Jets trade Kevin Hayes to Flyers

[radoran]

20 minutes ago, tucson83 said:

homer's moves is what brought us to the stanley cup finals and almost won it but fell short of injuries to our goalies,

 

Homer did a terrific job of building a team, getting Timonen/Briere/Hartnell, drafting Crater/Richards...

 

And then he blew the whole thing up to get Bryzgalov, destroyed his professional reputation with the Weber deal, and bet high on a 35-year-old defenseman. And lost on all three.

 

 

[Podein25]

2 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

So I've stated the obvious?

 

[King Knut]

35 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

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...

 

 

Yeah, except you can.  You just either have to have permission or be sneaky.  Permission probably costs more than a 5th rounder... but there are plenty of ways to "take a guy's temperature" without actually negotiating.  Happens all the time.  

 

 

 

[King Knut]

10 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Homer did a terrific job of building a team, getting Timonen/Briere/Hartnell, drafting Crater/Richards...

 

And then he blew the whole thing up to get Bryzgalov, destroyed his professional reputation with the Weber deal, and bet high on a 35-year-old defenseman. And lost on all three.

 

 

 

Homer didn't draft Carter or Richards.  Or Giroux for that matter.  

 

He gets full credit for Timmo, Briere and Hartsy though!  And Emery!  That was almost GENIUS.  

 

People like to absolve him of Bryz because supposedly Snider made the deal without him or something.  Weber, Mac, VLC, Luke Schenn, not signing Jagr simply because he wanted two years... oy vey!

 

I'll also give him huge credit for canning Stevens unceremoniously (and somewhat unfairly) after Stevens turned the team around and likely doing so simply because Lavvy was available.

 

Of course that also means he gets the blame for firing Lavvy for no good reason (though I suspect that may have been a gentleman's agreement between the two men and done for Lavvy's benefit in the end).  

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by King Knut

[radoran]

15 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Yeah, except you can.  You just either have to have permission or be sneaky.  Permission probably costs more than a 5th rounder... but there are plenty of ways to "take a guy's temperature" without actually negotiating.  Happens all the time. 

 

It does happen all the time. And negotiations break down all the time. Two way street that.

 

"Yes, I'd be interested in coming to Philly" and "I'm giving up UFA and signing here for 6-7 years" are two radically different things.

 

Again, I'm not surprised he has interest in coming here. And I'm also not surprised he hasn't signed.

 

There's still 12 days before June 23.

[radoran]

16 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Homer didn't draft Carter or Richards.  Or Giroux for that matter.  

 

He was "on the team" when that happened. It's like absolving Hextall of MacDonald.

 

17 minutes ago, King Knut said:

People like to absolve him of Bryz because supposedly Snider made the deal without him or something. 

 

I certainly don't.

 

Homer has his moments. On both ends of the table.

[Poulin20]

9 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

He was "on the team" when that happened. It's like absolving Hextall of MacDonald.

 

 

I certainly don't.

 

Homer has his moments. On both ends of the table.

 

Agree 100%.  It wasn't all bad with Homer, especially at first but then (like Roger Nielsen) he went goofy on us, but without getting cancer.

[Podein25]

14 minutes ago, Poulin20 said:

but then (like Roger Nielsen) he went goofy on us, but without getting cancer.

 

Lol, one of BC's finest moments.

[Poulin20]

Just now, Podein25 said:

 

Lol, one of BC's finest moments.

 

That was unreal, especially the part about how "We didn't ask him to get cancer"!

[Podein25]

3 minutes ago, Poulin20 said:

 

That was unreal, especially the part about how "We didn't ask him to get cancer"!

 

Yeah. He should never have been put in front of a microphone or camera or anything like that. Ever. 

[King Knut]

5 hours ago, Poulin20 said:

 

Agree 100%.  It wasn't all bad with Homer, especially at first but then (like Roger Nielsen) he went goofy on us, but without getting cancer.

 

5 hours ago, radoran said:

 

He was "on the team" when that happened. It's like absolving Hextall of MacDonald.

 

 

I certainly don't.

 

Homer has his moments. On both ends of the table.

 

But I’m your dialectic, giving Homer credit for Carter, Richards and Giroux is like giving him a pass on MacDonald. 

 

Also, if he was so keen on Carter and Richards, why did he trade them, essentially to make cap room to sign Bryz?

 

JVR was his #2 overall, yet he traded him for Luke Schenn.  Hextall was busy winning cups in LA when that happened.  

 

There has has to be accountability and for my money you’re right. Homer did an excellent job in his first years. You can’t blame the assistant GM for the stuff you hate but credit a different assistant GM for the stuff you like. Makes no sense.  

 

Homer did well early.  

I didn’t love the Pronger trade, but it almost worked. 

 

Jagr and Emery were brilliant. 

 

Of course, he then lost Bob for cap management reasons (but hey, all these years later we might get to sign Cam talbot to be our backup as a ripple effect of that trade!) and he doubled down on Bryz apparently without doing a psych evaluation and we won’t even get into VLC. 

 

I dont even care about AMac.  I don’t and never did think it was THAT bad a deal in hindsight. I don’t even blame AMac for the fact that it didn’t work out for him here.  

 

It was par for the homercoaster years.  Make a move in one direction- then make a move in the opposite direction that negates the move you just made.  It ended in a cap hell that is only ending now.  

 

Hextall’s accountability comes down to Hakstol.  It’s a head scratcher as I can see what he was thinking on everything else.  

 

 

[ruxpin]

9 hours ago, radoran said:

The Jets couldn't reach an accord, as a playoff team with cap space

 

They really don't have cap space. 

 

But here's my thing:  if there was never an intent to keep him -- and there wasn't -- why spend a 1st rounder?  Just seems to me it's a horrible waste of an asset.   I know, they thought they were "going for it," but like Calgary, they weren't actually very good down the stretch.  And they were showing signs before the deadline.    I just don't know that that trade required a first rounder.

[ruxpin]

7 hours ago, radoran said:

Homer has his moments. On both ends of the table.

 

There were some good moves.  Zhitnik for Coburn, for example.   Hartnell/Timo was obviously already mentioned.  I didn't hate the Briere signing.  I didn't love it, though.

And don't forget he did allow Philly to experience the wonder that is Scottie Upshall for at least a brief time.  I don't know about you, but my life has been better for it.

 

But I'll never get over #27 (Carlson) for fricken Ettinger.

Or signing VLC (sucks).

Edited June 12, 2019 by ruxpin

[elmatus]

We could pretend for a moment the worst case scenario doesn't happen.

 

Let's say Hayes does agree to sign. He gets 6M for four years or something. He becomes our 2C for much of next season and tallies a respectable 50 pts. All of that, and all Fletch needed to get him is a 5th rounder.

 

I'd say that is both a very plausible scenario, and one that would make the Hayes acquisition look like a pretty smart one actually. Of course, I don't know that it'll happen, but it seems just as if not more likely than some of the other options we've tossed around here.

 

Hayes is a reasonably good player. He's fine as a 2C who can hopefully push Patrick to make something of himself and eventually take the spot. He's not going to command a ton of money and end up overpaid like Duchene would have. At the moment, it looks like a decent gamble imo.

 

Could it turn south? Yeah sure, but it's also very possible it won't. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by elmatus

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, elmatus said:

Hayes is a reasonably good player. He's fine as a 2C who can hopefully push Patrick to make something of himself and eventually take the spot. He's not going to command a ton of money and end up overpaid like Duchene would have. At the moment, it looks like a decent gamble imo.

 

Yeah, to go with your hypothetical, Hayes is fine as a 2C, but he's a 2C that at your cost/term would be a decent fit at 3C should Patrick ever become half of what was advertised.    All this is assuming, of course, that Patrick survives the summer in Philly.

 

I'm willing to be that if a winger is coming from the Jets -- especially the pipe dream of Laine -- that it's a #2 for a cheaper #2 and  maybe a pick.    The Jets need a center, too.

Edited June 12, 2019 by ruxpin

[elmatus]

11 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I'm willing to be that if a winger is coming from the Jets -- especially the pipe dream of Laine -- that it's a #2 for a cheaper #2 and  maybe a pick.    The Jets need a center, too.

 

Laine for Patrick eh? I would very likely pull the trigger there. While I do think Patrick will pick up, it seems very doubtful he'll ever have the scoring touch Laine does. Giroux feeding Laine pucks makes me pretty giddy...

[ruxpin]

16 minutes ago, elmatus said:

 

Laine for Patrick eh? I would very likely pull the trigger there. While I do think Patrick will pick up, it seems very doubtful he'll ever have the scoring touch Laine does. Giroux feeding Laine pucks makes me pretty giddy...

Pipe dream but giddy here, too. 

 

But it's oddly plausible. Barely, but plausible. 

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

 

Yeah, to go with your hypothetical, Hayes is fine as a 2C, but he's a 2C that at your cost/term would be a decent fit at 3C should Patrick ever become half of what was advertised.    All this is assuming, of course, that Patrick survives the summer in Philly.

 

I'm willing to be that if a winger is coming from the Jets -- especially the pipe dream of Laine -- that it's a #2 for a cheaper #2 and  maybe a pick.    The Jets need a center, too.

 

But Hayes is versatile. So, if Patrick does become the number 2 (hehehe number 2) and if Frost is ready to be the number 3, you move Hayes to the wing and you've got ridiculous depth on both sides of center. 

 

Don't forget that Hayes will get pk time, so he'll get to still take draws and take pressure off Couturier and Laughton. So, you're probably gonna get 3 to 4 solid seasons out of him before fully committing to him at wing and by then, van Useless will be gone and Giroux will probably be moved to the right side to accommodate Lindblom, Farabee and Ratcliffe. Then your right side becomes Konecny, Giroux and Hayes (I think they'll move Voracek in the next year or two). 

 

That's pretty disgustingly good depth at forward that's young and skilled and Hayes will be one of those guys that can be a big assistance in helping that young talent along. If you look at the lines, it's already one solid veteran with youth in each line. 

 

I'm sold on bringing Hayes onboard. He doesn't block anyone. 

[OccamsRazor]

7 minutes ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

So, if Patrick does become the number 2 (hehehe number 2) and if Frost is ready to be the number 3, you move Hayes to the wing and you've got ridiculous depth on both sides of center. 

 

Ok so trade Jake...i can't be open to that...but maybe Seattle would like him...

Edited June 12, 2019 by OccamsRazor

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

59 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Ok so trade Jake...i can't be open to that...but maybe Seattle would like him...

 

I'm fine with trading Jake. The only untouchable out of the long term players is Giroux. He retires a Flyer. As well, the Flyers are going to have an eventual money problem and you might as well get ahead on the curve. I also remeber the 1989 - 1990 season when it all fell apart. I don't want a repeat of that. 

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

 

But Hayes is versatile. So, if Patrick does become the number 2 (hehehe number 2) and if Frost is ready to be the number 3, you move Hayes to the wing and you've got ridiculous depth on both sides of center. 

 

Don't forget that Hayes will get pk time, so he'll get to still take draws and take pressure off Couturier and Laughton. So, you're probably gonna get 3 to 4 solid seasons out of him before fully committing to him at wing and by then, van Useless will be gone and Giroux will probably be moved to the right side to accommodate Lindblom, Farabee and Ratcliffe. Then your right side becomes Konecny, Giroux and Hayes (I think they'll move Voracek in the next year or two). 

 

That's pretty disgustingly good depth at forward that's young and skilled and Hayes will be one of those guys that can be a big assistance in helping that young talent along. If you look at the lines, it's already one solid veteran with youth in each line. 

 

I'm sold on bringing Hayes onboard. He doesn't block anyone. 

Yeah, I'm really not concerned about Hayes blocking anyone. And the PK thing is a huge selling point to me. It's both of those things that make him a more attractive option than some others that have been bantered about. 

 

I'm not exactly giving up on Patrick, either. But let's just say I'm a little concerned. At his age, I'm thinking his apparent disinterest at times is actually confidence. So hopefully the plan to protect him a bit more will work out. 

 

But if something absurd came up like the Laine thing, I'm listening. Laine would screw up your well laid out plan, i guess (made prefect sense, by the way). 

[CoachX]

I find it interesting that Patrick might get traded off because he isnt playing up to potential. 

 

Sounds like JVR part deaux

 

Wash...rinse....repeat

[radoran]

13 hours ago, King Knut said:

But I’m your dialectic, giving Homer credit for Carter, Richards and Giroux is like giving him a pass on MacDonald. 

 

Except I don't. And I don't "blame" Hextall for MacDonald - but he's not absolved either. There were accounts that Holmgren had a pretty big hand in the draft process under Clarke. And, for the most part, he drafted pretty well as GM.
 

13 hours ago, King Knut said:

Also, if he was so keen on Carter and Richards, why did he trade them, essentially to make cap room to sign Bryz?

 

If he wasn't keen on Richards, why sign him to a 12-year deal and why was he named captain? If he wasn't keen on Crater, why sign him to a 10-year deal?

 

Why did "the trades" happen? There are threads and threads and threads on that...

 

13 hours ago, King Knut said:

I don’t and never did think it was THAT bad a deal in hindsight.

 

It was a terrible deal. I've detailed how MacDonald was no different in any significant sense than Kris Russell - and Russell is making $4M after years of $2.6M and $3.1M.

 

It's not that MacDonald didn't "hurt" the team on the cap, it's that he didn't significantly help the team while taking up $5M in cap room. He did nothing. And was signed as a difference maker.

 

When you take into account that he was sent to the A and no other NHL team took him off waivers it would seem to indicate that no other team valued him at that level, either.

 

To say that he was signed for five years because the Flyers "didn't have any veteran defencemen" at the time, is indicative of the problem of "fixing" "next year's problem" with a multi-year contract.

[ctid]

13 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 

 

 

But I'll never get over #27 (Carlson) for fricken Ettinger.

 

This! What a blunder that was! 

[King Knut]

34 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Except I don't. And I don't "blame" Hextall for MacDonald - but he's not absolved either. There were accounts that Holmgren had a pretty big hand in the draft process under Clarke. And, for the most part, he drafted pretty well as GM.
 

 

If he wasn't keen on Richards, why sign him to a 12-year deal and why was he named captain? If he wasn't keen on Crater, why sign him to a 10-year deal?

 

Why did "the trades" happen? There are threads and threads and threads on that...

 

 

It was a terrible deal. I've detailed how MacDonald was no different in any significant sense than Kris Russell - and Russell is making $4M after years of $2.6M and $3.1M.

 

It's not that MacDonald didn't "hurt" the team on the cap, it's that he didn't significantly help the team while taking up $5M in cap room. He did nothing. And was signed as a difference maker.

 

When you take into account that he was sent to the A and no other NHL team took him off waivers it would seem to indicate that no other team valued him at that level, either.

 

To say that he was signed for five years because the Flyers "didn't have any veteran defencemen" at the time, is indicative of the problem of "fixing" "next year's problem" with a multi-year contract.

 

Kris efficient Russell again. 

Just because he’s on a good deal doesn’t make MacDonald’s a bad one. 

 

Couturier is on in a good deal (though many complained at the time)

Simmonds was on a ridiculously good deal. 

 

That doesn’t  make JVR’s or whatever Hayes is about to get a bad deal. Hextall just really took advantage of the moment with those guys.  

 

Long and short, yes. In practice, of course you’re right, Mac’s deal ended up being really bad, but in Theory, at the time it was made, it was not.  

 

It wasn’t “good”. So if I said that, I mistyped. But it wasn’t absurd.  Bryzgalov=absurd. 

 

I want to quickly iterate a few things that I think are important about this:

 

-AMac did not live up to what should have been reasonable expectations. 

-AMac’s usage by first Berube (who misused everyone on Defense In Particular-at least on this team)  then by Hakstol (who also misused his D, just differently) .  He did not respond well to a role that worked against his skill set. 

-AMac does (this is going to sound strange) do a lot of things right.  He’s usually very good positionally away from the puck.  This sounds strange, but it’s like the soccer concept of 75% of the game Happening away from the ball.  When AMac’s doing what he does well, we’re likely never to see it because the offense directs the play away from him before he has to make a play.  This isn’t just me saying this.  It’s been written about and I think it explains why a coach like Hakstol—who coaches “in theory” and from the tapes more than Reality—would keep using him so prominently.  

 

-Where AMac is terrible (and he’s only gotten worse over the years) is when he actually has to make a play.  I honestly thought he was good at this his first spring with the team.  I liked his game.  But almost immediately, the next season he started showing hesitancy and clumsiness. Like his head wasn’t in the game he was playing or at least not the moment in which he was playing.  That’s not what I saw his first spring.  

 

Re: Homer’s crazy years I think it probably came down to Snider thinking the end was near.  I think coming so close in 2008 and 2010 was excruciating for him and pleasing him made Homer anxious beyond reason and then dealing with the behind the back shenanigans couldn’t have helped.  

 

Homer and Hextall both drafted okay for the most part (at least when they had picks Homer and Clarke hadn’t traded away) but to me that points to the scouts as much as anything.  The let down picks usually come down To the dumb luck of getting #2 overall picks in years that didn’t include Eichel or Laine or someone. 

 

I don’t think Kane would have worked out in Philly anyway, and JVR’s by no means a bust and I think Patty’s still got a lot to show us. But in comparison to our hopes for so high a pick, they don’t shine as bright. 

 

On the other hand, they got Richards and Carter and Giroux, and none of them were top ten picks. At least I don’t think Richards was, was he?

 

I don’t know.  Why the hell are we talking about AMac in a Hayes thread?  Oh. Bad contracts.  Right.  

 

Hayes simply can’t get too long a deal.  If he does, he needs to accept less cap hit per year.  That’s my stance and I’m sticking to it.  

 

When they signed AMac, they didn’t have a crop of highly touted young D men coming up through the system because they’d either traded them or traded the kicks that would have gotten them.  Which made committing to someone who looked decent make sense.   

 

They do however have a nice crop of very highly touted young forwards coming up right now.  Committing to Hayes long term almost negates some of them. 

 

I know, I know, you can always trade one of them or even Hayes, but why would you want to trade hot young talent? And by the time the talent is ready in two years, is anyone going to want to pay $7 million for 5 more years for a soon to be 30 year old Kevin Hayes?

 

4 years at $6-6.5

6 years at $4-5

 

if he won’t do either now, then we eat the 5th rounder and see what he gets on 7/1. 

 

If Fletcher was going to splurge, it should be on Panarin or Stone, but it seems both those ships have sailed. 

 

overspending In Kevin Hayes feels like a Clarke type move.