Ratcliffe

[OccamsRazor]

Well damn I just notice this was a Ratcliffe thread I'm not trying to hi Jack it.

 

So no let's not trade Ratcliffe.

 

There back in track.

[brelic]

19 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

This is what I'm not sure I understand though. Subban I can get. He's had some stellar years and has on many occasions been the deciding factor in games in his career. Trouba really has not. Not only that, he's never even come close to being that guy. It feels a lot like someone hyped him up and somehow the internet blew it wild. I don't think he's ever shown he has that level of talent.

 

As far as making our team better, it would depend on what we're giving up. If we lose a Ghost to get a Trouba, I would consider that making us worse for sure. I'm fine with trading Ghost, but we can do better than Trouba for him.

 

And if we're hedging bets on Provo, mine is with him regaining his form and then some. The drop last season was too precipitous to be some sort of real decline.

 

I'll just have to defer to the organization that they have done and are doing their due diligence. 

 

I hear ya on losing Ghost. I really like him and he's a special player when he's on his game. But it's very possible Trouba makes the Flyers a better 'team' than Ghost. Can't say without seeing it in action, but I would bet that's exactly why Fletch would make that move - it's that he believes it makes the 'team' better, not that Trouba is necessarily better than Ghost. They're just different.

 

I'm optimistic on Provorov too. I guess Couturier taught me something about non-linear development curves and also very delayed development curves lol. Provorov is 22 and entering his 4th season, so there's lots of time for him to keep refining his game.

 

[brelic]

12 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Well damn I just notice this was a Ratcliffe thread I'm not trying to hi Jack it.

 

So no let's not trade Ratcliffe.

 

There back in track.

 

I get the desire to hang on to all our guys... but if not Frost, Farabee, or Ratcliffe, then who do you propose we trade? Honestly, there's not much perceived value after those three.

 

If it gets us a long-term solid player (i.e. mid-20s guy) like, say a William Karlsson, then I'm good with parting with a Ratcliffe. 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

18 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

I get the desire to hang on to all our guys... but if not Frost, Farabee, or Ratcliffe, then who do you propose we trade? Honestly, there's not much perceived value after those three.

 

If it gets us a long-term solid player (i.e. mid-20s guy) like, say a William Karlsson, then I'm good with parting with a Ratcliffe. 

 

 

 

Depends on the return really.

[elmatus]

3 hours ago, brelic said:

If it gets us a long-term solid player (i.e. mid-20s guy) like, say a William Karlsson, then I'm good with parting with a Ratcliffe. 

 

 

Ratcliffe would seem a bad trade chip to get someone like Karlsson anyway. Ghost is a more likely candidate.

 

If Ratcliffe is part of any trade, it's unlikely he's the central piece. It would be part of a package deal, and I think Ghost plus anything is probably too much. Ghost for Karlsson straight up seems pretty fair to me. I wouldn't add a promising prospect to that.

[brelic]

14 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

Ratcliffe would seem a bad trade chip to get someone like Karlsson anyway. Ghost is a more likely candidate.

 

If Ratcliffe is part of any trade, it's unlikely he's the central piece. It would be part of a package deal, and I think Ghost plus anything is probably too much. Ghost for Karlsson straight up seems pretty fair to me. I wouldn't add a promising prospect to that.

 

Have you looked at their roster on capfriendly? It ain't pretty. 

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/goldenknights

19 guys signed with 0 cap space. 

 

Trading Karlsson away removes exactly $0 from their cap hit since he's an RFA.

 

Also, look at how their defense stacks up? They've already got high priced guys back there, so if they're subtracting Karlsson ($5.25m last year), I highly doubt they'd be adding roughly the same in another defenseman. The math and need simply don't work.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by brelic

[elmatus]

12 minutes ago, brelic said:

Also, look at how their defense stacks up? They've already got high priced guys back there, so if they're subtracting Karlsson ($5.25m last year), I highly doubt they'd be adding roughly the same in another defenseman. The math and need simply don't work.

 

Fair enough, but Ratcliffe for W. Karlsson is highly unlikely impossible. It would have to be some sort of package. No NHL team is giving up a top six center for an unproven junior, even less a guy who was in the running for the rocket richard just two seasons ago.

Edited June 3, 2019 by elmatus

[brelic]

3 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

Fair enough, but Ratcliffe for W. Karlsson is highly unlikely impossible. It would have to be some sort of package. No NHL team is giving up a top six center for an unproven junior, even less a guy who was in the running for the rocket richard just two seasons ago.

 

Oh for sure, it would take more than Ratcliffe. I'm just using Karlsson as an example where if Ratcliffe is included, it's not giving up assets for over-the-hill vets.

[elmatus]

4 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

So would TJ Brodie or Travis Hamonic be of interest to the Fly guys?

 

 

Meh. I feel like I'm not very interested in adding guys just to add guys. We have too many high quality prospects for that. I'm not opposed to getting a dman necessarily, but it should be someone that offers something to the team. Brodie and Hamonic offer little but shot blocking stats.

[ruxpin]

4 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Since the discussion is about  Dmen I seen mention this morning that Calgary is wanting to move one.

 

So would TJ Brodie or Travis Hamonic be of interest to the Fly guys?

 

Asking for a friend.

I don't want Harmonic but ONLY because I don't think he'll be happy or east. Didn't he basically force the Isles to trade him out there for family? 

 

Either one works for me from a hockey standpoint. Unless you can get Giordano. Lol

[radoran]

1 hour ago, elmatus said:

 

Fair enough, but Ratcliffe for W. Karlsson is highly unlikely impossible. It would have to be some sort of package. No NHL team is giving up a top six center for an unproven junior, even less a guy who was in the running for the rocket richard just two seasons ago.

 

All things considered, that makes sense.

 

Then you look at their cap situation and try to figure out where they can fit Karlsson in. They're not going to move Stone. They likely can't move Pacioretty or Stastny. Smith and Marchessault? Tuch?

 

Where do they find $6-7M? Or, or that matter, $8M?

 

Could be that getting future assets - a Ratcliffe and the 11th? - could be just what they need.

 

That said, Karlsson does have a bit of a hammer here. If they tender him, he can respond with arbitration. What does a guy a year removed from 43 goals get?

 

Which leads to another concern - what if the 20-25/50-60 guy is who Karlsson is? Presuming he's not going to connect on 23.4% of his shots again.

 

I think that 20-25/50-60 is pretty much what the Flyers are looking for in a 2C, but not if they're gonna have to pony up $8M+ for him.

 

At that point, I'd rather a 25-30/60-70 point guy like Duchene (who is not one of my preferred choices).

 

Tough decisions all around.

 

 

[elmatus]

13 minutes ago, radoran said:

Could be that getting future assets - a Ratcliffe and the 11th? - could be just what they need.

 

 

I just worry we're yet again putting way too much stock in an unproven junior. I have a hard time thinking many NHL GMs are interested in trading top line centers for any junior player. That just seems so unlikely to me.

 

I feel like they're more likely to find a way to move others honestly. Stastny would be the obvious choice to start. If they do move Karlsson, I would have to assume it's for more than a junior player and the 11th overall pick.

[brelic]

25 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

I just worry we're yet again putting way too much stock in an unproven junior. I have a hard time thinking many NHL GMs are interested in trading top line centers for any junior player. That just seems so unlikely to me.

 

I feel like they're more likely to find a way to move others honestly. Stastny would be the obvious choice to start. If they do move Karlsson, I would have to assume it's for more than a junior player and the 11th overall pick.

 

Maybe, but what they don't need are more expensive players. They're all set there. They need cheap roster filler, and they need to move out salary.

 

If you're right about Ratcliffe being too 'unproven' a commodity, then it would probably take Frost or Farabee, and a 1st.

[RonJeremy]

I would never move Radcliffe,  a guy with that size , mobility and scoring skills is a rare commodity in today's game .

[radoran]

40 minutes ago, elmatus said:

I just worry we're yet again putting way too much stock in an unproven junior. I have a hard time thinking many NHL GMs are interested in trading top line centers for any junior player. That just seems so unlikely to me.

 

I share your concern and pretty much agree with it. I'm just seeing Vegas over a barrel here.

 

What do they get for a 33-year-old Statsny on the books at $6.5M for another year? He has played one full season in the past five and cracked 50 points once.

 

And does Karlsson bite at $6.5M? (which replaces Stastny and still leaves them cap-strapped without a backup goalie)

 

It's an interesting situation in which they find themselves.

[ruxpin]

5 hours ago, elmatus said:

 

I just worry we're yet again putting way too much stock in an unproven junior. I have a hard time thinking many NHL GMs are interested in trading top line centers for any junior player. That just seems so unlikely to me.

 

I feel like they're more likely to find a way to move others honestly. Stastny would be the obvious choice to start. If they do move Karlsson, I would have to assume it's for more than a junior player and the 11th overall pick.

This. 

Ratcliffe and 11th doesn't get Karlsson. I don't mind trading for Karlsson and there can't be a lot of cap going back, but it will take at least one more prospect or an NHLer drill on an entry level. Like Patrick. I'm not advocating for that, but now we're in the ballpark. 

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

18 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

This. 

Ratcliffe and 11th doesn't get Karlsson. I don't mind trading for Karlsson and there can't be a lot of cap going back, but it will take at least one more prospect or an NHLer drill on an entry level. Like Patrick. I'm not advocating for that, but now we're in the ballpark. 

Take a look at what players are being moved for and it's nowhere near the amount it used to be. Look at what Erik Karlsson was moved for. He was moved for peanuts. Look at the O'Reilly trade. Not exactly huge either. Look at when Tampa Bay acquired JT Miller and Ryan McDonagh. I could go on and on. No exchange of top prospects took place. The first round picks were late. The players that were used were, to be honest, mediocre. 

 

It's a different time now. Everyone is on a level playing field and the days of overpaying are pretty much at an end. If the Flyers are offering their first and a top prospect line prospect for William Karlsson, Vegas is jumping all over that. The other thing to factor into everything - the upcoming expansion draft. 

 

Now I'm not advocating moving Ratcliffe. I'd rather see the Flyers move Wade Allision or Tanner Laczynski instead. 

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

This. 

Ratcliffe and 11th doesn't get Karlsson. I don't mind trading for Karlsson and there can't be a lot of cap going back, but it will take at least one more prospect or an NHLer drill on an entry level. Like Patrick. I'm not advocating for that, but now we're in the ballpark. 

 

Well they don't have much leverage so I would say good luck wih that...

[ruxpin]

36 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Well they don't have much leverage so I would say good luck wih that...

Yeah, I guess I have to agree with you and @BobbyClarkeFan16

 

Might be moot with the Hayes acquisition, too. 

[tucson83]

23 hours ago, brelic said:

 

I'll just have to defer to the organization that they have done and are doing their due diligence. 

 

I hear ya on losing Ghost. I really like him and he's a special player when he's on his game. But it's very possible Trouba makes the Flyers a better 'team' than Ghost. Can't say without seeing it in action, but I would bet that's exactly why Fletch would make that move - it's that he believes it makes the 'team' better, not that Trouba is necessarily better than Ghost. They're just different.

 

I'm optimistic on Provorov too. I guess Couturier taught me something about non-linear development curves and also very delayed development curves lol. Provorov is 22 and entering his 4th season, so there's lots of time for him to keep refining his game.

 

especially the size for trouba he's 6'3, you look how st.louis their defensemen are huge, it's a big reason why they are playing so well, their size plays an advantage of keeping the puck in the zone, our d needs size, fletch is all about size, ghost doesnt fit that, he's not big, he's not physical, he's bad on d, he's very easy to get knocked down and turns the puck over.

[mojo1917]

13 minutes ago, tucson83 said:

especially the size for trouba he's 6'3, you look how st.louis their defensemen are huge, it's a big reason why they are playing so well, their size plays an advantage of keeping the puck in the zone, our d needs size,

Colton Parayko especially has been a beast.

Peitrangelo is big...and they all skate well, Myers, Sanhiem, Friedman, Gudas and even Provorov are all pretty solid bodies if not exactly large.

[elmatus]

On 6/4/2019 at 9:57 AM, mojo1917 said:

Colton Parayko especially has been a beast.

Peitrangelo is big...and they all skate well, Myers, Sanhiem, Friedman, Gudas and even Provorov are all pretty solid bodies if not exactly large.

 

Myers is 6'5 and Sanheim 6'3 -- and that's without mentioning beastly Morin at 6'7. They're younger and need to fill our a bit, but I have no doubt all three are going to be big dmen. Provo is a bit smaller in stature (6'1), but he plays much bigger than his size. For comparison sake, Pietrangelo is 6'3 and Parayko 6'6.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. I actually like Pietrangelo and Parayko both and wouldn't be opposed at all if Fletch tried to get either of them. I'm just saying our blue line of the future is not what anyone should consider small. I'm not sure if that's what you were alluding to when you say "not exactly large." If anything, there's every reason to believe our up and coming blue line will be quite large in fact.

Edited June 5, 2019 by elmatus

[mojo1917]

@elmatus

 

my "not exactly large" qualifier was an allusion to the boys' youth. Sanhiem hasn't gotten his "man weight" yet neither has Myers.

So those guys are tall but they are slight (Sanhiem more than Myers).

 

Provorov is still a young cat and may fill out some and while Gudas isn't "big" he's solid and plays the heavy game - oh wait that guy is gone- any way Gudas plays like a larger man. 

 

So adding a guy like Trouba at 6'3" whatever would make that quite a physically imposing group, at least they'd look good getting off the bus. 

 

[elmatus]

9 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

@elmatus

 

my "not exactly large" qualifier was an allusion to the boys' youth. Sanhiem hasn't gotten his "man weight" yet neither has Myers.

So those guys are tall but they are slight (Sanhiem more than Myers).

 

Provorov is still a young cat and may fill out some and while Gudas isn't "big" he's solid and plays the heavy game - oh wait that guy is gone- any way Gudas plays like a larger man. 

 

So adding a guy like Trouba at 6'3" whatever would make that quite a physically imposing group, at least they'd look good getting off the bus. 

 

 

Sure, I get that. I honestly don't think it will be a problem though. Gudas, Hagg, and Provo are all big and constant hitters who are very solid on their skates. Myers showed a similar playstyle in his stint. Sanheim seems more of a dynamic skater type, but he has plenty of time to figure things out (and hopefully better coaching), and of course if Morin makes this team, half the league will immediately hate hopping on to the ice at WFC for fear of leaving on a stretcher.

 

If we can somehow get Trouba for cheap, I'm all for it. He's a good player and would look good on the second pairing with someone like Sanheim or Myers or even Ghost for that matter. I just think he's overhyped, and I don't think he really offers anything we're not likely to develop ourselves with our current crop. Ghost on the other hand has shown a very dynamic skill set that is rare among dmen. I'm fine with trading him. I think Sanheim in particular could grow to fill much of the same role. I just don't think Trouba is a good return.

Edited June 6, 2019 by elmatus

[jammer2]

To be clear, I badly wanted the Flyers to orchestrate a day 2 draft trade to snag Rats ...and posted so before the Flyers pulled the trigger on that move up... very high on him and his potential...BUT just to inject a bit of reality into the Mem cup run...Ottawa had Guelph 3-0 and their goalie DiePietro got hurt and Guelph swept the next 4 straight. No way does Guelph advance if Mikey does not get hurt...just saying...