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

Simmonds for another Leafs D

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-07-2012, 11:50 PM
  #1
Hero
The Corporal Returns
 
Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,334
vCash: 500
Simmonds for another Leafs D

So just trying to brainstorm here and get a sense of Simmonds value, and if a deal around Simmonds for a D makes sense at all, or if its possible. The Flyers-Leafs just swung a deal and maybe theres room for another possible trade.

Saw these Defence pairs posted on your forum a few times...

Braydon Coburn ($4.500m) / Nicklas Grossmann ($3.500m)
Kimmo Timonen ($6.333m) / Luke Schenn ($3.600m)
Andreas Lilja ($0.738m) / Bruno Gervais ($0.825m)

With missing out on Weber, and with Meszaros done for 6-11 months, maybe one of the Leafs D could fill the need.

The Leafs lack size, and with JVR playing C for the leafs, still need help on the wings. Maybe a flyers Winger could fill this need.

I was wondering what D from the leafs matches up with Simmonds, value wise?

Liles, Gunnarsson, Franson, Holzer are four possible options. If a 1 for 1 doesn't make sense what if picks were involved?

Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 11:56 PM
  #2
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hero View Post
So just trying to brainstorm here and get a sense of Simmonds value, and if a deal around Simmonds for a D makes sense at all, or if its possible. The Flyers-Leafs just swung a deal and maybe theres room for another possible trade.

Saw these Defence pairs posted on your forum a few times...

Braydon Coburn ($4.500m) / Nicklas Grossmann ($3.500m)
Kimmo Timonen ($6.333m) / Luke Schenn ($3.600m)
Andreas Lilja ($0.738m) / Bruno Gervais ($0.825m)

With missing out on Weber, and with Meszaros done for 6-11 months, maybe one of the Leafs D could fill the need.

The Leafs lack size, and with JVR playing C for the leafs, still need help on the wings. Maybe a flyers Winger could fill this need.

I was wondering what D from the leafs matches up with Simmonds, value wise?

Liles, Gunnarsson, Franson, Holzer are four possible options. If a 1 for 1 doesn't make sense what if picks were involved?
It's probably not going to happen for any of those guys honestly. I think it's become quite clear that none of the players that were part of the Richards or Carter deals are available; unless for a can't miss player or package.

The only guy the Flyers would look at it is Gardiner because he has the ability to be the number one, and the Leafs probably aren't looking to move him. I'm not saying those guys are awful, it's just that they are likely 2-5's when the Flyers really only need a number one. If we get that guy, everyone slides very nicely into a role that they're more suited for.

flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:04 AM
  #3
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,989
vCash: 500
Even with Meszaros gone we dont need any more middling defenders. Our needs are still the same.

Simmonds definitely wont leave unless we can land a top pairing defender in the deal. I'm quite confident about that.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:38 AM
  #4
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Want Simmonds?

Gardiner+.

Even then, I don't think we can afford to trade any more forwards for defense.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:57 AM
  #5
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Want Simmonds?

Gardiner+.

Even then, I don't think we can afford to trade any more forwards for defense.
Your hatred of defense is astounding. Chris, if you were a coach, would you start 5 forwards? 6 on the PP?

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:04 AM
  #6
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
Your hatred of defense is astounding. Chris, if you were a coach, would you start 5 forwards? 6 on the PP?
I dont think it's a hatred of D at all. Look at our forward group. If you lose one more forward for a defender, suddenly our team is not so deep anymore.

Here's a lineup without Simmonds:

Hartnell-Giroux-Voracek
Read-Schenn-Briere
Wellwood-Couturier-Talbot
Rinaldo-Holmstrom-Sestito

Coburn-Gardiner (just a name, for the sake of discussion)
Timonen-Grossman
Schenn-Gustafsson

Is that really what we'd like to see? One injury and we suddenly have a very pedestrian offense and an equally unimpressive D.


The logical solution here is to keep our forward depth in tact, and try to patch our D without losing anymore assets.

Hartnell-Giroux-Voracek
Simmonds-Schenn-Briere
Read-Couturier-Wellwood
Sestito-Talbot-Rinaldo

Coburn-Grossman
Timonen-Schenn
Gustafsson-Roszival (again, just a name for discussion)


I think that is a much better group than the first. Our forward lineup is what keeps this team in the hunt. We cant afford to give that up to make a trade that would hopefully improve the quality of our D while making our depth significantly weaker.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:17 AM
  #7
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Firstly, Simmonds is our second worst defensive forward. So, trading him in some hypothetical deal for a defenseman serves a two fold purpose. Secondly, a player like Gardiner who can potentially play the point on a first unit power play fills what is shaping up to be one our biggest voids.

I am not advocating dumping Simmonds or Read for some random defenseman, but rather a parrallel talent on the blue line. I continue to trust this teams ability to find forwards a lot more than it's ability to find young defeneman. While a trade like Simmonds for Gardiner could certainly affect our forward depth this season, in the longterm it would give us 4 top 4 defenseman under 30 to build around. Depending on Mez's progression, we could then target a player like Perry in free agency in 2013.

I believe that thinking entirely about what's best for 2012 is a long term mistake.

P.s. you forgot Fedetenko

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:25 AM
  #8
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
Firstly, Simmonds is our second worst defensive forward. So, trading him in some hypothetical deal for a defenseman serves a two fold purpose. Secondly, a player like Gardiner who can potentially play the point on a first unit power play fills what is shaping up to be one our biggest voids.

I am not advocating dumping Simmonds or Read for some random defenseman, but rather a parrallel talent on the blue line. I continue to trust this teams ability to find forwards a lot more than it's ability to find young defeneman. While a trade like Simmonds for Gardiner could certainly affect our forward depth this season, in the longterm it would give us 4 top 4 defenseman under 30 to build around. Depending on Mez's progression, we could then target a player like Perry in free agency in 2013.

I believe that thinking entirely about what's best for 2012 is a long term mistake.
I dont necessarily disagree, but losing Simmonds and not replacing his production could be disastrous for the team in 2012.

If you're content to completely write the 2012-13 season as a 'building year', then I suppose you are absolutely correct.

But, personally, I think this team is easily good enough to still contend for the division. Once you get to that point, the rest is all about post season performance.

Losing Simmonds would make our forward group extremely average while making our D 'good' at best. I'd rather continue to have elite depth up front with an average D core than to be mediocre both on the front and on the back.

Since we know injuries are a guarantee (they are for every team), it's entirely likely that we would be forced to roll with a third line of, say, Wellwood-Talbot-Fedotenko at times next season. Our fourth line would then be entirely Phantoms. Not good at all.

Part of what made our team a strong contender for the division was the ability to withstand injuries to our top 6. Without guys like Simmonds, that would simply be impossible. And that is what depth is all about.

Ultimately, I would love to upgrade the D, but at the cost of shooting our greatest strength (depth), it is simply not worth it.


EDIT: Holy crap. I have been forgetting Fedotenko. I knew I was missing someone. Still, my point remains. Anything that forces us to give regular ice to players who cant handle it is bad. Losing a guy like Simmonds would do that, imo.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:28 AM
  #9
djlethal08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Hockessin, DE
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
Firstly, Simmonds is our second worst defensive forward. So, trading him in some hypothetical deal for a defenseman serves a two fold purpose. Secondly, a player like Gardiner who can potentially play the point on a first unit power play fills what is shaping up to be one our biggest voids.

I am not advocating dumping Simmonds or Read for some random defenseman, but rather a parrallel talent on the blue line. I continue to trust this teams ability to find forwards a lot more than it's ability to find young defeneman. While a trade like Simmonds for Gardiner could certainly affect our forward depth this season, in the longterm it would give us 4 top 4 defenseman under 30 to build around. Depending on Mez's progression, we could then target a player like Perry in free agency in 2013.

I believe that thinking entirely about what's best for 2012 is a long term mistake.

P.s. you forgot Fedetenko
I agree with this. I'd hate to move Simmonds, but if the return is a potential #1 d-man it's a move that has to be made. Having said that I'm sure if any Leafs fans see this they'd say there's no way Simmonds is worth Gardiner.

djlethal08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:33 AM
  #10
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,797
vCash: 500
I'm against trades. Teams know our situation and will try to fleece us. We'd have to overpay. Overall, we'd likely get worse.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:56 AM
  #11
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 djlethal08 View Post
I agree with this. I'd hate to move Simmonds, but if the return is a potential #1 d-man it's a move that has to be made. Having said that I'm sure if any Leafs fans see this they'd say there's no way Simmonds is worth Gardiner.
If I really thought Gardiner was a potential #1 defenseman then I would offer more than Simmonds to get Gardiner.

Which brings us back to my point: we should not be moving Simmonds for defense.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 02:02 AM
  #12
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,523
vCash: 50
Yup. the Flyers are in a position of weakness when dealing for another middle pairing defenseman. If holmgren feels he needs another 3/4 defenseman there are a few guys out on the market in FA who can fill the void for 1/2 a season or a full year if that was the case. No need to make a stupid panic trade for a 3/4 defenseman. Especially when its trading a top 6 forward.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:49 PM
  #13
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,043
vCash: 500
The amount of hate that Jake Gardiner receives is hilarious and border line pathetic. He had a fantastic first year and has the makings to be a top 2 pairing defender. I don't get why @Chris Shafer you act like Gardiner is just another run of the mill defenseman. If Gardiner were playing anywhere other than Toronto, people would be marveling about his ability and how he's going to be a stud defenseman.

Honestly, if Simmonds were to be offered for Gardiner, I'd do it. As much as I love Simmonds and see him as a solid winger with 40 goal potential (let's not forget he potted 28 while getting third line minutes), Gardiner has top pairing potential. He's going to be real good.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:56 PM
  #14
Flyotes
DownieFaceSoftener
 
Flyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,194
vCash: 500
Why lose Simmonds when you can sign a FA defenseman and keep the depth?

Mez is not that great and can be replaced by any of the 3 names being batted around right now.

Flyotes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:59 PM
  #15
SnS
Mod Supervisor
 
SnS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
The amount of hate that Jake Gardiner receives is hilarious and border line pathetic. He had a fantastic first year and has the makings to be a top 2 pairing defender. I don't get why @Chris Shafer you act like Gardiner is just another run of the mill defenseman. If Gardiner were playing anywhere other than Toronto, people would be marveling about his ability and how he's going to be a stud defenseman.

Honestly, if Simmonds were to be offered for Gardiner, I'd do it. As much as I love Simmonds and see him as a solid winger with 40 goal potential (let's not forget he potted 28 while getting third line minutes), Gardiner has top pairing potential. He's going to be real good.
It's that we can't afford to give up another forward without getting one in return, especially since it's a top 6/9 forward. Depends on where you see Simmonds playing this coming year.

I don't think I would do Simmonds for Gardiner, and no I haven't wrapped my head into the "LAWLZ HATE LEAF PLAYERS". I just don't think RIGHT now, that deal makes sense.

I see our lineup as:

Hartnell - Giroux - Voracek
Schenn - Briere - Simmonds
Wellwood - Couts - Read
Fedotenko - Talbot - Rinaldo/Shelley/etc

__________________
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/nemesis15/SnS-Sig.gif

Props to Nemesis for the signature and avatar.
SnS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:02 PM
  #16
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
The amount of hate that Jake Gardiner receives is hilarious and border line pathetic. He had a fantastic first year and has the makings to be a top 2 pairing defender. I don't get why @Chris Shafer you act like Gardiner is just another run of the mill defenseman. If Gardiner were playing anywhere other than Toronto, people would be marveling about his ability and how he's going to be a stud defenseman.

Honestly, if Simmonds were to be offered for Gardiner, I'd do it. As much as I love Simmonds and see him as a solid winger with 40 goal potential (let's not forget he potted 28 while getting third line minutes), Gardiner has top pairing potential. He's going to be real good.
i like Gardiner, but I dont think the Flyers can afford to trade another top forward especially a winger for a defenseman.
I dont think Gardiner is even close to being available. But thats another story

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:16 PM
  #17
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,427
vCash: 500
replace Mez with Coli the #5 spot. Then when/if Mez comes back, he is like a playoff pickup. And yes...Coli will miss 20 games. Let the kids start getting icetime on D. Bourdon, Gus, Manning. Or say let the kids play NOW and sign no one. This way we find out if they are part of the future...or just fill-ins.

Tripod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:24 PM
  #18
SnS
Mod Supervisor
 
SnS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
replace Mez with Coli the #5 spot. Then when/if Mez comes back, he is like a playoff pickup. And yes...Coli will miss 20 games. Let the kids start getting icetime on D. Bourdon, Gus, Manning. Or say let the kids play NOW and sign no one. This way we find out if they are part of the future...or just fill-ins.
No. Avoid Coli. He's a broken, brittle player. Pass.

SnS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 01:42 PM
  #19
shipwreck
HFBoards Sponsor
 
shipwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,613
vCash: 500
Keep SImmonds.

shipwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 05:18 PM
  #20
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod View Post
replace Mez with Coli the #5 spot. Then when/if Mez comes back, he is like a playoff pickup. And yes...Coli will miss 20 games. Let the kids start getting icetime on D. Bourdon, Gus, Manning. Or say let the kids play NOW and sign no one. This way we find out if they are part of the future...or just fill-ins.
Between the Flyers inability to keep defensemen healthy, and Coli's inability to stay healthy, he would probably trip getting off the plane, break his neck, and never play a game for the team.

In reality, he has a good amount of skill, but he's certainly going to miss his fair share of games due to injuries. It wouldn't be worth it in my opinion. Might as well let the kids play and see what they've go to offer.

flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 06:01 PM
  #21
Reaper1097
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 172
vCash: 500
What about PK Subban instead of gardiner?

There is speculation on twitter and hockey buzz that the flyers are trying to acquire him already.

How does he compare to gardiner? Who has more upside?

Would Simmonds+ for Subban be more realistic?

Reaper1097 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 06:06 PM
  #22
Flukeshot
Holmgren activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 1,835
vCash: 50
Definitely need to replace Mesz via a UFA so that we're simply back in the position of needing one top D that could be acquired via trade.

Flukeshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 06:08 PM
  #23
Alchemy
Philadelphia Flyers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 12,760
vCash: 500
The most likely scenario is we sign a UFA vet or the team goes into the season with what they got until the deadline nears when they have a more accurate projection of where this team is headed. I don't see any trades until the deadline. If there is one soon it will be a middle pairing defenseman. It will not be a top player.

Alchemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 01:30 PM
  #24
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper1097 View Post
What about PK Subban instead of gardiner?

There is speculation on twitter and hockey buzz that the flyers are trying to acquire him already.

How does he compare to gardiner? Who has more upside?

Would Simmonds+ for Subban be more realistic?
Eklund is as reliable as a wet fart

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2012, 01:36 PM
  #25
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Eklund is as reliable as a wet fart
If I eat enough buffalo wings, I'd suggest that a wet fart is a pretty reliable follow-up event.

Broad Street Elite 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 07:59 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.