Confirmed with Link: Flyers sign Mark Streit to a multi-year deal [4 yrs, $21m; $5.25 AAV] (post #1)

[CS]

so if he isnt a former Flyer he will have no devition to winning?

what?

Not necessarily...

But you better find someone who DOES have a devotion to winning.

I think Luukko is the obvious candidate.

 

[Protest]

Red Wings would be a good team to model, no argument there. However, that is a lot easier said than done. You realize that in order to run a franchise like the Blackhawks and Kings, you have to be a pretty bad team for a pretty long time. The Kings made the playoffs like five times since 2000. Blackhawks were among the worst franchises in the league for a pretty long time. The Bruins have done a lot of trading and free agent signings, both of youths and of veterans, not unlike the Flyers to a certain extent. The bottom line is simple. We all want perfection, obviously. I want an owner/ceo/gm whatever that is going to be under the cap, keep all draft picks, sign the best contracts, and plan for the future while also being competitive in the here and now. The problem is that is very difficult. Yes, some teams have done it, most notably the Red Wings. But that doesn't mean that Ed Snider is a problem.

Like I said, be careful what you wish for. Say goodbye to Ed Snider and bring in someone from the outside. Then after five straight years of missing the playoffs and not going after big name guys people will be complaining that the new guy doesn't care about winning.

You do not have to suck in order to run a franchise like the Blackhawks or Kings. You need to draft well, and you have to know when it's time to bring in free agents or make a trade.

How long did it take for those teams to reach the playoffs once they got competent GM's? About 3 seasons. That's not a long time at all, especially when the fans can see there is a plan in place. It's when you have a GM like Amaro, who looks like he has no plan, that fan's get itchy. No one wants to suck for a long time, but building through the draft does not equal sucking. The Flyers have been 100% capable of building through the draft with how they pick 1st rounders for a while now, and they're usually picking late.

A smudge mark is not the same as a team coated in smudge. Sorry, I don't want to win the Cup with MacKinnon, Ekblad, and MacDavid as the core pieces. Those three years of absolute failure would cheapen the experience for me.

Are you a Phillies fan?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Not necessarily...

But you better find someone who DOES have a devotion to winning.

I think Luukko is the obvious candidate.

yeah I would agree Luukko is likely the guy to take over. Does Lukko keep the same approach as Snider does? You can have devotion to winning and do things a bit differently

 

[Embiid]

All this caring and devotion to winning hasn't netted us a cup in most people's lifetimes on here..I was pooping my diapers when they won it last.....I'll be lucky to be pooping my depends by the time they win it again..if they even do so before I croak.

 

[Protest]

I was pooping my diapers when they won it last.....I'll be lucky to be pooping my depends by the time they win it again

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

All this caring and devotion to winning hasn't netted us a cup in most people's lifetimes on here..I was pooping my diapers when they won it last.....I'll be lucky to be pooping my depends by the time they win it again..if they even do so before I croak.

yeah I hear you. I was 9 years old when they last won a Cup. Thats what makes 2010 so frustrating. They were so ******* close. i really think they need to find some stability in goal. When that happens other things will fall into place. of course they have been searching for that goaltender via FA or the draft for how long now?

 

[Protest]

yeah I hear you. I was 9 years old when they last won a Cup. Thats what makes 2010 so frustrating. They were so ******* close. i really think they need to find some stability in goal. When that happens other things will fall into place. of course they have been searching for that goaltender via FA or the draft for how long now?

25 years?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

25 years?

seems like it. of course its been almost just as long that the organization doesnt take the position seriously.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

You do not have to suck in order to run a franchise like the Blackhawks or Kings. You need to draft well, and you have to know when it's time to bring in free agents or make a trade.

The Hawks missed the playoffs nine out of ten times before they started the run they are on now. The Kings missed the playoffs six straight years, and the nine years before that they missed the playoffs five times. How is that not sucking?

How long did it take for those teams to reach the playoffs once they got competent GM's? About 3 seasons. That's not a long time at all, especially when the fans can see there is a plan in place. It's when you have a GM like Amaro, who looks like he has no plan, that fan's get itchy. No one wants to suck for a long time, but building through the draft does not equal sucking. The Flyers have been 100% capable of building through the draft with how they pick 1st rounders for a while now, and they're usually picking late.

The Kings and Blackhawks turned it around, but surely you can't sit there and tell me that the reason they turned it around had to do with a change in management? Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toewes, Drew Doughty, Anze Kopitar, Dustin Brown, Brent Seabrook, etc had nothing to do with it. Having such talented guys being on the team was not a symptom of years of lottery picks which led to the improvement of the teams, but rather it was the change in management that did it! Makes total sense!

 

[Flyotes]

If the argument is "I'm old. So tanking would have been okay." No thanks. I understand the pain, however.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

If the argument is "I'm old. So tanking would have been okay." No thanks. I understand the pain, however.

im not crazy about tanking. I am not crazy about giving up high draft picks for rentals either. Short term? sure fine. but doing it year after year? it eventually catches up with you.
There is a reason why people want the Flyers to hold onto draft picks. Outside of the obvious top 4 or 5 the talent pool is pretty thin. you want to be able to call up guys who can step ind play. and im not talking about AHL/NHL tweeners and 4th line grinders.
But this organization and many in its fanbase think that if you arent spending to within a nickle of the cap you arent trying to win.

 

[ahthorne]

Smart drafting is something brought in by management, however. Just because they were 1st rounders doesn't mean they couldn't miss on it. Toews, Doughty, and Kane are all kind of 'gimmes' when you're drafting that high but there are no guarantees.

Look at Columbus, years of high drafting and one legitimate star who was actually a star while playing for them. They've drafted outside the top-10 once and have had more failures than successes. Nash, Voracek and to lesser extents Brassard, Klesla and the too-early-to-tell players like Murray and Johansen are the only picks that weren't absolute flops and only Murray and Johansen are still with the team. That is why management matters.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Smart drafting is something brought in by management, however. Just because they were 1st rounders doesn't mean they couldn't miss on it. Toews, Doughty, and Kane are all kind of 'gimmes' when you're drafting that high but there are no guarantees.

Look at Columbus, years of high drafting and one legitimate star who was actually a star while playing for them. They've drafted outside the top-10 once and have had more failures than successes. Nash, Voracek and to lesser extents Brassard, Klesla and the too-early-to-tell players like Murray and Johansen are the only picks that weren't absolute flops and only Murray and Johansen are still with the team. That is why management matters.

I think you are missing the point. Obviously having good management will lead to success eventually. Simply having a good president/ceo whatever is not going to win anything. If the Flyers had different management over the past three plus decades would they have won a Cup? I don't know. The Flyers were a pretty good team in the 80s but they never won the Cup. Was that Snider's fault? Then they sucked for a while. Then they came back and have been pretty successful over the past 20 years or so. No Cup, but again, very successful. Multiple Cup Final trips. Multiple Conference Finals trips. No Cup though. Snider's fault? Give me a break. Injuries. Deaths. Players underperforming. Step down, Ed, you've blown it again. Yeah a different guy at the top would have given us more success. Get real! First it was because the Flyers have struck out on so many goalies. Then it was Homer for trading away draft picks. Now Snider is the problem. KILL THE BODY AND THE HEAD WILL DIE.

 

[Protest]

The Hawks missed the playoffs nine out of ten times before they started the run they are on now. The Kings missed the playoffs six straight years, and the nine years before that they missed the playoffs five times. How is that not sucking?

The Kings and Blackhawks turned it around, but surely you can't sit there and tell me that the reason they turned it around had to do with a change in management? Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toewes, Drew Doughty, Anze Kopitar, Dustin Brown, Brent Seabrook, etc had nothing to do with it. Having such talented guys being on the team was not a symptom of years of lottery picks which led to the improvement of the teams, but rather it was the change in management that did it! Makes total sense!

Did I say they didn't suck? I said once they got competent management, who fyi drafts those players, it took them a couple seasons to get to the playoffs. Because you need to add to those drafted players, otherwise you miss your chance, and wind up in a cycle of constantly developing players, without ever taking a shot at a run.

Here's the Blackhawks first round picks from 95-05:

Dmitri Nabokov, Daniel Cleary, Mark Bell, Steve McCarthy,Mikhail Yakubov, Tuomo Ruutu, Anton Babchuk, Brent Seabrook, Jack Skille.

So out of all those picks only Seabrook was important to them. In there they also got Keith and couple other players, but those were in later rounds, when anyone else could have picked them upm,canceling out the fact that the Hawks were picking high. Tallon takes over, Toews and Kane are his picks his first 2 full years as GM. He then brought in young players, as well as established players like Hossa and made a run for the cup.

I said that you don't need to suck in order to build through the draft. The Flyers are one of the best teams at drafting good first round talent. They could build through the draft while still making the playoffs. All they have to do is stop trading their picks away, and shipping important players out.

Richards, Carter, Downie, Giroux, Laughton, Jvr, Sbisa, Couts.

They know how to get players who won't bust. Keeping the core constant and adding to it via trades and FA is the best way to build a winner. That's what the Hawks and Kings did. That's what the Wings and Devils do, that's what the Flyers should do now.

If the argument is "I'm old. So tanking would have been okay." No thanks. I understand the pain, however.

I'm not old, and I'm not talking about tanking, I'm talking about balancing the need to make the playoffs every year with the goal of being an actual cup contender instead of being a playoff team. Since 2006 this is the 3rd "core" of players we've had. That's an average lifespan of 2.33 seasons for the supposed core of your team.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Did I say they didn't suck? I said once they got competent management, who fyi drafts those players, it took them a couple seasons to get to the playoffs. Because you need to add to those drafted players, otherwise you miss your chance, and wind up in a cycle of constantly developing players, without ever taking a shot at a run.

Here's the Blackhawks first round picks from 95-05:

Dmitri Nabokov, Daniel Cleary, Mark Bell, Steve McCarthy,Mikhail Yakubov, Tuomo Ruutu, Anton Babchuk, Brent Seabrook, Jack Skille.

So out of all those picks only Seabrook was important to them. In there they also got Keith and couple other players, but those were in later rounds, when anyone else could have picked them upm,canceling out the fact that the Hawks were picking high. Tallon takes over, Toews and Kane are his picks his first 2 full years as GM. He then brought in young players, as well as established players like Hossa and made a run for the cup.

I said that you don't need to suck in order to build through the draft. The Flyers are one of the best teams at drafting good first round talent. They could build through the draft while still making the playoffs. All they have to do is stop trading their picks away, and shipping important players out.

Richards, Carter, Downie, Giroux, Laughton, Jvr, Sbisa, Couts.

They know how to get players who won't bust. Keeping the core constant and adding to it via trades and FA is the best way to build a winner. That's what the Hawks and Kings did. That's what the Wings and Devils do, that's what the Flyers should do now.

But that is not what happens though. The Blackhawks sucked. The drafted well with high draft picks. They got new management and they still sucked for a little and got two of the best players on their team (and arguably the league), then made the run they are on. Sure, you don't have to suck, but it seems to be the case that teams with these teams, with a few exceptions (like DET and NJ) that have built from within and so forth, are mainly bottom feeders for a good while before they turn it around. The Red Wings didn't suck and always seem to be competitive, and the Devils didn't suck and always seem to be competitve. I understand what you are saying, I am not saying I would necessarily prefer turnover every year as opposed to a stay the course the team. I am not saying good management is not important. What I am saying is the same thing I have said from the beginning...Ed Snider is not the problem.

I'll ask again since you haven't provided any examples except citing to a culture of impulsiveness and impatience (without citing to any examples), but what has Snider done specifically that has hurt this team? What should he have done? What would his replacement do?

 

[Protest]

But that is not what happens though. The Blackhawks sucked. The drafted well with high draft picks.

I literally just showed you that they didn't do that until they got a better GM. The point was that as long as you have a good draft team, we do, you can build through the draft no matter where you are picking. It's easier at the top, but it's not impossible unless you miss on 1st rounders.

I'll ask again since you haven't provided any examples except citing to a culture of impulsiveness and impatience (without citing to any examples), but what has Snider done specifically that has hurt this team? What should he have done? What would his replacement do?

What examples would you like me to give since the question is almost impossible to answer as Snider is not the GM, therefore other than the Bryz move, we don't know what or how he was involved decision making. All we know is this. In the past 20 years he's had 2 GM's that have had the same mentality. So as the guy who hires the GM's he is the one that promotes that brand of management. If he didn't like his team managed that way he would have a different type of GM.

 

[ahthorne]

I think you are missing the point. Obviously having good management will lead to success eventually. Simply having a good president/ceo whatever is not going to win anything. If the Flyers had different management over the past three plus decades would they have won a Cup? I don't know. The Flyers were a pretty good team in the 80s but they never won the Cup. Was that Snider's fault? Then they sucked for a while. Then they came back and have been pretty successful over the past 20 years or so. No Cup, but again, very successful. Multiple Cup Final trips. Multiple Conference Finals trips. No Cup though. Snider's fault? Give me a break. Injuries. Deaths. Players underperforming. Step down, Ed, you've blown it again. Yeah a different guy at the top would have given us more success. Get real! First it was because the Flyers have struck out on so many goalies. Then it was Homer for trading away draft picks. Now Snider is the problem. KILL THE BODY AND THE HEAD WILL DIE.

Well, I wasn't really referring to the Flyers or Ed Snider at all in my post... just saying you can't just suck for years and blindly find success later. It's not just drafting high for a number of years and that's not why the Kings and Blackhawks were able to climb out of years of sucking. It was a culture change. Sometimes players bring that and sometimes management brings that. Right now I don't think the Flyers have a very good culture going on. Maybe that changes through the players, coach or management but I'm not really one of decide what the issue is. Maybe the issue is constant roster turnover since they went to the Finals.

It takes everything falling into place to win a Cup. You have to have quality goaltending. You have to have a great roster with both top talent and quality depth both up front and on defense. That roster has to play above and beyond it's ability. You have to draft well in the 1st round and in the later rounds. You have to make good trades. You have to make good signings.

 

[PALE PWNR]

How can one follow the Red Wings model? Get lucky with late round draft picks? Looking at their draft picks, they are terrible in the 1st 2 rounds or don't have their 1st 2 round picks.
1994 Dandenault 2nd round pick Holmstrem, 10th round pick.
95-97 saw all of their picks combined with little over 200 games played and under 40 points combined.
98 1st round Jiri Fischer 300 PIMs 60 points, 6th round Datsyuk, they also had 2 2nd round picks that year one never made it the other played 2 games.
99 Zetterberg in the 7th round, 1 other player from that year made the NHL played 30 games 3 points.
2000 Kronwall in the first round Kopecky in the 2nd.
Nothing in 01.
02 Hudler in the 2nd round, Filpula in the 3rd, Fleischmann in the 2nd.
03 Jimmy Howard in the 2nd, Kyle Quincey in the 4th.
04 Franzen in the 3rd.
Kindl, Abdelkader, and Helm in the 1st 2nd and 5th round respectively in 05.
Matthias in 06 in the 2nd round.
07 Brendan Smith in the 1st round

How bad would that team be if they weren't the only ones scouting sweden in the 90s. They miss on a TON of picks and have gotten lucky with late round picks that make up the core of their team, or trade their 1st 2 rounds of picks for immediate help. Sound familiar?

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I literally just showed you that they didn't do that until they got a better GM. The point was that as long as you have a good draft team, we do, you can build through the draft no matter where you are picking. It's easier at the top, but it's not impossible unless you miss on 1st rounders.

Come on. You have to understand why I am saying. I am not saying that management is not important. It obviously is. And certainly having better management will yield a better product on the ice. But if you want to model the team off of the Blackhawks, we are going to need a couple years in a row of top ten picks. It is not a coincidence that the majority of teams that have a ton of youth but are successful and "forward looking" are teams that were bottom feeders for years prior to the present.

What examples would you like me to give since the question is almost impossible to answer as Snider is not the GM, therefore other than the Bryz move, we don't know what or how he was involved decision making. All we know is this. In the past 20 years he's had 2 GM's that have had the same mentality. So as the guy who hires the GM's he is the one that promotes that brand of management. If he didn't like his team managed that way he would have a different type of GM.

I have no problem overall with the way Homer has run this team. I know that is unpopular around here, but he is a good GM. Not the best in the world, but a good one. Could he be better? Sure, so could every other GM. He certainly hasn't done a bad enough job to where Snider should be stepping down. That makes little sense. Like I said...what would you like to see happen? Homer gets fired and Snider steps down. Now what? Hire a GM that will commit to "staying the course" rather than trying to win. How long until you get frustrated that they are missing the playoffs? How long of a leash should he get? When should the new chairman step down if the new GM doesn't succeed? It's so easy to say "SNIDER SUCKS! HOMER SUCKS! WE WANT CHANGE!" But there is a lot more to it than that. Once again, be careful what you wish for.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

How can one follow the Red Wings model? Get lucky with late round draft picks? Looking at their draft picks, they are terrible in the 1st 2 rounds or don't have their 1st 2 round picks.
1994 Dandenault 2nd round pick Holmstrem, 10th round pick.
95-97 saw all of their picks combined with little over 200 games played and under 40 points combined.
98 1st round Jiri Fischer 300 PIMs 60 points, 6th round Datsyuk, they also had 2 2nd round picks that year one never made it the other played 2 games.
99 Zetterberg in the 7th round, 1 other player from that year made the NHL played 30 games 3 points.
2000 Kronwall in the first round Kopecky in the 2nd.
Nothing in 01.
02 Hudler in the 2nd round, Filpula in the 3rd, Fleischmann in the 2nd.
03 Jimmy Howard in the 2nd, Kyle Quincey in the 4th.
04 Franzen in the 3rd.
Kindl, Abdelkader, and Helm in the 1st 2nd and 5th round respectively in 05.
Matthias in 06 in the 2nd round.
07 Brendan Smith in the 1st round

How bad would that team be if they weren't the only ones scouting sweden in the 90s. They miss on a TON of picks and have gotten lucky with late round picks that make up the core of their team, or trade their 1st 2 rounds of picks for immediate help. Sound familiar?

I think the idea is that you don't see them making crazy moves, but they always seem to be Cup contenders.

 

[Protest]

Come on. You have to understand why I am saying. I am not saying that management is not important. It obviously is. And certainly having better management will yield a better product on the ice. But if you want to model the team off of the Blackhawks, we are going to need a couple years in a row of top ten picks. It is not a coincidence that the majority of teams that have a ton of youth but are successful and "forward looking" are teams that were bottom feeders for years prior to the present.

Why? Our non top 10 picks have been on par with a lot of other teams top 10 picks. All the guys I listed above except Jvr were non top 10 picks. That's besides the point though because we're already there. Giroux, Voracek, Schenn, Couts, Simmonds, Laughton, 11th overall. There's your young core there.

I have no problem overall with the way Homer has run this team. I know that is unpopular around here, but he is a good GM. Not the best in the world, but a good one. Could he be better? Sure, so could every other GM. He certainly hasn't done a bad enough job to where Snider should be stepping down. That makes little sense. Like I said...what would you like to see happen? Homer gets fired and Snider steps down. Now what? Hire a GM that will commit to "staying the course" rather than trying to win. How long until you get frustrated that they are missing the playoffs? How long of a leash should he get? When should the new chairman step down if the new GM doesn't succeed? It's so easy to say "SNIDER SUCKS! HOMER SUCKS! WE WANT CHANGE!" But there is a lot more to it than that. Once again, be careful what you wish for.

A change in philosophy does not mean a change to the polar opposite. I don't even want to replace them really I just want them to ease up on the throttle. They're too all in. They're all in all the time, and sure that's fun cause it's like watching a real life version of yourself play NHL on Xbox, but it isn't the best way to do things.

The GM's in LA in Chicago did not commit to staying the course when they built their winners. They made changes, that's the only way you break the cycle of sucking, unless someone you draft is ridiculous like Ovechkin or Crosby. They made smart decisions and brought in the right type of players, not old overpriced vets that we have been bringing in for a long time now.

The move for Grossmann was a great one, and a good use of a 2nd round pick. He got a player who was in his 20's and who could help the team then and in the future. That's a lot different than trading for Modry, or Kubina, or signing guys like Lilja to dumb deals. I'm tired of always having to stomach those kinds of deals because we need to make the playoffs and get bounced in the 1st round.

You have to stop acting like the only alternative to Snider and Holmgren is the front office of Columbus. That's not how it works. It's not full bore all the time, or we don't care about winning. There is a middle ground.

 

[PALE PWNR]

I think the idea is that you don't see them making crazy moves, but they always seem to be Cup contenders.

Crazy moves like trading a 1st round pick(Mike Green), Tomas Fleischmann and a 4th round pick for Robert Lang in the twilight of his career? How bad would Homer get ripped for that I wonder

 

[Snotbubbles]

Did I say they didn't suck? I said once they got competent management, who fyi drafts those players, it took them a couple seasons to get to the playoffs. Because you need to add to those drafted players, otherwise you miss your chance, and wind up in a cycle of constantly developing players, without ever taking a shot at a run.

Here's the Blackhawks first round picks from 95-05:

Dmitri Nabokov, Daniel Cleary, Mark Bell, Steve McCarthy,Mikhail Yakubov, Tuomo Ruutu, Anton Babchuk, Brent Seabrook, Jack Skille.

So out of all those picks only Seabrook was important to them. In there they also got Keith and couple other players, but those were in later rounds, when anyone else could have picked them upm,canceling out the fact that the Hawks were picking high. Tallon takes over, Toews and Kane are his picks his first 2 full years as GM. He then brought in young players, as well as established players like Hossa and made a run for the cup.

I said that you don't need to suck in order to build through the draft. The Flyers are one of the best teams at drafting good first round talent. They could build through the draft while still making the playoffs. All they have to do is stop trading their picks away, and shipping important players out.

Richards, Carter, Downie, Giroux, Laughton, Jvr, Sbisa, Couts.

They know how to get players who won't bust. Keeping the core constant and adding to it via trades and FA is the best way to build a winner. That's what the Hawks and Kings did. That's what the Wings and Devils do, that's what the Flyers should do now.

I agree with most of what you said. However, I still like 2 for 1 trades the Flyers with Richards and Carter.

The Flyers are still recovering from trading all the assets they did for Pronger and his subsequent injury really hurt them. If he doesn't get injured, this team is a legitimate contender. But the reality is, they will have to re-stock for a couple years.

 

[sg12lw]

I like the streit signing

....wait, am I in the right place????

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

The second Snider is gone, you better have a replacement as devoted to the organization as he is.

Luukko or Holmgren or Clarke etc.

You can't just let the chairperson be someone appointed by Comcast-Spectacor with no ties to the Flyers.

Our success of the last 45~ years will be a thing of the past very quickly.

I would imagine it would be Luukko unless Jay Snider comes back into the fold. If that happens then god have mercy on all of us.