Hextall Speaks

[vis]

Hextall did a decent interview with Dave Isaac at the Courier Post (links below).

 

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/sports/nhl/flyers/2017/08/30/philadelphia-flyers-general-manager-ron-hextall-training-camp/617096001/

 

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/sports/nhl/flyers/2017/08/31/ron-hextall-philadelphia-flyers-claude-giroux-training-camp/618601001/

 

Biggest takeaway, but not really surprising, is that the Flyers seem intent on giving the young guys a legit shot at making the roster.  I still have some doubts as to whether they will supplant the likes of Read, Weise, Raffl and Lehtera, but I think that's more of an issue for kids like Laughton, Vecchione and Leier.  Sounds like they have spoken with some potential d-men for a PTO, but nothing imminent and that they won't sign someone just to do so.  Also, sounds like they are expecting a return to form for Giroux.  Hextall cites the World Cup and Giroux's inability to train properly last year as biggest reasons for his poor play last year.  We shall see.

 

One thing that was interesting to me was that Hextall said all systems work, it's just a matter of talent and players executing.  He doesn't really seem to lay any blame on Hakstol, unless he's insinuating that Hakstol didn't do a good job at getting players to execute.  Not sure if that's the intent behind his message.  In any event, I don't necessarily agree with Hextall.  Not all systems work in all circumstances.  Sometimes you have to make tweaks or change a system, particularly during a game in response to what the other team is doing.  I'm not sure Hakstol is adept at that yet.

[radoran]

The Flyers have been willing to let players "play their way" onto the roster under Hextall and I don't see why that should change. Konecny is a good example as is Ghost. If players show they should be in the NHL as a regular player, they will play them. The flip side to that is that it doesn't help a player to come in and get his bell rung because the GM wants to force him into the league (*cough* Laughton *cough*).

 

It's one of Hextall's hallmarks that he plays things this way and it's a refreshing change in organizational philosophy.

 

That said, another organizational hallmark remains unchanged.

 

it's interesting that Giroux was "healthy and ready for the World Cup" last season - 100%. And that the same publication had an interview with Hextall saying he was "fine" with Giroux playing (although the site is "down for maintenance" at the moment). And, of course, that Giroux was "fine" after the hit he took.

 

But we've made enough glue with that horse. It might just be better if the organization and the player refrain from making pronouncements or dismissing valid concerns going forward.

 

I don't really expect that.

 

And, of course, you can bet the NHL will push their players into the next World Cup that the league organizes.

 

[vis]

22 hours ago, radoran said:

The Flyers have been willing to let players "play their way" onto the roster under Hextall and I don't see why that should change. Konecny is a good example as is Ghost. If players show they should be in the NHL as a regular player, they will play them. The flip side to that is that it doesn't help a player to come in and get his bell rung because the GM wants to force him into the league (*cough* Laughton *cough*).

In years past, the Flyers had a penchant for signing a vet or a player from abroad, thus roadblocking some younger guys from making the team.  Also, Ghost earned a spot coming out of pre-season, but got sent back to the AHL.  But for Streit detaching his pubic bone (lol, everytime), we may never have seen Ghost in the NHL that season.  Likewise, I thought Konecny earned a spot the year before last, but understand it may have been better for Konecny's development to go back to juniors.  Point is, this is the first year, at least publicly, where I felt Hextall is finally comfortable - if not confident in - giving the kids a shot.  

 

Quote

it's interesting that Giroux was "healthy and ready for the World Cup" last season - 100%. And that the same publication had an interview with Hextall saying he was "fine" with Giroux playing (although the site is "down for maintenance" at the moment). And, of course, that Giroux was "fine" after the hit he took.

No doubt.  All things being equal, I bet a lot of GMs didn't like the idea and were forced to be good soldiers for the league.  Sucks, but what can you do?  

 

At least there are no Olympics to worry about...

[murraycraven]

is it me or does it seem that every interview with Hexy is the same?   

[ruxpin]

38 minutes ago, murraycraven said:

is it me or does it seem that every interview with Hexy is the same?   

 

Absolutely.

 

I wonder if it's actually just copied and pasted from previous interviews.

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, murraycraven said:

is it me or does it seem that every interview with Hexy is the same?   

 

Yep.

 

And i'm ok with that because he is sticking to his way he thinks is right and is being consistent about it.

 

And the fact that he holds his cards close to the vest is great for his strategy.

 

The public (just like i feel with real world military matters) doesn't need to know everything.

[radoran]

On 9/3/2017 at 0:43 PM, OccamsRazor said:

 

Yep.

 

And i'm ok with that because he is sticking to his way he thinks is right and is being consistent about it.

 

And the fact that he holds his cards close to the vest is great for his strategy.

 

The public (just like i feel with real world military matters) doesn't need to know everything.

 

Did you just compare running a hockey team to decisions that could kill large numbers of people?

 

Put your analyst on danger money, baby

 

I'm fine with Hexy being Hexy. But when one outright dismisses things that later one cites as being absolutely correct, your veracity can be called into question.

 

"I was just following (league) orders" can have consequences. 

[OccamsRazor]

4 hours ago, radoran said:

Did you just compare running a hockey team to decisions that could kill large numbers of people?

 

Sure they use "going to battle" and #warrior (Kimmo) talk all the time....why should this be any different.

 

And for the record i never said anything about killing people i said military matters which could be a wide variety of things....not just death.

 

4 hours ago, radoran said:

But when one outright dismisses things that later one cites as being absolutely correct, your veracity can be called into question.

 

This i'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

So you have to elaborate...

[King Knut]

On 9/3/2017 at 0:43 PM, OccamsRazor said:

 

Yep.

 

And i'm ok with that because he is sticking to his way he thinks is right and is being consistent about it.

 

And the fact that he holds his cards close to the vest is great for his strategy.

 

The public (just like i feel with real world military matters) doesn't need to know everything.

 

I really take this more as he just doesn't know yet.  He doesn't have a set plan.  

I don't think he ever intended to trade Brayden Schenn, but someone offered him two first rounders for the guy so he said sure!  Because having four first rounders is better than 2.  

 

I don't think he really knows what he'll do with the rookies yet.  

 

I thought the interview sounded like he seemed fairly certain Morin and Hagg would be making the team without closing the door on it not happening completely.  

[flyercanuck]

18 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I really take this more as he just doesn't know yet.  He doesn't have a set plan.  

I don't think he ever intended to trade Brayden Schenn, but someone offered him two first rounders for the guy so he said sure!  Because having four first rounders is better than 2.  

 

I don't think he really knows what he'll do with the rookies yet.  

 

I thought the interview sounded like he seemed fairly certain Morin and Hagg would be making the team without closing the door on it not happening completely.  

 

I think he traded Schenn because, ya, he was offered 2-1sts and a player...but also because Schenn doesn't fit his blueprint of smart two way players who can skate. 

[King Knut]

2 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I think he traded Schenn because, ya, he was offered 2-1sts and a player...but also because Schenn doesn't fit his blueprint of smart two way players who can skate. 

 

Yes, certainly Schenn was viewed as expendable.  They've never known quite what to do with him.  And with the youth coming in (Lindblom, Weal, Patrick, Rubstov, Konecny, etc) Schenn seemed as expendable as ever.  I just mean I don't think he probably went into the draft thinking, "I'm gonna make a deal to unload Schenner!"  I think it probably took him a little by surprise.

[radoran]

On 9/4/2017 at 8:35 PM, OccamsRazor said:

 

This i'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

So you have to elaborate...

 

I'm referencing Hextall dismissing concerns about the World Cup adversely affecting a player before then citing the World Cup as a reason the player's season was adversely affected.

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

I'm referencing Hextall dismissing concerns about the World Cup adversely affecting a player before then citing the World Cup as a reason the player's season was adversely affected.

 

Gotcha.

 

I don't agree with it but i understand why he does it.

[elmatus]

2 hours ago, radoran said:

 

I'm referencing Hextall dismissing concerns about the World Cup adversely affecting a player before then citing the World Cup as a reason the player's season was adversely affected.

 

It's interesting, and maybe this would change over time, but I honestly have next to no interest in the World Cup. In my mind, the only thing that was good about the last one was the North American team. It all just felt like a Bettman-designed cash grab to me. Of course, it felt that way because it was exactly that.

[OccamsRazor]

7 minutes ago, elmatus said:

I honestly have next to no interest in the World Cup.

 

I agree i prefer to save the players for the real season.

[RJ8812]

1 hour ago, elmatus said:

 

It's interesting, and maybe this would change over time, but I honestly have next to no interest in the World Cup. In my mind, the only thing that was good about the last one was the North American team. It all just felt like a Bettman-designed cash grab to me. Of course, it felt that way because it was exactly that.

It was a cash grab 100%. The Bettman was attempting to cash in on the World aspect of hockey since the IOC takes everything that hockey makes at the Olympics. I don't blame him but fans don't care 

[ruxpin]

There are some people who really enjoy the World Cup.   I'm not one of them.

 

"Best versus best!  yadda yadda."   To me, it's completely manufactured and holds no interest to me.   Same goes for the all-star game.  I don't mind them keeping it for those who enjoy it, but right before the season isn't good.   During the season is worse.  I don't think that right after the season works for the players.     I won't be watching no matter when they play it, but I've heard this makes me non-human or some crap, so what do I know?

[elmatus]

19 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

There are some people who really enjoy the World Cup.

 

Yeah? Well, if you say so.

[vis]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

There are some people who really enjoy the World Cup.   I'm not one of them.

I would enjoy it more if it were the only "best-on-best" international championship tournament.  That's what made the 1996 World Cup (and Canada Cups before that) great.  Since the advent of NHL participation in the Olympics, there is less intrigue (at least for me) in another "international" championship tournament that, as you mentioned, feels more like a cash grab.  

 

On the flip side, if the NHL continues to forego participation in the Olympics, then the World Cup will become much more interesting to me.  Also, if the World Cup does become the sole best-on-best international championship tournament, I would hope they do away with the Team NA concept.  I was fine with it in the most recent tournament because I viewed the Olympics as the premier venue for crowning an international hockey champion.  But if the World Cup replaces the Olympics in that capacity because pros are no longer participating in the Olympics, then I do not think there should be a Team NA in the World Cup.

[elmatus]

12 minutes ago, vis said:

I would enjoy it more if it were the only "best-on-best" international championship tournament.  That's what made the 1996 World Cup (and Canada Cups before that) great.  Since the advent of NHL participation in the Olympics, there is less intrigue (at least for me) in another "international" championship tournament that, as you mentioned, feels more like a cash grab.  

 

On the flip side, if the NHL continues to forego participation in the Olympics, then the World Cup will become much more interesting to me.  Also, if the World Cup does become the sole best-on-best international championship tournament, I would hope they do away with the Team NA concept.  I was fine with it in the most recent tournament because I viewed the Olympics as the premier venue for crowning an international hockey champion.  But if the World Cup replaces the Olympics in that capacity because pros are no longer participating in the Olympics, then I do not think there should be a Team NA in the World Cup.

 

As it stands, I love watching Olympic hockey and couldn't care less about the World Cup. Best-on-best is one thing. The Olympics carry a level of gravitas that is hard to reproduce. That could change given enough time and lack of NHL participation at the Olympics.

 

All I know is, I really couldn't be bothered to care about this World Cup stuff as it stands. It's a cash grab -- nothing more. Worse yet, it's a cash grab that can lead to injuries. Sure, the Olympics obviously can -- and have -- as well, but there's an element of national pride involved in the Olympics that the World Cup simply doesn't have. 

 

As far as your thoughts on the NA team goes, I'm not sure I can agree with that. As I mentioned, the NA team in this past World Cup was really the only interesting part in my opinion. If the World Cup can't command national pride, maybe it can become something completely novel instead. That might be more interesting to me.

[vis]

3 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

As it stands, I love watching Olympic hockey and couldn't care less about the World Cup. Best-on-best is one thing. The Olympics carry a level of gravitas that is hard to reproduce. That could change given enough time and lack of NHL participation at the Olympics.

 

All I know is, I really couldn't be bothered to care about this World Cup stuff as it stands. It's a cash grab -- nothing more. Worse yet, it's a cash grab that can lead to injuries. Sure, the Olympics obviously can -- and have -- as well, but there's an element of national pride involved in the Olympics that the World Cup simply doesn't have. 

 

As far as your thoughts on the NA team goes, I'm not sure I can agree with that. As I mentioned, the NA team in this past World Cup was really the only interesting part in my opinion. If the World Cup can't command national pride, maybe it can become something completely novel instead. That might be more interesting to me.

Without Olympic participation, the World Cup would, increasingly over time, take on much of the gravitas for me that the Olympics currently hold.  Again, my interest in the World Cup goes up only if the NHL doesn't go to the Olympics.  Don't care much about the World Cup otherwise.

 

I have no problem with Team NA if there is an Olympics as well.  And I agree that if there is an Olympics, perhaps the World Cup could strive to be something different.  However, if the World Cup is truly the only international championship, I don't see how Team NA fits in the context of national pride.

[elmatus]

1 hour ago, vis said:

Without Olympic participation, the World Cup would, increasingly over time, take on much of the gravitas for me that the Olympics currently hold.  Again, my interest in the World Cup goes up only if the NHL doesn't go to the Olympics.  Don't care much about the World Cup otherwise.

 

I have no problem with Team NA if there is an Olympics as well.  And I agree that if there is an Olympics, perhaps the World Cup could strive to be something different.  However, if the World Cup is truly the only international championship, I don't see how Team NA fits in the context of national pride.

 

Yeah, I see what you're saying. You're right that, in time, it's entirely possible the Bettman Cup would grow to the same level of gravitas as something like the Fifa WC or what have you. I'm not sure it would ever be that for me, but I imagine it would be possible for younger folks growing up who wouldn't get to see NHL players in the Olympics.

 

It's difficult for me though. The Olympics are more than hockey, which I think it very important to the equation. Sure, hockey is generally the most anticipated part, but it's only part of it. When NHLers pull on their country jerseys, they become representatives of their country beyond just the hockey realm. They're effectively on a team with tremendous athletes from a wide variety of sports. That's something that would be hard to reproduce in a hockey-only tourney, and it encompasses a lot of what I mean when I use the word gravitas in this context.

 

Still, if it works for Fifa, it can work for the NHL. It would be a question of time like you say. It would likely also require a generational shift for many people -- me included.

 

My kids: Dad, the World Cup of Hockey starts tonight!!!

Me: In my day, the best hockey players played in the Olympics. The Bettman Cup is garbage!

My kids: Oh, Dad. You're such a piece of

 

Anyway, I think we all get the idea.

 

On that note, having very much enjoyed watching the NA team in this last World Cup, I would be interested in seeing some other format for a tourney. Throw in a Team Europe while you're at it. Do something different for a change. Like many Canadians, I have tons of American friends and relatives. I liked seeing Canadians and Americans on the same team. It was cool, and doesn't happen like that in other setups. 

[vis]

4 hours ago, elmatus said:

On that note, having very much enjoyed watching the NA team in this last World Cup, I would be interested in seeing some other format for a tourney. Throw in a Team Europe while you're at it. Do something different for a change. Like many Canadians, I have tons of American friends and relatives. I liked seeing Canadians and Americans on the same team. It was cool, and doesn't happen like that in other setups. 

I am with you on that.  I did enjoy watching Team NA.  

[ruxpin]

14 hours ago, elmatus said:

The Olympics are more than hockey, which I think it very important to the equation. Sure, hockey is generally the most anticipated part, but it's only part of it. When NHLers pull on their country jerseys, they become representatives of their country beyond just the hockey realm. They're effectively on a team with tremendous athletes from a wide variety of sports. That's something that would be hard to reproduce in a hockey-only tourney, and it encompasses a lot of what I mean when I use the word gravitas in this context.

 

 

I guess I've never been a patriotic rah rah.  The Olympics, for me, was always some individual attempting to win at something that had no avenue for competition elsewhere (downhill, toboggan, track & field, gymnastics, ice dancing, swimming, diving, ***** shooting, etc) or at least had no "World Series" or "Super Bowl" and the Olympics were it.  Because there was no "Detroit Red Swimmers" or "Los Angeles Sneakers," America's favorite track & field team, or Ottawa Figure Skaters (I mean other than the Senators) you had to go to the "team" available.  The olympic team.   So, you wrap yourself up in the flag and give the good old party line so that someone actually cheers for you, but the goal and motivation is the medal to stick in your cabinet. And the knowledge you've reached your goal and bask in the culmination of your work.   I mean no disrespect to any of the athletes with this.  I respect the hell out of their hard work and discipline.

 

I know that probably sounds cynical, but for me that has always been the summation of Olympics to me.   And I think stripped of bullshit, it's pretty accurate for many of the athletes.   I know many report they have some groundswell of emotion when they hear their anthem, but I wish there was some way to measurably study what percentage of that groundswell was having just won at something they spent years training for and, for that moment, being the best in the world at it.   

 

As for the best v. best, the easiest way to get me to stop watching a game or reality show is to have a "celebrity" season or episode.  No one completely takes it seriously and it's just a complete waste of my time.   The analogy works better for an allstar game than an Olympics or World Cup, but with the game/reality show, I'm used to seeing people in a certain role.  I cheer for Reddington to completely mess up someone's life or someone to be Batman, or whatever the case may be.   I don't personally cheer for James Spader and out of the role, I really don't need to see him trying to guess one of the top 5 answers to "Name something found in the kitchen that can be used for sexual pleasure."

 

Same with the allstar game or, specifically, the Olympics or WC.   Yeah, they're all the "best."   But they have roles on their teams where they actually get paid and have actual hometown fans.  In the "best v. best" these roles are all changed up, etc. and it just seems as artificial as James Spader answering "temperature fork" so his artificially constructed team can win $5000 for their favorite charity.

 

Obviously, both the celebrity edition shows and the Olympics/WC get a lot of viewership and support or they wouldn't keep trotting them out all the time.  And good on the people that enjoy them.  Nothing wrong with it.  And good on the people whose nationalism or self-worth or whatever is somehow positively affected by a handful of people they don't know winning--or at least competing for--something they've spent a lifetime working toward.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

 I'll watch the Weather Channel instead.

 

EDIT:  I have to laugh.  The censor allowed the long form of "BS," but censored "s k e e t."

[RJ8812]

17 hours ago, ruxpin said:

There are some people who really enjoy the World Cup.   I'm not one of them.

 

"Best versus best!  yadda yadda."   To me, it's completely manufactured and holds no interest to me.   Same goes for the all-star game.  I don't mind them keeping it for those who enjoy it, but right before the season isn't good.   During the season is worse.  I don't think that right after the season works for the players.     I won't be watching no matter when they play it, but I've heard this makes me non-human or some crap, so what do I know?

 

Well, I can say that I personally didn't know a single person that really cared about the most recent World Cup