Confirmed with Link: 2017-18 roster talk, part 7; July 11: Scott Laughton, 2-yrs, $962.5k per

[BrimFullofAsham45]

Hjalmarsson was traded for an NHL defensemen though. I'm not a huge fan of Murphy as he's just okay. But the perception on him is likely a younger NHL defender with promise to get better on a manageable long term contract. The Flyers didn't really have that to offer.

This is true. If a young NHL defenseman is what it took to get the deal done, I concede. Murphy is still an underwhelming return. I would think the Flyers have enough assets now to at least meet the value.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

This need for veteran players is exaggerated, in my opinion. Especially when half of them wouldn't be an upgrade over the rookies we're about to see.

It so is, and they so wouldn't - completely agree. This issue frustrates me even more than the Mason debate. Let the kids play - the kids are all right.

 

[NYCFlyer]

We had a ton of vets last year, Gudas, MacDonald, Streit, MDZ, and Schultz... and what was that worth? Zero.

The whole time we were watching them we were dreaming of replacing them with young guys. Now that we're about to do so, we want more useless vets? No thanks.

How do you know what their impact on Provorov was to help him transition to the NHL? The other rookie D weren't ready for the NHL last year so they had to plug some in but we jettisoned three of those vets. Of course you don't need vets just to have them but you 100% need vets that young guys look up to, emulate and can take pressure off them so they can transition and develop. I would argue that having the right vets like a Kimmo in his mid 30s or Jagr at that age greatly improves a young team.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

How do you know what their impact on Provorov was to help him transition to the NHL? The other rookie D weren't ready for the NHL last year so they had to plug some in but we jettisoned three of those vets. Of course you don't need vets just to have them but you 100% need vets that young guys look up to, emulate and can take pressure off them so they can transition and develop. I would argue that having the right vets like a Kimmo in his mid 30s or Jagr at that age greatly improves a young team.

G, Jake and Simmer is plenty of good veteran leadership for the young guys, despite playing different positions. If the cost of acquiring an average veteran defenseman is that they will take the spot of one of the kids they are meant to mentor, then the cost is not worth it. If they replace the farmer, that's different, but Hexy would have to pull some serious hoodoo on some sucker GM to make that happen.

 

[YEM]

Hjalmarsson shouldn't be compared to [or mentioned in the same breath as] our vets of last year [MacDonald, Streit, MDZ, and Schultz]
that's like comparing a mountain in the Alps to those in the Poconos

 

[BrimFullofAsham45]

At some point you have to take the training wheels off. If you keep signing guys/trading for guys, all you do is stop the kids from trying.

Flyers have 5 dmen signed. Which means we are banking on Hakstol to bench Mac/Manning.

If they acquire any more "vets," it'll be a lock that only 1 kid can make it and that kid will still be at risk at sitting and then you are watching Manning/MacDonald play night in and night out.

And you can't keep counting on replacing MacDonald with another vet, right now it's 99% chance he's staying in some fashion. If Hexy adds somebody, it's probably adding to the MacD/Manning/Gudas grouping.

Keep might be the wrong choice of words here - we haven't added any defensemen through free agency or trade.

I realize the necessity to "take the training wheels off." However, it's dangerous to assume this will occur even without the addition of a - solid - defensemen. We have a coach that has no problem handing minutes to MacDonald and Manning and, for example, banishing a player like Konecny to the 4th line.

 

[Tripod]

The big issue with not letting the kids play this year, is we have Myers and Friedman right behind Sanheim, Morin and Hagg. So if you delay one this year, it delays others behind as well. At sone point, they have to play. They are not 18-19 year old rookies.

 

[BrimFullofAsham45]

The big issue with not letting the kids play this year, is we have Myers and Friedman right behind Sanheim, Morin and Hagg. So if you delay one this year, it delays others behind as well. At sone point, they have to play. They are not 18-19 year old rookies.

Well, they aren't all going to be NHL players on this team.

 

[Striiker]

How do you know what their impact on Provorov was to help him transition to the NHL? The other rookie D weren't ready for the NHL last year so they had to plug some in but we jettisoned three of those vets. Of course you don't need vets just to have them but you 100% need vets that young guys look up to, emulate and can take pressure off them so they can transition and develop. I would argue that having the right vets like a Kimmo in his mid 30s or Jagr at that age greatly improves a young team.

If anything Provorov was hindered by vets because instead of being able to slowly acclimate to the NHL and have his role increase over time, he had to take a huge role immediately and carry dead veteran weight all year.

If they need role models on the team we have plenty of great vets in the forward core. Great character, great work ethic, great attitude, great everything. Dmen don't have to look up to Dmen any more than forwards can only look up to other forwards.

 

[BrimFullofAsham45]

G, Jake and Simmer is plenty of good veteran leadership for the young guys, despite playing different positions. If the cost of acquiring an average veteran defenseman is that they will take the spot of one of the kids they are meant to mentor, then the cost is not worth it. If they replace the farmer, that's different, but Hexy would have to pull some serious hoodoo on some sucker GM to make that happen.

Having a veteran defensemen is more than mentoring and leadership. Young players have a long road to gaining the trust of NHL coaches and Hakstol's favoritism of MacDonald and Manning (who I hesitate to call a "vet" but seems to have the trust of the coach) in "key" situations is evident. In the hypothetical scenario in which Hjalmarsson is on the team, this truth is a lot more tolerable.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

This is true. If a young NHL defenseman is what it took to get the deal done, I concede. Murphy is still an underwhelming return. I would think the Flyers have enough assets now to at least meet the value.

Cost certainty was the big phrase thrown around to explain the Hawks trades last weekend. Murphy & Saad are both on long term deals going forward. They traded for established NHL players in both trades. So I don't think a future based package would have done anything there unless the Flyers really went overboard.

 

[deadhead]

Provocop is not going to have a sophomore slump, barring injuries, he's so fundamentally sound there's nothing to "expose," and the more he plays, the more confident he has become on the offensive side of the ice.

Morin, Hagg and Sanheim aren't junior eligible, they've had from 1-3 AHL seasons, at some point you have to play them. If teams can start 18-19 year old rookies, we can start 21-22 year old rookies.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

It so is, and they so wouldn't - completely agree. This issue frustrates me even more than the Mason debate. Let the kids play - the kids are all right.

But the problem is this: we don't know if they are all right. We hope they are and we believe they will be, but if they are not, now you have your prize prospects playing on a losing team and struggling with the NHL game so your options are to send them down and call up a scrub prospect and continue the losing. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we go out and sign a 30 year old defender to a seven year contract. The idea is you get a guy or two here and there as a depth player. If the kids beat him out in camp, great. He can ride the pine or get sent down. If the kids don't beat him out then we at least have someone that can hang in the NHL. It is foolish to just assume that all our prospects will come in and be capable of playing a full season without having to worry about one (or more) struggling.

If we do nothing, that means we're going to have presumably four rookies at least (two on the blue line and Patrick and Lindblom), maybe more if you really want to commit to the youth movement because our cap situation allows for us to either bury guys or just bench a guy with a big salary. I'd like to see at least one forward and one defenseman brought in on a cheap short deal. Best cases cenario the guy never plays because the rookies do well. Worst case scenario the rookies can't hang and someone the fans hate can take the licks instead of a beloved prospect (and then people can ***** about Hakstok not knowing what he is doing).

 

[Hakstol Jim Duggan]

Digging into some stats to see if there's any hidden gem free agents, and my god, what an absolute miracle it is to have Bellemare off this team:

of 261 forwards who've played 2,000+ 5v5 minutes the last three seasons, Bellemare is dead last in points per 60 at 0.67. Next closest is still .08 above him, and 259th is .28 above him. Wow.

VandeVelde comes in at 256th (1.00), and .28 above him is a tie for 212th.

 

[Hiesenberg]

But the problem is this: we don't know if they are all right. We hope they are and we believe they will be, but if they are not, now you have your prize prospects playing on a losing team and struggling with the NHL game so your options are to send them down and call up a scrub prospect and continue the losing. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we go out and sign a 30 year old defender to a seven year contract. The idea is you get a guy or two here and there as a depth player. If the kids beat him out in camp, great. He can ride the pine or get sent down. If the kids don't beat him out then we at least have someone that can hang in the NHL. It is foolish to just assume that all our prospects will come in and be capable of playing a full season without having to worry about one (or more) struggling.

If we do nothing, that means we're going to have presumably four rookies at least (two on the blue line and Patrick and Lindblom), maybe more if you really want to commit to the youth movement because our cap situation allows for us to either bury guys or just bench a guy with a big salary. I'd like to see at least one forward and one defenseman brought in on a cheap short deal. Best cases cenario the guy never plays because the rookies do well. Worst case scenario the rookies can't hang and someone the fans hate can take the licks instead of a beloved prospect (and then people can ***** about Hakstok not knowing what he is doing).

Why do you speak about contracts/cap like they are easily disregarded?

If you sign a guy to a 2 year/6MM contract, he's gonna play on this team, if he's benched, now you are wasting 3MM of cap space. If he's waived, you only get 950K (or close) in relief.

If you sign a player, he's playing. And before the suggestion is, sign a cheaper guy, at what point is a super cheap vet, just a wast of money, it would mean they are awful.

No, reliable vet will sign for league minimum, I mean Girardi is being talked about getting a 3 year deal. He was statistically one of the worst dmen in the league.

 

[Rebels57]

Every summer it's the same with the fans of young teams..

"Bring in a vet or two"

Blah blah blah.

Unless that vet can actually improve the team without mortgaging the future, than it makes no sense.

I would have loved Hjalmarsson but they acquired a decent young RHD for him. We would have had to move Gudas or a prospect like Myers to acquire Hjalmarsson. Neither of of which would be smart trades.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

The Flyers really don't have the capspace to bring in a goalie, forward, & defensemen in free agency even if they wanted too.

Capfriendly has them at $12.5M in capspace right now but with 10F/5D/1G. They're likely to be at 14F/7D/2G when all is said & done.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Having a veteran defensemen is more than mentoring and leadership. Young players have a long road to gaining the trust of NHL coaches and Hakstol's favoritism of MacDonald and Manning (who I hesitate to call a "vet" but seems to have the trust of the coach) in "key" situations is evident. In the hypothetical scenario in which Hjalmarsson is on the team, this truth is a lot more tolerable.

But that's a Hakstol problem, not a young D man problem. And they will never gain the trust of the coaches if they never have the chance to get the mistakes out of their systems and grow in the NHL. And I understand that you are saying we should get a good veteran D man, not a scrub, but each degree of improvement in the player you get raises the acquisition cost too, and I don't see any reason at all to spend assets on the position when we have all these guys who need a chance. Basically we just disagree on this point, and there are plenty of people on this board on either side of this issue, and that's cool - I don't feel like either side is suggesting anything crazy. I feel strongly about this issue, but I also understand the other side.

 

[Hiesenberg]

The Flyers really don't have the capspace to bring in a goalie, forward, & defensemen in free agency even if they wanted too.

Capfriendly has them at $12.5M in capspace right now but with 10F/5D/1G. They're likely to be at 14F/7D/2G when all is said & done.

Nolan - 950K
Lindblom - 925K
Weal - 1.5MM
Laughton - 950K - Whatever is Arb number is.
Morin - 863K
Hagg - 894K

Those are my guesses to help fill out that roster. Goalie will probably be the most costly.

 

[Rebels57]

Nolan - 950K
Lindblom - 950K
Weal - 1.5MM
Laughton - 950K
Morin - 950K
Hagg - 950K

Those are my guesses to help fill out that roster. Goalie will probably be the most costly.

I wouldn't count on that.

That doofus Benning is going to overpay and he is from Vancouver.

 

[TheWolfOfBroadStreet]

I posted this in the Minnesota forum and wanted to hear what you guys thought as well.

Myers/Sanheim for Kaprizov.

Look, I get it, trading a defensemen even though we have a deep pool is probably not wise and very rarely do you see a prospect for prospect trade. However, I imagine that all 3 will probably be entering the NHL at the same time (maybe Sanheim makes the club this year, we will see). I see it like this, we are going to have to pay simmonds big money next year and this would be a cheaper alternative along with not a huge drop in production (i envision Lindblom playing Simmonds role on the PP1). Kaprizov on Patrick or Giroux's wing would be lethal, and I think we have some forwards similar to Simmonds on the way in Allison and Radcliffe (I know they are a couple years away but I am trying to have a long term view here as well).

Also, I absolutely love Kaprizov's game, so I am a bit biased!

Thoughts?

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

But the problem is this: we don't know if they are all right.

How are we ever going to know if they are all right if we don't play them? We still don't have a good read on Anthony Stolarz' NHL future, because he sat all those games when he could have played a nice handful of games and given the organization a better look at him. These defensemen have been percolating long enough - it's time to give 2 of them at the very least a chance. This is the whole point of drafting and development - to get them into the league and on the team when they are ready. The plan you are describing sounds cowardly to me and I don't see any reason to be so afraid of playing rookies. What do we really have to lose this year by playing those guys? On top of all that, IMO these guys are going to prove, pretty easily, that they are among the top 6 D men in our organization. So they will make us better anyway. I haven't forgotten how poorly the farmer played for vast swathes of last season, nor have I forgotten how ultimately terrible Meat Shield is at playing hockey. Great crash test dummy - not a great hockey player. And again, if we are talking about bringing in a guy to replace AMac, that's a different story - but I don't see that really being an option.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

I posted this in the Minnesota forum and wanted to hear what you guys thought as well.

Myers/Sanheim for Kaprizov.

Look, I get it, trading a defensemen even though we have a deep pool is probably not wise and very rarely do you see a prospect for prospect pick. However, I imagine that all 3 will probably be entering the NHL at the same time (maybe Sanheim makes the club this year, we will see). I see it like this, we are going to have to pay simmonds big money next year and this would be a cheaper alternative. Kaprizov on Patrick or Giroux's wing would be lethal, and I think we have some forwards similar to Simmonds on the way in Allison and Radcliffe (I know they are a couple years away but I am trying to have a long term view here as well).

Also, I absolutely love Kaprizov's game, so I am a bit biased!

Thoughts?

I think you answered your own question really. I like Kaprizov a lot, but I wouldn't trade a potentially top pairing D man for him. If we were to move for him, I'd think it would make more sense as part of a Simmer trade.

 

[TheWolfOfBroadStreet]

I think you answered your own question really. I like Kaprizov a lot, but I wouldn't trade a potentially top pairing D man for him. If we were to move for him, I'd think it would make more sense as part of a Simmer trade.

I originally thought that as well, in fact I proposed it last season and basically the only reason it didnt make sense for Minny was cap purposes (we would have had to take Pomminville).

My thought process here is we keep the production from simmer this year, dont have to pay him next, and still add a great LW prospect while Lindblom takes over Simmers role along with others like Radcliffe and Allison on the way.

Losing a Dman like Sanheim/Myers would hurt, but I absolutely think Kaprizov is the same caliber prospect as them.

Provorov- Gudas
Morin- Ghost
Sanheim/Myers- Hagg

That is still a really solid lineup, with the cap space we could also sign a really solid 2nd or 3rd pairing defensemen if your not sold on Hagg, or have one of our many other D prospects rise to that position as well.

 

[Rebels57]

I posted this in the Minnesota forum and wanted to hear what you guys thought as well.

Myers/Sanheim for Kaprizov.

Look, I get it, trading a defensemen even though we have a deep pool is probably not wise and very rarely do you see a prospect for prospect trade. However, I imagine that all 3 will probably be entering the NHL at the same time (maybe Sanheim makes the club this year, we will see). I see it like this, we are going to have to pay simmonds big money next year and this would be a cheaper alternative along with not a huge drop in production (i envision Lindblom playing Simmonds role on the PP1). Kaprizov on Patrick or Giroux's wing would be lethal, and I think we have some forwards similar to Simmonds on the way in Allison and Radcliffe (I know they are a couple years away but I am trying to have a long term view here as well).

Also, I absolutely love Kaprizov's game, so I am a bit biased!

Thoughts?

I would probably trade Myers for Kaprizov.