HFBoards

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

Homer's Odyssey - A True Greek Tragedy

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-11-2011, 12:53 AM
  #51
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatshype View Post
The most interesting thing I've noticed in the OP is the differing opinion regarding Downie and Carcillo. Disregarding the hindsight factor, these players are not as far apart as the OP would suggest. At the time of their drafts, they were regarded very similarly coming into the league. Both were hot-headed middle-weights with good scraps and scoring touches in Junior leagues. Downie, at the time he was traded, was considered every bit the loose-cannon that Carcillo is seen as now. Perhaps even moreso. Clearly Downie has really excelled in Tampa's system, but at the time of the trade he was considered a huge wildcard that had a significant chance to turn into what Carcillo has become.


Not trying to pick fights because I certainly appreciate the OP (and subsequently ignored every other post in this thread), but it's far easier to look at things in hindsight than it is to predict how things can develop in the future.
Ah... Steve Downie put up monster offensive numbers in junior. Carcillo had decent numbers but nowhere near the resume of Downie.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 12:57 AM
  #52
decadentia
Registered User
 
decadentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,547
vCash: 500
Carcillo is crazy enough to be a dumbass, Downie is crazy enough that it scares me. I've never considered Carcillo to have untapped potential for respectful offensive production, I have for Downie (and to an extent hes proved that).

Still miss Downie though.

decadentia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 01:01 AM
  #53
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,657
vCash: 156
My main knock on Downie is that he's downright dangerous/Cookesque at times. Carcillo is just an idiot.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 12:52 PM
  #54
Terence Peterman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
My main knock on Downie is that he's downright dangerous/Cookesque at times. Carcillo is just an idiot.
I'm not trying to defend Downie -- you're right, he absolutely does some really bat**** crazy stuff sometimes. But, if there's any difference between when he does it and when Cooke does it, I think it would be that Downie's probably just really, really over zealous while trying to play hockey in those moments. Cooke's just a piece of scum****vomit****.

Terence Peterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2011, 04:34 PM
  #55
Tags27
Registered User
 
Tags27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Flyers bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Quote:
In the time Holmgren had exclusive negotiating rights to Timonen, he offered the Finnish defenseman a 6 year deal worth $37.8 Million. Considering the free agent environment at the time, coupled with the salary cap limitations, it is widely believed that this deal was an above-market price for Timonen.
I wish I could find some news archives from when he was signed because I don't recall anyone viewing this as an overpayment.

Quote:
However, if the Flyers had intentions of offering Hartnell a contract worth $25.2 million over 6 years, they could have done so when Hartnell was a free agent. In similar fashion to the Timonen deal, the Flyers gave an above-market contract to Hartnell when they were bidding against themselves. They didn’t have to give away a 1st round pick to do so.
Again, I don't recall this. At the time, Hartnell was a 25 year old power forward just coming into his own in the mold of vintage Bertuzzi, Kevin Stevens, etc....

This is Monday morning quarterback stuff at it's best. IIRC, Hartnell & Timonen were the best players at their positions available as UFA's that summer. The fact that this guy's GM gave Drury the contract he did kind of makes this LOLable, no?

Yes, Homer could have kept the pick....but at the time did anyone care? He was lauded for being this shrewd....he got 2 very good NHLer's for an unknown pick. No one questioned it then.

I wish he kept the pick too. I'd love to have Blum here.

Quote:
• July 1, 2007 – Philadelphia Flyers trade Joni Pitkanen, Geoff Sanderson, and 2009 3rd round pick to Edmonton Oilers for Jason Smith and Joffrey Lupul.

This trade, at face value, is not a total loss. Jason Smith went on to be the transitional captain to Mike Richards and Lupul was a serviceable wing until he was traded 2 years later, but I feel the Flyers gave up on Pitkanen too early. Puck moving defensemen of Pitkanen’s age at the time of the deal don’t often get traded because of their value. Pitkanen had not yet matured into the role he was expected to fill at the time he was drafted 4th overall, but the Flyers did not allow him the time he needed, and cut bait.
He conveniently forgets that Pitkanen didn't want to play here. It had nothing to do with Pitkanen not having time to develop.

Quote:
• December 13, 2007 – Mike Richards signs 12-year, $69 million extension.

12 years. 12 years? 12 years.

Let’s be real here. Flyers fan or not, do you feel Mike Richards, at age 24, was worthy of a 12-year contract? Really?

Financial security can change a player. When you don’t need to worry about your next contract, you don’t have to play as hard, because you know the money is coming, and is going to keep coming, because your contract says the money is coming, and is going to keep coming.

Mike Richards is a good hockey player, a very good hockey player. But is he worth that long of a guaranteed commitment from a team? I heavily question this. He’s not Sidney Crosby and he’s not Alexander Ovechkin. If you’re not in the top-10 players in the world, you’re not worthy of a contract that pays you from age 24 to age 36.

Furthermore, assigning him the captaincy at his age was an unbelievably short-sighted move. How can the Flyers take the “C” away from him now? Calls have been made by the fan base to do just that, but he’s signed until Armageddon, so they can’t really do that.
As we all know, the fanbase knows what's best. The rest I've rehashed time & time again.

Quote:
• June 20, 2008 – Philadelphia Flyers trade 2008 1st round pick (27th overall) to Washington Capitals for Steve Eminger and 2008 3rd Rounder.

For many reasons I will explain here, this trade was the 1st of many deals in which Homer damaged the future of the franchise.

First and foremost, without question, he overrated Steve Eminger. To give up a 1st round pick for Steve Eminger, even at this stage of his career, was just an absolutely gross overstatement of his value. That alone does not damage the future, but two players that the Flyers had interest in at #27 and didn’t take have proved now to be clear needs gone unfilled.

The Capitals went on to draft John Carlson, an American born defenseman who was widely regarded as one of the top-10 prospects in hockey last year, and played very well in his first year for Washington alongside fellow rookie Karl Alzner. Having Carlson on the current Flyers blue-line would have made a future costly move moot, which we will get to.

What is more damaging is who was taken a mere 4 picks later. Goaltender Jacob Markstrom was taken by the Florida Panthers at #31, the top of the 2nd round. Markstrom appears ready to take over the starting job from Tomas Vokoun, an unrestricted free agent, and is currently regarded as a top-10 prospect in the sport. Regardless of what you believe about Sergei Bobrovsky and his potential future, Markstrom has a far higher ceiling, and projects out to be a dominant goaltender in the lineage of fellow Swede Henrik Lundqvist. Markstrom’s performance in the Swedish Elite League, the 2nd toughest league in the world, continues to affirm his standing as a future #1.
No doubt this is the worst deal Homer has made. We all said it the moment it went down. I wanted Carlson here badly.

Markstrom would have been great, but every board I visit thinks the Flyers need a $6-7 million dollar per year goalie so who really gives a **** about Markstrom? He'd be stuck behind Bryzgalov or whoever for 5 years. Bob isn't as good as him for sure, but he's still a talent & the Flyers still have Ericsson & Riopel as well as Bob.

Quote:
• July 1, 2008 – Philadelphia Flyers trade Denis Gauthier and 2010 2nd round pick to Los Angeles Kings for Patrick Hersley and Ned Lukacevic.

For the readers who picked up a Hersley or Lukacevic jersey following this trade, you have my condolences.

This is what happens when you overextend yourself in a salary cap world. In order for the Kings to take Denis Gauthier off of the Flyers hands, they required a 2nd round pick as a sweetener, and also for the Flyers to take back 2 low level prospects.

In essence, the Flyers bribed the Kings with a 2nd rounder to take Gauthier and his contact off of their books. Not a brilliant example of asset management, indeed.
Agreed, he should have just waived Gauthier.

Quote:
• November 7, 2008 – Philadelphia Flyers trade Steve Eminger, Steve Downie, and Tampa Bay’s 2009 4th round pick (previously acquired) to Tampa Bay Lightning for Matt Carle and San Jose’s 2009 3rd Rounder.

What is most damaging here is that if you replace Eminger with a 1st round pick (which is precisely what it cost the Flyers to acquire him in the first place), the trade looks somewhat lopsided given what Downie has become in Tampa.

Trading Steve Downie and a 1st round pick for Matt Carle does appear to be an overpayment. It is troubling for Homer that he soured on Eminger just over a month into the season, and replaced him with Carle, a young defenseman that Tampa had acquired as part of the Dan Boyle trade with San Jose, and it cost him Steve Downie to do so.

Matt Carle is not a bad defenseman. He’s rather good, given his age, but he is making in the vicinity of $3 million. In a salary cap world, it can be questioned whether a defensemen of his age should be making that money for his role, but he is not a bad player by any stretch. It is not acquiring him that is what makes the deal questionable, it’s the quick “white flag” waved on both Downie (2005 1st round pick) and Eminger (the cost of 2009 1st round pick). It would appear he may have rushed this one.
Does anyone not agree that Downie was a marked man here? The league was out to get him & the Flyers needed D after the Eminger trade was to ****. Regardless of Carle or whoever, Downie was a goner here. No doubt. Again, Monday morning quarterbacking & also not really knowing the circumstances involving the players.

Quote:
• March 4, 2009 – Philadelphia Flyers trade Scottie Upshall and a 2011 2nd round pick to Phoenix Coyotes for Daniel Carcillo.

This was also not Holmgren’s finest hour. If it was just Upshall traded for Carcillo, that’s an overpayment. If it was just the 2nd round pick traded for Carcillo, that’s still an overpayment. Trading both for a fighter with a short fuse? Inconceivable. Granted, Carcillo fits the Broad Street Bully moniker to a tee, but at what cost? Upshall was the 2nd of the big assets brought in from Nashville in the Forsberg deal to be moved out, but equally as destructive was the dispatch of the 2nd round pick.

Because the 2010 2nd round pick was sent to Los Angeles to take Gauthier away, the Flyers had to move the 2011 2nd round pick, marking a 2nd consecutive year without a 2nd rounder. The pick-trading would not end here, not by a long shot.
Not a great trade but Giroux was ready. Flyers were cramped by salary cap constraints & it had to be done. I don't like it now at all.

Quote:
• June 26, 2009 – Philadelphia Flyers trade Joffrey Lupul, Luca Sbisa, 2009 1st round pick, 2010 1st round pick, and conditional 3rd round pick in 2010 or 2011 to Anaheim Ducks for Chris Pronger and Ryan Dingle.
• July 7, 2009 - Chris Pronger is signed to a 7 year, $35 million extension. Pronger is age 35 at onset of extension.
I love the trade & I don't give a **** what anyone says. Get back to me when Sbisa gets to a final or wins a Norris. Gotta pay to play.

Quote:
• June 19, 2010 – Philadelphia Flyers trade Ryan Parent to Nashville Predators for negotiation rights for Dan Hamhuis.
• June 25, 2010 – Philadelphia Flyers trade negotiation rights to Dan Hamhuis to Pittsburgh Penguins for 2011 3rd round pick.
• July 1, 2010 – Vancouver Canucks sign free agent Dan Hamhuis to 6-year, $27 million contract.

The Flyers tried to pull another Timonen/Hartnell with Nashville in shipping off Ryan Parent for the rights to Hamhuis, giving them a week or so in exclusive negotiating time with the defenseman. What the Flyers had to have been aware of was the price Hamhuis was looking for when signing the contract, a price they were not willing to meet.

Subsequently, his rights were traded to Pittsburgh for a 2011 3rd rounder. In effect, Parent was traded for a 3rd rounder. That’s not a bad deal, but I would have kept Parent to see what he can do. I do, though, think the 3rd rounder is key, since in a future deal, their own 3rd rounder was sent to Toronto.
LOL...also, I am pretty sure the contract they offer Hamhuis was similar but the dude wanted to play in Vancouver. It had zero to do with what he wanted & Homer not knowing.

Quote:
• July 1, 2010 – Philadelphia Flyers trade 2012 2nd round pick to Tampa Bay Lightning for Andrej Meszaros.
• July 19, 2010 – Philadelphia Flyers trade Simon Gagne to Tampa Bay Lightning for Matt Walker and 2011 4th round pick.

Let’s just combine these 2 deals for analysis sake, since they were 18 days apart and were between the same 2 teams. What is particularly damning here is that Meszaros is making $4 million per season for 3 more years from now to be a 5th defenseman, and the Flyers chose to not make a solid attempt at bringing in a goaltender.

Additionally, because they had now increased their payroll from the Meszaros deal and the signing of enigmatic winger Nikolay Zherdev (who was a failure that was eventually waived), the Flyers essentially gave away long-time heart and soul player Simon Gagne, who had a decent year for Tampa.

This trade is an unnecessary expense that would have been moot if the Flyers had drafted John Carlson. In addition to having an affordable, young defenseman with a bright future, they would also have kept Simon Gagne and could have allowed his cap hit to come off naturally at the end of his contract, which would have provided valuable flexibility. This did not happen.
Mez is a 5th D? He played over 21 minutes per game & played the 2nd most shifts per game on the team. There's nothing damning about it. Gagne also only played 63 games.

The part about Zherdev is only partially true as well.

Quote:
• February 14, 2011 – Philadelphia Flyers trade 2011 1st round pick and 2011 3rd round pick to Toronto Maple Leafs for Kris Versteeg.

The most recent trade for the Flyers, and one of the more questionable, given the price.

Kris Versteeg is a complimentary player. He’s a 2nd/3rd line winger that can score some if given the opportunity, but not really a necessity for a team with the forward depth the Flyers had this year. In this case, what on Earth did Homer think when he gave away ANOTHER 1st round pick (4 in a row) and a 3rd to bring in a guy making $3 million next year when he was already up against the cap? Ironically, Versteeg scored exactly 1 more goal in the playoffs than the 1st round pick that was traded away.
I think the sports hernia had more to do with this than anything.

He also left out the Briere signing.

It's a half truth at best.

Tags27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2011, 03:12 PM
  #56
Tags27
Registered User
 
Tags27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Flyers bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 131
vCash: 500
Why didn't he include the Prospal trade? The Flyers acquired Prospal for Picard and a 2nd rounder, which was a good trade. Then they traded Prospal for a pick which became Joacim Eriksson. So according to his logic, they traded an average D-Man in Picard for one of the team's best prospects

Tags27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:23 PM
  #57
captain9nyr
@captain9nyr
 
captain9nyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hammonton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 936
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to captain9nyr
I was looking back to this to share with a co-worker.

Given the way things have played out, I would venture to say that adding the Bryzgalov contract, the Bobrovsky trade, and the recent Streit contract may be valid additions to this list.

Also, to a far lesser extent, possibly picking Couterier over Hamilton, given the organizational need for defensemen. Also, picking Laughton in a defense-deep draft, for same reason.

captain9nyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:48 PM
  #58
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,062
vCash: 500
Yeah looking at everything in the OP then realizing we traded a young to-be Vezina winner for very little, added the Bryz contract, and now that we actually have first rounders we keep going with BPA rather then needs...it's borderline depressing. Also, by "we" I mean Holmgren.

Like I've said many times before, he's overstayed his welcome by a lot I think and Snider has had more patience and good will towards Holmgren then most GM's would.

Whatever happened to Jester? He was my favorite poster on here and I pretty much always agreed with him. IIRC he went to some other board but I don't remember which one.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:49 PM
  #59
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,657
vCash: 156
I'm OK with drafting Couturier. He filled an important need as well, considering Homer had just traded away Richards and Carter.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:51 PM
  #60
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain9nyr View Post
I was looking back to this to share with a co-worker.

Given the way things have played out, I would venture to say that adding

the Bryzgalov contract,
Yes.

Quote:
the Bobrovsky trade,
No.

Quote:
and the recent Streit contract may be valid additions to this list.
Bad contract, but still makes the team better. Not yet.


Quote:
Also, to a far lesser extent, possibly picking Couterier over Hamilton,
No.

Quote:
Also, picking Laughton in a defense-deep draft, for same reason.
No.


Looks like you're searching too hard. How can you evaluate the Laughton selection when we have no idea how he or any of those defenders will turn out? Same with Streit.

I'm turning on Holmgren quickly, but can we not search for things to blame him for? He deserves much blame for many things, but we don't have to make up false narratives for things he doesn't deserve blame for.

EDIT: And lol at Jester. He was a stubborn *******. Always looking for reasons to be angry with Holmgren and other posters.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:53 PM
  #61
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,657
vCash: 156
The Bob trade shouldn't stand on its own. That needs to be included as part of the fallout from the Bryz signing. It's a direct result of that, and was inevitable. I don't count that as an independent move.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:55 PM
  #62
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,946
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain9nyr View Post
Also, to a far lesser extent, possibly picking Couterier over Hamilton, given the organizational need for defensemen. Also, picking Laughton in a defense-deep draft, for same reason.
I never fault teams for passing over defensemen early. In another thread I had posted the defensemen picked in the top 11 for the last 20 years. Here's the list:

1993: Pronger (2), Kenny Jonsson (11)
1994: Jovanovski (1), Tverdovsky (2)
1995: Berard (1), Redden (2), Berg (3), McLaren (9)
1996: Phillips (1), Zyuzin (2), Richard Jackman (5), Aitken (8), Lance Ward (9), Derrick Morris (11)
1997: Brewer (5), Paul Mara (7), Boynton (9), Brad Ference (10)
1998: Brad Stuart (3), Allen (4), Vishnevsky (5)
1999: Mezei (10)
2000: Klesla (4), Lars Jonsson (7)
2001: Komisarek (7)
2002: Bouwmeester (3), Pitkanen (4), Ryan Whitney (5), Ballard (11)
2003: Suter (7), Coburn (8), Phaneuf (9)
2004: Barker (3), Smid (9), Valabik (10)
2005: Jack Johnson (3), Brian Lee (9), Bourdon (10)
2006: Erik Johnson (1)
2007: Hickey (4), Alzner (5), Ellerby (10)
2008: Doughty (2), Bogosian (3), Pietrangelo (4), Luke Schenn (5)
2009: Hedman (2), Ekman-Larsson (6), Jared Cowen (9), Ellis (11)
2010: Gudbranson (3), McIlrath (10)
2011: Larsson (4), Hamilton (9), Brodin (10), Siemens (11)
2012: Murray (2)

You, generally, have a better chance at landing an impact forward with a pick outside the top 4, but it's really a crap shoot at any position. There are so many factors when transitioning from an amateur or European league (pro or amateur) that it's difficult to accurately project more than a handful of players at the NHL level.

__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities

Last edited by CanadianFlyer88: 06-19-2013 at 01:06 PM.
CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:56 PM
  #63
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
The Bob trade shouldn't stand on its own. That needs to be included as part of the fallout from the Bryz signing. It's a direct result of that, and was inevitable. I don't count that as an independent move.
I agree and I disagree. Sure we were in a bad spot because of the Bryz signing. That deserves blame, no question. But Holmgren made the most out of it and he got a fine return given that position. Most of us were pleased at what we got for Bob.

He put himself in that position (deserves blame), but he did fine once he was in that position (deserves credit). I'm not willing to judge the trade on the basis of what Bobrovsky has become. Nobody expected that, and it's disingenuous to use hindsight to evaluate that deal.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 12:58 PM
  #64
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,657
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
I agree and I disagree. Sure we were in a bad spot because of the Bryz signing. That deserves blame, no question. But Holmgren made the most out of it and he got a fine return given that position. Most of us were pleased at what we got for Bob.

He put himself in that position (deserves blame), but he did fine once he was in that position (deserves credit). I'm not willing to judge the trade on the basis of what Bobrovsky has become. Nobody expected that, and it's disingenuous to use hindsight to evaluate that deal.
Indeed.

I'm of the opinion that the blame far outweighs the good, though, because I've always thought signing Bryzgalov instead of developing Bob was the wrong move.


Edit: Other fun things: Signing Leighton AGAIN to be backup this year, meaning we had to cart a mediocre goalie out every single game without rest. He keeps signing Leighton, and it keeps being horrifically stupid every single time. It has gone badly each time he's extended the guy, and it's been obvious that it would from the start each time. That made the season harder than it needed to be; we were essentially a one-goalie team until Mason was brought in, and once Bryz started sucking that was a major problem.

I've always said that it's the GMs job to put the team in the best position to win, and signing Leighton will only ever make the team's job harder.

Edit 2: Actually, I thought it was amazingly obvious that Bob had all the potential and tools to succeed. Hindsight isn't necessary. More than enough people predicted he'd be a solid starter someday. It was just a foregone conclusion that he'd be gone once Bryz signed; that was when they basically decided to go with Bryz instead of developing their own guy, for all intents and purposes.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 06-19-2013 at 01:05 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:00 PM
  #65
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
I agree and I disagree. Sure we were in a bad spot because of the Bryz signing. That deserves blame, no question. But Holmgren made the most out of it and he got a fine return given that position. Most of us were pleased at what we got for Bob.

He put himself in that position (deserves blame), but he did fine once he was in that position (deserves credit). I'm not willing to judge the trade on the basis of what Bobrovsky has become. Nobody expected that, and it's disingenuous to use hindsight to evaluate that deal.
I'm sure a lot of people didn't think he'd win a Vezina and nobody thought he'd win it so early, but pretty much everyone recognized how incredibly athletic and talented he was.

Garbage Goal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:08 PM
  #66
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Indeed.

I'm of the opinion that the blame far outweighs the good, though, because I've always thought signing Bryzgalov instead of developing Bob was the wrong move.
That's fair. I just don't like it when people use the "Bob won the Vezina!" argument. It's disingenuous. You have a logically consistent argument, and I don't mind that.


Quote:
Edit: Other fun things: Signing Leighton AGAIN to be backup this year, meaning we had to cart a mediocre goalie out every single game without rest. He keeps signing Leighton, and it keeps being horrifically stupid every single time. It has gone badly each time he's extended the guy, and it's been obvious that it would from the start each time. That made the season harder than it needed to be; we were essentially a one-goalie team until Mason was brought in, and once Bryz started sucking that was a major problem.
Please, I don't even want to think about Leighton. Just let me forget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
I'm sure a lot of people didn't think he'd win a Vezina and nobody thought he'd win it so early, but pretty much everyone recognized how incredibly athletic and talented he was.
Sure, but everyone also recognized that he was in no position to succeed here in Philly. Most everyone was pleased at the return we got.

Like Beef said, if your argument is that the Bryz signing put us in a bad position, then that's a fine argument to make. But if your argument is that the Bob trade in itself was a bad move, then you're using hindsight to evaluate a trade. That's not fair.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:12 PM
  #67
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Edit 2: Actually, I thought it was amazingly obvious that Bob had all the potential and tools to succeed. Hindsight isn't necessary. More than enough people predicted he'd be a solid starter someday. It was just a foregone conclusion that he'd be gone once Bryz signed; that was when they basically decided to go with Bryz instead of developing their own guy, for all intents and purposes.
I think many if not all of us recognized Bob had all the tools to be a starter. But most of us also recognized that Bob was in no position to be successful here, so it would be best to trade him for whatever value we could get.

Hindsight is used by the people who argue that the trade (in itself) was bad because Bob won the Vezina. We all knew Bob had talent, there weren't many denying that. It's just the people who evaluate the trade based on Bob's accomplishments in Columbus. It's a lot like the people on the main boards who evaluate the Carter/Richards trade on the basis of what they accomplished in LA.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:13 PM
  #68
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 30,686
vCash: 50
only issue I had with the Pronger deal was that one of the 1st rounders should of been conditional. Having one of those firsts would of been nice. Other then that it was a good trade. Cant fault Holmgren for the freak accident that put Pronger on LTIR.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:15 PM
  #69
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 7,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain9nyr View Post
Also, to a far lesser extent, possibly picking Couterier over Hamilton, given the organizational need for defensemen. Also, picking Laughton in a defense-deep draft, for same reason.
Both of those look like great picks so far.

Curufinwe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:20 PM
  #70
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
Both of those look like great picks so far.
They are, but didn't fill a desperate need for the Flyers. Had the Flyers taken Hamilton over Couturier maybe Holmgren doesn't overpay for a 35 year old defenseman this week, and there is $4 million available to fill other holes in the lineup.

Don't get me wrong - I love Couturier and the Flyers were extremely lucky to have him fall to #8, but the statement that a defenseman may have been a better choice is not incorrect.

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:27 PM
  #71
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 13,946
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
They are, but didn't fill a desperate need for the Flyers. Had the Flyers taken Hamilton over Couturier maybe Holmgren doesn't overpay for a 35 year old defenseman this week, and there is $4 million available to fill other holes in the lineup.

Don't get me wrong - I love Couturier and the Flyers were extremely lucky to have him fall to #8, but the statement that a defenseman may have been a better choice is not incorrect.
It really comes down to organizational need versus best player available.

Many talking heads had Couturier in the discussion as a potential first overall pick in the year leading up to that draft. Those talking heads soured on him in the months leading up to the draft.

As I noted above, it's such a crap shoot for defensemen in the first round so I don't blame Holmgren for jumping at the opportunity to draft a guy that so many were high on just months before the draft and passing on a notable prospect in Hamilton.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:29 PM
  #72
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
They are, but didn't fill a desperate need for the Flyers. Had the Flyers taken Hamilton over Couturier maybe Holmgren doesn't overpay for a 35 year old defenseman this week, and there is $4 million available to fill other holes in the lineup.

Don't get me wrong - I love Couturier and the Flyers were extremely lucky to have him fall to #8, but the statement that a defenseman may have been a better choice is not incorrect.
Wait, what?

You'd rather have Hamilton +$5m to allot to "other holes" than have Streit+Couturier? Really?

Where would you allocate that extra money then? What hole would you fill? We'd be lacking a big, shutdown centerman. Anybody know where we can find one of those? Losing Couturier would just open up another hole to fill...


This is exactly what I mean when I say people are searching too hard to criticize Holmgren. Drafting Couturier is far, far, far from one of Holmgren's follies.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:44 PM
  #73
CharlieGirl
Registered User
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
Wait, what?

You'd rather have Hamilton +$5m to allot to "other holes" than have Streit+Couturier? Really?

Where would you allocate that extra money then? What hole would you fill? We'd be lacking a big, shutdown centerman. Anybody know where we can find one of those? Losing Couturier would just open up another hole to fill...


This is exactly what I mean when I say people are searching too hard to criticize Holmgren. Drafting Couturier is far, far, far from one of Holmgren's follies.
At this point, I'd be happy if Streit were making $5 million + anywhere but Philadelphia, but that's beside the point. What if Holmgren had drafted a defenseman over Laughton? What if Holmgren had held onto Luca Sbisa, or got Slava Voynov or one of LA's other young defenseman in the Richards deal?

Holmgren has made a hell of a mess of this team (with Mr. Snider's help, I'm sure). One deal or one player drafted over another is merely a small component of the whole picture. There are too many "what if's" over the last four or five years.

Taking forwards over defense makes some sense. Continually selecting forwards over defensemen results in a high priced defense that will take a great deal of effort to fix in the coming years. In a salary cap world, successful teams have a combination of young players on entry level deals and higher priced veterans. Can we say that about the Flyers' defense? Is there any chance we'll be able to say that about the Flyers' defense in the next two years?

CharlieGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 01:48 PM
  #74
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
At this point, I'd be happy if Streit were making $5 million + anywhere but Philadelphia, but that's beside the point. What if Holmgren had drafted a defenseman over Laughton? What if Holmgren had held onto Luca Sbisa, or got Slava Voynov or one of LA's other young defenseman in the Richards deal?

Holmgren has made a hell of a mess of this team (with Mr. Snider's help, I'm sure). One deal or one player drafted over another is merely a small component of the whole picture. There are too many "what if's" over the last four or five years.

Taking forwards over defense makes some sense. Continually selecting forwards over defensemen results in a high priced defense that will take a great deal of effort to fix in the coming years. In a salary cap world, successful teams have a combination of young players on entry level deals and higher priced veterans. Can we say that about the Flyers' defense? Is there any chance we'll be able to say that about the Flyers' defense in the next two years?
This is a decent straw man, but you've entirely avoided your initial claim which was "that a defenseman (over Couturier) may have been a better choice".

That was what my post was in response to. Suggesting Couturier+Streit is inferior to Hamilton+$5m to spend on "other holes" seems silly when we would have a 6'4" hole on the ice every time Malkin steps out against us.

hockeyfreak7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2013, 02:36 PM
  #75
Bryz4shiz
Registered User
 
Bryz4shiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Alhoa Oe
Posts: 2,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
only issue I had with the Pronger deal was that one of the 1st rounders should of been conditional. Having one of those firsts would of been nice. Other then that it was a good trade. Cant fault Holmgren for the freak accident that put Pronger on LTIR.
The Pronger deal isn't bad, but the fact that Homer had absolutely no idea how the CBA worked was truly awful.

Bryz4shiz 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 03:11 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.