  Kings were irrelevant until a few years ago.  The hawks have history but I don't remember them being a powerhouse ever since I started paying attention in the mid 90s.

Those teams do have good cores to build around with vets.  I think the flyers do too.  If not, we should start thinking about trading one of our top 6.

 

I agree with you up to a point.  There's more to a successful franchise that it's good to be a fan of than just championships. 

Mostly because there's a new champion every year and after you win one, you start to notice, it's not that big of a deal anymore.  Someone wins the damn thing every year and your year is forgotten about quickly.

 

BUT...  There's more to being a successful franchise than throwing a bunch of guys with expensive names and semi decent numbers somewhere in their history onto the ice in the same color sweaters.  

 

I would love a model like the Red Wings, Kings, Blackhawks or even Devils or Lightning.  They are consistently competitive and only rarely bad. The Flyers teams from say 1995-say I don't know... 2016  always seemed to just be hanging on for dear life int he overall competitiveness of the league.  

 

Also, as an aside Los Angeles may have been 'irrelevant' a few years ago from a certain standpoint and certainly I could see why someone your age would say that, but they were incredibly important in the late 80's and early 90's.  Getting Gretzky and their subsequent success changed the game forever.  San Jose, Anaheim, Florida, Tampa, Phoenix, Colorado, Dallas, Carolina... the majority of those teams have cups now and they wouldn't exist (at least not in their current cities) had Gretzky not fallen in love with a hotty actress who wanted to live in Hollywood and had Edmonton managed to keep its finances in order and been remotely able to pay him what his market value was to make that seem like a silly idea. 

 

Everything you know of as hockey exists because of The Los Angeles Kings from 1989-1996 or so.  

Plus... for a while they were a decent team, making it to the finals and doing well for a few years there. 

 

[King Knut]

35 minutes ago, icehole said:

You're talking about a team or an era...I'm talking about a franchise.  I'll be right there with them when and if they make this plan happen.  If they did it the same old way and have the success they used to, I'd be happy with that too.

I know the times have changed and methods have to change.  I was just stating that I'm proud to be a fan of the flyers franchise.

Are you?  Do you just take it when pens fans taunt you?  I don't want to sound like a front runner but I don't think I'd cheer for an unsuccessful team.  My team might be inferior right now and that stings a little bit but I think they are still the better franchise.

Just out of curiosity, what's the same old way they used to to you?

 

Because they won a LOT in the 80's, but the way they won back then was very different than the way they won from 1995 to 2007.  

 

Hell the way the team was built and played from 2005-2011 was even half decently more toward what I'd like to see (and am seeing) than 2011-2016.

 

The future is very very bright for this team and the present actually ain't half bad.  hang in there!

[King Knut]

38 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Yeah, exactly. "Development" takes time.

 

The Oilers have been "absolutely sucking" for, what? 15 years now? They've been past the first round of the playoffs three times since 1993 and missed the playoffs 15 times going on sixteen including ten years in a row.

 

And they're still in the cellar after how many top five picks?

 

The Oilers went to the finals in 2006 just before the lock out.  

 

Your point is taken though.  it takes more than top draft picks to win.  It takes a plan.  And I'd wager the plan is far more important than the top picks.  Though The Blackhawks had one or two of each and it has certainly helped.  

[radoran]

Just now, King Knut said:

The Oilers went to the finals in 2006 just before the lock out.  

 

Your point is taken though.  it takes more than top draft picks to win.  It takes a plan.  And I'd wager the plan is far more important than the top picks.  Though The Blackhawks had one or two of each and it has certainly helped.  

 

Right, that's one of the three times they got past the first round since 1993.

 

That was the season after the lockout.

 

And since then they've missed the playoffs for nine straight years and they're not going to be in the playoff this year - ten years.

 

Point being - as you note - that simply getting draft picks doesn't guarantee results. The Blackhawks under Bowman have had a plan. They executed it. They won. And won again. And won again.

 

Homer stumbled about chasing dragons and left us where we are now.

[flyercanuck]

15 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

Not that i disagree with your stance in this issue, but frankly, I'll take just a playoff appearance again.  Baby steps  

 

Would you trade Provorov today if you could for a 35 year old defenceman that would guarantee the team a playoff? 

 

I'd prefer to wait and see what a guy like Provorovs career has in store for the Flyers future...not what some washed up has been has in store for our present.

[icehole]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

I've been on here talking about the Flyers since the site was founded. I have people on here I've talked Flyers with online for over a decade.

 

I've been a hardcore fan since 1980.

 

In terms of supporting a losing team, I lived through the Jay Snider years.

 

I literally wear orange and black sunglasses.

I wore Flyers gear around Buffalo for two years when I lived there.

 

I personally saw both sites where the Flyers won Cups torn down.

 

My kitchen is painted orange with the retired numbers on the wall with a Flyers clock, framed tickets and the framed Lindros/LeClair HOF induction poster.

 

My formalwear is an orange-and-black theme with Flyers cufflinks.

 

Am I proud to be a fan?

 

A little.

 

 

Do I give a rat's ass what Pens fans say? Oh, hell no.

There ya go!  Out of curiosity, what do you hang your hat on when arguing with other fans?  We can't talk championships with most teams.  We're not very good right now.  So besides franchise success, what's your ammo?

[icehole]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Just out of curiosity, what's the same old way they used to to you?

 

Because they won a LOT in the 80's, but the way they won back then was very different than the way they won from 1995 to 2007.  

 

Hell the way the team was built and played from 2005-2011 was even half decently more toward what I'd like to see (and am seeing) than 2011-2016.

 

The future is very very bright for this team and the present actually ain't half bad.  hang in there!

1995-2007 was my prime era.  Big tough guys with skill.