HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

The Flyers Mismanagement of Assets

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2010, 02:46 PM
  #151
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
Without Hartnell, we might have been able to keep Upshall and Knuble
Well, Hartnell brings more than Upshall, and is far younger than Knuble. I would take him over both. Additionally, the reason we couldn't keep Knuble was because Holmgren didn't make his mind up about Randy Jones soon enough. If you decide you're dumping Jones, you can re-sign Knuble and not sign Laperierre.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:47 PM
  #152
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I think the assumption that we would have been able to sign him compensation free is a bit much. Hartnell was a 25 y/o UFA and well liked throughout the league...there was going to be a bidding war. Timonen was the premier defensive UFA that offseason with Markov signing. There was going to be a bidding war. We may have gotten one, but getting both might have been difficult. Once guys got to the open market, it got out of control that summer (reference: Drury, Chris; and Gomez, Scott).
I doubt that many teams would have paid either guy much more than the Flyers ended up giving them. I am certain that their agents would have a good idea of what kind of ballpark they could get and that the Flyers had to be in that ballpark to sign them after acquiring their rights.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:48 PM
  #153
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
Without Hartnell, we might have been able to keep Upshall and Knuble
We could have kept Upshall even with Hartnell. Upshall only makes $1.5 million. Its next year we might have lost him.

In a cap league, guys like Upshall on smaller contracts that probably will never break the bank and can be moved around your lineup are important in my opinion.

mikedifr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:49 PM
  #154
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, Hartnell brings more than Upshall, and is far younger than Knuble. I would take him over both. Additionally, the reason we couldn't keep Knuble was because Holmgren didn't make his mind up about Randy Jones soon enough. If you decide you're dumping Jones, you can re-sign Knuble and not sign Laperierre.
True. I love Laperierre and what he brings to the team, but I rather have kept Knuble to be honest. Asham could fill Lappy's role on the ice and Knuble fills the leadership in the locker room.

mikedifr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:50 PM
  #155
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
I doubt that many teams would have paid either guy much more than the Flyers ended up giving them. I am certain that their agents would have a good idea of what kind of ballpark they could get and that the Flyers had to be in that ballpark to sign them after acquiring their rights.
Right, but you're assuming that at the same contract amount with offers from multiple teams at that amount...the players still choose to sign with the worst team in the league.

Hell, as much as the Briere contract irks me, I doubt he signs with us if the Timonen/Hartnell thing didn't go down first.

Holmgren stemmed that scenario off by getting 'em under contract before anyone else could talk to 'em.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:51 PM
  #156
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,946
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
You clearly underestimate the lure of millions and millions of dollars and the chance to come to a team that historically would spend any amount to win to two guys who had been stuck playing in Nashville, with a penny pinching owner and poor corporate support.
There are plenty of teams that like to spend money; some do it more successfully than the Flyers.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:51 PM
  #157
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, Hartnell brings more than Upshall, and is far younger than Knuble. I would take him over both. Additionally, the reason we couldn't keep Knuble was because Holmgren didn't make his mind up about Randy Jones soon enough. If you decide you're dumping Jones, you can re-sign Knuble and not sign Laperierre.
They tried to keep Knuble. He termed the offer insulting.

I truly believe they felt Jones would make the team, and that his hip was hurting his play to the point where he simply wasn't one of the 7 best defensemen on the roster.

Pointing out that lacking Hartnell might have meant a shutout in the WC is really just being nitpicky, though. Upshall has put up very good numbers in a top 6 role for Phoenix, and it's likely he'd be in the Flyers top 6 had he stayed.

We're kind of both straying from the topic though. If other teams were bidding for Hartnell and Timonen's exclusive negotiating rights, then dealing the pick was prudent. If there were no other teams trying to deal for their rights, it was a bad management of assets.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:54 PM
  #158
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Right, but you're assuming that at the same contract amount with offers from multiple teams at that amount...the players still choose to sign with the worst team in the league.

Hell, as much as the Briere contract irks me, I doubt he signs with us if the Timonen/Hartnell thing didn't go down first.

Holmgren stemmed that scenario off by getting 'em under contract before anyone else could talk to 'em.
If you really believe that the agents for both players hadn't discussed their worth with other teams, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Seriously, how many FA's did Tampa Bay attract coming off their last place finish? They added a ton of guys-the Flyers had the cap room to outspend just about everyone else in the league, to boot.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:55 PM
  #159
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
I didn't talk about it as one trade. I explicitly said the Flyers first traded Forsberg for Parent, Upshall and two picks. Then the Flyers flipped the pick back for Hartnell and Timonen.
The post I quoted said he traded a player who wasn't coming back for four players and a pick which is untrue. He traded Forsberg for a roster player, a prospect, and 2 picks. Yes, the pick was ultimatelty flipped for the rights to Hartnell and Timonen, but at that point it didn't matter where the pick came from. It was a Flyers asset acquired in a separate. It's like saying we got Pronger for Pitkanen+ because Pitkanen netted us Lupul and then Lupul netted us Pronger. It doesn't work that way in reality.

I do agree with your point that they were fine trades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Trading the pick for the rights to negotiate with Hartnell and Timonen gave the Flyers a chance to convince two (likely to be sought after) players to sign with a team that just had its worst season in franchise history.

On July 1st, there probably wouldn't have been many players knocking on the door to play for a team that just turned in a 56 point season. Briere was wooed to come to Philly by Biron. What would have lured Hartnell and Timonen to Philly on July 1st?
Well maybe I am naive but I don't think the Flyers would've had trouble signing talent because their season in the basement was an unexpected aberration, IMO. Although in this case it's possible one or both of them wouldn't have been available in free agency since Edmonton was trying to work something out with Nashville.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 02:57 PM
  #160
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
There are plenty of teams that like to spend money; some do it more successfully than the Flyers.
There are few teams that spend the amounts the Flyers historically have and matched their success, both before and after the lockout.

The Flyers were consistently among the top teams in terms of payroll, with the Red Wings and the Rangers prior to the lockout and birth of the cap. They certainly had more sustained success than the Rangers.

The Flyers willingness to do what it takes to try and win every year is an attractive quality to most free agents.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 03:00 PM
  #161
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,946
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
The post I quoted said he traded a player who wasn't coming back for four players and a pick which is untrue. He traded Forsberg for a roster player, a prospect, and 2 picks. Yes, the pick was ultimatelty flipped for the rights to Hartnell and Timonen, but at that point it didn't matter where the pick came from. It was a Flyers asset acquired in a separate. It's like saying we got Pronger for Pitkanen+ because Pitkanen netted us Lupul and then Lupul netted us Pronger. It doesn't work that way in reality.

I do agree with your point that they were fine trades.
I was thinking in terms of a balancesheet; at the end of the day the Flyers moved one asset and received several others. It's pretty cut and dry in this case because no other assets were involved, like your Pronger/Pitkanen example.

Edit: in this case, I think it also did matter where the pick came from; the Preds were eager to reacquire their pick and, since they would have known that Forsberg wasn't coming back at that point, they were also looking for compensation for two guys they also knew weren't going to return to Nashville.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 03:04 PM
  #162
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
They tried to keep Knuble. He termed the offer insulting.
Cuz we didn't have the cap space to make a real offer...because we were going to be paying Jones' stupid contract.

Quote:
I truly believe they felt Jones would make the team, and that his hip was hurting his play to the point where he simply wasn't one of the 7 best defensemen on the roster.
By the time we got to training camp...someone was going to have to get traded or demoted to be cap compliant, and Jones' albatross of a contract was the one that made the most sense...and it had been that way prior to ever setting foot on training camp ice. If they'd figured that out in July, Knuble would have been able to receive a better offer.

Quote:
Pointing out that lacking Hartnell might have meant a shutout in the WC is really just being nitpicky, though. Upshall has put up very good numbers in a top 6 role for Phoenix, and it's likely he'd be in the Flyers top 6 had he stayed.
Upshall doesn't bring the stuff around the net to the game. Hartnell needs to learn to rain it in, but most players in the NHL don't really revel in being an ass to the goalie the way Hartnell does. And it matters.

Quote:
We're kind of both straying from the topic though. If other teams were bidding for Hartnell and Timonen's exclusive negotiating rights, then dealing the pick was prudent. If there were no other teams trying to deal for their rights, it was a bad management of assets.
Specious argument. If that's what it took to get them to let us negotiate (and, seriously, the bottom of the 1st round isn't THAT valuable), then it's worth it to avoid potentially losing those two players. Both player was worth significantly more than a 1st round pick on their individual talent...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
If you really believe that the agents for both players hadn't discussed their worth with other teams, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
If you really believe that conversations had without an actual contract offer are of great worth, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Agents and teams have a rather large incentive to posture the living hell out of everything up until the moment they're printing a contract. There's a reason why both player signed when they did...they got a number they liked and it was guaranteed. Go to the open market and that offer might vanish, and who knows what happens.

Quote:
Seriously, how many FA's did Tampa Bay attract coming off their last place finish? They added a ton of guys-the Flyers had the cap room to outspend just about everyone else in the league, to boot.
Please, lets run through the list and compare 'em to Timonen, Hartnell, and Briere. And for all the hub bub about us spending money, the Rangers demolished us on the spending front that offseason.

That team is and has been a complete mess in what they're doing.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 03:23 PM
  #163
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
We're kind of both straying from the topic though. If other teams were bidding for Hartnell and Timonen's exclusive negotiating rights, then dealing the pick was prudent. If there were no other teams trying to deal for their rights, it was a bad management of assets.
As I mentioned there was another team looking for at least one of them. Lowe confirmed that Edmonton had attempted to make a deal with Nashville during his press conference of desperation before the draft that year. One of the reporters asked if he would consider pulling off a deal like Holmgren did for those two, and he mentioned that he actually attempted to work something out with Nashville. I got the sense he only had an offer for one, but Edmonton needed both. There was a lot of talk about them having interest in Hartnell because they saw him as a Smyth replacement, but they also desperately needed a Timonen as a Pronger replacement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
I was thinking in terms of a balancesheet; at the end of the day the Flyers moved one asset and received several others. It's pretty cut and dry in this case because no other assets were involved, like your Pronger/Pitkanen example.

Edit: in this case, I think it also did matter where the pick came from; the Preds were eager to reacquire their pick and, since they would have known that Forsberg wasn't coming back at that point, they were also looking for compensation for two guys they also knew weren't going to return to Nashville.
No other assets were involved, but like I said when the pick was moved for Timo and Hartnell ir was a Flyers asset being moved in a separate transaction.

I don't think the Preds wanted that pick specifically because it was theirs, but I think they were eager to get a first round pick back. If Edmonton offered them a first that was higher than I'd imagine they would have made a deal with them instead.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 03:27 PM
  #164
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
I don't think the Preds wanted that pick specifically because it was theirs, but I think they were eager to get a first round pick back. If Edmonton offered them a first that was higher than I'd imagine they would have made a deal with them instead.
This can't be stressed enough...that pick was what, like 27th overall? The expected value of that pick isn't all that much at all. Would it have been a decent prospect? Absolutely, but what you expect to get from it is nowhere near what we've gotten from Timonen and Hartnell.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 04:33 PM
  #165
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,429
vCash: 5700
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
How is that not a fantastic trade? Forsberg didn't want to be part of a rebuilding process, as looked to be the case following the 06/07 season, and everyone the Flyers acquired were significant reasons for the team's success in the 07/08 season.
That's incorrect. He wouldn't commit to a contract for 2007-08. That's why he didn't stick around. The Flyers treatment of the situation is a big reason why didn't come back.

And one thing that smarted him is that he probably would have been better off if he stayed in Colorado (although they couldn't afford him). Colorado made it to the 2nd round in 2006 whereas we went out in round 1. When he chose Colorado over us in 2008, we made it further than them. Also, Nashville losing in the 1st round in 2007, a tremendous disappointment to him and the franchise itself. I'm sure the fact that hasn't been able to determine the perfect situation for him in the league (that damn insightful inner circle he has back in Sweden hasn't been that insightful) has been a big personal disappointment as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
There are few teams that spend the amounts the Flyers historically have and matched their success, both before and after the lockout.

The Flyers were consistently among the top teams in terms of payroll, with the Red Wings and the Rangers prior to the lockout and birth of the cap. They certainly had more sustained success than the Rangers.

The Flyers willingness to do what it takes to try and win every year is an attractive quality to most free agents.

There's no shortage of willingness and desire of individual franchises. The Flyers are just as committed as a number of other teams. I think that we're a real hockey town that's not in Canada is a bigger deal than our desire to win. For all the **** Briere gets around here, I'm sure he thinks it's nothing compared to what it would be in Montreal -- and that's why he's here and not there.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 06:17 PM
  #166
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,946
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
That's incorrect. He wouldn't commit to a contract for 2007-08. That's why he didn't stick around. The Flyers treatment of the situation is a big reason why didn't come back.
You're right; I looked back at some at some articles around the time of the trade and he was pretty devastated. For some reason, I thought the contract extension talks had stalled because he didn't want to be part of the rebuilding process.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 06:21 PM
  #167
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,429
vCash: 5700
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
You're right; I looked back at some at some articles around the time of the trade and he was pretty devastated. For some reason, I thought the contract extension talks had stalled because he didn't want to be part of the rebuilding process.
Well, most people also saw it unreasonable that the Flyers would be turned around that quickly. They caught a break with Mike Rathje essentially retiring.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 06:58 PM
  #168
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Cuz we didn't have the cap space to make a real offer...because we were going to be paying Jones' stupid contract.



By the time we got to training camp...someone was going to have to get traded or demoted to be cap compliant, and Jones' albatross of a contract was the one that made the most sense...and it had been that way prior to ever setting foot on training camp ice. If they'd figured that out in July, Knuble would have been able to receive a better offer.



Upshall doesn't bring the stuff around the net to the game. Hartnell needs to learn to rain it in, but most players in the NHL don't really revel in being an ass to the goalie the way Hartnell does. And it matters.



Specious argument. If that's what it took to get them to let us negotiate (and, seriously, the bottom of the 1st round isn't THAT valuable), then it's worth it to avoid potentially losing those two players. Both player was worth significantly more than a 1st round pick on their individual talent...



If you really believe that conversations had without an actual contract offer are of great worth, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Agents and teams have a rather large incentive to posture the living hell out of everything up until the moment they're printing a contract. There's a reason why both player signed when they did...they got a number they liked and it was guaranteed. Go to the open market and that offer might vanish, and who knows what happens.



Please, lets run through the list and compare 'em to Timonen, Hartnell, and Briere. And for all the hub bub about us spending money, the Rangers demolished us on the spending front that offseason.

That team is and has been a complete mess in what they're doing.
Just a couple points to avoid dragging this out further.

If you put any team next to the Rangers, that team would look smart in how they spent their money.

I value a 1st round draft choice. I'd value a second or third in the June draft. They lost the 27th pick in one draft and could have had a top goalie prospect-Markstrom, Allen or McCollum all were on the board when the pick they traded for Eminger came up-or a good young defenseman, like Carlson, who Washington took with that pick.

I just think that the Flyers are far to cavalier when they start tossing draft picks into trades. At least Clarke usually stockpiled picks.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 08:00 PM
  #169
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,429
vCash: 5700
Clarke did a good job for the most part with moving draft picks around. At least when he traded 2 2nd rounders for Gauthier, it's because we had a total of 5 2nds. He also didn't like hanging around for the end of the draft, he always traded late round picks for picks the next year, and steadily moved them up year after year.

Holmgren doesn't care because he feels that he can find college free agents. Say what you want about Jones, Meyer, Powe, even Munroe or Guenin, they have better careers ahead of them as opposed to some of our draft picks.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 08:17 PM
  #170
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Trading the pick for the rights to negotiate with Hartnell and Timonen gave the Flyers a chance to convince two (likely to be sought after) players to sign with a team that just had its worst season in franchise history.

On July 1st, there probably wouldn't have been many players knocking on the door to play for a team that just turned in a 56 point season. Briere was wooed to come to Philly by Biron. What would have lured Hartnell and Timonen to Philly on July 1st?
Money. The Flyers had an absurd amount of money under the cap after the season from hell. Even if Holmgren hadn't made the deal for Hartnell and Timonen, there was tons of money in Philadelphia and every agent knew that. Agents were lining players up left, right and center to get into Philadelphia because of the money and the fact that it really wasn't going to take long to rebuild what was left after the 06-07 season. Fact is, there was a solid goaltender in place, there were some good defensemen left within the organization, and there was an embarrassment of good forwards up front. It just made sense that things were going to turn around.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2010, 11:09 PM
  #171
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,043
vCash: 500
The worst-to-first mentality was the first giant leap into the present cap pit. I'm of two minds in writing this, as I did enjoy the top-4 finish in the playoffs two years ago, but the franchise is paying (so to speak) heavily and will be saddled with little maneuverability for the next couple of years.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 12:19 AM
  #172
sobrien
RAFFLCOPTER
 
sobrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Jersey/Memphis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Well, most people also saw it unreasonable that the Flyers would be turned around that quickly. They caught a break with Mike Rathje essentially retiring.
we're still paying him.

sobrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 10:48 AM
  #173
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
Just a couple points to avoid dragging this out further.

If you put any team next to the Rangers, that team would look smart in how they spent their money.
So...? They had money to spend and they do, in fact, land free agents with frequency. If Timonen hits the market you really think they aren't throwing stupid money at him? Look at what they gave Redden.

Quote:
I value a 1st round draft choice. I'd value a second or third in the June draft. They lost the 27th pick in one draft and could have had a top goalie prospect-Markstrom, Allen or McCollum all were on the board when the pick they traded for Eminger came up-or a good young defenseman, like Carlson, who Washington took with that pick.
I value 1st round picks (all picks), too. But even if you value 'em you have to understand what the expected returns are on those players so that you can evaluate them in deals. The Eminger deal was effing stupid...the Hartnell/Timonen deal wasn't. The value we got back was exceptionally higher in the latter.

Quote:
I just think that the Flyers are far to cavalier when they start tossing draft picks into trades. At least Clarke usually stockpiled picks.
They are...but a bottom of the 1st rd pick (when you already have another 1st rounder) to secure a 25 y/o top 6 winger and a top pairing defenseman isn't that much to give. You want to have a constant supply of prospects in the system, but prospects are just that: prospects, not NHL players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
The worst-to-first mentality was the first giant leap into the present cap pit. I'm of two minds in writing this, as I did enjoy the top-4 finish in the playoffs two years ago, but the franchise is paying (so to speak) heavily and will be saddled with little maneuverability for the next couple of years.
At the time it was fine...the problem is that since then they haven't smartly dealt with the constraints they're living under.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 12:22 PM
  #174
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
At the time it was fine...the problem is that since then they haven't smartly dealt with the constraints they're living under.
IMHO, Jester, I'd stop short of calling the move fine because several subsequent moves – reupping Richards long-term for one – were unavoidable, and because of the existing contracts on the books. Landing Brière, Timonen and Hartnell to big, long contracts necessitated a concerted effort to balance out the salary balance and nothing of the sort came about.

I'm not laying the entirety of the Flyers' cap woes on these moves; thus my use of "first" in my original post. Holmgren's fumbled juggling in several personnel decisions since then, to me, are cases of making a precarious position even worse.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2010, 12:36 PM
  #175
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
IMHO, Jester, I'd stop short of calling the move fine because several subsequent moves – reupping Richards long-term for one – were unavoidable, and because of the existing contracts on the books. Landing Brière, Timonen and Hartnell to big, long contracts necessitated a concerted effort to balance out the salary balance and nothing of the sort came about.

I'm not laying the entirety of the Flyers' cap woes on these moves; thus my use of "first" in my original post. Holmgren's fumbled juggling in several personnel decisions since then, to me, are cases of making a precarious position even worse.
Right, but those moves didn't problematize signing Richards, Carter, etc. Those guys are signed. The deals that have caused problems are the Jones contracts...and for all that Matt Carle has shown improvements this year, his contract is a bit rich.

So, when they originally made those moves...they were fine within the context of when they happened--this is when hindsight analysis can get dangerous. The problems developed when they didn't react to the new situation they had created with those contracts in subsequent decisions.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.