On Accountability

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I think a better team than both the Islanders and Penguins.

 

But see you sound like Hagg or Jake. No they are not. The record bears that out. Sorry.

 

You are what your record says you are. Not a playoff teams. Not good enough.

 

At the end of the days they have to many passengers.

 

And those passengers need to be jettisoned.

[radoran]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I'm not sure why you're lecturing me on how crappy they are.  I understand you're pissed and frustrated, but the basic difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you're being crabbier about it.  

 

 

I've been a "glass half full" guy for long enough. Telling me that they "should" beat teams in the playoffs that they're not even going to have the chance to face in the playoffs isn't a convincing argument. Not after seven years of "they're good enough to be a playoff team" that has resulted in three playoffs rounds.

 

I get that there are "positives" to look at. I can see them. I know what they are. A big one wears 79.

 

I'm just skeptical that those "positives" overcome the woeful record they have against teams that are actually in the playoffs.

 

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

That said, I don't know why you're even discussing any games or results from before Hakstol got fired.  That was the preseason.  

 

The two Montreal games were in March. The three Caps losses were in March. The "must win" blowout loss to Carolina was in March. The two Pens OT wins were under Gordon.

 

The stats Brelic posted about Gordon have nothing to do with Hakstol - yet declining in every category (except sv%) is in some way "a good thing" for you while for me it says that the goalie bailed them out.

 

Which you need a goalie to do.

 

I understand "the future is bright" - that's why I have my orange and black sunglasses.

 

But as Joe Strummer says "The future is unwritten" - and what I'm saying is they have to actually start writing it.

[OccamsRazor]

19 minutes ago, brelic said:

it sure felt like on most nights, it's just that Hart / Elliott were better than the garbage that was trotted out under Hak

 

This....it is all it basically was.

 

20 minutes ago, brelic said:

No doubt they have improved some parts of their game - but man, it's still like watching a borderline NHL team on many nights. 

 

I will give him this the PK got better but in all honesty it was picking up as Hak was getting fired.

 

But they still have the laughable PP. And it really seems like the 5 on 5 got worse with Gordon numbers or not.

 

And one of the biggest issues with Hak's system it as predicated upon the defensemen pinching and supporting the puck in the offensive.

 

That required the young D men to know WHEN to do this and then WHEN they did it required the forwards to recognize this and know WHEN to fall back and cover their D gap...and they did this sometimes well and sometimes they did not which i think resulted in Hak having better 5 on 5 numbers than Gordon.

 

Because i can't really figure out what Gordon was asking from the team besides dump it and go get it.

 

It seemed more like basic AHL type systems...which got exposed up here with the teams who have speed and great transition game.

 

The young team just wasn't good at know what everyone was suppose to do.

[King Knut]

2 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

But see you sound like Hagg or Jake. No they are not. The record bears that out. Sorry.

 

You are what your record says you are. Not a playoff teams. Not good enough.

 

At the end of the days they have to many passengers.

 

And those passengers need to be jettisoned.

 

 

I may sound like Jake or Hagg, but I think I have a clearer perspective on the limitations of each of them and of the team than they do.

 

You just sound like an a grump.  And you have every right to, but don't take it out on me because I think your mood is coloring what you're reading.  

 

They are a completely different team than they were in November.  That's a good thing.  They needed to be a historic team from that point on in order to make the playoffs.  They aren't historic.  

 

 

They had a really good shot at being historic, but they crapped the bed.  They had a little help with some crap luck and bad talent management, but mostly they crapped the bed.  

 

Even a non-historic team that crapped the bed could likely beat a "meh" team in a 7 game series even if that "meh" they are still made the playoffs through consistently being "meh" instead of being a roller coaster of soap opera of psychological drama like the Flyers.    

 

The Flyers and Canadians were worse than every team they beat in the 2010 playoffs.  They were evenly bad in the season, but they met in the conference finals.  They were good at the right time.   Right now I believe Montreal, Carolina and Columbus are playing better than the Penguins, Islanders, Maple Leafs, Penguins and Bruins, but not all of that former group will make the playoffs and all of the latter group will.    Up until a week and a half ago, I would have included the Flyers in the former group.  

 

I'm not sure why that's such a contestable conversation point and the fact that you're contesting it so vehemently makes me think you're just feeling grumpy about the Flyers.  

 

I think I've moved through that as I'd more of less given up even my faintest hopes on the season after the 3/19 game against the Habs.  Maybe I should be more respectful of your grieving process?

 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

7 minutes ago, King Knut said:

You just sound like an a grump. 

 

Sorry bro i just call it like i see it...i don't believe in polishing a turd...but don't let me stop you. Carry on.

[OccamsRazor]

10 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Right now I believe Montreal, Carolina and Columbus are playing better than the Penguins, Islanders, Maple Leafs, Penguins and Bruins, but not all of that former group will make the playoffs and all of the latter group will.

 

No not really they all pretty much have closely the same record in the last 10 games of course with the exception of the Leafs who are 4-4-2 in their last 10 games they are not playing that well at this moment...but i knew that was coming it's Toronto and it's almost playoff time. 

 

So no they all seem pretty much neck and neck in play.

[King Knut]

23 hours ago, Howie58 said:

K-Squared: I agree they are "useful," but Coots, as you note, is the up-and-comer.  I fear Comcast is paying G and V a great deal for a diminishing product.  V....never understood the length or amount of contract. 

 

The length and the amount were just market value.  

Toews makes 10.5million and he'll do so until 2023, and has never broken 75 points and is TOTALLY in decline.  

Granted he got paid for effecting a more complete game, but the point remains, it was market value.   65-82 points / year will get you 8.5 million especially if your contract year is one of the 82 point seasons. He's a career .84 points per game guy.  Those guys get big deals.  And those big deals tend to pay players past their point of being worth it, but that's kind of fair in the end because they likely got paid less than market value for some time before they signed those big deals.

 

This is pretty much just how it goes in sports though.  Almost all of them except football because for some reason in that sport legally binding contracts aren't legally binding.  

 

G and Jake got Market value contracts for what they were doing at the time and what the team thought they would continue to do.

 

Except for the two years that G was hurt/recovering (but was still among the team leaders anyway) They actually have pretty much borne out meriting that market value.  

 

There are players that are playing better aroudn the league that are simply younger and still on ELCs and they make less... but now even guys who are in the UFA window are commanding those kinds of salaries.   

 

Coots makes less because he wasn't producing offensively (for various reasons) at the time he signed the deal. When he signed the deal, most fans thought it was absurdly too much.  Most fans don't know much.  Coots is likely to get totally screwed by the deal Hextall gave him because he'll be 29 when it's up and in much the same position as Simmer was this year and probably won't get the chance to make the big bucks deal that makes up for him being underpaid now.  

 

Simmer made startlingly less than his value because he signed an organization friendly deal (for unknown reasons).  

 

It's easy to assume they'll start declining because of their ages, but nothing about their histories suggests we're looking at a general downward trend on either. 

 

It'll likely really suck paying a 35 year old Voracek 8.25 million bucks.  It'll likely suck a bit more paying a 35 year old Toews 10.5 million bucks.  Similarly, it's going to really suck paying a 39 year old Bryce Harper $13 million.  Doesn't mean any of them was inappropriate for the time it was signed.  

[OccamsRazor]

7 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Jake got Market value contracts for what they were doing at the time

 

 

HORSESH IT!!!!!

 

He had one 80 point season.

 

Jake got a 8 year 66 million $ deal (8.25 AAV)  and went out and gave them a  11 goals 44 assist 55 point season is completely crazy and not the market value.

 

Hey we give credit to Ron for the Simmer and Coots deal....here Ron shat the bed. 

 

Jake is at best a 60 point per year forward...who yeah collections garbage points against crappy teams like this past October picking 2 goals and 3 assists against the a terrible Senator team and then going on to score 1 goal for one point in 9 games.

 

Hey but here is to hoping they can trade him and right the ship...this team could use one less choker.

 

[radoran]

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

65-82 points / year will get you 8.5 million especially if your contract year is one of the 82 point seasons. He's a career .84 points per game guy.  Those guys get big deals. 

 

Jake was not in a "contract year" when he was extended. He was extended with a year to go on his current deal. So he didn't do it "in a contract year" - Hextall just bit early.

 

He was also - when he signed the deal - a .7 point per game player over his career and he is currently a career .76 point per game player.

 

He was signed to the deal because of his 46 in 48 during the lockout year and then putting up 81 in 82 in 14-15 (contract went through 15-16). They ignored the 62 point season in between them. The 81 points was an expected projection, and instead he then put up 55, 61, 85, and 65. His average year is in the mid-60s. The 80+ and 55 year are clear outliers.

 

Lastly the only forward under 30 in the 60-point range making $8M or more is Johansen ($8M). The only other forwards under 30 with a cap hit of $8M or more who aren't a point per game player are Benn (first non 70+ point season in five years ) and Nylander (who's a $7M cap hit next season. Stone is about to be, but is a .95 per game guy this season .

 

Jake's about $1-2M overpaid. He's the 8th highest cap hit for forwards under 30, and 40th in production.

 

That's not a whole lot, but it is an overpayment. As we've discussed previously, the Flyers have the space so it's not biting them "rightnow" which is not to say that it might not in future.

 

What he does have is eight playoff points in 19 playoff games over the past seven years.

[brelic]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I think we're watching a wild card level NHL team or at least we were until they were eliminated and they gave up on the season two games ago.  I think the Canes, Habs, BJ's and Flyers are all playing better than the Penguins, Islanders, Maple Leafs and maybe Bruins right now.  The Canes, Habs, and BJ's are all playing better than the Flyers to be sure and that's why we're on the outside again this year... that and the first half of the season was utter garbage.   Some teams they match up well against and could take (and sometimes this happens with teams that have much better records) some teams matchup better against the Flyers even though their records are similar and some teams are just outright better.  That's pretty much the way hockey goes.  

 

Yeah, maybe. I mean, they weren't as bad as their record in the first half, and they weren't as good as their record in the second.

 

They are a wildly inconsistent team. An awkward teenager with acne and surging hormones.

 

[King Knut]

8 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

HORSESH IT!!!!!

 

He had one 80 point season.

 

Jake got a 8 year 66 million $ deal (8.25 AAV)  and went out and gave them a  11 goals 44 assist 55 point season is completely crazy and not the market value.

 

Hey we give credit to Ron for the Simmer and Coots deal....here Ron shat the bed. 

 

Jake is at best a 60 point per year forward...who yeah collections garbage points against crappy teams like this past October picking 2 goals and 3 assists against the a terrible Senator team and then going on to score 1 goal for one point in 9 games.

 

Hey but here is to hoping they can trade him and right the ship...this team could use one less choker.

 

 

-Jake got 8.25 for 8 years at age 27 and he's topped 80 points only twice (not counting the strike shortened season).

 

Compare that to:  

 

-Logan Couture just got 8 for 8 years at age 30 and he's having a career year meaning he scored above 70 for the first time.

-Jamie Benn got 9.5 for 8 years at age 27 and he had 2 80+ point seasons in which he scored 89 and 87 respectively.

-Ryan Johanson got 8 for 8 years at age 25 and he topped 70 points just once.

-Kopitar got 10 million for 8 years at age 29 and he broke 90 once and 80 another time, otherwise never beat 76.

-Corey Perry got 8.65 for 8 years at age 28 and he scored 98 points once and 82 points another time otherwise never beat 76.

-Ryan Getlaf got 8.25 for 8 years at age 28 and he got 91 one year, 82 another and 87 his contract year, but never beat 76 any other year.

- Kuznetzov gor 7.8 for 8 years when he was 25 and he maxed out at 80 points one time.

-Ryan O'Reilly got 7.5 for 7 years at age 25 and he just crested 70 points for the first time this year.

-Tarasenko got 7.5 for 8 years at age 24 and he's never crested 75 points.  

-Evander Kane got 7 for 7 years at age 27 and he's never scored more than 57-

-Parise got 7.5 for 13 years at age 28 and he topped 90 once, 80 another time, otherwise never hit 70.

-TJ Oshie got 5.5 for 8 years at age 31 and he's crested 60 points exactly once.

-Pastrnak got 6.7 for 6 years at age 21 and he crested 80 just once.

 

Jake got Market value.  Maybe you think the Market's inflated.  Maybe it is.  Jake got Market value.  

[OccamsRazor]

8 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Jake got Market value.  

 

It was a bad contract handed out by Hextall and Jake reward him by scoring 11 goals and has just followed it up with just 3 straight years of 20 goals that is it....sorry a bad contract. 

 

And in a case like Couture he put up 34 goals and a 61 point season. And followed it with a 70 point season.

 

He also plays on the PK too as well as the PP. Has scored 4 shorties over the last 2 years.

 

Jake has never scored a shorty in his whole career i wonder why that is not even a shorthand point...i bet you know why.

 

Hell Jake hasn't scored even 23 goals since 13-14. Bad contract....and i hope Fletcher can move it.

[King Knut]

19 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Jake was not in a "contract year" when he was extended. He was extended with a year to go on his current deal. So he didn't do it "in a contract year" - Hextall just bit early.

 

He was also - when he signed the deal - a .7 point per game player over his career and he is currently a career .76 point per game player.

 

He was signed to the deal because of his 46 in 48 during the lockout year and then putting up 81 in 82 in 14-15 (contract went through 15-16). They ignored the 62 point season in between them. The 81 points was an expected projection, and instead he then put up 55, 61, 85, and 65. His average year is in the mid-60s. The 80+ and 55 year are clear outliers.

 

Lastly the only forward under 30 in the 60-point range making $8M or more is Johansen ($8M). The only other forwards under 30 with a cap hit of $8M or more who aren't a point per game player are Benn (first non 70+ point season in five years ) and Nylander (who's a $7M cap hit next season. Stone is about to be, but is a .95 per game guy this season .

 

Jake's about $1-2M overpaid. He's the 8th highest cap hit for forwards under 30, and 40th in production.

 

That's not a whole lot, but it is an overpayment. As we've discussed previously, the Flyers have the space so it's not biting them "rightnow" which is not to say that it might not in future.

 

What he does have is eight playoff points in 19 playoff games over the past seven years.

 

See my post above.  

 

Agents don't use your numbers.  They use each others numbers.  He got market value.  You may not like the market.  I may not like the market.  He got Market value.  Not a good deal, not a bad deal.  

 

Let's be fair though, even in those off years you mentioned (after he signed the deal) he's usually either #1 or #2 on the team in points. 

I'm not sure what the under 30 thing has to do with the market value of his deal.  To me, if you're over 30 and you're making too much money, that makes your deal worse than Jake's. Jakes a few heartbeats away from 30 anyway.

 

If he's 1-2 million overpaid, how overpaid is Kane?  What about Couture?  Benn?  Parise?  

 

When they have these discussions, GMs can throw out numbers like you are, but agents will point out that he's the best scorer on the team most years and that other guys who put up numbers like him make X amount of dollars.  

 

Hextall got a sweetheart deal in Simmer.  He had vision in Coots' deal.  He got market value in Jake's deal.

He didn't get swindled.  He didn't Swindle either.  

 

The good news is that Jake is still outscoring everyone on the Flyers not named Couturier and Giroux, so TK and Patty and Lindblom can point to inflated UFA deals around the league if they want, but it's not like they can say they're outproducing guys who make more than them the way Nylander or Pastrnak could.  

 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Lindblom

 

If he could only score.

 

 

He for real needs to do nothing but learn to shoot the damn puck this offseason.

 

Patrick too.

 

I'm done discussing Jake i've said my piece on it.

 

I hope they trade him...but GMs aren't stupid.

[King Knut]

8 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

It was a bad contract handed out by Hextall and Jake reward him by scoring 11 goals and has just followed it up with just 3 straight years of 20 goals that is it....sorry a bad contract. 

 

And in a case like Couture he put up 34 goals and a 61 point season. And followed it with a 70 point season.

 

He also plays on the PK too as well as the PP. Has scored 4 shorties over the last 2 years.

 

Jake has never scored a shorty in his whole career i wonder why that is not even a shorthand point...i bet you know why.

 

Hell Jake hasn't scored even 23 goals since 13-14. Bad contract....and i hope Fletcher can move it.

 

You're grabbing at straws.  

 

Jake was never a goal scorer, let alone a PK guy. 

And it doesn't matter 80 points is 80 goals for your team whether you scored 40 of them or 5 of them.  

 

You think agents give a crap about Couture's 4 shorties in two years?  How many dollars do you really think Couture's agent could get out of those 4 goals?  

 

Don't hate the player, hate the market he's signing in.  

[King Knut]

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

If he could only score.

 

 

He for real needs to do nothing but learn to shoot the damn puck this offseason.

 

Patrick too.

 

I'm done discussing Jake i've said my piece on it.

 

I hope they trade him...but GMs aren't stupid.

 

Patrick needs to make plays.  Maybe shooting more would help, but that kid can be electric with the puck on his stick when he wants to.  He's utterly invisible most of the rest of the time though and frankly, I put half of that on his being so out of shape when he hit the league due to his surgeries and half on Hakstol drilling into his head to play away from his strengths for a year and a half.  

 

He did the same thing to Konecney, but thankfully TK is a bit more thick headed and it never really took.  Hopefully the two of them are set loose more next year and have the confidence to actually execute.  

 

I don't know what to make out of Lindblom.  He's young too so playing great and then vanishing is a thing.  I think if He and Patty can be third liners next year, they'll have the matchups they need to really find their games.    

 

Go forth Fletch and make that a reality. 

 

[OccamsRazor]

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

You think agents give a crap about Couture's 4 shorties in two years? 

 

 

You miss the point it isn't about his shorties he plays on the PK and the PP.

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

27 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

You miss the point it isn't about his shorties he plays on the PK and the PP.

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, so he plays on the PK and PP, he's still a net negative player who only just surpassed 70 points and he's going to make $8million when he's 39 years old regardless of whether he plays on the PK or at all.  

 

He's never been the team's point leader and he's perennially been on playoff teams with a lot of depth favored to go deep.  

Who was the best offensive player on his teams?  Thorton? Marleau? Pavelski? Heatley?  Burns? Hertl?  You have your choice of several every year.  Since Voracek came onto this team, it's been him and G until last year.  

 

Again... you're making arguments about very specific statistics.  I'm pointing to the overall Market.  

 

It's a market.  It's not a fantasy score sheet. 

 

If you're buying a house and every house in your neighborhood is worth $800-$900k, you're going to spend around $800-$900k for your house even if it needs a new roof or only has a 2 car garage.  It's just how markets work.

 

 

 

 

 

[flyer4ever]

Ask Edmonton what they think when you have 2 guys with 100plus points. And please don't compare anyone on the Flyers to Johnathon Toews. He took down Chara to win a cup. On the current Flyer team there is nobody who could take down my grandmother.

There is more to being a complete player than scoring points.

[radoran]

39 minutes ago, King Knut said:

If he's 1-2 million overpaid, how overpaid is Kane?  What about Couture?  Benn?  Parise?  

 

Kane? Which Kane? 41 goals, 105 point Patrick Kane? Not much - although there's no question they're paying for past performance that includes as many Cup rings as any Flyer has as a Flyer. You put up 100 points, it's hard to argue especially when your "down year" over the past four has more goals and a handful fewer points than Voracek. Also, too, you know I can't stand $10M players.

 

29 goal, 53 point Evander Kane at $7M? Not much. About what Jake should likely have. Yes, to me, goal scoring has a higher value than piling up assists. You consistently hit 25+ and put up 50-60 points, to me you're more valuable than a 20-goal guy putting up 60-65.

 

27 goal, 70 point Logan Couture? The guy with 59 playoff points in 58 playoff games over the past seven years? Making $6M this season and still not as much as Jake on his next contract? Not much.

 

Parise? A 25+ goal scorer with over 60 points on the cap for $750,000 less than Jake at 34? From what I've been told, that's "market value." It's the next six years on his contract that I'd be more concerned about.

 

I get what you're saying. There are bad contracts out there. And there are. And, yes, Jake's is one of them - unless he's consistently putting up 80+ seasons - or even 70+ point seasons - which he is not.

 

My main points - which you didn't address - is that Jake wasn't in a contract year, isn't a .85 ppg career player, and wasn't that when he was signed. And that $8.25M was not "market value" when the deal was signed. It was designed, much like many of the longer term deals we've seen, to be overpayment at the front and a relative bargain at the end.

 

What Logan Couture signed for in 2019 (which is still less than what Voracek got in 2015) isn't really relevant to what the market was in 2015.

 

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

If you're buying a house and every house in your neighborhood is worth $800-$900k, you're going to spend around $800-$900k for your house even if it needs a new roof or only has a 2 car garage.  It's just how markets work.

 

Then you have a terrible real estate agent. If homes in the neighborhood that have a new roof and 3 car garages are $900K and you pay $900K for one that needs a new roof and has a smaller garage, you got suckered. Your agent either includes that the deal is contingent on the roof being replaced and that the lack of a third parking space is a $50-100K deduction (depending on where you live - in Philly a space is around $100K in value most places). So, yeah, if the new roof/3 car house is $900K, then your needs a roof and missing a space house should be $800K or less. $100K is not an insignificant amount of money, much like $1M on a cap hit.

 

For example, houses in my neighborhood in SoPhilly can go for upwards of $300K if they're more or less up to date. If they need a new kitchen, have to have the linoleum tile removed, and the wall-to-wall mirroring removed in the living room (this is South Philly after all) you're never going to get $300K for it. People will buy it for $250K, spend $50K to get everything done and have a $300K house.

 

That said, there are more than enough people out there to make bad decisions - or even just decision they want to make. Sometimes people just "want what they want" and are willing to pay a premium for it. That doesn't mean it's "market value" - it means they're paying more because they want to pay more.

 

And that's what happened with Jake. Hextall wanted to believe he had broken out as a superstar player and would contribute at a point per game or close to it on a regular basis.

 

Hasn't worked out that way. If he'd just waited a year, he could have paid less - while, yes, risking that he might have had to pay more.

 

Really would have depended if you saw a guy who had one and a half near point per game seasons and one 55 point and one 62 point seasons with the 55 coming in the contract year and thought "that guy's a consistent superstar in the making."

 

I didn't then. I don't now. YMMV

[King Knut]

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

My main points - which you didn't address - is that Jake wasn't in a contract year, isn't a .85 ppg career player, and wasn't that when he was signed. And that $8.25M was not "market value" when the deal was signed. It was designed, much like many of the longer term deals we've seen, to be overpayment at the front and a relative bargain at the end.

 

 

Damn it... some how I closed my window with the reply I was working.  CRAP.

This will not be as detailed.  Sorry.  

 

Long and short:

 

According to Cap Friendly, yes... Jake signed his current deal on July 30, 2015 (just before UFA day one 11 months before his current contract would expire on 7/1 2016).  

 

In the 2014-2015 season leading up to that Jake had scored 82 points, good for 4th in the league (tied), 2nd in the league in Assists (to Backstrom who played with 53 goal scorer Ovie) and led the Flyers in points.

 

The Guys at his level and above him that year now make:

Jamie Benn 9.5 for 8 years.

John Tavares 11 for 7

Crosby 8.7 for 12 years (already signed in 2015)

Ovie 9.5 for 13 years (also already signed in 2015)

 

Clearly Jake's not as good as 3 of those guys, but he was very good that year and you can see how they ended up where they did in the negotiations.  

 

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

Then you have a terrible real estate agent. If homes in the neighborhood that have a new roof and 3 car garages are $900K and you pay $900K for one that needs a new roof and has a smaller garage, you got suckered. Your agent either includes that the deal is contingent on the roof being replaced and that the lack of a third parking space is a $50-100K deduction (depending on where you live - in Philly a space is around $100K in value most places). So, yeah, if the new roof/3 car house is $900K, then your needs a roof and missing a space house should be $800K or less. $100K is not an insignificant amount of money, much like $1M on a cap hit.

 

 

I don't think you're doing the math.  Your house needs a new roof, but theirs needs a new septic.  It balances out... and at 900K for the house, 20k for the roof is not as significant a knock off as it is on a 300k house.  If homes with the 3 car garage are 900K and you pay 825k for a bad roof and a smaller garage, you're not getting snuckered.  That's the market value (Your deductions work out to about 75k give or take) Multiply all these numbers by ten and you're looking at the yearly annual amounts we're talking about for Jake.  Compared to the guys in his 2015 neighborhood, he got a fair market value.

 

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

For example, houses in my neighborhood in SoPhilly can go for upwards of $300K if they're more or less up to date. If they need a new kitchen, have to have the linoleum tile removed, and the wall-to-wall mirroring removed in the living room (this is South Philly after all) you're never going to get $300K for it. People will buy it for $250K, spend $50K to get everything done and have a $300K house.

 

 

But you're talking about South Philly. That's not Jake's neighborhood no matter what we think of him.  I'm talking about Rittenhouse.  in 2015, we're lucky we didn't end up paying for the Main Line.

 

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

That said, there are more than enough people out there to make bad decisions - or even just decision they want to make. Sometimes people just "want what they want" and are willing to pay a premium for it. That doesn't mean it's "market value" - it means they're paying more because they want to pay more.

 

And that's what happened with Jake. Hextall wanted to believe he had broken out as a superstar player and would contribute at a point per game or close to it on a regular basis.

 

 

Jake wasn't paying a premium.  I'm sorry.  Look at the numbers since, look at where he's been on the team's leaderboard since...  

 

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

That said, there are more than enough people out there to make bad decisions - or even just decision they want to make. Sometimes people just "want what they want" and are willing to pay a premium for it. That doesn't mean it's "market value" - it means they're paying more because they want to pay more.

 

And that's what happened with Jake. Hextall wanted to believe he had broken out as a superstar player and would contribute at a point per game or close to it on a regular basis.

 

Hasn't worked out that way. If he'd just waited a year, he could have paid less - while, yes, risking that he might have had to pay more.

 

Really would have depended if you saw a guy who had one and a half near point per game seasons and one 55 point and one 62 point seasons with the 55 coming in the contract year and thought "that guy's a consistent superstar in the making."

 

I didn't then. I don't now. YMMV

[mojo1917]

@radoran@Howie58 @King Knut

@OccamsRazor @brelic

this thread has been fascinating to read, thanks.

 

When I think about the "market value" of a player it feels dehumanizing. 

A lot has been written here about Hextall, one of his strengths from my view was he is/was a relationships guy.  I think there was a human element that went into the Voracek deal that is being overlooked, or undervalued now that he GM isn't here and the team is struggling. 

 

In a broad sense he did overpay Voracek, but not by a franchise crippling amount.  

Did those extra $ help the player to feel valued/important ? 

I would say it did, the player has attempted to be a leader on the team, the player has played to the contract's perceived value in some years and below it in others, he hasn't played the disgruntled card and packed up for Kladno. 

He is a leading scorer and leader on the team, he is one of the team's best players year in and year out. When he's out of the line up the team is far less dynamic. He has been mostly durable, availability should never be an overlooked ability see: goalies/Flyers/2018-19.

I do think his frustration and speaking out about it is an attempt to become a different voice in the room/organization. 

I think Jake's contract isn't the best but it is far from a gross over-payment. 

[brelic]

@mojo1917

 

Thank YOU and everyone else on this board that contributes every day with thoughtful posts AND respectful banter. Sure we all get fired up sometimes, but this is hands down the best Flyers forum I’ve ever been part of. 

 

I’ve “known” some people here for like 20 years. Crazy!

 

You guys rock!

[OccamsRazor]

2 minutes ago, brelic said:

@mojo1917

 

Thank YOU and everyone else on this board that contributes every day with thoughtful posts AND respectful banter. Sure we all get fired up sometimes, but this is hands down the best Flyers forum I’ve ever been part of. 

 

I’ve “known” some people here for like 20 years. Crazy!

 

You guys rock!

 

 

Well said and we have all had our disagreements and sometimes don't see eye to eye.

 

But that is what makes it fun. It would be much if we always agreed.

 

So with that said.....trade everyone!!!!

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

5 hours ago, flyer4ever said:

Ask Edmonton what they think when you have 2 guys with 100plus points. And please don't compare anyone on the Flyers to Johnathon Toews. He took down Chara to win a cup. On the current Flyer team there is nobody who could take down my grandmother.

There is more to being a complete player than scoring points.

 

In fairness to Giroux, he's carried that club on his back and by the time the team gets to the playoffs, he's physically spent. Couturier is starting to get to that level the past two seasons after being used in a garbage role in his career. My hope, more than anything, is that the defense really comes together next season and takes off. That's where the strength of this club will be.