D Prospects and Trading

[Tripod]

I said it before that us winning a cup would be in the backs of our future D, not on our top forwards. And that is also why I have talked about trading Simmonds for an overpayment to align our forwards and D better. Having G and Jake as the vets is enough if Simmonds was turned unto a core player in a few years.

So if people want to speed things up, by trading away a Sanheim, then we should not stop there. We still have way too much deadweight. So many more moves would be needed to be made.

Reality is though, Hextall is not likely to do the speed up option. While it makes us better short term, it's not sustainable long term because we have not built a big enough pipeline of assets yet. We are still a few years away.

And for those to talk about G and Jakes declining they are about to enter year 3 and 1 of their 8 year deals. There is time. If not, then they never should have been re-signed right?

Simmonds is different because of when his contract ends. A tough decision will have to be made on him.

 

[pwnstick]

Not much & there's nothing wrong with having depth even depth that doesn't materialize at the NHL level.

Alt's kind of a perfect example of this. I don't really think he has much of NHL career if at all but he was a good AHL player for the majority of his ELC making it worth it (not all of the 40-50 contracts within the organization are going to be NHLers or really ones with NHL potential). He played alongside Morin this year & they formed the only competent defense pairing the Phantoms had. Morin had a really good first year of pro this year which Alt contributed to by being a solid partner. If Morin was saddled with a garbage partner that may have tweaked the perception on his year this year possibly.

Thats a good point, and Hextall has clearly shown an increased priority on organizational depth. Now that you mention it, our Phantoms might be poised to make a return to post season action in this upcoming year.

 

[Rebels57]

I said it before that us winning a cup would be in the backs of our future D, not on our top forwards. And that is also why I have talked about trading Simmonds for an overpayment to align our forwards and D better. Having G and Jake as the vets is enough if Simmonds was turned unto a core player in a few years.

So if people want to speed things up, by trading away a Sanheim, then we should not stop there. We still have way too much deadweight. So many more moves would be needed to be made.

Reality is though, Hextall is not likely to do the speed up option. While it makes us better short term, it's not sustainable long term because we have not built a big enough pipeline of assets yet. We are still a few years away.

And for those to talk about G and Jakes declining they are about to enter year 3 and 1 of their 8 year deals. There is time. If not, then they never should have been re-signed right?

Simmonds is different because of when his contract ends. A tough decision will have to be made on him.

HF Boards is a joke when it comes to exagerrating about players declining.

Pavelski and Burns are both 31. Thornton is 36. For example..

 

[baudib1]

HF Boards is a joke when it comes to exagerrating about players declining.

Pavelski and Burns are both 31. Thornton is 36. For example..

Marleau is 36, Ward is 35 and Zubrus is 37. So yeah you have a point.

I'm firmly against trading Simmonds for many reasons. The dude is consistent and productive as hell and it's not even like his contract is a problem.

 

[daynus]

Wonder how Minnesota feels about trading 26 year old Brent burns. The guy is in his prime.

 

[Psuhockey]

I don't think that reported offer from Trouba was that serious. It seemed like to me an knowingly unrealistic asking price to set the bar high for negotiations from his camp.

My guess is he's trying to leverage a $5-6M ranged long term deal.

I think he might just want out of Winnipeg. Elliotte Friedman mentioned that don't be surprised if he would settle for a smaller deal in the "right environment" in one of his 30 thoughts back when the contract rumors came out. So I agree he will probably end up in the $5-6 million range either with Winnipeg or somewhere else.

If he does become available, I think the Flyers should at least look at it. I don't think he will get a monster return just cause I don't think anybody gets monster returns anymore. It will probably cost an A asset (1st or top prospect) plus some B assets (2nd round picks, 2nd level prospects). But I wouldn't do Sanheim: I would see if it could get done with Morin.

 

[Prongo]

If Trouba really was available I would try my ass off to get him. Hexy stated at the STH meeting that he would like a big skilled RH defenseman. Well Trouba pretty much he exactly that. The price is what scares me but I don't think teams are really getting top prospects in trades anymore. Provorov wouldn't be on the table in any deal most likely unless it absolutely made sense.

If Trouba were to be moved I think we would be shocked at the return like a lot of trades. GMs have really turned a corner in not over paying in assets more recently.

Also one more tid bit. You get a guy like Trouba you really have to start worrying about who you protect in an expansion draft. Not so much the one coming up but the rumored other one the following year if they do implement another team. Provorov would be protected because of seasons played but who would be eligible from our prospects point of view? I'm on the phone so it's a pain to look it up. Sanheim would be exempt too I'm pretty sure. So just morin and Hagg?

 

[Rebels57]

If Trouba really was available I would try my ass off to get him. Hexy stated at the STH meeting that he would like a big skilled RH defenseman. Well Trouba pretty much he exactly that. The price is what scares me but I don't think teams are really getting top prospects in trades anymore. Provorov wouldn't be on the table in any deal most likely unless it mabsolutely made sense.

If Trouba were to be moved I think we would be shocked at the return like a lot of trades. GMs have really turned a corner in not over paying in assets more recently.

Also one more tid bit. You get a guy like Trouba you really have to start worrying about who you protect in an expansion draft. Not so much the one coming up but the rumored other one the following year if they do implement another team. Provorov would be protected because of seasons played but who would be eligible from our prospects point of view? I'm on the phone so it's a pain to look it up. Sanheim would be exempt too I'm pretty sure. So just morin and Hagg?

Would you trade Phillipe Myers for Trouba?

Big righty D with potential for big righty D with realized potential.

If they do one the following year (summer of 2018) I think we would have to protect Sanheim and Provorov, no?

They will have 2 pro years under their belt.

2016-2017 and 2017-2018

Or does the year preceding the Expansion draft not count?

 

[FLYguy3911]

Philippe Myers and what? The '+' would be enormous.

 

[Freaky Styley]

Avs fan coming in peace. Funny that this thread was made because this is exactly what my question is about. With all of these Tyson Barrie rumours, I was wondering if you guys had any interest. I ask because Philly is a great trading partner for the Avs. Would you do Sanheim + cap dump (Umberger, Streit perhaps?) + something small for Barrie? Yes you lose a great prospect but gain one of the best offensive Dmen in the game, who is just coming into his own. I know you have similar qualities in Ghost, which is why I'm curious to see if Barrie would be a good fit for you.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Avs fan coming in peace. Funny that this thread was made because this is exactly what my question is about. With all of these Tyson Barrie rumours, I was wondering if you guys had any interest. I ask because Philly is a great trading partner for the Avs. Would you do Sanheim + cap dump (Umberger, Streit perhaps?) + something small for Barrie? Yes you lose a great prospect but gain one of the best offensive Dmen in the game, who is just coming into his own. I know you have similar qualities in Ghost, which is why I'm curious to see if Barrie would be a good fit for you.

With Gostisbehere emerging, moving the puck & getting offensive production from the backend really isn't much an issue anymore as it once was.

Ever since we traded Coburn we've lacked that elite PKer who can up against opposing team's top players. That's what we're more so missing on the backend right now than an puck moving offensive defensmen.

 

[pwnstick]

Avs fan coming in peace. Funny that this thread was made because this is exactly what my question is about. With all of these Tyson Barrie rumours, I was wondering if you guys had any interest. I ask because Philly is a great trading partner for the Avs. Would you do Sanheim + cap dump (Umberger, Streit perhaps?) + something small for Barrie? Yes you lose a great prospect but gain one of the best offensive Dmen in the game, who is just coming into his own. I know you have similar qualities in Ghost, which is why I'm curious to see if Barrie would be a good fit for you.

I don't think Hextall would make a move for Barrie. Why aren't you guys getting him re-signed long term?

 

[Tripod]

Yeah...we are better off finding a Beauchamin type instead of a Barrie type. Should cost a lot less too since most times you pay higher price for points.

 

[TheKingPin]

I wouldn't trade any of the prospects. I would wait until they start playing. More than likely several of them will be standout players worth a lot. We are not going to have to have room for that. Thats when we trade one for a high end position of need, likely at forward. Worked for the kings.

 

[Tripod]

I wouldn't trade any of the prospects. I would wait until they start playing. More than likely several of them will be standout players worth a lot. We are not going to have to have room for that. Thats when we trade one for a high end position of need, likely at forward. Worked for the kings.

Exactly.

Now stick with me on this. We are much better off trading Ghost in 3 years because Sanheim is as good as him, then trading Sanheim ++ for a top 4 dman right now.

And please, I am just using this as an example. We do it need to bundle high end prospects + more for immediate help. We are not deep enough OVERALL, or good enough to make this kind of deal right now. In another year, we might be.

 

[pwnstick]

Yeah...we are better off finding a Beauchamin type instead of a Barrie type. Should cost a lot less too since most times you pay higher price for points.

I don't even think we'll bring in a beauchamin type either. I think Hextall stands pat with the defense for this upcoming year. Although if Gudas doesnt re-sign for whatever reason we'd def need a beauchamin type.

 

[Sawdalite]

Bad asset management would be trading one of those guys because you might have to play them on the 3rd pair.

If the worst thing that happens to this organization is having to play a "top 4" quality defenseman on the bottom pair, then we will be in good shape. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to squeeze your cheeks together when the 3rd pair is out on the ice against the other team's top line? Now if all these kids reach 95% of their ceilings and get 2nd and 3rd contracts with the organization and we have a bottom pair making 8+ million a year, then yes that isn't great asset management, but we are a long ways off from that happening. And if we are fortunate enough to get in that position, very few things in this league are more valuable than a young established NHL defenseman.

Excellent Post... Says it all; exactly what I was thinking.

As long as you have six top notch D-men in a manageable Cap situation, you roll with them with confidence that you have good Defense in every situation... not getting caught on ice with a match-up that is so unfavorable; no scrambling nor hoping to get through it... When the contracts get to a point where you must move a contract of two, you move in a position of power and choose who you'd rather have going forward and who is worth the big contract versus who is the asset to be moved to bring in a needed position or Prospect.

And we must keep in mind that all the D-men are not on the same career time-frame nor are they on the same readiness schedule... they will not all be ready for the NHL at the same time, nor will they need new contracts at the same time... There is no rush whatsoever.

That said, when Hexy is sure of what he believes he has in hand and going forward... and what he is lacking... he has the ability to deal an asset or so, if he wants to... and still have a potentially solid young D at manageable cost.

If he the Organization has selected correctly, we are in great shape... and if not, the flexibility is there to adjust going forward... not a bad position to be in for Hexy & Company to be in.

 

[baudib1]

I think if it's 2020 and we don't have 3 NHL defensemen out of Provorov/Sanheim/Morin/Myers that are at least equivalent to, say, Timonen/Carle/Coburn, it'll be pretty damn disappointing.

That group + Ghost + MDZ + Gudas if necessary, plus maybe Friedman/Hagg, should give us a really good core.

If we're lucky, maybe Provorov is an All-Star and Myers is Colton Parayko.

 

[flyguy]

When's the last time the Flyers have had a home grown dman (either drafted by the Flyers or signed as an undrafted free agent) be a mainstay of the D-corps for at least 5 seasons? I have to go all the way back the Chris Therien's first stint, nearly 20 years ago.

This team has been so bad at drafting (I'm looking at you trading for Steve Eminger instead of drafting John Carlson), managing and developing their farm system's defensive assets for so long, and now that we finally have more than one or two promising defensemen coming through the ranks, you want to trade them? Bobby Clarke, is that you?

To be successful in this league, you need to be able to develop your own talent, and if you can do it on the backend especially, you're setting yourself up for a promising future. We need to get out of the long, bad habit of having the itchy trigger finger, and start thinking about long term success instead of a short term shot to be somewhat competitive.

 

[Random Forest]

When's the last time the Flyers have had a home grown dman (either drafted by the Flyers or signed as an undrafted free agent) be a mainstay of the D-corps for at least 5 seasons? I have to go all the way back the Chris Therien's first stint, nearly 20 years ago.

This team has been so bad at drafting (I'm looking at you trading for Steve Eminger instead of drafting John Carlson), managing and developing their farm system's defensive assets for so long, and now that we finally have more than one or two promising defensemen coming through the ranks, you want to trade them? Bobby Clarke, is that you?

To be successful in this league, you need to be able to develop your own talent, and if you can do it on the backend especially, you're setting yourself up for a promising future. We need to get out of the long, bad habit of having the itchy trigger finger, and start thinking about long term success instead of a short term shot to be somewhat competitive.

Good lord, people need to stop pretending as though anyone is suggesting we trade all the prospects like Clarke/Holmgren used to do. Some people are discussing the merits of possibly trading one (of five) top D prospects. That's all. It doesn't mean those people don't believe it's necessary to develop your own talent. If you don't think that's prudent, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, but I get frustrated seeing people laugh it off as though anyone is suggesting we ditch the strategy altogether and throw away the youth. We all know by now that home-grown talent is absolutely necessary.

 

[flyguy]

Good lord, people need to stop pretending as though anyone is suggesting we trade all the prospects like Clarke/Holmgren used to do. Some people are discussing the merits of possibly trading one (of five) top D prospects. That's all. It doesn't mean those people don't believe it's necessary to develop your own talent. If you don't think that's prudent, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, but I get frustrated seeing people laugh it off as though anyone is suggesting we ditch the strategy altogether and throw away the youth. We all know by now that home-grown talent is absolutely necessary.

I just think there is a time an place when to start thinking about trading prospects. You have to be in the right position to make that move. I don't think the Flyers are there yet. I think you only trade a prospect when you don't see a way their progression can fit into your NHL or AHL lineups over the next 2 years.

You never know who's going to turn into a Patrick Sharp or who's going to turn into a Matt Ellison.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

With three expiring contracts (MDZ, Schultz, & Streit) & the majority of the prospects being at the pro level. I'd imagine this wasn't by coincidence & next year has been the target date for a big evaulation year on the backend all along.

I think this question will have more credence a year from now IMO.

 

[Random Forest]

I just think there is a time an place when to start thinking about trading prospects. You have to be in the right position to make that move. I don't think the Flyers are there yet. I think you only trade a prospect when you don't see a way their progression can fit into your NHL or AHL lineups over the next 2 years.

You never know who's going to turn into a Patrick Sharp or who's going to turn into a Matt Ellison.

Yeah, okay, that's all cool, and I'd agree with you more than I'd disagree, but you guys gotta stop equating "should we think about trading one of them?" with "we should trade all of them for immediate help!" It's just an unfair characterization.

 

[flyguy]

Yeah, okay, that's all cool, and I'd agree with you more than I'd disagree, but you guys gotta stop equating "should we think about trading one of them?" with "we should trade all of them for immediate help!" It's just an unfair characterization.

I think the reason why people get up and arms about it, is say you trade one guy, and then two of the remaining guys struggle. It creates a panic, and then maybe those guys get traded. Then your organizational strength becomes a weakness. This organization has such a bad history in not showing patience. Hextall is trying to turn that around, so let's just let him do his job.

Make the young kids work for their spots by creating competition from their peers. It brings out the best (and true) player, as the cream always rises to the top.

 

[Tripod]

I think the reason why people get up and arms about it, is say you trade one guy, and then two of the remaining guys struggle. It creates a panic, and then maybe those guys get traded. Then your organizational strength becomes a weakness. This organization has such a bad history in not showing patience. Hextall is trying to turn that around, so let's just let him do his job.

Make the young kids work for their spots by creating competition from their peers. It brings out the best (and true) player, as the cream always rises to the top.

Exactly. Keep them all and see who rises to the top. Then make the appropriate moves.