HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Matt Ford acquired from Washington in trade for Kevin Marshall

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2012, 09:37 PM
  #51
Go For It
Registered User
 
Go For It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
What was the bet? I forgot.

Either way, this trade doesn't make any sense.

They must really love Lauridsen and Manning...

(Also you can't win bets when Holmgren does something stupid. Even I can't predict that.)
Are you really arguing that this was a stupid trade?

Go For It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:44 PM
  #52
RJ8812
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
What was the bet? I forgot.

Either way, this trade doesn't make any sense.

They must really love Lauridsen and Manning...

(Also you can't win bets when Holmgren does something stupid. Even I can't predict that.)
you had Marshall penciled in as the Flyers 6th defenseman next season. I told you that he will never be an NHL regular. We continued discussing it and I said that I was willing to put my account at HFBoards on the line that Marshall will not crack the Flyers top 6 as an NHL regular for the majority of the season next year.

you turned me down

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:44 PM
  #53
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go For It View Post
Are you really arguing that this was a stupid trade?
The player we traded was younger, had more potential, had a better juniors/(college) career, and had actual NHL experience.

Yes...?

Were we freeing up contract space? We could have done that quite a few other ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
you had Marshall penciled in as the Flyers 6th defenseman next season. I told you that he will never be an NHL regular. We continued discussing it and I said that I was willing to put my account at HFBoards on the line that Marshall will not crack the Flyers top 6 as an NHL regular for the majority of the season next year.

you turned me down
Potential trade and the amount at stake was probably why.

Marshall cracked the top 6 this year. He was certainly better than Walker, Lilja, and Bartulis. Still, Gustafsson came back.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:47 PM
  #54
Go For It
Registered User
 
Go For It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The player we traded was younger, had more potential, had a better juniors/(college) career, and had actual NHL experience.

Yes...?

Were we freeing up contract space? We could have done that quite a few other ways.
The potential is where we disagree. I don't see Marshall being more than an AHL vet due to his size.

As for freeing up contract space...better this way than "gauging interest."

Go For It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:49 PM
  #55
flountown
Registered User
 
flountown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The player we traded was younger, had more potential, had a better juniors/(college) career, and had actual NHL experience.

Yes...?

Were we freeing up contract space? We could have done that quite a few other ways.
But we also traded away a player that the organization determined to have less potential than our other defensive prospects, for a guy who can help the AHL team score. It frees up some depth positions at defense to get some guys more playing time, and helps the AHL team score more goals so that said prospects can hopefully play deeper into the season.

Not every trade has to make sense on an NHL potential level when talking about players who may never see real time at that level.

flountown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:50 PM
  #56
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go For It View Post
The potential is where we disagree. I don't see Marshall being more than an AHL vet due to his size.

As for freeing up contract space...better this way than "gauging interest."
I agree in theory. I think he works as a 6, however I think what holds him back is more his play with the puck than his size.

AHL isn't that much smaller than the NHL, and he bodies players very well down in the minors.

As for the gauging interest crack...I agree. But both moves explain very little. Giving up bodies for nothing pretty much. (Giving people a chance to play elsewhere?)


Quote:
Originally Posted by flountown View Post
But we also traded away a player that the organization determined to have less potential than our other defensive prospects, for a guy who can help the AHL team score. It frees up some depth positions at defense to get some guys more playing time, and helps the AHL team score more goals so that said prospects can hopefully play deeper into the season.

Not every trade has to make sense on an NHL potential level when talking about players who may never see real time at that level.
Possibly Holmgren sees more potential in guys like Lauridsen, Kessel, and Manning, but I don't really see any reason to jump the gun on this trade. Those are all arguable in terms of potential.


Last edited by CS: 02-02-2012 at 09:57 PM.
CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 09:58 PM
  #57
haleks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I agree in theory. I think he works as a 6, however I think what holds him back is more his play with the puck than his size.

AHL isn't that much smaller than the NHL, and he bodies players very well down in the minors.

As for the gauging interest crack...I agree. But both moves explain very little. Giving up bodies for nothing pretty much.




Possibly Holmgren sees more potential in guys like Lauridsen, Kessel, and Manning, but I don't really see any reason to jump the gun on this trade. Those are all arguable in terms of potential.
It's clearly a contract dump (next year) and to help the Phantom this year.

I think Homer should have hold on to Marshall and use him in a package to get a top 4 D for the playoffs run.

haleks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:04 PM
  #58
RJ8812
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The player we traded was younger, had more potential, had a better juniors/(college) career, and had actual NHL experience.

Yes...?

Were we freeing up contract space? We could have done that quite a few other ways.



Potential trade and the amount at stake was probably why.

Marshall cracked the top 6 this year. He was certainly better than Walker, Lilja, and Bartulis. Still, Gustafsson came back.
he was in the line-up because we had so many injuries and didn't have to pass through waivers

regardless, after he played 10 less than stellar games, you already had him penciled in as the 6th defenseman (paired up with MAB which is another questionable thing) next year.

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:08 PM
  #59
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
he was in the line-up because we had so many injuries and didn't have to pass through waivers

regardless, after he played 10 less than stellar games, you already had him penciled in as the 6th defenseman (paired up with MAB which is another questionable thing) next year.
I considered it a possibility. I believe I said it was something I wanted to see.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:08 PM
  #60
flountown
Registered User
 
flountown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post


Possibly Holmgren sees more potential in guys like Lauridsen, Kessel, and Manning, but I don't really see any reason to jump the gun on this trade. Those are all arguable in terms of potential.
When it comes to Manning, I went to the season ticket holder Q&A and he said that while a few years away from the NHL, he thinks Brandon Manning is the highest potential prospect that the Flyers currently have in the system.

flountown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:12 PM
  #61
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flountown View Post
When it comes to Manning, I went to the season ticket holder Q&A and he said that while a few years away from the NHL, he thinks Brandon Manning is the highest potential prospect that the Flyers currently have in the system.
I almost want to agree with him (I'm currently doing the prelim work with the other writers on the top 20 for spring by the way), but there's also some concerns with Manning.

I like Manning though. More than Lauridsen, Kessel, and even Bourdon. Whether that "liking" translates to NHL success is the issue at hand though. He's a two-way guy, but he's not great enough with the puck to be a strong NHL two-way guy. That leaves the physical shut-down guy fall back.

In essence, I don't think he has enough talent to be an all-around go-to guy, and I don't know if he specializes enough to be a consistent role-player.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:28 PM
  #62
WeekendAtBernies
Registered User
 
WeekendAtBernies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Don't worry everyone, Holmgren is just gauging Kevin Marshall's value.

WeekendAtBernies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 10:54 PM
  #63
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 14,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I almost want to agree with him (I'm currently doing the prelim work with the other writers on the top 20 for spring by the way), but there's also some concerns with Manning.

I like Manning though. More than Lauridsen, Kessel, and even Bourdon. Whether that "liking" translates to NHL success is the issue at hand though. He's a two-way guy, but he's not great enough with the puck to be a strong NHL two-way guy. That leaves the physical shut-down guy fall back.

In essence, I don't think he has enough talent to be an all-around go-to guy, and I don't know if he specializes enough to be a consistent role-player.
Just to get this right your talking about almost wanting to agree with Homer here right?

Prongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 11:03 PM
  #64
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan9180 View Post
Just to get this right your talking about almost wanting to agree with Homer here right?
Yes.

I like Manning. He's got the most well-rounded game of any defenseman in our prospect pool.

I have my concerns though, as I pointed out.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 11:08 PM
  #65
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 14,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Yes.

I like Manning. He's got the most well-rounded game of any defenseman in our prospect pool.

I have my concerns though, as I pointed out.
Ahh never mind, sorry bout that I just don't feel like even discussing the matter. The trade is just an AHL move in my books. Keep up your good work and i'l be looking forward to how you rank the Flyers prospects in your upcoming spring release.

Prongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2012, 11:15 PM
  #66
BillDineen
Registered User
 
BillDineen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
Even though I doubt this will come back to haunt us, it seems a little strange to me. Even if Marshall likely never will amount to anything special at the NHL level, he's still fairly young. This time last year, it appeared that Bourdon was busting. I'd rather hold on to Marshall a little longer than getting a career AHL forward in return.
Exactly was I was going to post vis-a-vis Bourdon last year.

BillDineen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 12:53 AM
  #67
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 4,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rj8812 View Post
he was in the line-up because we had so many injuries and didn't have to pass through waivers

regardless, after he played 10 less than stellar games, you already had him penciled in as the 6th defenseman (paired up with mab which is another questionable thing) next year.

jhc!

Hockeypete49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 01:58 AM
  #68
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,551
vCash: 50
Marshall had fallen in the depth chart hadnt he? If hes being passed by Blake Kessel whos defense still needs work then its time to move on. I had hopes for the kid when he was drafted but now it appears it was more wasted picks moving up to get him.
As far as Matt Ford goes, I hope he enjoys the next 35 games or whatever in Adirondack, hes likely looking for work eslewhere. Unless they keep him for his veteran experience. Which I dount happens IMO

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 09:52 AM
  #69
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,333
vCash: 500
The guy on Poststar.com said it was mainly to free up playing time for the kids on the Phantoms, and to add some needed scoring from the wings.

Also, beside the glut of D already with the Phantoms, the Flyers are going to add at least one more veteran Dman, possibly two depending how big their contracts are.

Gus and/or Bourdon are going down after the trade deadline.

Marshall was 9th or 10th on the depth chart before any deadline acquisitions and clearly not in the team's plans, and if we need vet depth because of a rash of injuries in the playoffs, Walker, Bartulis, Kessel etc. are capable of being called up.

Homer gauged his value and found out it was....nada.

Timonen-Coburn
Carle-NEW D
Lilja-Meszaros
Gustafsson-Bourdon
2nd NEW D?
Bartulis-Walker
Marshall......

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 10:00 AM
  #70
RJ8812
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
I considered it a possibility. I believe I said it was something I wanted to see.
if it's something you actually "wanted to see" then add me to the list of people here that question your hockey smarts/knowledge

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 10:01 AM
  #71
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
if it's something you actually "wanted to see" then add me to the list of people here that question your hockey smarts/knowledge
Nobody is forcing you to be here.

Bourdon-Marshall was a pairing I wanted to see in the NHL the minute the entered the AHL together. Physical offensive defenseman and former QMJHL defenseman of the year paired with a physical shut-down defenseman and former captain.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 10:08 AM
  #72
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Timonen-Coburn
Carle-NEW D
Lilja-Meszaros
Gustafsson-Bourdon
2nd NEW D?
Bartulis-Walker
Marshall......
?

What are you ranking with that?

(Pronger)
Timonen
Coburn/Meszaros/Carle (seems to rotate)
---
Bourdon/Gustafsson
Lilja
Marshall (traded for nothing)
Walker
Bartulis

That's how I see it right now. Lilja might even be below Marshall in my opinion, but we forced our hand giving him a 35+ contract.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 10:31 AM
  #73
RJ8812
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Nobody is forcing you to be here.

Bourdon-Marshall was a pairing I wanted to see in the NHL the minute the entered the AHL together. Physical offensive defenseman and former QMJHL defenseman of the year paired with a physical shut-down defenseman and former captain.
Junior success =/= NHL success

3 years ago when both of these players had potential to be top 4 defenseman, it would have been nice to see. but you have to open your eyes now and realize that they won't be living up to that potential

Bourdon at least looks like he has a future in the NHL. He looks like he can turn into a nice bottom pairing defenseman, which is great. Marashall on the other hand looked terrible with limited ice-time in the 10 games he played here.

I just question your logic as to why you would still think Marshall and MAB as the 3rd pair would look good next season. A sophmore 6th defenseman paired up with a emergency call-up who looked bad in his short NHL stint?

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 10:54 AM
  #74
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
Junior success =/= NHL success

3 years ago when both of these players had potential to be top 4 defenseman, it would have been nice to see. but you have to open your eyes now and realize that they won't be living up to that potential

Bourdon at least looks like he has a future in the NHL. He looks like he can turn into a nice bottom pairing defenseman, which is great. Marashall on the other hand looked terrible with limited ice-time in the 10 games he played here.

I just question your logic as to why you would still think Marshall and MAB as the 3rd pair would look good next season. A sophmore 6th defenseman paired up with a emergency call-up who looked bad in his short NHL stint?
If Marshall sucks so much and has zero future, why would Washington want him?

And why are you imagining that he looked bad during his short NHL stint?

He didn't look great and he didn't look better than Bourdon, but he was certainly decent to expect something in the future and he was certainly better than Walker, Lilja, and Bartulis.

You made a bet in the spirit that Marshall would never be a decent NHLer. What makes you think that he won't? I could tell you what he has to overcome to become a consistent NHLer still, but you probably couldn't. You're too focused on some petty nonsense that doesn't even really matter.

If this is all some quest where you can prove you could do my job better than me, I don't really care, but you might want to start by getting things right instead of skewing reality and over-exaggerating situations.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2012, 11:05 AM
  #75
Go For It
Registered User
 
Go For It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
If Marshall sucks so much and has zero future, why would Washington want him?

And why are you imagining that he looked bad during his short NHL stint?

He didn't look great and he didn't look better than Bourdon, but he was certainly decent to expect something in the future and he was certainly better than Walker, Lilja, and Bartulis.

You made a bet in the spirit that Marshall would never be a decent NHLer. What makes you think that he won't? I could tell you what he has to overcome to become a consistent NHLer still, but you probably couldn't. You're too focused on some petty nonsense that doesn't even really matter.

If this is all some quest where you can prove you could do my job better than me, I don't really care, but you might want to start by getting things right instead of skewing reality and over-exaggerating situations.
Washington wanted him because they had the same problem in Hershey that we did in Adirondack. They had a glut at one position (forwards) and a lack of depth at another (defense).

As for as rankings go:

(Pronger)
Timonen
------
Coburn
Carle
Meszaros (These 3 can rotate on any given night, but over the season, I feel that this is the order.)
-------
Gus/Bourdon
Lilja
Bartulis
Walker
Marshall

Go For It 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 01:30 AM.

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.