Who is the veteran defenseman that the Flyers will trade for?

[vis]

Just now, Podein25 said:

 

Yeah I agree. I know people are worried about his injury history, but I figure you use that to drive the price down. 

Tend to agree.  But that is the bid question mark.  He's 32 with lower body issues.  A little scary given the problems we have had with Elliott and Neuvirth.  But rather take the chance on Quick than those two clowns.

[Podein25]

4 minutes ago, vis said:

Tend to agree.  But that is the bid question mark.  He's 32 with lower body issues.  A little scary given the problems we have had with Elliott and Neuvirth.  But rather take the chance on Quick than those two clowns.

 

He's had a groin injury, a wrist injury, and at least one knee injury, plus a back injury, which is the one I'm more worried about. He had surgery on his back. Success rate for back surgeries is not great. I'd want to see an MRI. 

[King Knut]

8 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

Gardiner? Jake Gardiner? You like him? He's a less offensively talented Ghost with ZERO defensive capabilities. He's the guy who will turn over the puck over and over and it'll end up in your own net...then he'll make an end to end rush and THAT goes on the highlight reel. Most Leaf fans can't wait til he's gone.

 

Not as a #1, because I don't think we're getting a true #1.  But to replace Mac as a #3?  Hell yes.  

 

We ain't getting Trouba, Doughty, Subban, Josi, Hedman or Karlsson.

 

 

[vis]

Just now, Podein25 said:

 

He's had a groin injury, a wrist injury, and at least one knee injury, plus a back injury, which is the one I'm more worried about. He had surgery on his back. Success rate for back surgeries is not great. I'd want to see an MRI. 

Back injury was a couple of years ago, right?  

 

I have full confidence in the Flyers' medical staff to evaluate, diagnose, treat and rehabilitate any injury.

[King Knut]

13 minutes ago, vis said:

Flyers need a bridge to Carter Hart.  Honestly, I'd kick the tires on Jonathan Quick if he's available.  He'd probably start next season and maybe the season after and then turn the reigns over to Carter Hart.  He could backup and mentor Hart for the last two or three years of his deal.  Hart would still be on his entry level deal, so the total spend on goalie is not crazy.  Would be pricey in terms of what it would take to get him for sure, though.  But rather do that than sign Bob to a ridiculous deal this summer.

 

I'd be up for this and the Kings are likely going to be in the mood to sell.  But it won't be cheap.  It likely would take a Sanheim or Myers plus picks type deal because there's no good way to sell that to your fan base other than, "we're rebuilding, check in in 5 years".  But frankly, Lombardi, then Blake did that to themselves with the deals they signed.  Their best hope is to lose for Hughes and get lucky in the lottery. 

 

If they do though, they'll be ticked they don't have Quick next year to try to make a push with the old timers and Hughes.  

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, vis said:

Back injury was a couple of years ago, right?  

 

I have full confidence in the Flyers' medical staff to evaluate, diagnose, treat and rehabilitate any injury.

 

Especially on a goalie over 30 right?  Their track record is impeccable.  

[Podein25]

5 minutes ago, vis said:

Back injury was a couple of years ago, right? 

 

Yeah, 2012. So maybe it's fine. It's worth a phone call.

[OccamsRazor]

33 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

He's had a groin injury, a wrist injury, and at least one knee injury, plus a back injury, which is the one I'm more worried about. He had surgery on his back. Success rate for back surgeries is not great. I'd want to see an MRI. 

 

Sounds like he is perfect for the Flyers meets all the requirements.

 

Go get him....tell em they can have pick of the litter...

 

[vis]

23 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

I'd be up for this and the Kings are likely going to be in the mood to sell.  But it won't be cheap.  It likely would take a Sanheim or Myers plus picks type deal because there's no good way to sell that to your fan base other than, "we're rebuilding, check in in 5 years".  But frankly, Lombardi, then Blake did that to themselves with the deals they signed.  Their best hope is to lose for Hughes and get lucky in the lottery. 

 

If they do though, they'll be ticked they don't have Quick next year to try to make a push with the old timers and Hughes.  

Kings are in a tough situation.  Do they just go all-out and tank?  It's not like they have a staunchly loyal fanbase.  In general, that town only cares when its teams are good.  So maybe they'd be fine with tanking.  But they still have some superstars in Doughty and Kopitar.  Team seems to be going nowhere, though...

[flyer4ever]

If you want Quick, you better get some players that will protect him. Quick is a top of the crease aggressive goalie who will be injured constantly with the current soft Flyer team.

[King Knut]

13 minutes ago, vis said:

Kings are in a tough situation.  Do they just go all-out and tank?  It's not like they have a staunchly loyal fanbase.  In general, that town only cares when its teams are good.  So maybe they'd be fine with tanking.  But they still have some superstars in Doughty and Kopitar.  Team seems to be going nowhere, though...

 

Blake really should have sold off the pieces when they brought him in while they still had value.  They are almost winning the race for last place with the Blackhawks and Blues.    I would not have suspected the Blues to have been this bad and frankly, I'm surprised the Blackhawks are too.  Keith and Toews aren't young, but that team fell off a cliff FAST.  They got the cups in when it counted though!  

 

The thing I can't stomach with the Blackhawks and Kings is firing the coach when CLEARLY they're just aging out of competitiveness.  Okay, except for the blues.  I don't have an explanation for why they're so bad. They're not an old team by any stretch.  But replacing your bad coach with Berube is... well... not the key to turning your season around.  

 

Now all three teams are paying at least two coaches this season.  The Kings are paying three coaches!  If you're not planning on winning, and you can be reasonably sure you're losing because your team is just getting old, why in the hell would you waste money paying extra coaches, when clearly they're not going to be the answer?

I could see if the Kings or Blues fired their guys because Joel Q was available... not to replace your meh to bad coach with another one who's just plain worse... I don't get it.  

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, flyer4ever said:

If you want Quick, you better get some players that will protect him. Quick is a top of the crease aggressive goalie who will be injured constantly with the current soft Flyer team.

 

Question is, is it the Flyers or the state of the NHL?

 

Goalies have been increasingly unprotected for years now.  Flagrant goaltender interference with clear, thinly masked  intent to injure goes uncalled constantly.  

 

To be honest, it's been making me sick for a long time now.  

[flyercanuck]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

Not as a #1, because I don't think we're getting a true #1.  But to replace Mac as a #3?  Hell yes.  

 

We ain't getting Trouba, Doughty, Subban, Josi, Hedman or Karlsson.

 

 

 

I could see that if we didn't already have Ghost and Sanheim...heck and Provorov...because he can provide offence. But we do already have 3 guys on the backend who bring that, and Gardiner is like having Voracek-lite playing D. I see a lot of Leaf games, and he's one of the most boneheaded dmen in the league. Ask the Leaf posters on here.

 

 I agree on your last sentence...unless we grossly overpay.... Which I'm strongly against.

[flyer4ever]

KK i concur with your comments 100%. However, with Hart on the horizon, who is also an aggressive positional goalie, the Flyers best set the bar now. If you run our goalie you will pay. Right now there is no threat of retribution when you play the Flyers. I don't want a return to the 70's, but there is nothing wrong with a team that makes its opponents pay the price and earn goals and wins in Philly. 

[vis]

24 minutes ago, King Knut said:

The thing I can't stomach with the Blackhawks and Kings is firing the coach when CLEARLY they're just aging out of competitiveness. 

Given the friction between Bowman and Quenneville, Bowman was probably looking for any excuse to can Q.  The Kings might have simply been burned out on Sutter and Stevens (apparently, Stevens was a Sutter clone in terms of philosophy - forget where I heard/read this).  Also, I don't think either team's roster is suited for the new NHL in that neither is especially fast.

 

Quote

Okay, except for the blues.  I don't have an explanation for why they're so bad. They're not an old team by any stretch.  But replacing your bad coach with Berube is... well... not the key to turning your season around.  

Like the Kings and Hawks, the Blues aren't especially fast.  Yeah, they brought in a lot of names, but they didn't get faster.  Honestly, I just don't like the mix of their roster.  I'm sure the shoddy goaltending isn't helping (see my Flyers comments above).

 

Edited to add: Like the Flyers, the Hawks and Blues have been befallen by bad goaltending.  

 

Quote

If you're not planning on winning, and you can be reasonably sure you're losing because your team is just getting old, why in the hell would you waste money paying extra coaches, when clearly they're not going to be the answer?

GMs in denial about the roster they created.  And/or hopping for a dead cat bounce.

 

Quote

I could see if the Kings or Blues fired their guys because Joel Q was available... not to replace your meh to bad coach with another one who's just plain worse... I don't get it.  

See above.

[vis]

24 minutes ago, flyer4ever said:

If you want Quick, you better get some players that will protect him. Quick is a top of the crease aggressive goalie who will be injured constantly with the current soft Flyer team.

Morin would help in that department.

[King Knut]

1 minute ago, vis said:

 Also, I don't think either team's roster is suited for the new NHL in that neither is especially fast.

 

 

That's my whole point.  Both teams have outdated, out-aged roster issues. 

 

1 minute ago, vis said:

GMs in denial about the roster they created.  And/or hopping for a dead cat bounce.

 

Feels like ownership more than the GMs in the case of the Kings.  My guess is Lombardi probably told them the run was over and they needed to start rebuilding and the ownership felt like they should be getting more out of their 30yo+ stars, so they canned him in favor of a guy who was willing to try.  

 

And that's how you add Kovalchuck to an already old, slow team.

 

I actually think Sutter's philosophy is a definite way to go in the league right now.  You just have to have exactly the right guys, at exactly the right point in their careers to pull off that kind of a relentless skating, hitting forechecking, turnover creating, attack oriented kind of game.  

 

 I'd much rather see that kind of approach to defense than the sit back and see what they do defense we've been looking at for 5 years.  

 

[King Knut]

4 minutes ago, vis said:

Morin would help in that department.

 

Would he or would he sit in the box a lot in today's NHL?  

 

Guys are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want to your goalie... and you're not allowed to do anything to protect him.  

 

Morin along the boards and breaking up passes and creating turnovers with that reach in the slot and on the PK however... 

[vis]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

Feels like ownership more than the GMs in the case of the Kings.  My guess is Lombardi probably told them the run was over and they needed to start rebuilding and the ownership felt like they should be getting more out of their 30yo+ stars, so they canned him in favor of a guy who was willing to try.  

 

And that's how you add Kovalchuck to an already old, slow team.

Seems to be a reasonable theory.

 

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

I actually think Sutter's philosophy is a definite way to go in the league right now.  You just have to have exactly the right guys, at exactly the right point in their careers to pull off that kind of a relentless skating, hitting forechecking, turnover creating, attack oriented kind of game.

Agree that the philosophy works, though he also (or maybe it was Lombardi) put a premium on size which I don't think works that well any more.  I wonder his demeanor works in the new NHL with current crop of younger players.  That's where I am not sure if Sutter would be as effective today as he was.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I never got the sense that he's a players' coach.

[vis]

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Would he or would he sit in the box a lot in today's NHL?  

I think there is still room for aggression, as long as it's within the rules.  I see other teams stand up for their goaltenders.  Also, thought I just read somewhere that the NHL powers-that-be sent a memo to the refs about not wanting so many penalties called?  

[flyer4ever]

4 minutes ago, vis said:

Seems to be a reasonable theory.

 

Agree that the philosophy works, though he also (or maybe it was Lombardi) put a premium on size which I don't think works that well any more.  I wonder his demeanor works in the new NHL with current crop of younger players.  That's where I am not sure if Sutter would be as effective today as he was.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I never got the sense that he's a players' coach.

Personality of the coach doesn't mean jack if the team is winning and the room is united. Many successful coaches have purposely made themselves the common enemy to get the players to gel.

[King Knut]

Ironic thing is, Stevens has the reputation of being a player's coach.  

 

I don't know what to think about "player's coach" vs. "task master".

 

Seems like you can be the task master and get some results sometimes (Q, Sutter) but then again you can end up with Hitchcock who even though he won a cup once just wasn't great at getting his guys to play for him and really needed that kind of leadership to come from the bench.

 

Frankly, I don't know what kind of coach Hakstol is in this regard.  He doesn't seem like a player's kinda guy... but he doesn't seem like a real task master either.  

 

It's got to be a balance right?  I think that's what guys like Babcock and Laviolette possess.  

 

No one's Herb Brooks I guess... Herb Brooks was only Herb Brooks the one time (though he did some ok things with Mediocre NHL teams too... just not the big thing). 

 

4 minutes ago, vis said:

Seems to be a reasonable theory.

 

Agree that the philosophy works, though he also (or maybe it was Lombardi) put a premium on size which I don't think works that well any more.  I wonder his demeanor works in the new NHL with current crop of younger players.  That's where I am not sure if Sutter would be as effective today as he was.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I never got the sense that he's a players' coach.

[King Knut]

13 minutes ago, vis said:

I think there is still room for aggression, as long as it's within the rules.  I see other teams stand up for their goaltenders.  Also, thought I just read somewhere that the NHL powers-that-be sent a memo to the refs about not wanting so many penalties called?  

 

Either way, I agree that it would be nice to see the Flyers try.  I just don't want Morin getting a "reputation" just because he's big and willing to use it.  

[King Knut]

34 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

Ask the Leaf posters on here.

 

See, I don't think this helps because if you ask any Flyers poster and they're likely to say how awful and boneheaded Jake is, when in reality he's easily top 10 at his position in the league and tons of teams would love to have him.

 

Think about Couturier two years ago... most people here would have been thrilled to trade him for just about anything "just a decent 3C" .

 

Sometimes a team's fans aren't objective enough to judge a guy.  

 

Not saying Gardiner's amazing and worth bank, just that sometimes fans focus on the negatives more than the positives.  

[OccamsRazor]

8 minutes ago, King Knut said:

if you ask any Flyers poster and they're likely to say how awful and boneheaded Jake is, when in reality he's easily top 10 at his position in the league and tons of teams would love to have him.

 

Sure. True.

 

No trade him now while he still has decent value.

 

And I agree what @flyercanuck says about Gardnier.

 

Would it be hard to replace Jake's point maybe all of them but they could maybe replace most of them.

 

Regardless I have seen enough of the negative that I am willing to risk moving while they are still in flux.

 

Then go out and swing a trade for Mark Stone and plug him and audition him in that spot before he hits free agency at seasons end.