Jump to content

Flyers Trade Deadline Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sekkes85 said:

We can still buy.... just not in the traditional sense that we were used to.  I wouldn't mind seeing them go after Duclair depending on the price.  Potential explosive, young, LW.... of course he seems to have fallen flat on his face in terms of development but he is only 21 years old and has has tons of potential.  Arizona has made it known he is available and he could probably use a change of scenery after this year in the desert.  

I really like Duclair. If he can be had for say one of the Flyers prospects and maybe a 3rd, I'd be ok.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 803
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is absolutely no reason to consider buying out Filppula this offseason. If you must exercise a buyout, you buyout MacDonald, because you will almost have to at some point before his contract expires anyway. Filppula is one more year. You can play him for that long. Tampa would have needed to buy him out not because of the NMC, but because they would have serious issues re-signing their young players this offseason. I'd say it's lazy reporting, but it's Seravelli,, which is synonymous.

I mentioned this to Rux in the shoutbox, but I think it has relevance here so I will repeat:   Valteri Filppula is still a pretty good player. He isn't a lock down 2C anymore like he was when TB first got him, but he can still play the position if needed, he will play 3C as well, and he has even adapted to playing wing on any line, including the 1st, too.   Now, his strengths may NOT necessarily match up with what the Flyers need, however. They are superb passing sk

better for this year ?  better for the long term ? Mark Streit's salary is off the books MDZ's salary is off the books, Mason, Neuvirth, Shultz and Gordon. If they do nothing and gain all that salary cap space...  i think they are/can be better. If a deal isn't awesome why make it ? I understand trying to an asset for those guys, but getting rid of those guys is also an asset of sorts too. Alas CBJ isn't going to trade us Brendan Saad for Andrew MacDonald...this is the s

Posted Images

Just now, Bertmega said:

I really like Duclair. If he can be had for say one of the Flyers prospects and maybe a 3rd, I'd be ok.

 

They still like taking on salary?  MacDonald and a 2nd? They need to replace Pronger's salary coming off the cap lol

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, icehole said:

You're laughing at a team that has been seriously contending for a decade now, and sees the need to add some defense to take it the distance, so they go out and pick up an all star for some nobodys, a late first rounder, and some conditional picks?  Hahahaha...that's funny.

 

I hope Washington wins the cup.  I think their GM has done a pretty good job and they deserve it by now.

Um if you actually read my original post regarding the Shattenkirk trade, you'd see that I said it was a gross under payment for him. In fact, I did say his cost was a late first; which is basically a second, and a throw-away roster player for a 1a/b defender.

 

The statement you quoted was ME joking around about how Holmgren treated second rounders like they were radioactive by always disposing of them.

 

 

Edited by Bertmega
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, King Knut said:

 

Is he a better prospect than the ones we have?  

 

That depends. From what I have seen he is a speedy sniper that can outright fly. He has some decent size and could be that 1st line left winger or Scottie Upshall 2.0.

 

If it's say a 3rd and a prospect swap like Weal, I'd be all over it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

Is he a better prospect than the ones we have?  

 

Yes....

 

He had 20 Goals, 24 Assists last year, he is 21 years old, and most importantly he is a LW!  This year 41 GP and only 9 points though.  So which year is a fluke?  I'd trade away a mid pick and a mid prospect and maybe a Raffl to find out.  Or MacDonald and a 2nd.... lol

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

LOL...here you go....you're welcome!

 

motivational-posters-funny-13.jpg

 

 

Yeah I should of been a little bit more specific. I want to think about hockey trades not cops sucking fat..... Just not something I want to think about. That was funny as fck though so I am laughing now not thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bertmega said:

If it's say a 3rd and a prospect swap like Weal, I'd be all over it. 

 

 

I think it is gonna cost one of our "better" prospects honestly.   You would have to move one of the D guys to get a deal done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bertmega said:

That depends. From what I have seen he is a speedy sniper that can outright fly. He has some decent size and could be that 1st line left winger or Scottie Upshall 2.0.

 

If it's say a 3rd and a prospect swap like Weal, I'd be all over it. 

 

I mean if we're talking Weal that's sorta a no brainer.

 

Sanheim, Myers, Morin though?  That's who people will want.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sekkes85 said:

Yes....

 

He had 20 Goals, 24 Assists last year, he is 21 years old, and most importantly he is a LW!  This year 41 GP and only 9 points though.  So which year is a fluke?  I'd trade away a mid pick and a mid prospect and maybe a Raffl to find out.  Or MacDonald and a 2nd.... lol

 

The Drop off is curious, but not impossible to recover from.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

I mean if we're talking Weal that's sorta a no brainer.

 

Sanheim, Myers, Morin though?  That's who people will want.  

 

Those guys will definitely be the starting point of the discussion.  If it goes down to a Friedman/Alt level and a 2nd or 3rd then I'd do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bertmega said:

Um if you actually read my original post regarding the Shattenkirk trade, you'd see that I said it was a gross under payment for him. In fact, I did say his cost was a late first; which is basically a second, and a throw-away roster player for a 1a/b defender.

 

The statement you quoted was ME joking around about how Holmgren treated second rounders like they were radioactive by always disposing of them.

 

 

I did see the underpayment statement earlier but I didn't realize that was you.

 

I'm confused though.  So you're in favor of Holmgen's style?  It looked like you were taking a jab at him, but if Washington underpayed, and you think it was the same sort of move Holmgren would make, that must mean Holmgren did some good things?

 

Unless your two statements contradict each other...but that's crazy talk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, icehole said:

Where do you find these memes...the meme store.

 

Did I miss something?  I didn't see a burn.

 

yes.... the store is free on the interwebs.   

 

 

62584180.jpg

Edited by murraycraven
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, murraycraven said:

 

 

I think it is gonna cost one of our "better" prospects honestly.   You would have to move one of the D guys to get a deal done.

True, I am just hoping that John Chayka has a major brain fart, but like @King Knut said, it will probably cost more. 

 

I'd do Hagg, a 3rd and Weal though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bertmega said:

True, I am just hoping that John Chayka has a major brain fart, but like @King Knut said, it will probably cost more. 

 

I'd do Hagg, a 3rd and Weal though.

 

I would take that gamble honestly....    I like Duclair and he is a young guy w/ wheels.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, icehole said:

I did see the underpayment statement earlier but I didn't realize that was you.

 

I'm confused though.  So you're in favor of Holmgen's style?  It looked like you were taking a jab at him, but if Washington underpayed, and you think it was the same sort of move Holmgren would make, that must mean Holmgren did some good things?

 

Unless your two statements contradict each other...but that's crazy talk. 

My God my brain hurts. The two statements were not correlated what so ever. 

 

Washington underpaid = very good move for them if they can sign Shattenkirk long term, or win a cup this year

St. Louis may have gotten fleeced = bad for them

 

*****In other unrelated news to the Shattenkirk trade*****

Holmgren traded away second round picks like it was necessary part of being a GM = bad for the Flyers farm team for many years

 

I don't think I can simplify this any further.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I mean if we're talking Weal that's sorta a no brainer.

 

Sanheim, Myers, Morin though?  That's who people will want.  

This definitely would be what AZ would want want, but that doesn't make me feel good. 

Hagg, a 3rd and Weal I think would be my upper limit if I am Hextall

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bertmega said:

My God my brain hurts. The two statements were not correlated what so ever. 

 

Washington underpaid = very good move for them if they can sign Shattenkirk long term, or win a cup this year

St. Louis may have gotten fleeced = bad for them

 

*****In other unrelated news to the Shattenkirk trade*****

Holmgren traded away second round picks like it was necessary part of being a GM = bad for the Flyers farm team for many years

 

I don't think I can simplify this any further.

 

 

This might make your brain explode then.  You might want to simplify it a little more because I'm not even sure you know what you're trying to say.

 

Bertmega math

Washington gives up picks = good

Holmgren gives up picks = bad

 

I'm no algebramatician, but my calculator keeps giving me an error message when I type that in.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, icehole said:

This might make your brain explode then.  You might want to simplify it a little more because I'm not even sure you know what you're trying to say.

 

Bertmega math

Washington gives up picks = good

Holmgren gives up picks = bad

 

I'm no algebramatician, but my calculator keeps giving me an error message when I type that in.

 

 

I'm tapping out of this back and forth. Let's just keep it to the 2017 trade deadline talk, and eliminate Holmgren from the equation. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...