Blow this mess up or stay course!

[King Knut]

22 hours ago, radoran said:

 

I just think that the market is going to be a little pricier than you do for Shattenkirk - and I don't think teams will be thinking a straight "rental."

 

I would do Mason, Alt/Hagg and pick for Shattenkirk. I just don't think that gets it done in a seller's market. And I completely agree that there's nothing much in the forward ranks that STL will be looking for.

 

That said, if it turns into a buyer's market, all bets are off.

 

And this is just "deadline" talk. If it gets to the point where STL keeps him and is looking to deal "rights" then you might see something more like you're outlining (Alt/Hagg/pick) as they look to get "something" rather than "nothing."

 

I still don't believe Alt has any value at all and Hagg only marginally more.

 

It just occurred to me that while maybe they'd be interested in Mason and Maybe they'd be looking at Sanheim but might consider Hagg, Why not send them Streit and or MDZ for their own run?  Neither one will blow their cap space this year and they can still have a puck mover and a 2nd PP guy for the playoffs that they can feel free to not resign or resign and expose in June? 

[radoran]

11 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

It just occurred to me that while maybe they'd be interested in Mason and Maybe they'd be looking at Sanheim but might consider Hagg, Why not send them Streit and or MDZ for their own run?  Neither one will blow their cap space this year and they can still have a puck mover and a 2nd PP guy for the playoffs that they can feel free to not resign or resign and expose in June? 

 

Totally depends on what St. Louis is looking for.

 

If they want two rentals for Shattenkirk, or think that MDZ could be a longer term option, it's a great move.

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Totally depends on what St. Louis is looking for.

 

If they want two rentals for Shattenkirk, or think that MDZ could be a longer term option, it's a great move.

 

It feels like a smart move for them.  They're still in a position to make a run.  They know they're going to lose Shattenkirk in the off season regardless.  This way they can retain a puck moving D man (or two) for their run and potentially get a goalie that might be better suited for that run (especially on a defensively minded Hitchcock team).

 

If they can get a pick or a prospect in the exchange, they're winning all around while remaining competitive for this year's run.    It's not a bad solution.  

[OH1FlyersFan]

On 1/17/2017 at 4:06 PM, pilldoc said:

I am hoping once some dead weight is jettisoned and the expansion draft has come and gone, that a clearer vision begins to emerge.

This statement is key and sums things up nicely.  Once we get past that, they can work on a true rebuild without the distraction and uncertainty being caused by these two issues.  You can try to play through it now, but until this is settled, you're not really going to be able to achieve true or sustainable success.  It's darn near impossible now to have a true picture of what you want, can or need to do because you don't know what tools you have to work with.  Somebody's got to have a vision or a plan, but it's just not solid or in focus yet, in my opinion.  That's why it feels to me like they're all over the place and floundering.  I'm undecided as to whether a blow up rebuild is necessary.  Don't think you can know until the dead weight and the expansion is settled.  After those two things happen, the franchise can get on with its business of creating a real identity, a system, whatever you want to call it, with players who will be around for a while and with hopefully fewer (or no) distractions.  Let that dust settle, then figure out if you need to blow things up.

[OccamsRazor]

55 minutes ago, OH1FlyersFan said:

This statement is key and sums things up nicely.  Once we get past that, they can work on a true rebuild without the distraction and uncertainty being caused by these two issues.  You can try to play through it now, but until this is settled, you're not really going to be able to achieve true or sustainable success.  It's darn near impossible now to have a true picture of what you want, can or need to do because you don't know what tools you have to work with.  Somebody's got to have a vision or a plan, but it's just not solid or in focus yet, in my opinion.  That's why it feels to me like they're all over the place and floundering.  I'm undecided as to whether a blow up rebuild is necessary.  Don't think you can know until the dead weight and the expansion is settled.  After those two things happen, the franchise can get on with its business of creating a real identity, a system, whatever you want to call it, with players who will be around for a while and with hopefully fewer (or no) distractions.  Let that dust settle, then figure out if you need to blow things up.

 

 

See that is the funny thing folks act like there is a green light that is going to come on in the future that will signal the rebuild....

 

...thing is that has already happened...they are in the rebuild as we speak...the flag/signal has already taken place....

 

...and it is not a week or day thing it is on going...

[OccamsRazor]

8 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Totally depends on what St. Louis is looking for.

 

If they want two rentals for Shattenkirk, or think that MDZ could be a longer term option, it's a great move.

 

 

Looks to me the need a goalie bad!!!

 

6-1 in the 2nd so their net is a mess.

 

Certainly Hexy is working the phone offering one of theirs...for the right price they could have either...

 

 

...hhhmmmm getting some leverage in the Shatty deal...unless he plays goaltender...

[radoran]

17 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Looks to me the need a goalie bad!!!

 

6-1 in the 2nd so their net is a mess.

 

Certainly Hexy is working the phone offering one of theirs...for the right price they could have either...

 

 

...hhhmmmm getting some leverage in the Shatty deal...unless he plays goaltender...

 

I'd be thrilled if they picked up Shattenkirk. If they can get him for Mason or Neuvirth do it.

 

PAYING for Shattenkirk is another matter entirely. IMO, he ain't coming cheap or for a short term.

[ruxpin]

7 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Looks to me the need a goalie bad!!!

 

6-1 in the 2nd so their net is a mess.

 

Certainly Hexy is working the phone offering one of theirs...for the right price they could have either...

 

 

...hhhmmmm getting some leverage in the Shatty deal...unless he plays goaltender...

 HF and I were talking about this in the shoutbox.    I actually think Smith could be attractive for St. Louis if they can fit him under the cap.

 

Allen is simply horrible.  I've never liked him.

 

I like Mason to Dallas to reunite with Reese.  I don't want one of their goalies.    But they could potentially have a top 8-12 draft pick.  Maybe someone like a Jason Dickinson or Faksa.  I don't think I'm much interested in any of their other prospects.  

 

Anyone want to take a chance on Patrick Sharp playing next to Giroux for a year or two?

[OccamsRazor]

25 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I'd be thrilled if they picked up Shattenkirk. If they can get him for Mason or Neuvirth do it.

 

PAYING for Shattenkirk is another matter entirely. IMO, he ain't coming cheap or for a short term.

 

I doesn't have to be Shatty. I'd take prosects and i picks but i prefer someone who is ready to make the jump to the NHL.

[OccamsRazor]

26 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 HF and I were talking about this in the shoutbox.    I actually think Smith could be attractive for St. Louis if they can fit him under the cap.

 

Allen is simply horrible.  I've never liked him.

 

I like Mason to Dallas to reunite with Reese.  I don't want one of their goalies.    But they could potentially have a top 8-12 draft pick.  Maybe someone like a Jason Dickinson or Faksa.  I don't think I'm much interested in any of their other prospects.  

 

Anyone want to take a chance on Patrick Sharp playing next to Giroux for a year or two?

 

 

Who is Smith?

 

But yeah if you scroll back i mentioned Mase to Dallas for Hintz and maybe Gardner.

[Podein25]

29 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

...

Anyone want to take a chance on Patrick Sharp playing next to Giroux for a year or two?

 

Sharp is coming off a bad concussion and has mucho miles on that body of his. No thanks.

[radoran]

13 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Sharp is coming off a bad concussion and has mucho miles on that body of his. No thanks.

 

As a fellow Catamount I love the idea.

 

I'm not sanguine the actuality would be optimal.

[ruxpin]

23 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Who is Smith?

 

But yeah if you scroll back i mentioned Mase to Dallas for Hintz and maybe Gardner.

 

Oh, sorry.   Mike Smith...Coyotes.

 

It's not likely (very unlikely), but he'd be a great temporary fix for St. Louis.  

[ruxpin]

23 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Sharp is coming off a bad concussion and has mucho miles on that body of his. No thanks.

 

yeah, the concusion is what concerns me.   Yeah, that and the miles.    I was thinking stop gap.   But despite the concussion and miles, he may still command some money.  (I bet not).

 

So...moving right along.

[radoran]

8 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Oh, sorry.   Mike Smith...Coyotes.

 

It's not likely (very unlikely), but he'd be a great temporary fix for St. Louis.  

 

It all depends on what Seligman has in the goalie pipeline. Well, and Smith went Roman Cechmanek on them, asking why two goalsin six games was his fault...

 

BTW,  I'm going to call the Arizona Coyotes the Seligman Coyotes from now on.

 

Because Seligman, Arizona on Route 66 is the single most depressing, godforsaken stretch of land I have ever seen in my exploration of three continents.

 

And I was in Czechoslovakia in the early 90s.

 

[Podein25]

11 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

It all depends on what Seligman has in the goalie pipeline. Well, and Smith went Roman Cechmanek on them, asking why two goalsin six games was his fault...

 

BTW,  I'm going to call the Arizona Coyotes the Seligman Coyotes from now on.

 

Because Seligman, Arizona on Route 66 is the single most depressing, godforsaken stretch of land I have ever seen in my exploration of three continents.

 

And I was in Czechoslovakia in the early 90s.

 

 

Ha, funny stuff!

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I doesn't have to be Shatty. I'd take prosects and i picks but i prefer someone who is ready to make the jump to the NHL.

 

Somene who plays what position?

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

It all depends on what Seligman has in the goalie pipeline. Well, and Smith went Roman Cechmanek on them, asking why two goalsin six games was his fault...

 

BTW,  I'm going to call the Arizona Coyotes the Seligman Coyotes from now on.

 

Because Seligman, Arizona on Route 66 is the single most depressing, godforsaken stretch of land I have ever seen in my exploration of three continents.

 

And I was in Czechoslovakia in the early 90s.

 

 

So was Roman Cechmanek. 

[AJgoal]

7 hours ago, radoran said:

 

It all depends on what Seligman has in the goalie pipeline. Well, and Smith went Roman Cechmanek on them, asking why two goalsin six games was his fault...

 

BTW,  I'm going to call the Arizona Coyotes the Seligman Coyotes from now on.

 

Because Seligman, Arizona on Route 66 is the single most depressing, godforsaken stretch of land I have ever seen in my exploration of three continents.

 

And I was in Czechoslovakia in the early 90s.

 

 

[fanaticV3.0]

On 1/17/2017 at 5:26 PM, flyercanuck said:

 

Or maybe Couturier was used solely as a defensive forward for years and his offensive game never developed...in fact it regressed? 

 

When Philly took Laughton over Maatta, i was disappointed because we needed D and he fit the bill. After watching Laughton play the next season, I got why Philly picked him. The guy was a very good skater who was smart, defensively responsible, had a great shot and also qbed the pp. Maybe concussions have thrown a spanner into the works. Maybe he just wasn't meant to be...I don't know. And I'm no scout, but I know what I saw many times and I would have bet Scott Laughton would, at worse, be a very good 2nd line centre. It sure isn't looking that way presently. But there are no sure things when you're drafting 18 year olds.

 

Back to Couturier, he was picked 8th overall...not 1st. I've listed recent 8th overall picks several times on this board...Couturier is a lot closer to the top of that list than the bottom when it comes to how those picks panned out....Pascal LeClaire...Alexandre Picard...Peter Mueller...Zach Hamill...Scott Glennie...Alexandre Burmistrov...Derrick Pouliot...Nikita Alexeev...Taylor Pyatt...Mark Bell...Jonathan Aitkin...Terry Ryan...Jamie Storr...Brandon Convery.

 

Scouting and drafting isn't a science. It's pretty tough figuring out what any 17 or 18 year old kid is going to do in life, let alone as an NHLer.

 

 

 

I am trying to think of a way to say what I really want to say without violating the terms and conditions of this website. I really want to lay into you for this  bullsh-t statement, but I think calling it a bullsh-t statement is probably as far as I'm going to get. Stop making excuses for the kid, his offense of game simply isn't there (there meaning anything resembling the level it was during his juniors career). Just stop.

[fanaticV3.0]

On 1/17/2017 at 11:55 AM, radoran said:

 

It is absolutely relevant to the point mojo was making, which is that decrying the Flyers' scouting department for picking Couturier is misguided because everybody had him rated like that. His post was a direct response to caluso, who called out Pryor for his ability to judge talent.

 

Obviously Couturier has not panned out. But that doesn't mean that the Flyers were wrong for picking him when they did.

 

You (and icehole) reacted to mojo's response to another poster without taking into account what that other poster actually said and what mojo is actually saying in response.

 

 

That's the point mojo is saying is being ignored. Because you are still ignoring it.

 

He is not in any way referencing Couturier's junior career to justify what he is now or what he might be now, but rather what he was seen to be then when the Flyers' scouting department made a perfectly reasonable evaluation of the player.

 

Mojo also agrees with you - repeatedly - on the thread.

 

 

You are arguing a completely different point than the one mojo was making - and I can certainly see why mojo would be frustrated with that. And why you - doggedly responding to a point that wasn't even made - would be tired of hearing about it.

 

Carry on.

 

I know exactly what he is saying. I simply and admittedly do not care. This is his sixth season in the NHL. It's 2017. I don't care what our scouts or anyone else for that matter thought about him way back when. I don't want to talk about his God damn potential anymore.

 

I have a pet peeve  when it comes to hockey. It's my Issue. It rivals trying to have a discussion with themaker. I hate it when someone comes onto this board – and we have a handful of them – and goes on these tangents about how great so-and-so is going to be when he makes the team. Not if, when. It makes my blood boil, so it's probably my fault  for even jumping into the conversation. Bruno St. Jacques, Jeff Woywitka, Jeff Carter (60 goals!), Brayden Schenn (the next Mike Richards!),  Mike Maneluk, Laughton, Cousins the list goes on and on. You know what I learned about people  – whether it's scouts or fans – who see these kinds of things? They are wrong most of the time. So, you can imagine my annoyance when we are talking about a six-year-old mistake in judgment, especially when  the kid is actually a good player (the team just needs to use him in the right God damn situation instead of insisting he has a second line, top six, scoring line center). I don't about some scout's mistake. I care about the fact that he is actually on the team, contributing, and how that can be of use going forward.

[flyercanuck]

48 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

I am trying to think of a way to say what I really want to say without violating the terms and conditions of this website. I really want to lay into you for this  bullsh-t statement, but I think calling it a bullsh-t statement is probably as far as I'm going to get. Stop making excuses for the kid, his offense of game simply isn't there (there meaning anything resembling the level it was during his juniors career). Just stop.

 

So being used solely as a checking forward for some of the most important years of his development had nothing to do with his lack of developing an offensive game? 

 

I call bullsh!t. 

 

i'm not making excuses for him...I'm rationalizing why his offensive game didn't develop.

 

Skating is obviously an issue. But NOT playing an offensive game is going to affect your offence. How could it not?

[Podein25]

11 hours ago, radoran said:

I'm not sanguine the actuality would be optimal.

 

Still chuckling at this.

 

I decided 6 months ago, as a sort of thought experiment, that I would begin using the word "sub-optimal" more frequently.  At work, in conversation in restaurants, at the mechanic's. You know: really use it.

 

The thought experiment worked: people moved from passive dislike of me to active dislike.

 

I can't say it's not deserved.

[fanaticV3.0]

1 minute ago, flyercanuck said:

 

So being used solely as a checking forward for some of the most important years of his development had nothing to do with his lack of developing an offensive game? 

 

I call bullsh!t. 

 

i'm not making excuses for him...I'm rationalizing why his offensive game didn't develop.

 

Skating is obviously an issue. But NOT playing an offensive game is going to affect your offence. How could it not?

 

Why was he even put on a checking line to begin with? I mean, If a player is sooo good that he scores 96 points two years in a row should some of that God-given talent spillover into his next "job"? If he was that good offensively, wouldn't he be elevating players around him to a certain degree? I'm not saying because he scored at that level and juniors that he's going to do in the pros, but should there be some part of his game that shows similarities?

 

Plus, he's in his sixth season, only 24, AND has played as a top six guy. Where's that player from juniors? How much more evidence does there need to be for you to admit he is simply not that guy? why the excuses? Because you had a soft spot for him when he was playing in juniors?

[murraycraven]

45 minutes ago, fanaticV3.0 said:

 

Why was he even put on a checking line to begin with? I mean, If a player is sooo good that he scores 96 points two years in a row should some of that God-given talent spillover into his next "job"? If he was that good offensively, wouldn't he be elevating players around him to a certain degree? I'm not saying because he scored at that level and juniors that he's going to do in the pros, but should there be some part of his game that shows similarities?

 

Plus, he's in his sixth season, only 24, AND has played as a top six guy. Where's that player from juniors? How much more evidence does there need to be for you to admit he is simply not that guy? why the excuses? Because you had a soft spot for him when he was playing in juniors?

 

 

I don't think @flyercanuck is disagreeing with you about the offense.   I like Couts a lot but it is not his fault that he is playing the 2C.   That is on the Coach and the organization putting him there and making a commitment to play him there .  I do believe his offense is limited at this level but I also believe he makes a great 3C on a good team.   If he was actually on the market I would wager that he would be a very hot commodity and any Coach would like him in the lineup. 

 

Yes, he was a high scoring player in Jrs but what has been proven is that is not a guarantee to translate over to the NHL.   He is a very good 3C but I will agree that playing him at 2C is not really helping the Team.