A Bit Underwhelmed (and Concerned)

[vis]

3 minutes ago, brelic said:

How Fletch can be judged, let alone this harshly, before any of his moves, signings, and personnel changes have yet to even all be in the same room together is beyond me. 

Same.  I think to the extent he's getting any harsh criticism (and I don't mean "any criticism" - he deserves some), it is coming from Hextall disciples. In that regard, I"m pretty sure Boomer was a big, big Hextall fan and his approach.

[King Knut]

37 minutes ago, vis said:

Same.  I think to the extent he's getting any harsh criticism (and I don't mean "any criticism" - he deserves some), it is coming from Hextall disciples. In that regard, I"m pretty sure Boomer was a big, big Hextall fan and his approach.

 

I'm a realist and not a disciple or devotee of anyone.  

 

You didn't mention me by name, but I defend Hextall sometimes because I actually really respect and appreciate his approach to building a team to be talented and restocked indefinitely.  

 

Every time I defend him though I try to make sure I also attack Hextall consistently and as relentlessly as I'm abe over Hakstol which I believe to be his major flaw as a GM.  That was the reason to fire him, not any trades he didn't make last summer and fall.  

 

I also am big on criticizing the whole situation over his firing because I am pretty sure it wasn't about hockey at all, but about Hextall mouthing off to Dave Scott.  This is backed up by the fact that Fletcher came in and basically just followed (and if anything accelerated) Hextall's plan.   According to Homer and Scott they fired Hextall because they didn't see eye to eye on the philosophy, but they hired a guy who almost 100% ascribed to Hextall's Philosophy.  

 

I do criticize Fletcher, but usually (and I'm fairly open about this) it's actually Holmgren and Scott I'm criticizing. Now that Holmgren's gone, It's going to be only Scott I'm criticizing.  

 

I don't like that it seems that Fletcher is only here because he's nicer and less lippy to Scott (which is essentially how it seems to be shaking out).  

 

Now I don't know if it's Fletcher or Homer or Scott to blame for this, but I do know that it appears that Neither Trouba, nor Panarin, nor Mark Stone, nor even Hayes (at first) had any interest in signing in Philly.

 

That feels like a problem to me.  Maybe it's because none of them wanted to compete with the existing talent at their positions for ice time, maybe it's because they didn't like how things appeared to be being handled from the outside, and maybe it's because the GM the team fired last fall had a strict nutrition policy and didn't like letting retired vets into the locker room after games.    I don't know... but I'm willing to bet it wasn't the last one.

 

When I criticize Fletcher over the Simmonds trade, it's mostly a back handed criticism of Scott for seemingly thinking Hextall should have traded Simmonds sooner for a lot more.

 

When I criticize Fletcher for the Hayes Contract however, that's for what appears to me to be piss poor cap management (plus a little bit of frustration for having to give a bit extra to the player because he didn't really want to play here.

 

I don't mind the Niskanen deal.  I did rag onmost of the moves he made last spring as relatively useless in regards to the future.  

 

I HATED the Stolarz trade, mostly because of timing and Fletcher seemingly not realizing that he traded away his backup to a 20 year old at time that would force that 20 year old to play 4 games in 5 or 6 nights and (surprise surprise) he got hurt and stunk by the 3rd game.  That stretch is where the comeback died last season.  And anyone who tells me that the comeback was never going to happen, I'll just tell you to shut up and have a nice warm cup of "Play GLORIA!"

 

I also think Stolarz is the smarter choice to backup Hart and I also think that Cam Talbot never really played for the Flyers and won't be coming back to be Hart's back up.  Oh wait.  That last part isn't an opinion.  It's what actually happened.  Go me.  I must be clairvoyant.  

 

I didn't like the Braun deal just because it didn't fill any holes, created more of a log jam on D and created a new hole at fwd (Hartman should have been a no brainer at 4RW this year)... but that could easily have had to do with contract negotiations.  Plenty of youth to fill that hole AND the 3RW hole, but we don't really want to see Frost or NAK on the 4th line.  

 

At the end of the day the thing I don't love about Fletcher is mostly that he seems to be Scott's lap dog and that makes me nervous.  

I'm a big "team of rivals" kind of manager and I think it's generally a bad thing when you do everything exactly the way your superior wants you too.   I really hate when folks working under me do that.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[brelic]

14 minutes ago, King Knut said:

Now I don't know if it's Fletcher or Homer or Scott to blame for this, but I do know that it appears that Neither Trouba, nor Panarin, nor Mark Stone, nor even Hayes (at first) had any interest in signing in Philly.

 

I'd venture to say Hextall shoulders most of that responsibility. He created a terrible on-ice product.

 

The fact that I happened to agree with his direction and understood the 'it's gonna take some time, folks' reality of it doesn't change the fact that it was not a fun team to watch (I tuned out A LOT), and too many fans (and apparently free agents) agreed with that for Scott's liking. At the end of the day, he's still running a business - not a charity or a social experiment.

 

I'm guessing that's not very attractive for highly-sought after free agents looking for the biggest payout on a team that they feel has the best near-term chance at doing some playoff damage.

 

I realize that the players you mention happened post-Hextall, but Fletcher hadn't had any kind of time to put his stamp on the team. It was and still is largely a Hextallian product, and not a very good one thus far. We'll see what this season looks like.

 

Can't get any worse, can it??? 

 

19 minutes ago, King Knut said:

At the end of the day the thing I don't love about Fletcher is mostly that he seems to be Scott's lap dog and that makes me nervous.  

 

I thought that too at first, but from a few different reports I've read, it seems like Fletch was actually able to talk ownership off the ledge and stand his ground. 

[vis]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

You didn't mention me by name, but I defend Hextall sometimes because I actually really respect and appreciate his approach to building a team to be talented and restocked indefinitely.  

And I didn't mean you at all.  I think your criticisms of Fletcher have been fair (and we agree on some) and I don't think come from a place of Hextall fanboi-ism.  

 

Quote

I also am big on criticizing the whole situation over his firing because I am pretty sure it wasn't about hockey at all, but about Hextall mouthing off to Dave Scott.

I tend to agree.  I think Scott and Hextall didn't have a good relationship and Scott made his move.

 

Quote

Now I don't know if it's Fletcher or Homer or Scott to blame for this, but I do know that it appears that Neither Trouba, nor Panarin, nor Mark Stone, nor even Hayes (at first) had any interest in signing in Philly.

 

That feels like a problem to me.  Maybe it's because none of them wanted to compete with the existing talent at their positions for ice time, maybe it's because they didn't like how things appeared to be being handled from the outside, and maybe it's because the GM the team fired last fall had a strict nutrition policy and didn't like letting retired vets into the locker room after games.    I don't know... but I'm willing to bet it wasn't the last one.

Yeah, I'm a little bit concerned as well.  But, I think Trouba and Panarin both had every intent in going to the Rangers.  Look, if lifestyle is what is primarily driving decision making, I'm not sure I want that player on my team anyway.

 

Quote

I'm a big "team of rivals" kind of manager and I think it's generally a bad thing when you do everything exactly the way your superior wants you too.   I really hate when folks working under me do that.  

Yeah, agree there needs to be some critical thinking internally.

Edited July 29, 2019 by vis

[King Knut]

41 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

I'd venture to say Hextall shoulders most of that responsibility. He created a terrible on-ice product.

 

 

You're smarter than that.  I know you are. 

It wasn't a fun team because Hakstol was a terrible coach.  They got pretty fun shortly after he left.  

 

41 minutes ago, brelic said:

I'm guessing that's not very attractive for highly-sought after free agents looking for the biggest payout on a team that they feel has the best near-term chance at doing some playoff damage.

 

Do you really think Panarin said, "I think the Rangers are going to the finals sooner than the Flyers and I REALLY want to play with Zibanejad and Kreider!" or do you think he likely looked at the Flyers Roster and thought, "I'll be competing for minutes with Giroux for three years so screw that."  Add is it very likely Trouba thought the same thing about the Rangers and playing along side Shattenkirk?

 

You're not wrong about Stone and Vegas.  They went to the finals and there he gets to be both the man and on an instant competitor.  They were also likely to go to the playoffs at the time he signed the deal (a deal upon which his trade was contingent).  Stone is going to be treated like the man there.  Here he'd have to unseat Konecny and Voracek in Philly,  but I think with Stone, it had more to do with Fletcher not maneuvering his way into the conversation at all. 

 

IF you think Hayes is worth what Fletcher paid for him (including the NMC and eventual modified NTC) and all the cap headaches inherent in paying that much money to a guy who will soon be a 3C, then there's really no point in continuing this conversation. 

 

41 minutes ago, brelic said:

I realize that the players you mention happened post-Hextall, but Fletcher hadn't had any kind of time to put his stamp on the team. It was and still is largely a Hextallian product, and not a very good one thus far. We'll see what this season looks like.

 

He's had that chance going into the off season and the millions in cap space that Hextall's plan spent 5 years creating.  We now have Hayes, Niskanen & Braun plus two vital unsigned RFAs to show for it.   This summer WAS THE WHOLE SHEBANG.  We've known since Hextall took over because he told us how long it would take.  It was always this summer.  

 

He had almost $30 million in cap space, one of the deepest and most highly touted prospect pools in the league, the second hottest rookie goaltender in the league and he just hired one of the most successful coaches of the past 20 years or so.  

 

And he lost the most talented player at a given position to the Rangers (a team, if nothing else, the Flyers have consistently out-performed over this crappy stretch).  Twice.  

 

I don't have to give Fletcher the benefit of any doubt.  He replaced Hakstol.  I'm happy with him for that.  I think the Hayes deal is going to be a problem and I think the backup Goalie situation is only resolved if Sandstrom works out.    otherwise, Fletch doesn't get a pat on the back.  He gets exactly what he's getting.  He gets a "You're not terrible, buddy, but you're not great either."

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, brelic said:

 

Can't get any worse, can it??? 

 

 

Of COURSE IT GETS WORSE!  Worse is 2014 When they're exactly as bad, but they have no prospects (because they traded away all their picks for years on end) and are so cap strapped that they know they're not going to be any good for 5 years until they start burning off the bad contracts.  

 

If we want to debate whether Hextall should have traded Jake, Giroux and Simmer for picks in 2014 and intentionally tanked for two years... then that's a debate worth having.  But the minute one accepts that Snider wasn't going to abide that kind of thing and the organization doesn't view that as an acceptable practice, one understands that the last five years were always going to look like this (AT BEST).  

 

My issue is that Gordon more or less proved that a semi-competent coach could have made this team a playoff team at least two years ago.  

 

But the people who want to complain about Neuvirth and Weise being the "REAL" problem the last 5 years haven't paid enough attention to even worth engaging in discussion.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[brelic]

15 hours ago, King Knut said:

You're smarter than that.  I know you are. 

It wasn't a fun team because Hakstol was a terrible coach.  They got pretty fun shortly after he left.  

 

Hextall put this team together, including the coaching personnel. He created a terrible on-ice product. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by brelic

[radoran]

17 hours ago, King Knut said:

And anyone who tells me that the comeback was never going to happen, I'll just tell you to shut up and have a nice warm cup of "Play GLORIA!" 

 

I'm too busy with my warm cup of "the comeback didn't happen."

 

They got waxed down the stretch by actual playoff teams.  7-11 in March and April isn't an indication of "just missed it" success. They were sixteen points out of a playoff spot.

 

I do think an alternative to Hackstol from the beginning of the season might have had an effect, but I'm going to need to see this group actually go out and produce before they get exonerated of blame for being woeful.

 

18 minutes ago, brelic said:

Hextall put this team together, including the coaching personnel. He created a terrible on-ice product.

 

Agreed. And it was a "terrible on-ice product" that most people seem to agree was a tweak or two away from being a seriously competitive group - and one that considered itself (and fans agreed) "definitely a playoff team" for each of the past five seasons.

 

This was envisioned as a five year process - like it or not. Digging out from the Pronger/VLC/AMac/etc. contracts and then stocking the farm system was not going to happen overnight.

 

And now as we approach Hextall +5 it seems to be exactly where the plan was taking it.

 

We'll see how it goes.

[brelic]

2 minutes ago, radoran said:

Agreed. And it was a "terrible on-ice product" that most people seem to agree was a tweak or two away from being a seriously competitive group - and one that considered itself (and fans agreed) "definitely a playoff team" for each of the past five seasons.

 

This was envisioned as a five year process - like it or not. Digging out from the Pronger/VLC/AMac/etc. contracts and then stocking the farm system was not going to happen overnight.

 

And now as we approach Hextall +5 it seems to be exactly where the plan was taking it.

 

We'll see how it goes.

 

I know *we* generally thought that way - more 'minor' than 'major' tweaks needed. Not sure about the 'general' fanbase. I don't live in Philly, so I don't get to talk to average, everyday fans. I talk to those who care enough about the Flyers to come on a message board daily and talk about it. I would guess there's a significant difference in viewpoint....  but maybe not? 

 

Yup, I was on board with the Hextall plan even though they were generally bad for 4 years. 

 

 

[King Knut]

17 hours ago, vis said:

And I didn't mean you at all.  I think your criticisms of Fletcher have been fair (and we agree on some) and I don't think come from a place of Hextall fanboi-ism.  

 

I tend to agree.  I think Scott and Hextall didn't have a good relationship and Scott made his move.

 

Yeah, I'm a little bit concerned as well.  But, I think Trouba and Panarin both had every intent in going to the Rangers.  Look, if lifestyle is what is primarily driving decision making, I'm not sure I want that player on my team anyway.

 

Yeah, agree there needs to be some critical thinking internally.

 

To be fair to Trouba and Panarin, they haven’t exactly been in locations with even moderate night life or lifestyle options.  

 

its not even that I wanted them (maybe Trouba, even though we don’t need him).  Their decided dis-interest is of concern. 

 

Who knows what what was Up With Stone.  He’s still the one that stings the most.  

 

 

[King Knut]

46 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

I'm too busy with my warm cup of "the comeback didn't happen."

 

They got waxed down the stretch by actual playoff teams.  7-11 in March and April isn't an indication of "just missed it" success. They were sixteen points out of a playoff spot.

 

I do think an alternative to Hackstol from the beginning of the season might have had an effect, but I'm going to need to see this group actually go out and produce before they get exonerated of blame for being woeful.

 

 

Agreed. And it was a "terrible on-ice product" that most people seem to agree was a tweak or two away from being a seriously competitive group - and one that considered itself (and fans agreed) "definitely a playoff team" for each of the past five seasons.

 

This was envisioned as a five year process - like it or not. Digging out from the Pronger/VLC/AMac/etc. contracts and then stocking the farm system was not going to happen overnight.

 

And now as we approach Hextall +5 it seems to be exactly where the plan was taking it.

 

We'll see how it goes.

 

This post enjoys walking the line of self contradiction. 

 

[mojo1917]

36 minutes ago, radoran said:

They got waxed down the stretch by actual playoff teams.  7-11 in March and April isn't an indication of "just missed it" success. They were sixteen points out of a playoff spot.

There was zero margin for error down the stretch.  That's not the sign of a good team.  They packed it in after the 4th week of March where they went 1-3. 

 

I thought there was more talent on the roster than the results showed. I'm not alone with that assessment.  It was a young group that didn't have young guy confidence. Was it because the coach, was it because of 8 goalies 4 of which were legitimately terrible pro hockey players ? I don't know, I felt all year like the problem was between their ears. 

So any assessment where people say "tweaks" I can make that walk. 

I do have the opinion that this team should be better in all facets this coming season. 

The Penalty kill has been bolstered by the addition of Niskanen,Braun and Hayes. 

The second line center has been addressed by the addition of Hayes.

Defensive leadership has been addressed, I liked Gudas, still do, I don't think he was a calming influence I don't think he was a guy to show by example how to play the  game as a pro. MacDonald wasn't healthy and doesn't have the credibility of high level play to be able to be that guy on the bench or in the room, until he becomes a coach.

[King Knut]

2 hours ago, brelic said:

 

Hextall put this team together, including the coaching personnel. He created a terrible on-ice product. 

 

 

Say a guy builds a terrible house.  It falls apart and has a lot of rotten pieces that he installed, but some nice features a homeowner would really like.   But let's face it.  It needs some work before anyone can really enjoy living there.

 

So that guy pissed off all the local contractors and no one will work with him anymore and the only guys he can get to work on the place are terrible at their jobs... so he hires a building manager and says, hey... fix the house.  Only you're not allowed to spend any money until you pay off the existing contractors.

 

So the new guys says, " I can do it, but it'll take 5 years before it's a decent house".

 

In this little and I'm sure quite transparent dialectic.  Would you really blame the new building manager for the crappy house he's trying to fix over those five years?

 

Is the crappy house really his responsibility in that time?  

 

Side note, I don't have a metaphor in mind for whatever the hell Hextall was thinking with Hakstol.

I guess the closest I can come is having excellent hardware, insulation, wiring and appliances, but having a rookie builder who had previously only built tree houses and has no idea how to put all those things together to make an actual grown up house.  

 

You fire that guy as soon as you can.  Hextall didn't.  And if I'm generous, I say it's because he thought he had the year to get things going and didn't want to can Hak mid-season.  But if I'm honest, Hextall had more than enough intel on Hakstol to can him after year 2 and should have done so then.  My best guess is that he probably knew he had to, but felt obligated to the guy and put on some blinders about "development" and "young guys coming along" and "tough breaks" and "unlucky goalie injuries" to help fool himself into avoiding the inevitable.  Either way, not firing Hakstol was Hextall's fireable offense.  

 

If I thought that's what it came down to, I'd be in full support.

 

As it is, I'm interested in discussing whether trying to not tank for 5 years is better than openly trying to tank and getting hopefully a good top pick.  I'd love to talk about that.

 

Overall I'm not sold on it because either way, repopulating an entire team is going to take several years.

 

We shall see what we really have on our hands and if the house is a keeper or if it's time to light a match, but I honestly think that with a half decent coach (and while he won't be the ground breaking kind of visionary I was hoping for, Vigneault should be better than half decent) at the helm for an entire season, I think we're all going to be happily surprised.  

 

Well I might not be surprised.  But i'll be happy.  

 

If they don't show massive improvement and compete most of the year and easily make the playoffs? 

Then to me, it's time to light a match.  

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by King Knut

[flyercanuck]

22 hours ago, brelic said:

 

This.

 

How Fletch can be judged, let alone this harshly, before any of his moves, signings, and personnel changes have yet to even all be in the same room together is beyond me. 

 

 

I've admittedly been as harsh a critic of Fletcher as anyone. But so far he really hasn't been that bad.(he hasn't been that good either). He's made some good and some bad moves. I hate that contract he gave Hayes (have I mentioned that?) and I can just see Provorovs agent pointing to that and saying"Tell me my guy isn't way more important to this franchise than Mr. Benched". On the flip side when he made that deal to move up in the draft and grab Brink I gave the guy full kudos.

 

 I'm just more pissed that the genius that left this org. in shambles when he got promoted to pres. hired the guy who basically did the exact same thing to the Minnesota Wild. Then thinks collecting everything and anything Minnesotan is the way to build a winner.

Edited July 30, 2019 by flyercanuck

[vis]

2 hours ago, King Knut said:

Who knows what what was Up With Stone.  He’s still the one that stings the most.

Were they really in on Stone?  Again, he went to another place that has a decidedly better "lifestyle" than the Flyers.  And to a team that was one year removed from a Cup final appearance.  Can't blame him really.

[King Knut]

 

5 minutes ago, vis said:

Were they really in on Stone?  Again, he went to another place that has a decidedly better "lifestyle" than the Flyers.  And to a team that was one year removed from a Cup final appearance.  Can't blame him really.

 

They weren't in on Stone.  But whether that was because Ott wouldn't even listen to deals inside the conference or because Stone refused to sign here isn't known.

 

I've heard both and believe both.

 

There are ways around both as well.  

 

Long story short, I'd rather have kept Gudas and spent more money for Stone and gone with a less impressive 2C option as I don't believe Hayes is destined to be 2C for very long... or at least I don't think he SHOULD be destined to be a 2C for very long, let's put it that way.  

 

I believe there were ways around the obstacles of not being able to talk to Stone at the deadline.  

 

Again, I like Hayes.  I think he fills a hole this team has.  But it was at most a 2 year (and likely a one year) hole and Hayes is now sitting in it for seven years. 

 

Our best hope is that he's EXCELLENT for the Flyers in that time and playing alongside Jake and JVR help him put him some very impressive numbers for three years.  At which point, when his modified NTC kicks in, hopefully one of the teams he puts on his list is in need of a $7million dollar 2C.

 

 

 

 

[vis]

19 hours ago, King Knut said:

He's had that chance going into the off season and the millions in cap space that Hextall's plan spent 5 years creating.  We now have Hayes, Niskanen & Braun plus two vital unsigned RFAs to show for it.   This summer WAS THE WHOLE SHEBANG.  We've known since Hextall took over because he told us how long it would take.  It was always this summer.  

What do you think Hextall would have done with that cap space?  What did he do last summer with the cap space he had then?

 

Niskanen and Braun don't bother me from a hockey perspective.  They needed better veteran leadership than they had with MacDonald and Gudas and I think both bring that.  Do I like the price for them?  Not really.  But I don't see how some folks can make an argument that Fletcher didn't improve the defense for this season.  Yeah, some would argue Gudas is a better player, but Gudas was probably gone after his contract was up after this season any way and I'll take a Niskanen/Braun combo over MacDonal/Gudas.  Flyers would have had to get someone to fill the veteran leadership void anyway.  But in the end, I think the value of Niskanen/Braun will be the influence they have on the younger d-men in terms of mentorship and setting examples.  Unfortunately, there is no metric for that.

[radoran]

11 minutes ago, vis said:

What did he do last summer with the cap space he had then?

 

Signed a multiple time 30-goal scorer that was widely regarded as the best UFA available after Tavares?

 

What do I win?

[mojo1917]

2 minutes ago, radoran said:

What do I win?

this is a loaded question, I once won 10 bonus points...that I have yet to see @brelic *taps foot*

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, vis said:

Were they really in on Stone?  Again, he went to another place that has a decidedly better "lifestyle" than the Flyers.  And to a team that was one year removed from a Cup final appearance.  Can't blame him really.

 

That and everyone losing their shiit about a 55 point guy getting 7 mill per year and then fine with a 65 point guy getting 9.5 mill per year just doesn't seem right.

 

But whatever I guess it's the grass is always greener type around here.

 

I'm sure someone will chime with an excuse for Stone in 3, 2, 1...

[vis]

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

Signed a multiple time 30-goal scorer that was widely regarded as the best UFA available after Tavares?

 

What do I win?

Didn't they go into the season with a ton of cap room?  I think that irked the upper management folks.  

[brelic]

4 hours ago, King Knut said:

Is the crappy house really his responsibility in that time?

 

Yes it is. Ultimately, during the 4.5 years he was at the helm, the buck stopped with him.

 

A new GM could have gone in myriad different directions with the franchise over those 4.5 years. I happened to like the way Hextall approached it - but that was one of many possibilities. Another GM might have chosen to tank (Shanahan), or reload on the fly, or trade the best pieces for valuable futures, and on and on. Hextall chose to rebuild while trying to remain competitive. 

 

At the end of the day, his on-ice product was not good. Again, I was on-board with the direction but BARELY watched the Flyers because they were not enjoyable. I found other things to do with my time. I knew it was a multi-year process.

 

But it's not my dollars and it's not my franchise.

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

 

So you were on board with the strategy, but you're criticizing it anyway because the product wasn't enjoyable in the time that the strategy you admit to being on board with required the product on the ice to be less enjoyable?

 

(sigh)

 

I have a feeling it would have been even less enjoyable without the sellable pieces.  But that's just me.  

 

 

[King Knut]

22 minutes ago, vis said:

Didn't they go into the season with a ton of cap room?  I think that irked the upper management folks.  

 

I think that irked Scott because he's the one who mentioned spending to the cap in the presser.  Even Homer was likely intelligent enough to know that if you spend that cap room last year, you can't spend it THIS year when the better options are available.  Why spend to the cap on inferior players and not be able to afford the good ones the following season?

 

The fact is that Hextall got the 2nd best option two years ago and it was JVR.  I like him better than many here, but let's face it... this year's crop of UFAs was much better.  

 

That was more or less known to be the case for a few years now once you understand when contracts were ending.  Hextall did the right thing in not spending it last year.  Spending it on JVR last year was debatable but only in the sense that he might have been able to get more with it this year.  GOing all in for JVR last year was likely his acquiescence to Scott and Homer. 

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

53 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

That and everyone losing their shiit about a 55 point guy getting 7 mill per year and then fine with a 65 point guy getting 9.5 mill per year just doesn't seem right.

 

But whatever I guess it's the grass is always greener type around here.

 

I'm sure someone will chime with an excuse for Stone in 3, 2, 1...

 

Not an excuse, but a correction: 

Mark Stone's  a 73 point guy.  

Over his career he's almost a point per game player.  

 

The only real knock against him is that he's a wing.

 

The obvious excuse is that he's been playing on pretty much the worse team in hockey for the past few years.  

 

Of course his contract isn't great as it's a year longer than Stones and has a full NMC the whole time. But for 20 points a year more?  

 

Also, bringing him in would have made Jake and JVR much more expendable as they lack NMC/NTC's and their contracts are up sooner.

 

You make a good point... his contract's not very fun.  But all in all, I think I'd rather have him on that contract than Hayes on this one.

 

STILL, even saying that, I LIKE HAYES.  I think he's a good add.  Fills a big hole.  It's just not likely to be a hole for more than a couple of years and if Couturier is still playing anywhere near this level when he's 29, we're could be sacrificing Coots for a 31 year old Hayes, and I'm not feeling that.  But who kniows what happens in three years time.  

 

Of course anything could happen in time.  

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

2 hours ago, radoran said:

 

Signed a multiple time 30-goal scorer that was widely regarded as the best UFA available after Tavares?

 

What do I win?

 

Damn.. how much fun would Tavares had been?  They had the space too.  

It sounded like they did their due diligence and made the call, but Toronto was just a foregone conclusion.