Hextall's Legacy as GM

[icehole]

25 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Right. So he's trading away draft picks like a madman to win now. Then he trades his top two centres for prospects and picks. Then he brings in Bryz to win now and sends the first good goalie prospect the Flyers have had in years away. Genius. Pure genius. 

 

So were we rebuilding or going for it? Homer sure as hell didn't know.

Couts or Bob?  Choose one.

[icehole]

Sorry, couts or Carter?  Bob was for voracek

[Podein25]

16 minutes ago, icehole said:

Sorry, couts or Carter?  Bob was for voracek

 

What? I guess when you go around in circles like you do, you're bound to get dizzy and confused. 'Cause you're confused.

[radoran]

There isn't a team since the lockout that won the Cup without a significant home developed core.

 

Most added a complimentary piece(s) and an argument can be made that acquiring a significant and consistent top six forward would be one of those pieces for the Flyers.

 

But without Couturier they would be another piece short.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

4 hours ago, DaGreatGazoo said:

Greatest.  Video.  Ever. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Podein25 said:

 

I'm hard pressed to disagree

 

3 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

 

My God that is just soooo awesome. 

 

Any video that has a hot girl in a leather skirt and heels is the greatest video ever!!

[flyercanuck]

4 hours ago, icehole said:

When they made 2 2nd rounds, 1 ECF, and 1 Final, were you excited?  I know I was thinking "we just came back from 0-3 in the series and 0-3 in the game to go to the ECF, but I wish there were more prospects in the system".  I also told my group of friends when we were watching game 6 of the finals "guys we're 2 games away from winning a cup...I think we need a slower, timid guy who has trouble scoring, to be the best defensive forward on the second line".

You must not have been one of those fans who renamed Carter "high and wide"?  And I guess Simmonds and Schenn aren't good value for a pill dealer who left hockey for a while?

BTW, just because Homer didn't draft well, he brought in some young talent.  In some ways, he just bypassed the process of weeding out the picks that can't play.  Other teams spent their picks and Homer grabbed them without giving up too much.  Draft picks are usually a crappie shoot because you don't know if they can handle the NHL.

 

Yes - the Hawks wish they would have dealt Toews and Keith and Kane and Seabrooke for some washed up vets so they could have some shorter, and fewer, playoff runs. Same with the Kings with Kopitar and Doughty and Quick and Brown.

 

 The Oilers wish they could dump that crapshoot, er crappie shoot ...McDavid and the Sabres would gladly give up Eichel for Hartnell if only we still had him.

 

Can't wait to tell my grandchildren about that almost cup we won in 2010. 

[icehole]

4 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Yes - the Hawks wish they would have dealt Toews and Keith and Kane and Seabrooke for some washed up vets so they could have some shorter, and fewer, playoff runs. Same with the Kings with Kopitar and Doughty and Quick and Brown.

 

 The Oilers wish they could dump that crapshoot, er crappie shoot ...McDavid and the Sabres would gladly give up Eichel for Hartnell if only we still had him.

 

Can't wait to tell my grandchildren about that almost cup we won in 2010. 

I thought we went over this already.  The Hawks weren't getting close year after year until a new GM came in and took 5 steps back to build a team from the draft.  They were bad for a while and they were already starting from the bottom.  It's a lot easier if you start from the bottom because there's no other way to go but up.  I believe the kings were a similar situation.

Are you seriously coming at me with the oilers?  That's the worst team to support your case.  They've been building from the draft for about ten years now and still end up at the bottom year after year.  It just so happens that they got lucky with the #1 pick in the year of a generational player.  Now they finally have some jam.  You lose credibility with a statement like that.

[icehole]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

There isn't a team since the lockout that won the Cup without a significant home developed core.

 

Most added a complimentary piece(s) and an argument can be made that acquiring a significant and consistent top six forward would be one of those pieces for the Flyers.

 

But without Couturier they would be another piece short.

How many of those teams had a history of winning a lot with bought stars, but decided to take steps back to build that core?  They built their cores because they were given high draft picks to build from.

 

[flyercanuck]

11 hours ago, icehole said:

I thought we went over this already.  The Hawks weren't getting close year after year until a new GM came in and took 5 steps back to build a team from the draft.  They were bad for a while and they were already starting from the bottom.  It's a lot easier if you start from the bottom because there's no other way to go but up.  I believe the kings were a similar situation.

Are you seriously coming at me with the oilers?  That's the worst team to support your case.  They've been building from the draft for about ten years now and still end up at the bottom year after year.  It just so happens that they got lucky with the #1 pick in the year of a generational player.  Now they finally have some jam.  You lose credibility with a statement like that.

 

You said draft picks are a crappie shoot cause you don't know if they can handle the NHL and alluded to it being better trading them for vets, which you've said several times before.  I brought up the nucleus of the two best teams in the last decade, who were all drafted by those teams, and threw in Connor McDavid who will be the best player in the world when Crosby slows down. Drafted by his team. Did I mean Crosby or McDavid? Yes. 

 

I'd prefer Philly built a cup contender. you prefer they just make the playoffs almost every year...so more of the same we've seen for 4 decades.....and I lose credibility? 

[flyercanuck]

11 hours ago, icehole said:

How many of those teams had a history of winning a lot with bought stars, but decided to take steps back to build that core?  They built their cores because they were given high draft picks to build from.

 

 

The Montreal Canadiens had a history of winning because their gm was given the go ahead by the league and put rules in place for the sole benefit of his team. Are they still running their team that way? No, cause they can't. Are they winning? No. 

 

You can't buy a cup in a capped league. Homer tried it. it didn't work. Still.

[icehole]

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

 

You said draft picks are a crappie shoot cause you don't know if they can handle the NHL and alluded to it being better trading them for vets, which you've said several times before.  I brought up the nucleus of the two best teams in the last decade, who were all drafted by those teams, and threw in Connor McDavid who will be the best player in the world when Crosby slows down. Drafted by his team. Did I mean Crosby or McDavid? Yes. 

 

I'd prefer Philly built a cup contender. you prefer they just make the playoffs almost every year...so more of the same we've seen for 4 decades.....and I lose credibility? 

For a team in the middle of the pack or better each year, draft picks are a crap shoot (didn't realize the autocorrect made it "crappie").  Did the Hawks get toews and Kane with the 15-25 picks?  Flyers didn't have the luxury of the 1-5 pick (except for the year we won't talk about) any of those years.  OK, let's talk about the JVR draft.  The one year the flyers were the worst team, they get screwed by the lottery and get #2.  I believe the experts had Kane and JVR at 1 and 2.  Flyers didn't get Kane but they got the 2nd best player according to the experts.  Has JVR been the Kane, toews, Crosby, daughty, McDavid, Eichel leader that you find at 1 or 2?  He's a nice player but not a franchise changer. If the flyers did get Kane at one, is Homer now a genius because the flyers have three cups in the past 6 years?  The Hawks probably come close but end up trading away everyone and now they've got toews playing with a bunch of scrubs and they're on the rebuild. Hence crapshoot.

So unless you want to tank every season and hope to get the 1 or 2 pick and hope he turns out to be a franchise leader, acquiring young talent that has played in the NHL isn't a bad strategy.

[icehole]

Think about this lineup in 2010.  Giroux, Kane, Richards, Carter, Gagne, Pronger.  I'm sure they could have won a cup with that, made some decent trades and won two more cups by now.  Instead, they came close, made some decent trades, and have been up and down ever since.  And now we take some steps back into patience mode.

[flyercanuck]

15 minutes ago, icehole said:

For a team in the middle of the pack or better each year, draft picks are a crap shoot (didn't realize the autocorrect made it "crappie").  Did the Hawks get toews and Kane with the 15-25 picks?  Flyers didn't have the luxury of the 1-5 pick (except for the year we won't talk about) any of those years.  OK, let's talk about the JVR draft.  The one year the flyers were the worst team, they get screwed by the lottery and get #2.  I believe the experts had Kane and JVR at 1 and 2.  Flyers didn't get Kane but they got the 2nd best player according to the experts.  Has JVR been the Kane, toews, Crosby, daughty, McDavid, Eichel leader that you find at 1 or 2?  He's a nice player but not a franchise changer. If the flyers did get Kane at one, is Homer now a genius because the flyers have three cups in the past 6 years?  The Hawks probably come close but end up trading away everyone and now they've got toews playing with a bunch of scrubs and they're on the rebuild. Hence crapshoot.

So unless you want to tank every season and hope to get the 1 or 2 pick and hope he turns out to be a franchise leader, acquiring young talent that has played in the NHL isn't a bad strategy.

 

Philly wasn't winning a cup with Leighton as their goalie. Or Bryz. Homer turned that #2 pick into...Luke Schenn.... genius. When Philly was terrible in 07 I wanted the "Hextall" approach...use your picks, stockpile more, and draft. If Philly sucked another year we may have had Stamkos or Doughty. Instead Homer tried signing Briere AND Gomez AND Drury. Thank god we got outbid on two of them and only had to buyout one.

 

Duncan Keith 54th pick Brent Seabrook 14th Corey Crawford 52nd 

Anze Kopitar 11th Jonathon Quick 72nd 

 

I could go on and on about top players NOT picked top 2. Claude Giroux says hello. Jamie Benn. Subban. Letang. Karlsson. Getzlaf. Perry. Pavelski. Gaudreau.

 

 

[icehole]

Now I'm thinking about this more.  I'm sure this has been pondered before.  I'll start with what actually happened.

In 2007 (I think) Hawks were second worst team but got the first pick.  Flyers were worst team but got 2nd pick.  Hawks were starting to build a decent team and the flyers also had some decent young players.  Hawks get Kane and flyers get JVR.  The Kings were quietly stirring in the west.

Kane is pretty much an immediate star and and they start to add some nice pieces around him.  JVR goes to college and the flyers add some vets to the team.  JVR finally joins the team and Chicago has built a nice team.  They meet in the finals.  Kane scores the winning goal and the flyers are defeated.

From winning the cup, the hawks have some valuable pieces and they also need to move some money around to stay under the cap.  They move 11 (?) players in the off-season but keep their core.  Flyers don't do too much dealing and feel like they are still close to winning the cup.  They just need a goalie.

The flyers get Bryz and they start to sink.  Chicago stays strong and keeps going deep into the playoffs.  The flyers panic because it isn't working any more and they have some big contracts.  They trade Richards  to LA for Simmonds and Schenn. They trade Carter to Columbus and get the #8 pick and Mason (?).  Pronger is injured and they lack vet presence and continue to sink despite some young talent.  LA would end up with Carter and Gagne and they win a cup.  Chicago and LA trade cups while the flyers are average.  Hextall's stock is high because of what happened in LA while Homer is looked down on.  The rest is history.

Now let's change one thing.  Flyers get the first pick in 07.  They get Kane.  Hawks get JVR.  JVR goes to college while Kane makes immediate impact on the flyers with Giroux, Gagne, Richards, Carter, and Pronger.  Chicago becomes pretty good when they get JVR and add him to toews, Keith, and Seabrook.  They meet in the finals in 2010 but the flyers have too much fire power for the Hawks and the flyers win the cup.

The flyers don't have to blow it up because their system won them a cup.  They skip the Bryz era because they really don't need to sign a great goalie with their other star power.  Chicago is still good but they need to drop some cap, so they trade Keith to the flyers who have lost Pronger to injury.  The flyers are stacked and still pretty young.  They trade Gagne to LA for Simmonds. LA is good now and they meet the flyers in the finals and trade cups for a couple of years.  Richards and Carter aren't there though so they only win one and the flyers are just too much with Richards, Carter, Giroux, Kane, Simmonds, and Keith.

Chicago can't keep up so they blow it up and toews is left with a bunch of scrubs so they bring in Hextall to praise patience.  Homer is looked at as the best GM in team history because he just won 4 cups in 6 years.

Pretty amazing how one draft pick can change history.

 

[icehole]

24 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Philly wasn't winning a cup with Leighton as their goalie. Or Bryz. Homer turned that #2 pick into...Luke Schenn.... genius. When Philly was terrible in 07 I wanted the "Hextall" approach...use your picks, stockpile more, and draft. If Philly sucked another year we may have had Stamkos or Doughty. Instead Homer tried signing Briere AND Gomez AND Drury. Thank god we got outbid on two of them and only had to buyout one.

 

Duncan Keith 54th pick Brent Seabrook 14th Corey Crawford 52nd 

Anze Kopitar 11th Jonathon Quick 72nd 

 

I could go on and on about top players NOT picked top 2. Claude Giroux says hello. Jamie Benn. Subban. Letang. Karlsson. Getzlaf. Perry. Pavelski. Gaudreau.

 

 

How important was Niemi to Chicago winning a cup?  It can be done with a good team in front of the goalie.  I didn't like the Luke Schenn deal but I also wasn't worried about losing JVR.

You can find value later in the draft but it's rather rare.  Ask @radoran for the stats...he's pretty good with that.  Hi Claude, nice to meet you.  Who drafted you at 22?  Oh yeah, Paul Holmgren.

Holmgren didn't have the luxury of starting at the bottom.  They were the worst team but they had good players to build from.  He added players to keep winning and hope to win at least one cup.  They fell short.

The only way for him to build from the bottom was for him to get to the bottom.  That would include a tear down and a few bad seasons.  Add a few crapshoot draft picks and they MIGHT be able to win a cup or two.

 

[icehole]

37 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Philly wasn't winning a cup with Leighton as their goalie. Or Bryz. Homer turned that #2 pick into...Luke Schenn.... genius. When Philly was terrible in 07 I wanted the "Hextall" approach...use your picks, stockpile more, and draft. If Philly sucked another year we may have had Stamkos or Doughty. Instead Homer tried signing Briere AND Gomez AND Drury. Thank god we got outbid on two of them and only had to buyout one.

 

Duncan Keith 54th pick Brent Seabrook 14th Corey Crawford 52nd 

Anze Kopitar 11th Jonathon Quick 72nd 

 

I could go on and on about top players NOT picked top 2. Claude Giroux says hello. Jamie Benn. Subban. Letang. Karlsson. Getzlaf. Perry. Pavelski. Gaudreau.

 

 

See, this is making me brain dead.   Clarke drafted Giroux.  Clarke had a similar strategy to Homer though (Coffey, roenick, forsy)

[ruxpin]

16 hours ago, icehole said:

they were already starting from the bottom.  It's a lot easier if you start from the bottom because there's no other way to go but up.

 

This is exactly what was going on in Philly at the end of Holmgren's tenure.  

On the bottom and no cap space and no picks and only a couple prospects that weren't near ready--some of which still aren't.    We're almost out of the no cap space hell and we have plenty of picks/prospects.

 

If you can't see the clear and exciting improvement over the last not quite 29 months (and that's all we're talking about.  Not even 2 1/2 years and only 2 seasons), then I really have no idea what you're watching. 

 

We couldn't do what Holmgren did when he took over from Clarke...primarily because of what Holmgren did when he took over from Clarke.   Holmgren traded his way out of that mess using draft picks and prospects for old ****.  Pretty much to appease really stupid, short-sighted idiot fans.  The same ones who are also Eagles' fans.  Both deserve the crap they've gotten.  He also had the fortune of having Rathje come up injured and retired.  Same with Hatcher.  It helped mitigate some of the cap hell.

 

But when Hextall took over we had few picks or prospects.  And even if we wanted to move them for the albatross du jour you're recommending, we didn't have the cap room to do it.   You have to do this one thing at a time, and I don't understand the contrary point of few.  It's just not representative of reality.

 

He (Hextall) inherited a last place team ("start from the bottom because there's no way to go but up" -- your words, not mine) with few prospects, large holes, pieces that simply didn't go together, no cap.   You cannot fix all of those at the same time.

 

But in TWENTY EIGHT MONTHS AND 24 DAYS Hextall has us back in the playoffs, a trove of prospects, rid of several albatross/unmovable contracts moved in very creative ways, and right at the entrance to a really pretty cool next couple of years.  

 

Yeah, let's all bitch and complain about really good things, because that's sane.  Let's go back to what got us no cups since I was 7 years old. 

 

[ruxpin]

Even since 1975, the teams that were most successful for the Flyers -- 1980, 1985/87, 1997 -- were teams that were mostly built from the ground with pieces added.   85/87 in particular.    Yeah, very important pieces, but the core was drafted or obtained young.

 

Yeah, we almost bought one in 2004, but that era is over, and ultimately that team fell TWO rounds short.  

 

It just doesn't work and never has.

[mojo1917]

To be fair, Holmgren started off making some pretty solid trades.  He turned washed up alexi zhitnik into Timonen and Hartnell. The Briere signing while not my favorite turned out pretty well I think, despite Lil' Paul McCartney getting bought out, Danny was productive and a solid locker room guy for his whole time with the club. 

For me the end was when he relentlessly pursued Parise and Suter knowing full well they were not coming here, and letting Jagr and Carle both walk. Creating holes in the roster that weren't necessarily there.  Then came Vinny and I tried to see the silver lining with that but damn what a stupid signing. Even though Giroux was Clarke's pick he was Holmgren's guy. 

[ruxpin]

32 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

To be fair, Holmgren started off making some pretty solid trades.  He turned washed up alexi zhitnik  (#23 draft pick obtained in the Forsberg trade) into Timonen and Hartnell. The Briere signing while not my favorite turned out pretty well I think, despite Lil' Paul McCartney getting bought out, Danny was productive and a solid locker room guy for his whole time with the club. 

For me the end was when he relentlessly pursued Parise and Suter knowing full well they were not coming here, and letting Jagr and Carle both walk. Creating holes in the roster that weren't necessarily there.  Then came Vinny and I tried to see the silver lining with that but damn what a stupid signing. Even though Giroux was Clarke's pick he was Holmgren's guy. 

 

Doesn't hurt your point at all, but couldn't resist.  Zhitnik, by the way, brought Coburn--another feather that I think Holmgren gets in his cap.  Okay, Coburn was eventually moved, and I wanted to throw things at him for large swaths of time he was with the Flyers, but that trade is still a win if not utter robbery.

 

Danny Briere was a good PR signing.  But to me he's something you add on later.   Like other teams did.  But I'll stipulate.

 

You're right about Parise & Suter, but it started before that with Bryz, and needing to move Carter & Richards because of that.  Individually, I have no problem with either of the Carter or Richards moves, although it took us out of being immediately competitive.  That's fine.   It's the reason that those deals had to be made:   signing Bryz to a ridiculous contract he didn't deserve.

 

Then, he gets a get out of jail free card that IT COST US A DAMN LOCKOUT TO GET and turns around and instantly does the same exact thing, even more inexcusably, with VLC SUCKS.  At least with Bryz one could argue that 2010 proved (arguable both ways, actually) the need for a goaltender and Bryz seemed to do well in Arizona.  Amazingly flawed when you consider the terms of the contract, but you can at least understand the argument.  There was no justifiable argument for VLC SUCKS other than "ooh, shiney!"   Especially when they had JUST gotten out of the Bryz mistake and Briere's money.

 

Holmgren sold his soul and the Flyers future to the devil with the Pronger trade.   It was a gamble that was high risk/high reward.  It failed, to no real fault of Holmgren's in the sense that it was due to injury.  But it failed.  So we ultimately didn't get the reward and mortgaged the future for a fly ball to the fence.  

 

And we didn't have picks, prospects or anything else to overcome it and were forced into rent-a-mule mode.  Until we had a cluster of mules that played push-me/pull-me instead of working as a cohesive group.  

 

Holmgren swung and missed.  That's all there is to it.  It woulda, coulda, shoulda worked.  And if it did, there'd be a statue.  But it didn't, and there wasn't a coherent backup plan when it didn't.

 

 

[ruxpin]

50 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

Even though Giroux was Clarke's pick he was Holmgren's guy. 

 

Forgot to comment on this.  Completely agree.  Another feather for Holmgren.

[pilldoc]

53 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Doesn't hurt your point at all, but couldn't resist.  Zhitnik, by the way, brought Coburn--another feather that I think Holmgren gets in his cap.  Okay, Coburn was eventually moved, and I wanted to throw things at him for large swaths of time he was with the Flyers, but that trade is still a win if not utter robbery.

 

Danny Briere was a good PR signing.  But to me he's something you add on later.   Like other teams did.  But I'll stipulate.

 

You're right about Parise & Suter, but it started before that with Bryz, and needing to move Carter & Richards because of that.  Individually, I have no problem with either of the Carter or Richards moves, although it took us out of being immediately competitive.  That's fine.   It's the reason that those deals had to be made:   signing Bryz to a ridiculous contract he didn't deserve.

 

Then, he gets a get out of jail free card that IT COST US A DAMN LOCKOUT TO GET and turns around and instantly does the same exact thing, even more inexcusably, with VLC SUCKS.  At least with Bryz one could argue that 2010 proved (arguable both ways, actually) the need for a goaltender and Bryz seemed to do well in Arizona.  Amazingly flawed when you consider the terms of the contract, but you can at least understand the argument.  There was no justifiable argument for VLC SUCKS other than "ooh, shiney!"   Especially when they had JUST gotten out of the Bryz mistake and Briere's money.

 

Holmgren sold his soul and the Flyers future to the devil with the Pronger trade.   It was a gamble that was high risk/high reward.  It failed, to no real fault of Holmgren's in the sense that it was due to injury.  But it failed.  So we ultimately didn't get the reward and mortgaged the future for a fly ball to the fence.  

 

And we didn't have picks, prospects or anything else to overcome it and were forced into rent-a-mule mode.  Until we had a cluster of mules that played push-me/pull-me instead of working as a cohesive group.  

 

Holmgren swung and missed.  That's all there is to it.  It woulda, coulda, shoulda worked.  And if it did, there'd be a statue.  But it didn't, and there wasn't a coherent backup plan when it didn't.

 

 

 

By far the best post I have ever read regarding the State of the Union of the Flyers regime under Homer.  I argued from day one the instant VLC Sucks was signed.  Literally jumping out of the frying pan and right back into the fire of hell.  One of the most inexcusable signings in Flyers history. 

 

Great post......

[mojo1917]

@ruxpin

thanks, i forgot about foot-pa bringing the Nashville duo.

thanks also for seeing the point, Holmgren started off pretty well.

Great point also about going for it with Pronger, it almost worked, a fly ball to the fence is a great analogy btw.  

 

[icehole]

On 10/1/2016 at 11:25 AM, ruxpin said:

 

This is exactly what was going on in Philly at the end of Holmgren's tenure.  

On the bottom and no cap space and no picks and only a couple prospects that weren't near ready--some of which still aren't.    We're almost out of the no cap space hell and we have plenty of picks/prospects.

 

If you can't see the clear and exciting improvement over the last not quite 29 months (and that's all we're talking about.  Not even 2 1/2 years and only 2 seasons), then I really have no idea what you're watching. 

 

We couldn't do what Holmgren did when he took over from Clarke...primarily because of what Holmgren did when he took over from Clarke.   Holmgren traded his way out of that mess using draft picks and prospects for old ****.  Pretty much to appease really stupid, short-sighted idiot fans.  The same ones who are also Eagles' fans.  Both deserve the crap they've gotten.  He also had the fortune of having Rathje come up injured and retired.  Same with Hatcher.  It helped mitigate some of the cap hell.

 

But when Hextall took over we had few picks or prospects.  And even if we wanted to move them for the albatross du jour you're recommending, we didn't have the cap room to do it.   You have to do this one thing at a time, and I don't understand the contrary point of few.  It's just not representative of reality.

 

He (Hextall) inherited a last place team ("start from the bottom because there's no way to go but up" -- your words, not mine) with few prospects, large holes, pieces that simply didn't go together, no cap.   You cannot fix all of those at the same time.

 

But in TWENTY EIGHT MONTHS AND 24 DAYS Hextall has us back in the playoffs, a trove of prospects, rid of several albatross/unmovable contracts moved in very creative ways, and right at the entrance to a really pretty cool next couple of years.  

 

Yeah, let's all bitch and complain about really good things, because that's sane.  Let's go back to what got us no cups since I was 7 years old. 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said I "cant see the clear and exciting improvememt".  What is more exciting about this team, the 2016 flyers, not the phantoms, not the 20 junior teams that the flyers have some stake in, but the 2016 flyers compared to most of Holmgren's flyers teams?  I'm not saying Hextall hasn't used his brain to make smart moves, but I'm bored right now!  Yes, I'm impatient.  Yes, I expect to have a team that competes year after year.

Nobody commented on my alternate universe where the flyers get Kane instead of JVR.  I think that's probably because it makes sense and Holmgren may not be hated for doing some things he had to do.  People don't want to be in that universe.  People want to believe Holmgren is the devil and Hextall is God.

Holmgren took a last place team to the cup, was forced to find the missing piece to win the cup (Bryz was the "hottest" name on the market that was ready to make an impact), that failed, he dealt some big contracts to get "prospects" back in the system including voracek, simmonds, schenn, and ghost, then he got canned.

If they got Kane, which was not Holmgren's fault, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[icehole]

On 10/1/2016 at 0:18 PM, ruxpin said:

 

Doesn't hurt your point at all, but couldn't resist.  Zhitnik, by the way, brought Coburn--another feather that I think Holmgren gets in his cap.  Okay, Coburn was eventually moved, and I wanted to throw things at him for large swaths of time he was with the Flyers, but that trade is still a win if not utter robbery.

 

Danny Briere was a good PR signing.  But to me he's something you add on later.   Like other teams did.  But I'll stipulate.

 

You're right about Parise & Suter, but it started before that with Bryz, and needing to move Carter & Richards because of that.  Individually, I have no problem with either of the Carter or Richards moves, although it took us out of being immediately competitive.  That's fine.   It's the reason that those deals had to be made:   signing Bryz to a ridiculous contract he didn't deserve.

 

Then, he gets a get out of jail free card that IT COST US A DAMN LOCKOUT TO GET and turns around and instantly does the same exact thing, even more inexcusably, with VLC SUCKS.  At least with Bryz one could argue that 2010 proved (arguable both ways, actually) the need for a goaltender and Bryz seemed to do well in Arizona.  Amazingly flawed when you consider the terms of the contract, but you can at least understand the argument.  There was no justifiable argument for VLC SUCKS other than "ooh, shiney!"   Especially when they had JUST gotten out of the Bryz mistake and Briere's money.

 

Holmgren sold his soul and the Flyers future to the devil with the Pronger trade.   It was a gamble that was high risk/high reward.  It failed, to no real fault of Holmgren's in the sense that it was due to injury.  But it failed.  So we ultimately didn't get the reward and mortgaged the future for a fly ball to the fence.  

 

And we didn't have picks, prospects or anything else to overcome it and were forced into rent-a-mule mode.  Until we had a cluster of mules that played push-me/pull-me instead of working as a cohesive group.  

 

Holmgren swung and missed.  That's all there is to it.  It woulda, coulda, shoulda worked.  And if it did, there'd be a statue.  But it didn't, and there wasn't a coherent backup plan when it didn't.

 

 

The last part of this is great.  "He swung and missed".  Yes!  That's a great analogy.  I'd much rather have a guy swing than try to get a walk every time to the plate.