Flyers 2018-19 Offseason moves

[ruxpin]

29 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Ok.

 

Not sure what that even means. 

 

 

Maybe he thinks Rask doesn't have heart but forgot the e?

 

if it were 2 years, I'd consider, but I'm not thrilled about the 3rd year.   And at $7M, I don't know.

 

I can't imagine why Boston would move him, though.   They don't really have many (any?) options in net and they're kind of in "now" mode.

[ruxpin]

@OccamsRazor

 

If it were a possibility, I'd inquire, but given their "now" and no alternatives, they'll want the moon. I'd probably walk when hearing what it would take. 

[OccamsRazor]

28 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

@OccamsRazor

 

If it were a possibility, I'd inquire, but given their "now" and no alternatives, they'll want the moon. I'd probably walk when hearing what it would take. 

 

Yes if they were to move him they would want a stud goalie back it seems (or have another trade to pull the trigger on with another team.)

 

With their window still slightly cracked open move him now would be a step back unless another shoe was to drop.

 

I would maybe listen about moving one of the other goalies maybe for him. Like Stolie, Tomek, Ustimenko or Fedotov. But I doubt they would want them even with them being 3 years or more away.

 

And I agree the 3rd year at 34 could be rough.

 

Hey it was worth mentioning on this slow day with nothing else to talk about besides the Emery tragedy.

[OccamsRazor]

34 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

@OccamsRazor

 

If it were a possibility, I'd inquire, but given their "now" and no alternatives, they'll want the moon. I'd probably walk when hearing what it would take. 

 

The only guys they would be interested in is Hart and Sandstrom and I ain't move either one for awhile.

 

Especially without know what we truly have in them.

 

So for me those two are off limits.

[elmatus]

31 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

The only guys they would be interested in is Hart and Sandstrom and I ain't move either one for awhile.

 

 

I honestly doubt they would do it even for Hart. He definitely has the potential to make a trade possible with someone, but Boston is competitive now, while Hart is not. Relying on Halak to back stop their current config into a playoff run is a recipe for disaster. I'm sure they know that. I can't see them mortgaging a possible run this year even for a potential future stud like Hart.

 

Trading for a solid stop gap goalie who can help for 3-4 years would definitely be great, and Rask himself fits the bill very nicely imo, but I can't see this trade happening now. Would there be any other teams in a more favourable trade situation?

 

Edit: My thought went to Price, since MTL is clearly not anywhere near the playoffs this coming season. Then I saw his current contract. Does anyone know why Bergevin is still employed as an NHL GM?

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Hey it was worth mentioning on this slow day

Yeah, why not? 

 

And yeah, you can tell it's the back half of July.  The Flyers forum is getting less traffic than the Chic Fil-a in the lobby of the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir. 

[OccamsRazor]

This is a big year for a few fringe NHL/AHL players named Laughton, Leier and Weal.

 

It's make or break time i think have a good year carve out a steady spot or i think the Flyers move on from these guys.

 

Depending on where they are in the playoff race guys like Raffl, Lehtera and maybe Wiese could be traded away.

 

Although that last year of Wiese deal may mean they could be stuck with him without eating some of that.

 

Folin and/or Gudas too could be moved out depending on the progress of Myers and Friedman.

[elmatus]

10 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

This is a big year for a few fringe NHL/AHL players named Laughton, Leier and Weal.

 

It's make or break time i think have a good year carve out a steady spot or i think the Flyers move on from these guys.

 

Depending on where they are in the playoff race guys like Raffl, Lehtera and maybe Wiese could be traded away.

 

Although that last year of Wiese deal may mean they could be stuck with him without eating some of that.

 

Folin and/or Gudas too could be moved out depending on the progress of Myers and Friedman.

 

I agree 100%. Lehtera, Weal, and Raffl are all UFA after this season. I could see Raffl being extended for a couple years, but I'd be surprised for the other two. Laughton might be moveable for a low draft pick. Leier likely not so much, but I'm not convinced he'll be resigned either. If he does, it would be on an AHL contract.

 

Jury's still out on what Folin can do for us. That's a convo for next March. Gudas may be tradeable. If so, it would be this year. It likely wouldn't be for very much, but the right team might want him. He's expendable at this point anyway.

 

I can't see anyone wanting Weise. My guess is Hex will just keep him on the payroll until his contract's done. He probably won't see much ice time, but it's only two more years anyway. There's no point having him on the books for longer, and with others coming off, we have the cap space anyway.

 

It's an enviable position to be in for sure. Flyers are in a better spot going forward than they've been in... well a foolishly long time. The fact all the incoming talent is homegrown to boot is just mind blowing to me. Hats off.

[vis]

Any ideas on how the Flyers improve the PK unit?

 

Clearly Lappy isn't going anywhere.  Maybe they shift responsibility for PK to someone else.  Doubtful, though.

 

Filppula is gone, but who fills his role as center on Unit 2?  Laughton?

 

Even if someone like Vorobyev or Vecchione make the team, how likely is it that one of them will supplant a more "seasoned" player?  And if they do, how much of an improvement will it be?

 

I really hope they don't use Giroux and/or Simmonds on the PK on a routine basis.  

 

Think the PK is going to be comically bad again next season.

[mojo1917]

1 hour ago, vis said:

Any ideas on how the Flyers improve the PK unit?

 

Clearly Lappy isn't going anywhere.  Maybe they shift responsibility for PK to someone else.  Doubtful, though.

 

Filppula is gone, but who fills his role as center on Unit 2?  Laughton?

 

Even if someone like Vorobyev or Vecchione make the team, how likely is it that one of them will supplant a more "seasoned" player?  And if they do, how much of an improvement will it be?

 

I really hope they don't use Giroux and/or Simmonds on the PK on a routine basis.  

 

Think the PK is going to be comically bad again next season.

I think Laughton is built for NHL penalty killing, he's not just fast, he's quick and tenacious. I am not sure about his hockey IQ.  Since Niskanen knocked him silly, I haven't been impressed with how quickly he thinks the game, maybe he was never a sublime hockey mind to begin with, but physically Laughton has the right stuff IMO.  I think a guy like Raffl who has a long reach is competitive and smart would be good on the PK as well. I think those two would be good PKers, I think Couturier is still a good option and to disagree with you, when he's healthy, no one wants #17 skating at them when they have the puck, Simmonds is faster than you think, tougher than a $3 steak and has said he "enjoys" PK duties. So if the top PK pair could be Laughton and Raffl, then replace them with Couturier and Simmonds,  that could work, disrupting passing lanes and applying pressure. 

The D Pairs is where I have trouble, do we want #9 on the ice in the D zone all the time ? I mean he is the best player back there, I would, but I don't want to wear him out.  MacDonald is too passive on the rush for my taste but he is effective along the walls and back in the day could win a race to the puck, he isn't too panicky with the puck on his stick and is a team guy so he would PK to the best of his abilities.

I don't like Gudas on the PK, I thought Hagg was okay, he's physical he skates better than people give him credit for, I don't think he's dumb either. Does Folin kill penalties, is he the other stay home guy ?... This is where I think the PK runs into trouble, the d-pairs. so I'd do something like this.

first unit: 21, 12, 9, 8

second unit: 14, 17, 27, Folin

[elmatus]

40 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

first unit: 21, 12, 9, 8

second unit: 14, 17, 27, Folin

 

This has a distinct lack of "veteran" guys who "play a heavy game." I feel you may be gearing up for some disappointment.

[vis]

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I think Laughton is built for NHL penalty killing, he's not just fast, he's quick and tenacious.

Generally, agree but not so sure about tenacious.

 

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I am not sure about his hockey IQ. 

That's the problem.  He has no hockey sense, which is problematic for a PKer.

 

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I think a guy like Raffl who has a long reach is competitive and smart would be good on the PK as well.

Raffl got PK time last year.  Probably will again.  I don't see this as an improvement, but more of a lateral move.

 

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I think Couturier is still a good option

He played the most PK minutes last year.  Again, lateral move.  Not saying he's not good, just saying Couturier is maintain the status quo from last year.

 

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

and to disagree with you, when he's healthy, no one wants #17 skating at them when they have the puck, Simmonds is faster than you think, tougher than a $3 steak and has said he "enjoys" PK duties.

My comment about Simmonds was directed at him taking on more minutes, especially at his age and the injuries he's had.  Would prefer that the avoid using him in PK situations for that reason.

 

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

So if the top PK pair could be Laughton and Raffl, then replace them with Couturier and Simmonds,  that could work, disrupting passing lanes and applying pressure. 

All of those guys killed penalties last year, some more than others.  The only change to PK personnel from last year is that Filppula is no longer on the team.  Is Laughton an upgrade?  Vorobyev or Vecchione?  I know Filppula was slow and all, but he was a vet and had some savvy.  

 

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

The D Pairs is where I have trouble.

Not sure what to think about the d-pairings.  However, again, there is no change there unless you think Morin and/or Folin are going to get time on the PK.  If Folin is the 7th d-man (which seems to be the case), then he will have no impact.  Morin won't have an impact until later in the season.  I guess Morin is the only hope for improving the PK back-end.  Does that move the needle enough?

 

Oh, and we still have the same goaltenders.

[AJgoal]

1 hour ago, vis said:

Generally, agree but not so sure about tenacious.

 

That's the problem.  He has no hockey sense, which is problematic for a PKer.

 

Laughton averaged 1:03 of PK time per game. He gave up the fewest scoring chances among Flyers forwards/60 minutes of ice time. his GA/60 was better than Lehtera, Filppula, and Couturier, who all saw more PK ice time. 

 

1 hour ago, vis said:

 

Raffl got PK time last year.  Probably will again.  I don't see this as an improvement, but more of a lateral move.

 

Raffl had similar stats to Laughton. Slightly worse SA/60, slightly better GA/60. Increasing their PK utilization would actually be a good thing.

 

1 hour ago, vis said:

 

He played the most PK minutes last year.  Again, lateral move.  Not saying he's not good, just saying Couturier is maintain the status quo from last year.

 

My comment about Simmonds was directed at him taking on more minutes, especially at his age and the injuries he's had.  Would prefer that the avoid using him in PK situations for that reason.

 

All of those guys killed penalties last year, some more than others.  The only change to PK personnel from last year is that Filppula is no longer on the team.  Is Laughton an upgrade?  Vorobyev or Vecchione?  I know Filppula was slow and all, but he was a vet and had some savvy.  

 

Lehtera and Filppula gave up goals at a pace of over 11 per 60 minutes. Laughton, Raffl, and Simmonds were down below 8. It would seem that eliminating Filppula altogether and reducing Lehtera's minutes in favor of the other three would be beneficial to the PK as a whole.

 

1 hour ago, vis said:

Oh, and we still have the same goaltenders.

 

Funny how every goaltender has the same issue when playing on the Flyers: good 5v5 save%, piss poor PK save percentage. I wonder if maybe it isn't the goalie?

[vis]

1 hour ago, AJgoal said:

Laughton averaged 1:03 of PK time per game. He gave up the fewest scoring chances among Flyers forwards/60 minutes of ice time. his GA/60 was better than Lehtera, Filppula, and Couturier, who all saw more PK ice time.

So, those stats would seem to tell you that Laughton is a better defensive player than Couturier, a Selke finalist.  Do you agree with that? 

 

Also, despite what seems to be perception, Lehtera barely played the PK.  So, it's not like they would be swapping him out for Laughton or Raffl.  And I am certainly not taking the position that Lehtera is better than Laughton in any way.

 

1 hour ago, AJgoal said:

Raffl had similar stats to Laughton. Slightly worse SA/60, slightly better GA/60. Increasing their PK utilization would actually be a good thing.

Are you extrapolating Laughton's and Raffl's prowess as PKers from comparing even strength stats compared against their teammates?  If so, I disagree with that methodology (aside from my comment above).  First, players have different roles and face different competition.  Laughton's focus as a fourth liner at even strength is to avoid risk, play simple and focus on defensive aspects of the game.  Plus, as a fourth liner, he's facing inferior competition compared to other lines.  So, in my view, it stands to reason that he would have a better GA/60 compared to teammates who have a more offensive role or play against better competition.  Second, comparisons against teammates yields a "tallest midget in the circus" result. 

 

In any event, I'm not really debating that Laughton and Raffl shouldn't be PKers given the current roster.  I just don't think they represent an upgrade over last year, given that they played on the PK last year.  Laughton and Raffl received the second and third highest PK minutes per GP, respectively, among regular PKers.  So, despite the GA/60 or SC/60 stats you cite above, Laughton and Raffl were significant contributors to a dreadful PK.  I'm not sure giving them an increased role helps in that regard.

 

I wonder if there are any resources that breakdown PK success (or failure rates) on an individual basis?  Again, that should be adjusted for strength of competition.

 

Quote

I wonder if maybe it isn't the goalie?

Well, the goalie isn't helping.  But, I agree, it's a bigger problem than just the goalie.

 

My point, in all of this, is that I think the Flyers needed outside help to improve the personnel on the PK.  I think Raffl and Laughton are "status quo."  I don't know about the Phantoms kids (I do see the Phantoms were middle of the pack on the PK last year - not that impressive).  Maybe they will invite a veteran to camp on a tryout basis for that role.  I just think we are going into another season with no improvement on the PK.  And that bothers me.

[AJgoal]

If you want a good laugh: Dale Weise was on the ice for 10 seconds of PK time last season. They gave up 2 goals in those ten seconds.

[AJgoal]

Just now, vis said:

So, those stats would seem to tell you that Laughton is a better defensive player than Couturier, a Selke finalist?  Do you agree with that? 

 

Couturier 155 minutes, 25 GA

Laughton 85 minutes, 11 GA. Fewer than half the goals against in more than half the time.

 

It means nothing more than he was on the ice for fewer PK goals. Which means that maybe there should be consideration of increasing his PK usage to see if that bears out over more minutes. And as much as I like Couturier, let's not act like the Selke voting is based off of anything more than name and perception. Notice how he got very little recognition for the award when he was putting up even more solid defensive numbers. It wasn't until he started putting up points that people decided they could vote for him.

 

Just now, vis said:

 

Also, despite what seems to be perception, Lehtera barely played the PK.  So, it's not like they would be swapping him out for Laughton or Raffl.  And I am certainly not taking the position that Lehtera is better than Laughton in any way.

 

He barely played, and was on the ice for 9 goals. Raffl was on the ice for 9 goals in almost twice the ice time. Again, it's a usage issue. He shouldn't have barely played. He should have played not at all.

 

Just now, vis said:

 

Are you extrapolating Laughton's and Raf's prowess as PKers from comparing even strength stats compared against their teammates?  If so, I disagree with that methodology (aside from my comment above).  First, players have different roles and face different competition.  Laughton's focus as a fourth liner at even strength is to avoid risk, play simple and focus on defensive aspects of the game.  Plus, as a fourth liner, he's facing inferior competition compared to other lines.  So, in my view, it stands to reason that he would have a better GA/60 compared to teammates who have a more offensive role or play against better competition.  Second, comparisons against teammates yields a "tallest midget in the circus" result. 

 

Where was I using ES stats? Everything I used was PK only.

 

Just now, vis said:

 

In any event, I'm not really debating that Laughton and Raffl shouldn't be PKers given the current roster.  I just don't think they represent an upgrade over last year, given that they played on the PK last year.  Laughton and Raffl received the second and third highest PK minutes per GP, respectively, among regular PKers.  So, despite the GA/60 or SC/60 stats you cite above, Laughton and Raffl were significant contributors to a dreadful PK.  I'm not sure giving them an increased role helps in that regard.

 

Third and fourth, after Couturier and Filppula. Deleting Filppula's usage alone should go a long way.

 

Just now, vis said:

Well, the goalie isn't helping.  But, I agree, it's a bigger problem than just the goalie.

 

My point, in all of this, is that I think the Flyers needed outside help to improve the personnel on the PK.  I think Raffl and Laughton are "status quo."  I don't know about the Phantoms kids (I do see the Phantoms were middle of the pack on the PK last year - not that impressive).  Maybe they will invite a veteran to camp on a tryout basis for that role.  I just think we are going into another season with no improvement on the PK.  And that bothers me.

 

I agree that they need outside help. Just not that it necessarily needs to be on the ice. Let's put it this way: Provorov had terrible PK stats. Does he need to be replaced?

[vis]

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Which means that maybe there should be consideration of increasing his PK usage to see if that bears out over more minutes.

Over Couturier?  Disagree with that.  Also doesn't take into consideration strength of competition.

 

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

He shouldn't have barely played. He should have played not at all.

Agree, but I am not advocating him to play.  And he was used less than those guys anyway.

 

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Where was I using ES stats? Everything I used was PK only.

I didn't realize you were using PK stats.  That's why I questioned the methodology.  As noted above, the metrics don't take into consideration strength of competition, which I imagine would be a pretty heavy influencer.  I also wonder a little how the stats skew depending on when they are deployed during the PK.

 

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Third and fourth, after Couturier and Filppula. Deleting Filppula's usage alone should go a long way.

Yes, after those guys.  I'm not 100% positive about your second statement, though.

 

2 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

I agree that they need outside help. Just not that it necessarily needs to be on the ice. Let's put it this way: Provorov had terrible PK stats. Does he need to be replaced?

No, nor am I saying that Couturier should be replaced.  I agree that coaching needs to improve.  But I also think, once you get past Couturier, the personnel gets a bit dicey.  

[AJgoal]

44 minutes ago, vis said:

Over Couturier?  Disagree with that.  Also doesn't take into consideration strength of competition.

 

I'm just looking at last year. No, I don't think he should have been used over Couturier. Over Filppula? Most definitely.

 

Quote

 

Agree, but I am not advocating him to play.  And he was used less than those guys anyway.

 

I didn't realize you were using PK stats.  That's why I questioned the methodology.  As noted above, the metrics don't take into consideration strength of competition, which I imagine would be a pretty heavy influencer.  I also wonder a little how the stats skew depending on when they are deployed during the PK.

 

Considering that PK units switch off every 15-20 seconds if they're able, I don't think QOC is likely to have too big an impact. It certainly could skew the stats some, though. 

 

Quote

 

Yes, after those guys.  I'm not 100% positive about your second statement, though.

 

No, nor am I saying that Couturier should be replaced.  I agree that coaching needs to improve.  But I also think, once you get past Couturier, the personnel gets a bit dicey.  

 

I don't think they have top-5 PK personnel. But coaching alone should be able to improve the unit out of the bottom third. I've been harping on usage, here's another example. 

 

Players in order order of usage on the PK (min/gp), and where they ranked league-wide amongst players with 40+ minutes of PK time in GA/60 out of 212 players:

 

Couturier (184th)

Filppula (201st)

Leier (212th)
Raffl (93rd)

Laughton (135th)

Simmonds (89th)

Giroux (127th)

Lehtera (205th)

 

They helped themselves out by taking Leier off the PK. But here's something that you don't see if you just look at the whole season: Lehtera averaged 1:09 of PK time per game over the last half of the season. Giroux, Laughton and Simmonds: 0:58, 0:30 and 0:14, respectively. Granted Simmonds was injured, but Lehtera's season-long usage is greatly skewed by the time that he wasn't killing penalties early in the season (He played less than 4 minutes total over his first 25 games). By the end, he was a go-to, while Laughton, who had been a staple early in the season, was hardly seeing the ice. Matt Read played the exact same amount of PK time as Laughton did over the second half - in 25 fewer games. Over that same time, the duo of Lehtera/Filppula was giving up over 12 goals per 60 minutes of PK time. Yet the staff kept trotting them out as if they had no other options. That's insanity.

 

ETA: Laughton's numbers don't skew up significantly if you just look at the first half of the season, either. Season-long he's at 7.78 vs. 8.57 over the first half.

[OccamsRazor]

4th line RW to start????

 

 

 

[AJgoal]

He has to beat out Weal. It's certainly possible that Aube-Kubel's offense translates better to the NHL, but it's hard to look at their respective AHL bodies of work and conclude that Aube-Kubel is the better option.

 

Now if Laughton and Weal are your bottom two centers (I think Weal at center is madness, but Hakstol), I'm certain NAK is already better than Lehtera.

[OccamsRazor]

58 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

He has to beat out Weal. It's certainly possible that Aube-Kubel's offense translates better to the NHL, but it's hard to look at their respective AHL bodies of work and conclude that Aube-Kubel is the better option.

 

Now if Laughton and Weal are your bottom two centers (I think Weal at center is madness, but Hakstol), I'm certain NAK is already better than Lehtera.

 

Well I think he will just because he is better at playing without the puck as with it.

 

That is what is going to win Hak's wittle heart.

 

He was the top forward 5 on 5 last year in the AHL and sure it was the AHL but you have to play well there first to be even an afterthought.

 

He will just have to work on cleaning up his questionable hits that got him suspended 3 times last year.

 

I applaud his physical game especially for a frenchy....but bbn if he don't want to end up in Hak doghouse this is a must.

 

He will be given a chance this camp/preseason fo win a spot. I wish him luck.

[vis]

On 7/18/2018 at 6:41 PM, AJgoal said:

Over Filppula? Most definitely.

Probably, based on the stats you provided.

 

On 7/18/2018 at 6:41 PM, AJgoal said:

Considering that PK units switch off every 15-20 seconds if they're able, I don't think QOC is likely to have too big an impact. It certainly could skew the stats some, though. 

Not sure I agree with that.  Normally you try to match your top PK unit against the top PP unit.

 

On 7/18/2018 at 6:41 PM, AJgoal said:

 

I don't think they have top-5 PK personnel. But coaching alone should be able to improve the unit out of the bottom third. I've been harping on usage, here's another example. 

Not sure coaching alone would get them that far, but probably close.  Think they would still be in the bottom half, which isn't good.

 

On 7/18/2018 at 6:41 PM, AJgoal said:

They helped themselves out by taking Leier off the PK. But here's something that you don't see if you just look at the whole season: Lehtera averaged 1:09 of PK time per game over the last half of the season. Giroux, Laughton and Simmonds: 0:58, 0:30 and 0:14, respectively. Granted Simmonds was injured, but Lehtera's season-long usage is greatly skewed by the time that he wasn't killing penalties early in the season (He played less than 4 minutes total over his first 25 games). By the end, he was a go-to, while Laughton, who had been a staple early in the season, was hardly seeing the ice. Matt Read played the exact same amount of PK time as Laughton did over the second half - in 25 fewer games. Over that same time, the duo of Lehtera/Filppula was giving up over 12 goals per 60 minutes of PK time. Yet the staff kept trotting them out as if they had no other options. That's insanity.

 

ETA: Laughton's numbers don't skew up significantly if you just look at the first half of the season, either. Season-long he's at 7.78 vs. 8.57 over the first half.

This is great stuff.  And it's totally buried by looking at the season-long stats.  Did you compile this yourself, or is there a site you are using?  The Lehtera usage is mindboggling and frustrating.

[vis]

Is Aube-Kubel the guy who got suspended in the POs?  I've read that he isn't the smartest, most disciplined player, which usually means Hakstol won't play him.

[AJgoal]

2 minutes ago, vis said:

Probably, based on the stats you provided.

 

Not sure I agree with that.  Normally you try to match your top PK unit against the top PP unit.

 

To start, yes. But they generally seem to try to change after every clear. They probably do get more time against the top PP unit, but it's not as pronounced as normal line matching. At least, that's my opinion. I can't find a pure stat look at it.

 

2 minutes ago, vis said:

 

Not sure coaching alone would get them that far, but probably close.  Think they would still be in the bottom half, which isn't good.

 

Agreed. But between usage and a more effective system (starting with "the guy in front of the net is NOT supposed to be there." Seriously, their ignoring of the netfront guy has to be by design.) it's hard to gauge just how much is the players.

 

2 minutes ago, vis said:

 

This is great stuff.  And it's totally buried by looking at the season-long stats.  Did you compile this yourself, or is there a site you are using?  The Lehtera usage is mindboggling and frustrating.

 

Natural Stat Trick allows you to update based on a date range under the filters. Corsica probably does too, but I like NST's interface.

 

[AJgoal]

7 minutes ago, vis said:

Is Aube-Kubel the guy who got suspended in the POs?  I've read that he isn't the smartest, most disciplined player, which usually means Hakstol won't play him.

 

Yes, he is.

 

Hextall did say he'd earned a long look at camp, but that was also before the suspension. And I don't see anything in his game that points to him being better than the 13th forward on the Flyers. Both Leier and Weal outproduced him in the AHL at the same age. So with the possible exception of "filling a 4th line role," which I personally think is behind the curve thinking in the current-day NHL, there's little to recommend NAK for an opening day role right now. I'm fine with giving him a look, but I'm not seeing anything that tells me I should pencil him in over either Leier or Weal. 

 

Hakstol, of course, may think differently. But that doesn't mean he should.