GDT: #29: FLYERS at Flames, Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2018, 8:30 p.m. ET

[SolidSnakeUS]

Flames are gonna f*** the Flyers HARD. I hope they don't let up and destroy the Flyers.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Cherry picking? Season S% totals is "cherry picking."
You said they had above average goal tending.
As usual, you made an unsubstantiated statement, I provided legitimate stats, you then try to CYA by claiming "cherypicking."

Take s look at how you presented those stats. Weird how it changed after the first line. Why the dishonesty?

Why are you so enamored with a failure? The dude loses regardless of goaltending.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

Put Lindblom with Patrick and actually give him ice time, get Ghost in with a sports psychologist, fire hak, acquire a top 4 defenseman, fire hak, fire lappy, hire quenneville, fire hak.

good post

 

[hatcher]

Patrick the chickenshit LOL.

 

[flyers0909]

Patrick the chicken**** LOL.

This is surprising, his board play was the reason we scored our only goal yesterday.

 

[hatcher]

This is surprising, his board play was the reason we scored our only goal yesterday.

terrible

 

[Beef Invictus]

terrible

You oppose good board play?

 

[BernieParent]

Fantasy land again, "hire Queennville". Uh, has he given any indication he wants to take over a team that is unlikely to make the playoffs this year?
Why would he be in a rush? Like he might miss out on the Flyers? Only to have his choice of situations? While he's making $6M?
Heck, Q might be waiting to see if the Pens fire Sullivan, for all we know.

Right now it's Hakstol, Gordon or Knob. So what's the rush?

The Flyers FO doesn't have to solve why Quenneville would or wouldn't accept the HC job. They just need to decide whether he is an upgrade over Hakstol and would contribute to a higher chance of winning. If the answer is 'yes', they make Quenneville say no to them, repeatedly. If Dave Scott is antsy to spend to the cap, imagine how quickly he could write cheques for a coach with Quenneville's CV that doesn't count against the cap. And if Q's hill to die on is significant say in personnel decisions, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

But since you asked, here's why I think Q would accept:

• A roster replete with both young and veteran talent
• A stocked prospect list
• A team with deep pockets willing to spend on their players

Combine that with the ability to meet his salary and coaching powers demands, and Q may not feel the need to choose a better destination. He may but, like I said, it would be foolish to not make him say no.

As for your previous comment, "doing something for the sake of placating fans" is certainly a top-3 objective for Scott. If is inconceivable that demonstrated fan apathy didn't play into their decision to fire Hextall and the expressed intent to be more aggressive for a better on-ice product is speaking to the fanbase. At whom are these fans directing the majority of their ire? A coaching change is the easiest way to "do something" to rouse a team from its doldrums, so tossing a much-maligned coach – especially in favour of one who has won 3 Stanley Cups this decade – would be an instant win that would return bums to seats. It is also the shot across the bow of an underachieving squad that status quo is no longer acceptable.

 

[hatcher]

You oppose good board play?

One shift a game. Patrick is playing terrible hockey.

 

[Beef Invictus]

One shift a game. Patrick is playing terrible hockey.

He plays more than one good shift per game, you know.


You just want to hate him, so you've decided you will. Just as you'll decide to hate any player who comes in.

 

[BernieParent]

A really great first move by Fletcher, after firing Hakstol, would be to move Simmonds for younger 5v5 play-driver with speed to balance out the top 9. Kasperi Kapanen would be an amazing addition. He just does not fit with this roster anymore. I will miss him but it's time to move on.

It's a toss-up for me about what to do with the shell-of-Simmonds. IMHO Fletcher needs to have the pulse of the room in making such a decision. INSERT FLATLINING JOKE HERE. It would definitely shake up the team and putting in a competent puck-mover would be a plus on the roster; however, Simmonds has been described as one of the main team leaders, vocal where Giroux is more guarded with his words. I don't want to go overboard on the overblown "he's great in the dressing room" aspect, but moving someone of Simmonds' stature shouldn't be seen in simple numbers.

Even as I type this, I'm arguing against myself that Simmonds' play is eye-gougingly bad and there are several options that would offer a more rounded game. I'm old-fashioned and sentimental and optimally want to see Simmonds finish the season as a Flyer and ride off into free agency on happy terms. I know, rainbows and unicorns. I'd be good with Simmonds around the TDL for a very good return.

 

[Beef Invictus]

The Flyers FO doesn't have to solve why Quenneville would or wouldn't accept the HC job. They just need to decide whether he is an upgrade over Hakstol and would contribute to a higher chance of winning. If the answer is 'yes', they make Quenneville say no to them, repeatedly. If Dave Scott is antsy to spend to the cap, imagine how quickly he could write cheques for a coach with Quenneville's CV that doesn't count against the cap. And if Q's hill to die on is significant say in personnel decisions, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

But since you asked, here's why I think Q would accept:

• A roster replete with both young and veteran talent
• A stocked prospect list
• A team with deep pockets willing to spend on their players

Combine that with the ability to meet his salary and coaching powers demands, and Q may not feel the need to choose a better destination. He may but, like I said, it would be foolish to not make him say no.

As for your previous comment, "doing something for the sake of placating fans" is certainly a top-3 objective for Scott. If is inconceivable that demonstrated fan apathy didn't play into their decision to fire Hextall and the expressed intent to be more aggressive for a better on-ice product is speaking to the fanbase. At whom are these fans directing the majority of their ire? A coaching change is the easiest way to "do something" to rouse a team from its doldrums, so tossing a much-maligned coach – especially in favour of one who has won 3 Stanley Cups this decade – would be an instant win that would return bums to seats. It is also the shot across the bow of an underachieving squad that status quo is no longer acceptable.

All of this, says I.

 

[TheKingPin]

How many blowouts does a coach need to get fired? I get not beating the jets without your number 1C. But you don’t need to get blown out 7-1 and stop trying, basically no shots to finish the game.

Clearly Hak needs to go. But this group of players is lacking a good amount of creativity and skill, specifically shooting. Wiese can shoot for shit. Simmonds only has a jam play. Voracek, my god he can’t shoot at all. Patrick can’t hit the net. You have G and TK. Maybe Lindblom but you can barely see him play. I think we will need a Hughes to make this team relevant. Even with a good coach are we really going to beat Toronto, Tampa, Nashville or Winnipeg? We’d likely have to beat two of the above in a addition to two more which could be jackets or another team we can never beat anyway. A new coach, Frost, Myers and Hart May put us up there with the above teams but it seems like we need more than just 30+ G if we want to get a cup. And with a
Healthy G you’d have to get very lucky to lottery Hughes.

These are dark says for sure. I would start with firing Hak. Knob interim until Q then he does to the AHL. Trade simmer.

 

[TheKingPin]

It's a toss-up for me about what to do with the shell-of-Simmonds. IMHO Fletcher needs to have the pulse of the room in making such a decision. INSERT FLATLINING JOKE HERE. It would definitely shake up the team and putting in a competent puck-mover would be a plus on the roster; however, Simmonds has been described as one of the main team leaders, vocal where Giroux is more guarded with his words. I don't want to go overboard on the overblown "he's great in the dressing room" aspect, but moving someone of Simmonds' stature shouldn't be seen in simple numbers.

Even as I type this, I'm arguing against myself that Simmonds' play is eye-gougingly bad and there are several options that would offer a more rounded game. I'm old-fashioned and sentimental and optimally want to see Simmonds finish the season as a Flyer and ride off into free agency on happy terms. I know, rainbows and unicorns. I'd be good with Simmonds around the TDL for a very good return.

But if a player is that bad and he sees nothing but good things including a new big deal, then that sends a bad message to the team he is leading. There’s no option but to trade him. We should have traded him a lot earlier like we all wanted. At that time we were getting a first and A prospect. Now you are looking for a young PKer with better offensive skills maybe. Simmonds is no longer worth a 1st and I would think Fletcher isn’t supposed to be doing what hextall did anyway.

 

[Magua]

Simmonds has been described as one of the main team leaders, vocal where Giroux is more guarded with his words. I don't want to go overboard on the overblown "he's great in the dressing room" aspect, but moving someone of Simmonds' stature shouldn't be seen in simple numbers.

Even as I type this, I'm arguing against myself that Simmonds' play is eye-gougingly bad and there are several options that would offer a more rounded game. I'm old-fashioned and sentimental and optimally want to see Simmonds finish the season as a Flyer and ride off into free agency on happy terms. I know, rainbows and unicorns. I'd be good with Simmonds around the TDL for a very good return.

If we are in agreement with on-ice performance, as most are, then I suppose my major point would be: what would happen if Simmonds' intangibles left the room? Would we turn into a bipolar team that cannot start games, play full games, build off good games, and vacillates between mediocrity and bottom 5? Just sayin'.

In the end, if they keep him, so be it, provided no contract extension, which will be a tipping point for me. I think acquiring a late 1st and using that as capital in the offseason for something bigger and more essential to team needs (as in, not using the pick themselves) is a heckuva lot more important than his swan song contributions the rest of the season. That feels emotion based. But I don't expect them to trade him simply for the fact Dave Scott is having a conniption fit about fan interest, and Simmonds is a fan favorite, and trading him would signal they are punting the season and thinking towards next year (not that I actually believe they couldn't perform the same without him, but the optics of it).

 

[deadhead]

They won't punt until the end of January, for one thing, most teams don't go into buy mode until they know how their season is turning out so there's no rush, and Fletcher will want to see if the goalie situation stabilizes with Stolarz/Elliott, and if so, does the team make a run at a playoff spot.

 

[bauer]

He cant even connect the dots on Hitch and coaches lol

any moron could see that Hitch makes goalies look good. heck, he made Jake Allen look like a good goalie! that was masterful.

Koskinen is nothing special. the Oilers are playing a tighter defensive system. this is ridiculously obvious if you watch recent games. but we know dh doesn't. he doesn't watch any of the games. he just makes shit up for attention and to be his usual contrarian self.

 

[BernieParent]

But if a player is that bad and he sees nothing but good things including a new big deal, then that sends a bad message to the team he is leading. There’s no option but to trade him. We should have traded him a lot earlier like we all wanted. At that time we were getting a first and A prospect. Now you are looking for a young PKer with better offensive skills maybe. Simmonds is no longer worth a 1st and I would think Fletcher isn’t supposed to be doing what hextall did anyway.

If we are in agreement with on-ice performance, as most are, then I suppose my major point would be: what would happen if Simmonds' intangibles left the room? Would we turn into a bipolar team that cannot start games, play full games, build off good games, and vacillates between mediocrity and bottom 5? Just sayin'.

In the end, if they keep him, so be it, provided no contract extension, which will be a tipping point for me. I think acquiring a late 1st and using that as capital in the offseason for something bigger and more essential to team needs (as in, not using the pick themselves) is a heckuva lot more important than his swan song contributions the rest of the season. That feels emotion based. But I don't expect them to trade him simply for the fact Dave Scott is having a conniption fit about fan interest, and Simmonds is a fan favorite, and trading him would signal they are punting the season and thinking towards next year (not that I actually believe they couldn't perform the same without him, but the optics of it).

I cannot disagree with either of you, and admitted that much of my position is absolutely emotion based. Wayne Simmonds is so much the prototypical Flyer, and seeing him elsewhere would be tough. But I am open to a deal that returns value. I just need to get to 'acceptance'. I also completely agree that a new deal is a non-starter.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

I cannot disagree with either of you, and admitted that much of my position is absolutely emotion based. Wayne Simmonds is so much the prototypical Flyer, and seeing him elsewhere would be tough. But I am open to a deal that returns value. I just need to get to 'acceptance'. I also completely agree that a new deal is a non-starter.

It may help to think of Kimmo's last days with the Flyers; nobody really wanted to lose him but his days here were coming to an end one way or another, we got something for him to ease the pain of parting, and all we cheered him on when he won the final game of the season.

Wayne never struck me as a person who wants to be playing hockey into his 40s like Chelios or Messier; I think he'd be amenable to a shorter deal (4-5 years) but don't want it to be here. We can still do him a solid by trading him to a contender, because the Flyers aren't winning this year, and cheer him on from afar.

On the other hand, though it really would be sad seeing him with the Oilers or Senators, the likely return would sure help me get over it quickly.

 

[deadhead]

Simmonds won't be attractive to a marginal team like Ottawa as a rental, even Edmonton would have to go on a tear before they'd be interested.
To me the probably destination is a playoff team that has a weak PP and would like his intangibles and can park him on a 3rd line with players that can cover for him.
Nashville could be a good destination, but what can they offer us?

 

[TheKingPin]

I cannot disagree with either of you, and admitted that much of my position is absolutely emotion based. Wayne Simmonds is so much the prototypical Flyer, and seeing him elsewhere would be tough. But I am open to a deal that returns value. I just need to get to 'acceptance'. I also completely agree that a new deal is a non-starter.

I feel the same way. I have been a fan for decades. I have only wanted 4 jerseys. LeClaire, Primeau, Richards. I got primeau and simmer. It’ll be tough to see him go but it’s necessary. I know you don’t want him here on a 5 year 7 mill deal so there is little chance he signs here anyway.

 

[Tripod]

Right now it's Hakstol, Gordon or Knob. So what's the rush?

4+ years = rush


????

 

[Beef Invictus]

4+ years = rush


????

Yeah, why not continue pursuing a path of well known failure?

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

This is a really huge one.

 

[Tripod]

Yeah, why not continue pursuing a path of well known failure?

Well, we have not given Hak an all star team yet so how can he be judged, really.