ruxpin Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Why did we leave Gagner go again? I didn't think he got that fair a shake last year. It's a moot point, I suppose, since we're doing well, but I'm curious. Hakstol does seem to have people who fall inexplicably into his dog house (MDZ, anyone?). If Tortz hasn't crucified him, he's either learned or he wasn't that bad to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icehole Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, ruxpin said: Why did we leave Gagner go again? I didn't think he got that fair a shake last year. It's a moot point, I suppose, since we're doing well, but I'm curious. Hakstol does seem to have people who fall inexplicably into his dog house (MDZ, anyone?). If Tortz hasn't crucified him, he's either learned or he wasn't that bad to begin with. I didn't expect him to become a league third star, but I agree with you. I like dangerous, cheap players. I think he's better than any of the bottom 6 on the flyers, but maybe chemistry and his role on the team played into it. A baseball team with 8 right handed 40+ home run hitters probably won't do well. You need to mix in some lefties even if they are inferior hitters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 Just now, icehole said: I didn't expect him to become a league third star, but I agree with you. I like dangerous, cheap players. I think he's better than any of the bottom 6 on the flyers, but maybe chemistry and his role on the team played into it. A baseball team with 8 right handed 40+ home run hitters probably won't do well. You need to mix in some lefties even if they are inferior hitters. I think your reasoning is dead on. Maybe it does come down to chemistry. I don't know Columbus cap situation vs. the Flyers without looking, but maybe that, too, had something to do with it. (I just now looked. I don't think his $650K hit was prohibitive, so I guess my idea there is out the window). I guess without him we could find a slot for Cousins or someone we otherwise couldn't have. Dollar for dollar this year, though, I think I'd rather have Gagner over either Gordon or Weise. But I guess your right hander vs. left handed hitter analogy is apt here, because I guess they got Gordon/Weise for defensive roles which Gagner wasn't going to be able to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, icehole said: A baseball team with 8 right handed 40+ home run hitters probably won't do well. You need to mix in some lefties even if they are inferior hitters. Gagner is a terrible long snapper. That's why he's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Podein25 said: Gagner is a terrible long snapper. That's why he's gone. That makes as much sense as any other explanation, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Just now, ruxpin said: That makes as much sense as any other explanation, actually. It might. We don't know what Sam asked for, only what he settled for with CBJ. I can't imagine it was much more though. To icehole's point above, I just don't think they (or anyone) see Gagner as a top-6 guy. And since he's not a bottom 9 guy either, he fell though the cracks. As near as I can tell anyway. I think he deserved a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 35 minutes ago, ruxpin said: Why did we leave Gagner go again? I didn't think he got that fair a shake last year. It's a moot point, I suppose, since we're doing well, but I'm curious. Hakstol does seem to have people who fall inexplicably into his dog house (MDZ, anyone?). If Tortz hasn't crucified him, he's either learned or he wasn't that bad to begin with. Shouldn't have mentioned it. Gagner wanted more than the Flyers were willing to offer him. He also wanted top 2 line minutes. They felt good about their top 2 lines and were disinclined to comply. He decided to try out the free agent market and no one would bite. Finally Columbus convinced him to settle for less (to quote Conan Obrien, "Much... Much... Less." There you have it. It wasn't just the Flyers. It was the whole league. And I will point out that he's doing well, but not AMAZINGLY well. The whoel Columbus offense is doing far better than expected, and he's not really the high point therein just yet (though well outperforming Hartsy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Gagner's skill set is simply not bottom 6 - and he wouldn't be producing as he is now if he was in the bottom 6 (where he was for a good deal of last year). He's definitely on a put-up-or-shut-up deal with Columbus and is "putting up" which may save his career. He's only 27. Basically the Flyers went with Raffl in the "devil you know" category. Might work out well for all concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 45 minutes ago, icehole said: I didn't expect him to become a league third star, but I agree with you. I like dangerous, cheap players. I think he's better than any of the bottom 6 on the flyers, but maybe chemistry and his role on the team played into it. A baseball team with 8 right handed 40+ home run hitters probably won't do well. You need to mix in some lefties even if they are inferior hitters. Again, he wasn't asking for less than a million on a one year deal when he was talking to Hextall. There was literally no one who wanted him. You don't get to where he got for the contract he took if you have people answering your agent's calls. I'm glad for him, but when he was talking to Hextall, those were not the numbers being discussed and so Hextall passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 30 minutes ago, King Knut said: were disinclined to comply. Have you enrolled in law school or something? I don't mind you talking like that, but it should be with an upper class British accent when you do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey Forums Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 This topic has been moved from "Philadelphia Flyers Forum" to "Columbus Blue Jackets Forum". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, Podein25 said: Have you enrolled in law school or something? I don't mind you talking like that, but it should be with an upper class British accent when you do! Or Captain Jack Sparrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 Gagner is playing the 4th line on Columbus, though, isn't he? They just have him on the first unit PP, right? He's only getting about 13 1/2 minutes/game, so good on him for producing like he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 This is the best Sam Gagner thread in the history of Sam Gagner threads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 Just as an aside, I'd never heard the phrase "good on him" until I started listening to Canadian hockey radio. Until then it was always "good for him." Now I find myself saying the former. We now return you to our regularly-scheduled Sam Gagner thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 41 minutes ago, Podein25 said: Have you enrolled in law school or something? I don't mind you talking like that, but it should be with an upper class British accent when you do! Indubitably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 20 minutes ago, ruxpin said: Just as an aside, I'd never heard the phrase "good on him" until I started listening to Canadian hockey radio. Until then it was always "good for him." Now I find myself saying the former. We now return you to our regularly-scheduled Sam Gagner thread... We used to say "Well good on you!" as a sort of sarcastic compliment way back when I was a young sarcastic jerk. you know like last month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0e Th0rnton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 25 minutes ago, ruxpin said: Gagner is playing the 4th line on Columbus, though, isn't he? They just have him on the first unit PP, right? He's only getting about 13 1/2 minutes/game, so good on him for producing like he is. Ironically, the guy I see him with most is Hartnell at ES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said: Ironically, the guy I see him with most is Hartnell at ES Interesting. So bottom 6 anyway. I don't get to watch a lot of Columbus hockey. But interestingly, LeftWinglock and other sites don't have him with Hartnell at all. (<2%), but I've seen him on with Hartnell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 56 minutes ago, ruxpin said: Just as an aside, I'd never heard the phrase "good on him" until I started listening to Canadian hockey radio. Until then it was always "good for him." Now I find myself saying the former. We now return you to our regularly-scheduled Sam Gagner thread... I think it's a hoser thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 42 minutes ago, ruxpin said: Interesting. So bottom 6 anyway. I don't get to watch a lot of Columbus hockey. So I sit corrected. lol I never watch Columbus hockey unless they're playing the Flyers. I picked him up in NAHANA based on numbers and ranking a few weeks ago and he's been productive. #1 power play certainly helps that - over 1/3 of his points are on the PP. He sure as heck wasn't getting #1 PP time on the Flyers. Then or now. ADDING: He's shooting at an unsustainable 16.9% clip and has 11 goals in 25 games with career highs of 18 in 75. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Trade him now, his value will never be higher!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 10 hours ago, ruxpin said: Why did we leave Gagner go again? I didn't think he got that fair a shake last year. It's a moot point, I suppose, since we're doing well, but I'm curious. Hakstol does seem to have people who fall inexplicably into his dog house (MDZ, anyone?). If Tortz hasn't crucified him, he's either learned or he wasn't that bad to begin with. Because he sucked in his own zone and wasn't interested in playing as hard without the puck (to get it back) as he did with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 10 hours ago, Podein25 said: Gagner is a terrible long snapper. That's why he's gone. Well the Eagles could use a long snapper they lost a game yesterday because theirs got hurt (not the only reason but certainly one) and put him on IR for the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 13, 2016 Author Share Posted December 13, 2016 2 hours ago, OccamsRazor said: Because he sucked in his own zone and wasn't interested in playing as hard without the puck (to get it back) as he did with it. Well, i know that was the narrative, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.