Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 322

Thread: Offseason

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace23 View Post
    Well, having a good 2C would likely help.
    I think, if we're ignoring the trade market, the most impactful move the flyers could make this offseason is obviously Panarin. It's essentially adding a #1 center.


    This is accomplished by sliding G back to the middle, and replacing his abilty and production with Panarin. If you cant Panarin I'm not sure who I like the most between
    Skinner
    Duchene
    Hayes
    Pavelski


    The answer might be Pavelski. Pending term. Also a perfect, no chance at long term albatross. Doesnt block patrick from moving up the depth chart if needed based on development. It doesnt keep Frost/Rubtsov from the middle if they develop into must play top 6 centers.

    Think Pavelski might be my next guy.

    Thoughts?

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    7,605
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    I think, if we're ignoring the trade market, the most impactful move the flyers could make this offseason is obviously Panarin. It's essentially adding a #1 center.


    This is accomplished by sliding G back to the middle, and replacing his abilty and production with Panarin. If you cant Panarin I'm not sure who I like the most between
    Skinner
    Duchene
    Hayes
    Pavelski


    The answer might be Pavelski. Pending term. Also a perfect, no chance at long term albatross. Doesnt block patrick from moving up the depth chart if needed based on development. It doesnt keep Frost/Rubtsov from the middle if they develop into must play top 6 centers.

    Think Pavelski might be my next guy.

    Thoughts?
    Panarin is going to want 6 - 7 years at 9m and does adding him make us cup favorites ... Gís deal is up at the end of 21/22 season ... then we have an aged Panarin and Voracek until 23/24 and like 24/25 for Panarin ... and only a 2 year cup window ... I donít know if G could be an 82 game Center in 20/21 ... let alone the following year.

    We have plenty of wing options coming and available - through trades and following crops of FA - we wasted G and Voracekís best years. We cannot waste Couturierís best years without another center to go 1-2 with ... maybe god touches Patrick and bam - but right now, doubt it.

    Pavelski would be a good fit here, pending term ... id still prefer the trade or RFA route
    Last edited by castan_b; 04-14-2019 at 09:58 PM.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    7,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace23 View Post
    Well, having a good 2C would likely help.
    Not going down 1-0 or 2-0 in nearly every game would also help; which is where we need the help ... offense. I canít remember the last time we literally just blitzed a club. Came out and scored 3 or 4 in the first period and won like 6 or 7 to 2

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,157
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    I think, if we're ignoring the trade market, the most impactful move the flyers could make this offseason is obviously Panarin. It's essentially adding a #1 center.


    This is accomplished by sliding G back to the middle, and replacing his abilty and production with Panarin. If you cant Panarin I'm not sure who I like the most between
    Skinner
    Duchene
    Hayes
    Pavelski


    The answer might be Pavelski. Pending term. Also a perfect, no chance at long term albatross. Doesnt block patrick from moving up the depth chart if needed based on development. It doesnt keep Frost/Rubtsov from the middle if they develop into must play top 6 centers.

    Think Pavelski might be my next guy.

    Thoughts?
    I'm with you. I've been pounding the table for signing Pavelski if he's willing to move east. Talking about adding an elite 2C for the next couple of seasons and sheltering Patrick on the 3rd line with some easier matchups

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,780
    Except, to use your analogy, you don't have the questions or the answers to the test. You don't know what deals were on the table, you don't know what FAs would or would not sign here (and what they wanted to do so), you don't know what the coaching staff asked for, you don't know what the players wanted/ said, you don't know what the scouting department advised.... the list goes on. We know relatively little about what actually was going on that led to the decisions that were made.
    you're the one who's asking the questions. you. they're your questions.
    So you're looking at a bunch of events with the benefit of hindsight and selectively choosing which ones were right and which were wrong. But that's not how the world works. There are many, many shades of grey.
    actually, yes, that is exactly the way that it works. it's why gravity is still a scientific theory, and not a law, right.
    And, many times, there are moves that are right for one team at one time (like stocking prospects) that are diametrically opposed to what's right for that same team some time later (like trading those prospects for an NHL player).
    show me a front office that thinks that way, and i'll show you a GM that will be out of a job within 3 years.


    here's a question you can start with:

    how did CAR go from having 83 points last year to 99 points this year despite losing jeff skinner (26 years old, 40 goals), elias lindholm (24 years old, 78 points), noah hanifin (22 years old, 33 points, +18, 21 MPG) and paying their 2 goalies less than we paid dale weise ?

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,780
    the biggest issue with this organization right now is complacency. i don't understand how anyone can look at the results from this team or the process that led up to those results, and think 'what fletcher needs to do this summer is the same thing that got the last guy fired.'
    1. Find the right coach. We should have the talent to be a playoff team. We have to get away from this notion of the whole "well they are professionals, they are responsible for motivating themselves and starting games at the right level yada, yada, yada".........undeniably our play over the years has become more and more listless. We need a coach who is more of a hard charging taskmaster who will demand execution and a more aggressive style of play. I think changing the coaching message and demands would be the most impact we can make this off season. With that of course the special teams play needs a new and fresh approach. The means, methods and message of a head coach has more impact on creating the right playing atmosphere than we want to truly consider I think just because they are pro athletes. We need a guy with the street creds who's not afraid to come in and make real high end demands on the players.
    maybe it's enough to just change the coach, but i tend to think that it'll take more than a new coach to change the mentality that's festered in our locker room for nearly a decade.

    i don't think this is the right time to trade voracek, but i've been leading that bandwagon for the last few years.

    i do think this is the right time to shop ivan provorov. his trade value should be massive, and in addition to the haul we'd get in return for him, free up those 25 MPG would give sanheim and myers more opportunities to grow into their potential. it would also free up a top 4 D slot that we could use to add a veteran to lead our young D corps by example, which is something that we've desperately needed for a few years, imo.

    my feelings on JVR are probably known, but i don't think his value is high enough to make it worth trading him again so soon after signing him. i might feel differently around next year's trade deadline.

    i wonder what it would take to get william karlsson from VGK.
    5. The other tweak I would want is to inject a little more size down on the bottom 3. I'm not talking about getting plodding and slow.......I'm talking about adding a player with some lbs and a hit first type mentality. That's a minor tweak really but I think something we need in our game. Subtle without effecting the talent on the other lines.
    if you like laughton at 4C, someone like devante smith pelley would work.
    if you like laughton at wing, someone like riley sheahan is worth a premium (imo), or if that doesn't work out, maybe nate thompson.

    i agree with you, btw. it's why i wasn't a fan of bringing back michael raffl.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    I think, if we're ignoring the trade market, the most impactful move the flyers could make this offseason is obviously Panarin. It's essentially adding a #1 center.


    This is accomplished by sliding G back to the middle, and replacing his abilty and production with Panarin. If you cant Panarin I'm not sure who I like the most between
    Skinner
    Duchene
    Hayes
    Pavelski


    The answer might be Pavelski. Pending term. Also a perfect, no chance at long term albatross. Doesnt block patrick from moving up the depth chart if needed based on development. It doesnt keep Frost/Rubtsov from the middle if they develop into must play top 6 centers.

    Think Pavelski might be my next guy.

    Thoughts?
    I think G should be at center only in emergencies. We canít go into the season with him as one of our top two centers. Iíve been on the Hayes train for a while. Obviously the numbers are whatís important. Iíd be in favor of overpaying if it means we can keep it to 2-3 years. We have so much in cap space and will have plenty the following year. Iíd probably stay away from Duchene although his skill set would work well here.

    Panarin would be great but he wonít be here. Heís signing with the panthers or rangers. I know itís in the past, but an oreilly trade would have been great. Iím sure thereís a trade partner out there that could get us a 2C.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,212
    Couple things I'd like to say.

    1. This Giroux must be on the wing thing is frustrating. Yes. He is a really good winger. He is also a really good center. If you want to add a center it should be because you think he improves the team. Not because you want Giroux on the wing. Giroux is a better center than any of the available centers this free agency. Two of the best attributes Giroux has are availability and position flexibility. Use them.

    2. This narrative of only making moves if they catapult the team into contention is some NBA stuff. The league with a really weird cap, and a real large purgatory section. The NHL is not the same. In the NHL crawling before walking and walking before running are legitimate strategies for team building. If you can make a move that can take the team to the next step you should do it. Assuming it doesnt eliminate flexibility moving forward. Considering the Flyers cap situation and prospect pool the likelihood of that is slim.

    If the Flyers wait until a move pops up that can make then "true contenders" there's a legitimate chance they never become contenders again. That move may never exist. In order to become contenders they have to do stuff. Then do more stuff later.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,250
    Quote Originally Posted by steagles View Post
    you're the one who's asking the questions. you. they're your questions.
    No, you're not. Because you don't know what it would've taken to do X or what Y player wanted. So you're not "asking" the questions -- you're looking at random bits of information and trying to draw a logical conclusion from them, which isn't possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by steagles View Post
    actually, yes, that is exactly the way that it works. it's why gravity is still a scientific theory, and not a law, right.
    Before addressing this point, let's clear something up:

    a law is an analytical statement that provides a mathematical representation of *what* will happen in a given circumstance -- i.e. if I drop a ball off of the empire state building, it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 (which is a simplification of the acceleration due to gravity on this planet) until either (a) impacting the ground or (b) reaching terminal velocity. Similarly, laws allow us to calculate things like the velocity at which the ball will be traveling when it impacts the ground, the amount of force with which it will impact the ground, the time it will take to reach the ground, etc. However, despite enabling us to determine all of these "what" statements, a law makes no statements about *why* something happens.

    A theory, on the other hand, explains *why* something happens the way it does. For gravity, we actually use Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to explain *why* gravity exists (something that still isn't reconciled with other fundamental forces).

    So, there is both a law AND a theory of gravity (and actually, there are multiple theories of gravity). So your above statement doesn't make a lot of sense, if taken literally. But I'm going to indulge you and address the point I think you were trying to make.

    You're looking back on a decision & subsequent series of events to make a determination whether the decision was good or bad. You're doing this with the benefit of hindsight, which is what poker players call "resulting" -- and over the long run, that's what makes players lose.

    I'm far more interested in the process that led to those decisions than the decisions themselves. For instance, what were the considerations that went into the move? Why didn't we act on a given trade at a given time? You're looking at a trade another team made and saying, "why didn't we do that?". Well, the reality is that we don't know what else was happening, steagles. Let's use a concrete example to illustrate: the Sabres' trade of Ryan O'Reilly to STL for a package of Tage, a 2019 first and a few bottom-6 roster players.

    Sure, we may believe a comparable package for O'Reilly was Raffl, Weise, Ratcliffe & our 2019 first. But BUF may have wanted Frost, Sanheim & our 2019 first to trade O'Reilly within the conference. The point is, we don't know what deal was on the table or what the ask was from BUF. Is that still a good deal? Would you have made THAT trade?

    Let's fast-forward and imagine that we made made comparable (Ratcliffe, 2019 First, etc.) trade and that our season ended the exact same way. But then let's fast-forward and imagine that Ratcliffe turns into the next coming of Laine - a big, physical scorer with a howitzer of a shot and a great touch around the net. He ends up being a stud 40+ goal scorer. Is that still a good trade?

    Or, let's imagine that Hextall made a CRAZY trade and gives up Sanheim, Frost, our 2019 First and more for O'Reilly. Fast-forward again, and Sanheim has been plagued with concussion issues, Frost has never acclimated to the NHL and the Sabres used our 1st on a Russian who refuses to leave the KHL. Is that now a good trade?

    Moving away from this example (and to another actual example of this in action): Was the Pronger trade a bad decision because he ended up having a career-ending injury? No. It was a good trade that resulted in a bad long-term outcome due to a black swan event (namely, him getting hit in the face with a rogue blocked shot).

    My point is that when you look at trades with the advantage of hindsight, a lot gets lost in translation. So, instead of looking at trades and evaluating them solely based on the result, examine the process that led to the move being made (or not made). And in order to do that, we need all of the information that was available to the decision-makers at that time. Unfortunately, we don't have it.

    Quote Originally Posted by steagles View Post
    show me a front office that thinks that way, and i'll show you a GM that will be out of a job within 3 years.
    Everyone is out of a job eventually, Steagles. That's the way of the world.

    How about Lou in TOR? He spent the better part of 3 years stockpiling young assets; now, the franchise is off-loading some of them (under Lou's hand-picked replacement) to try to win a Cup.

    How about Yzerman in TBL? He spent nearly 6 years accumulating and developing young talent -- and when he had a chance to content, he packaged up some of it for veterans (like McDonough at last year's TDL).

    How about Tallon in CHI? Like the above two, he spent years accumulating young players and building a core; then he went out and made trades (using some of those assets) to supplement that core and build a dynasty.

    How about Rutherford in PIT (though he's mostly just moved assets to bring in veteran players)? Or Doug Wilson in SJS? Or Poile in NSH (he's drafted + developed multiple top-4 defensemen who he's then traded; conversely, he's also packaged a number of veterans for younger players -- like Filip Forsberg). Or Lombardi with LAK?

    Every good GM goes through this cycle of selling off veterans --> stockpiling assets -->forming a young core --> signing FAs/trading away young assets who are not in the core to supplement the team --> contending --> selling off veterans. That's how you build a sustainable winner in today's NHL...

    here's a question you can start with:

    Quote Originally Posted by steagles View Post
    how did CAR go from having 83 points last year to 99 points this year despite losing jeff skinner (26 years old, 40 goals), elias lindholm (24 years old, 78 points), noah hanifin (22 years old, 33 points, +18, 21 MPG) and paying their 2 goalies less than we paid dale weise ?
    Well, they:

    (1) Added a new coach in Rod Brind'Amor who changed the attitude in the room and implemented a team-oriented system designed to play to the roster's strengths (defense + opportunistic offense)

    (2) They added Dougie Hamilton (18G, 21A, 39P in 19+ MPG) - who is better than Hanafin
    (3) They added Ferland (17G, 23A, 40p in 71 games) in the Hanafin/Lindholm trade
    (4) They got breakout seasons from Aho (+18p), Teravainen (+12p)
    (5) They somehow conned Minnesota into trading Niederreiter (30p in 36g) for Viktor Rask (6p in 26g)
    (6) They added another 37 points from 2018 #2 overall pick Andrei Svechnikov

    Also, lest we forget, Jeff Skinner was a 49 point player in the season before he was traded; his career season to that point was 63 points (37G, 26A) in 2016-17. So, CAR didn't trade a 40+ goal scorer; they traded a guy who was good for ~50 points per season.

    The same is true for Lindholm: prior to his trade to CGY, his career high was 45 points (also in 2016-17). So, again, they didn't trade a guy who was a regular 70+ point player -- they traded a guy who was good for 40-45 points.

    Let's summarize:

    Out:
    Hanafin - 33 points
    Lindholm - 45 points
    Skinner - 51 points
    Rask* - 20 points (and declining rapidly - ~9 points in past season)

    In:
    Hamilton - 39 points
    Ferland - 37 points (avg. for past 2 seasons - only ~25 at time of trade)
    Svechnikov - 37 points (rookie #2 overall pick)
    Niederreiter* - 50 points (average)
    +Extra Playing Time for Teravainen + Aho = +25 points (conservatively)

    *mid-season

    So, this is pretty much a wash or a net positive, just looking at existing rate statistics + performance. Add in a new system that everyone buys into (plus eliminating a negative player in Skinner), and there ya go. It isn't difficult.

    Look at the Isles. We all wrote them off for dead. They're now on the verge of sweeping the Penguins.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,780
    \\that right there ^^^ that's awesome.

    look at how many layers you just dove through. one:
    the reality is that we don't know what else was happening, steagles. Let's use a concrete example to illustrate: the Sabres' trade of Ryan O'Reilly to STL for a package of Tage, a 2019 first and a few bottom-6 roster players.

    Sure, we may believe a comparable package for O'Reilly was Raffl, Weise, Ratcliffe & our 2019 first.
    two:
    But BUF may have wanted Frost, Sanheim & our 2019 first to trade O'Reilly within the conference.
    three:
    The point is, we don't know what deal was on the table or what the ask was from BUF. Is that still a good deal?
    four:
    Would you have made THAT trade?
    five:
    Let's fast-forward and imagine that we made made comparable (Ratcliffe, 2019 First, etc.) trade and that our season ended the exact same way.
    six:
    But then let's fast-forward and imagine that Ratcliffe turns into the next coming of Laine - a big, physical scorer with a howitzer of a shot and a great touch around the net. He ends up being a stud 40+ goal scorer. Is that still a good trade?
    seven:
    Or, let's imagine that Hextall made a CRAZY trade and gives up Sanheim, Frost, our 2019 First and more for O'Reilly.
    eight:
    Fast-forward again, and Sanheim has been plagued with concussion issues, Frost has never acclimated to the NHL and the Sabres used our 1st on a Russian who refuses to leave the KHL.
    nine:
    Is that now a good trade?
    what I would recommend now is to go back through those same questions again, but this time instead of asking yourself whether each individual deal is good or bad, ask yourself whether it would be better or worse than each other alternative scenario that you've envisioned. then, you can start drawing a line for yourself to separate what you think would have been good deals from what you think would have been bad deals.


    then, keep going. what about kevin hayes? should we have targeted him at the deadline? what could we have offered that would compare to what NYR wound up getting? would that have been too much to give up considering our situation? what would a good deal for us have looked like? in what ways could we improve that good deal without it crossing "the line"? should we try to sign him this summer? for how many years? at what cap hit?
    How about Rutherford in PIT (though he's mostly just moved assets to bring in veteran players)?
    i think rutherford's first offseason is a good example of why the whole "does this make us a cup contender" line of thinking is insane.

    when he got to PIT, his first move was getting rid of james neal.
    after he did that, he rebuilt PIT's bottom 6 and turned over half of their D corps:
    gone: vitale, glass, jokinen
    in: spaling, comeau, downie

    gone: niskanen, orpik, engellend
    in: ehrhoff...and prospects.

    Moving away from this example (and to another actual example of this in action): Was the Pronger trade a bad decision because he ended up having a career-ending injury? No. It was a good trade that resulted in a bad long-term outcome due to a black swan event (namely, him getting hit in the face with a rogue blocked shot).
    one thing i'll mention about pronger's retirement:
    iirc, one of the reasons why we made the carter and richards trades is because pronger threatened to retire if we did not. for anyone unfamiliar with pronger's contract, doing that would have ****ed us over a barrel.

    obviously, he was hit in the face with that puck, and obviously he had (and still does have) issues resulting from repeated head trauma, however, i think it's reasonable to assume that he was willing to take the opportunity to get out of the NHL when it presented itself.

    btw, that was also the year where pronger did this against TBL's zone, which is as close to a "for who, for what" moment as i've seen in the NHL since martin havlat.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    53,329
    Alain Vigneault. That's who the team settled on.

    Gross.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Alain Vigneault. That's who the team settled on.

    Gross.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    7 1st place finishes in his last 12 years as a coach. 1 2nd and 1 3rd. I'm not sure gross is a really good description on the surface.


    I'm not in love with the hire. I certainly dont hate it.

    It's an upgrade from Gordon imo. I'm a little disappointed they didnt wait on the predators series to see what happens there.

    I'll wait to judge this till I see how he handles this group of guys.


    If you could elaborate on why you dont like the hire I'd love the insight

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    53,329
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    7 1st place finishes in his last 12 years as a coach. 1 2nd and 1 3rd. I'm not sure gross is a really good description on the surface.


    I'm not in love with the hire. I certainly dont hate it.

    It's an upgrade from Gordon imo. I'm a little disappointed they didnt wait on the predators series to see what happens there.

    I'll wait to judge this till I see how he handles this group of guys.


    If you could elaborate on why you dont like the hire I'd love the insight
    Vigneault is famous for burying young players in favor of veterans. This is a bad hire for a team who has tons of young talent.

    It's a gross, retread of a hire. It's incredibly uncreative and doesn't jibe with the roster we currently have. Many of the issues we just got rid of with Dave Hakstol are likely to rear their head again.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 04-15-2019 at 04:05 PM.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,250
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Alain Vigneault. That's who the team settled on.

    Gross.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
    Better than Dan Bylsma. But I don't *hate* it. His system is focused on skating, speed and generating offense through the NZ -- all things that we (a) should be good at doing but (b) don't seem to be able to do with anything resembling consistency.

    Here's a quick review from the blueshirts -- and there is quite a bit to like here.

    Obviously he isn't my ideal pick (I wanted Quenneville or someone else who has his name on the Stanley Cup), but he's not the worst option. They could've done worse.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,250
    Quote Originally Posted by txravis12 View Post
    7 1st place finishes in his last 12 years as a coach. 1 2nd and 1 3rd. I'm not sure gross is a really good description on the surface.


    I'm not in love with the hire. I certainly dont hate it.

    It's an upgrade from Gordon imo. I'm a little disappointed they didnt wait on the predators series to see what happens there.

    I'll wait to judge this till I see how he handles this group of guys.


    If you could elaborate on why you dont like the hire I'd love the insight
    There's no way Lavy gets fired...so who cares? Unless you think Jim Montgomery was on the hot seat?

Page 13 of 22 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •