Flyers Sign Folin to one-year, $800,000 deal

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

And the biggest zero suspensions!

 

Jinx

[OccamsRazor]

12 minutes ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

 

Jinx

 

Yeah.

 

Once he puts that uni on he is done.

 

A marked man.

 

However he is the perfect 7th Dman type best case he supplants someone in the lineup.

 

And if Myers isn't ready he can be sent back to the AHL to develop.

 

If he isn't going to play I don't want him sitting like Sanheim did for so long before being sent back.

 

Worst case Folin bombs and is buried in the AHL.

[vis]

Provorov, Ghost, Hagg, MacDonald, Gudas, Sanheim, Myers, Folin and Morin...

 

A crowded defense corps just got more crowded.

 

I hope Folin is competition for Gudas and MacDonald and not competition for Sanheim, Myers, Hagg or Morin (when healthy).  I really don't want to see a deserving young player sent back to the AHL because of a numbers game.  Maybe Folin is insurance in case Myers can't make the grade (or gets injured).

 

However, I fear that Folin will be Hakstol's new boy toy and the younger guys will ride pine or be banished to the AHL (to the extent they can be without going through waivers).

 

By the way, if I'm being honest, I do wonder if Sanheim and Myers could legitimately make the jump this year or whether another year in the AHL would be helpful.  I still have some doubts about Sanheim's ability to defend and think the game at this level.  Myers seems to be impressive with the Phantoms, but he cannot stay healthy for long periods of time.  Really curious to see how he defends in pre-season.  I really think Sanheim and Myers will start in the AHL next year.

[OccamsRazor]

4 hours ago, vis said:

By the way, if I'm being honest, I do wonder if Sanheim and Myers could legitimately make the jump this year or whether another year in the AHL would be helpful.  I still have some doubts about Sanheim's ability to defend and think the game at this level. 

 

 

This is what Folin is here for so if the kids aren't ready they aren't sitting in the press box. Both are waiver exempt so if they are not ready then they can be sent down to work on their game.

 

Folin at his salary is where you want your 6-7th guy at.

 

I understand what you're saying about fearing about him becoming Hak new favorite student and it could be the case because he plays a solid two way not flashy game.

 

He is physical and can do basically what Gudas can do without going to the sin bin or being called on the carpet in front of DOPES!

 

But i am hoping when all is said and done he is going to force Ron to move Gudas due to his salary and not want a guy making that much a healthy scratch.

 

Gudas i think has a movable contract for two years at 3.3mill not a bad deal for a guy who can play in your top 4.

 

The worst part of that is the rest of the GMs have seen what we have seen he isn't the same type of defenseman if he can't play with that edge.

 

Department of safety has basically neutered him.

 

Worst case Folin struggles in Hak's system and Ron waives him and to the Phantoms he is banished.

[OccamsRazor]

Here is a decent video showing the sort of game Folin can bring. Nothing flashy but 3 primary assist in the win...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbVqVOZsi4c

 

@ 1:05 a nice simple break out pass to the goal scorer.

 

@ 1:33 nice slap pass to the goal mouth.

 

@ the 2:58 mark i love how he makes the subtle play to take the puck away from the puck carrier in the neutral zone and fires a quick pass to Carter for the breakaway goal.

 

Flyers can use more of that. As stated nothing to make you stand up in your seat and go Oh my God but simple plays. With all the skill the Flyers have i am ok with a guy who makes the simple positive play every play doesn't have to be a highlight play.

 

Someone has to play in the background and do the dirty work. For 850K certainly worth the risk.

[brelic]

9 hours ago, vis said:

However, I fear that Folin will be Hakstol's new boy toy and the younger guys will ride pine or be banished to the AHL (to the extent they can be without going through waivers).

 

By the way, if I'm being honest, I do wonder if Sanheim and Myers could legitimately make the jump this year or whether another year in the AHL would be helpful.  I still have some doubts about Sanheim's ability to defend and think the game at this level.  Myers seems to be impressive with the Phantoms, but he cannot stay healthy for long periods of time.  Really curious to see how he defends in pre-season.  I really think Sanheim and Myers will start in the AHL next year.

 

I understand your concern. Honestly, though, I wonder how much of it was Hakstol sticking with his boy toy vs. just not feeling that Sanheim was playing the game the way he wants him to. 

 

Hagg dressed in 70 games, including over Sanheim in lots of cases. So it's not as simple as being afraid to play a rookie. Yes, Hagg ended up with a 44.7% CF (only Weise and Filppula were worse), but he also started 59% of his shifts in the defensive zone. 

 

I do wonder if another move is coming on defense (moving a body out).

[AJgoal]

2 hours ago, brelic said:

 

I understand your concern. Honestly, though, I wonder how much of it was Hakstol sticking with his boy toy vs. just not feeling that Sanheim was playing the game the way he wants him to. 

 

Hagg dressed in 70 games, including over Sanheim in lots of cases. So it's not as simple as being afraid to play a rookie. Yes, Hagg ended up with a 44.7% CF (only Weise and Filppula were worse), but he also started 59% of his shifts in the defensive zone. 

 

I do wonder if another move is coming on defense (moving a body out).

 

Research has shown that zone starts don't influence corsi that much:

 

"Of all the players in the league in 2014-2015 with 100 minutes played at 5v5, only 5% of them them see their on-ice shot percentage move more than one percentage point [when adjusted for zone start]." (https://www.nhlnumbers.com/2016/11/4/beware-of-what-zone-starts-are-telling-you-part-ii-shot-metrics)

 

I don't think they make another move. Charlie O'Connor made a great point that this is a move designed to force Myers to win a camp spot by pushing out Hagg, MacDonald, Sanheim, or Gudas. Folin won't likely factor into the equation as he will be pencilled in as the 7 (ETA: so if Myers beats him, he'll still be in the AHL rather than play as the #7). The worry about Hakstol falling in love with him and playing him over Sanheim or Myers should both make the team is very real, though.

 

[elmatus]

22 minutes ago, brelic said:

Honestly, though, I wonder how much of it was Hakstol sticking with his boy toy vs. just not feeling that Sanheim was playing the game the way he wants him to.

 

This sentence presents both ease and trepidation for me. Ease cause that feels like exactly what a HC should insist upon; trepidation because Hakstol.

[vis]

 

6 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

But i am hoping when all is said and done he is going to force Ron to move Gudas due to his salary and not want a guy making that much a healthy scratch.

 

Gudas i think has a movable contract for two years at 3.3mill not a bad deal for a guy who can play in your top 4.

 

The worst part of that is the rest of the GMs have seen what we have seen he isn't the same type of defenseman if he can't play with that edge.

 

Department of safety has basically neutered him.

Agree, except I don't know that it's totally the fault of the department of safety.  I wonder if its Hakstol and Hextall asking him to tune it down too much, particularly given the PK woes (and the fact that he was a PK player).  I think he can still be effective - from a physical perspective - if given enough leeway and proper guidance.

 

Agree he has a pretty attractive contract.

[vis]

2 hours ago, brelic said:

I understand your concern. Honestly, though, I wonder how much of it was Hakstol sticking with his boy toy vs. just not feeling that Sanheim was playing the game the way he wants him to. 

In all fairness, Hakstol is kind of in a tough spot. I think the conversation has been had on the board before, but at what point does winning take priority over development (or vice versa)?  If development is the priority, then Sanheim should be playing (mistakes and all). If winning is the priority, then the question is more challenging.  Sanheim is better offensively, but is a more risky player and prone to defensive lapses.  Manning was more consistent and slightly less of a risk.  Hakstol seems to have a penchant for "structure" and fewer mistakes, despite the upside that Sanheim may represent.  As I have stated a bunch of times, I can tolerate the risk associated with playing younger guys.  I don't like the risk associated with veterans who should know better - even if the risks are less than those associated with younger players.

 

Quote

Hagg dressed in 70 games, including over Sanheim in lots of cases. So it's not as simple as being afraid to play a rookie. Yes, Hagg ended up with a 44.7% CF (only Weise and Filppula were worse), but he also started 59% of his shifts in the defensive zone. 

Hagg is a less risky player than Sanheim, so I kind of get why he played more.  He also had more professional seasoning than Sanheim.

 

To me, the question isn't Hagg vs. Sanheim, but Hagg vs. Manning.  They are similar players, but yet Hagg took a backseat to Manning at one point during the season and in the POs.  Didn't really understand that.

 

Quote

I do wonder if another move is coming on defense (moving a body out).

Possibly, but I kind of doubt it right now.  Maybe when Morin gets healthy?

[vis]

2 hours ago, AJgoal said:

"Of all the players in the league in 2014-2015 with 100 minutes played at 5v5, only 5% of them them see their on-ice shot percentage move more than one percentage point [when adjusted for zone start]." (https://www.nhlnumbers.com/2016/11/4/beware-of-what-zone-starts-are-telling-you-part-ii-shot-metrics)

That's interesting.  I'm not quite sure what to make of it or what to question, but it's interesting...

[AJgoal]

1 hour ago, vis said:

That's interesting.  I'm not quite sure what to make of it or what to question, but it's interesting...

 

Essentially, the finding was that shots for/against were only greatly increased in the first 10 seconds of a shift. The farther through a shift players got, their shot differential would regress towards their mean.

 

For example, we think of Konecny as a high end offensive talent. If that's true, you would see that after the first 10 seconds of a typical shift, the puck would gravitate towards the side of the ice that his true talent points to. ie, while there might be point shots off the draw, he'd be more likely to help collect the puck and move it down for shot attempts in the opponents' zone, even if he started his shift in the defensive zone. Ditto for a guy who had a negative shot differential. You could start him in the offensive zone, but his play would regularly find the puck gravitating back towards his own zone.

 

So while those point shots and quick chances off the draw in either zone are individual points of data that will push numbers in one direction or another, eventually over the course of a season the balance of time is away from those first 10 seconds, and that will naturally even things out towards the player's true "play driving" ability.

[vis]

13 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

Essentially, the finding was that shots for/against were only greatly increased in the first 10 seconds of a shift. The farther through a shift players got, their shot differential would regress towards their mean.

I get the concept.  I'm just trying to extrapolate more from it and/or think of ways to challenge it.  Can't at the moment.  Work has my brain fried.  I guess my takeaway is that all things even out during the course of a shift.

[AJgoal]

2 minutes ago, vis said:

 I guess my takeaway is that all things even out during the course of a shift.

 

Pretty much. If a player is likely to get trapped in their own end, they will do so regardless of where they start. Ditto if they're likely to trap their opponents in their end.

[brelic]

@AJgoal @vis

 

I agree, and it makes intuitive sense that the zone starts represent a small percentage of a player's total shifts and TOI.

 

At the same time, there does appear to be some positive correlation between offensive zone starts and corsi.  Naturally, there are several other factors at play, like TOI, quality of competition, quality of linemates, etc. 

 

For the two JVR tables I posted the other day, there appears to be a correlation between corsi, TOI and zone starts.

 

 

 

So the highlighted boxes show his low point in corsi correlated with his career high years in TOI and career lows in offensive zone starts.

 

If you look at the same data points outside of the red boxes, there is a similar correlation.

 

Corsi / OZS / ATOI

53.1 / 58.5 / 12:58

50 / 52.7 / 14:32

52.7 / 61.1 / 15:10

 

55.2 / 64.3 / 17:46

52.3 / 57.1 / 15:53

55.6 / 62.7 / 14:54

 

The corsi and OZS are much more tightly and positively correlated than ATOI, which has a weak to nonexistent correlation.

 

Of course, this is one player only, and using three types of player data, so I can't extrapolate it to the larger picture. But in this particular case, we're talking specifically about JVR. And his data represents his time with two different NHL teams, two or three different coaches, and probably dozens of different linemates over the period. 

 

I haven't had time to read the article yet, but I'll be interested to see if there is correlation between those two measures across the league. 

[LegionOfDoom]

10 hours ago, vis said:

A. In all fairness, Hakstol is kind of in a tough spot. I think the conversation has been had on the board before, but at what point does winning take priority over development (or vice versa)?  If development is the priority, then Sanheim should be playing (mistakes and all). If winning is the priority, then the question is more challenging.  Sanheim is better offensively, but is a more risky player and prone to defensive lapses.  Manning was more consistent and slightly less of a risk.  Hakstol seems to have a penchant for "structure" and fewer mistakes, despite the upside that Sanheim may represent.  As I have stated a bunch of times, I can tolerate the risk associated with playing younger guys.  I don't like the risk associated with veterans who should know better - even if the risks are less than those associated with younger players.

 

B. Hagg is a less risky player than Sanheim, so I kind of get why he played more.  He also had more professional seasoning than Sanheim.

 

C. To me, the question isn't Hagg vs. Sanheim, but Hagg vs. Manning.  They are similar players, but yet Hagg took a backseat to Manning at one point during the season and in the POs.  Didn't really understand that.

 

 

A. This is such a valid point and possibly the crux of the matter: Thank you for pointing that out.

 

Hakstol believes in structure, and the importance of it. I'd love to see Sanheim every game, every shift and watch him develop, but helter skelterly? No. Him sitting that many games? I don't know exactly what was going on in the locker room, or on the practice rink.

Possibly Sanheim, was having immaturity issues, not necessarily a bad locker room guy, but an "expected to play, I'm good enough talent to be on the ice."

This is the murky part. We don't have the full picture. He let Hagg play as a rookie alot of games, he let Travis and Provy play in crucial parts of the game.

I mean if he doesn't like playing youth over whipping boys, it might not show to the jury this conviction if we have youth playing.

Back to structure, you lose it you might lose the team, you could lose the bench, the locker room.

This is such the hard part because we're crossing through murky caverns, spelunking and the guide says the path way is through here. Trusting the process is hard for many, including myself. But breaking out the tangibles, what exactly are they? Since Hakstol has been coach, I mean look at G's season, after several coaches look at Coots season, at Travis after second year? Provy? Ghost? ARE THEY GETTING BETTER??? 

I might be at odds sometimes with the decision making, but what are the results, I mean a coaching position changed Coots into being a Selke Candidate finally as I always knew he could be.

 

B. This is also a very valid point and can't be construed as Hakstol doesn't play risky youth. Hagg's resume' is more filled than Sanheim, besides their different tools in the shed: Not all axes are the same. A felling axe, a splitting axe, shaping axe, etc. Unfortunately that's why Morin wasn't in the lineup. But begrudgingly understandable. Like getting punched in the face and your buddy holding you back and saying, "Hey,......will get them next time."

This is not the NHL ALL STARS, (As candy coated fun as it would be) this is a team being developed and rooted for success.

 

C. This one also got me bothered, annoyed because I thought Hagg was doing a pretty solid job, and Manning had a penchant for having an undesirable effect big time to go along with the positives he would sometimes bring. I don't know if Hakstol see's it that way. But I understand his reasoning over Manning, but if he had a year to look from the stands the full body of work of Manning, then he might come to the realization that Manning works great in small dosages, not for the duration of the whole predicament.

 

You know it's real easy to sit back and say things and make 20/20 judgement calls, I try to fight from doing this as well.

 

I remember as a young teen going out and building a half pipe to skate on, and I fronted the money while I had some buddies help with the build. 3/4 of completing it, they were already wanting to skate on it and pull off tricks, I was telling them if we start skating on it, it won't last long and starts coming apart in a short amount of time.

They were like, "whatever, man let's just skate." I had to let them understand that ya, I want to skate on it just as bad, but to wait and let's just finish it. (adding more cross braces, top sheet of Masonite, grinding pipe.

 

This year will be a more telling year on the coach. He has better pieces now.

[rottenrefs]

On 7/5/2018 at 10:04 AM, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

Seen him play a bit for the Kings and of course the Minnesota Wild before that....

 

From my observation, this is what you get with Folin…..

Positives:
---He IS a large framed man and he does hit a bit. He won't knock people into the stands despite his large frame, but he doesn't shy away from contact either. More of a "disruptive" hitter...and in today's NHL, that's not too bad.

---Has a nice heavy low shot.....if coaches can get him to use it more, he might even be an asset to where forwards can get lots of deflection or rebound goals from it.

 

---Decent skater. Not the fastest defenseman, but fast enough, and reasonably graceful.  Best suited to handling bottom six forwards...however, if paired with a good top defenseman (he played a little bit with Suter and/or Jared Spurgeon while with the Wild), he can play the part of 'stay at home defense' pretty well, allowing his more elite partner to do more of their thing.

 

---Contract is very affordable and gives value based on what you get from the guy.

 

 

Negatives:

-- For a man of his size, you wish he WOULD hit more. Even though he defends reasonably well, and maybe its just me, but I expect a man who is 6'4 and upwards of 205-210 pounds to be a bit more physical.

 

--Very low offensive output.  Like I said, when he uses it, has a nice hard shot and COULD produce more assists......but he doesn't seem to use the shot nearly enough (Philly is more offense oriented....maybe they can get that out of him more than the Wild or Kings did).

 

-- Pretty standard in just about every category for a D-man.  For some teams that could be a good thing, for others, like Minnesota and Los Angeles, it wasn't quite enough, hence why he always got less ice time than he probably should have.
Again, Philly has a need for solid defensemen with some experience, perhaps Folin gets more of a chance to showcase himself there.

 

 

I will say this about the man during his time in Minnesota:

I didn't think he was a huge difference maker, but he was just one of those guys that, while you liked the solid things he did, you just wish he would do a bit MORE of them.

Wouldn't have minded the Wild hanging on to him, especially given his contract value, but I DO understand the Wild either needed a much more physical type defender or one that could more consistently produce from the blue line...… he is neither..... but if I am a Philly fan, I'd rather have him in the lineup than say, a MacDonald, Manning.....AND as much as I like Radko Gudas, minus the hitting that Radko does, Folin seems to be able to do other things a bit better than him....with LESS penalties taken.

 

It's basically a "can't hurt" classic low risk signing by Philadelphia.

^ That's pretty spot on.

 

When the Wild brought him up from the AHL it was a mild rude awakening (they plugged him in when someone else was injured.) Then they sent him back down if memory serves me. Over time they brought him back up and he was more dubious at not falling out of position and not getting fooled. His first stint up he was raw and it showed. The second time, in short order he played very well and I believe a lot better than expected. About the time you'd think, 'Oh no... they're breaking in on Folin' and he'd make key favorable decisions and look very good.

 

Fans were 50/50 when they let him go. Those who expected more offense out of him were okay parting with him, those who wanted a respectable stay at home d-man were bummed by it. I was bummed because unlike most Wild fans I don't think all our d-men need to be (soft) finesse puck handlers. Our d-core gets pushed all over the ice and I'd rather see some immovable objects back there who know how to cover well. Folin I believe was well on his way to being better in that roll as opposed to trying to make him into something he's not.

[OccamsRazor]

21 hours ago, vis said:

Agree, except I don't know that it's totally the fault of the department of safety.

 

 

Yeah i agree it's not their fault....Radko need to adjust his game and ply his hits and do it without being called on the carpet and he can't so he just stopped really hitting sort of.

 

And the results is he just isn't quite the same defender since.

 

And i don't hate Radko but i think you can get better out of his roster spot. It will get sorted out in camp.

 

I think Hagg and Folin can develop some good chemistry and a tough pair to play against and give the top 4 a good break during games.

 

Plus that pair could be kept together when deployed on the PK too.

 

The biggest thing is to give the kids a chance to develop and work on their game. 

 

Myers only has around 50 games under his belt in the AHL mostly due to him not being able to stay healthy. 

 

Sanheim only has around 150 games in the AHL.

 

So it wouldn't hurt them to work on their defense before being inserted into the lineup.

 

I think both of them are already good enough when it comes to offense but see comments from the  guys that cover the Phantoms this past playoffs the two of them still has the defense to work on and especially away from the puck positioning stuff.

 

That isn't a knock on them they are still kids.

 

This is Sanheim's last year to be able to be sent to the AHL without requiring waivers let's utilize that if the needs it.

 

I just want to ice the best lineup possible without giving anyone a spot. It must be won not given.

 

I want to see progress and that means making at least the 2nd round of the playoffs in my eyes. 

 

The one last thing that scares me is the goaltending....not sure if it is good enough.

 

Anyways that is my 2 cents.

[OccamsRazor]

9 hours ago, rottenrefs said:

^ That's pretty spot on.

 

When the Wild brought him up from the AHL it was a mild rude awakening (they plugged him in when someone else was injured.) Then they sent him back down if memory serves me. Over time they brought him back up and he was more dubious at not falling out of position and not getting fooled. His first stint up he was raw and it showed. The second time, in short order he played very well and I believe a lot better than expected. About the time you'd think, 'Oh no... they're breaking in on Folin' and he'd make key favorable decisions and look very good.

 

Fans were 50/50 when they let him go. Those who expected more offense out of him were okay parting with him, those who wanted a respectable stay at home d-man were bummed by it. I was bummed because unlike most Wild fans I don't think all our d-men need to be (soft) finesse puck handlers. Our d-core gets pushed all over the ice and I'd rather see some immovable objects back there who know how to cover well. Folin I believe was well on his way to being better in that roll as opposed to trying to make him into something he's not.

 

 

Sounds like they could use him.

 

In Philly he would only be the 6th or 7th guy on the bottom pair to give the top 4 a rest.

 

I think he can add the things Radko does without the suspensions. Flyers have guys like Provorov, Ghost, Sanheim and Myers who can bring the offensive firepower what they need are more steady defensive Dman who can help balance out a pair.

 

I think he will eventually play on the bottom pair with Robert Hagg.

 

Or if Hak sees fit maybe on the bottom pair with a Travis Sanheim to start the season.  

 

Camp will sort it out worst case he gets slotted 7th and is sitting in the pressbox to play when injuries crop up.

 

Once all the kids arrive i think the defense will be the best Philly has ever iced.

 

Provorov-Ghost
Sanheim-Myers
Morin- Friedman

Hagg

 

I found this comment from a King's fan too:

Kings fan here. This is a good signing. Folin is solid. He's nothing special but is underrated IMO. Minnesota fans will speak highly of him as well. I can't believe he came this cheap. I would have gladly taken him back for that price.

 

At 850K that is a great price for his asked being demanded.