The Flyers Mismanagement of Assets
View Single Post
01-07-2010, 01:08 PM
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Originally Posted by
It's been said many times on this board, but Upshall was not going to resign with Philly. If he wanted to, he could have in the offseason I'm sure. But he didn't. A 2nd round pick in 2011 is not going to help this team win probably until about 2014, at the earliest. Carcillo is a player that is helping this team win NOW. What is so hard to understand about that? If the Flyers were a team in a rebuilding mode, I would agree, this would be a terrible trade. But, guess what, the Flyers are a team on the brink of winning it all, so 2011 second round picks are not as valuable as a player that is NHL ready right now. And I know Upshall is obviously a better offensive player than Carcillo, but they are two totally different players in totally different situations, especially considering the Salary Cap.
...Scottie Upshall was a RFA. That means there was no way we would lose his rights without getting something back for him (unless we went to arbitration and walked away). So, no matter what, we could get something back for Upshall. An asset...in a thread about asset management.
Scottie Upshall + 2nd rd pick >>>> Carcillo.
And that isn't to suggest Carcillo is not and has not done some good things for this team. I'm not a fan of him, but it isn't like he's Riley Cote either.
The problem with your rebuttal to my argument is that what I'm specifically stating is that we could have gotten back BETTER than Carcillo over the summer, and that theoretical player might be helping this team now. Or we would have had Carcillo's cap money to sign someone else that would be helping the team right now. There are a plethora of asset management decisions that would have been BETTER than trading Upshall + 2nd for Carcillo. It was an absolutely atrocious deal on value, and that's
poor asset management.
But, hey, any time you can give a guy capable of playing on the 2nd line AND a 2nd rd pick for a 4th liner, you gotta do it.
And you bring up the cap at the end. The ONLY justification for that deal was to address salary cap problems the team had last year (notice how poor cap management leads to necessarily poor asset management to deal with it). And it would be great if it had done that, and it would also explain why we got F'd in the deal. However, the trade failed to do that. We still didn't have the cap space at the end of the year, and we had to rely on ATOs to fill in for people because we couldn't call anyone up from the AHL to play.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Jester