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

Holmgren DOESN'T deserve to get fired

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2013, 01:35 PM
  #176
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Hindsight my ass, a boatload of people predicted that Homer's strategy would lead to long term collapse if he kept it up. Guess what, it did. It's not hindsight when you predict it.
Long term collapse? This after one year of missing the playoffs (in a shortened season)? But the string of a seasons that included more Conference Semi-Final appearances than first round losses gets you nothing.

Quote:
I don't care that they did it to "improve the team." It made the team better in the short term at the expense of the future. They made a lot of moves like that, and now we are dealing with the results. By going for short term improvement they've doomed the team to struggle for the forseeable future.
I disagree with this. I don't think the struggle is as dire as you make it out to be. They still have a young core (Giroux, Voracek, Couturier, Laughton, Simmonds, Raffle, Read, Schenn(s), Mason, Morin, Haag, etc). Are they struggling right now? Absolutely. Does that signal long-term struggle? Absolutely not. It's possible, for sure. But their future struggles are not as set in stone as you are making them out to be.

Quote:
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp??
I fully understand your argument. Don't sell out the future for the present. I just don't agree with it entirely. Like I have said throughout this entire discussion (for years, really): I am NOT advocating trading all draft picks all the time. I am not saying that is how you win a championship. Nor am I saying that you shouldn't strive to plan for the future or strive to keep your draft picks. What I am saying, is that if you are in the hunt, and you have a chance to land a player that improves your time, why wouldn't you do it? Your response is because you might need that draft pick down the line. I don't like that line of thinking. I understand it completely. I just don't agree with it.

Quote:
Please. Look at every Cup winner, ever. Tell me how many of them did it by trading away their first and second round picks and talent for half a decade, neglecting they prospect pool, and turning heavily to free agents. This may be shocking to you, but it is completely possible to win a Cup without running your team into the ground long-term like Homer did. In fact, that's the preferred method.
I obviously do not have time to do this. But look at the previous winners that someone posted about earlier. Yes, they had many of their picks as starters on their teams...but that was after a long stretch of getting high quality draft picks and missing the playoffs for long stretches. The only team that really didn't have those long stretches was the Bruins...and guess what...they only had five drafted players on their roster! The rest were traded for or signed as UFAs. Crazy, right?

But its ok. I'm sure you would be happy missing the playoffs for five-six years (or more) if we had all those draft picks. That's why the Oilers are so successful. Islanders too. Oh, and the Blue Jackets. The Jets are pretty solid and they were in Atlanta too. What about Florida...the Panthers have been pretty great with their draft picks, no? How about Dallas...and so forth and so on.

Like I said earlier. The strategy has its ups and downs. It is not a 100% TRADE ALL DRAFT PICKS ALL THE TIME. It is do it when you can improve your team. The long term collapse you speak of, simply has not happened (unless one shortened season and a slow start is a long-term collapse), and with the youth on this team, I doubt it will. But maybe it will. We'll see.

Quote:
I'll bet anything the number of teams who succeeded with Homer's strategy is somewhere around "zero."
Probably right.

Quote:
Homer had to detonate a Cup contending core because of the situation your beloved strategy put the team in. Like I said, that's a fact. You cannot disprove that, because it's what happened. Why was the team unable to fill the roster in 2011 without massive trades? Because Homer spent years emptying the cupboard.
You think they would have made that Cup run in 2010 without making the trades that were made? I highly doubt it. My guess, we'd be in the same spot we are now, only with more prospects. Still no Cups. Preferable...sure. Would we have made Cup runs without the Prongers of the world? Probably not. But we'd have those picks!

Quote:
You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how to build a team. It's mindblowing to see you rail against responsible team building through the draft (You know...the thing that every successful team has done. It's almost like it's the ideal strategy!) in favor of throwing all your assets away for a one or two year shot at glory.
I'm not railing against anything. I am saying that if you are in a Cup run, you can make a trade. If no trade presents itself, fine. But you don't sit there and say, "Man, we're close this year. One more piece could really put us over the top." Then not make the trade because you have to deal a draft pick. How does that help?

Quote:
And no, making the playoffs this year won't change anything. The team is still several steps back from where it was because they had to nuke it all in 2011. They haven't been realistic Cup contenders since that offseason, and they still aren't, now will they be for some time.
Oh ok. The long term-collapse includes playoff appearances. Got it.

Quote:
Homer followed the strategy you're endorsing in that last paragraph. He followed it for five ****ing years worth of first and seconds round talent. Guess what? It got us zero Cups and a terribly constructed team. If that's your idea of success, then you have it confused with failure.
Again, you're really blowing these numbers out of proportion. A net loss of two firsts (which in return, the Flyers got Chris Pronger, Kimmo Timonen, Scott Hartnell, and Kris Versteeg) and a net loss of four seconds (which off hand the only one I remember getting in those deals was Mez, so I can't vouch for the rest).

Those six draft picks have crippled this franchise? Really? And the return we got means nothing? Those six picks are better than Pronger, Hartnell, Timonen, Versteeg, Mez, and whomever else was acquired in those deals? Really? You'd rather have the picks? Why? So maybe one day they'll be on the NHL roster? Come on.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:38 PM
  #177
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
It's pretty doubtful Pronger would still be elite. He was visibly slowing down. So we would have that and the lack of talent. The team would still be in a difficult situation, but we would have at least had a a Cup to show for it.

But, that didn't happen. No Cup was to be had, and now we have to deal with the bad extension for Pronger. Which is only one of several large contracts taking players deep into their decline.

__________________
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
11-12-2013, 01:42 PM
  #178
whatthef
Failure is an Option
 
whatthef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Upper Darby
Country: United States
Posts: 4,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
did the Versteeg deal really improve the team?

yes there is "hindsight". which obviously we can only bring up when trades dont work out. its either Holmgren brilliance or hindsight.
mind boggling stuff really.
I am not sure if Versteeg was a difference maker. not enough to give up a couple of draft picks for. Is the guy a good player? sure, but not enough for me to give up a couple of draft picks for. I never said that trading picks isnt a good idea if you can make the hockey club better. That team was playing pretty well at the time. there is this thing called chemistry. that team had it. Not sure if adding Versteeg when they did really made that much of a difference.
Obviously it didnt work out in the end. oh well its just hindsight.
I'm kind of surprised there is a debate about him. I never thought very highly of Versteeg and I never would have made that trade for him. On a contending team he's probably no more than a 3rd liner who might get the occasional shift on the 2nd line depending on the situation. Not the kind of player I'd give up a 1st plus for. Nothing his done since made me feel like I was wrong to not want to trade for him.

whatthef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:45 PM
  #179
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,506
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
It's pretty doubtful Pronger would still be elite. He was visibly slowing down. So we would have that and the lack of talent. The team would still be in a difficult situation, but we would have at least had a a Cup to show for it.

But, that didn't happen. No Cup was to be had, and now we have to deal with the bad extension for Pronger. Which is only one of several large contracts taking players deep into their decline.
you wonder what the organization looks like with Pronger still playing. even at a level far below his standards. probably safe to say we wouldnt have Morin,Hagg,Stolarz, ect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatthef View Post
I'm kind of surprised there is a debate about him. I never thought very highly of Versteeg and I never would have made that trade for him. On a contending team he's probably no more than a 3rd liner who might get the occasional shift on the 2nd line depending on the situation. Not the kind of player I'd give up a 1st plus for. Nothing his done since made me feel like I was wrong to not want to trade for him.
yep and this is the point some of us are trying to make. Not going to deny that Versteeg is a good player. a player worth giving up a 1st and a 3rd for? nope. if thats the asking price you take a look around and see what else can help you out.
to make matters worse he was traded for 1/2 the price. if he was so damn good why was the best Holmgren could get was a 2nd rounder?
probably because he isnt a player worth a 1st round pick.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:49 PM
  #180
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneHands View Post
The only home grown players to come up through the system on this team are Giroux, Read, Couturier, Gustafsson, Raffl, and Rinaldo. Thats one impact player, two third liners, 2 depth forwards, and a depth defenseman. Thats a massive problem. Look around the league at all of the consistantly good/great teams and they are all built from within.

Chicago- Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Crawford, Shaw, Saad, Hjalmarsson, Leddy, Bickell, Pirri, Kruger, Bollig, and Smith.
Boston- Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Rask, Krug, Hamilton, Marchand, and Reilly Smith.

The list goes on and on including teams like Colorado, St. Louis, LA, Anaheim, and Detroit. Every top team in the league is built from within. Even teams like the Pens that don't have a ton of home grown players still have their 3 best players and their starting goalie that are home grown.

That's how you stay cheap, and that's how you stay consistantly good. In the NHL, your contract is usually based on past performance not future projections which is why you see guys like Hartnell, Streit, Lecavalier, and Timonen getting either too much money or too many years. The Flyers need to keep guys like Morin, Haag, Cousins, Laughton, Gost, Lauridsen, McGinn, and Stolarz. If 4-5 of those guys become full time NHL players which isn't a stretch, that's 4-5 guys on cheap contracts. If they perform so well that you con't resign them, you trade them away then, not now. You'll get much more for your return after they proved themselves than you will now.

This isn't just true in the NHL, it's true across sports. Look at the Phillies, they built from within and won a World Series. They then tried to chase that success by letting go of their own and signing older "proven" players and they've been regressing ever since.

This falls squarely on the shoulders of Homer. I've supported him in the past but at this point, I can't ignore the facts anymore, he just isnt getting the job done.
Just a bit of a qualifier on your post. We all know that Pittsburgh's top talent was obtained by drafting 1st (2003), 2nd (2004), 1st (2005), and 2nd (2006). In 2002, they chose Ryan Whitney with the 5th overall pick, to boot. However, I have to tip my cap to them for several late-round successes:
– Kris Letang (3rd Round, 2005)
– Ryan Malone (4th Round, 1999)
– Tyler Kennedy (4th Round, 2004)
– Paul Bissonnette (4th Round, 2003)
– Rob Scuderi (5th Round, 1998)
– Joe Vitale (7th Round, 2005)
– Max Talbot (8th Round, 2002)
– Andrew Ference (8th Round, 1997)
– Matt Moulson (9th Round, 2003)

Chicago benefitted greatly from getting Toews (3rd overall in 2006) and Kane ('nuff said), but have been very good drafters, too. Duncan Keith was 54th overall in 2002, and Corey Crawford was 52nd in 2003. landing late-round successes like:
– Craig Anderson (3rd, 2001)
– Niklas Hjalmarsson (4th, 2005)
– James Wisniewski (5th, 2002)
– Andrew Shaw (5th, 2011)
– Dustin Byfuglien (8th, 2003)

The Bruins are reasonable comparables to the Flyers in terms of draft position. They took Joe Thornton 1st overall in 1997 and the only other time they picked lower than 21st between then and 2006 was landing "where is he now?" candidate Lars Jonsson 7th in 2000. They are great, however, in the 2nd round, where they landed Krejci (#63!), Bergeron (#45), and Lucic (#50).

For the Flyers, in the last 10 years of drafting Zac Rinaldo (6th, 2008) is the only player chosen after the 2nd round who has played more than 100 games. Chicago and Boston have 5 each.

Anyway, fun with numbers, but it was interesting to see how these few comparisons looked in light of our general knowledge that the Flyers haven't put enough emphasis on the draft, and holding onto their picks, to keep the talent coming.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:51 PM
  #181
PALE PWNR
Registered User
 
PALE PWNR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,576
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
It's pretty doubtful Pronger would still be elite. He was visibly slowing down. So we would have that and the lack of talent. The team would still be in a difficult situation, but we would have at least had a a Cup to show for it.

But, that didn't happen. No Cup was to be had, and now we have to deal with the bad extension for Pronger. Which is only one of several large contracts taking players deep into their decline.
The point is you can't say those draft picks were pissed away like we didn't get anything out of them. Pronger should still be playing with this team. The whole landscape/culture of the team changed when he got hurt.

PALE PWNR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:51 PM
  #182
BillDineen
Registered User
 
BillDineen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,001
vCash: 500
Outside of the indefensible bone head moves like drafting Klotz in the 3rd round, overpaying for Bryz in terms of cap hit and length, not recognizing the Pronger contract was an over 35, trading Carcillo for a 2nd, signing Shelley for 3 years etc.... the real issue with Homer is that he is an aggressive gambler and is fine with making any change in hopes of winning the cup. This risks development of chemistry.

I am sure if Nashville agreed to trade Weber for the picks, Homer would not have hesitated. If the team was struggling now with Weber, we would be taking about 2 drastic player changes since the cup final and not just one.

I have liked many of Homer's moves as well and some have been home runs, but going forward should this franchise be more patient for once? I am not 100% sure either way, but I am leaning towards them being patient for once.

I personally do not believe in Homer's "all you have to do is make the playoffs and who knows?" theory. My view is that every team that has won the cup since I have been watching hockey (mid 80s) either had a superstar lead them or a goalie stand on his head. (Yes, I am including Canes (Ward) and the Kings (Quick) in the goalie group). If the Flyers win in the next decade, it will be on G's back more likely than not, but the defense will need to be better than it is and that will take time.

BillDineen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:55 PM
  #183
El Dandy*
...Menace To Society
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dry Island
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneHands View Post
The only home grown players to come up through the system on this team are Giroux, Read, Couturier, Gustafsson, Raffl, and Rinaldo. Thats one impact player, two third liners, 2 depth forwards, and a depth defenseman. Thats a massive problem. Look around the league at all of the consistantly good/great teams and they are all built from within.

Chicago- Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Crawford, Shaw, Saad, Hjalmarsson, Leddy, Bickell, Pirri, Kruger, Bollig, and Smith.

Boston- Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Rask, Krug, Hamilton, Marchand, and Reilly Smith.


The list goes on and on including teams like Colorado, St. Louis, LA, Anaheim, and Detroit. Every top team in the league is built from within. Even teams like the Pens that don't have a ton of home grown players still have their 3 best players and their starting goalie that are home grown.

That's how you stay cheap, and that's how you stay consistantly good. In the NHL, your contract is usually based on past performance not future projections which is why you see guys like Hartnell, Streit, Lecavalier, and Timonen getting either too much money or too many years. The Flyers need to keep guys like Morin, Haag, Cousins, Laughton, Gost, Lauridsen, McGinn, and Stolarz. If 4-5 of those guys become full time NHL players which isn't a stretch, that's 4-5 guys on cheap contracts. If they perform so well that you con't resign them, you trade them away then, not now. You'll get much more for your return after they proved themselves than you will now.

This isn't just true in the NHL, it's true across sports. Look at the Phillies, they built from within and won a World Series. They then tried to chase that success by letting go of their own and signing older "proven" players and they've been regressing ever since.

This falls squarely on the shoulders of Homer. I've supported him in the past but at this point, I can't ignore the facts anymore, he just isnt getting the job done.
Philadelphia - Richards, Carter, Giroux, van Riemsdyk, Bobrovsky, Read, Gustafsson, Raffl, Rinaldo.

All he had to do... was nothing.

We had a core that matched up with those other groups. We had a core that was within 2 wins of the Stanley Cup. We were a top team in the NHL when we had a home grown core leading the way. Key phrase: we were. We traded in being an upper echelon team for the honor of being one of the predominant laughing stocks in the league the past 2 seasons.

El Dandy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 01:55 PM
  #184
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,144
vCash: 500
What is kind of ironic is that Holmgren himself is on record saying they've been too liberal with giving away picks in the past. He made that point last offseason I believe or it may have been Lukko but it was acknowledged by upper management. They know they have to change course...it seems they have so far.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 02:05 PM
  #185
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Dandy View Post
Philadelphia - Richards, Carter, Giroux, van Riemsdyk, Bobrovsky, Read, Gustafsson, Raffl, Rinaldo.

All he had to do... was nothing.

We had a core that matched up with those other groups. We had a core that was within 2 wins of the Stanley Cup. We were a top team in the NHL when we had a home grown core leading the way. Key phrase: we were. We traded in being an upper echelon team for the honor of being one of the predominant laughing stocks in the league the past 2 seasons.
Just playing the role of contrarian for a moment, but that core wouldn't have competed as it was built. It still lacked a quality defense (without the Pronger and Coburn trades and Timonen signing), and Bobrovsky might not be quite as good as he played last year. Other moves would have had to have been made. Beef was trying to make the point that it's not always bad to trade some future assets for immediate help, but there has to be balance.

flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 02:20 PM
  #186
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,506
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Dandy View Post
Philadelphia - Richards, Carter, Giroux, van Riemsdyk, Bobrovsky, Read, Gustafsson, Raffl, Rinaldo.

All he had to do... was nothing.

We had a core that matched up with those other groups. We had a core that was within 2 wins of the Stanley Cup. We were a top team in the NHL when we had a home grown core leading the way. Key phrase: we were. We traded in being an upper echelon team for the honor of being one of the predominant laughing stocks in the league the past 2 seasons.
and where are we since? we have gone backwards since that core was shredded.
Speculating that we have gone backwards because of Pronger is speculation. the deals that Holmgren made ripping apart the core far outweigh the loss of Pronger.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 02:23 PM
  #187
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Long term collapse? This after one year of missing the playoffs (in a shortened season)? But the string of a seasons that included more Conference Semi-Final appearances than first round losses gets you nothing.
This after we had to blow up a Cup contending team thanks to Homer's strategy leaving him unable to fill the team any other way. This after missing the playoffs and having the worst offense since 1929 (until the Edmonton game, against another very flawed team). For reference, the last time an offense produced so little forward passing was against the rules and defensive interference was not.



Quote:
I disagree with this. I don't think the struggle is as dire as you make it out to be. They still have a young core (Giroux, Voracek, Couturier, Laughton, Simmonds, Raffle, Read, Schenn(s), Mason, Morin, Haag, etc). Are they struggling right now? Absolutely. Does that signal long-term struggle? Absolutely not. It's possible, for sure. But their future struggles are not as set in stone as you are making them out to be.
Morin and Hagg are still years out. The defense isn't years away from being in a dire situation, it's precisely one year away. Hell, it's happening now. Timonen has eroded. We have no #1. The defense is average, which is not good enough to contend. Streit isn't going to get younger. Pronger's cap hit isn't going to go away.

The situation isn't good. They're set at forward, but are set to be screwed on D...which happens to be the position most neglected in the prospect pool by Homer. Funny how that work.

Quote:
I fully understand your argument. Don't sell out the future for the present. I just don't agree with it entirely. Like I have said throughout this entire discussion (for years, really): I am NOT advocating trading all draft picks all the time. I am not saying that is how you win a championship. Nor am I saying that you shouldn't strive to plan for the future or strive to keep your draft picks. What I am saying, is that if you are in the hunt, and you have a chance to land a player that improves your time, why wouldn't you do it? Your response is because you might need that draft pick down the line. I don't like that line of thinking. I understand it completely. I just don't agree with it.
Well, this is the problem...Homer did just that. He has traded away 5 years worth of first round talent. Yet you are defending it.



Quote:
I obviously do not have time to do this. But look at the previous winners that someone posted about earlier. Yes, they had many of their picks as starters on their teams...but that was after a long stretch of getting high quality draft picks and missing the playoffs for long stretches. The only team that really didn't have those long stretches was the Bruins...and guess what...they only had five drafted players on their roster! The rest were traded for or signed as UFAs. Crazy, right?
CG already showed you that LA did fine without superhigh draft picks, and it has been long enough with Chicago that they aren't exactly benefitting from constant top 5 picks. Detroit has stayed competitive for years without high picks.

We both know Boston built their roster more responsibly than Homer built the Flyers, as evidenced by their not needed to nuke their Cup winning team.


What's most important is at least GIVING yourself a chance to get cheap young talent through the draft. Homer basically didn't do that. Look where it got us compared to the others, who HAVE given themselves that chance.

Quote:
But its ok. I'm sure you would be happy missing the playoffs for five-six years (or more) if we had all those draft picks. That's why the Oilers are so successful. Islanders too. Oh, and the Blue Jackets. The Jets are pretty solid and they were in Atlanta too. What about Florida...the Panthers have been pretty great with their draft picks, no? How about Dallas...and so forth and so on.
Why the **** would you think this? Why would I be ok with this? Do explain to me why "being responsible, building sustainably" somehow equals "SUCKINGGGG 4EVERRRR."

Quote:
Like I said earlier. The strategy has its ups and downs. It is not a 100% TRADE ALL DRAFT PICKS ALL THE TIME. It is do it when you can improve your team. The long term collapse you speak of, simply has not happened (unless one shortened season and a slow start is a long-term collapse), and with the youth on this team, I doubt it will. But maybe it will. We'll see.
Sure, I agree. But Homer did it ALL THE TIME.

And yes, the long term collapse did happen. It happened on June 23rd, 2011. Have you forgotten that? When he had to send the most important chunk of our core elsewhere to hit the reset button, and refill the roster and partly fill the prospect pool?



Quote:
You think they would have made that Cup run in 2010 without making the trades that were made? I highly doubt it. My guess, we'd be in the same spot we are now, only with more prospects. Still no Cups. Preferable...sure. Would we have made Cup runs without the Prongers of the world? Probably not. But we'd have those picks!
quit your garbage trashing of draft picks. Picks and the draft are how you build sustainable teams. Trivialize them all you want, but you're ignoring reality.

Now, I AM using hindsight: I would have rather not traded for Pronger, kept everything and everyone, and continued building forward. God only knows what the team could look like now had they built slowly and patiently with what they had.

If the Pronger trade had been it, that's one thing. BUT, it wasn't the only move. Those weren't the only picks and prospects they lost. Even without the Pronger trade you're looking at losing 3 years worth of firsts and seconds, which on its own is enough to do some serious damage. Include the Pronger trade and it became crippling.



Quote:
I'm not railing against anything. I am saying that if you are in a Cup run, you can make a trade. If no trade presents itself, fine. But you don't sit there and say, "Man, we're close this year. One more piece could really put us over the top." Then not make the trade because you have to deal a draft pick. How does that help?
You do not do it with 5 years of first and second round talent. You flat out don't. If you think you're so damned close every year that you cost your team that much (and without ever winning the Cup), then you are terrible at assessing your team's chances of winning.



Quote:
Oh ok. The long term-collapse includes playoff appearances. Got it.


Keep twisting. You're trying way too hard to deflect and twist the conversation. It's not going to work.



Quote:
Again, you're really blowing these numbers out of proportion. A net loss of two firsts (which in return, the Flyers got Chris Pronger, Kimmo Timonen, Scott Hartnell, and Kris Versteeg) and a net loss of four seconds (which off hand the only one I remember getting in those deals was Mez, so I can't vouch for the rest).
No, I'm not blowing them out of proportion. I'm telling you exactly what they are. And it goes beyond the picks themselves, there's also the players picked in those rounds that were sent away.

If anything, you're trying to downplay the numbers. I'm not doing anything but counting and presenting facts. I haven't had to do anything to make it look worse. It just happens to look bad on its own. Homer burned the candle on both ends.

Quote:
Those six draft picks have crippled this franchise? Really? And the return we got means nothing? Those six picks are better than Pronger, Hartnell, Timonen, Versteeg, Mez, and whomever else was acquired in those deals? Really? You'd rather have the picks? Why? So maybe one day they'll be on the NHL roster? Come on.
Let's see. Pronger isn't playing. Timonen is done. Hartnell is set to enter his decline if he hasn't already. Versteeg is gone...a two month rental for a first, wow, great GMing Paul! Mez is terrible, and had a terrible cap hit to begin with.

This isn't exactly a good sell on your part.

It's not desirable to constantly give up all your best chances at young affordable talent so you can bring in older, expensive talent. Like I said, there's a reason no successful team is run like the Flyers.

Meanwhile, the team had to be detonated once because they had a complete lack of affordable talent to fill the roster with and zero cap space to continue turning to FA. Hell, they also had nothing to trade to fix it either, because Homer had already traded it all away. The defensive prospect pool, which was the most neglected, is only just beginning to recover after two years of drafts heavy on defense. Forward prospect depth is still bad. One of those first rounders we had to deal away (JVR, in a deal which most recognized was not favorable for us) was done to address a need which would have been addressed with responsible drafting a development.

These are problems other successful franchises don't have, because they don't run the show like Homer does.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 11-12-2013 at 02:41 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 02:23 PM
  #188
El Dandy*
...Menace To Society
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dry Island
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
Just playing the role of contrarian for a moment, but that core wouldn't have competed as it was built. It still lacks a quality defense, and Bobrovsky might not be quite as good as he played last year. Other moves would have had to have been made. Beef was trying to make the point that it's not always bad to trade some future assets for immediate help, but there has to be balance.
Oh, I agree.

I am still a defender of the Pronger trade because without him, we probably don't even make the playoffs in 2010... let alone get within 2 wins of the Cup. Right or wrong, the Pronger trade is a trade you make when you think your cup window is open.

Heck, I don't really have any gripe with Homer before the 2010 off-season (besides the Eminger fiasco). Like Beef alluded to, the 2010 off-season is where this entire organization took a hard left turn in the wrong direction and this organization has since been on a rapid decline.

However, my point (and the point of others in this thread) is that you build AROUND that listed core... not blow it up and try again.

El Dandy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 02:42 PM
  #189
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
Yeah, if the Pronger trade is their one "yeah, let's go for it" move that would've been fine. Unfortunately, it wasn't. They just kept on bleeding picks and prospects over and over.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 02:50 PM
  #190
Flyotes
DownieFaceSoftener
 
Flyotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,189
vCash: 500
Beef's posts are driving me to drinking.

Flyotes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 02:51 PM
  #191
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
Beef's posts are driving me to drinking.
Writing them drives me to drink.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 03:38 PM
  #192
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
This after we had to blow up a Cup contending team thanks to Homer's strategy leaving him unable to fill the team any other way. This after missing the playoffs and having the worst offense since 1929 (until the Edmonton game, against another very flawed team). For reference, the last time an offense produced so little forward passing was against the rules and defensive interference was not.
I'm not so sure we "had" to blow up the team like we did for the reasons you are stating. Yes, he did blow up the team. But there were contributing factors that you are leaving out: the need for a goalie and the apparent dysfunction in the locker room. What were the trades motivated by? Was it to replenish the farm system? Was it to simply improve the team with a better collection of players? Was it to make room for Bryz? Was it to help heal the rift in the locker room? I don't know and neither do you. You saying it was to replenish the farm system is equally as legitimate as me saying it was for any of those other reasons.

Now, those other reasons all entail a different criticism of Homer (i.e. Cap problems, goalie problems, etc), but still, they are other reasons besides the trading of draft picks.

Quote:
Morin and Hagg are still years out. The defense isn't years away from being in a dire situation, it's precisely one year away. Hell, it's happening now. Timonen has eroded. We have no #1. The defense is average, which is not good enough to contend. Streit isn't going to get younger. Pronger's cap hit isn't going to go away.
And you think that having a couple more firsts and seconds would have fixed this (while not having Pronger or Timonen in the process)? You don't get it both ways. Either you get two players, one that has had a hell of a career with this team, another who was well on his way to having a hell of a career here before injury, or you get the prospects that maybe would right now be cracking this lineup. Or maybe Homer would have drafted a winger, center, or goalie and the defense would still suck. It's all too speculative.

Quote:
The situation isn't good. They're set at forward, but are set to be screwed on D...which happens to be the position most neglected in the prospect pool by Homer. Funny how that work.
They are set to be screwed on defense possibly. But if Schenn turns it around and Gus develops the way everyone here says (yourself included) then you have a pretty decent young core of defenders even without Timonen. Maybe it will be down for a year or two without those guys, but maybe they won't. Maybe someone else gets brought in. Maybe a young guy steps up. And so forth and so on.

Quote:
Well, this is the problem...Homer did just that. He has traded away 5 years worth of first round talent. Yet you are defending it.
If you read further, you'll see I explain that it IS acceptable if the situation is right. For many of the trades the situation was right. It didn't work out the way we wanted, but in the moment it was the move to make.

Quote:
CG already showed you that LA did fine without superhigh draft picks, and it has been long enough with Chicago that they aren't exactly benefitting from constant top 5 picks. Detroit has stayed competitive for years without high picks.
LA's picks weren't all top 5, but they were all after seasons where they didn't make the playoffs...i.e. sucking for long periods of time. Chicago 1--% is benefiting from getting those top five picks...that's how they got most of their best players...by having the draft picks from when they sucked (see: Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, etc). They weren't all top 5 picks, but they were all from years when they had those top 5 picks...which is why I have been saying this whole time, you keep those picks while you are rebuilding.

Detroit is great. I would love if Homer could pull of what Detroit has pulled off. I would love a couple 7th rounders to turn out to be hall of famers. I would love to have the best defenseman ever to play the game in Philly for two decades. I would love no name guys from the mid rounds to turn out to be studs. Their ability to do this kind of thing is from having those picks, no doubt. And I am not, nor have I been, saying that the only way to succeed is to trade all your picks all the time. I am saying that it is acceptable to make trades when the opportunity presents itself. I would love if Homer kept all our picks and still put together a strong team. But you have to realize that this team would look VERY different now, and in recent years had these moves not been made.

Carter and Richards are still here. Great. Maybe JvR is too. Is Giroux, or was he traded for cap reasons since Richards and Carter are still here and so is JvR? Read probably isn't. Raffl probably isn't. Mason isn't. Morin and Laughton? Who is in goal? What does this defense look like? Is Sbisa here instead of Pronger? Did we go to the Cup in 2010? Is Stuart Percy or Lucas Lessio on this team now? Did we actually take John Carlson?

You want to talk about results and how we know that this is a failure so I can't defend it...why is it that you can just simply state that taking another course of action would have been any better? There is no telling what this team looks like if you undo even a couple of these trades.

Quote:
We both know Boston built their roster more responsibly than Homer built the Flyers, as evidenced by their not needed to nuke their Cup winning team.
Absolutely. I am not saying Homer is the greatest GM of all time. Teams do a better job. Teams do a worse job.


Quote:
What's most important is at least GIVING yourself a chance to get cheap young talent through the draft. Homer basically didn't do that. Look where it got us compared to the others, who HAVE given themselves that chance.
We have cheap talent on this team. How many ELCs do you want to field on a team? Right now we have Couturier, Schenn, and Raffl on ELCs. We have Matt Read under a million. 9/12 forwards are under $4 million this season and were last year. The defense is a different situation, but outside of Timonen and Streit, the contracts are relatively friendly. Obviously these numbers will change next year when guys get raises, but you are *****ing and moaning about the ruination of this team without knowing what is going to happen next season in terms of "cheap" talent.

Quote:
Why the **** would you think this? Why would I be ok with this? Do explain to me why "being responsible, building sustainably" somehow equals "SUCKINGGGG 4EVERRRR."
I'm simply pointing out that your theory doesn't guarantee anything. It is but a different strategy. Hoarding all the draft picks and prospects in the world doesn't guarantee anything. Like you said, it gives you a "chance" at the cheap talent you so desperately crave. But it doesn't help you when you are potentially one or two moves away from a Cup.

Quote:
Sure, I agree. But Homer did it ALL THE TIME.
During a period where the team was perennially close. If you agree that it is ok to do it sometimes, where do you draw the line? Can you do it two years in a row? Every other year? What if you make a big trade to bring in a HUGE piece like Pronger...then how soon can you make another move?

Quote:
And yes, the long term collapse did happen. It happened on June 23rd, 2011. Have you forgotten that? When he had to send the most important chunk of our core elsewhere to hit the reset button, and refill the roster and partly fill the prospect pool?
See above.

Quote:
quit your garbage trashing of draft picks. Picks and the draft are how you build sustainable teams. Trivialize them all you want, but you're ignoring reality.
I'm not trivializing anything. They went to the Cup and the conference finals and finals in a span of three years, largely in part because of a couple draft picks that got traded for a couple players. But you want those draft picks...well, would we have gone that far if we had those draft picks instead of those players? My guess is no.

Quote:
Now, I AM using hindsight: I would have rather not traded for Pronger, kept everything and everyone, and continued building forward. God only knows what the team could look like now had they built slowly and patiently with what they had.
In hindsight obviously you don't make a move for a guy that will be unable to walk in three years.

Quote:
If the Pronger trade had been it, that's one thing. BUT, it wasn't the only move. Those weren't the only picks and prospects they lost. Even without the Pronger trade you're looking at losing 3 years worth of firsts and seconds, which on its own is enough to do some serious damage. Include the Pronger trade and it became crippling.
Actually, if you take the Pronger trade away the Homer has an even 0 in terms of firsts traded (he traded away two and got two without the Pronger trade). So you have the net loss of four second rounders...which I don't think does the damage that you are saying (remember those stats about how something like only 10% of those players play 200 NHL games).

Quote:
You do not do it with 5 years of first and second round talent. You flat out don't. If you think you're so damned close every year that you cost your team that much (and without ever winning the Cup), then you are terrible at assessing your team's chances of winning.
See above.

Quote:


Keep twisting. You're trying way too hard to deflect and twist the conversation. It's not going to work.
That's not twisting anything. You said there is a long term collapse. How can a team be in a long term collapse while they are making the playoffs???

Quote:
No, I'm not blowing them out of proportion. I'm telling you exactly what they are. And it goes beyond the picks themselves, there's also the players picked in those rounds that were sent away.
Who? John Carlson and John Moore? Other than those players, there wasn't much even picked in the same area, let alone that spot. And I guess it would have been a lock that they picked those guys too, right? No chance they go with any other player right?

Quote:
If anything, you're trying to downplay the numbers. I'm not doing anything but counting and presenting facts. I haven't had to do anything to make it look worse. It just happens to look bad on its own. Homer burned the candle on both ends.
Keep telling yourself that.

Quote:
Let's see. Pronger isn't playing. Timonen is done. Hartnell is set to enter his decline if he hasn't already. Versteeg is gone...a two month rental for a first, wow, great GMing Paul! Mez is terrible, and had a terrible cap hit to begin with.
No get a list of the players that we would have drafted and tell me what they are doing. Outside of one or two guys, nothing. I'll take my chances with a couple franchise defenders, 30 goal scorer, and a rental.

Quote:
This isn't exactly a good sell on your part.
Again, with hindsight its easy to point these things out.

Quote:
It's not desirable to constantly give up all your best chances at young affordable talent so you can bring in older, expensive talent. Like I said, there's a reason no successful team is run like the Flyers.
I assume you mean winning a Cup, because I would argue that with the exception of last year and the beginning of this year, the Flyers have been pretty successful. About as successful as you can be without winning a Cup.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the team had to be detonated once because they had a complete lack of affordable talent to fill the roster with and zero cap space to continue turning to FA. Hell, they also had nothing to trade to fix it either, because Homer had already traded it all away. The defensive prospect pool, which was the most neglected, is only just beginning to recover after two years of drafts heavy on defense. Forward prospect depth is still bad. One of those first rounders we had to deal away (JVR, in a deal which most recognized was not favorable for us) was done to address a need which would have been addressed with responsible drafting a development.
Pretty sure I covered this already.

Quote:
These are problems other successful franchises don't have, because they don't run the show like Homer does.
These "successful" franchises being the Hawks (who sucked for a decade before making their run with a group of core young players acquired during their decade of sucking), the Kings (who sucked for a decade before making their run with a group of core young players acquired during their decade of sucking), the Penguins (who sucked for a decade before making their run with a group of core young players acquired during their decade of sucking), and the Bruins (who, as I pointed out earlier, only had five players that were drafted by Boston on their Cup team).

Again I say, if you want those affordable cheap players, get ready to suck for a decade.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 05:05 PM
  #193
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I'm not so sure we "had" to blow up the team like we did for the reasons you are stating. Yes, he did blow up the team. But there were contributing factors that you are leaving out: the need for a goalie and the apparent dysfunction in the locker room. What were the trades motivated by? Was it to replenish the farm system? Was it to simply improve the team with a better collection of players? Was it to make room for Bryz? Was it to help heal the rift in the locker room? I don't know and neither do you. You saying it was to replenish the farm system is equally as legitimate as me saying it was for any of those other reasons.

Now, those other reasons all entail a different criticism of Homer (i.e. Cap problems, goalie problems, etc), but still, they are other reasons besides the trading of draft picks.
For the millionth time, the cap problems were greatly exacerbated by not having prospects or young talent which was caused by trading said prospects and draft picks. That causes the team to turn to free agency to fill out the roster. This is why our D corps is far and away the most expensive in the league yet with lackluster results.



Quote:
And you think that having a couple more firsts and seconds would have fixed this (while not having Pronger or Timonen in the process)? You don't get it both ways. Either you get two players, one that has had a hell of a career with this team, another who was well on his way to having a hell of a career here before injury, or you get the prospects that maybe would right now be cracking this lineup. Or maybe Homer would have drafted a winger, center, or goalie and the defense would still suck. It's all too speculative.
You don't think that an extra half decade of time spent drafting and developing players would be helpful?

You can have it both ways. You can make a big move every now and then, and then build properly around it. You don't need to push out 5 years of first and second round talent.

By the way, I'm not sure why you keep referencing Timonen and Hartnell. That was the last year we used our first round pick. We traded the 23rd overall for them. We had an extra, so that's fine. But then we traded JVR who we got in that draft to fill a need that could have been addressed had the prospect pool not been completely neglected.



Quote:
They are set to be screwed on defense possibly. But if Schenn turns it around and Gus develops the way everyone here says (yourself included) then you have a pretty decent young core of defenders even without Timonen. Maybe it will be down for a year or two without those guys, but maybe they won't. Maybe someone else gets brought in. Maybe a young guy steps up. And so forth and so on.
If Gus turns out the way I expect, as a decent top 4, the team is still screwed. We would be a D corps of Streit and a bunch of decent top 4/complimentary guys. That's bad.



Quote:
If you read further, you'll see I explain that it IS acceptable if the situation is right. For many of the trades the situation was right. It didn't work out the way we wanted, but in the moment it was the move to make.
The situation is right if you take the trades in a vacuum. They didn't happen in a vacuum. Once you start accounting for long term effects on the prospect pool and by extension the team, then it quickly becomes foolish to keep making those moves time after time. Once you've made one or two of those moves it stops being right to keep making more.



Quote:
LA's picks weren't all top 5, but they were all after seasons where they didn't make the playoffs...i.e. sucking for long periods of time. Chicago 1--% is benefiting from getting those top five picks...that's how they got most of their best players...by having the draft picks from when they sucked (see: Kane, Toews, Keith, Seabrook, etc). They weren't all top 5 picks, but they were all from years when they had those top 5 picks...which is why I have been saying this whole time, you keep those picks while you are rebuilding.
Neither team has been rebuilding for a long time now. They've managed to also continue contending without stripping their prospect pool bare.

Quote:
Detroit is great. I would love if Homer could pull of what Detroit has pulled off. I would love a couple 7th rounders to turn out to be hall of famers. I would love to have the best defenseman ever to play the game in Philly for two decades. I would love no name guys from the mid rounds to turn out to be studs. Their ability to do this kind of thing is from having those picks, no doubt. And I am not, nor have I been, saying that the only way to succeed is to trade all your picks all the time. I am saying that it is acceptable to make trades when the opportunity presents itself. I would love if Homer kept all our picks and still put together a strong team. But you have to realize that this team would look VERY different now, and in recent years had these moves not been made.
Detroit gives themselves a chance to get fresh talent. Homer has spent too much time making it too hard to fresh talent.

A team that looks very different from this current team is a bad thing how? Would this different team be well constructed with a better, affordable defensive group?

Quote:
Carter and Richards are still here. Great. Maybe JvR is too. Is Giroux, or was he traded for cap reasons since Richards and Carter are still here and so is JvR? Read probably isn't. Raffl probably isn't. Mason isn't. Morin and Laughton? Who is in goal? What does this defense look like? Is Sbisa here instead of Pronger? Did we go to the Cup in 2010? Is Stuart Percy or Lucas Lessio on this team now? Did we actually take John Carlson?
You're getting into way too many hypotheticals and you're trying to make this way more complex than it is. The simple reality is that if you empty your prospect pool/stock of young talent for half a decades and do not give yourself a chance to replenish it, you are forced to go to FA or other trades to fill the roster. Going to FA isn't sustainable in the cap era. This was shown going into 2011 when the team was in a severe bind. They had holes...they had nobody to call up and put in those holes. They had no cap space to fill them all. They had nobody easily expendable to trade. They no longer had draft picks to trade, as you may recall we didn't have our first or second going into that offseason.

Emptying the prospect pool is ultimately a road to failure. It isn't a guaranteed road to success, but it is definitely guaranteed to fail over time. It's a doomed strategy from the start.

Quote:
You want to talk about results and how we know that this is a failure so I can't defend it...why is it that you can just simply state that taking another course of action would have been any better? There is no telling what this team looks like if you undo even a couple of these trades.
I'm pretty sure taking a course of action that leaves a lot more room for success, as well as long term success, is superior to taking the course that inevitably leads to failure without guaranteeing a win along the way.



Quote:
Absolutely. I am not saying Homer is the greatest GM of all time. Teams do a better job. Teams do a worse job.
Sure thing. And I find it hard to say you HAVE to suck to succeed through drafting. I disagree. The Flyers have been remarkably stable for 40 years. They didn't do that and maintain it by completely neglecting the first two rounds of the draft and their prospect pool for years at a time. Once they did do it, the team began stumbling.




Quote:
We have cheap talent on this team. How many ELCs do you want to field on a team? Right now we have Couturier, Schenn, and Raffl on ELCs. We have Matt Read under a million. 9/12 forwards are under $4 million this season and were last year. The defense is a different situation, but outside of Timonen and Streit, the contracts are relatively friendly. Obviously these numbers will change next year when guys get raises, but you are *****ing and moaning about the ruination of this team without knowing what is going to happen next season in terms of "cheap" talent.
...nearly all of that cheap talent came after the team had to be blown to pieces because they couldn't afford to do anything. They were a little too late to help out before then. Before then, there was nothing really worth putting on an NHL roster. That was the entire freaking problem!!!



Quote:
I'm simply pointing out that your theory doesn't guarantee anything. It is but a different strategy. Hoarding all the draft picks and prospects in the world doesn't guarantee anything. Like you said, it gives you a "chance" at the cheap talent you so desperately crave. But it doesn't help you when you are potentially one or two moves away from a Cup.
What's better; having a chance, or being guaranteed to fail?

Trading all your picks, prospects, and young talent away for 5 years is guaranteed to fail. I prefer the tactic that isn't guaranteed to fail. I prefer the one that gives the team the best chance to be long term contenders instead of a one and done flash in the pan. Lord knows the Flyers scouting staff is good enough to find the talent. Too bad Homer neutralized that ability as much as possible for a long time.



Quote:
During a period where the team was perennially close. If you agree that it is ok to do it sometimes, where do you draw the line? Can you do it two years in a row? Every other year? What if you make a big trade to bring in a HUGE piece like Pronger...then how soon can you make another move?
You draw the line when you look at your prospect pool, look at your roster and it's future situation, and realize that a disaster is looming if you keep it up.

You know, that thing a bunch of us in this forum managed to do.




Quote:
I'm not trivializing anything. They went to the Cup and the conference finals and finals in a span of three years, largely in part because of a couple draft picks that got traded for a couple players. But you want those draft picks...well, would we have gone that far if we had those draft picks instead of those players? My guess is no.
But then they just kept on trading, and kept on trading, and kept on neglecting the prospect pool, and it all crashed down.

You act like draft picks never turn into players. Guess what? They do. That's their whole point. That's why I say you trivialize them with this crap "I prefer draft picks to players!" spiel. Draft picks GIVE you players. If you have a strong core you can supplement that with those players. You can replace older guys you can't afford. You can build a freaking team that is sustainable in the long term in the cap era, or hell, ANY era. It has been necessary to build through the draft for decades now, so ignoring that is unwise GMing.



Quote:
Actually, if you take the Pronger trade away the Homer has an even 0 in terms of firsts traded (he traded away two and got two without the Pronger trade). So you have the net loss of four second rounders...which I don't think does the damage that you are saying (remember those stats about how something like only 10% of those players play 200 NHL games).
Beyond just the ability to pick, there's also the players taken in the first two rounds that have been traded. Trading them away is just as draining as not picking. It's not a net zero for the first round.




Quote:
That's not twisting anything. You said there is a long term collapse. How can a team be in a long term collapse while they are making the playoffs???
Did they or did they not take a large step back because they had to blow up the team? When you have to destroy a Cup contending team almost immediately, I'd call that a collapse.



Quote:
Who? John Carlson and John Moore? Other than those players, there wasn't much even picked in the same area, let alone that spot. And I guess it would have been a lock that they picked those guys too, right? No chance they go with any other player right?
Do you prefer Eminger, or the chance at Carlson? I prefer the chance at Carlson. I like having good players.



Quote:
Keep telling yourself that.
A thrilling rebuttal.



Quote:
No get a list of the players that we would have drafted and tell me what they are doing. Outside of one or two guys, nothing. I'll take my chances with a couple franchise defenders, 30 goal scorer, and a rental.
Why exactly do I suddenly have to be the NHL GM? Why should I go back and scour scouting reports and figure out what players would have developed differently in a different situation?

I have a different idea. One that you have absolutely failed to do. Something you have desperately danced away from, focusing on petty semantics and trying to deflect the conversation everywhere by dissecting sentences instead of addressing the main point.

Prove to me that trading away half a decade of first and second round talent is a sustainable way to build a team. Prove to me that you can do that without running into massive problems.

All I ask is that you prove that strategy is feasible long term, because that's the whole heart of the matter here: That Homer's strategy was not sustainable.





And as a PS:

Quote:
Again I say, if you want those affordable cheap players, get ready to suck for a decade.
They managed to get Richards, Carter, and Giroux without sucking. Lots of teams manage to get quality players in the draft without sucking. Why do you HAVE to suck to draft good players? Where is that the rule?

What's really important is that you at least have a chance to get the top prospects, and we did not.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 11-12-2013 at 05:20 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 05:14 PM
  #194
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,706
vCash: 500
Good lord. I've read summary judgments with less attention to detail in comparison to this last page of posts. Good work Beef/DFF, you've both managed to be more boring than the court system.


Last edited by flyershockey: 11-12-2013 at 05:21 PM.
flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 05:23 PM
  #195
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
Good lord. I've read summary judgments with less attention to detail in comparison to this last page of posts. Good work Beef/DFF, you've both managed to be more boring than the court system.
Yeah, I'm not doing this picking apart crap anymore.

All I want is for DFF to get back to the core issue, and prove that you can neglect your prospect pool for half a decade in the cap era without running into huge problems.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 05:33 PM
  #196
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Yeah, I'm not doing this picking apart crap anymore.

All I want is for DFF to get back to the core issue, and prove that you can neglect your prospect pool for half a decade in the cap era without running into huge problems.
I think it's pretty clear that you can't. You can certainly ice a competitive team that's built through trades and free agent signings, but it's tough to maintain long term success because of the cap implications that it presents. Chicago is a perfect example. They would have never won another cup if they didn't have an excellent bunch of young players in the system to replace the players that they lost after the purge in the summer of 2010.

Cap issues have constantly plagued this team, especially on defense, because of their inability to bring in cheap talent through the draft. Because of that, they've had to skimp in other areas, most notably in goaltending (2010 loleighton, bad positioning, soft goal, we lose, I cry).

flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 05:38 PM
  #197
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,144
vCash: 500
Very successful Championship teams that repeat actually never stay pat..the Lakers in B-ball were always movers and shakers after winning a title. They would always make the right moves..making sure they wouldn't be stale and complacent. They maintened their core however but it takes not overrating your core either. Kind of hard with the Lakers and all those Hall of Famers..same with the Bulls.

With a cap it is really challenging to do so..hence why what the Hawks did after 2010 was pretty impressive. I would hate to see Holmgren try and do that...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 05:44 PM
  #198
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
The Hawks took a step back with those move, but kept building responsibly.

The Flyers traded Gagne for peanuts and signed Shelley and Leighton.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 09:07 PM
  #199
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
This is getting ridiculous but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
For the millionth time, the cap problems were greatly exacerbated by not having prospects or young talent which was caused by trading said prospects and draft picks. That causes the team to turn to free agency to fill out the roster. This is why our D corps is far and away the most expensive in the league yet with lackluster results.
Free agents like Read, Raffl, and Gus (and to a lesser extent, guys like Leino who were acquired on the cheap)?

Quote:
You don't think that an extra half decade of time spent drafting and developing players would be helpful?
I never said it wouldn't be helpful, I said a decision was made to move forward with the here and now was made. Obviously, having more picks is good. But so is having franchise defensemen and making moves at the trade deadline.

Quote:
You can have it both ways. You can make a big move every now and then, and then build properly around it. You don't need to push out 5 years of first and second round talent.
You can't have what the Flyers have (had) AND have those picks. Yes, you can make a big move every now and then and still keep your picks. But by doing that, you aren't going to get the results the Flyers got like a Pronger.

Quote:
By the way, I'm not sure why you keep referencing Timonen and Hartnell. That was the last year we used our first round pick. We traded the 23rd overall for them. We had an extra, so that's fine.
I keep referencing it because it is part of the bigger picture. You can't say Homer mismanaged the draft picks, then say but this was ok or that was ok. He either bungled it or he didn't. If he traded away too many firsts, that includes the first he traded to get Timonen and Hartnell. If you get to say well that doesn't count, then I get to say the Eminger trade doesn't count.

Quote:
But then we traded JVR who we got in that draft to fill a need that could have been addressed had the prospect pool not been completely neglected.
We traded him for a player the same age taken #5 in the draft. Again, I understand what you are saying. But just having defensive prospects doesn't mean this trade (or a similar trade) doesn't get made.

Quote:
If Gus turns out the way I expect, as a decent top 4, the team is still screwed. We would be a D corps of Streit and a bunch of decent top 4/complimentary guys. That's bad.
Your probably right about that. And that is not the best situation in the world, but its not the worst. With a good goalie (which it looks like we might finally have) and good forwards (which I think is pretty well accepted that we do have), the mediocre defense can be overcome.

Then you factor in that there may be players that are brought in via trade or free agency that will help in this situation. We'll see.

Quote:
The situation is right if you take the trades in a vacuum. They didn't happen in a vacuum. Once you start accounting for long term effects on the prospect pool and by extension the team, then it quickly becomes foolish to keep making those moves time after time. Once you've made one or two of those moves it stops being right to keep making more.
That sounds like what I have been saying. You make the moves when you are competing (i.e., last few years). If you are not competing (i.e., last year), you don't make those trades.

Quote:
Neither team has been rebuilding for a long time now. They've managed to also continue contending without stripping their prospect pool bare.
Yes, they aren't rebuilding any longer because they completed the rebuilding process by acquiring all those players. If the Flyers were perennially missing the playoffs, rather than making the playoffs, I don't think they would have (or should have) traded away their picks. Just like the Hawks. Just like the Pens. Just like the Kings.

Quote:
Detroit gives themselves a chance to get fresh talent. Homer has spent too much time making it too hard to fresh talent.
So does Edmonton. Hell they have had the BEST chance to get fresh challenge probably more than any team in recent history. Again, obviously, having more draft picks is better than having less draft picks. But just having draft picks doesn't mean anything. On the other hand, having a player that can potentially put you over the edge and win a Cup, does mean something. Both include risk: trading a pick potentially hurts the future by missing out on a player that could contribute down the line; holding on to that pick in lieu of making a deal potentially hurts the here and now by possibly missing out on a player that could get you a Cup.

Quote:
A team that looks very different from this current team is a bad thing how? Would this different team be well constructed with a better, affordable defensive group?
It might be a bad thing. It might be a good thing. But it would be different (and would have been over the last few years).

Quote:
You're getting into way too many hypotheticals and you're trying to make this way more complex than it is.
Not really. Those are hypotheticals that have to factor into this discussion. If you want to tell me they shouldn't have made these trades, why can't I hypothesize what the team would have looked like without those trades? We can't simply assume that by not making these trades it would have gone exactly as you planned. We don't know what would have happened, so I at least have to be able to question what the team would look like without the moves that were made.

Quote:
The simple reality is that if you empty your prospect pool/stock of young talent for half a decades and do not give yourself a chance to replenish it, you are forced to go to FA or other trades to fill the roster. Going to FA isn't sustainable in the cap era. This was shown going into 2011 when the team was in a severe bind. They had holes...they had nobody to call up and put in those holes. They had no cap space to fill them all. They had nobody easily expendable to trade. They no longer had draft picks to trade, as you may recall we didn't have our first or second going into that offseason.
And again, all that may be true, but look at the draft picks you are complaining about and tell me which players would have been able to fill the holes you are talking about? Let's look at the Firsts and Seconds that were traded from 2007-2010:

2007
Jonathan Blum, David Perron were around near the first rounder (I could see one of these players taken)
PK Subban was available in the second (probably wouldn't have taken him, based on the fact that they traded up to pick Kevin Marshall).

2008
John Carlson was near the first
No one of interest near the second that I can tell.

2009
John Moore and Tim Erixon near the first
No one of interest near the second

2010
No one of interest near either pick

Now if you look at these you have four players that could have helped out IF they were chosen (Erixon, Moore, Carlson, Perron, and Blum). Perron and Blum was the pick that we got for Timonen and Hartnell. A deal I don't think anyone would undo. Carlson is glaring one on this list and that one hurts. But there are two issues here 1) we don't know if we would have picked him and 2) John Carlson being here doesn't change all that much (maybe JvR is still here?). Moore/Erixon are two marginal players, and that pick came in the Pronger deal, another deal that I think most would do again if given the opportunity.

But yes, not having these picks killed us because we could have had a chance at having cheap talent instead of having the players that we had who helped get this team to the conference finals and the SCF.

Quote:
Emptying the prospect pool is ultimately a road to failure. It isn't a guaranteed road to success, but it is definitely guaranteed to fail over time. It's a doomed strategy from the start.
I don't know why you keep saying this like it is a fact. The Flyers missed the playoffs last year and are off to a slow start. That doesn't mean that this strategy has failed. If that's the barometer for failing, what happens if the Sharks (a team previously mentioned to do the opposite of the Flyers) miss the playoffs? Does that mean the strategy fails?

Quote:
I'm pretty sure taking a course of action that leaves a lot more room for success, as well as long term success, is superior to taking the course that inevitably leads to failure without guaranteeing a win along the way.
What if we characterize it this way: taking the route of improving a team that is close to winning a Cup is superior to sitting on your hands and hoping you are still competitive when your draft picks reach the NHL down the road. Doesn't sound as bad does it?

Quote:
Sure thing. And I find it hard to say you HAVE to suck to succeed through drafting. I disagree. The Flyers have been remarkably stable for 40 years. They didn't do that and maintain it by completely neglecting the first two rounds of the draft and their prospect pool for years at a time. Once they did do it, the team began stumbling.
I like that you call five straight playoff appearances, including ECF and SCF appearances, stumbling because three years later they missed the playoffs. You don't HAVE to suck to succeed through drafting, but all the teams that have won in recent years HAVE sucked except for the Bruins...and they made trades for a lot of their players. Weird, right? But that doesn't matter probably.

Quote:
...nearly all of that cheap talent came after the team had to be blown to pieces because they couldn't afford to do anything. They were a little too late to help out before then. Before then, there was nothing really worth putting on an NHL roster. That was the entire freaking problem!!!
Didn't they make it to Cup Finals before these cheap players got here? Why would they have had to help out when they weren't needed?

Quote:
What's better; having a chance, or being guaranteed to fail?
Guaranteed to fail? They were two wins away from a Cup. Then they made the playoffs for the next two years. Oh that's right, one season means long-term collapse.

Quote:
Trading all your picks, prospects, and young talent away for 5 years is guaranteed to fail. I prefer the tactic that isn't guaranteed to fail. I prefer the one that gives the team the best chance to be long term contenders instead of a one and done flash in the pan. Lord knows the Flyers scouting staff is good enough to find the talent. Too bad Homer neutralized that ability as much as possible for a long time.
See above.

Quote:
You draw the line when you look at your prospect pool, look at your roster and it's future situation, and realize that a disaster is looming if you keep it up.

You know, that thing a bunch of us in this forum managed to do.
So you're close. You need another winger and you think you can make a run for the Cup...you don't make the move because you are going to miss out on a player that might make the team in a couple years. To me, that is a bad move.

Quote:
But then they just kept on trading, and kept on trading, and kept on neglecting the prospect pool, and it all crashed down.
Crushed down...by missing the playoffs one year.

Quote:
You act like draft picks never turn into players. Guess what? They do. That's their whole point. That's why I say you trivialize them with this crap "I prefer draft picks to players!" spiel. Draft picks GIVE you players. If you have a strong core you can supplement that with those players. You can replace older guys you can't afford. You can build a freaking team that is sustainable in the long term in the cap era, or hell, ANY era. It has been necessary to build through the draft for decades now, so ignoring that is unwise GMing.
I don't act like they never turn into players. I act like if given the choice of improving a team's chances that is close to win that year, I would do it over improving a team's chances to improve down the road.

Quote:
Beyond just the ability to pick, there's also the players taken in the first two rounds that have been traded. Trading them away is just as draining as not picking. It's not a net zero for the first round.
JvR was traded for Luke Schenn, another first rounder of the same age. Sbisa was dealt for Pronger. The only other high draft pick I remember trading was Downie, which yeah with hindsight I probably wouldn't do that.

Quote:
Did they or did they not take a large step back because they had to blow up the team? When you have to destroy a Cup contending team almost immediately, I'd call that a collapse.
A step back, sure. Collapse. No. Collapse would be at least two or three years of missing of the playoffs and missing them badly.

Quote:
Do you prefer Eminger, or the chance at Carlson? I prefer the chance at Carlson. I like having good players
That's a trade I would undo. Other than that, the other players around the picks weren't much.

Quote:
Why exactly do I suddenly have to be the NHL GM? Why should I go back and scour scouting reports and figure out what players would have developed differently in a different situation?
We are discussing the merits of trading draft picks vs. keeping them. Why wouldn't you have to defend your position? If there is garbage being drafted around these draft picks...why was it so damaging to trade these picks? In the alternative, if the Flyers could have drafted a team of all-stars, perhaps my position loses credence.

Quote:
I have a different idea. One that you have absolutely failed to do. Something you have desperately danced away from, focusing on petty semantics and trying to deflect the conversation everywhere by dissecting sentences instead of addressing the main point.

Prove to me that trading away half a decade of first and second round talent is a sustainable way to build a team. Prove to me that you can do that without running into massive problems.
At this point, I can't. Just like you can't prove that is unsustainable. Why? Because missing the playoffs for one year doesn't mean it is unsustainable.

Quote:
All I ask is that you prove that strategy is feasible long term, because that's the whole heart of the matter here: That Homer's strategy was not sustainable.
I can't because its still in progress. If they turn it around and get to the playoffs, well, then it seems to be still working to me.

Quote:
And as a PS:

They managed to get Richards, Carter, and Giroux without sucking. Lots of teams manage to get quality players in the draft without sucking. Why do you HAVE to suck to draft good players? Where is that the rule?
Again, I never said you had to, but the teams you are pointing to that have won recently by using your strategy HAVE sucked. So no, it is not a rule, but it surely helps.

Quote:
What's really important is that you at least have a chance to get the top prospects, and we did not.
And yet we have Couturier, the Schenns, Laughton, Morin, Haag, etc.......

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2013, 09:20 PM
  #200
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,771
vCash: 500
I don't have to prove it's unsustainable. It was already proven to be unsustainable on June 23, 2011. The burden is on you to somehow disprove that Homer's strategy left the team with many rosters spots to fill, not enough cap space, and not enough capable prospects to step in, while also having no disposable assets to trade to alleviate the situation.

That no other GM has had any sort of success employing a similar strategy further shows that. Hell, no other GM has even traded 5 drafts worth of first and second round talent in the cap era. If Homer's strategy was a sustainable and good strategy, other teams would use it.

Beef Invictus is online now   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 10:28 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.