Jester, you are correct when you say that Ripken is "god-like" in the minds of the Orioles faithful, and I am no different. But to say that Ripken "wanted" the streak is a bit far-fetched IMO. To say that makes it seem as if Cal put on his uniform from the time he was a 22 year-old kid with the streak in mind-that was clearly not the case. As Cal himself has said on numerous occasions, "the Streak just sort of took on a life of it's own." In the beginning, he was a Rookie-of-the-Year candidate (which turned into the Rookie of the Year. The following year was his first of two MVP seasons. He was the best at what he did, so no need to sub for him. From there, things just probably snowballed. But what I am sick and tired of hearing (for the better part of two decades now) is how "Ripken would've bettered the team if he sat out." Says who? The casual fan? Gimme a freakin' break. For years, the Orioles had no shortstops in the organization because they knew it would be years before Cal was going to give up the position-Streak or not. There is a short list of players who they tried to turn into 3rd basemen, etc., but the larger list is probably those they ended up trading away, or even past over come draft time. Now you may turn that into a "see that's how Cal hurt the organization" argument, but I would disagree with that as well. I think I speak for the majority of Orioles fans when I say, that as Orioles fans, we wanted him in the lineup every night, and the Streak had absolutely nothing to do with that. We wanted to see our best player play. I think the best way I can sum it up as a fan is to repeat what I said to Cal when I met him last year, "I've been an Orioles fan for 38 years, and through the years we had good times and bad times. But for 20 of those years we always had you, and for that I will always thank you." I really don't know of a better compliment I could ever give a player, and I'm getting tears in my eyes just typing it. I don't think an outside observer can truly ever understand what he meant to us. It really is like a secret society that only we share in. You hear about athletes who "carry the weight of the team" on their shoulders, but do not forget, for years and years, the only sports team Baltimore had was the Orioles. So he wasn't just carrying the weight of the team, he was carrying the weight of an entire city, and probably even an entire region.
Moving on, I stand by my statement about Jackson's Yankee contract setting a new standard in baseball. Any historian will say the same thing. I would also argue that the arbitrator's award for Mattingly, during Ripken's tenure, didn't help either. You can't compare the position of first baseman to a shortstop....
...which brings me to Gehrig. Do some research on the man. As his streak got further and further along, during doubleheaders, he was known to play the 9th inning of the first game, and the first one of the second game all in an effort to keep his streak alive. Gehrig also pinch hit on multiple occasions. Cal did nothing of the sort. Cal played every inning of every game until he got tossed once early on in a game (the homeplate ump said it was akin "to throwing Bambi out of the forest.") And even after that, Cal still mostly played every inning of every game.
And yes, I will also agree that if Cal came into the league in 1990, there would have been more money thrown at him, but the same is true of Babe Ruth, it's an irrelevant discussion. For the time he played in, Cal did indeed get huge offers to play elsewhere, he chose to stay. I'm sure family and literally being brought up in the organization had a lot to do with it, but then again, one cannot say "all athletes are in it for the money." I stand by my original post which was that there are still "good guys" left in the game today--all games, not just baseball.
In closing, I would just like you to list the "vast assortment of injuries" that plagued Cal during the Streak and thus hurt the team by playing. Because other than tweaking his ankle in a fight against Seattle (yes, he was the first man in the pile--shows how much he cared about injury/the Streak), I cannot think of one. Were there slight pains along the way, sure, but when the team and yes, the fans, mean more to you than you mean to yourself, you get to the field and play. One hundred years from now, people will still be talking about Cal Ripken, don't try to belittle him by calling him "selfish." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Moving on, I stand by my statement about Jackson's Yankee contract setting a new standard in baseball. Any historian will say the same thing. I would also argue that the arbitrator's award for Mattingly, during Ripken's tenure, didn't help either. You can't compare the position of first baseman to a shortstop....
okay, if we want to get into important contractual moments in baseball history, Curtis Flood is the one you want to point to (landmark for all sports), not Reggie Jackson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flood
that's the deal that changed everything. i've never read any baseball historian making that big a deal out of Jackson's contract in the grand scheme of things, especially given that the contract situation didn't drastically change from that era through to the 90s... specifically, you didn't see the major player movement and consolidation of veteran talent to such a degree until then, which is really the important point of demarkation. doesn't mean Jackson's contract wasn't important in the time, it just means he didn't start a spiraling situation like what you've seen the last 15 years.
you may not like the criticism i'm laying at Ripken's feet, but nothing i'm saying here is novel and you'll find that criticism in a HOST of baseball observers that exist outside the bubble of Baltimore. it's not attacking Ripken at a personal level, everyone understands, but as Ripken himself insinuates in that quote... the streak, and the pursuit of it, took on a life of it's own and it was very much ABOUT the pursuit of the streak until he finally got it.
no, of course he didn't think one days a young player, 'i'm going to keep on playing until i catch Gehrig'. however, once it became feasible, he went about going after it... and no one was going to stop him but himself. that's when some selfish qualities came into it... there were down years when he could have used a day or two off to get out of a hitting streak... sore muscles that would have healed faster with a day off... so on and so forth. there's a reason few players get there, and it has nothing to do with them not having the desire to be on the field every day... it has to do with the fact that there comes a point in 2,000 games when it isn't smart to go out there...
great player and clearly a great guy... but to not realize that there comes a point when there is some selfishness in attaining records is a bit silly, IMO. everyone wants to get records and have their name attached to history (just like everyone wants to earn money for their job)... however, most other records don't involve placing yourself in a situation where you have to make decisions that might be detrimental to the club and yourself.
The funny thing is Pitkanen said that he didn't enjoy getting booed here. He's going to Edmonton now - that's not exactly the friendliest of environments for non-performers, either. I'd venture to say they're even harsher- and they don't forget.
I cant exactly say whether or not they are harsh to players who dont perform, but I would think that anywhere a hockey player plays would get booed if he didnt perform. I know I would. I mean Todd Bertuzzi gets booed everywhere he goes and he doesnt seem to underperform that often
I cant exactly say whether or not they are harsh to players who dont perform, but I would think that anywhere a hockey player plays would get booed if he didnt perform. I know I would. I mean Todd Bertuzzi gets booed everywhere he goes and he doesnt seem to underperform that often
Huh? Bertuzzi hasn't been a good player in at least 3 years, maybe 4.
Joni will do well in any system with structure. The flyers certainly didn't have it last year, and I am not sure the oilers are that much better in terms of playing a stringent system or paying attention to the details.
It is a shame that the flyers, for whatever the reason, felt the need to trade a player of that calibre. He is still better than 5 if not all of the current d man they have now.
Damn, it's a shame the mod had to delete flyerfan64's latest posts... they were golden. I still can't believe he ripped on garbage men! That was so uncalled for!
okay, if we want to get into important contractual moments in baseball history, Curtis Flood is the one you want to point to (landmark for all sports), not Reggie Jackson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Flood
that's the deal that changed everything. i've never read any baseball historian making that big a deal out of Jackson's contract in the grand scheme of things, especially given that the contract situation didn't drastically change from that era through to the 90s... specifically, you didn't see the major player movement and consolidation of veteran talent to such a degree until then, which is really the important point of demarkation. doesn't mean Jackson's contract wasn't important in the time, it just means he didn't start a spiraling situation like what you've seen the last 15 years.
you may not like the criticism i'm laying at Ripken's feet, but nothing i'm saying here is novel and you'll find that criticism in a HOST of baseball observers that exist outside the bubble of Baltimore. it's not attacking Ripken at a personal level, everyone understands, but as Ripken himself insinuates in that quote... the streak, and the pursuit of it, took on a life of it's own and it was very much ABOUT the pursuit of the streak until he finally got it.
no, of course he didn't think one days a young player, 'i'm going to keep on playing until i catch Gehrig'. however, once it became feasible, he went about going after it... and no one was going to stop him but himself. that's when some selfish qualities came into it... there were down years when he could have used a day or two off to get out of a hitting streak... sore muscles that would have healed faster with a day off... so on and so forth. there's a reason few players get there, and it has nothing to do with them not having the desire to be on the field every day... it has to do with the fact that there comes a point in 2,000 games when it isn't smart to go out there...
great player and clearly a great guy... but to not realize that there comes a point when there is some selfishness in attaining records is a bit silly, IMO. everyone wants to get records and have their name attached to history (just like everyone wants to earn money for their job)... however, most other records don't involve placing yourself in a situation where you have to make decisions that might be detrimental to the club and yourself.
I'm afraid that this conversation, like the Streak, is taking on a life of it's own.
There is no athlete in the world who doesn't get criticized (if you'll remember it was one of the cornerstones in my discussion relating to Pitkanen being upset and being booed). But when 98+% of the writers that have covered baseball for 10 years or more agree that you or worthy of induction to the HOF, then clearly you have done more right than wrong in your career. Remember the group of people we are talking about here. This is the same group of people, albeit a generation or so removed, that didn't think Joe DiMaggio was worthy of a first-time ballot nod. This is why I laugh when people discuss who should or should not be in the Hall, not many people realize what a fickle bunch of people these baseball writers are. But again, I disgress.
To say you are not mocking Ripken personally and call him a great guy then turn around and call him "selfish" is akin to an oxymoron in my opinion. The compliments you throw his way are meaningless when you then do indeed attack him personally. Again, to someone who isn't a fan of the Orioles, I could never explain to you what he meant to us. Why I'm continuing to bother is even beyond me at this point.
Personally, I could give a crap about the Streak, but that is all anyone talks about. As much as I love seeing all records held by Yankees fall, I vividly remember telling my mother that I wish Cal would've taken off game #2129 just to prove a point--to prove that it wasn't all about the Streak, but rather about one man's love of the game and yes, loyalty to his team and his team's fans.
You talk about the Flyers not doing the right thing by Joni-aren't you expecting a form of loyalty? But then you talk about how player loyalty is not necessary. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect teams' owners to be loyal to their players, but then not expect the players to be loyal to the teams. I'm sorry, what Gomez did to the Devils (albeit funny IMO) was a ********* thing to do. He went to one of their biggest rivals--he knew this would cause an uproar--their fans are pi$$ed and I don't blame them. I can relate because I went through it when Mussina signed with Stanks. I don't care that he left-that's his choice-but to sign with one of your team's biggest rival--********* thing to do.
Jester, I have no doubt in my mind that you are a VERY educated young man, but with all due respect, I truly would hate to be your future employer. You seem to hold such little regard to loyalty of any kind and seem to talk about "money" and the need for it, and the desire to obtain it, that I truly hope you will find a job that meets all your personal expectations and gives you a big, fat paycheck as well. But as your friend found out, it doesn't always happen that way. I think you seriously underestimate the importance of loyalty in the workplace, I just hope you don't underestimate its importance when it comes to your personal life.
I'm afraid that this conversation, like the Streak, is taking on a life of it's own.
There is no athlete in the world who doesn't get criticized (if you'll remember it was one of the cornerstones in my discussion relating to Pitkanen being upset and being booed). But when 98+% of the writers that have covered baseball for 10 years or more agree that you or worthy of induction to the HOF, then clearly you have done more right than wrong in your career. Remember the group of people we are talking about here. This is the same group of people, albeit a generation or so removed, that didn't think Joe DiMaggio was worthy of a first-time ballot nod. This is why I laugh when people discuss who should or should not be in the Hall, not many people realize what a fickle bunch of people these baseball writers are. But again, I disgress.
Baseball HOF voters are morons and it's proven every single year. They are a bunch of crunchy dudes who feel empowered by their vote and want to act like the gate-keepers to heaven and make people sweat. Nor is it a new thing, as you point out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan97
To say you are not mocking Ripken personally and call him a great guy then turn around and call him "selfish" is akin to an oxymoron in my opinion. The compliments you throw his way are meaningless when you then do indeed attack him personally. Again, to someone who isn't a fan of the Orioles, I could never explain to you what he meant to us. Why I'm continuing to bother is even beyond me at this point.
It's actually more an understanding that no one in life is perfect, even Cal Ripken. Most athletes are selfish about their athletic accomplishments... they want to achieve things for pride and personal accolades. Cal Ripken is human like everyone else, and in his heart of hearts, I'm sure he feels a great swelling of pride with regard to what he did during his career... as does everyone else.
You can sit there and believe that Ripken belong on a pedestal devoid of any critical scrutiny, but no one is that transparent. At the end of the day, being selfish as an athlete is an excellent quality... people talk all the time how they want their marquee players to WANT the puck, at bat, etc. in the big spot. That's an implicitly selfish desire... the desire to be 'the man', 'the hero', etc.
How someone is as an athlete says next to nothing about how they are as a human being away from the lines... and again, this criticism of Ripken and the streak isn't something novel, it's been out there for a very long time among numerous commentators... there were days when he should have sat down, but didn't because HE wanted the streak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan97
Personally, I could give a crap about the Streak, but that is all anyone talks about. As much as I love seeing all records held by Yankees fall, I vividly remember telling my mother that I wish Cal would've taken off game #2129 just to prove a point--to prove that it wasn't all about the Streak, but rather about one man's love of the game and yes, loyalty to his team and his team's fans.
You might not give a crap about it, but Cal Ripken is a national brand because of that streak... he's made a ton of cash based on that streak. And he didn't take that game off... he got the streak and then kept pushing it out, even playing the 1997 season with a back problem while continuing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan97
You talk about the Flyers not doing the right thing by Joni-aren't you expecting a form of loyalty? But then you talk about how player loyalty is not necessary. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect teams' owners to be loyal to their players, but then not expect the players to be loyal to the teams. I'm sorry, what Gomez did to the Devils (albeit funny IMO) was a ********* thing to do. He went to one of their biggest rivals--he knew this would cause an uproar--their fans are pi$$ed and I don't blame them. I can relate because I went through it when Mussina signed with Stanks. I don't care that he left-that's his choice-but to sign with one of your team's biggest rival--********* thing to do.
The Flyers failed to make it work with Joni... they didn't fail him at some personal level. That isn't a situation about 'loyalty'. It's a situation about making the damn thing work out so you can have a great talent on your team. You're turning this into some personal, emotional friggin deal. It's not about that at all... It didn't work, and they moved on.
And owners throughout the entire friggin world of sports have ZERO loyalty to the players that come through their doors. In horseracing they used to turn them into glue... sports with humans ain't too much different, those guys just get kicked to the curb the moment they don't meet snuff. Fans are the same frigign way.
Look no further than what happened to Ryan Smyth this past season... he ends up crying in a press conference.
What Gomez did that is wrong in your eyes is based on some emotional bond that players are supposed to hold to... It doesn't exist at nearly the strength in modern sports where you have all this player movement as you're trying to make it out. It matters to the FANS, not to the players because it doesn't matter to anyone that is controlling their lives. What Gomez did was make a decision about where he wanted to work the next 7 years... he took a JOB, which everyone else in the world is allowed to do without criticism, but athletes are held to a stupid, emotional standard because people allow them into their lives at an emotional level.
It comes back to the point that you have to cheer for the crest and not the guys that are wearing it. Making it about more than that is stupid... because THEY can't operate under the assumption that they will be shown any loyalty by fans and owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan97
Jester, I have no doubt in my mind that you are a VERY educated young man, but with all due respect, I truly would hate to be your future employer. You seem to hold such little regard to loyalty of any kind and seem to talk about "money" and the need for it, and the desire to obtain it, that I truly hope you will find a job that meets all your personal expectations and gives you a big, fat paycheck as well. But as your friend found out, it doesn't always happen that way. I think you seriously underestimate the importance of loyalty in the workplace, I just hope you don't underestimate its importance when it comes to your personal life.
I'm going to be in academia, I've sort of passed on big paychecks. It doesn't really matter to me all that much. My personal expectations are summers off and the ability to read about the things I like to read about... whatever else comes my way, is fine. That's a decision based on personal utility of life. However, I will most likely take the job that offers the best package... just like anyone else.
However, in the real world, where I live, people tend to make decisions concerning their employment based upon how much they're being paid, paired with other economic utility factors. It's called micro-economics and it's pretty much the basis of a capitalist economy -- the one you live in. When people are offered better money to do the same exact job... they usually tend to take the better money. Now, you may want to live in a delusional mindset where there's some vast majority of people that are bucking Adam Smith's economic model, but a bit over 200 years has proven that he had a pretty good understanding of the way the world works at an economic level.
My friend found out that the utility of working 100+ hours a week isn't all that great, even when you're making good cash. Here's the thing, though, when he does switch jobs he's not going to be giving up that much cash he's just going to find a slightly less insane work environment than NYC investment banking.
And lady, don't friggin question my loyalty to people. You don't know me. You never will know me. The fact that I have a rationalistic view of the way the world works when it comes to money says squat about my personal relationships. I'm the most loyal friggin person you'd ever meet... I just happen to understand that when it comes to WORK, not friendships, there's a different set of considerations that people operate by. Is it a perfect understanding? No, it's merely probabilistic understanding of the way the world works... which people far smarter than you and I have worked out through strenuous observation.
The majority of people in this world will follow the money if it's put in front of them. It's true of baseball players, hockey players, bankers, brick layers, and everything else you can name.
Money talks. But, here's the deal, if you're right and those of us saying that money truly is what matters are wrong.... you should write a book, because you'll win a Nobel Prize. You'll have to prove that free market economics doesn't exist and that the way the western world has been operating for the past 200 years is, in fact, an aberration, but I suppose you might be able to pull it off... if you're right about the way the majority of the world operates.
You know Jester, I toyed with whether to include the last paragraph, because I knew it would strike a nerve, and that is not how I intended it to come across. I know I don't know you, but my perception of you from many, many posts is that money seems soooooooo important to you (and yes, I know perceptions over and internet board are not alway accurate). And as someone a bit older than you, I'm just trying to say that there are things more important in life. A great work environment, working with great people and probably most importantly--making a difference in the world--but I do think you get that.
My point is that if I am the president of Yale and I hire you as a professor in my history department, I don't want to sit on pins and needles waiting for the day you leave my institute for Harvard because they're offering more money.
The original post was that "all athletes" follow the money, and I will argue that with my last breath. "All" is a pretty big word. I chose to use Ripken and Gwynn as an example because a) they are obviously in the spotlight right now, and b) yes, that type of athlete is a dying breed. And, yes, I agree with Roger when he says you still have to pay your stars well, but athletes like Ripken, Gwynn, Yzerman truly understood the importance they had on their team and with their fans. We tend to put our athletes on a pedestal--a sad commentary, I know, but there are still good ones left in the world for whom loyalty does indeed matter.
I will not continue to discuss Pikanen with you because you want to blame the fans and the media for his departure. He needs tougher skin and that's really all there is to it.
If you think the Philadelphia media is bad, do me a favor and apply at NYU and spend a couple of decades listening to the NY media. I've seen them rip apart athletes like Barber, Cone, Messier, Rodriguez, Clemens....the list goes on and on. The media is what it is, they are never happy with "their" stars play. As you alluded to yourself, they really are nothing but frustrated non-athletes. Unfortunately for Joni, it will be no different for him in Edmonton if he stands at the side of the net and watches opposing teams score.
I think we've gotten to the point where arguing about Pitkanen is just stupid by now.
There was obviously something going on behind the scenes.
As I've already said, my take is that Holmgren thought Pitkanen was a problem-child and that a bunch of other GMs probably thought the same thing or else we probably could have gotten a better deal.
Jester's take (and maybe some others) is that the organization never gave Joni a chance and was happy to get rid of him.
If my take is right, then the trade is completely justifiable IMO. If Jester's is right, then I have a problem with the deal of course.
However, there isn't much use in considering to argue about it.
I personally think that a Gagne-Briere-Lupul line could be very dangerous on the PP, not sure how it would translate at even strength, but it might be worth a try.
Thank you. McNasty has an aunt that works close to Timmy P, and she told him that he was creating issues with signing. He obviously didn't want to sign with the Flyers, so people, hear me out.
IF PITKANEN DIDN'T WANT TO RE-SIGN WITH US, WE MADE OUT INCREDIBLY WELL ON THE TRADE.
Get that and pound it into your skulls. I personally think it was a good trade regardless of Pitkanen's status with our team. We made out ok. Drop the damn Pitkanen arguments. Moving on.
I think Pitkanen signed for a decent amount for coming off of a horrible season. $2.4 is decent, and he should be able to break out well in Edmonton, I think he'll fit in there nicely.
And you're right. That Gagne-Briere-Lupul PP line would be amazing so long as they had the chemistry to work it.
You know Jester, I toyed with whether to include the last paragraph, because I knew it would strike a nerve, and that is not how I intended it to come across. I know I don't know you, but my perception of you from many, many posts is that money seems soooooooo important to you (and yes, I know perceptions over and internet board are not alway accurate). And as someone a bit older than you, I'm just trying to say that there are things more important in life. A great work environment, working with great people and probably most importantly--making a difference in the world--but I do think you get that.
My point is that if I am the president of Yale and I hire you as a professor in my history department, I don't want to sit on pins and needles waiting for the day you leave my institute for Harvard because they're offering more money.
The original post was that "all athletes" follow the money, and I will argue that with my last breath. "All" is a pretty big word. I chose to use Ripken and Gwynn as an example because a) they are obviously in the spotlight right now, and b) yes, that type of athlete is a dying breed. And, yes, I agree with Roger when he says you still have to pay your stars well, but athletes like Ripken, Gwynn, Yzerman truly understood the importance they had on their team and with their fans. We tend to put our athletes on a pedestal--a sad commentary, I know, but there are still good ones left in the world for whom loyalty does indeed matter.
I will not continue to discuss Pikanen with you because you want to blame the fans and the media for his departure. He needs tougher skin and that's really all there is to it.
If you think the Philadelphia media is bad, do me a favor and apply at NYU and spend a couple of decades listening to the NY media. I've seen them rip apart athletes like Barber, Cone, Messier, Rodriguez, Clemens....the list goes on and on. The media is what it is, they are never happy with "their" stars play. As you alluded to yourself, they really are nothing but frustrated non-athletes. Unfortunately for Joni, it will be no different for him in Edmonton if he stands at the side of the net and watches opposing teams score.
There are larger factors than money... it's called economic utility. For you, that involves staying where you grew up, for example... there is utility in that for you. My point to you is that being critical because of perceived 'lack of utility' is childish and immature and it's unfair to criticize these guys because they apparently lack a quality you want to see... ALL that shows you is that for those individuals in their own lives, the reasons to stay in one spot or another didn't exist.
asking anyone take take serious pay cuts out of some loyalty to an employer, especially in the sports world where there is zero loyalt shown by the ownership is asinine. lets ask Lupul (third team in three years) and Smith (in Edmonton a decade before getting ditched to Philly) about the loyalty of organizations... and the Flyers and every other team in the league are no different.
the Ripken's and Gwynn's of the world are different from the Gomez's of the world only in that they had a different economic utility in the decisions they made concerning their life. that in itself doesn't make them good people, and Gomez's having different reasons for pursuing his life doesn't make him a bad person in comparison to them at all.
seriously, this is all VERY simple economic understanding of how the world and, by a very essential piece of the puzzle, how people work. the work you do in life is a commodity that you sell to an employer... asking and essentially demanding that these guys take 20% pay cuts to stay with one employer out of loyalty is and unbelievably unrealistic and unfair appraisal of the decisions they make.
honestly, if you were getting 20% below market value from your employer would you suck it up and take unfair pay out of loyalty? essentially your employer is taking advantage of your loyalty to pay you below market for your services... that's what is getting asked of these guys in many cases. is that fine for some... sure. however, they have their personal reasons for doing that... doesn't make 'em a good guy. they're just as human as everyone else.
The Philadelphia media is horrible... so is the media in the rest of the northeast. You don't live in philly, and thus haven't spent much (possibly any) time listening to 610 WIP and the stupidity they espouse in riling up the city.
However, the media is fed by the fans... the media is a product. If people didn't like and agree with the crap they spit, then that product wouldn't sell and they would have to go down a different street. The media is a product of the people that read it as much as it is of any one writer...
As far as professors moving and everything else... it's the same as everything else, if people are paid fairly they stay where they're at. That's the way the world tends to work.
Thank you. McNasty has an aunt that works close to Timmy P, and she told him that he was creating issues with signing. He obviously didn't want to sign with the Flyers, so people, hear me out.
IF PITKANEN DIDN'T WANT TO RE-SIGN WITH US, WE MADE OUT INCREDIBLY WELL ON THE TRADE.
Get that and pound it into your skulls. I personally think it was a good trade regardless of Pitkanen's status with our team. We made out ok. Drop the damn Pitkanen arguments. Moving on.
I think Pitkanen signed for a decent amount for coming off of a horrible season. $2.4 is decent, and he should be able to break out well in Edmonton, I think he'll fit in there nicely.
And you're right. That Gagne-Briere-Lupul PP line would be amazing so long as they had the chemistry to work it.
Pitkanen was incapable of NOT signing with us. He was getting taken to arbitration, he would have been given an arbitration award (which easily would have been that contract -- 2.4M) and he would have had the choice of playing for that contract, or holding out, which doesn't end well for players in that spot.
Pitkanen would have been wearing orange and black next season, or no other NHL jersey.
Now, if Pitkanen really didn't want to be here long-term... they could have had a discussion about reaching an understanding about making a deal (i think we would have had to make a move due to salary cap implications somewhere anyway) after the next season when he could hopefully recover his value some... specifically do a sign-and-trade type of deal like what you saw with Heatley.
The value we got back from the deal is problematic. If Smith was 5 years younger it would be a good deal, but he's not exactly a spring chicken. Lupul added to a position we already had in spades... a scoring defenseman and a veteran third/fourth liner probably would have made more sense from a pure team depth chart situation.
The real issue is that this trade has long-term ramifications with regard to this club... because we now lack a true stud offensive dman on the team, or in the pipes coming up. Timonen is a very good player, but he doesn't have the type of talent that we would have seen in 2-3 years from Pitkanen potentially, so we're now back int he position where we need to find that type of defenseman to add to our roster over the next few years.
Now, if Pitkanen really didn't want to be here long-term... they could have had a discussion about reaching an understanding about making a deal (i think we would have had to make a move due to salary cap implications somewhere anyway) after the next season when he could hopefully recover his value some... specifically do a sign-and-trade type of deal like what you saw with Heatley.
I don't think that Pitkanen's value (the return we would get) would have been higher next season. With the signings we made this offseason and the pending RFAs (Carter, Richards, Umberger, Coburn, Picard) next season it would have been difficult to fit them all under the salary cap.
There are two possibilities, either he plays a great season and earns himself a big contract and we can't fit all of the young guys under the cap or he plays a second bad season and his trade value falls to zero. In both cases we don't get a decent return for him. In the first he would be a salary dump (either Pitkanen or some of the other young guys) or he is just bad and we don't get a good return.
Pitkanen was incapable of NOT signing with us. He was getting taken to arbitration, he would have been given an arbitration award (which easily would have been that contract -- 2.4M) and he would have had the choice of playing for that contract, or holding out, which doesn't end well for players in that spot.
Pitkanen would have been wearing orange and black next season, or no other NHL jersey.
Now, if Pitkanen really didn't want to be here long-term... they could have had a discussion about reaching an understanding about making a deal (i think we would have had to make a move due to salary cap implications somewhere anyway) after the next season when he could hopefully recover his value some... specifically do a sign-and-trade type of deal like what you saw with Heatley.
The value we got back from the deal is problematic. If Smith was 5 years younger it would be a good deal, but he's not exactly a spring chicken. Lupul added to a position we already had in spades... a scoring defenseman and a veteran third/fourth liner probably would have made more sense from a pure team depth chart situation.
The real issue is that this trade has long-term ramifications with regard to this club... because we now lack a true stud offensive dman on the team, or in the pipes coming up. Timonen is a very good player, but he doesn't have the type of talent that we would have seen in 2-3 years from Pitkanen potentially, so we're now back int he position where we need to find that type of defenseman to add to our roster over the next few years.
Apparently Joni was threatening going back to Finland.
The real issue is that this trade has long-term ramifications with regard to this club... because we now lack a true stud offensive dman on the team, or in the pipes coming up. Timonen is a very good player, but he doesn't have the type of talent that we would have seen in 2-3 years from Pitkanen potentially, so we're now back int he position where we need to find that type of defenseman to add to our roster over the next few years.
I think you're really underestimating Picard and the job he can do. As a 21 year old (same age that Pitkanen was when he broke into the league), Picard had 21 points in 62 games on a bad team. Pitkanen had 27 points in 77 games I believe it was. So, the offensive part of Pitkanen's game is easily replaced by the progress of Picard. As for the defensive part of the game, it's not even close. Remember Pitkanen had great defensemen around him in his rookie season. Picard didn't have that luxury. Yes, Picard still made his share of rookie mistakes, but all in all, his defensive awareness was already much higher than that of Pitkanen's.
I'm not saying that we wouldn't be better off without Pitkanen in the lineup, but to say that we have nobody capable of doing what Pitkanen has done or is capable of doing is kind of a reach. I really think it's been Picard's progress that made Pitkanen expendible.
Funny thing just thinking about things. Remember how our top four was supposed to be built around Pitkanen, Woywitka, St.Jacques and Seidenberg? Funny how none of them panned out here eh......
This team doesn't need anyone who doesn't want to play here in the locker room, period. In fact, they probably can't afford it. There will be time spent adjusting to the new faces and having a disgruntled defenseman would have just exacerbated that. Sure, maybe we should have forced Joni to play with the team until the next trade deadline but I'd rather just wash my hands of the whole situation and move on. He isn't the future of our team and maybe a guy like Lupul isn't either... but at least he is appreciative of the chance to set his career back in motion.
I don't think that Pitkanen's value (the return we would get) would have been higher next season. With the signings we made this offseason and the pending RFAs (Carter, Richards, Umberger, Coburn, Picard) next season it would have been difficult to fit them all under the salary cap.
There are two possibilities, either he plays a great season and earns himself a big contract and we can't fit all of the young guys under the cap or he plays a second bad season and his trade value falls to zero. In both cases we don't get a decent return for him. In the first he would be a salary dump (either Pitkanen or some of the other young guys) or he is just bad and we don't get a good return.
this team would have been much, much stronger... and he would have benefited from a host of things going on around it. the PP alone should have been better, which would have padded him statistically considerably.
in return for Pitkanen we got a young offensive forward with a MASSIVE question mark over his head, but with very good potential... and a veteran defensive defenseman.
what if Pitkanen goes out and nabs 60 pts playing for us this year, and goes back to his +20s from the year before? we sign him to a 2-year deal at reasonable cost (with the understanding that we're going to move him, a la the Heatley/Hossa deal... we can work it through his agent).
i'd be shocked if we couldn't have gotten a better return after all of that... if he just does what he did last year, then you have another consideration. i just don't like the return as parts to the puzzle here more than the value...
Apparently Joni was threatening going back to Finland.
threatening and actually doing are two completely different animals... that's negotiating leverage. Pitkanen's ONLY card was saying i'll go back to Finland... saying that and actually walking away from 2.5M are two different things. i would have liked to see us call that bluff and see what happens.
perhaps it never would have worked out long-term, but the short-term situation didn't make nearly as much sense as people are giving the Flyers credit for.
I think you're really underestimating Picard and the job he can do. As a 21 year old (same age that Pitkanen was when he broke into the league), Picard had 21 points in 62 games on a bad team. Pitkanen had 27 points in 77 games I believe it was. So, the offensive part of Pitkanen's game is easily replaced by the progress of Picard. As for the defensive part of the game, it's not even close. Remember Pitkanen had great defensemen around him in his rookie season. Picard didn't have that luxury. Yes, Picard still made his share of rookie mistakes, but all in all, his defensive awareness was already much higher than that of Pitkanen's.
I'm not saying that we wouldn't be better off without Pitkanen in the lineup, but to say that we have nobody capable of doing what Pitkanen has done or is capable of doing is kind of a reach. I really think it's been Picard's progress that made Pitkanen expendible.
Funny thing just thinking about things. Remember how our top four was supposed to be built around Pitkanen, Woywitka, St.Jacques and Seidenberg? Funny how none of them panned out here eh......
Picard doesn't have the upside of Pitkanen... he's not the playmaker, he's not the skater, he's just not in the same league. Picard has a chance to be a very solid player in this league, but he does not and never will have the capability of putting up 60 pts from the blueline in this league.
And I think we HAVE to have Picard on this team for his offensive ability, so I agree he has the ability to produce... he's just going to be a 40-50 pt guy at his apex, and he may not get to that level.
This team doesn't need anyone who doesn't want to play here in the locker room, period. In fact, they probably can't afford it. There will be time spent adjusting to the new faces and having a disgruntled defenseman would have just exacerbated that. Sure, maybe we should have forced Joni to play with the team until the next trade deadline but I'd rather just wash my hands of the whole situation and move on. He isn't the future of our team and maybe a guy like Lupul isn't either... but at least he is appreciative of the chance to set his career back in motion.
I'm fine with that thought process... and to a degree I agree with it. The real issue with the Pitkanen trade is that the return doesn't make sense... we needed a defenseman who could play the PP if we gave him up, and Holmgren didn't get that as part of the deal.
Lupul has nice potential... but he didn't serve the needs of this club after that trade was made. Smith is a great guy to have on the club, but he's a one-dimensional defensman, when we need a two-dimensional one.
this team would have been much, much stronger... and he would have benefited from a host of things going on around it. the PP alone should have been better, which would have padded him statistically considerably.
in return for Pitkanen we got a young offensive forward with a MASSIVE question mark over his head, but with very good potential... and a veteran defensive defenseman.
what if Pitkanen goes out and nabs 60 pts playing for us this year, and goes back to his +20s from the year before? we sign him to a 2-year deal at reasonable cost (with the understanding that we're going to move him, a la the Heatley/Hossa deal... we can work it through his agent).
i'd be shocked if we couldn't have gotten a better return after all of that... if he just does what he did last year, then you have another consideration. i just don't like the return as parts to the puzzle here more than the value...
I think everyone agrees that the Flyers bought high, and sold low with Pitkanen. And I think everyone agrees that the pieces received in the trade don't fit what the Flyers needed (a stud defensemen). The only thing we can do is cheer for the kid. If he turns out, those of us who were cheering for him can say we told you so.
Quote:
threatening and actually doing are two completely different animals... that's negotiating leverage. Pitkanen's ONLY card was saying i'll go back to Finland... saying that and actually walking away from 2.5M are two different things. i would have liked to see us call that bluff and see what happens.
I wouldn't be so cavalier about calling Joni's bluff as yourself. Just last week, we saw that European players with talent always have a spot back home, where their families are. If Joni walks, the Flyers lose their franchise player for nothing.
That's not a risk. That's political suicide when you're working for Ed Snider.
Lupul has nice potential... but he didn't serve the needs of this club after that trade was made. Smith is a great guy to have on the club, but he's a one-dimensional defensman, when we need a two-dimensional one.
And that's why I would have preferred to have seen Holmgren overpay for Erik Johnson or any of the other young defensive studs in the league today (sans Jack Johnson). At least we would have been assured quality. Right now, the Flyers are a worse off team for having made the deal.
I wouldn't be so cavalier about calling Joni's bluff as yourself. Just last week, we saw that European players with talent always have a spot back home, where their families are. If Joni walks, the Flyers lose their franchise player for nothing.
That's not a risk. That's political suicide when you're working for Ed Snider.
Joni would have to take a contract in Russia in order to get close to the compensation... and he would also put his NHL career on complete hold, essentially he'd be a NHL hostage to the Flyers with the arbitration award.
The pluses/minuses ledger for Pitkanen in that situation would be much more in favor of showing up than going home. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure he would have shown up... I might be wrong, but I think if you have a chat with him and his agent about working out something over the coming year, it's something that is agreeable to all parties.
I don't think Ed Snider has any problems with the team standing pat in the face of a player dictating terms to them. Ask Eric Lindros.
And that's why I would have preferred to have seen Holmgren overpay for Erik Johnson or any of the other young defensive studs in the league today (sans Jack Johnson). At least we would have been assured quality. Right now, the Flyers are a worse off team for having made the deal.
I guess it all depends really. If the Flyers end up flipping other pieces and land themselves a good young defenseman with offensive upside, no one is the wiser. I agree that we probably could have gotten a lot more than what we did for Pitkanen. At the same time, when stories of his unhappiness in Philadelphia and going back to Finland surface, then it pretty much paints the organization into a corner and makes them act swiftly.
I really think the Lupul deal does nothing more than make Umberger and others trade bait to land that offensive defenseman. The question though is who do you go after? Personally, I think going after someone like a Christian Backman or even Jeff Woywitka in St.Louis would be a good place to start. Not every team is in a position where they can deal off a young defenseman with offensive upside. Part of me was hoping that if Pitkanen was dealt anywhere, it was to Phoenix where maybe we had a shot at landing a Michalek or Ballard. With that being said, I'm very comfortable with Timonen and Desjardins Jr (Picard) leading the offense from the blue line in Philadelphia.
I don't think Ed Snider has any problems with the team standing pat in the face of a player dictating terms to them. Ask Eric Lindros.
Ask him what, how to hold out and demand a trade? If so, I think Joni already beat me to the punch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16
I really think the Lupul deal does nothing more than make Umberger and others trade bait to land that offensive defenseman. The question though is who do you go after? Personally, I think going after someone like a Christian Backman or even Jeff Woywitka in St.Louis would be a good place to start. Not every team is in a position where they can deal off a young defenseman with offensive upside. Part of me was hoping that if Pitkanen was dealt anywhere, it was to Phoenix where maybe we had a shot at landing a Michalek or Ballard. With that being said, I'm very comfortable with Timonen and Desjardins Jr (Picard) leading the offense from the blue line in Philadelphia.
I'm not. And I'll tell you why. Picard does everything you could want in a defenseman, but he doesn't do it well enough. Those 22 points...5 of them came in one night. Before that, he went 19 nights without scoring a single point. He's a great prospect, no doubt, but he should be being spoon fed minutes until he becomes more familiar with the NHL, not being handed the reigns of a playoff contender's PP. The sooner the Flyers learn how to ease a defenseman in the league, the sooner we can all put Seidenberg, Woywitka, Pitkanen, and any other case of unfulfilled potential in the back of our minds.
Ask him what, how to hold out and demand a trade? If so, I think Joni already beat me to the punch.I'm not. And I'll tell you why. Picard does everything you could want in a defenseman, but he doesn't do it well enough. Those 22 points...5 of them came in one night. Before that, he went 19 nights without scoring a single point. He's a great prospect, no doubt, but he should be being spoon fed minutes until he becomes more familiar with the NHL, not being handed the reigns of a playoff contender's PP. The sooner the Flyers learn how to ease a defenseman in the league, the sooner we can all put Seidenberg, Woywitka, Pitkanen, and any other case of unfulfilled potential in the back of our minds.
Maybe we could raid Nashville again, this time for their player personnel/development department?
