Jump to content

A Bit Underwhelmed (and Concerned)


Howie58

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

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.

 

 

I get that, I just don't think his best season compares well with the average seasons of the other players mentioned.  Again... I like the player and think he may be the best fit... maybe.  Certainly not a bad choice.  

 

Maybe he couldn't be signed for less... then it's just unfortunate and not a mistake.  I don't know.  Time will tell.  I'm certainly not ragging on him nor signing him, but the duration and the amount of the deal compared to the comparable deals and players out there this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Again... I like the player and think he may be the best fit... maybe.  Certainly not a bad choice. 

 

 

Then just wait to see him play and what he can add to the team...don't worry about the money...unless of course you have to have something to worry about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Then just wait to see him play and what he can add to the team...don't worry about the money...unless of course you have to have something to worry about...

 

Nah, pretending to be the GM is just a hobby of mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2019 at 3:43 PM, radoran said:

 

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.

At the time, the thinking was that Patrick would take over 2C and we still had a gap at 3C.  Bozak would have filled that gap.  In retrospect, given that Patrick didn't ascend to the 2C role, yeah having Bozak and Patrick on the roster doesn't move the needle.

 

We will disagree on Grabner.  I think he would have helped an ailing PK.  

 

Not saying we needed to sign both, btw.  Either would have filled a need based on expectations at the time.  And I don't think either would have jeopardized signing and of the players you mentioned.

 

Of course, the team was worse than expected and, as it turns out, needed more than someone like Bozak at C.

 

Were you OK with Hextall having not addressed the C position or the dismal PK last offseason?

Edited by vis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

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

Given the cap space he'd created, he must have been.

 

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

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

So where would that have left them at C?  I suppose Hextall might be more adept at sourcing a "creative" trade for a C than Fletcher.  

 

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

I do think moves on the blue line were coming so perhaps Gudas and more for a higher profile player.

Yeah, there would have been moves on defense.  Too crowded.

 

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

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. 

Yeah, absolutely no qualms with the draft.  There was some handwringing that Fletcher's draft would be a problem.  

 

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, 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. 

There is no way he couldn't have been active.  Just really curious about what he would have done.  Impossible to predict and irrelevant anyway,  I suppose.

 

On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, mojo1917 said:

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 am not 100% sure of this.  Hakstol was his guy and I think her personally committed to giving Hakstol the full term on his contract.  I think Hextall would have kept that promise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2019 at 3:51 PM, radoran said:

 

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.

Fair points.  Hard to predict what Hextall would have done.  It's certainly logical that, given the cap space he created, he'd have gone out and tried to make some sort of real splash in FA or via the trade route.  

 

On 8/1/2019 at 3:51 PM, radoran said:

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?

I suspect the Leafs wanted a roster player and probably a young prospect.  Maybe it would have been Myers.  Tough call, but I may have made that trade depending on what other pieces are involved.  Maybe I'm just not that certain that Myers is going to be more than a 3/4 d-man.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, vis said:

We will disagree on Grabner.  I think he would have helped an ailing PK.  

 

I'm not against Grabner, I just don't think he does much to change the direction of the team. I wouldn't have been up in arms against it, but don't see it as a major "missed opportunity."

 

Moreover, put Granber's $3.35M onto this year's cap and it's getting pretty tight to ink Konecny and Provorov (who remain unsigned) with just over $10M in cap space.

 

35 minutes ago, vis said:

Were you OK with Hextall having not addressed the C position or the dismal PK last offseason?

 

I don't think Hextall was thinking "how to fix X for next season" I think he was thinking "how do I develop a team for the long term."

 

And I think there was a lot that could have been done on the PK without necessarily adding folks to do it. The biggest thing - as we've all noted - would have been to change the coaching staff. Without that, from where I sit there's a lot of shuffling of deck chairs...

 

As you note, the theory was that the #2 overall pick who "played himself onto the team" was going to actually emerge as the 2C they expect him to be. He didn't. And now the hope is that Patrick can be a solid 3C...

 

At the same time, there were (and are) numerous players who they could slot into the 3C position including former first rounder Laughton and Vorobyov (who started the season with the job). And I think there was some hope that Lehtera(ble) might have been able to fit the role as well.

 

Was it the best call? In retrospect not so much, but not everything Hextall did was gold.  In the end, it's wudder under the bridge.


image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, vis said:

I suspect the Leafs wanted a roster player and probably a young prospect. 

 

Not so sure about the roster player, just given their cap situation. If they were going to move Nylander, it was IMO going to be cap-related.

 

Giving them two solid (cheap) prospects might have been enough. We'll never know...

 

11 minutes ago, vis said:

Maybe I'm just not that certain that Myers is going to be more than a 3/4 d-man.  

 

So, pretty much Jack Johnson, then? 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, 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 liked Lee as well, but pretty sure he spent a good deal of time at LW.  I think of Hayes as more of a true center than Lee.  Also, I think Vigneult's familiarity with Hayes is favorable.  Plus, Hayes is a little younger, so hopefully you get a few more useful years out of him.  I also think of HAyes as a better two-way player, but maybe I'm wrong about that.  Just think Hayes is more versatile.

 

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, King Knut said:

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.

For sure, but trading for Hayes put Fletcher in position to offer and extra year that other teams couldn't and allowed him to make his pitch without a lot of "noise" coming from other teams.  I'm not saying I would have given him all that, but Fletcher put the Flyers in the best position to sign the player.  

 

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, King Knut said:

 

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.  

My point was that Hextall thought out of the box in hiring Hakstol.  Didn't work out great for either of them.

 

On 8/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, King Knut said:

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. 

They played an "old school" brand of physical, tough hockey (with skill mixed in) and it worked out at the end of the day for them.  Berube is an "old school" coach big on holding players accountable.  "Old school" type-players and and "old school" thinking coach got them pretty far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, vis said:

They played an "old school" brand of physical, tough hockey (with skill mixed in) and it worked out at the end of the day for them.  Berube is an "old school" coach big on holding players accountable.  "Old school" type-players and and "old school" thinking coach got them pretty far.

 

I think you also had a situation where a team that had been in the Conference Finals in 15-16, had lots of regular season success, and nosedived in 17-18 came to the conclusion they had something to prove. And they proved it.

 

Chief probably had something to do with just saying to them "you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it people like you" and getting them to play.

 

He also likely learned a lot about being a head coach in failing in Philadelphia. The "what not to do" approach.

 

Could also be argued that the Blues were just top to bottom better than the Flyers were and got their Binnington at the right time.

 

Flyers c/should be in that position in the next 2-3 years if Hayes pans out and they find the gear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, radoran said:

I'm not against Grabner, I just don't think he does much to change the direction of the team. I wouldn't have been up in arms against it, but don't see it as a major "missed opportunity."

I don't think it's a major problem, but when the team had a clear need and it went unfulfilled and the PK continued to struggle, you wonder if it was a "miss."  Maybe Hextall was saving hi pennies for going "all-in" this offseason.  Who knows?  

 

6 hours ago, radoran said:

Moreover, put Granber's $3.35M onto this year's cap and it's getting pretty tight to ink Konecny and Provorov (who remain unsigned) with just over $10M in cap space.

I think you're judging not signing Grabner (or any other UFA) last year in hindsight.  At the the time, the expectation was that Patrick would fill the 2C and there wouldn't be a need to sign Hayes to that contract.  I don't know that Hextall foresaw, at that time, a need to sign one of the top 3 centers this offseason.

 

6 hours ago, radoran said:

I don't think Hextall was thinking "how to fix X for next season" I think he was thinking "how do I develop a team for the long term."

Possibly.  But, again, isn't that the problem with Hextall?  Thinking too far ahead and sacrificing the near term?

 

6 hours ago, radoran said:

And I think there was a lot that could have been done on the PK without necessarily adding folks to do it. The biggest thing - as we've all noted - would have been to change the coaching staff. Without that, from where I sit there's a lot of shuffling of deck chairs...

Yeah, and Hextall/Hakstol didn't change the assistant either.  They rolled into the season with the same staff and personnel in place.  If they moved on from Lappy at the end of last year, I could see maybe giving the existing personnel another chance.  But they didn't can Lappy, so the next logical thing to do would have been to change personnel.  But they didn't do that either.  Failing to address the PK was a big failure last offseason.  do anything.  I'm still not sure if they have the right personnel for the PK (other than Hart).

 

6 hours ago, radoran said:

Was it the best call? In retrospect not so much, but not everything Hextall did was gold.

At the time, even without the benefit of hindsight, relying on the likes of Laughton, Vorobyev and Lehtera to capably fill the 3C was foolish.

 

Yes, all wudder under the bridge.  Merely academic at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, radoran said:

I think you also had a situation where a team that had been in the Conference Finals in 15-16, had lots of regular season success, and nosedived in 17-18 came to the conclusion they had something to prove. And they proved it.

In all honesty, I think the Blues caught a bit of lightning in a bottle.  Honestly, I thought their moves last offseason wouldn't translate into success, largely because I didn't think they would be fast enough to compete.  Also wasn't sold on ROR (that said, he was even good in the regular season).  I was way wrong on all of that obviously.  I'd also say the Bruins play a pretty tough, in your face game, like the Bruins and they had success as well.  Point is, the POs still require teams to play somewhat of an "old school" heavy, tough game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, vis said:

For sure, but trading for Hayes put Fletcher in position to offer and extra year that other teams couldn't and allowed him to make his pitch without a lot of "noise" coming from other teams.  I'm not saying I would have given him all that, but Fletcher put the Flyers in the best position to sign the player.  

 

Actually, the Flyers couldn't offer him 8 years. Only Winnipeg could. 

 

But the exclusive negotiating window was probably helpful to convince a player to come to Philly which apparently was not his top choice. 

 

Either way, definitely worth the 5th rounder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brelic said:

 

Actually, the Flyers couldn't offer him 8 years. Only Winnipeg could. 

Here I was totally wrong about the term thing.  I thought the Flyers could offer him the max since he was their property.  Guess not since he wasn’t on the reserve list at the deadline.   Thankfully Fletcher couldn’t give him the extra year.  

 

Quote

 

But the exclusive negotiating window was probably helpful to convince a player to come to Philly which apparently was not his top choice. 

 

Either way, definitely worth the 5th rounder. 

Yeah, it was definitely helpful. 

Edited by vis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2019 at 11:20 AM, vis said:

 

My point was that Hextall thought out of the box in hiring Hakstol.  Didn't work out great for either of them.

 

 

I have no problem with him giving Hakstol a try.  I didn't like Berube, but as I've stated elsewhere, then again, he had a crap team with no depth.  He didn't even have Hakstol's crap teams with lots of youth and no depth.  Still, his defense looked just as clueless (in a different way... like they were usually LITERALLY facing the wrong way) than Hakstol's (who were just out of position most of the time).  

 

The problem was not syncing up his recognition that the Hakstol experiment wasn't going to work with his recognition that his team might just have developed and be ready enough to actually make a go of it.

 

Berube and Hextall were close.  Hextall has no problem canning guys he's buddies with.  There may have been some extra stuff with the kid going on, but still, I think Hextall would have fired Hakstol.  He just should have done it two years sooner.  A year sooner would have been excusable.  Two would have been preferable.

 

On 8/5/2019 at 11:20 AM, vis said:

They played an "old school" brand of physical, tough hockey (with skill mixed in) and it worked out at the end of the day for them.  Berube is an "old school" coach big on holding players accountable.  "Old school" type-players and and "old school" thinking coach got them pretty far.

 

The forechecked the hell out of the Bruins and put on a clinic of puck control in the second half of that series.  I guess that's old school maybe or at least it could be.  It's execution was just efficient and controlled.   IT wasn't like they were brutalizing the B's out there.  

 

But all that aside, I thought you meant in their off season moves, not their style of play.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, King Knut said:

I have no problem with him giving Hakstol a try.

At least he was from outside the organization (other than coaching Hextall's kid), but, at the time, I recall there being other, more established coaches available.  With hindsight, we can see that hiring a coach with no professional experience was not a good decision (and sticking by Hakstol as long as Hextall did was probably an even worse decision).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, King Knut said:

The problem was not syncing up his recognition that the Hakstol experiment wasn't going to work with his recognition that his team might just have developed and be ready enough to actually make a go of it.

 

56 minutes ago, vis said:

With hindsight, we can see that hiring a coach with no professional experience was not a good decision (and sticking by Hakstol as long as Hextall did was probably an even worse decision).

 

I forget where (or if) I actually posted this, but for all the clamour about firing Hakstol before last season, if You're Ron Hextall looking at the guy you hired, well,  that guy's team just finished third in the division with 98 points and played an OK series against the Penguins in the first round.

 

What's telling Hextall that this is clearly going to blow up in the face the next season?

 

I think we mostly agree that there was a fair amount of smoke and/or mirrors in that 3rd place finish (only behind the Pens and Caps!) and the "close" 4-2 first round loss to Pittsburgh. And I'm not "defending Hakstol" here - just trying to put some perspective on where Hextall's head could have been at the time.

 

That said, I don't think many anticipated the team being as abjectly woeful as they started the season out (nor would m/any have suspected setting a record for starting goalies).

 

Adding a #2 overall UFA c/should have gotten better results, no?

 

Which is one reason I'm ambivalent about where they will go next season. I'm not entirely convinced it was entirely the "coach's fault." Or even "bad coach" plus the "goalies' faults." Something has to fall at the feet of the 18 skaters.

 

And it's why I need to see this team actually go out and accomplish something on the ice before I'm penciling them in as "definitely a playoff team"™️.

 

Not at all saying "can't happen" - just "hasn't happened yet."

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, radoran said:

 

 

I forget where (or if) I actually posted this, but for all the clamour about firing Hakstol before last season, if You're Ron Hextall looking at the guy you hired, well,  that guy's team just finished third in the division with 98 points and played an OK series against the Penguins in the first round.

 

What's telling Hextall that this is clearly going to blow up in the face the next season?

 

I think we mostly agree that there was a fair amount of smoke and/or mirrors in that 3rd place finish (only behind the Pens and Caps!) and the "close" 4-2 first round loss to Pittsburgh. And I'm not "defending Hakstol" here - just trying to put some perspective on where Hextall's head could have been at the time.

 

That said, I don't think many anticipated the team being as abjectly woeful as they started the season out (nor would m/any have suspected setting a record for starting goalies).

 

Adding a #2 overall UFA c/should have gotten better results, no?

 

Which is one reason I'm ambivalent about where they will go next season. I'm not entirely convinced it was entirely the "coach's fault." Or even "bad coach" plus the "goalies' faults." Something has to fall at the feet of the 18 skaters.

 

And it's why I need to see this team actually go out and accomplish something on the ice before I'm penciling them in as "definitely a playoff team"™️.

 

Not at all saying "can't happen" - just "hasn't happened yet."

 

 

On paper, maybe it’s hard to fire Hakstol after the 2018 finish, but watching that team? Sheesh... they were chaos in a bottle that series.  That series was the nail in the coffin of you ask me.  Their talent made it close despite the utter confusion. I was never more sure the problem was Hakstol.   The team just looked utterly lost out there. 

 

the goalie problem was deceptive and I’m sure Hextall used it as a crutch to keep hak in the clear.    The problems went far deeper.  Remember they didn’t get better when Hart came up.  They got better when Gordon switched the defensive scheme. 

 

I think Hart became a bit of a magic feather to their dumbo though.  They really rode a wave of confidence for a while.  

 

The thing is, I tried to defend Hak for like a year and a half.  But the problems just got worse and he just kept getting out smarted by other coaches.  He kept making dumb decisions AND the team looked confused and lost out there.  If they just looked confused and lost or unmotivated, it could be them.  But he made a LOT of stupid calls that cost them a LOT of points.  

 

If there’s smoke there’s not always fire. If there’s smoke AND fire, there’s usually fire.

 

Hak was green at this level.  It didn’t work. If Vigneault can’t at least get them easily into the PO’s, then we know for sure  that the players aren’t there.  But even if that happens, it won’t change Hak’s Problematic coaching.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

Sheesh... they were chaos in a bottle that series.  

 

Sure with Elliott's wonky hip, Ivan's bad shoulder and Coots knee....it was still a close series.

 

However I am a believer in things happen for a reason and well here we are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, King Knut said:

But he made a LOT of stupid calls that cost them a LOT of points.  

 

If there’s smoke there’s not always fire. If there’s smoke AND fire, there’s usually fire.

 

Hak was green at this level.  It didn’t work. If Vigneault can’t at least get them easily into the PO’s, then we know for sure  that the players aren’t there.  But even if that happens, it won’t change Hak’s Problematic coaching.  

 

Not at all disagreeing - as you well know.

 

But I can see where crusty ol' hockey guy Ron Hextall wasn't gonna let some pencil necked geeks tell him who should coach his hockey team.

 

#davescott

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, radoran said:

I think we mostly agree that there was a fair amount of smoke and/or mirrors in that 3rd place finish (only behind the Pens and Caps!) and the "close" 4-2 first round loss to Pittsburgh. And I'm not "defending Hakstol" here - just trying to put some perspective on where Hextall's head could have been at the time.

I don't think Hextall ever had an inkling to fire Hakstol.  I think he was going down with Hakstol one way or another.  That said, another GM may not have been as patient with the "smoke and mirrors" and lack of progress under Hakstol.  Plus, I question whether the young players were developing well under Hakstol.  When a team isn't meaningfully improving, you have to start thinking of making a coaching change.  I'm not totaling absolving the personnel, by the way.  Actually, there were times where I thought Hakstol was getting more out of the roster than I expected.  But, in the aggregate, I think the team should have been better based on its roster.

 

17 hours ago, radoran said:

Which is one reason I'm ambivalent about where they will go next season. I'm not entirely convinced it was entirely the "coach's fault." Or even "bad coach" plus the "goalies' faults." Something has to fall at the feet of the 18 skaters.

I don't think it was entirely the coach's fault.  Goaltending was certainly an issue.  The players share blame as well.  I have doubts about the leadership in that locker room and I wonder if they are too cavalier and don't hold each other accountable.  I think there was a lot "wrong" with the team.  But, I think they did a good job in addressing the coaching issue and bringing in a solid, veteran staff.  Goaltending should be addressed, provided Hart stays healthy.  They brought in some leadership on defense.  Still think they need a leader up front.  I think Hayes helps with matchups and I am hopeful Patrick breaks out a bit as a result.  I think (hope?) all of that leads to a PO spot.  Really, they should have been a PO team last year.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...