A Bit Underwhelmed (and Concerned)

[King Knut]

10 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Would not have surprised me to see him deal a few of the younger pieces for established players (a la "The Trades") either.

 

 

Yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking he'd do too.  It's right out of the playbook of those cup winning Kings teams.  

 

10 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Would not have surprised me to see him deal a few of the younger pieces for established players (a la "The Trades") either.

 

I'm still in wait-and-see on whether the team was "Hayes at 2C" away from being competitive. I remain skeptical.

 

I think the team was a decent head coach (hopefully a Vigneault) away from being competitive for the past two seasons.

Any by competitive, I mean I think they make the playoffs and win at least a round (maybe two) each of the past two years. 

I think Hayes will help and Patrick on the 3rd will definitely give them more depth and him more chance to exploit easier matchups... but I don't think he's going to blow our minds.  Fletch kinda just broke the bank for a stable steady guy. We'll see over the next few summers how much it will hurt the team's future.  

 

The constantly injured, (drunk?, stoned?) goalies would have stifled them two years ago, but I think a team a little less confused could easily have beaten those Penguins.    That was easily the moment it was clear beyond a doubt that Hakstol could not get this team where it needed to go.  I would have suggested the previous summer, but for sure after that series.  

 

Last year, they started the season confused and it just got worse as things got more stressful.  

 

The change in just how they were able to skate with intention and confidence as to where they were supposed to be was stark and makes me confident in my interpretation of what I saw under Hakstol.

 

 

 

[King Knut]

21 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

And after looking at all the crazy contracts being handed out he just joined the crowd.

 

 

I think we went through this that week, but I think Hayes got a better deal signing before 7/1 than he would have gotten on 7/1.  Same with Stone.  The market seemed down in general.  

 

21 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Hey the CBA expires after 2020 maybe Fletcher was hoping that if the deal goes south they get a buyout window like they did last time with no cap implications.

 

But hey maybe it works out.

 

 

God I hope they don't strike again.  I really can't handle that kind of B.S.  If it was over concussion stuff, I could see it... but it's never over the kind of thing really worth taking a stand over.

 

I don't think Hayes is going to be a bad player.  I'm hoping Patrick and Frost are going to become much better players.  And I hope they do it here.  

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, brelic said:

 

In 2014 then again in 2015 Hextall took jabs at teams that tank (he was jabbing the Oilers in particular).

 

At the time of the 2015 comments, in January, the Flyers were 17-21-7, near the bottom of the league and 11 points out of a playoff spot. 

 

Here's what he said. 

 

 

Flyers finished 6th in the Metro, 24th overall, with a 33-31-18 record. Missed the playoffs. 

 

McDavid was the top pick that year. 

 

In retrospect, how would you feel about Hextall realizing, "ok, this isn't happening, and finishing in the middle of the pack just out of the playoffs is not ideal either. We have a real opportunity to draft a generational talent. Let's look real hard at our team and decide who is and who is not in the long term plans among our top level players."

 

Is that tanking? Is that being proactive and seizing an opportunity? Is that being disingenuous? I don't know. I don't like the idea of 'tanking' either, but it really depends how it's approached and the long-term plan behind it. 

No guarantee of getting that 1st overall, of course. 

 

 

That's not the kind of tanking I'm talking about.  But to your point, if you trade Giroux, Jake and Simmonds and lose out... then you essentially worse off than even the Oilers were at that point, at least they had years of top picks to be building a team with (too bad they couldn't figure out how).  

 

But I digress, the kind of tanking I'm talking about is the kind the Nordiques and Senators were accused of in the early 90's and the kind I'm openly accusing the Devils of last year and the kind that I might be inclined to accuse the Penguins of in the early 2000's (though they had help because apparently the league decided they'd tanked badly and legitimately enough to earn Crosby even though no one played Hockey that year).  

 

I mean the kind where the team doesn't really try to win games.  

Putting an inferior product on the ice in the name of clearing cap space and building for the future isn't okay and should be treated harshly, NOT rewarded.  

 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

9 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I'm hoping Patrick and Frost are going to become much better players.  And I hope they do it here.  

 

Yep how screwed up would it be if it does.

 

Your 1st line center will be making 4.3 mill per season and your 3rd line center will be making 7 mill per season.

 

Crazy.

[King Knut]

22 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Yep how screwed up would it be if it does.

 

Your 1st line center will be making 4.3 mill per season and your 3rd line center will be making 7 mill per season.

 

Crazy.

 

 

 

They're about the same age (Coots is a little younger) but I know which one I'd rather have for the next 7 years.  If I had to choose. 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by King Knut

[radoran]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

God I hope they don't strike again. 

 

Not a strike. Lockout. Both times (last three, actually).

 

[King Knut]

17 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

Not a strike. Lockout. Both times (last three, actually).

 

 

I know, I know... right you are.   Important differentiation.  

[vis]

On 7/31/2019 at 11:32 AM, radoran said:

What is so much better the three years prior to that when they didn't have a lot of cap room? I think this is a silly metric to gauge success.

I don't think spending to the cap is a measure of success, but can be viewed as an indicator of whether assets aren't being left to waste in the pursuit of icing a legitimate contender.  Of course, if you're going to spend it, you better do so wisely.  

 

On 7/31/2019 at 11:32 AM, radoran said:

I still don't see the signing Hextall "should have made" last offseason. Aside from Tavares, who was the guy they "didn't get"?

 

Here's a list: https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/the-top-30-unrestricted-free-agents-of-2018

I wanted them to target Michael Grabner to help with a woeful PK.  Tyler Bozak would have been a decent addition as a 3C.  Don't love the term Bozak got, though.

[vis]

 

23 hours ago, King Knut said:

As it is, would you rather have Hayes or Anders Lee?  They got the same money only Hayes got an NMC instead of a NTC.  

Hayes.

 

23 hours ago, King Knut said:

Everything Fletcher did was pretty old school.  There wasn't any creativity or deep analysis or outside the box thinking.

Well, he was smart to trade for Hayes' rights if that's who he wanted.  It put him in the best position to land a player to fill a need via UFA.  Now, the contract he gave him...

 

Btw, I don't care about creativity or outside the box thinking (how did that work out for Hextall/Hakstol?).  I care about being effective.  Let's see how this season and beyond plays out.

 

I'd say the Blues went pretty old school last offseason.  Worked out pretty well for them.

 

23 hours ago, King Knut said:

One of the things I really enjoyed about Hextall was that he was always looking around the league at situations he could exploit and other GMs did the same thing with him. 

How do you know this?  And do you think that Fletcher doesn't?

[vis]

23 hours ago, radoran said:

Would not have surprised me to see him deal a few of the younger pieces for established players (a la "The Trades") either.

One theory, or perhaps more than theory, was that Hextall refused to make a trade for a more established player (Nylander) in exchange for a younger player, which upper management wanted him to do.  That may have been the coup de grâce for Hextall.  Point is, I'm doubtful Hextall would have done a 180 and started shopping young players.  I mean, even the guy who everyone thought would do that (Fletcher) hasn't.  Given where this team ended up this year, what different do you think Hextall would have done if he were still GM this offseason?  Not signed Hayes or any other big UFA?  Probably wouldn't have traded Gudas, I suppose.  Can't imagine he wouldn't have bought out MacDonald.  Do you think Hakstol would still be here?  Weise?

Edited August 1, 2019 by vis

[vis]

20 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Not a strike. Lockout. Both times (last three, actually).

 

 

20 hours ago, King Knut said:

 

I know, I know... right you are.   Important differentiation.  

 

Not really an important differentiation.  Neither side was going to given in without a stoppage.  Both at fault.

 

Plus, sometimes, it's in the workers' benefit to force a lockout instead of going on strike.  In the case of a lockout, the owners can only hire temporary replacement workers and cannot permanently "fire" any union workers.  Not sure how that plays out with players who are under contract, but those who are not?  Though, I suppose there were few guys who weren't under contract.

 

Also, the lockout blocks any union worker from "crossing the picket line."  Picket line crossing can be detrimental to a union's solidarity.  So, in a way, the workers are forced to be in it together.  

 

A lockout also gives workers the higher moral ground, which is particularly important in the eye of the public.

Edited August 1, 2019 by vis

[radoran]

13 minutes ago, vis said:

I wanted them to target Michael Grabner to help with a woeful PK.  Tyler Bozak would have been a decent addition as a 3C.  Don't love the term Bozak got, though.

 

Right, but neither of those guys really moves the needle. I don't mind not putting $10M over three years for Grabner, or $15M for Bozak.

 

I can especially understand when you're looking at Konecny, Provorov, Myers, and Patrick coming up as RFA in the two years following.

 

I guess for me it's that those are the types of moves you make when a "bias for action" is driving decisions, not necessarily "building a team."

[mojo1917]

1 hour ago, vis said:

Given where this team ended up this year, what different do you think Hextall would have done if he were still GM this offseason?  Not signed Hayes or any other big UFA?  Probably wouldn't have traded Gudas, I suppose. 

boy, difficult to know with Hextall.

He kept his cards close to the vest and always seemed to be looking for value where others weren't. 

 

I do think this was the  year he was targeting to make some acquisitions and trades.

Would he have signed Hayes or traded for Point ? I don't think he would have done the term and AAV for Hayes- 

 

I do think moves on the blue line were coming so perhaps Gudas and more for a higher profile player.  He may have drafted exactly the same way, I am pretty high on that York kid, I think that was a good pick, he's pretty dominant versus his peers on the world level. 

It is interesting to think about, I'm sure he would have been active at the draft and during F/A. He knew where the team was weak. 

I also think he would have moved on from Hakstol at the end of the year. I do think he wanted to finish the year though.

 

[radoran]

1 hour ago, vis said:

That may have been the coup de grâce for Hextall.  Point is, I'm doubtful Hextall would have done a 180 and started shopping young players. 

 

I'm looking at it from the perspective of "this is around where LA was when they dealt Johnson, Simmonds, and Schenn." Maybe not this exact position (LA at least had been in B2B first round losses) but somewhere close. If one believes the VeeGee/Coots/Ghost/Hart/etc. core is in a position to break out with the addition of a "Richards" and a "Carter" then you may be inclined to make that move.

 

I'm not talking about a wholesale firesale of assets, but in the "you have to give to get" scenario, dealing from depth isn't a bad position to be in.

 

Not entirely sold on Nylander, but I'd rather be paying less than $7M to a two time 20/60 guy at 23 than, say, more than $7M for a 27-year-old who hit 20+ once and 50+ once. If that meant giving up a "Myers" and "Ratcliffe" (to be the "Johnson" and "Simmonds" - not proposing this specific trade) is that worth it?

[King Knut]

19 hours ago, vis said:

 

Hayes.

 

 

Not challenging that choice.  IT was a legit, non-rhetorical question, I'm just curious as to why. Lee has all the appearance of a more dynamic and productive player that elevates those around him.  But that doesn't mean I disagree with you, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.  

 

19 hours ago, vis said:

 

Well, he was smart to trade for Hayes' rights if that's who he wanted.  It put him in the best position to land a player to fill a need via UFA.  Now, the contract he gave him...

 

 

Again, really not trying to be argumentative, but I'm just not so sure.  Not saying I disagree, just saying it's up in the air for me.  It was a safe choice to do that and give yourself the head's up, but as I've stated before, it's my opinion the market dropped 7/1.  Maybe the reality of the lower than expected cap set in, I don't know, I just know that everyone who signed before 7/1 got more money than I expected and everyone who signed after got less than I expected (so far). If Hayes wasn't sure about Philly and Fletcher needed time to schmooze him and sell him, then yes.  It definitely paid off.  I think earning $2million per year more than he's worth and getting a a good 2 extra years of term than he should have PLUS the NMC/NTC probably had a bit more to do with it than the schmoozing though.

 

19 hours ago, vis said:

 

Btw, I don't care about creativity or outside the box thinking (how did that work out for Hextall/Hakstol?).  I care about being effective.  Let's see how this season and beyond plays out.

 

 

Hakstol didn't demonstrate any outside the box thinking IMHO.  He demonstrated a whole lotta outta his league thinking though.

And frankly, I think it worked out very well for Hextall.  Or at least Hextall's outside the box and creative thinking will have worked out very well for Fletcher and Dave Scott in the end.   Hextall had a block about Hakstol.  I don't get it.  It's sad because it cost him his job, a job I believe he was quite good at otherwise.  

 

19 hours ago, vis said:

 

I'd say the Blues went pretty old school last offseason.  Worked out pretty well for them.

 

 

This one I think I actually do disagree on.  The Blues made some interesting moves in the years leading up to their cup run, but it didn't work out for them at all at first.  They were worse than the Flyers.  Until they switched to the right coach.  And Berube isn't necessarily a great coach... or at least he wasn't for the Flyers (who, to be fair only had about two good players and 3 decent players at the time).  But it ended up that he was the right coach for a very talented Blues team. 

 

 

19 hours ago, vis said:

How do you know this?  And do you think that Fletcher doesn't?

 

Maybe Fletcher takes those swings and everyone shoots him down... I don't know.  

You're right.  I don't "know", but I can deduce it because I know Hextall dug up useful players on nearly league minimum contracts from the bargain bin and scraps that turned out to be very helpful in keeping a team remotely competitive during a horrible cap strapped stretch,  I know he unloaded several dead contracts on past their prime or literally useless players without having to buy them out (oif course he wasn't allowed to buy out Pronger).  I know he drafted deftly and got a few steals there by prioritizing certain unlearnable skills over other more learnable skills and I know teams (like the Blues) reached out to him with off the wall idea like two firsts for Schenn because they knew they were inside their window and needed a push and he knew his window was only opening for real in 2019 or so.  

 

[mojo1917]

5 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Lee has all the appearance of a more dynamic and productive player that elevates those around him.  But that doesn't mean I disagree with you, I'm interested to hear your thoughts. 

I'm going to jump in here with a neither player IMO is what I would call "dynamic".

Maybe Lee skates a * little * better & Hayes is more * versatile * 

They are large framed quality NHL players, who fits what the team needs better ?

To me the Flyers are fine with skaters, I really think that. I think they need guys that have the ability and frame to go the big boy areas and make plays. Hayes has shown he can do that, he's + with the puck around his feet, he's strong on the puck, he retains possession.  Think of all the times the Flyers were one and done on offense last year, Hayes helps with that. 

Hayes helps on the PK an area where the Flyers struggled, I don't recall seeing Lee killing penalties, but I only saw the Isles once, and I don't care enough to look it up. 

I think Hayes will be productive if he's to get pushed down the lineup, I don't know enough about Lee's game to make that judgement, the game I attended, Lee was on the PP and his role was corner puck digger, so perhaps he's got the grit to make some hay when Barzal isn't bouncing pucks off his ass and into the net. 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

25 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

I'm going to jump in here with a neither player IMO is what I would call "dynamic".

Maybe Lee skates a * little * better & Hayes is more * versatile * 

They are large framed quality NHL players, who fits what the team needs better ?

To me the Flyers are fine with skaters, I really think that. I think they need guys that have the ability and frame to go the big boy areas and make plays. Hayes has shown he can do that, he's + with the puck around his feet, he's strong on the puck, he retains possession.  Think of all the times the Flyers were one and done on offense last year, Hayes helps with that. 

Hayes helps on the PK an area where the Flyers struggled, I don't recall seeing Lee killing penalties, but I only saw the Isles once, and I don't care enough to look it up. 

I think Hayes will be productive if he's to get pushed down the lineup, I don't know enough about Lee's game to make that judgement, the game I attended, Lee was on the PP and his role was corner puck digger, so perhaps he's got the grit to make some hay when Barzal isn't bouncing pucks off his ass and into the net. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not huge on Lee, but I like his skating and I for one am not sold on the Flyers skaters. I full admit that I might be wrong about this because I've been watching them coached by Hakstol and guys like TK & Patrick and maybe Laughton can certainly to a lot more than we've seen.  Lindblom's made great strides (no pun intended) since he was drafted, but I still wouldn't consider him a solid skater.  I think Jake and Coots have deceptively clumsy looking form, but are actually not bad at getting up ice (we all know that only one of those two is decent at getting back into his own end though).  Long story short, all things being equal, I would go with the stronger skater... but all things aren't equal are they?

 

Hayes does have those added qualities you mentioned and that will certainly be a plus for us this year.   Again, I like Hayes as an acquisition.  I remember when he first came up in conversation here last winter and I liked the idea then.  I just don't like his contract.  

 

At the end of the day my reason for bringing up Lee (who albeit stayed with his team) is that usually you expect the guy who has consistently scored 10 or so more points (and did so with and without Tavares on the team) to make more money.  

 

I need to stop litigating the Hayes deal though, it's annoying even myself at this point.  It's the reality he will help and if the cap monster of a deal becomes a problem it'll be interesting to see how Fletcher deals with it.

 

[King Knut]

18 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

boy, difficult to know with Hextall.

He kept his cards close to the vest and always seemed to be looking for value where others weren't. 

 

I mean, I always assumed that was out of necessity because he was trying to ice a semi-competitive team with the dead and bum contracts he had.  

 

18 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

 

I do think this was the  year he was targeting to make some acquisitions and trades.

Would he have signed Hayes or traded for Point ? I don't think he would have done the term and AAV for Hayes- 

 

 

I agree on the Hayes deal. The only player Hextall gave serious term to was Jake.  May here lament that deal, but at least Jake puts up numbers.  Hextall may have thought better of the deal later on himself.  The deals he signed Simmer and Coots and Ghost to though... pretty darn clever and shrewd as hell negotiating. 

 

18 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I do think moves on the blue line were coming so perhaps Gudas and more for a higher profile player.  He may have drafted exactly the same way, I am pretty high on that York kid, I think that was a good pick, he's pretty dominant versus his peers on the world level. 

It is interesting to think about, I'm sure he would have been active at the draft and during F/A. He knew where the team was weak. 

I also think he would have moved on from Hakstol at the end of the year. I do think he wanted to finish the year though.

 

 

18 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

 

It is interesting to think about, I'm sure he would have been active at the draft and during F/A. He knew where the team was weak. 

I also think he would have moved on from Hakstol at the end of the year. I do think he wanted to finish the year though.

 

 

I can only hope so just because you'd hope anyone in that position could see the problem.  I have a feeling if Homer had taken Hexy aside and just said, "Fire Hak or Scott's going to make me fire you" then he'd have fired Hak so he could see his plan to fruition.  

 

He should have fired him over the summer or the year before (when i really started beating the drum).  But this is all why I think it was personal and had nothing to do with Hextall's "philosophy" or "execution" and had everything to do with him being disrespectfully insubordinate to Scott.

 

18 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I do think moves on the blue line were coming so perhaps Gudas and more for a higher profile player.  He may have drafted exactly the same way, I am pretty high on that York kid, I think that was a good pick, he's pretty dominant versus his peers on the world level. 

 

 

I don't know if he'd have been able to pry Point or Marner away, but he may have been eyeing other pieces on those teams.

 

[mojo1917]

33 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I just don't like his contract.  

I agree it's too much for too long and is too restrictive.

other than that Mrs Lincoln...

Edited August 2, 2019 by mojo1917

[King Knut]

2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I agree it's too much for too long and is too restrictive.

other than that Mrs Lincoln...

 

...the play was mind blowing!

 

sorry, too soon?

[OccamsRazor]

3 hours ago, King Knut said:

my opinion the market dropped 7/1.

 

And what may i ask makes you say that??

 

Where do you come up with this info???

 

If anything with one of the top centers off the market the price actually goes up. So where do you gather this opinion from??

[King Knut]

1 minute ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

And what may i ask makes you say that??

 

 

Duchene, Zuccarello, Nyqvist, Myers, Dzingel, Johnson and Kapanen all signed for less than I expected.  

Duchene actually got more than I think he's worth, but it's still less than I expected just because the league at large seems to value him more than I do. 

Pavelski signed for about what I'd have thought, but I didn't anticipate the stars.  I wanted him for the 2C role and he got the kind of 3 year deal I think would have been perfect for the Flyers situation.  

 

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

3 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Duchene, Zuccarello, Nyqvist, Myers, Dzingel, Johnson and Kapanen all signed for less than I expected. 

 

Sorry but just because they signed for less than you thought isn't really a reason to say that Hayes was overpaid. He was coming off a deal that paid him 5.1 mill.

 

A 2 mill raise basically.

 

Duchene was coming off a 6 mill salary and signed a team friendly deal i guess because he has wanted to play for Nashville for a long time.

 

Still he signed for 8 mill......a 2 mill raise basically....so looks to me about market value compared to Hayes.

 

The others besides Dzingel aren't even centers....and Dzingel isn't nowhere as good as Hayes so i see no comparisons.

 

Either way i don't think it was that crazy beyond others contracts....pretty much market value...but hey you don't have to agree.

[King Knut]

24 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

Sorry but just because they signed for less than you thought isn't really a reason to say that Hayes was overpaid. He was coming off a deal that paid him 5.1 mill.

 

A 2 mill raise basically.

 

Duchene was coming off a 6 mill salary and signed a team friendly deal i guess because he has wanted to play for Nashville for a long time.

 

Still he signed for 8 mill......a 2 mill raise basically....so looks to me about market value compared to Hayes.

 

The others besides Dzingel aren't even centers....and Dzingel isn't nowhere as good as Hayes so i see no comparisons.

 

Either way i don't think it was that crazy beyond others contracts....pretty much market value...but hey you don't have to agree.

 

 What did Hayes do to necessitate a $2million raise?  

 

Duchene, Lee and Zuccarello all consistently upped their scoring total during the duration of their previous contracts and each consistently outscored Hayes.  

 

Hayes on the other hand pretty much performed exactly the same as he did when he signed the $5million dollar contract.  

 

It's okay.  I think he'll still be good for the team and I think he will likely start scoring much more now and show everyone something.  Hey may even pull a Couturier and start scoring the kind of points that nets you $7million per.  But there's no real arguing that he deserved the contract he got or that it's at a fair market value for him.  

 

We all know about intangibles and defensive play and sandpaper and all that, but those are very difficult things to bring into a contract negotiation.  Obviously, you disagree, but my POV is that his agent knew Fletcher really wanted Hayes and didn't want it to go to UFA,  so the agent took full advantage and got Hayes a sweeter deal than he probably would have gotten on the open market.  

 

[OccamsRazor]

9 minutes ago, King Knut said:

What did Hayes do to necessitate a $2million raise?

 

He was about to be a UFA center. It's all he had to do who just had his hest season when he was 26.

 

It's all he had to do. 

 

Can't be mad at him for that.

 

That who it is. If you want your guy you have to met their demands or you don't sign him.

 

I get it you don't like the term.

 

Let's see him lace em up before we jump to conclusions.