Meltzer's retrospective on the Carter and Richards trades

[AJgoal]

https://www.nhl.com/flyers/news/what-went-down-a-look-back-at-the-trade-that-shook-the-2011-draft--philadelphia-flyers/c-299028526

 

One of the most interesting parts of this is how the Flyers had coveted Voracek since the 2007 draft. Edmonton offered them #6 and #21 to move up to #2, and Holmgren wanted #15 as well. Had they made the trade, they would have drafted Voracek with #6.

[radoran]

For me, this is an "interesting" article more for what it omits, than for what it contains.

 

Kind of a dry, almost clinical restrospective that doesn't really reflect a lot of the drama surrounding why they wanted so desperately to move the two players they had just signed to extremely long term deals. For an article that bases its premise on "why the deals were made" (third sentence, second paragraph) this seems to me to be a fairly large omission. To paint this story as "the team had always wanted Voracek" is somewhat myopic (at best) and reflective of a story that appears not on hockeybuzz, but on the official website of the team.

 

It also pretty much tap dances around l'affaire Bryzgalov. If anything, this reads as the take Holmgren's PR person would have on the whole thing. I'm hoping Meltzer - an insightful writer with a solid take - isn't morphing into the next Dave Spadaro.

 

You know what's also missing? The words "Chris Pronger."

 

"There are those who would seek to revise history - revisionist historians, I call 'em" - George W. Bush.

 

This was one of the most impactful restructuring of the lineup the organization had ever done and the results are, well, mixed to this point. The article mentions, but somewhat glosses over, the whole reason the team didn't have a 1/2 pick for 2011 (adding Versteeg to bolster "a 106-point season a year after coming within two wins of the Stanley Cup" and trading Upshall and the 2nd for Carcillo). The Upshall deal was widely seen then and is generally considered now (in places outside of philadelphiaflyers,.com) a warning sign of the "troubles" that led to "the trades" two years later.

 

It's just matter-of-fact in the article.

 

On the return of "the trades" - It's pretty well known that I'm a HUGE Simmonds fan. Obviously they've now gotten some good picks for Schenn (who IMO was never really used properly in Philadelphia). Voracek has been a solid, if erratic, regular season performer. Adding the pick that became Couturier bore fruit early with a solid two way center that has now shown us the offensive side many expected before his bout with mono dropped him in the draft rankings.

 

Couturier is a solid piece moving forward and Voracek (if he ever produces in the playoffs) is, too. Simmonds is an important part of the leadership (that may end up having to be moved for salary reasons and will likely get them a nice return if there is a trade). Schenn got them two first rounders.

 

Those are pretty good returns.

 

But, in the end, they have three players who are "key pieces" of five rounds of playoffs over the seven seasons since they "won the trades" and have outright missed the playoffs three times.

 

Those aren't.

 

So, in the end, I'm still in the camp that says they need at least two Cups with some of the assets they got to have really "won the trades."

 

Revisionist history notwithstanding.

[ruxpin]

13 minutes ago, radoran said:

For me, this is an "interesting" article more for what it omits, than for what it contains.

 

Kind of a dry, almost clinical restrospective that doesn't really reflect a lot of the drama surrounding why they wanted so desperately to move the two players they had just signed to extremely long term deals. For an article that bases its premise on "why the deals were made" (third sentence, second paragraph) this seems to me to be a fairly large omission. To paint this story as "the team had always wanted Voracek" is somewhat myopic (at best) and reflective of a story that appears not on hockeybuzz, but on the official website of the team.

 

It also pretty much tap dances around l'affaire Bryzgalov. If anything, this reads as the take Holmgren's PR person would have on the whole thing. I'm hoping Meltzer - an insightful writer with a solid take - isn't morphing into the next Dave Spadaro.

 

You know what's also missing? The words "Chris Pronger."

 

"There are those who would seek to revise history - revisionist historians, I call 'em" - George W. Bush.

 

This was one of the most impactful restructuring of the lineup the organization had ever done and the results are, well, mixed to this point. The article mentions, but somewhat glosses over, the whole reason the team didn't have a 1/2 pick for 2011 (adding Versteeg to bolster "a 106-point season a year after coming within two wins of the Stanley Cup" and trading Upshall and the 2nd for Carcillo). The Upshall deal was widely seen then and is generally considered now (in places outside of philadelphiaflyers,.com) a warning sign of the "troubles" that led to "the trades" two years later.

 

It's just matter-of-fact in the article.

 

On the return of "the trades" - It's pretty well known that I'm a HUGE Simmonds fan. Obviously they've now gotten some good picks for Schenn (who IMO was never really used properly in Philadelphia). Voracek has been a solid, if erratic, regular season performer. Adding the pick that became Couturier bore fruit early with a solid two way center that has now shown us the offensive side many expected before his bout with mono dropped him in the draft rankings.

 

Couturier is a solid piece moving forward and Voracek (if he ever produces in the playoffs) is, too. Simmonds is an important part of the leadership (that may end up having to be moved for salary reasons and will likely get them a nice return if there is a trade). Schenn got them two first rounders.

 

Those are pretty good returns.

 

But, in the end, they have three players who are "key pieces" of five rounds of playoffs over the seven seasons since they "won the trades" and have outright missed the playoffs three times.

 

Those aren't.

 

So, in the end, I'm still in the camp that says they need at least two Cups with some of the assets they got to have really "won the trades."

 

Revisionist history notwithstanding.

 

Dammit.  I save all the terrific posts for your login.  

[King Knut]

4 hours ago, radoran said:

 

 

So, in the end, I'm still in the camp that says they need at least two Cups with some of the assets they got to have really "won the trades."

 

Revisionist history notwithstanding.

 

 

I'm with you on the "winning the trades" talk. 

More than anything, I don't like that kind of thinking.  Trades aren't won.  Games are won, seasons are won, cups are won.  

 

To your points, the Flyers could only conceivably be seen as "winning" those trades if their sole goal was to get rid of Richards and Carter.

 

Couturier is probably my favorite Flyer and I have long been a defender of him and reveled in the season he had because one of the only people who saw it coming.  AND I defend the hell out of Jake when people shred his turnovers.  Simmer is a fantastic human being and perhaps the easiest player in the world to root for and we ALL love that guy.  Still, the Flyers didn't win anything in these trades.  

 

And I'll take it a step further and say that it's not because Richards and Carter were/are better players.  ANd it's not JUST because the Kings won two cups with them.

 

I tell this story all the time, but when i read the headline "Flyers Trade Richards to Kings" I genuinely thought, "well at least they got Quick, right? " and then was shocked to see that they got a prospect and a (at that time) grinder.  

 

When I complain about this time, people think it's because I'm a Richards and Carter Defender ( I was ) but that's not why I hate the trades... It wasn't the trades themselves that made those trades idiotic, it was what homer did afterwards.  Those trades were a commitment to a rebuild.  But they'd just signed Pronger to an end of time deal.  They still had Briere, then they signed Bryzgalov (who even if he hadn't been crazy, wasn't a rebuild move).  They screwed themselves into needing to trade Bob (rebuild move) for cap reasons (although they could have moved that space elsewhere, but doubled down on Bryz for reasons I'll never grasp).  Homer doubled down on Parise and Suter and then Weber (win now moves).  He traded JVR (25-30 goal #2 overall pick who was still devleoping) for Luke Schenn.  Grossman... Schultz...  Jagr (which would have been a brilliant move if he'd brought him back)... MacDonald ...VLC  I'm forgetting more because I choose to block it out.  

 

If he'd just committed to the rebuild in 2011 and stuck with it, it might have been over by now.  But for every semi-smart rebuild move he made, homer made two idiotic win now moves. They all ended up cancelling each other out and the team has been frustratingly middling ever since.  Not 2007 bad, but not good enough to make the playoffs and if they are, not good enough to compete there which is frustrating because if there's NO PLAN and everything is chaos, there's nothing for a fan to look forward to except dumb luck and the Flyers traded all of theirs away when they dealt Bob to Columbus for what eventually became Stolarz.  

 

So if Homer had made those trades, never signed Bryz, Kept JVR, drafted D men like there was no tomorrow and maybe made a few deal like Hextall did for the likes of Coburn and Timmo, using those picks to rebuild as intended, the rebuild might be over by now and the team might have truly been competing for 2 or 3 years.  Instead He had to bring in Hextall to pick up some very very broken pieces, Mr. Snider died and the team is now kinda looking decent again. 

 

 

[flyercanuck]

 I always liked both players.

 

 Richards (despite his party mentality) was a steal where he was picked. He was also the heart and soul of the team for years.

 

 Carter, as much as he was maligned for his "high and wide" shot selection, was a solid two way player (he played a smart, not gritty 200 foot game) who will likely finish his career as a top 100 alltime scorer. I don't think near enough people gave him credit around here.

 

 Without the deals made Philly may have had another shot at a cup, but with Prongers injury and the jerk in net I highly doubt it. Of course at this point I'll gladly take Couturier/Simmonds/Voracek/Frost/14th overall. 

[ruxpin]

10 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

I don't think near enough people gave [Crater] credit around here.

 

Except @jammer2

 

LOL

[radoran]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

then they signed Bryzgalov 

 

I think the article points out that Homer had the ink drying on the Bryz contract when he made the two trades.

 

"The trades" weren't a "rebuild" move, they were "retooling." Homer expected the team under Pronger to continue to be a high level playoff contender. 

 

Homer was just terrible...

[King Knut]

11 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I think the article points out that Homer had the ink drying on the Bryz contract when he made the two trades.

 

"The trades" weren't a "rebuild" move, they were "retooling." Homer expected the team under Pronger to continue to be a high level playoff contender. 

 

Homer was just terrible...

 

I normally the think of Homer as having a good phase... a roller coaster phase and a please put him out of our misery phase.  

 

He he started out like gang busters when he took over.  Timmo, Briere, Hartnell, Breuer, Coburn, Lupul... these were great to good deals.  We’ll put Biron in the bad risks category. 

 

However if he decided to put all his eggs in a 35 year old D man instead of the core group down that middle he’d Built his team around, then I can’t defend him.  That’s just supid as F.  

[radoran]

13 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

I normally the think of Homer as having a good phase... a roller coaster phase and a please put him out of our misery phase.  

 

He he started out like gang busters when he took over.  Timmo, Briere, Hartnell, Breuer, Coburn, Lupul... these were great to good deals.  We’ll put Biron in the bad risks category. 

 

However if he decided to put all his eggs in a 35 year old D man instead of the core group down that middle he’d Built his team around, then I can’t defend him.  That’s just supid as F.  

 

I do give him credit for the early on moves. Even Biron was a low risk signing. And he drafted fairly well, when he left himself draft picks to use...

 

I just feel that the overall body of work washed that out. Bryzgalov wasn't a terrible idea in and of itself - but the nine-year deal was insane. Committing the team to Richards/Crater for 10 years and then bailing on both of them. The Pronger deal was egregious - from the perspective of "building" around a 35-year-old defenceman. And chasing Parise/Suter instead of reloading the gun in 13-14 was just stupid.

 

And we haven't even mentioned Shea Weber yet...

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

I do give him credit for the early on moves. Even Biron was a low risk signing. And he drafted fairly well, when he left himself draft picks to use...

 

I just feel that the overall body of work washed that out. Bryzgalov wasn't a terrible idea in and of itself - but the nine-year deal was insane. Committing the team to Richards/Crater for 10 years and then bailing on both of them. The Pronger deal was egregious - from the perspective of "building" around a 35-year-old defenceman. And chasing Parise/Suter instead of reloading the gun in 13-14 was just stupid.

 

And we haven't even mentioned Shea Weber yet...

 

I just don't want to let Luke Schenn for JVR go yet either.  The kid didn't play the way you want him to, but you just threw away a 30 goal scoring LW.    Just threw him away for a slow as hell lumbering D man because why? He comes from an overrated family?  

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

I just don't want to let Luke Schenn for JVR go yet either.  The kid didn't play the way you want him to, but you just threw away a 30 goal scoring LW.    Just threw him away for a slow as hell lumbering D man because why? He comes from an overrated family?  

 

I was over JVR when he was traded.  There were times when he was on wing with Giroux that you were really excited about what the future would be with both of them.  I wouldn't have been unhappy (just wrong) that they traded him if the return wasn't so utterly insane.  Holmgren got fleeced on that and there's no two ways about it.

[King Knut]

48 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I was over JVR when he was traded.  There were times when he was on wing with Giroux that you were really excited about what the future would be with both of them.  I wouldn't have been unhappy (just wrong) that they traded him if the return wasn't so utterly insane.  Holmgren got fleeced on that and there's no two ways about it.

 

I wasn't thrilled with the player (it was hard to swallow after missing out on Kane) but like you say... the return.  If you trade JVR and you get a decent D man in return you're winning.  If the Leafs were willing to trade a D man for a struggling LW straight up, you had to know something was wrong with him.  

 

Luke is another player that I just can't seem to figure out how he wasn't better than he was... But he wasn't better.  Not at all.  Turns out he was actually probably worse than he was.  

[ruxpin]

5 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Luke is another player that I just can't seem to figure out how he wasn't better than he was... But he wasn't better.  Not at all.  Turns out he was actually probably worse than he was.  

Yeah, he really should have been better. If you had to guess, was it work ethic, IQ, or did the game start to change and he wasn't equipped for it? Or something else or all of it? 

[flyercanuck]

21 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

I wasn't thrilled with the player (it was hard to swallow after missing out on Kane) but like you say... the return.  If you trade JVR and you get a decent D man in return you're winning.  If the Leafs were willing to trade a D man for a struggling LW straight up, you had to know something was wrong with him.  

 

Luke is another player that I just can't seem to figure out how he wasn't better than he was... But he wasn't better.  Not at all.  Turns out he was actually probably worse than he was.  

 

He couldn't skate in a game that was evolving into one you had to be able to skate in. He was also rushed into the NHL.

 

He could have been a rock solid defenceman in any other era.

[radoran]

21 hours ago, King Knut said:

  If the Leafs were willing to trade a D man for a struggling LW straight up, you had to know something was wrong with him.

 

He scored 21 goals as a 21 year old.

 

"Struggling?"

 

No doubt the Leaes were happy to move Schenn, but the major "Struggling" guy in the scenario is Holmgren.

[King Knut]

6 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

He scored 21 goals as a 21 year old.

 

"Struggling?"

 

No doubt the Leaes were happy to move Schenn, but the major "Struggling" guy in the scenario is Holmgren.

 

 

I simply meant they weren't getting the full effort they wanted to see out of him. 

 

21 goals his second year at a whopping +21 is amazing and frankly, trading that kid sounded stupid at the time and sounds ridiculously stupid now.

 

When Homer traded him his was coming off 11 goals in half a season and was a -1.  I think the trade had more to do with what was perceived as a lackluster playoffs (after what had been a pretty phenomenal playoffs the year before).  

 

Either way, just more evidence to support my "Homer had a stroke sometime in 2012" theory. My money is on JVR going to the Rangers this off season for too much money.