Jets trade Kevin Hayes to Flyers

[King Knut]

6 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Fundamentally disagree. Not in that I don't like Hayes, just that I don't see the need to sign him.

 

If they can work it out, great. If Hayes wants too much, I'd be willing to walk away.

 

I don't know that the organization will.

 

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when they had to sign MacDonald to a long term deal "because of what they gave up" and we can see how that worked out...

 

Let me rephrase:

 

I think Fletcher needs to sign Hayes.  If he wants to much, obviously that's a no-go, but it also reflects poorly on Fletcher.

 

Needs is maybe too harsh or severe.  I just think it starts to look BAD if he doesn't get him.  Not just for failing the team, but for his ability to temperature take and read the situation and have a good idea what's going on with a player.  

 

 

[King Knut]

3 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

The only players they have dealt for their rights IIRC who have signed before July 1st is Kimmo and Hartnell.

 

Too bad that deal didn't work out!

 

Oh hot damn Homer started out soo good!

[radoran]

5 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

Oh for sure... 40 goals is 40 goals. But I'd say Skinner has maybe 2-3 seasons of that kind of play, and then 5-6 years of, "he's an overpaid bum" from fans.

 

Could easily be. That's exactly what concerns me about Hayes, pending cost and term.

 

Skinner had a track record with three other 30-goal seasons and showed tremendous chemistry with Eichel - who Buffalo IMO also overpaid for.

 

That said, Skinner is 27 and if his production is likely to fall off a cliff in 2-3 years, where does that leave Jake Voracek who will be 30 to start next season? To, you know, continue on your comparison.

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

That ain't getting it done my friend he is coming off of 5 mill per season I am sure he will be expecting a raise.

 

6-7mill at least.

 

Then he signs for 4 years.  

 

He had a really good year.  But not a 7 million dollar year.  

[OccamsRazor]

1 minute ago, King Knut said:

it also reflects poorly on Fletcher.

 

How so because he didn't give into his demands because he gave up a 5th for him?

 

F**K that there has to be a line drawn into the sand of what you are willing to do because you have a cap and other players and position to fill.

 

If he cost to much then walk away.

 

Don't repeat as @radoran said with Mcdud because you gave up something for him.

 

Hell to the nah!

[OccamsRazor]

4 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Too bad that deal didn't work out!

 

Oh hot damn Homer started out soo good!

 

Yeah how did Dan Hamhuis trade workout?

 

And they knew he didn't want to sign in Philly but they traded for his rights anyway...

[radoran]

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I just think it starts to look BAD if he doesn't get him.  Not just for failing the team, but for his ability to temperature take and read the situation and have a good idea what's going on with a player.  

 

The Jets couldn't reach an accord, as a playoff team with cap space that gave up a 1st and a player to get him.

 

I just don't know what it is about Philadelphia that makes it that much of a better "fit" for him to make him not want to test the open market.

 

Could be he doesn't want to be a 2C-that-will-be-a-3C in short order?

 

But going with the theory that ol' Fletch "has to" sign him or "looks bad" leads to overpayment. I again cite: MacDonald, Andrew.

 

[OccamsRazor]

5 minutes ago, King Knut said:

 

Then he signs for 4 years.  

 

He had a really good year.  But not a 7 million dollar year.  

 

If he signs for 4 years I bet it will cost 8 mill per.

 

I think you can get him to 5 × 7 maybe.

[Podein25]

On 6/8/2019 at 9:36 PM, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

 

I'm hesitant to believe that a hockey player was out of shape 3/4 of the way through a season before he was dealt. I remember when John Stevens said that about the guys after taking over from Hitchcock and same with Laviolette taking over for Stevens, Berube taking over for Laviolette, Hakstol taking over for Berube, etc......It's tired excuse when coaches say that. These guys are professional athletes and multi-millionaires to boot. They aren't going to do anything to jeopardize that. 

 

What I think about Hayes is that he's a big guy, but he's light. 6'5, 215 pounds? He's simply not heavy enough, which to me indicates he's not eating enough. A guy that big who plays a physical game needs to have more muscle on his frame. Not only that, having that extra muscle will help him on first step acceleration, especially if he's adding more muscle mass to his legs. He'll get a better push off and with the length of his stride, that's huge. 

 

 

 

Interesting theory re his weight. I don't know about what the coaches felt about Hayes, I'm not aware of any comments in that regard. But I know what I saw with my own eyes and it was a guy who was gassed halfway through a shift. Maybe I'm being unfair in comparing his conditioning to the Blake Wheeler standard, but if you're making $5M a year you should be in Blake Wheeler shape. That's the minimum social contract between the fans that pay their salaries and the player. And I'm saying: he was not in top shape. No way.

[radoran]

4 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

If he signs for 4 years I bet it will cost 8 mill per.

 

I think you can get him to 5 × 7 maybe.

 

As we've discussed, I find both of those numbers absurd.

 

I think it's totally overvaluing based on "next year's need" and, yes, that bugs me.

 

Flyers might be in a better position if he does hit free agency and "the market" isn't as "must have thisguy rightnow" as Hayes' agent thinks it is.

 

If "a Kevin Hayes type player" gets and $8M deal, they should just fold up the league.

[Podein25]

1 minute ago, radoran said:

Flyers might be in a better position if he does hit free agency and "the market" isn't as "must have thisguy rightnow" as Hayes' agent thinks it is.

 

Wouldn't it be great if the market actually behaved like other markets? Hayes is not worth $7M/year, he's just not. Only a completely distorted/perverted market delivers that. 

[King Knut]

12 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

How so because he didn't give into his demands because he gave up a 5th for him?

 

F**K that there has to be a line drawn into the sand of what you are willing to do because you have a cap and other players and position to fill.

 

If he cost to much then walk away.

 

Don't repeat as @radoran said with Mcdud because you gave up something for him.

 

Hell to the nah!

 

It reflects poorly on Fletcher because he will have made the deal without being sure he could get it done. 

 

As pointed out, Homer SIGNED Hartnell and Timmo.  Homer Signed Pronger.

And that was HOMER.

 

MacDonald notwithstanding (that was post stroke Homer as far as I'm concerned... at least that's my running theory) Fletcher already does not have a killer reputation as a transactional Wizard heading into this.  

 

And I hate Homer.  I hate Homer so much I kinda hate Fletcher already because Homer hired him (seemingly because Hextall wouldn't do what Homer said--which is a quality I kinda like seeing), but that hatred in mind, the problem with the MacDonald deal wasn't the deal and it wasn't so much the player, it was the team he was signed to and the way his subsequent coaches decided to use him.

 

When Mac first got to Philly he was a shot blocking zone exit machine.  Seen much of that since?  

 

5 million is a totally acceptable amount for a #2 or #3 d-man even then.  The problem was, this team had no #1 or #2 D-man.  Timmo was no longer Timmo.  Signing Mac wasn't Homer's big mistake and giving him that contract wasn't even his big mistake.  He made dozens bigger.  We just love to hate on Mac.  Luke Schenn was a much bigger mistake, but Hextall was unable to unload him so we forgot about it more quickly.  

[OccamsRazor]

Just now, King Knut said:

 

It reflects poorly on Fletcher because he will have made the deal without being sure he could get it done. 

 

As pointed out, Homer SIGNED Hartnell and Timmo.  Homer Signed Pronger.

And that was HOMER.

 

MacDonald notwithstanding (that was post stroke Homer as far as I'm concerned... at least that's my running theory) Fletcher already does not have a killer reputation as a transactional Wizard heading into this.  

 

And I hate Homer.  I hate Homer so much I kinda hate Fletcher already because Homer hired him (seemingly because Hextall wouldn't do what Homer said--which is a quality I kinda like seeing), but that hatred in mind, the problem with the MacDonald deal wasn't the deal and it wasn't so much the player, it was the team he was signed to and the way his subsequent coaches decided to use him.

 

When Mac first got to Philly he was a shot blocking zone exit machine.  Seen much of that since?  

 

5 million is a totally acceptable amount for a #2 or #3 d-man even then.  The problem was, this team had no #1 or #2 D-man.  Timmo was no longer Timmo.  Signing Mac wasn't Homer's big mistake and giving him that contract wasn't even his big mistake.  He made dozens bigger.  We just love to hate on Mac.  Luke Schenn was a much bigger mistake, but Hextall was unable to unload him so we forgot about it more quickly.  

 

It took 16 days for them to sign Streit and Bryz too so just wait and see.

 

And I still don't think it's a bad reflection on Chuck.

[King Knut]

14 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

The Jets couldn't reach an accord, as a playoff team with cap space that gave up a 1st and a player to get him.

 

I just don't know what it is about Philadelphia that makes it that much of a better "fit" for him to make him not want to test the open market.

 

Could be he doesn't want to be a 2C-that-will-be-a-3C in short order?

 

But going with the theory that ol' Fletch "has to" sign him or "looks bad" leads to overpayment. I again cite: MacDonald, Andrew.

 

 

MacDonald wasn't signed because Homer would have looked bad otherwise, MacDonald was signed because THEY HAD NO VETERAN D MEN.  

 

And as I just typed, he wasn't a bad signing because he cost too much or because the duration was too long, it's because he became their defacto #1D because he was paid the highest and he was never going to be that.   

 

Also, Homer brought him in to Berube land... which... how that guy is behind the bench in the cup finals... I'll never ever understand.  Amazingly, hakstol and his usage of MacDonald didn't help.  Go figure.  

[King Knut]

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

And I still don't think it's a bad reflection on Chuck.

 

It's not... yet. 

[King Knut]

9 minutes ago, radoran said:

If "a Kevin Hayes type player" gets and $8M deal, they should just fold up the league.

 

 

At the very least, they should let whatever team is willing to pay it go right ahead and screw themselves into uncompetitive cap hell for the next who knows how many years.  

[King Knut]

12 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

 

Wouldn't it be great if the market actually behaved like other markets? Hayes is not worth $7M/year, he's just not. Only a completely distorted/perverted market delivers that. 

 

100% agreement.  Sorta.  because to quote Doc Brown, "you're not thinking 4th dimensionally."

 

Hayes isn't a good example, because I actually think he's been paid somewhat appropriately throughout his career.

 

But a guy like Provorov for instance.  He's been worth 4-5 million since he entered the league.  But he's been playing for a bunch of years at 1/4 of that.  

 

Or Couturier (hopefully).  Everyone thought he was overpaid when he got that new contract (I actually thought it was appropriate market value, but regardless) at this point, he's underpaid by a good 3 million.  Unless something terrible happens to him in the next three years, he's likely to get OVERPAID on his next contract.  Overall, on the whole,  he'll likely have earned what he's worth per year over the course of his career.

 

Simmonds was on track to do this, but after the last two years, probably isn't getting THAT pay day we all saw coming for him.  Poor SOB. 

 

William Nylander however?  Yikes.  Overpaid too soon.

 

Pastrnak probably made that happen, but at Least Pasty is putting his game where his money is to follow suit.  

Edited June 11, 2019 by King Knut

[King Knut]

25 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

If he signs for 4 years I bet it will cost 8 mill per.

 

I think you can get him to 5 × 7 maybe.

 

If he or his agent thinks he's worth Claude Giroux or Jake Voracek dollars, he'll have a blast playing for Tocchet in Arizona because that's the only team that can afford THAT for a player who is a STRETCH at 2C to begin with.  

[radoran]

34 minutes ago, King Knut said:

to quote Doc Brown, "you're not thinking 4th dimensionally."

 

Another aspect of the 4th dimension thinking is adding in areas like "needs to sign because of what he gave up" and the time frame of "needs to sign before hitting full UFA status".

 

I think $6.25M is the absolute ceiling I would go to. Would prefer somewhere in the $5.75-6M range.

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Another aspect of the 4th dimension thinking is adding in areas like "needs to sign because of what he gave up" and the time frame of "needs to sign before hitting full UFA status".

 

I think $6.25M is the absolute ceiling I would go to. Would prefer somewhere in the $5.75-6M range.

 

again, everyone seems focused on this "what he gave up" aspect.  That's not important here.  It's the barking up the wrong tree aspect that doesn't look good.

 

And your salary range is probably accurage, but I'd prefer it for 4-5 years MAX.  Not longer.

[radoran]

2 minutes ago, King Knut said:

again, everyone seems focused on this "what he gave up" aspect.  That's not important here.  It's the barking up the wrong tree aspect that doesn't look good.

 

Well, you're not actually allowed to talk to another team's free agent and/or agent until later this month. That's "tampering."

 

The theory that he had played under Vignault, that Philadelphia isn't Winnipeg, and that those could be enticements to sign here isn't/wasn't unreasonable.

 

Hell, this is an organization that traded for Hamhuis and chased madly after Suter and Parise - all guys who expressed that they had no interest in Philadelphia.

 

I'm not so sure "egg on your face" is worse than "gave up an actual asset" especially when your boss did all three of those moves...

[tucson83]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

It reflects poorly on Fletcher because he will have made the deal without being sure he could get it done. 

 

As pointed out, Homer SIGNED Hartnell and Timmo.  Homer Signed Pronger.

And that was HOMER.

 

MacDonald notwithstanding (that was post stroke Homer as far as I'm concerned... at least that's my running theory) Fletcher already does not have a killer reputation as a transactional Wizard heading into this.  

 

And I hate Homer.  I hate Homer so much I kinda hate Fletcher already because Homer hired him (seemingly because Hextall wouldn't do what Homer said--which is a quality I kinda like seeing), but that hatred in mind, the problem with the MacDonald deal wasn't the deal and it wasn't so much the player, it was the team he was signed to and the way his subsequent coaches decided to use him.

 

 

hextall got himself fired for not making any moves and not firing the coach, there's no point in keeping him if he's not going to do anything because you saw the team was going downhill. the other thing is homer's moves is what brought us to the stanley cup finals and almost won it but fell short of injuries to our goalies, if emery stayed healthy, i bet homer would get alot of love but of course it's always he's a bad gm, tear this thing down etc mentality with the fanbase, what else could homer have done? it's not his fault we couldnt get kane and towes because of the lottery not falling our way.

 

at some point, you got to stop pointing fingers and just move on and improve the team, that's all you can do and hope it works and not sit around expect inexperience prospects to become your stars, they could bust and we are back to square one. you have to take chances, take risks, there's no other way. if you want this team to tank, go luck with that, not every draft class is going to have mcdavid, the oilers learned the hard way.

Edited June 11, 2019 by tucson83

[brelic]

1 hour ago, Podein25 said:

Only a completely distorted/perverted market delivers that. 

 

That's exactly what it is. It's a completely distorted market lol!

 

It's a closed system with an opaque governance model to establish rules, regulations, policies, budgeting, etc. 

 

They share revenue.

 

Players have what is essentially a union.

 

Teams have been bailed out.

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

7 minutes ago, tucson83 said:

hextall got himself fired for not making any moves and not firing the coach, there's no point in keeping him if he's not going to do anything because you saw the team was going downhill. the other thing is homer's moves is what brought us to the stanley cup finals and almost won it but fell short of injuries to our goalies, if emery stayed healthy, i bet homer would get alot of love but of course it's always he's a bad gm, tear this thing down etc mentality with the fanbase, what else could homer have done? it's not his fault we couldnt get kane and towes because of the lottery not falling our way.

 

at some point, you got to stop pointing fingers and just move on and improve the team, that's all you can do and hope it works and not sit around expect inexperience prospects to become your stars, they could bust and we are back to square one. you have to take chances, take risks, there's no other way. if you want this team to tank, go luck with that, not every draft class is going to have mcdavid, the oilers learned the hard way.

 

 

This is probably masochistic to get into, but I'm fairly certain that's not how Hextall got himself fired.

 

I think we can all agree that firing the coach is something that absolutely and desperately needed to happen and theories as to why Hextall hadn't done so are reasonable and varied.  As I said then, if Homer and Scott had said to Hextall, "We think you need to fire the coach." and Hextall said, "You'll have to fire me first!"  then the firing the coach theory makes complete sense.

 

But that's not how it was explained and the fact that They did not fire Hakstol on the same day tells me the coach had nothing to do with it.

The fact that Fletcher took months to make his first deal and almost all of his deals were of utterly no consequence and that he ONLY brought up Hart when he was literally left with no choice due to injuries all tell me making moves was not the real reason Hextall was fired.

 

This leads me to believe (as many others do) that Hextall was fired for mouthing off... probably specifically to Scott.

Hextall and Homer go back pretty far to the days that Homer was Hextall's coach.  Homer knows that Hextall has the rings as a front office guy and he doesn't.  Homer's a stern SOB, but he's a hockey guy and he knows if Hextall yells at him in his office, it's just a hockey guy (and a notoriously hot headed one at that) being a hockey guy.   Scott doesn't know that.  The corporate world has no use for angry men or women and does not tolerate them well, let alone angry insubordination.

 

It seems very likely that Hextall threw out a few choice words in Scott's direction and THAT's what got him fired.  

 

Had it been more thoughtful than that, then they might have waited until they had a replacement before firing him.  Or they might have given him warning before the season that he had until such and such a date to have a strong record.   

 

If it had been because of Hakstol (as I feel it should have been) then they would have just fired Hakstol and let Hextall either live with it or quit.

 

As it is, they fired their GM for "not being aggressive enough in the player market" when no great players were available to him and wouldn't be until the trade deadline at best.  

 

On top of that, the guy who replaced him made zero trades of any consequence until the deadline... and I will add that they were in playoff contention at the time of THAT trade, and fell out shortly thereafter.

 

Long and short, there's no way I'll ever believe that Hextall was fired over any lack of trades, signings or even Hakstol (the lone reason he utterly deserved to be fired... but even for that he should have just been "told" and everyone move on).  

 

Which is my round about way of saying, that this IS a good team. If it wasn't, I believe Fletcher would have traded away more pieces.  As it is, he only traded the ones that weren't coming back anyway (except for Stolarz, who could have been resigned for much less than Talbot is going to require, but I digress).  The team needs some final pieces to make it excellent and Fletcher has the space and talent to do that.  I hope we get them.  

 

I just don't have a lot of faith in Fletcher.  I think he'll be fine.  But I kinda want inspired.  Not fine.  

This is an aggressive move for him, but as you pointed out, Homer made some good moves and usually when he made a move like this, he signed the sucker before UFA.  

All I'm saying is that I hope Fletcher does the same.  

 

And I damn well will finger point.  what else is this board here for?

 

[King Knut]

Just now, brelic said:

 

That's exactly what it is. It's a completely distorted market lol!

 

It's a closed system with an opaque governance model to establish rules, regulations, policies, budgeting, etc. 

 

They share revenue.

 

Players have what is essentially a union.

 

Teams have been bailed out.

 

 

I'm still really disappointed in Toronto for giving in to Nylander.  It was a bad move for them (really screwing them now) and for the whole league.

 

Pastrnak actually was producing at the level of what he got and continues to do so.  Nylander's was all on promise and he just got pushed to the 3C role... why on earth wouldn't they just trade him after they signed Tavares?  

I don't know what they were thinking.