Jump to content

-=> FLYERS TRADE DEADLINE THREAD <=-


brelic

Recommended Posts

Just now, King Knut said:

 

IMHO, Comcast has between now and the end of the season to fire Scott and Holmgren and put someone in charge who knows what the hell theyre doing because Fletcher has only shown me repeatedly that he is very good at looking busy for his bosses while accomplishing absolutely nothing. 

 

But hey, we get to sit Cam Talbot in the press box for the rest of the year apparently, so yay!

for all we know Cam Talbot is still sitting at the bus station waiting for the ride to the airport that Fletcher forgot to send. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Showing a team you believe in them can have more of an effect on young players than giving. Them a younger Dale Weise to toggle back and forth between the 3ams 4Rw spots.  

 

I’ve been behind this trade for two years, but in the end, Fletcher traded Wayne just to make a trade because he promised he would.    Not to improve the team.  

 

 

 

The Flyers have a 1.7% chance of making the playoffs. In other words, it ain’t happening. 

 

So would it have been better to keep Simmonds on a team that is going nowhere and let him walk for nothing?

 

If the Flyers were legitimately in the hunt, I’d agree with you. Keep him around as an internal rental.

 

I think moving him was the right decision under the circumstances.  We can be underwhelmed by the return, but the market is what it is. He apparently blocked a trade to the Flames. There were also other better options for teams than Simmonds. He became a last minute desperate option - which says to me that his value was not that high among other GMs. 

 

I’m not sure why he chose to hang on to Raffl and Elliott if there were legitimate offers out there. It would have meant poaching a few other players from the already-decimated Phantoms, though I don’t know how much that factored into the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

They don’t need to hit the reset button.  They need to add a piece or two really just one and just go be coached decently and they will Be a GREAT team.  

 

At at this point, adding that piece just got harder.  

 

Stone would have been nice. Maybe Ottawa wanted to avoid trading him within the conference. 

 

At at the end of the day, the cost equivalent for the Flyers would have been something like Myers, Laughton, and next year’s 2nd rounder. Would you have taken that deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Digityman said:

Wayne can sign where ever he wants this summer.  I'll reserve judgement until then.   

I really wonder what he is asking for.  If he doesn't stand out during Nashville's PO run, then I'm not sure he is going to get too much money.

I for one am glad that Fletcher didn't trade Simmonds to Toronto or Montreal because I can't stand either team or their fanbases. I wonder if Fletcher was asking too much and Poile just waited before the deadline to make him an offer probably knowing that Fletcher put himself into a corner and needed to make a trade to show the fanbase that he was able to trade Simmonds. If Fletcher has a plan, he hasn't shown it yet so this summer will be interesting. I hope Simmonds ends up winning a cup in Nashville because Poile has built a contending team thru the draft and smart trades and it would be nice to see them win.  I'll be surprised to see Simmonds get a 3 year deal this summer let alone a 5 year deal, the GM's aren't handing them out like they use to when it comes to over 30 year old players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 6 year old son's reaction when hearing of the Simmonds trade...

 

Son: "What?!? They traded Simmonds!?! Why?!..... (genuinely upset that one of his favorite flyers was leaving....) FOR WHO!?!"

Me: (looking at Computer)...."Ryan Hartman?....."

Son: WHO?!....

Me: Exactly.

 

Then I proceeded to try and explain hockey as a "business" and cap space to a 6 year old with a "screen" in his hand.....and you can imagine how that went.

 

Anyway, i was hoping for a little more....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Why would you say that over one guy?  I do not get it

 

Because it’s not just one guy.  It’s a repetition of uselessness. 

 

He’s Rearranging deck chairs, hoping he’s not on the titanic and that someone is steering the ship.  with no apparent ability to see beyond whatsbimmediately in front of him. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, brelic said:

 

The Flyers have a 1.7% chance of making the playoffs. In other words, it ain’t happening. 

 

So would it have been better to keep Simmonds on a team that is going nowhere and let him walk for nothing?

 

If the Flyers were legitimately in the hunt, I’d agree with you. Keep him around as an internal rental.

 

I think moving him was the right decision under the circumstances.  We can be underwhelmed by the return, but the market is what it is. He apparently blocked a trade to the Flames. There were also other better options for teams than Simmonds. He became a last minute desperate option - which says to me that his value was not that high among other GMs. 

 

I’m not sure why he chose to hang on to Raffl and Elliott if there were legitimate offers out there. It would have meant poaching a few other players from the already-decimated Phantoms, though I don’t know how much that factored into the decision. 

 

I’m not explaining myself well, and I apologize, so Let me briefly try again and then I’ll let it go. 

 

After losing to Montreal, I do not believe the Flyers have much of a chance, no.  It’s out of the realm of “if they maintain their current pace...” and into “straight up miracle from The hockey gods time”

 

I was all all about trading Simmonds for two years. However, that was assuming Fletcher could get a better return. 

 

As as it is, the return isn’t terrible, it just is highly unlikely to actually make the team better ... ever. The pieces just aren’t likely to be more than role players if anything. 

 

But its Something right? Which is better than nothing right?

 

IMHO Keeping Simmonds would not quite be for nothing though. 

 

This team has been mired in mediocrity. The worst part is, they’ve come to accept it.  Their first season here the team with Jake and Coots and Simmer were a scrappy bunch who didn’t realize how good they probably weren’t.  Then they were grotesquely mediocre for a long time and became too comfortable with that.  Just eking into the playoffs and No one expecting too much when they got there.  

 

Frankly I have mostly blamed Coaching in that time because I hated Chief and I really hated Hakstol. 

 

Lately however, they’ve got some fight.  What’s more, they believe in themselves.  They can be down 2 goals with 4 mins left against a team that’s been owning them for 56 minutes and still think, “we got this!” 

 

...And then actually pull it off. They’ve done similar things a few times since Gordon switched their forecheck and d zone schemes. 

 

I just think et its  it’s more important for Patty, TK, Provo, Sanheim, Myers, Ghost, Lindblom (and frankly Coots, Jake, JVR and Giroux too) to finish the season with a fire under their butts.  To feel like they’ve got something.   

 

Even if if they can’t pull off the playoffs, but they can finish the season on a .800 winning % run, they are going to start next year believing in themselves like they haven’t since Lavvy was here. 

 

Thats the the kind of camp environment we want Frost et al walking into. 

 

The other part of this is that Simmonds is likely the best RW on the market this summer. Maybe Eberle depending on how things end up. So then the question becomes could Fletcher have signed the bet RW on the market who his team already loves for less than open market value will be in July?

 

There are LWs, but the As otherws here have pointed out, the Flyers need a 3RW or a 1 or 2 good enough to bump TK or Jake. 

 

Panarin has played both both sides a bit a while back, but I don’t think you drop 9-10 million on a guy and the. Shift him to the other side.  

 

Long story short, The flyers might not really be able to improve on Simmer through free agency. 

 

I’m not terrible into trading what they have, but I guess they could send a young D man to Toronto or someone with an embarrassment of forward riches. 

 

Or or they could sign the Bread man and trade and man and JVR or Lindblom for a Cracker Jack RW in the last year of his term someplace. 

 

But based on his incredibly simplistic and not very forward looking track record, I’m just not sure I see Fletcher pulling something like that off. 

 

The fact that that he hadn’t already made Stone his July priority and been working that angle harder is not good news for us.  The fact that Stone’s deal didn’t at least tweak his Simmer philosophy is also concerning. 

 

Thats most of why im upset.  Fletcher seems out of his league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

I’m not explaining myself well, and I apologize, so Let me briefly try again and then I’ll let it go. 

 

After losing to Montreal, I do not believe the Flyers have much of a chance, no.  It’s out of the realm of “if they maintain their current pace...” and into “straight up miracle from The hockey gods time”

 

Exactly. It takes an unsustainable run of incredible hockey.

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

I was all all about trading Simmonds for two years. However, that was assuming Fletcher could get a better return. 

 

Really? You've been wanting to trade him for two years? I mean, sure, it would have maximized the return, but I think he was still considered part of the core not only by management but by fans at that time. 

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

As as it is, the return isn’t terrible, it just is highly unlikely to actually make the team better ... ever. The pieces just aren’t likely to be more than role players if anything. 

 

But its Something right? Which is better than nothing right?

 

Exactly. And Hartman may very well provide similar levels of production and agitation than Simmer can provide at this point in his career. He was losing his grip on the PP specialist role, and if you take that away from him, he's not a terribly good 5v5 player and has become relegated to bottom six.

 

Maybe Simmer rebounds next year, but I wasn't a fan of the Flyers giving him even a 5 year contract. I guarantee we'd hate that contract by the end of year 2.

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

IMHO Keeping Simmonds would not quite be for nothing though. 

 

This team has been mired in mediocrity. The worst part is, they’ve come to accept it.  Their first season here the team with Jake and Coots and Simmer were a scrappy bunch who didn’t realize how good they probably weren’t.  Then they were grotesquely mediocre for a long time and became too comfortable with that.  Just eking into the playoffs and No one expecting too much when they got there.  

 

Frankly I have mostly blamed Coaching in that time because I hated Chief and I really hated Hakstol. 

 

Lately however, they’ve got some fight.  What’s more, they believe in themselves.  They can be down 2 goals with 4 mins left against a team that’s been owning them for 56 minutes and still think, “we got this!” 

 

...And then actually pull it off. They’ve done similar things a few times since Gordon switched their forecheck and d zone schemes. 

 

I just think et its  it’s more important for Patty, TK, Provo, Sanheim, Myers, Ghost, Lindblom (and frankly Coots, Jake, JVR and Giroux too) to finish the season with a fire under their butts.  To feel like they’ve got something.   

 

Even if if they can’t pull off the playoffs, but they can finish the season on a .800 winning % run, they are going to start next year believing in themselves like they haven’t since Lavvy was here. 

 

I understand all that, and agree that fostering a winning culture with guys that are respected in the locker room is very important - even if some of those guys aren't pulling their weight. It's an intangible. 

 

But, to your last point, they *did* finish last season on an .800 winning % run, and they still started this season like a dumpster fire. Yes, there were other factors involved, like Hakstol and the historically bad goaltending luck and PP inefficacy. 

 

To be perfectly blunt, I don't believe Simmer will be the difference between finishing this season strong and not. Hart was the primary reason because even when they were winning, it wasn't because of their play on the ice. It was fueled by emotion and momentum, which is not a sustainable long-term resource. Your team needs to be fundamentally sound without emotion and momentum to weather the peaks and valleys, and this team simply isn't there - with or without Simmer.

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

The fact that that he hadn’t already made Stone his July priority and been working that angle harder is not good news for us.  The fact that Stone’s deal didn’t at least tweak his Simmer philosophy is also concerning. 

 

Thats most of why im upset.  Fletcher seems out of his league. 

 

Maybe Stone was his priority and the Sens just didn't like the offer or didn't want to trade him to the East if they had other options. 

 

Like I posted in another thread (or maybe this one), the return for Stone was the equivalent of Myers, Laughton, and next year's 2nd. Would you make that deal?

 

I probably would, but I'm sure a lot of fans would be upset at losing Myers, as would I. Because he could very well surpass everyone not named Provorov. 

 

And if Ottawa was going to accept trading him to the East, maybe the ask was higher. Myers and Konecny, for example. Or Myers and Frost. We saw how adamant they were on NOT trading Karlsson to the East, even putting conditions on SJ if that were to happen.

 

Unless we're on those phone calls and in those rooms, it's really hard to fully evaluate a trade because there's a lot we simply don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

>>Really? You've been wanting to trade

>>him for two years?

 

not exactly.  I’ve been anticipating this particular trade deadline for at least two years and leaned toward trading him in that time. 

 

>Exactly. And Hartman may very well

<provide similar levels of production and

>agitation than Simmer can provide at this

>point in his career.

 

If Hartman is the 3RW and not 4th (if he plays at all) Fletcher will have totally screwed up the off season. 

 

<he's not a terribly good 5v5 player and

>has become relegated to bottom six.

 

yet he may be the best RW left in free agency at this point.  Maybe Eberle?  Who else?  Nyqvist?  Who’d you rather have?

 

> I guarantee we'd hate that contract by

> the end of year 2.

 

Likely yes,  but if he’s not making that much I’d be okay overpaying Simmonds to be a great bottom 6er. 

 

Look at Rod or Williams. I’d take that drop off for the intangibles and leadership at that point up to a point.  Until yesterday I thought for sure Wayne would make more than what I believe that’s worth in the cap era.  Now... now I’m not so sure how much Wayne will get.  5 Over 5 and I’d probably do it happily.  

 

>But, to your last point, they *did* finish

>last season on an .800 winning % run,

>and they still started this season like a

>dumpster fire. Yes, there were other

>factors involved, like Hakstol and the

>historically bad goaltending luck and PP

>inefficacy. 

 

Those were two big factors in the playoffs.  If Elliott or Stolarz had been healthy, I kinda feel like the Flyers may have beaten the Penguins.  Still... even so... Hakstol... 

 

anyway the other thing i’d Say about your excellent point about finishing last year is that THAT was over about 11 games or so.  This year it would be over the entire second half of the season. 

 

>To be perfectly blunt, I don't believe >

>Simmer will be the difference between

>finishing this season strong and not.

 

You’re probably right.  I don’t know that he would be.  I do know Hartman and a 4th won’t be.  Now, next year or ever.  That’s why I’m frustrated. While Fletcher was fielding multiple uninspiring last minute offers for Simmonds, Vegas was locking up The best available RW (point per game player) for who knows how long. Fletcher took his eye off the ball for the sake of a ridiculously underwhelming trade.  He was brought in to make the bold moves Hextall wouldn’t to improve the team.  The team’s worse today and it might not be able to get better (at least At RW) next year for it. 

 

Thisnis is to say nothing of the offers for Gudas, Elliott and Raffl he apparently spurned. 

 

Getting better at forward at all will now mean shifting players from natural positions or making big trades and losing assets.  

 

>Hart was the primary reason because even

>when they were winning, it wasn't

>because of their play on the ice.

 

I actually really disagree with this and it may be something we’ve already discussed so sorry if so. 

 

>It was

>fueled by emotion and momentum, which

>is not a sustainable long-term resource.

 

See I believe it was fueled by confidence.  Much of which came from Hart but much of which also came from the shift to Gordon’s 1-3-1 as well as their positioning in the D zone- neither of which is that dramatic a shift, but was such an improvement on where Hak had them, it made a huge difference.  

 

Suddenly teams are getting weaker (albeit) shot opportunities and fewer unchallenged looks. 

 

Hart being awesome and square to the shooter enough to save the tough ones that did get through, gave the team confidence and excitement like you say.  But it wasn’t the only thing as evidenced by how up and down he was to start and how downright bad he was his last two or three games. 

 

>Your team needs to be fundamentally

>sound without emotion and momentum

>to weather the peaks and valleys, and

>this team simply isn't there - with or

>without Simmer.

 

See I believe it’s getting there by leaps and bounds since Hakstol left.  

 

Not saturday.  That was all gristle and guts, mostly because they hadn’t figured out that long passes weren’t going to work in that weather or on that ice (Ill hand it to that prick Sullivan, he did figure that out). 

 

>Maybe Stone was his priority and the

>send just didn't like the offer or didn't

>want to trade him to the East if they had

>other options. 

 

Its likely the sens wetent taking offers from the east. But There are some sly things Fletcher could have done to get in the picture enough to make it know to Stone’s agent that he would beat Vegas’s contract come July.  believe me, I’m far less pissed if Stone isn’t locked up. 

 

>Like I posted in another thread (or maybe

>this one), the return for Stone was the

>equivalent of Myers, Laughton, and next

>year's 2nd. Would you make that deal?

 

Yes. Absolutely. 

We cant even play all our D men as it is.  We’re going to lose one to Seattle in two years anyway and because we can only protect 3 (likely) it will definitely be one we won’t want to lose (likely either Ghost or Myers)

 

But yeah, I’d probably make it.  I’d try to offer Ghost or someone maybe instead, but I probably make it. It improves the team in ways that having 7 strong d men can’t do. 

 

What i I might have done instead though is meet that deal for the Sens just to get on the phone with Stone’s agent and tell him, “the deal’s too rich for my blood, but hold off on the co mntract until July and i’ll Beat everyone else’s offer.” 

 

>I probably would, but I'm sure a lot of

>fans would be upset at losing Myers, as

>would I. Because he could very well

>surpass everyone not named Provorov. 

 

The dude might even surpass Provo. Least it wouldn’t surprise me. 

 

>Unless we're on those phone calls and in

>those rooms, it's really hard to fully

>evaluate a trade because there's a lot we

>simply don't know. 

 

That's sort of what im saying though.  There are ways to get in those rooms or at least get word to those who can whisper in the ears that are in those rooms. 

 

Long story short, we were told Hextall wasn’t bold enough and didn’t go all in enough (even though there hadnt really been anyone to go all in on yet). 

 

As a result, I expected some ball busting moves from Fletcher to make this team better. He did not deliver that. 

 

As as a result, we have a pretty similar team to what Hextall would have given us by this time.  

 

Fletcher did fire Hakstol and for that i’ll Be forever grateful.  But really, from all the reports and interviews I’ve read, it seems that if Homer and Scott had just told Hexy, “fire Hakstol or you’re done.” He would have done it. 

 

Now I’m not sure why he was fired or what it achieved that simply telling him to can Hakstol wouldn’t have done.  Meanwhile Fletcher has been so inconsequentiay milquetoast in his moves, I have utterly no confidence in his ability to get a good deal done, let alone to get creative enough to get the RIGHT deal done. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, King Knut said:

That's sort of what im saying though.  There are ways to get in those rooms or at least get word to those who can whisper in the ears that are in those rooms. 

 

Long story short, we were told Hextall wasn’t bold enough and didn’t go all in enough (even though there hadnt really been anyone to go all in on yet). 

 

As a result, I expected some ball busting moves from Fletcher to make this team better. He did not deliver that. 

 

As as a result, we have a pretty similar team to what Hextall would have given us by this time.  

 

Fletcher did fire Hakstol and for that i’ll Be forever grateful.  But really, from all the reports and interviews I’ve read, it seems that if Homer and Scott had just told Hexy, “fire Hakstol or you’re done.” He would have done it. 

 

Now I’m not sure why he was fired or what it achieved that simply telling him to can Hakstol wouldn’t have done.  Meanwhile Fletcher has been so inconsequentiay milquetoast in his moves, I have utterly no confidence in his ability to get a good deal done, let alone to get creative enough to get the RIGHT deal done. 

 

I mean, at the end of the day, Fletcher has not harmed this team, and in fact, he's done a lot of little tweaks that have made the team better.

 

Weal, Weise, Lehtera, and Folin are gone. People have been clamouring for the first 3 to be banished for years.

 

He's got the young guys playing to a degree that does not exist anywhere else in the NHL. We have the most guys 23 and under at 11. That's half the roster.

 

And, he got what he likely could for Simmer, who's value was apparently not that high. I'm not sure why the assumption is always that Fletch failed rather than succeeded in getting the best he could with what he had to work with. Simmer wasn't exactly setting the league on fire. His best offensive days are way behind him.

 

All that being said, I'm not sold on Fletcher yet either. While he's made decent small moves, he hasn't made any big moves (signings or trades) yet to shake up the foundation. Those will be more indicative on whether or not he gets it.

 

That's what the offseason is for, and we'll see how he does.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

I mean, at the end of the day, Fletcher has not harmed this team, and in fact, he's done a lot of little tweaks that have made the team better.

 

 I won't argue that. I actually thought he'd come in and deal Farabee and/or Frost for Vinnie LeCavalier.

59 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

Weal, Weise, Lehtera, and Folin are gone. People have been clamouring for the first 3 to be banished for years.

 

 I assumed they'd be gone by the end of the season at worst.

 

59 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

He's got the young guys playing to a degree that does not exist anywhere else in the NHL. We have the most guys 23 and under at 11. That's half the roster.

 

 Yaaa...that's got a heck of a lot more to do with Hextall than it does with Fletcher. So does the next few years of talent coming in.

 

59 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

And, he got what he likely could for Simmer, who's value was apparently not that high. I'm not sure why the assumption is always that Fletch failed rather than succeeded in getting the best he could with what he had to work with. Simmer wasn't exactly setting the league on fire. His best offensive days are way behind him.

 

 Maybe he did. Maybe the rest of the gms in the league know he's a pushover. Who knows.

 

59 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

All that being said, I'm not sold on Fletcher yet either. While he's made decent small moves, he hasn't made any big moves (signings or trades) yet to shake up the foundation. Those will be more indicative on whether or not he gets it.

 

That's what the offseason is for, and we'll see how he does.

 

 

 

 I'm scared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

Maybe the rest of the gms in the league know he's a pushover.

 

They aren't contractors  where lowest bid wins if you think that is the way I went I have no help for you.

 

Most of you guys (you know who you are) already have your mind made up about so no matter what he does you all are reluctant to give him any credit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

 I assumed they'd be gone by the end of the season at worst.

 

Yes, for sure. But he did expedite the process (bias for action) where Hextall was maddeningly patient in some respects.

 

This team does not go on a 14-3-1 run with Weise, Lehtera, and Weal in the lineup, and Carter Hart in Lehigh Valley.

 

Fletcher made all those tweaks. Hextall did not and there was every indication he wouldn't until they resolved themselves naturally (contract expiry, put out to pasture, or prison sentence).

 

19 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

 

 Yaaa...that's got a heck of a lot more to do with Hextall than it does with Fletcher. So does the next few years of talent coming in.

 

Absolutely. Hextall's drafting and undrafted free agent signings (Myers, Zamula... are there others?) were brilliant and set this team up for a sustainable future. I am one of those who disagreed with Hextall being fired. It was the wrong order of things, and was a typical shortsighted Homer move.

 

That being said, Fletcher is the one who has actually been calling these guys up and giving them a chance. You know, the ones not named Goulbourne.

 

Myers, Hart, Bailey, Vorobyev, Varone.

 

Hextall did that too to some extent, but he was also much more reluctant to do so.

 

19 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

 

 

 Maybe he did. Maybe the rest of the gms in the league know he's a pushover. Who knows.

 

 

 I'm scared. 

 

Yup. I'm a little afraid too, because the moves so far are babysteps. 

 

What happens when he takes a giant leap???

 

I have a feeling one of Ghost or Voracek will be traded this summer. And THAT is an important one to get right!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brelic said:

That's what the offseason is for, and we'll see how he does.

 

 

I'm mostly with you. He does feel like much more of a pushover than Hexy though. Hexy had his flaws in many ways, but several of the trades he somehow managed to pull off were legendary. He just seemed like the kind of guy who was going to get every GM he dealt with to overpay one way or the other. Backbone of steel. Fletch hasn't shown that level of backbone, but that may be just regression to the mean. I think Hexy was the anomaly here.

 

I'm with you on a number of those little things as well. Finally we can be done with that list of louts clogging up our roster. Why Hextall saw fit to keep those guys around for so long will remain baffling to anyone I think. It's also great to see more of the kids coming up and getting their shot. This also seemed like the kind of thing Hexy wasn't very open to do.

 

We all heard Hexy spewing his line about kids getting roster spots. He seemed single focused in his desire to foster high level competition for those spots. The kids would have to earn them by proving their worth to a considerable degree; otherwise, they weren't going to get anything. Either all of those kids magically proved they deserved a longer look at the NHL level, or Fletch is just more willing to adopt a let's see what you can do on the ice kind of approach. I'll side with Fletch on this one. The AHL and NHL are so hugely different. There comes a point when just looking at AHL play is simply not enough imo.

 

It's worth noting the season has been in the dumpster since Fletch took over. I think it's easier to take risks in bringing up new blood when there's so little on the line. Still, I'm not sure Hexy would have done it. My guess is he would have waited for training camp as always before making any kind of decisions.

 

So yeah, Fletch has done well on those accounts as you say. I do think he botched the whole Talbot thing by not getting something more than just another Elliott clone, but frankly that isn't going to make any difference at all in the long term, so who cares.

 

He didn't sell the farm on deadline day, so that's a plus. I do feel he's been way too idealistic in his assessment of the season, but that may just be what he says in public too. Hexy was a straight shooter, not a salesman. Fletch it seems may be more of the latter. It's entirely possible his strongman rhetoric about the team's chances was just for the cameras. I'm not a big fan of that, but I guess whatever. Improve the team, and you can vomit whatever elevator pitch you want to the media. I don't care much.

 

I would have liked to see him move at least one larger piece for something to build from though. I still have no reason to believe this current core is good enough to make any playoff noise. They've had their chance and can't pull it together. Part of me would have liked to see him move JVR or Ghost or Voracek or someone like that. Someone who would have had solid value and could have brought something back to build for the future. 

 

So all in all, I'd chalk him up to an average tenure so far. He's had some lapses, but he's done some good too. He hasn't done anything truly awful, which is a good start for sure.

 

C grade I guess right now? Maybe a B- for bringing the kids up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, elmatus said:

The AHL and NHL are so hugely different, there comes a point when just looking at AHL play is simply not enough imo.

 

 

This.

 

I heard Bob McKenzie put it best the other day he said the hardest part of judging the AHL prospect was the influence of a team can be detrimental at times.

 

There you have way more guys free lancing, trying to show boat, do more of their own thing trying to get scouts and GMs to notice their skills.

 

 And not so much concentrating on playing assignments within the system in place, not will to play the less flashy side of things like defense and play away from the puck. The 200 foot game just wanting to go all out on offense.

 

And that is what takes time to separate the cream from the bullsh it. And also why so many don't make like a Jason Akeson or even TJ Brennan if you will.

 

So yes you must at some point see how they do in the NHL amongst their peers within a more structured setting.

 

In the AHL you are stuck with mostly a lot less skilled guys and it is just hard sometimes to stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, elmatus said:

I'm mostly with you. He does feel like much more of a pushover than Hexy though. Hexy had his flaws in many ways, but several of the trades he somehow managed to pull off were legendary. He just seemed like the kind of guy who was going to get every GM he dealt with to overpay one way or the other. Backbone of steel. Fletch hasn't shown that level of backbone, but that may be just regression to the mean. I think Hexy was the anomaly here.

 

Yeah, maybe. Hextall pulled off some great deals in getting rid of things (Hartnell's contract though most fans did not like the trade; Luke Schenn and VLC, Pronger, Rinaldo for a 3rd) and also made some smart hockey trades (Schenn for 2st rounders and Sniffles).

 

But two of his biggest trades - Hartnell and B Schenn - brought back anchors that dragged down the roster for years. 

 

And he failed to make a single trade to bring in a major asset. Fletch is being judged on that after 3 months - Hextall had almost 5 years.

 

He also failed to sign anyone of significance other than JVR. I liked the signing, still do. He's a soft and meh player, but he's a goal scorer. He has a role on this team.

 

So Hexy had cojones of steel in a lot of ways, but he also had his weaknesses and blind spots. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, brelic said:

But two of his biggest trades - Hartnell and B Schenn - brought back anchors that dragged down the roster for years. 

 

 

Hartnell definitely. I hated it then, and I still hate it now. I wouldn't consider the Schenn trade a bad one. He got a solid haul for a guy who was a liability on the ice more often than not. I could easily see Frost being just as good or better than Schenn was. We still have time to judge this one I think.

 

But yes, I agree with you on the timeline front as well. Fletch deserves more than three months before we throw him to the wolves. Let's start by seeing what he does about the coaching staff in the off season. That will be a big one for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, brelic said:

He also failed to sign anyone of significance other than JVR.

 

And this was a misstep by Ron too right here once he did this and he knew Simmer's demands is when he should have moved him which is also leads me to think he picked up the phone and he too knew Simmer just didn't have the value he once had.

 

And he was banking on Simmer having a hell of a year and increasing his value so he could trade him at the deadline.

 

Which of course he didn't make it long enough to do so.

 

 

However with hindsight now we too now know Ron would have had a tough time moving him as well.

 

And as Bill pointed out last night to is Ron would have taken a Hartman as well with his age and possible upside still.

 

At this point we'll never know but Ron either didn't/couldn't/wouldn't do it this past summer and all we can do now is speculate why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

 

Yes, for sure. But he did expedite the process (bias for action) where Hextall was maddeningly patient in some respects.

 

 He was. But it's better than jumping the gun.

 

35 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

This team does not go on a 14-3-1 run with Weise, Lehtera, and Weal in the lineup, and Carter Hart in Lehigh Valley.

 

Fletcher made all those tweaks. Hextall did not and there was every indication he wouldn't until they resolved themselves naturally (contract expiry, put out to pasture, or prison sentence).

 

 The biggest tweak was bringing up a real goalie. One who hextall drafted. Among several others.

 

35 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

 

Absolutely. Hextall's drafting and undrafted free agent signings (Myers, Zamula... are there others?) were brilliant and set this team up for a sustainable future. I am one of those who disagreed with Hextall being fired. It was the wrong order of things, and was a typical shortsighted Homer move.

 

 Those were great signings.

 

35 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

That being said, Fletcher is the one who has actually been calling these guys up and giving them a chance. You know, the ones not named Goulbourne.

 

Myers, Hart, Bailey, Vorobyev, Varone.

 

Hextall did that too to some extent, but he was also much more reluctant to do so.

 

 He did..and credit given. Hextall certainly had too much patience. But again, better than none.

 

35 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

 

Yup. I'm a little afraid too, because the moves so far are babysteps. 

 

What happens when he takes a giant leap???

 

I have a feeling one of Ghost or Voracek will be traded this summer. And THAT is an important one to get right!

 

 

 Yes sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...