Pasta in the O&B?

[vis]

Why on earth would Boston take Jake in that trade?  I don't think Hagg, Friedman and a late first round pick make up for Jake's age, declining production and contract.

[King Knut]

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

I wouldn't. I don't think the Flyers and Bruins make good partners for a move like this. I think the centerpiece they would need back would have to be on defense, not offense, meaning either Gudas or Ghost, with TK going back to replace Pastrnak on offense. While he's the kind of piece that it would make sense for the Flyers to acquire, I don't think the Flyers are in a place where they can comfortably give up what the Bruins likely need in return for it to make sense for them.

 

I agree with you on the Defense, but I think Boston would want Ghost or Provo, not Gudas.  And as I stated above in a different reply, I think they'd want Simmer, not TK.   They're not looking to win a cup in 3-5 years.  They're looking to compete for cups FOR 2-4 years. 

 

 

[King Knut]

3 hours ago, sekkes85 said:

A 23 year old player who scored 70 points last year would be great for any team to add regardless of where they are (rebuilding, planning on a cup run, etc.).  If Boston calls and wants a Sanheim or a Meyers and Voracek I don't see how you don't pull the trigger.  I think we are overvaluing the potential our d prospects have.  Some if not most will pan out and be very good NHL players but some of them will not.  If you can trade a potentially good player at an area of strength, at least in terms of young players, for a position of need you do it.  

 

Pros to acquiring:

1. 24 of his 34 goals came at 5v5 which this team desperately needs a boost in and can skate like the wind.   Would be our first line RW potentially for the next 10 years 
2. He is only 23 years old and not even in his prime, he will be able to grow with the young core we have in place.
3. As much as I like Jake, if they would take on that contract it would be of great service to the O&B.  He should have never been giving that much money for that long after one great season.
4. Would have a net gain in cap space if Jake were 

Negatives to acquiring:

1. He would have to change his number...
2. Loss of defensive prospect(s)/pick(s)
3. Could want a 8 year contract at $7-8 million after only one really good year (Jake 2.0!)

Since the majority here doesn't seem willing to give up our blue chips (Sanheim, Morin, etc.) how about this?

 

Boston Acquires: Jake Voracek, Robert Hagg, Mark Friedman, and 2018 1st round (STL) pick

Philadelphia Acquires: Davis Pastrnak and 2018 3rd round pick

 

Losing Hagg would sting a little but we have so many other prospects in the pipeline it would be fine.  Friedman has potential but would be a throw in to try and get a pick back, and the STL pick will probably be in the bottom third of the first.  Thoughts?

 

I'd make that trade in a heartbeat (and I have big plans in my head for Hagg) but Boston never would.

 

Also, to add fuel to the fire... Pastrnak's only 21.  

 

I've said above that I think Boston would be gunning for Simmonds and Ghost.  Outside of that, you start to get into guys that are too unknown (Sanheim, Myers) or guys that start to be on an even plane with Pastrnak (Provo).  And frankly D men who can play that way are more valuable... and D men who can play that way at 19 are freaks of nature you need to keep close so they don't utterly annihilate your soul for another team.

 

If the Flyers were to do any form of this trade, they'd have to unload some forwards in the process.  

 

I'd consider sending Simmonds.  He's the heart and soul of this team, and everyone loves him... but the chances of the Flyers resigning him in two seasons time are slim to none IMHO.   It would make the next two years SUCK a whole lot more because I don't know if Pastrnak put's up 34 goals on THIS team away from Marchand... but hey... you never know.

 

More likely, I'll just suggest with stand pat and see what it takes to get him in two years when he's UFA and the Flyers are nearly $20 million lighter.  

 

[King Knut]

10 minutes ago, vis said:

Why on earth would Boston take Jake in that trade?  I don't think Hagg, Friedman and a late first round pick make up for Jake's age, declining production and contract.

 

It wouldn't.  Jake's not a goal scorer either and Pastrnak is. They might have taken Schenn, but that bird has flown.   

 

I think they'd want Simmonds.  

[vis]

I just don't think the Flyers and Bruins make good trade partners.  Boston already has Krug and McAvoy and Brandon Carlo in the mix.  Why would they want Ghost?  If anything, I could see them wanting a defensive-defenseman.  Also, no way I would trade Provorov for Pastrnak.  Perhaps Boston would have interest in Morin, but there obviously would need to be a lot more than just him going - which would probably include Simmonds.

[vis]

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I think they'd want Simmonds.  

Agree.

 

Voracek doesn't make sense from a contract standpoint at all for the Bruins.  If they're not willing to pay Pastrnak, they'd be unlikely to want Voracek's contract.

[King Knut]

Just now, vis said:

Agree.

 

Voracek doesn't make sense from a contract standpoint at all for the Bruins.  If they're not willing to pay Pastrnak, they'd be unlikely to want Voracek's contract.

 

Exactly.  

 

"How dare you ask for $6million David!   just to spite you, we're going to sign a guy 9 years older than you that costs 8!"

 

Simmonds and a blue Chip young D man, likely Ghost IMHO.    I think that gets it done.  They might want a pick because Pastrnak's so young and considering we have two firsts next year (barring the Blues tanking) the pick is the least of my concerns.    

 

If this was the deal on the table, I'd have to think long and hard about it if I was Hextall.  You potentially don't lose much in losing Simmonds... maybe some sand paper, but Pastrnak could replace his scoring easily barring disaster.  The real question in my had is Ghost.  And if I'm Hextall, and I know I don't have plans to "let Ghost be Ghost" and run amok all over the ice like he did in his rookie season and deal with the fall out in the back end as an acceptable risk... If I'm not willing to UTILIZE GHOST'S STRENGTHS out of commitment to a system and philosophy of hockey, then yeah.  I'd trade him for Pastrnak.  

 

All in all, I'd REALLY like to see Ghost skating all over the place and giving Defenses fits for the next 5 or 6 years myself... but Ghost is 24.  Simmonds is 27.   It would KILL me to see Ghost scoring fancy fun goals for the Bruins for the next 6 years and to see Simmonds potting 35+ for them for the next 2 years... but if I could get a 21 year old who's already scored 34 goals to play along side Patrick, Lindblom, Weal, Konecny and potentially Rubstov?   Man I don't know... I think I'd probably do it and just start playing Sanheim and Myers right away and hope for the best.  

 

The Bruins would HAVE to take Lehtera or Read or Weise though, just to show gone good natured sportsmanship.

 

 

 

 

[vis]

36 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Simmonds and a blue Chip young D man, likely Ghost IMHO.    I think that gets it done.  They might want a pick because Pastrnak's so young and considering we have two firsts next year (barring the Blues tanking) the pick is the least of my concerns. 

If that's what Boston wanted (though I don't think Ghost makes sense for them), I'd be fine with that trade on the conditions that the Flyers work out a reasonable contract with Pastrnak and the Flyers be close to certain that Sanheim and Meyers are legit top 4 NHL d-men.  If there is any doubt about Sanheim and/or Meyers, I'd be inclined to keep Ghost.  Agree with your thoughts as to whether the Flyers have designs on letting him run free or trying to corral him.  Seems he wasn't happy last year with changes to his game that the staff was trying to make.

 

I love Simmonds, and would be sad to see his vet leadership gone, but I worry a little bit about his next contract.

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

Boston clearly thinks they're winning now or else they'd just sign this kid.

 

Agreed (with the above specifically, and your entire post in general).

But the "winning now" is kind of delusional on Boston's part, don't you think?    I mean if they're going to do it, now's the time, but I don't think they're legitimately in the conversation in the East.

 

If I'm Boston, I sign Pastrnak and begin game-planning for the future.

[King Knut]

1 minute ago, vis said:

 Agree with your thoughts as to whether the Flyers have designs on letting him run free or trying to corral him.  Seems he wasn't happy last year with changes to his game that the staff was trying to make.

 

I love Simmonds, and would be sad to see his vet leadership gone, but I worry a little bit about his next contract.

 

I think there's some debate as to whether or not Hakstol really wants to change who Ghost is (an undebatably stupid idea) or if Hakstol and his staff were just acutely aware of the facts that

 

A) Ghost (like Giroux) was still recovering from the surgery  and hence just didn't have the explosiveness that made his style effective for much of the year and THUS (like Giroux) attempted to curb his game into something that might not score as much, but which might lead to more wins.

 

and 

 

B) The goaltending and the supporting Defense were so bad, they couldn't compensate for Ghost being out of position by making plays and pinching and thus Ghost needed to play more conservatively to (once again) help them win games.  

 

There's a logic to this and the main thing that I think keeps it from being just pure wishful thinking is that Hakstol DEFINITELY did drastically change the system the whole team was playing about 10 games into the season.

 

Early on they were scoring like mad but had a losing record because both the D and the goaltending were god friggin' awful at the same time.  

 

In my heart I want to believe this combination of injury and inadequacy in their own end is what lead to Hakstol limiting Ghost so much.

Ghost, like Giroux, did seem to be freed up a bit after the trade deadline and it seemed to work. So there's hope.  

 

At least I hope there is.  I said this last year, but if they're not going to let Ghost be Ghost and in fact HELP Ghost be Ghost, then they might as well trade him and get as much value as they can for him before they smother him into obscurity.  

 

 

 

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Agreed (with the above specifically, and your entire post in general).

But the "winning now" is kind of delusional on Boston's part, don't you think?    I mean if they're going to do it, now's the time, but I don't think they're legitimately in the conversation in the East.

 

If I'm Boston, I sign Pastrnak and begin game-planning for the future.

 

 

If I'm Boston and I have a 21 year old who potted 34 goals last year playing both wings and $10 million in cap space, I'm rolling out the red carpet and putting the a huge ass Fat Head of him on the side of my building.  There's no way I'm trading him because I don't want to pay him what Johnny Gudreau got.  That's unrealistic.  

 

But Boston does have a problem on D and that will likely be as true in 2 years as it is now and they did trade the likes of Thornton, Sequin and Kessel... so who the hell knows what they're thinking. 

[AJgoal]

Essentially, you're sending Simmonds' multiple 30 goal seasons and team-friendly contract PLUS Ghost or another NHL-ready defenseman plus some sort of pick for one player.

 

Simmonds alone should net you a couple nice pieces if traded. Ditto Ghost. Now, neither alone is probably going to net you Pastrnak, but value should be close when you consider Simmonds' team-friendly contract and intangibles, or the fact that Ghost plays a premium position, has an excellent contract, and is entering his prime. There's no way I package both of them for one player not named Mathews or McDavid. You'd have to get something in addition back, or trade one of them to another team and package one of the bits that comes back in that deal.

 

I will say that Pastrnak is exactly the type of player I would be targeting if I'm looking to move Simmonds before his payday.

[King Knut]

28 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Essentially, you're sending Simmonds' multiple 30 goal seasons and team-friendly contract PLUS Ghost or another NHL-ready defenseman plus some sort of pick for one player.

 

Simmonds alone should net you a couple nice pieces if traded. Ditto Ghost. Now, neither alone is probably going to net you Pastrnak, but value should be close when you consider Simmonds' team-friendly contract and intangibles, or the fact that Ghost plays a premium position, has an excellent contract, and is entering his prime. There's no way I package both of them for one player not named Mathews or McDavid. You'd have to get something in addition back, or trade one of them to another team and package one of the bits that comes back in that deal.

 

I will say that Pastrnak is exactly the type of player I would be targeting if I'm looking to move Simmonds before his payday.

 

A deal like that only makes remote sense because: A) Simmonds is either going to get a mammoth raise or be moved in the next two years. and B)  Myers, Sanheim and Friedman are all in the pipeline and looking pretty good so far. C)  Pastrnak is younger than both of them.  

 

I'm deducing this the kind of deal Boston would be interested in.  I'm not sure I do it.  But I could understand if Hextall did.  And I'll understand when he doesn't (as I assume he won't).  Hextall doesn't seem to be the kind of GM that makes a big splash deal like this.  

 

I think this deal and a subsequent signing makes the Flyers better than they would have been in 3 years time, but maybe a Ghost worse in the mean time.  Depending on Myers and Sanheim's readiness, that might not matter so much.

[vis]

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

I think there's some debate as to whether or not Hakstol really wants to change who Ghost is (an undebatably stupid idea) or if Hakstol and his staff were just acutely aware of the facts that

 

A) Ghost (like Giroux) was still recovering from the surgery  and hence just didn't have the explosiveness that made his style effective for much of the year and THUS (like Giroux) attempted to curb his game into something that might not score as much, but which might lead to more wins.

 

and 

 

B) The goaltending and the supporting Defense were so bad, they couldn't compensate for Ghost being out of position by making plays and pinching and thus Ghost needed to play more conservatively to (once again) help them win games.  

 

There's a logic to this and the main thing that I think keeps it from being just pure wishful thinking is that Hakstol DEFINITELY did drastically change the system the whole team was playing about 10 games into the season.

 

Early on they were scoring like mad but had a losing record because both the D and the goaltending were god friggin' awful at the same time.  

 

In my heart I want to believe this combination of injury and inadequacy in their own end is what lead to Hakstol limiting Ghost so much.

Ghost, like Giroux, did seem to be freed up a bit after the trade deadline and it seemed to work. So there's hope.  

 

At least I hope there is.  I said this last year, but if they're not going to let Ghost be Ghost and in fact HELP Ghost be Ghost, then they might as well trade him and get as much value as they can for him before they smother him into obscurity.  

 

 

 

whatever the reason, they shouldn't mess with his game (not too much, anyway).

[vis]

1 hour ago, AJgoal said:

There's no way I package both of them for one player not named Mathews or McDavid. You'd have to get something in addition back, or trade one of them to another team and package one of the bits that comes back in that deal.

Fair point, though I do think Ghost is a bit overvalued by some.

 

Looking at some of the trades this offseason (e.g., Drouin-Sergachev and Saad-Panarin) what do you think would be reasonable value for Pastrnak?

[King Knut]

16 minutes ago, vis said:

whatever the reason, they shouldn't mess with his game (not too much, anyway).

 

Agreed.

 

The ONLY excuse approaching acceptability to me is if he simply couldn't play his game for a large portion of the season.

[King Knut]

3 minutes ago, vis said:

Fair point, though I do think Ghost is a bit overvalued by some.

 

Looking at some of the trades this offseason (e.g., Drouin-Sergachev and Saad-Panarin) what do you think would be reasonable value for Pastrnak?

 

As an aside, I think he'd have more of a point if Simmonds and Ghost were going to be as good as they are now and cost what they cost now for the next 10 years.  Ghost is here for 6 at a tremendous rate. Is he going to be the Ghost we love for all that time? That's pretty much all you'd ask of him Is he going to be the ghost we love again this year even?     But Simmonds on the other hand is either going to be GONE altogether or cost 3.5 million more in two years time.  

 

I think when you weigh these complications in these two players and the fact that we have a lot of positive signs in the pipeline coming, I'm not so sure this is a crazy idea for the long term of this team. 

 

My biggest problem with it is that I have issues with placing too much stock in one player (AKA giving McDavid 12 million for a billion years).  Trading two productive players for ONE productive player is a big against my general team building philisophy.  If you have one player that's too important and you lose him, you're screwed (Stamkos, Gudreau, Price, Quick, etc).  

[OccamsRazor]

6 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I'd do this in a New York minute.  

 

Not i.

 

Glad you don't live in New York.....

[scoopyten]

9 hours ago, sekkes85 said:

Since the majority here doesn't seem willing to give up our blue chips (Sanheim, Morin, etc.) how about this?

 

Boston Acquires: Jake Voracek, Robert Hagg, Mark Friedman, and 2018 1st round (STL) pick

Philadelphia Acquires: Davis Pastrnak and 2018 3rd round pick

 

 

Not only would I do this, I would drive these guys to Boston and bring Pasta back, which of course means there's no way Boston does it.

[OccamsRazor]

6 hours ago, vis said:

Why on earth would Boston take Jake in that trade?

 

[ruxpin]

8 hours ago, vis said:

Why on earth would Boston take Jake in that trade?  I don't think Hagg, Friedman and a late first round pick make up for Jake's age, declining production and contract.

@OccamsRazor's goofy gif aside, why does Boston do any of the idiotic big trades it does?  Thornton, Seguin, Hamilton, etc.  Maybe it doesn't even take Jake. They want a dman, so maybe we give them St. Louis' 1st,  Mac and keep some salary and everyone's happy.  

 

Maybe for Boston it's the term with Pasta rather than the salary/cap hit? 

[OccamsRazor]

12 hours ago, ruxpin said:

@OccamsRazor's goofy gif aside, why does Boston do any of the idiotic big trades it does?  Thornton, Seguin, Hamilton, etc.  Maybe it doesn't even take Jake. They want a dman, so maybe we give them St. Louis' 1st,  Mac and keep some salary and everyone's happy.  

 

Maybe for Boston it's the term with Pasta rather than the salary/cap hit? 

 

Right now the Flyers are stacked at RW.

 

No need to alter from the plan for some magic beans now.

 

I'd prefer to see what they have with some of these young D men before just trading them away right now especially when they don't have to.

 

Who knows maybe Mark Friedman is the next Duncan Keith....i certainly wouldn't want to trade him right now before we know what you have.

 

No if they were a Pastrnak away from a serious run....then i would be more inclined to listen to this.

 

But they aren't they are i think like the 6th youngest team in the NHL heading into next year.

[ruxpin]

11 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Right now the Flyers are stacked at RW.

 

No need to alter from the plan for some magic beans now.

 

I'd prefer to see what they have with some of these young D men before just trading them away right now especially when they don't have to.

 

Who knows maybe Mark Friedman is the next Duncan Keith....i certainly wouldn't want to trade him right now before we know what you have.

 

No if they were a Pastrnak away from a serious run....then i would be more inclined to listen to this.

 

But they aren't they are i think like the 6th youngest team in the NHL heading into next year.

I guess, although at his age,  I'm not adding Pasta because they're one piece away. I'm adding because at 21 he'd be a pretty good piece to build around and would fit in with the age group when they're ready. 

 

But, it's neither necessary nor likely, so yeah, stick to the plan. 

[vis]

On 8/25/2017 at 7:24 PM, ruxpin said:

@OccamsRazor's goofy gif aside, why does Boston do any of the idiotic big trades it does?  Thornton, Seguin, Hamilton, etc.  Maybe it doesn't even take Jake. They want a dman, so maybe we give them St. Louis' 1st,  Mac and keep some salary and everyone's happy.  

 

Maybe for Boston it's the term with Pasta rather than the salary/cap hit? 

For one, I don't think they're trading Pastrnak.  Just entertaining the thought during the dog days of the offseason.

 

But if they did, I don't think Jake makes sense given his contract, age and recent performance - when they are apparently balking at giving less money to a younger player coming off a 70 point season.

[ruxpin]

21 minutes ago, vis said:

For one, I don't think they're trading Pastrnak.  Just entertaining the thought during the dog days of the offseason.

 

But if they did, I don't think Jake makes sense given his contract, age and recent performance - when they are apparently balking at giving less money to a younger player coming off a 70 point season.

Well yeah, but you and others have made me move on to Simmonds (who I actually like)