Holmgren DOESN'T deserve to get fired

[GKJ]

The bruins situation is entirely different. They didn't "lose" Kessel...they traded him for two first rounders and a second rounder. They also didn't "lose" Tim aThomas, they replaced him with a younger, cheaper, first rounder named Tuuka Rask. But they did lose Marc Savard. So I guess its kind of similar to losing your Hall of Fame franchise captain defenseman after trading a ton for him.

So, in other words, they withstood major losses to their NHL roster because of organizational merits.

EDIT: Also the Blackhawks sucked for a bout a decade and a half before they landed some pretty high picks, and blew up both Stanley Cup teams after winning (which, was greatly panned around here IIRC). Also the Sharks are in no better of a place than the Flyers are. No Cups. They haven't even been to the Cup finals. But they have all those picks and prospects, right? Working out pretty well for them...

The point was presented that "when you are always buyers and in the playoffs, you never recoup picks." The Sharks are always buyers and in the playoffs.

Likewise, the Blackhawks recouped in trading Byfuglien, Versteeg (players), Ladd, Brouwer, and Bolland, most of which had to be done because Dale Tallon wasn't as good of a GM as people think he was. As a result, he was replaced by someone who is.

 

[Garbage Goal]

Do I REALLY have to spell out something to you that has been spelled out dozens of times before? You're either ignoring what has been said to you for years or being purposefully obtuse. I would rather get my crockpot going than waste time writing a post you won't pay any attention to or will completely misread and twist.

Don't waste your time man. I've done it many times over.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

So, in other words, they withstood major losses to their NHL roster because of organizational merits.

In what world are those major losses? They obtained two blue chip players (and a second rounder) for Phil Kessel. And their old, overpaid goalie got outplayed by a younger, better, first round draft pick. How are either of those major losses?

If they traded those picks FOR Kessel and he got injured and had to retire like the Pronger situation, that's a major loss. But that's not what happened. They profited from trading Kessel.

Tim Thomas got old and they had a better player they acquired from a trade (a trade which included a Calder Trophy winning goalie a year prior). Not exactly a major loss.

I get what you are saying, they had assets to insert in their lineup. But those assets were acquired by trading assets they had. They traded a top young scorer for a couple draft picks. They traded a goalie one year removed from winning the Calder for another goalie prospect. It's not like the Bruins suffered these huge losses you are talking about, and had a stable of top prospects that they drafted.

The point was presented that "when you are always buyers and in the playoffs, you never recoup picks." The Sharks are always buyers and in the playoffs.

Ok that's true, and they've made the playoffs the same amount of times the Flyers have in recent years and have the same amount of Cups. They have had more picks, I'm assuming in recent years. Those picks haven't lead them to the promised land yet. And Hockeys Future has them ranked as #22 in terms of prospect rankings. Not exactly concrete proof of anything, but what has having all those picks gotten them?

Likewise, the Blackhawks recouped in trading Byfuglien, Versteeg (players), Ladd, Brouwer, and Bolland, most of which had to be done because Dale Tallon wasn't as good of a GM as people think he was. As a result, he was replaced by someone who is.

And that's true. I've got no problem with what the Blackhawks have done and I agree they are doing a much better job than the Flyers. But a large part of their success are those two guys named Patrick Kane and Jonathon Toews (and a number of other players acquired through the draft in that time like Brent Seabrook and Duncan Keith...ever heard of those guys?). So yes, they recouped picks and prospects that were traded, but the reason for their success is not due to the fact that they have recouped draft picks, it is largely due to the fact that they had players in place from a decade of sucking. Having the draft picks surely was a factor in their success, but let's not act like recent draft picks (outside of the ones they got when they sucked) is what got them where they are.

 

[GKJ]

In what world are those major losses? They obtained two blue chip players (and a second rounder) for Phil Kessel. And their old, overpaid goalie got outplayed by a younger, better, first round draft pick. How are either of those major losses?

If they traded those picks FOR Kessel and he got injured and had to retire like the Pronger situation, that's a major loss. But that's not what happened. They profited from trading Kessel.

Tim Thomas got old and they had a better player they acquired from a trade (a trade which included a Calder Trophy winning goalie a year prior). Not exactly a major loss.

I get what you are saying, they had assets to insert in their lineup. But those assets were acquired by trading assets they had. They traded a top young scorer for a couple draft picks. They traded a goalie one year removed from winning the Calder for another goalie prospect. It's not like the Bruins suffered these huge losses you are talking about, and had a stable of top prospects that they drafted.

So, what you're saying is....they had the assets within the organization.

Ok that's true, and they've made the playoffs the same amount of times the Flyers have in recent years and have the same amount of Cups. They have had more picks, I'm assuming in recent years. Those picks haven't lead them to the promised land yet. And Hockeys Future has them ranked as #22 in terms of prospect rankings. Not exactly concrete proof of anything, but what has having all those picks gotten them?

You know how many years the Kings and Wild were in the Top 5 in HF's organizational rankings?

And that's true. I've got no problem with what the Blackhawks have done and I agree they are doing a much better job than the Flyers. But a large part of their success are those two guys named Patrick Kane and Jonathon Toews (and a number of other players acquired through the draft in that time like Brent Seabrook and Duncan Keith...ever heard of those guys?). So yes, they recouped picks and prospects that were traded, but the reason for their success is not due to the fact that they have recouped draft picks, it is largely due to the fact that they had players in place from a decade of sucking. Having the draft picks surely was a factor in their success, but let's not act like recent draft picks (outside of the ones they got when they sucked) is what got them where they are.

So, what you're saying is....they had the assets within the organization.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

So, what you're saying is....they had the assets within the organization.

Yes...in the same sense that the Flyers have the assets within the organization. The Flyers have players they can trade to get some draft picks like Kessel got. Most people around here wouldn't want them to trade those players though, especially for draft picks.

Tuuka Rask was acquired like five or six years before Thomas left in a deal where they sent a Calder winning goalie to Toronto. So yes they had the asset within the organization, but they traded an asset to get that asset...which helped them out years down the road when their diamond in the rough Vezina winning goalie started to get old. The Flyers could trade an asset they have (Mason, Stolie, Laughton, whomever) for a goalie that helps them out six years down the road.

So yeah they had the assets in the organization.

You know how many years the Kings and Wild were in the Top 5 in HF's organizational rankings?

Oh, I know I'm not saying that those rankigns are concrete proof of anything, but using the Sharks as a team that is always in the hunt and always trading picks while recouping them isn't a great example because they aren't doing any better than the Flyers are doing in recent history (i.e., no cups, one or two high profile prospects).

So, what you're saying is....they had the assets within the organization.

Yes, but again, a large majority of their assets within the organization came from the decades of sucking and getting high draft picks. Great, they recouped their draft picks in recent years...which of those guys is helping them right now? I'll give you a hint...none of their first rounders since Patrick Kane. That's six years of first rounders, seven total first round picks since then, picks that are ever so valuable to have and never worth trading for a rental, and picks that they clearly needed to recoup, who have played a collective 28 games in the NHL...all payed by Dylan Olsen (two years ago).

Now, obviously the more recent guys wouldn't be expected to have played too many games. And there is certainly nothing bad about acquiring these draft picks or holding on to them. I am not saying a team should not try to get their picks back after trading them for rentals or veterans, nor am I saying that a team should always trade their picks. What I am saying, however, is that Chicago getting these picks back or holding on to them is not why they are successful. Their success stems largely from the guys they got from sucking for a decade...guys that the Flyers never had a shot at because they were too busy contending for a Cup (I know, I know, they could have done it without trading their picks and rentals never get you anywhere).

 

[Tripod]

Why all the bickering?

Just think back for a second. When the Flyers are a playoff team, if we do no moves, people complain. When we do, people complain that we traded away picks.

Being competetive usually comes at a cost. There is usually an ebb and flow of good teams to bad teams, then back again. People talk about Detroit being so consistant but when you have a team that adds possibly 3 HOF players from rounds 3, 6 and 7, it makes a MASSIVE difference. Imagine if we plucked those guys to add to our 1st rounders and core over the years.

One major flaw is our thinking of picks after the 1st round. We have done very well in the 1st round, yet struggled after that. Some is due to trading away picks, most is from poor thought process or drafting. Just look at this. In 1989, we had 2 2nd rounders. We picked Greg Johnson who played 700+ games with 300+ points. We then took Patrik Julhin who played parts of 2 seasons. Who did he play for when drafted? Vasteras IK (Sweden). Who also played for that team and was picked in the 3rd round? Nik Lidstrom. So we scouted the team and made the wrong choice. And that choice might have cost us a cup. Who knows. And unfortunately, we all saw who we picked in the 3rd round this year and heard why. That mentality costs the team. Swing for the God damn fences with those picks and later instead of picking a guy who projects to be a 4th liner at best!

 

[GKJ]

Yes...in the same sense that the Flyers have the assets within the organization. The Flyers have players they can trade to get some draft picks like Kessel got. Most people around here wouldn't want them to trade those players though, especially for draft picks.

Tuuka Rask was acquired like five or six years before Thomas left in a deal where they sent a Calder winning goalie to Toronto. So yes they had the asset within the organization, but they traded an asset to get that asset...which helped them out years down the road when their diamond in the rough Vezina winning goalie started to get old. The Flyers could trade an asset they have (Mason, Stolie, Laughton, whomever) for a goalie that helps them out six years down the road.

So yeah they had the assets in the organization.



Oh, I know I'm not saying that those rankigns are concrete proof of anything, but using the Sharks as a team that is always in the hunt and always trading picks while recouping them isn't a great example because they aren't doing any better than the Flyers are doing in recent history (i.e., no cups, one or two high profile prospects).



Yes, but again, a large majority of their assets within the organization came from the decades of sucking and getting high draft picks. Great, they recouped their draft picks in recent years...which of those guys is helping them right now? I'll give you a hint...none of their first rounders since Patrick Kane. That's six years of first rounders, seven total first round picks since then, picks that are ever so valuable to have and never worth trading for a rental, and picks that they clearly needed to recoup, who have played a collective 28 games in the NHL...all payed by Dylan Olsen (two years ago).

Now, obviously the more recent guys wouldn't be expected to have played too many games. And there is certainly nothing bad about acquiring these draft picks or holding on to them. I am not saying a team should not try to get their picks back after trading them for rentals or veterans, nor am I saying that a team should always trade their picks. What I am saying, however, is that Chicago getting these picks back or holding on to them is not why they are successful. Their success stems largely from the guys they got from sucking for a decade...guys that the Flyers never had a shot at because they were too busy contending for a Cup (I know, I know, they could have done it without trading their picks and rentals never get you anywhere).

The Oilers got Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, Yakupov, Gagner, and Paajarvi through sucking.
The Islanders got Neiderreider, Tavares, Okposo, Bailey through sucking
The Blue Jackets have had top 10 draft picks for damn near the entire existence. Likewise the Florida Panthers. Likewise Atlanta/Winnipeg.

This "draft high, acquire Cups" strategy doesn't seem to be a fool-proof plan. I wonder why that is.

 

[Clown Baby*]

The Oilers got Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, Yakupov, Gagner, and Paajarvi through sucking.
The Islanders got Neiderreider, Tavares, Okposo, Bailey through sucking
The Blue Jackets have had top 10 draft picks for damn near the entire existence. Likewise the Florida Panthers. Likewise Atlanta/Winnipeg.

This "draft high, acquire Cups" strategy doesn't seem to be a fool-proof plan. I wonder why that is.

Probably because the vast majority of teams overlook the single most important position in hockey - defense.

Chicago had Keith, Seabrook, and Hjasdflkmsfon.

Pittsburgh had Gonchar, Orpik, and Letang.

Boston had Chara, Seidenberg, and Boychuk.

Los Angeles had Doughty, Scuderi, and Voynov.

Anaheim had Pronger, Niedermayer, and Beauchemin.

Detroit had Lidstrom, Kronwall, and Rafalski.

Our Philadelphia Flyers had Pronger, Timonen, Coburn, and Carle.

To me, it's pretty clear. If you don't have a high-end two-way defenseman, if you don't have depth, you're going nowhere fast.

 

[CharlieGirl]

The other thing all of the recent Cup winners have is very little turnover. Yes, most of them added a couple of pieces to put them over the top, but they all have a significant number of players on their rosters that they drafted and developed.

 

[Garbage Goal]

I just think you need quality depth, a relatively balanced lineup, to build largely from within as far as the roster goes, and to excel in some way or another from the crowd. That's just me though.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

edit, nmind ill deal with it later.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Probably because the vast majority of teams overlook the single most important position in hockey - defense.

Chicago had Keith, Seabrook, and Hjasdflkmsfon.

Pittsburgh had Gonchar, Orpik, and Letang.

Boston had Chara, Seidenberg, and Boychuk.

Los Angeles had Doughty, Scuderi, and Voynov.

Anaheim had Pronger, Niedermayer, and Beauchemin.

Detroit had Lidstrom, Kronwall, and Rafalski.

Our Philadelphia Flyers had Pronger, Timonen, Coburn, and Carle.

To me, it's pretty clear. If you don't have a high-end two-way defenseman, if you don't have depth, you're going nowhere fast.

I'm so happy I'm not the only person who couldn't spell Hjamjajmajajamsjojjnmnjjjjjj's name if my life depended on it.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

No response to anything else in that post? The true sign of a man confident in his argument. Resulting to petty insults. Bravo.

holy crap man it was a joke. you wrote a whole line in caps. i was just messing with you dude.

I'm not talking about it like it didn't have an impact on our prospects. I never was. Any time you trade a first rounder you miss out on a prospect. The two most impactful picks were the ones dealt in the Pronged deal. A deal I would do over and over. The other went for Versteeg, again a trade that looked like got the Flyers a young, affordable, scoring winger.

But those are trades that had to be made. Keeping them would have helped the future but wouldn't have improved teams that appeared close. We've been over this ad nauseum for years. I'd take the shot for the upgrade this season if they look close, you'd keep the picks and take the upgrade down the line.

probably could nitpick and say one of the 1st should of been conditional but its still a deal I would of done.
Sure the Flyers were close but they needed to make a deal for a scoring winger. why? because the cupboard was bare in the minors. and in the end it ended up being a wasted 1st round pick. getting a 2nd rounder doesnt make up for it. because hey after all they dont amount to anything right?

EDIT: Also the Blackhawks sucked for a bout a decade and a half before they landed some pretty high picks, and blew up both Stanley Cup teams after winning (which, was greatly panned around here IIRC). Also the Sharks are in no better of a place than the Flyers are. No Cups. They haven't even been to the Cup finals. But they have all those picks and prospects, right? Working out pretty well for them...

why were the Hawks able to make those deals? they had prospects and guys in the AHL ready to step up. so yeah they had to make some of those deals for cap purposes it wasnt going to hurt them much in the end. when the Flyers are dealing picks over and over again its a domino effect. eventually it catches up to them.
i would say the Sharks are in a better place then the Flyers. they have a better team then the Flyers, a better coach, and a better prospect pool. The Sharks havent been going backwards like the Flyers have the last 3 seasons.

 

[Appleyard]

In terms of roster breakdown and last 5 cup winners: (20 most played in playoffs)

13 Hawks: 2 FA, 7 Trades, 11 Drafted
12 Kings: 2 FA, 8 Trades, 10 Drafted
11 Bruins: 3 FA, 12 Trades, 5 Drafted
10 Hawks: 6 FA, 5 Trades, 9 Drafted
09 Pens: 6 FA, 5 Trades, 9 Drafted

And either the Playoff rosters or late season roster of Flyers in that time (20 or 21 most played... some were vital to team but not played as much due to injury etc.):

13 Flyers: 8 FA, 10 Trades, 3 Drafted
12 Flyers: 7 FA, 9 Trades, 4 Drafted
11 Flyers: 6 FA, 10 Trades, 4 Drafted
10 Flyers: 8 FA, 8 Trades, 5 Drafted
09 Flyers: 5 FA, 10 Trades, 5 Drafted

The two staggering things are that the Flyers average 6.8 FAs... cup teams 3.8, and the Flyers average 4.2 Drafted players, cup teams 8.8, so pretty much exact opposites. The trades are pretty much in line.

So effectively the makeup of the Flyers roster compared to cup winners in the exact opposite in terms of FA vs Drafted... though our college FA signings slightly sway that in terms of young players on the Flyers as their first team, ELC etc, but not by much.

 

[Beef Invictus]

And one of the big reasons we have to turn to so many FAs is the lack of quality homegrown talent in the prospect pool, which comes from trading high picks for years.

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the bulk of those FAs are on D and the 4th line, yes?

 

[Appleyard]

And one of the big reasons we have to turn to so many FAs is the lack of quality homegrown talent in the prospect pool, which comes from trading high picks for years.

Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the bulk of those FAs are on D and the 4th line, yes?

Yeh, pretty much... I also made a stupid mistake I just realised, I put Hartnell and Kimmo as FA's when I put them down on here! Even though I checked on hockey reference for every single player (as I was putting together a small database for the teams compositions over the last ten or so, including draft positions as well.) and have them down as trades on excel.

Annoying, the same conclusion can still be made, but it is not as stark. (still pretty stark though!) Changed it now as well.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

holy crap man it was a joke. you wrote a whole line in caps. i was just messing with you dude.

probably could nitpick and say one of the 1st should of been conditional but its still a deal I would of done.
Sure the Flyers were close but they needed to make a deal for a scoring winger. why? because the cupboard was bare in the minors. and in the end it ended up being a wasted 1st round pick. getting a 2nd rounder doesnt make up for it. because hey after all they dont amount to anything right?

The Versteeg deal was a deadline move. Why would the cupboard being bare have anything to do with this trade? Most teams try to improve at the deadline to make a Cup run, even teams with deep farm systems. You don't call up minor league players at the deadline for your Cup run.

why were the Hawks able to make those deals? they had prospects and guys in the AHL ready to step up. so yeah they had to make some of those deals for cap purposes it wasnt going to hurt them much in the end. when the Flyers are dealing picks over and over again its a domino effect. eventually it catches up to them.
i would say the Sharks are in a better place then the Flyers. they have a better team then the Flyers, a better coach, and a better prospect pool. The Sharks havent been going backwards like the Flyers have the last 3 seasons.

But again, they had prospects and guys in the AHL from their decades of sucking. If the Flyers sucked for a decade, they would have a full cupboard as well. But the Flyers were busy contending for Cups when the Blackhawks were stocking their cupboard.

You're right, the Sharks haven't been going backwards for the last three seasons, but that's not really proof positive of anything. I agree that continuing to trade picks eventually will catch up to you for obvious reasons, however, that doesn't mean that what Homer has done with the picks was wrong. These were moves that, for the most part, should have been made. If you want to compete for a Cup, sometimes you have to part with your picks. I understand the desire to hold on to them, but you have to also understand the desire to trade them, no? Sitting on your hands won't improve your chances of winning a Cup this year. It MIGHT (key word...might) improve your chances down the road, but it doesn't help now. If you are close, why not try and go for it? Doesn't a small increase in a chance to win when you are close have the same value as a small increase in a chance to win in the future?

In terms of roster breakdown and last 5 cup winners: (20 most played in playoffs)

13 Hawks: 2 FA, 7 Trades, 11 Drafted
12 Kings: 2 FA, 8 Trades, 10 Drafted
11 Bruins: 3 FA, 12 Trades, 5 Drafted
10 Hawks: 6 FA, 5 Trades, 9 Drafted
09 Pens: 6 FA, 5 Trades, 9 Drafted

And either the Playoff rosters or late season roster of Flyers in that time (20 or 21 most played... some were vital to team but not played as much due to injury etc.):

13 Flyers: 10 FA, 8 Trades, 3 Drafted
12 Flyers: 9 FA, 7 Trades, 4 Drafted
11 Flyers: 8 FA, 8 Trades, 4 Drafted
10 Flyers: 10 FA, 6 Trades, 5 Drafted
09 Flyers: 7 FA, 8 Trades, 5 Drafted

The two staggering things are that the Flyers average 8.8 FAs... cup teams 3.8, and the Flyers average 4.2 Drafted players, cup teams 8.8, so pretty much exact opposites. The trades are pretty much in line.

So effectively the makeup of the Flyers roster compared to cup winners in the exact opposite in terms of FA vs Drafted... though our college FA signings slightly sway that in terms of young players on the Flyers as their first team, ELC etc, but not by much.

But again, you have to also factor in that those high numbers of draft picks are generally players that were acquired with lottery picks after a long stretch of not competing. You're obviously going to have a higher retention of players and picks if they are in the top ten of the draft every year.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

But again, they had prospects and guys in the AHL from their decades of sucking. If the Flyers sucked for a decade, they would have a full cupboard as well. But the Flyers were busy contending for Cups when the Blackhawks were stocking their cupboard.

.

There wasnt one player on the farm club that could of helped the team instead of trading away a 1st round pick? that was my point. and I am refrencing the Versteeg deal.

 

[Beef Invictus]

When you trade a lot of prospects and high picks, you will have a bad prospect pool. When you have a bad prospect pool you can't fill out the roster with cheap homegrown talent. When you have to turn to FA to fill out those spots, your cap situation gets complex. When the cap situation is complex, roster instability is likely. And that's exactly what we saw.

 

[CharlieGirl]

But again, you have to also factor in that those high numbers of draft picks are generally players that were acquired with lottery picks after a long stretch of not competing. You're obviously going to have a higher retention of players and picks if they are in the top ten of the draft every year.

Yes, there were a few lottery picks in there (Chicago and the Pens in particular). Let's use LA for an example:

For their Cup run, the Kings had one top 10 pick (Doughty at #2 in 2008) in the 12 homegrown players they had. The rest were Kopitar (#11 in 2005), Brown (#12 in 2003), Voynov (#32 in 2008), King (#109 in 2007), Martinez (#95 in 2007), Clifford (#35 in 2009), Loktionov (#123 in 2008), Lewis (#17 in 2006), Nolan (#186 in 2009), Quick (#72 in 2005), Bernier (#11 in 2006).

You notice a couple of things - a) they had the picks to select these players, and b) they kept these players and didn't ditch them at the first chance. Even the players they've traded for or signed as free agents have stuck around (i.e. Stoll, Mitchell, Greene, Williams). They also have a bunch of players at varying levels of development, and are able to wait to add a kid to their lineup until he's ready.

How does this model fit your assertion that you have to suck for years to have a competitive team?

Or going another way completely, would you consider the Detroit Red Wings to be competitive? How do you suppose they are able to do that without sucking for years? What are the glaring differences between the Wings and the Flyers, in your mind? It doesn't start with the players, or luck of the draw in a superb draft. So who do you suppose might be responsible?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

I think many of us saw this coming years ago Beef. Eventually it catches up to you and it has. Yes last year they held the picks and by all accounts had a good top end of the draft. But those guys are still aways away and should not be rushed.
How many GMs would of blown apart a core that went to the Cup Final just a few short years ago. I am going to guess that you could probably count those GMs on one hand.
It still appears its going to get worse in Flyer land before it gets better.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

There wasnt one player on the farm club that could of helped the team instead of trading away a 1st round pick? that was my point. and I am refrencing the Versteeg deal.

There rarely is...that's why there are so many trades at the deadline. You don't call up a rookie to help for a Cup run. You make a trade or you stand pat.

Yes, there were a few lottery picks in there (Chicago and the Pens in particular). Let's use LA for an example:

For their Cup run, the Kings had one top 10 pick (Doughty at #2 in 2008) in the 12 homegrown players they had. The rest were Kopitar (#11 in 2005), Brown (#12 in 2003), Voynov (#32 in 2008), King (#109 in 2007), Martinez (#95 in 2007), Clifford (#35 in 2009), Loktionov (#123 in 2008), Lewis (#17 in 2006), Nolan (#186 in 2009), Quick (#72 in 2005), Bernier (#11 in 2006).

You'll notice that the most important players on that list (Doughty, Kopitar, Brown, and Voynov), were all drafted in years that they missed the playoffs, in other words, during a period of futility the likes of which the Flyers have not experienced.

You notice a couple of things - a) they had the picks to select these players,

Because they sucked and would not have been trading picks to make a Cup run. You don't trade picks when you aren't in the running for a Cup. I would not advocate dealing picks this year and did not last year for the Flyers.

and b) they kept these players and didn't ditch them at the first chance. Even the players they've traded for or signed as free agents have stuck around (i.e. Stoll, Mitchell, Greene, Williams). They also have a bunch of players at varying levels of development, and are able to wait to add a kid to their lineup until he's ready.

Again, they were in a period of rebuilding, not trying to make a run at a Cup.

How does this model fit your assertion that you have to suck for years to have a competitive team?

They got those picks and players by virtue of sucking. Missing the playoffs is sucking. They missed the playoffs six straight seasons. During that run, they got most of those players you listed. Which is why they had those picks...obviously they didn't make trades with their picks...there was no need to. They weren't making a Cup run. If the Flyers were in a streak of missing the playoffs...guess what, they wouldn't trade their picks either. They didn't do it last year and likely aren't going to do it this year. Is that a coincidence or do you think maybe there is a reason for that?

Or going another way completely, would you consider the Detroit Red Wings to be competitive? How do you suppose they are able to do that without sucking for years? What are the glaring differences between the Wings and the Flyers, in your mind? It doesn't start with the players, or luck of the draw in a superb draft. So who do you suppose might be responsible?

Again, I have never said the only way to win is to trade your draft picks. All I have said is the trades that were made were trades that should have been made. The way the Red Wings have done...getting huge contributions from late round picks, having the arguably the best defenseman in the history of the NHL play for your team for two decades, and yes...keeping their draft picks, is great. I'd love for the Flyers to do it all. Win cups, keep picks, develop prospects, etc. But that is a lot easier said than done. When you are in the hunt, if a trade is there to improve your team, I have no problem trading draft picks.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Sure, sometimes you have to make a big move where you part with a prospect, or high picks.

But you do not want to do that for consecutive years, or you will mortgage your future for nothing more than a chance of contending immediately at the expense of the future, when proper team building can give you that same chance but down the road without dooming the team to upheaval.

http://flyers.nhl.com/club/draftstats.htm?year=All&team=PHI

Missing a second or first rounder (or both) for 2008, 2009, and 2010, trading the first from 2008, and from 2007 had/is having a huge effect on the prospect pool and the team.

I challenge you to find a team that is still in contention after 4 straight years of that stuff. Off the top of my head I can't think of one. The value of high draft picks cannot be underestimated in the cap age. That's where you HAVE to do the bulk of your team building if you want success. The Flyers neglected that for a long-ass time and paid/are paying the price.

I mean...come on. Can you REALLY look at that strategy and declare it a success compared to more stable team-building models? Hell, it's not even something the team is capable of doing anymore because it flat out isn't sustainable. Now the team is where they're currently at, trying to recover and aim for the future...and for once in the cap era it looks like they're building responsibly and patiently, but only after their aggressive strategy went as predicted and blew up in management's collective faces.

 

[flyershockey]

Sure, sometimes you have to make a big move where you part with a prospect, or high picks.

But you do not want to do that for consecutive years, or you will mortgage your future for nothing more than a chance of contending immediately at the expense of the future, when proper team building can give you that same chance but down the road without dooming the team to upheaval.

http://flyers.nhl.com/club/draftstats.htm?year=All&team=PHI

Missing a second or first rounder (or both) for 2008, 2009, and 2010, trading the first from 2008, and from 2007 had/is having a huge effect on the prospect pool and the team.

I challenge you to find a team that is still in contention after 4 straight years of that stuff. Off the top of my head I can't think of one. The value of high draft picks cannot be underestimated in the cap age. That's where you HAVE to do the bulk of your team building if you want success. The Flyers neglected that for a long-ass time and paid/are paying the price.

It's especially important considering a lot of young players are coming into the NHL and making an immediate impact while still on an ELC deal. You don't see many first rounders spending 4-5 years in a lesser role anymore.

 

[Beef Invictus]

ANd even if they are in a lesser role, I'd rather have a cheap ELC working his way up the roster with upside than an aging FA vet who is more likely to decline than anything. We have had way too many of those in the D corps, and guys like Shelley.