Rumor: Holmgren chose Luke Schenn over Yandle? Ouch.

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Boring. Not nearly as much Carle hate. Everybody is freaked at Bishop's injury.

Michael Leighton is looking for work.
Lindback/Leighton

sounds like a great combo

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I think the argument nay be the flashes and potential JvR has and his getting off the blocks quickly and strong and the slow yet steady maturation of Luke... Add to that the fact that he was benched for a few games in favor of basically Hal Gill -- whether to send a message or have him watch fro above and rethink his play -- As I said before, D-men take longer to develop and their true worth doesn't really appear for a while on the D-side... And then JvR stars in the Winter Classic with a couple of goals with North America watching... People are looking at a supposed First Line Forward with game breaking/game potential opposed to a plodding hard hitting D-man with shutdown potential short of a top pair player.

I still say that if JvR reaches his potential and can take control of many games a season while looking like the Overall Number Two in the Draft and Luke becomes the solid hard hitting shutdown D-man he was obtained to be, the Flyers and Homer will be panned and thought to have been fleeced... Never mind the good chance that JvR may never have reached his consistency in O&B and Luke may never have been the player the Center of the Hockey Universe was hoping for... Never mind that reuniting the Schenn Brothers may have an important effect on Brayden... and never mind that the Flyers could afford to lose a quality Forward to obtain a solid hard hitting and steady stay at home D-man.

But in the end, as I see it, it will still be left for time to be the ultimate judge of this trade... and the best possible trade is one that gives both parties what they were after... And even then we may never know what would have been had both players stayed put, and if they both may have never reached their potential.

I think that is the key part in all of this. Some trades aren't simply "OMG that team got a better player!" In the end, JvR may very well be the better player. He certainly will be the more noticeable. But at the time of the trade, the Flyers dealt from a position of strength (forward) to fix a position of weakness (defense, specifically defensive defense). Isn't that exactly what you want your GM to do and exactly what you want to see accomplished if you are a fan...improving an aspect of your team that needs improving without really hurting another aspect of your team?

Sure, it hasn't worked out exactly as planned to this point, but what is the GM supposed to do in that situation? Look at his team and say, "Man, we have a ton of young forwards but our defensive corps is very thin and we don't really have any young guys. In particular, we lack defensive defensemen. Oh well. Patience, right? Don't make any trades with young players with high ceilings, even if you are trying to get a young player with a high ceiling. Let's just hope we can sign or draft a guy instead." Then the fans around here would complain that Homer is giving too much money to an overpaid vet and ignoring defense when drafting and call for his head. Gimme a break. Homer did exactly what he should have done as a GM. Deal from a position of strength to improve a position of weakness. The clock is ticking on whether or not it will turn out ok, but it was the right move at the time. With hindsight, I might not do it knowing what I know now, but that could potentially have changed a lot things down the line (i.e. extending Read, signing Raffl, signing VL, possibly trading B.Schenn or Couturier for a defenseman etc.).

Even if you get a "lesser" player a the deal, and I believe the jury is still out on that being that Schenn is barely 24 years old, the deal may be better for the team.

I'd also like to point out again that JvR gets a ton of love around here, while a younger player on this team who puts up comparable numbers gets a lot talk about how disappointing he is. It's all about perspective.

 

[DecadesofFutility]

I think your memory is more than a little hazy. Just go back to look at the trade thread when it happened. Aside from typical overreactions (at least one person calling it the worst trade in history), most people are talking about how the Flyers needed defense not offense.

I'd also like to note how happy many people were that getting Schenn meant Carle was on the way out. I don't have time now but I'd like to go back and look to see if those are the same people who have talked about the mistake of letting Carle walk.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1215313

I was always of the mindset that Carle was more useful than Coburn.
I do not care about giveaways, atleast Carle had some offensive skill, unlike Coburn.
If they were unwilling to keep Carle, atleast Holmgren should have gotten Yandle, not Schenn.

This revelation is why Holmgren must be fired.
He has no clue of what the team needs defensively to thrive in todays NHL.
Clueless. Trade rating F---

 

[DecadesofFutility]

I think that is the key part in all of this. Some trades aren't simply "OMG that team got a better player!" In the end, JvR may very well be the better player. He certainly will be the more noticeable. But at the time of the trade, the Flyers dealt from a position of strength (forward) to fix a position of weakness (defense, specifically defensive defense). Isn't that exactly what you want your GM to do and exactly what you want to see accomplished if you are a fan...improving an aspect of your team that needs improving without really hurting another aspect of your team?

Sure, it hasn't worked out exactly as planned to this point, but what is the GM supposed to do in that situation? Look at his team and say, "Man, we have a ton of young forwards but our defensive corps is very thin and we don't really have any young guys. In particular, we lack defensive defensemen. Oh well. Patience, right? Don't make any trades with young players with high ceilings, even if you are trying to get a young player with a high ceiling. Let's just hope we can sign or draft a guy instead." Then the fans around here would complain that Homer is giving too much money to an overpaid vet and ignoring defense when drafting and call for his head. Gimme a break. Homer did exactly what he should have done as a GM. Deal from a position of strength to improve a position of weakness. The clock is ticking on whether or not it will turn out ok, but it was the right move at the time. With hindsight, I might not do it knowing what I know now, but that could potentially have changed a lot things down the line (i.e. extending Read, signing Raffl, signing VL, possibly trading B.Schenn or Couturier for a defenseman etc.).

Even if you get a "lesser" player a the deal, and I believe the jury is still out on that being that Schenn is barely 24 years old, the deal may be better for the team.

I'd also like to point out again that JvR gets a ton of love around here, while a younger player on this team who puts up comparable numbers gets a lot talk about how disappointing he is. It's all about perspective.

I wanted Holmgren to upgrade the defense, but not with another defensive stay at home defenseman.
If they offered Yandle for JVR as a one for one swap, Holmgren should be fired within the hour.
Yandle is much more valuable than Luke Schenn.
No excuse for not making that deal and accepting a lesser offer from Toronto for JVR.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I wanted Holmgren to upgrade the defense, but not with another defensive stay at home defenseman.
If they offered Yandle for JVR as a one for one swap, Holmgren should be fired within the hour.
Yandle is much more valuable than Luke Schenn.
No excuse for not making that deal and accepting a lesser offer from Toronto for JVR.

But all of this is with hindsight. Yandle would not have saved the Flyers defensive woes. The Flyers at the time of the trade had a slew of PMDs (remember, this was before Mesz's downfall). The Flyers needed a shut-down guy. Luke Schenn was 22 at the time and had the ceiling of being a top-notch shut-down player. Trading for Yandle would make sense right now, but it didn't make sense back then.

Schenn has not been the guy we wanted him to be this year, but let's not pretend that two years ago, when he was 22, he wasn't still projected to be a big-time shut-down player. Hell, he's only 24 and still very well may turn into the player we all want. Patience, right?

 

[DecadesofFutility]

But all of this is with hindsight. Yandle would not have saved the Flyers defensive woes. The Flyers at the time of the trade had a slew of PMDs (remember, this was before Mesz's downfall). The Flyers needed a shut-down guy. Luke Schenn was 22 at the time and had the ceiling of being a top-notch shut-down player. Trading for Yandle would make sense right now, but it didn't make sense back then.

Schenn has not been the guy we wanted him to be this year, but let's not pretend that two years ago, when he was 22, he wasn't still projected to be a big-time shut-down player. Hell, he's only 24 and still very well may turn into the player we all want. Patience, right?

I beg to differ. Yandle would have helped more than Streit has to move the puck out of the defensive zone.
Looking at this logically. Offensively ---
Yandle>Streit. Streit> L. Schenn. Therefore Yandle> L. Shenn.

Flyers did not need a shutdown defenseman, they had 2 defensive defensemen.
All they just needed the defensive defenseman that they had to be healthy again and play better.
Grossman and Coburn were fine as defensive defenseman, IMHO.
The problem is that we had no PMD to move the puck out of the zone.

I would have preferred they make that trade for Yandle even with a heathy Mezzaros.
Yandle, I saw as a replacement for Timonen.
If they acquired Yandle, Mez or Coburn could be traded to make room.

Mezzaros and/or Coburn: I never saw them as possibly developing into a #1 PMD.
They just did not realize that Mez was brittle, and Coburn is not the answer.
Coburn and Mezaros were always overpaid 2nd or 3rd line defensemen.
They were FA bandaids for a team that fails to develop defensive talent.

The Flyers had no need to trade top 1st round picks for a defensive defenseman.
A defensive defenseman like Grossman is usually available for a 2nd round pick.
Only time you trade a JVR for defense its for a possible #1, or an established #1 like Weber.
IMHO, Luke showed nothing in Toronto that made me think he was a possible #1 defenseman.

What the Flyers needed was another good offensive defenseman.
Yandle was available for JVR, that was the trade that should have gone down, no question.

 

[SuchySays]

once again.. Yandle for JVR straight up is not confirmed by anyone.

 

[Embiid]

once again.. Yandle for JVR straight up is not confirmed by anyone.

Yup..until it is substantiated we should refrain from conclusively passing judgement but if indeed Yandle could have been had for JVR....no bueno on Holmgren's part.

The point of all this is that Bryz was the root of JVR being traded in the first place...also letting Carle go as well as Jagr backfired last year..not to mention keeping Lavi and asking him to change his system while at the same time neutering him to some extent by letting one of his better PMD's leave as well as a forward who could skate with the puck end to end as well. It was a series of miscalcs IMO which may have included overvaluing Schenn if indeed he doesn't amount to much...

 

[Beef Invictus]

I beg to differ. Yandle would have helped more than Streit has to move the puck out of the defensive zone.
Looking at this logically. Offensively ---
Yandle>Streit. Streit> L. Schenn. Therefore Yandle> L. Shenn.

Flyers did not need a shutdown defenseman, they had 2 defensive defensemen.
All they just needed the defensive defenseman that they had to be healthy again and play better.
Grossman and Coburn were fine as defensive defenseman, IMHO.
The problem is that we had no PMD to move the puck out of the zone.

I would have preferred they make that trade for Yandle even with a heathy Mezzaros.
Yandle, I saw as a replacement for Timonen.
If they acquired Yandle, Mez or Coburn could be traded to make room.

Mezzaros and/or Coburn: I never saw them as possibly developing into a #1 PMD.
They just did not realize that Mez was brittle, and Coburn is not the answer.
Coburn and Mezaros were always overpaid 2nd or 3rd line defensemen.
They were FA bandaids for a team that fails to develop defensive talent.

The Flyers had no need to trade top 1st round picks for a defensive defenseman.
A defensive defenseman like Grossman is usually available for a 2nd round pick.
Only time you trade a JVR for defense its for a possible #1, or an established #1 like Weber.
IMHO, Luke showed nothing in Toronto that made me think he was a possible #1 defenseman.

What the Flyers needed was another good offensive defenseman.
Yandle was available for JVR, that was the trade that should have gone down, no question.

That wasn't the prevailing opinion at all. The prevailing opinion was that the Flyers needed to 1) fundamentally redesign their breakout...at the time it relied on homerun breakout passes through the neutral zone and other teams had keyed in on that; most of the problem with the breakout came from a complete lack of support from the forward group...and 2) get as much defensive help for Bryz as possible...he was expected to be here for a long time and had shown he needed as many defensive babysitters as possible.

As usual, you're using a lot of hindsight.

Also, Yandle should never have been seen at any point as a Timonen replacement. He's just not good defensively even though he's sheltered.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

That wasn't the prevailing opinion at all. The prevailing opinion was that the Flyers needed to 1) fundamentally redesign their breakout...at the time it relied on homerun breakout passes through the neutral zone and other teams had keyed in on that; most of the problem with the breakout came from a complete lack of support for the forward group...and 2) get as much defensive help for Bryz as possible...he was expected to be here for a long time and had shown he needed as many defensive babysitters as possible.

As usual, you're using a lot of hindsight.

Also, Yandle should never have been seen at any point as a Timonen replacement. He's just not good defensively even though he's sheltered.

You know you are wrong about something if Beef and I agree on it.

 

[Patrick Division]

once again.. Yandle for JVR straight up is not confirmed by anyone.

I cant believe this thread is still going! Timmy B.S. meter proved it. The needle pinned on Man The Lifeboats!!

Ps. everybody stop feeding the troll

 

[Brophy]

I think people post fake rumors to watch all of you get your tighty whiteys in a bunch. Tim P is a genius, never forget

 

[Toonces]

Hmmm. Something is rotten in the City of Philadelphia.

Here's a quote from Meltzer in early August 2012:

"During draft weekend (2012), it is believed that the Flyers inquired to Phoenix about the availability of All-Star defenseman Keith Yandle. Unfortunately for Philadelphia, the price tag was believed to be in the same ballpark of what Nashville wanted (pre-offer sheet) for Shea Weber: a combination of Sean Couturier, James van Riemsdyk or Brayden Schenn and more. The astronomical price tag is likely why the Yandle rumors died down in a hurry and the Flyers decided to make the one-for-one van Riemsdyk for Luke Schenn deal the next day." http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=45992

Now, Panaccio wants to bring us back a year and a half and trumpet a story he didn't have at the time of trade? And he breaks this big "story" as a Tweet as opposed to a real article?

I'm not buying it.

Stolen from another forum.

I don't but it either.

 

[flyershockey]

Well yeah, clearly JVR for Yandle was never an option. Tim just likes to stir the pot to get some clicks. I'm not sure how the organization continues to give him work when all he does is make everbody associated with the franchise look awful.

 

[DecadesofFutility]

That wasn't the prevailing opinion at all. The prevailing opinion was that the Flyers needed to 1) fundamentally redesign their breakout...at the time it relied on homerun breakout passes through the neutral zone and other teams had keyed in on that; most of the problem with the breakout came from a complete lack of support from the forward group...and 2) get as much defensive help for Bryz as possible...he was expected to be here for a long time and had shown he needed as many defensive babysitters as possible.

As usual, you're using a lot of hindsight.

Also, Yandle should never have been seen at any point as a Timonen replacement. He's just not good defensively even though he's sheltered.

I was always of the opinion we were deficient defensively.
And that the team rebuilt wrongly, focusing on the offense first.
We needed to retool our defense first, since it takes longer to develop defensemen.
That is why I was shocked that we got so little defensively when Carter and Richards were traded.
I banged the drum continuously that the defense was not as good as it looked on paper.
My opinion was not in the majority as I remember it.

1) Teams realized the Flyers could not carry the puck out, teams disrupted the breakout passes.
That is why PMD are key parts of Lavi's offensive system.
2) That Carle was more valuable than Coburn offensively.
The proof--- they signed Streit, a PMD after they lost Carle to Tampa.
3) That Bryzgalov was a lost cause, he needed to be amnestied.
The proof--- his play was horrendous after signing a huge contract.

I never claimed Yandle = Timonen, just that he would be better offensively than anyone else they had on the team.
We have defensive defenseman, we need PMD to compete with the better teams in the league.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I was always of the opinion we were deficient defensively.
And that the team rebuilt wrongly, focusing on the offense first.
We needed to retool our defense first, since it takes longer to develop defensemen.
That is why I was shocked that we got so little defensively when Carter and Richards were traded.
I banged the drum continuously that the defense was not as good as it looked on paper.
My opinion was not in the majority as I remember it.

1) Teams realized the Flyers could not carry the puck out, teams disrupted the breakout passes.
That is why PMD are key parts of Lavi's offensive system.
2) That Carle was more valuable than Coburn offensively.
The proof--- they signed Streit, a PMD after they lost Carle to Tampa.
3) That Bryzgalov was a lost cause, he needed to be amnestied.
The proof--- his play was horrendous after signing a huge contract.

I never claimed Yandle = Timonen, just that he would be better offensively than anyone else they had on the team.
We have defensive defenseman, we need PMD to compete with the better teams in the league.

1) that was a Lavi problem. His plan sucked, he didn't adjust it for months after it failed. When he began adjusting it, it got better. Berube has completely overhauled it and the same D corps is doing just fine...funny how that works. And no, Streit suprisingly isn't really a factor there. If anything he often looks lost trying to get the puck out of the D zone...he's nearly made some very costly errors behind the net when pressured. I didn't expect that, but it's often been the case.

2) The team produced less offense when Carle was on the ice than Coburn. Carle's GFON/60 didn't support him as an offensive Dman, at all. Carle wasn't all that special in the offensive zone. If anything, his complete lack of shot made him a detriment because teams knew they only needed to defend the pass. Also...imagine this team with Carle and Yandle instead of Coburn. My God, there would be no defense. There's more to a D corps than just offense.

3) When they made the trade there was zero way of knowing for sure there would be an amnesty. They had to prepare for the possibilty of having Bryz for a longgggg time, and that meant defensive dmen.


And for the millionth time, you're very clearly using hindsight. At the time of the 2011 trades we had holes to fill on offense...and no way to do it outside of trades. The defense was completely set and was expected to be set for at least 2-3 years, giving them some room to work with. Pronger was still around. The offense was the driving need at that point. Addressing the defense would have turned us into something resembling Nashville. The forward group was the bigger concern, as was the prospect pool. The trades just happened to fill all the holes in the roster at forward...convenient, huh? Almost like Homer tried to make it work that way. If Simmonds doesn't come back, who would be in his spot right now? There was nobody to plug in, and not enough cap room to go to FA.

Homer tried to get a dman from LA but it didn't happen. He can't hold Lombardi down and waterboard him until he trades the guy.

 

[Sawdalite]

There is no question in my mind that the sudden and impossible to be fully foreseen injury to Pronger set back the team in a major way... on most all fronts. With the elimination of Pronger from the roster many plugs had to be made, and alternate avenues had to be taken... included in which was the hampering of the team's Cap by the inane 35+ Rule.

That the team has not been set back much further, even at this point, is a testament to the Organization and should be at least begrudgingly to Homer by his detractors.

A major alteration was made with the assets going for Pronger and again with the Core Shift moving Richards and Carter... and then once again one had to be made in pieces when Pronger was injured. Mix in a large Cap reduction and yet another overhaul of Goalies... twice.

With all this it is a wonder that the team is as well set up to move forward as it is... And to suggest that Homer was secure is knowing what the Roster situation would be down the line in any certainty is foolish. Pronger's injury was a major factor in all this... Columbus' matching the Weber Contract Offer greatly hampered the replacement of Pronger, and scuttled what would have been a master coup by Homer.

But I digress.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

There is no question in my mind that the sudden and impossible to be fully foreseen injury to Pronger set back the team in a major way... on most all fronts. With the elimination of Pronger from the roster many plugs had to be made, and alternate avenues had to be taken... included in which was the hampering of the team's Cap by the inane 35+ Rule.

That the team has not been set back much further, even at this point, is a testament to the Organization and should be at least begrudgingly to Homer by his detractors.

A major alteration was made with the assets going for Pronger and again with the Core Shift moving Richards and Carter... and then once again one had to be made in pieces when Pronger was injured. Mix in a large Cap reduction and yet another overhaul of Goalies... twice.

With all this it is a wonder that the team is as well set up to move forward as it is... And to suggest that Homer was secure is knowing what the Roster situation would be down the line in any certainty is foolish. Pronger's injury was a major factor in all this... Columbus' matching the Weber Contract Offer greatly hampered the replacement of Pronger, and scuttled what would have been a master coup by Homer.

But I digress.

People point to this all the time as something that has hurt, will hurt, or is hurting the team. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I am not sure I see it in any concrete form other than the fact that it could have or might have prevented a hypothetical trade (which likely would have included the trading of draft picks or prospects, at which point most would be upset that draft picks or prospects were traded).

Maybe I am missing something, but has this ACTUALLY hurt the team in any way besides the boilerplate response of it gives us less cap space at the deadline. For instance, was there a trade or signing that didn't happen because of this? From everything we have seen, the Flyers still go after or have gone after the major free agents (i.e Weber, etc) without issue and have still made deadline deals. So again I ask, and not necessarily to you in particular, but has this actually hurt the team?

I will once again state that I am not saying that it hasn't hurt the team because I honestly don't know, I am just saying that from what I have seen it doesn't look it has, so please don't respond by saying "typical Homer defender" or something like that.

 

[Curufinwe]

Having to fit Pronger's $4.94m hit under the cap at the start of every season gives Philly less space to resign RFAs and sign free agents. The Flyers couldn't sign a real third liner to play with Read and Couturier in the offseason and had to get one by trading Talbot. If they keep Downie and sign the rest of their RFAs to reasonable, performance-based raises they will only have a few million dollars in cap space at the end of the 2014 training camp when rosters have to be set.

But the 35+ rule is not to blame. Even if Pronger's contract hadn't come under that rule he wouldn't have necessasrily retired. Savard hasn't retired and he was 33 when his 7 year, $28.15 million deal started in in 10-11.

 

[Sawdalite]

People point to this all the time as something that has hurt, will hurt, or is hurting the team. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I am not sure I see it in any concrete form other than the fact that it could have or might have prevented a hypothetical trade (which likely would have included the trading of draft picks or prospects, at which point most would be upset that draft picks or prospects were traded).

Maybe I am missing something, but has this ACTUALLY hurt the team in any way besides the boilerplate response of it gives us less cap space at the deadline. For instance, was there a trade or signing that didn't happen because of this? From everything we have seen, the Flyers still go after or have gone after the major free agents (i.e Weber, etc) without issue and have still made deadline deals. So again I ask, and not necessarily to you in particular, but has this actually hurt the team?

I will once again state that I am not saying that it hasn't hurt the team because I honestly don't know, I am just saying that from what I have seen it doesn't look it has, so please don't respond by saying "typical Homer defender" or something like that.

It is much easier to prove something happened than to ever prove it didn't... How many trade talks were not bothered to be entered into due to lack of available Cap Space? We will never and can never know... How many deals were not made that might have been?... Can I prove that the answer isn't none? No I can't, but... maybe Homer can tell us that there was one... if he could divulge names and details without breaking the GM code. The point though is that there is a definite potential of deals missed due to it... and a handcuffing of a GM because of an empty or reduced Bank as well as a limited Roster creation before the LTIR is allowed to be assigned on Opening Day. Hypothetical? Certainly... but that's all we have here when we have to prove what didn't happen... other than that the Flyers didn't sign every NHL player in history that they did not sign.

 

[Sawdalite]

Having to fit Pronger's $4.94m hit under the cap at the start of every season gives Philly less space to resign RFAs and sign free agents. The Flyers couldn't sign a real third liner to play with Read and Couturier in the offseason and had to get one by trading Talbot. If they keep Downie and sign the rest of their RFAs to reasonable, performance-based raises they will only have a few million dollars in cap space at the end of the 2014 training camp when rosters have to be set.

But the 35+ rule is not to blame. Even if Pronger's contract hadn't come under that rule he wouldn't have necessasrily retired. Savard hasn't retired and he was 33 when his 7 year, $28.15 million deal started in in 10-11.

No he may not have of... but there was never the option in place.

The 35+ Rule is inane in that to prevent circumvention of legitimate AAV by teams signing players to contract years they know the player will never play... when all that is needed is to make a Rule that states that the Cap will no longer be assigned on a AAV basis on players 35 years of age or older but will in stead be on a cash basis... then there will be no front loading and players will not agree to lowball contracts and retire when the money rises into overpayment... OR... create a Rule where players 35 or older must sign either a one year contract or a series of one year contracts... this the Cap will again be on a cash salary basis.

The idea that the Cap is circumvented and must be addressed is not the problem... the way they went about it was the problem... when there were other remedies that would work better and not wrongfully handicap a team when a legitimate reason for a 35+ player not playing is there. Also, exceptions for players like Pronger could have been set up... if not in the last CBA where they obviously dropped the ball, then certainly in the new CBA... but that was not even addressed in any manner that I can determine. That they didn't address this is a crime and shear stupidity IMO.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

It is much easier to prove something happened than to ever prove it didn't... How many trade talks were not bothered to be entered into due to lack of available Cap Space? We will never and can never know... How many deals were not made that might have been?... Can I prove that the answer isn't none? No I can't, but... maybe Homer can tell us that there was one... if he could divulge names and details without breaking the GM code. The point though is that there is a definite potential of deals missed due to it... and a handcuffing of a GM because of an empty or reduced Bank as well as a limited Roster creation before the LTIR is allowed to be assigned on Opening Day. Hypothetical? Certainly... but that's all we have here when we have to prove what didn't happen... other than that the Flyers didn't sign every NHL player in history that they did not sign.

Yeah but the fact that the Flyers pursued pretty much every big name UFA and signed/re-signed guys to big contracts and made trades seems to suggest that it has not impacted the team. It seems unlikely that pursuing Weber, Suter, etc., signing VL, extending Giroux to a huge deal, dealing for guys at the deadline, etc. have not been impacted. It is hard to argue that Pronger's contract prevented anything when they signed Shea Weber to such a huge deal. If Pronger's deal didn't stop that from taking place, what did it or could it have possibly stopped?

Sure, there are always things we don't know that happened, and in theory it is possible that there was a player the Flyers wanted to acquire but couldn't because of Pronger, but I find that hard to believe given the fact that the Flyers have either aggressively pursued or acquired every player they have had their sights on. You're going to tell me that the Pronger deal didn't affect signing Shea Weber, but there is a possibility that it did prevent something else? It doesn't add up.

 

[Sawdalite]

Yeah but the fact that the Flyers pursued pretty much every big name UFA and signed/re-signed guys to big contracts and made trades seems to suggest that it has not impacted the team. It seems unlikely that pursuing Weber, Suter, etc., signing VL, extending Giroux to a huge deal, dealing for guys at the deadline, etc. have not been impacted. It is hard to argue that Pronger's contract prevented anything when they signed Shea Weber to such a huge deal. If Pronger's deal didn't stop that from taking place, what did it or could it have possibly stopped?

Sure, there are always things we don't know that happened, and in theory it is possible that there was a player the Flyers wanted to acquire but couldn't because of Pronger, but I find that hard to believe given the fact that the Flyers have either aggressively pursued or acquired every player they have had their sights on. You're going to tell me that the Pronger deal didn't affect signing Shea Weber, but there is a possibility that it did prevent something else? It doesn't add up.

We don't know that the Flyers reeled in every player they set their sights on... we just don't.

The main problem with Pronger still on the books and greatly limiting the Banked Cap is clearly at the Trade Deadline and during the PreSeason and Training Camp when they cannot use the money he is log jamming... Also there is a little matter of the Tagging Rights which was key in not offering a contract to Carle when it could have been a pre-FreeMarket reasonable one, as well as other players that had to have contract discussions put on hold. Jagr may have been signed and maybe Gagne would have been offered a contract.

This is on top of all the contract negotiations that never happened due to lack of Cap Space, as I mentioned earlier... Yes they reeled in many, but at what cost to other players they had to pass up on? Homer to his credit has been creative in being able to sign players... plus some just flat out want to come here, as Vinny obviously did... The Weber Offer Sheet definitely kept Carle at bay too. Most obvious problem is of course the TRL and I've heard Homer respond to a question asked by me say that he was upset that he was hampered by lack of Cap space and certainly would love to be able to get loaners like the other teams do.

No two ways about it... at least at some extent Pronger's contract and LTIR status is handcuffing Homer.

 

[skoods]

Ugh. I was just coming on here to ask why again Holmgren traded JVR for Luke Schenn. I was just watching highlights of the 2011 and 12 playoffs and JVR was so good with so much potential that they just threw away.

One of the worst trades in Flyers history?

 

[Embiid]

The Weber Offer Sheet definitely kept Carle at bay too. Most obvious problem is of course the TRL and I've heard Homer respond to a question asked by me say that he was upset that he was hampered by lack of Cap space and certainly would love to be able to get loaners like the other teams do.

No two ways about it... at least at some extent Pronger's contract and LTIR status is handcuffing Homer.

If I recall correctly....and Meltzer I think said the same...it was more the Parise and Suter attempt that got Jagr and Carle kicked to the curb. And again, the argument was that Holmgren shouldn't have really gone after those two since the likelihood of BOTH of them agreeing to come here was very low as Meltzer also said. He is the one that actually called it a pipe dream. The Weber offer sheet was a more understandable and even reasonable attempt despite the massive cost since they apparently already courted him and he was willing to come here....