Great Article

[vis]

Charlie O'Connor at the Atlantic wrote a great article which pretty much sums up my feelings across the board.  It will end up behind a paywall at some point, so I posted it below.  Sorry Charlie!

https://theathletic.com/326668/2018/04/24/a-postmortem-on-the-2017-18-philadelphia-flyers-and-what-comes-next/

 

Quote

Rewind the clock back to September of last year, in the days leading up to the start of the 2017-18 season. The Philadelphia Flyers were coming off an 88-point, playoff-less season, and were preparing to dress a roster full of question marks for opening night. Most statistical models had the team either sneaking into the postseason as one of the last clubs in, or just missing the cut. Few expected the Flyers to be awful; even fewer saw the team as exceptional or a true championship contender.

 

So when the club’s just-concluded season is viewed from the highest level possible, it’s hard to argue that it was a disappointment. The Flyers returned to the playoffs, after finishing with 98 standings points and securing the third seed in the Metropolitan Division. Their stay in the postseason was short, but considering the quality of the competition — the two-time defending champion Pittsburgh Penguins — a six-game defeat is far from an embarrassing way to end to their year. Philadelphia produced a “predictable” season, and if anything, it fell on the optimistic side of most projections.

 

It’s only when the camera zooms in that things start to look weird.

 

The 2017-18 Flyers season was, in a word, bizarre. The team suffered through a ten-game losing streak, surged all the way up to the division lead, and then nearly gave back all of those gains before clinching a playoff spot on the final day of the season. Claude Giroux returned to prominence. Sean Couturier finally morphed into an elite point producer and was nominated for the Selke Trophy. Hyped rookie Nolan Patrick was really bad, and then was really good. Both primary goalies were injured during the stretch run. And to cap it all off, the team was blown out by a combined 17-1 score in their first three playoff defeats before rallying to end the series on a semi-positive note. It was a wild ride.

 

The sheer chaos of Philadelphia’s 88 games understandably produced different interpretations of the season and team as a whole. When a squad is consistently competitive and makes a long playoff run, everyone is generally happy. When a team struggles all year long and is out of contention by February, discontent rules the internet and airwaves. When things are somewhere in the middle? You get a particularly fascinating season to break down.

 

For the Flyers, 2017-18 was tailor-made to provide evidence for the preconceived notions of every corner of the Flyers’ fanbase, even when those notions were contradictory. Whatever your beliefs regarding the players and organization as a whole entering the year, you easily found ways to confirm your obvious correctness.

 

If you liked and trusted the core of the team, Giroux’s bounceback to elite status combined with Jakub Voracek’s return to point-per-game scoring rates only provided more reason to have faith in them, as did the jump of Couturier, Ivan Provorov and Shayne Gostisbehere to “impact player” levels. If you’re skeptical of the high-paid stars, however, their underwhelming results in the playoffs are all the evidence you need to hold to the belief that “the Flyers just won’t win with these guys.”

 

If you entered October as a Dave Hakstol defender, the overall results of the club speak well to the performance of the head coach. The team met preseason expectations, watched every single young player on the roster measurably improve over seven months, and rebounded from multiple crushing blows to achieve realistic goals. If you are a fervent Hakstol critic, however, his lineup and usage decisions gave you reason to howl on a nightly basis, and both the ten-game losing streak and near-collapse at the end of the season speak to a consistent inconsistency that has been a recurring issue over his three-year tenure as the Flyers’ head man.

 

Even the previously lauded Ron Hextall now generates split opinions when it comes to his performance. Defenders cite the youth movement that he’s spearheaded, the team’s improved cap situation, and the haul of prospects and draft picks that remain in his war chest. Critics argue that 2017-18 was yet another example of his “always two years away” plan, as he did nothing at the trade deadline to improve the team (Petr Mrazek was more of a necessary Band-Aid) and has yet to actively provide support for his 30-year-old and (soon-to-be) 29-year-old star forwards, aside from adding kids to the roster that his handpicked coach largely won’t even use in key situations yet.

 

There are kernels of truth in all of these arguments, with some more “true” than others. Whether you fall on the optimist or pessimist side of the equation right now when it comes to the Philadelphia Flyers and their 2017-18 season is decided by which mix of them you find most compelling.

 

---

In aggregate, I fall on more of the optimist’s side, and for one key reason: From a future roster construction standpoint, the 2017-18 season really couldn’t have gone much better for the Flyers.

The importance of Giroux and Voracek’s bounceback seasons, if anything, has been understated. The former scored like a fourth liner at 5-on-5 in 2016-17and had five more seasons at an $8.275 million cap hit on his contract entering this year. The possibility of a Dany Heatley-esque dropoff in production couldn’t be ignored. As for Voracek, his scoring rates had dropped as well, in addition to his underlying metrics falling underwater for the first time in his career. Suddenly, the Flyers had $16 million worth of cap space locked up in two late-20s forwards potentially hitting the unforgiving section of the aging curve hard at the same time. No matter how strong the Philadelphia prospect pool appeared, they weren’t going to be competitive if Giroux and Voracek continued their tailspins.

 

Instead, both recovered and delivered what were career-best seasons, at least in terms of points scored. Most likely, neither Giroux nor Voracek will replicate the 102- and 85-point performances of 2017-18, but now it’s looking far more likely that both will age gracefully, considering the heights at which they sit now. Giroux could cut 30 points off his total from this year and still basically be worth his cap hit. The worst-case scenario for the team’s two highest-paid players no longer seems all that frightening, and now it’s easy to envision their continued relevance aligning perfectly with the development of the under-22 portion of the organization. Last September, that was the most daunting question surrounding the club.

 

The emergence of Couturier as a true first-line center was almost as important. Couturier’s jump into 70-point status without sacrificing his defense and play-driving ability gives the Flyers a true competitive advantage over every team in hockey. Assuming the 25-year old retains even 80 percent of his scoring results over the remainder of his contract (four years), his $4.33 million cap hit is an absolute steal. And if he regularly replicates (or improves upon) his breakout season, Philadelphia may have the single best contract in the NHL.

 

The defense corps is also starting to come together, after being a weakness for so long. Gostisbehere actually scored at a better rate this season than he did in his standout rookie year, and he’s locked up with a reasonable $4.5 million cap hit for the foreseeable future. As for Provorov, the team will have to open up the check book for him, but they’ll gladly do so at some point over the next 14 months. Now that he’s shown his advanced metrics can match the eye test so long as he’s with a talented partner, there’s minimal risk involved with such a deal.

 

Kids who entered the 2017-18 season as unknown quantities also established themselves. Travis Sanheim’s underlying performance was dominant at the NHL level, and so long as the Flyers show faith in him, he should be a top-four defenseman for years to come. Travis Konecny’s floor at this point appears to be that of a second-line winger, with his upside far more exciting than that. The same could be said for Patrick, who at the very least will be a useful top-nine NHL center, and could top out as something of a 1B pivot to Couturier. Even Oskar Lindblom drove play and helped create scoring chances at a stellar rate in his 23-game regular-season stint, though his play did drop off in the postseason. He’s still an NHL player at the very least. Same with Robert Hagg, who held his own in his rookie year, and despite poor advanced metrics, showcased enough positives to be viewed as a useful role player for now.

 

Building a sustainably strong roster in the NHL is all about checking off three boxes: have a trustworthy core with a high floor (and preferably legitimate upside), limit the amount of low-end producers on too-large contracts, and have a strong prospect pool to keep things fresh and avoid salary cap hell. Box No. 1 has been checked off for the Flyers, and while Box No. 2 remains a problem, there’s finally a plausible path to meeting that requirement as well.

 

Valtteri Filppula, Brandon Manning and Matt Read will all be free agents and considering the fact that they’ve yet to be re-signed, will probably be allowed to walk. Jori Lehtera could easily be bought out. That leaves just Andrew MacDonald (who is viewed by the organization as something of a “defenseman prospect whisperer”), Dale Weise and arguably Radko Gudas as statistical weak points, and I’ll still go to bat for Gudas despite his poor finish to the season/playoffs. Even Wayne Simmonds’ underwhelming season (due to numerous injuries) may actually be a blessing in disguise, if it convinces the team to avoid giving him a potentially disastrous long-term extension that would start at age-31. As good as Simmonds is at his best, those types of contracts are extremely risky.

 

As for requirement No. 3, the “second wave” of Flyers prospects developed nicely in 2017-18, and aren’t far off from the NHL. Carter Hart was legitimately the best goalie prospect in North America; he turns pro next season. Morgan Frost projects to have a Konecny-esque NHL impact, except unlike Konecny, he appears capable of playing center at the next level. Wade Allison tore up the most stingy conference in college hockey. Phil Myers was dominant in the AHL when healthy. Nicolas Aube-Kubel had a breakout season with the Lehigh Valley Phantoms. These players aren’t lottery tickets anymore — they’re banging on the door of the big club.

 

Say that I’m wearing orange-tinted glasses if you want, but for the first time since 2012, the Flyers (in my estimation) have a direct path to putting together a deep, dangerous roster that doesn’t involve hoping for blockbuster trades to occur, or for young players to dramatically exceed expectations. To me, that’s a successful season. Because of the strides taken by the organization this year, it’s not difficult for me to envision the team taking another major step forward in 2018-19, assuming the right decisions are made by the people at the top of the food chain.

---

And that brings us to the biggest complicating factor in this optimistic view of the Flyers’ future: the men in charge.

 

Hakstol obviously has his vocal detractors. That was clear from the chants at the tail end of the ten-game losing streak that rained down from the Wells Fargo Center seats calling for his ouster, and the quieter (yet still audible) cries in that same building after the 5-0 Game 4 loss to the Penguins just last week. Dissatisfaction with Hakstol isn’t universal across the fanbase, but his critics sure seem to be louder than his supporters.

 

My evaluation of Hakstol at the moment is simple: In terms of setting the Flyers up for a bright future, he’s not currently hurting the team, and there’s a solid case to be made that he’s helping.

Back in late November, I wrote of my concerns with the development of the young players on the NHL roster, and how to that point in the year, the kids had shown little in the way of positive on-ice progression. The equation has changed dramatically since. Couturier, Gostisbehere, Provorov and Konecny all are far better players in April of 2018 than they were 12 months prior. Patrick and Sanheim closed the season strong and seem to be rounding out their overall games; both will rightfully be viewed as breakout candidates in September. Even players with less upside like Hagg and Lindblom received significant usage in important roles during their rookie seasons.

 

Either Hakstol is aiding in their development as players, or at the very least, he’s not holding them back. The most pressing reason to make a coaching change now would be if the kids were stagnating or regressing, but that’s not happening here. If you want to give all the credit for the positive progression of the team’s youth to the players themselves, that’s fair, but even then, you have to acknowledge that Hakstol doesn’t seem to be hurting their trajectories.

 

In addition, the team has made the playoffs in two out of three seasons under his watch. Could the Flyers have picked up a few more standings points here and there, or lost postseason games in slightly less embarrassing fashion? Sure. But the youngsters are getting playoff experience, and the team isn’t dramatically underachieving relative to the talent on hand. The Flyers have serious holes in their roster, which were glaringly on display versus the Penguins over the past two weeks. Be honest: not even Mike Babcock or Mike Sullivan would be expected to make a conference final with MacDonald, Gudas, Manning and Hagg filling out half of a defense corps.

 

In my mind, the question is not whether Hakstol is doing an all-around poor job as coach right now; he’s not. The tougher question to answer is whether he is the right coach for the long term, if he can push a good roster to great results, and a great roster to Cup contention. To that end, I think skepticism is warranted.

 

All professional coaches tend to trust veterans over young talent, but most coaches aren’t facing this degree of dramatic disparity between the talent levels of the older players Hakstol places his faith in, and the kids who regularly take a back seat to them. If it’s just a case of the usual “vet over rookie” bias, the issue should sort itself out as the young blue chippers inevitably earn vet status. But if this issue speaks to an inherent flaw in talent evaluation, the problem will linger as long as Hakstol is coach. Will a Gudas-Hagg pairing be matching up against Tampa Bay’s top line in the 2020 playoffs instead of Sanheim-Gostisbehere because the former brings “heaviness” to the table? It’s a legitimate worry.

 

The inconsistencies of the Flyers over the past three years are also concerning. Under Hakstol, the team has delivered two poor starts to seasons, and one OK start that was immediately followed by a ten-game losing streak. The phenomenon has carried over to the starts of playoff series, as well. In the first three games of the 2016 battle with the Washington Capitals and the 2018 Pens series, Philadelphia was outscored by a combined 25-8 and lost five times.

 

The team has absolutely been resilient with Hakstol at the helm, a quality they showcased repeatedly this year. I believe Hakstol’s even-keeled nature helps the club in that regard. But I keep coming back to this thought: should a coach be credited for consistently pulling his team back from the abyss, or criticized for letting it get to the edge of the cliff in the first place?

Right now, I’d argue (as I have all year) that the Flyers are not yet a good team from top-to-bottom. They are an average one. So right now, I cannot state with confidence that Hakstol is incapable of elevating a truly good team, because I don’t believe he’s had one yet. If Hakstol were functioning as an active detriment to the young talent that will determine the future for Philadelphia, I’d be less inclined to give him the opportunity to coach a good Flyers club. But he’s earned the right to have that shot, despite lingering concerns.

 

And that brings us to the man running the show: Ron Hextall.

 

In order to see if Hakstol can truly get the most out of a team with legitimate expectations, Hextall has to finally build him a roster that warrants those expectations, and that won’t happen simply by waiting for the kids to get really good. To this point in his tenure as general manager, he’s yet to make a good faith attempt to build that roster. Hextall hasn’t signed an unrestricted free agent to a yearly cap hit higher than three million dollars. His highest-ticket acquisition last offseason was Lehtera — a cap dump for St. Louis. He’s yet to be a true “buyer” at a trade deadline, despite presiding over two teams that eventually made the postseason.

 

This isn’t necessarily a criticism of Hextall. At this point in the retooling process, stockpiling assets makes a ton of sense, and he’s excelled in that area. But the consequence of his inaction is that he’s saddled his coach with an inherently flawed roster and kept his team in something of a holding pattern, and not just in terms of standings position and playoff results. It becomes harder to evaluate individual players in this environment, because someone has to take regular shifts alongside underwhelming talent. And it also makes it tougher to evaluate the coach, who is often put in the position of making the least wrong decision rather than a truly desirable one.

 

But that can change this offseason. Hextall will enter June with two first-round picks, maybe the deepest prospect pool in hockey, and as much as $20 million in cap space with as few as one forward and one defenseman spot to fill. If the Flyers don’t infuse their club with established NHL talent from the outside, no one can honestly argue it’s because they couldn’t. It would be explained by the simple fact that Hextall wouldn’t.

 

From where I sit, it’s time for Hextall to push some of his chips into the middle of the table. The Flyers need to find out if Hakstol can successfully coach a team with contender upside, and if the Giroux/Voracek core is good enough to be the backbone of a Cup-caliber roster. Huge seasons aside, they’re not getting any younger. If the goal is to try and win a championship with them playing key roles, the time is now to give them some real help. (Taking management of the penalty kill away from Ian Laperriere can’t hurt, either.)

 

Free agency isn’t all that attractive this year, unless a team can luck into convincing John Tavares to leave the Islanders. But there remain plausible upgrades in that pool, and Hextall absolutely has the ammunition to be active in the trade market as well. The cap space is there, and there won’t be room for every prospect in the organization to eventually make the big club, a truth Hextall showed he understood by shipping off Cooper Marody for futures just last month. They can afford to turn a few of them into players who can help the team win now.

 

This is the most exciting offseason of Hextall’s tenure as Philadelphia GM, because the time finally appears right for some intelligent aggressiveness in terms of asset management and player acquisition. If veterans are so important to the development of young talent, the kids can’t keep playing with underwhelming ones; they need older teammates who can help them to elevate their games, not drag them down. And the high-end veterans need more support as well, while they still remain high-end veterans.

 

Finally, the Flyers need to fairly evaluate Dave Hakstol the coach by giving him a club capable of contending and determining if he can meet the high expectations that come with such a squad. For fans, the roster excuse is getting old, for all involved. Hextall laid the foundation, and the reason why this season can be deemed a success is because the players proved themselves worthy of further investment on the part of the general manager to push them to the next level. The next move — and whether they build on that success — is up to him.