Holmgren DOESN'T deserve to get fired

[JDinkalage Morgoone]

I can't wait til it's time for Morin and Hagg to compete for roster spots.

 

[flyershockey]

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.

Definitely. Imagine if this team had controlled RFA's in place of Lecavalier and Streit. Neither guy has been bad, but it can be argued that both are overpaid and have to chance to be severely overpaid in the near future during their decline.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Scratch what I said about 4 years. I'm going to count JVR. 5 years of failing to keep your young first round talent so you can go for quick fixes in other areas that were neglected. That's just bad in ANY era, not just the cap era.

 

[Curufinwe]

For Hagg that'll be 15-16 at the earliest.

 

[flyershockey]

For Hagg that'll be 15-16 at the earliest.

Yup. He said at the draft that he wanted at least two more years in Sweden. He'll then probably need a full season in the AHL to get used to the North American ice surface. Morin is probably on a similar timeline, and neither guy will be making an impact here for at least three more seasons probably.

 

[flyersguy33*]

I can't wait til it's time for Morin and Hagg to compete for roster spots.

As if they will actually be around by then....


Does this guy give any examples of why Homer shouldnt be fired that aren't more than 3 years ago?

 

[Beef Invictus]

Half a decade of minimizing your roster development via the first 2 rounds is pretty poor, that's for sure.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Definitely. Imagine if this team had controlled RFA's in place of Lecavalier and Streit. Neither guy has been bad, but it can be argued that both are overpaid and have to chance to be severely overpaid in the near future during their decline.

The Flyers currently have 20 million dollars tied to 4 contracts that take players deep into their 30s...so deep into their decline years.

That's bad.

I'm including Pronger since that contract bites the team every Summer.

 

[flyershockey]

The Flyers currently have 20 million dollars tied to 4 contracts that take players deep into their 30s...so deep into their decline years.

That's bad.

I'm including Pronger since that contract bites the team every Summer.

The only saving grace is that the cap will keep going up, thus minimizing the off season impact of his cap hit.

But yikes overall. That just puts it all into perspective.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

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.

But at the same time, what are you supposed to do when you are in the running for a Cup at the deadline. Hang on to the picks and hope you are good with what you have, then hope that those picks will develop into NHLers four years down the road? I understand what you are saying, and as I have stated, I am not now, nor have I ever been, of the opinion that you HAVE to trade draft picks to be successful or that draft picks are worthless. I'm simply saying, when your team looks close, trading draft picks (even firsts) is not a bad thing.

Obviously, I would prefer to have all our draft picks over the past few years, but at the same time, what are you going to do...trade for Pronger then NOT go for it in subsequent years? What was the point of trading for Pronger then?

 

[Beef Invictus]

But at the same time, what are you supposed to do when you are in the running for a Cup at the deadline. Hang on to the picks and hope you are good with what you have, then hope that those picks will develop into NHLers four years down the road? I understand what you are saying, and as I have stated, I am not now, nor have I ever been, of the opinion that you HAVE to trade draft picks to be successful or that draft picks are worthless. I'm simply saying, when your team looks close, trading draft picks (even firsts) is not a bad thing.

Obviously, I would prefer to have all our draft picks over the past few years, but at the same time, what are you going to do...trade for Pronger then NOT go for it in subsequent years? What was the point of trading for Pronger then?

What, so you think every playoff team should trade away their firsts until it causes a team collapse when that becomes unsustainable? So, do what the Flyers did...trade your picks and prospects until you're no longer a contender. That seems dumb. In fact, that's a terrible strategy.

How about this: Build responsibly so you don't have to irresponsibly trade high picks and young talent away for years in a desperate attempt to shore up holes.

That sounds smarter, doesn't it?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

What, so you think every playoff team should trade away their firsts until it causes a team collapse when that becomes unsustainable? So, do what the Flyers did...trade your picks and prospects until you're no longer a contender. That seems dumb. In fact, that's a terrible strategy.

How about this: Build responsibly so you don't have to irresponsibly trade high picks and young talent away for years in a desperate attempt to shore up holes.

That sounds smarter, doesn't it?

obviously if you are contending for a playoff spot and you dont trade your 1st, 2nd round picks for rentals you arent trying. and then its perfectly fine to trade the player you gave up a 1st for for 1/2 of what you paid to get said player.
Many of us knew and saw this coming years ago. like I said earlier. they blew up a core that wasnt far removed from a Cup Final. We all know why it happened. if things were taken care of earlier they would not of had to make those deals.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

What, so you think every playoff team should trade away their firsts until it causes a team collapse when that becomes unsustainable? So, do what the Flyers did...trade your picks and prospects until you're no longer a contender. That seems dumb. In fact, that's a terrible strategy.

As I stated earlier, no, that is not what I think a team should do. But I do think that if you are close, and a trade is there, you make it. Why wouldn't you? I understand your thinking, that doing that every year will hurt the future of the team because you won't have any picks. But the picks that you are trading are to improve a team that is close to the Cup. What's the point of having all those draft picks if your team is close every year but not over the top? So you can have younger players? So you can have a lower salary cap number? Those things mean nothing if you aren't bring home the hardware.

Do you really think the lack of draft picks from 2007-2010 is why this team is in the shape it is in? Which players would you remove from this roster and replace with theoretical draft picks? John Carlson? You think John Carlson and a bunch of mediocre prospects is the difference between this team sucking and being a contender (look at the players chosen around where the Flyers would have picked...not much there)? Or maybe then JvR doesn't get traded. So now you have John Carlson and JvR. NOW we are contending!

I'm not saying that you HAVE to trade your picks to win. But when you are contending for a Cup, which the Flyers were in this time frame, if you can improve your chances to win the Cup, you do it.

How about this: Build responsibly so you don't have to irresponsibly trade high picks and young talent away for years in a desperate attempt to shore up holes.

The young talent that was traded was mostly for other young talent. It's not like Carter/Richards/JvR were traded for rentals or aging vets. In fact, weren't they all traded for younger talent?

And again, I'd love to have all the draft picks and all the young players and still compete. But that is a lot easier said than done. You want a Hall of Fame defender? You are going to pay for it (either by trading big time for him, or sucking for years until you can draft him (or get lucky with a diamond in the rough)). You need a scoring winger at the trade deadline? Oh, you want one that is under 25 and under contract for another year? Well, that isn't going to be free. You want the rights to two of the top free agents on the market that will have an extremely positive impact on your team? You have to pay for that too!

Yes, he's squandered some picks. Eminger and Carcillo, come to mind. Those are trades I would go back and undo (I'm sure there's more too that I would undo). The rest? I think he made the right choice at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20, but those trades involving the high picks like Pronger/Timonen/Hartnell/Versteeg are all deals I would do every day of the week.

Would you do the Pronger deal?

The Timonen/Hartnell deal?

The Versteeg deal?

That sounds smarter, doesn't it?

Sure it does. But again, it is easier said than done. And even when done it doesn't always work out the way you want. See: Edmonton, NYI, Columbus, San Jose, Vancouver, and the slew of other teams that either have sucked for a decade and kept their picks without making the jump or have kept their picks and are contending but nothing more.

 

[StoneHands]

The only home grown players to come up through the system on this team are Giroux, Read, Couturier, Gustafsson, Raffl, and Rinaldo. Thats one impact player, two third liners, 2 depth forwards, and a depth defenseman. Thats a massive problem. Look around the league at all of the consistantly good/great teams and they are all built from within.

Chicago- Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Crawford, Shaw, Saad, Hjalmarsson, Leddy, Bickell, Pirri, Kruger, Bollig, and Smith.
Boston- Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Rask, Krug, Hamilton, Marchand, and Reilly Smith.

The list goes on and on including teams like Colorado, St. Louis, LA, Anaheim, and Detroit. Every top team in the league is built from within. Even teams like the Pens that don't have a ton of home grown players still have their 3 best players and their starting goalie that are home grown.

That's how you stay cheap, and that's how you stay consistantly good. In the NHL, your contract is usually based on past performance not future projections which is why you see guys like Hartnell, Streit, Lecavalier, and Timonen getting either too much money or too many years. The Flyers need to keep guys like Morin, Haag, Cousins, Laughton, Gost, Lauridsen, McGinn, and Stolarz. If 4-5 of those guys become full time NHL players which isn't a stretch, that's 4-5 guys on cheap contracts. If they perform so well that you con't resign them, you trade them away then, not now. You'll get much more for your return after they proved themselves than you will now.

This isn't just true in the NHL, it's true across sports. Look at the Phillies, they built from within and won a World Series. They then tried to chase that success by letting go of their own and signing older "proven" players and they've been regressing ever since.

This falls squarely on the shoulders of Homer. I've supported him in the past but at this point, I can't ignore the facts anymore, he just isnt getting the job done.

 

[kimmofan44]

The only home grown players to come up through the system on this team are Giroux, Read, Couturier, Gustafsson, Raffl, and Rinaldo. Thats one impact player, two third liners, 2 depth forwards, and a depth defenseman. Thats a massive problem. Look around the league at all of the consistantly good/great teams and they are all built from within.

Chicago- Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Crawford, Shaw, Saad, Hjalmarsson, Leddy, Bickell, Pirri, Kruger, Bollig, and Smith.
Boston- Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Rask, Krug, Hamilton, Marchand, and Reilly Smith.

The list goes on and on including teams like Colorado, St. Louis, LA, Anaheim, and Detroit. Every top team in the league is built from within. Even teams like the Pens that don't have a ton of home grown players still have their 3 best players and their starting goalie that are home grown.

That's how you stay cheap, and that's how you stay consistantly good. In the NHL, your contract is usually based on past performance not future projections which is why you see guys like Hartnell, Streit, Lecavalier, and Timonen getting either too much money or too many years. The Flyers need to keep guys like Morin, Haag, Cousins, Laughton, Gost, Lauridsen, McGinn, and Stolarz. If 4-5 of those guys become full time NHL players which isn't a stretch, that's 4-5 guys on cheap contracts. If they perform so well that you con't resign them, you trade them away then, not now. You'll get much more for your return after they proved themselves than you will now.

This isn't just true in the NHL, it's true across sports. Look at the Phillies, they built from within and won a World Series. They then tried to chase that success by letting go of their own and signing older "proven" players and they've been regressing ever since.

This falls squarely on the shoulders of Homer. I've supported him in the past but at this point, I can't ignore the facts anymore, he just isnt getting the job done.

this. nuff said.

 

[Embiid]

The only home grown players to come up through the system on this team are Giroux, Read, Couturier, Gustafsson, Raffl, and Rinaldo. Thats one impact player, two third liners, 2 depth forwards, and a depth defenseman. Thats a massive problem. Look around the league at all of the consistantly good/great teams and they are all built from within.

Chicago- Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Crawford, Shaw, Saad, Hjalmarsson, Leddy, Bickell, Pirri, Kruger, Bollig, and Smith.
Boston- Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic, Rask, Krug, Hamilton, Marchand, and Reilly Smith.

The list goes on and on including teams like Colorado, St. Louis, LA, Anaheim, and Detroit. Every top team in the league is built from within. Even teams like the Pens that don't have a ton of home grown players still have their 3 best players and their starting goalie that are home grown.

That's how you stay cheap, and that's how you stay consistantly good. In the NHL, your contract is usually based on past performance not future projections which is why you see guys like Hartnell, Streit, Lecavalier, and Timonen getting either too much money or too many years. The Flyers need to keep guys like Morin, Haag, Cousins, Laughton, Gost, Lauridsen, McGinn, and Stolarz. If 4-5 of those guys become full time NHL players which isn't a stretch, that's 4-5 guys on cheap contracts. If they perform so well that you con't resign them, you trade them away then, not now. You'll get much more for your return after they proved themselves than you will now.

This isn't just true in the NHL, it's true across sports. Look at the Phillies, they built from within and won a World Series. They then tried to chase that success by letting go of their own and signing older "proven" players and they've been regressing ever since.

This falls squarely on the shoulders of Homer. I've supported him in the past but at this point, I can't ignore the facts anymore, he just isnt getting the job done.

Well stated ^

While this offseason Holmgren addressed some wrongs from the previous season by signing Streit, Vinny and Emery..it's still a stopgap approach versus a true longitudinal one but if they keep their draft picks and they develop within a couple of years and can step in then it won't be so bad but remains to be seen bc this management is very impatient particularly the owner who likes to hang outside locker rooms, oversee practices like a North Korean dictator viewing a military parade and make veiled statements in the press about trading players who may be overrated...

 

[Beef Invictus]

DFF, I don't know how to make this any simpler for you:

You are defending a strategy that has failed in spectacular fashion. Half a decade of trading away 1st and 2nd rounders or the players we took in those rounds left the team in a massive hole they're still trying to crawl out of, and with the D situation and contracts on this team they've still got a ways to go.

Even Holmgren has moved on from that strategy as much as possible.

It is no longer a theory that this strategy you're endorsing is unsustainable. It was proven as fact.

Yes, it is fine to make one or two such moves. However, that's flat out NOT what the Flyers did. They did it over and over and over again. And, it failed. These are facts.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

DFF, I don't know how to make this any simpler for you:

You are defending a strategy that has failed in spectacular fashion. Half a decade of trading away 1st and 2nd rounders or the players we took in those rounds left the team in a massive hole they're still trying to crawl out of, and with the D situation and contracts on this team they've still got a ways to go.

That is all with the benefit of hindsight. The most impactful draft picks that were traded went for Pronger, Versteeg, Hartnell, Timonen, and Eminger. Of those, which would you undo? Probably just Eminger.

As for the second rounders that were dealt, from the earlier post, there was a net loss of four second rounders (traded eight, got four in return).

The third rounders? Well there was an even number traded away compared to those acquired. So that obviously didn't hurt the team.

So in conclusion: Trading for a hall of fame, franchise defender, a sub 25 scoring winger to add to a team at the top of the conference (maybe the league, I don't remember), another franchise defenseman, a winger that has been pretty damned productive during his time here, and a crappy defenseman is what you are complaining about. Oh...and the four second rounders and the couple of fourth through seventh rounders have led to the ruination of this hockey team. The horror!

Even Holmgren has moved on from that strategy as much as possible.

He moved away from it for the reasons that I have been saying all along...you make those moves when you are contending. The Flyers aren't contending, you don't make those moves. Teams that hold on to their picks often don't contend. Teams that trade their picks often don't contend. Both strategies work and both strategies fail. A nice mix would be great, but again, that is a lot easier said than done. If it were simple...everyone would do it.

It is no longer a theory that this strategy you're endorsing is unsustainable. It was proven as fact.

It is not a "proven fact." There was a shortened season where they missed the playoffs and they are off to a slow start. What if they turn it around? Then is it a proven fact that it works? What if one of your teams that is so great at asset management misses the playoffs? Does that mean it is a proven fact that your strategy is unsustainable?

Yes, it is fine to make one or two such moves. However, that's flat out NOT what the Flyers did. They did it over and over and over again. And, it failed. These are facts.

They did it to improve the team. Not every trade was a winner. Not every trade should have been made. But you don't just sit there and hope what you have will work if there is an opportunity to improve your team that is in contention for a Cup. You just don't.

How is it good asset management to hold on to draft picks when you could flip them for a player that could help win a Cup?

Wow, the Flyers look great this year. Top of the league! All they need is a scoring winger and this team would be unstoppable. What? They want a first rounder? We traded one last year. Let's just hold on to this and hope we can succeed with what we have. That first rounder might come in handy three years down the line when we need to fill a hole at third line wing. Screw the Cup. We probably wouldn't win it anyway. What? Chris Pronger is getting older? I know we traded a lot for him, but it is too risky to trade for someone else because in three years if we are still contending we might possibly have a guy that may be able to possibly make the team. I hope we are still contenders around that time.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Hindsight my ass, a boatload of people predicted that Homer's strategy would lead to long term collapse if he kept it up. Guess what, it did. It's not hindsight when you predict it.

I don't care that they did it to "improve the team." The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It made the team better in the short term at the expense of the future. They made a lot of moves like that, and now we are dealing with the results. By going for short term improvement they've doomed the team to struggle for the forseeable future.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp??

Please. Look at every Cup winner, ever. Tell me how many of them did it by trading away their first and second round picks and talent for half a decade, neglecting they prospect pool, and turning heavily to free agents. This may be shocking to you, but it is completely possible to win a Cup without running your team into the ground long-term like Homer did. In fact, that's the preferred method.

I'll bet anything the number of teams who succeeded with Homer's strategy is somewhere around "zero."

Homer had to detonate a Cup contending core because of the situation your beloved strategy put the team in. Like I said, that's a fact. You cannot disprove that, because it's what happened. Why was the team unable to fill the roster in 2011 without massive trades? Because Homer spent years emptying the cupboard.

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how to build a team. It's mindblowing to see you rail against responsible team building through the draft (You know...the thing that every successful team has done. It's almost like it's the ideal strategy!) in favor of throwing all your assets away for a one or two year shot at glory.

And no, making the playoffs this year won't change anything. The team is still several steps back from where it was because they had to nuke it all in 2011. They haven't been realistic Cup contenders since that offseason, and they still aren't, nor will they be for some time.


Homer followed the strategy you're endorsing in that last paragraph. He followed it for five ****ing years worth of first and seconds round talent. Guess what? It got us zero Cups and a terribly constructed team. If that's your idea of success, then you have it confused with failure.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

did the Versteeg deal really improve the team?

yes there is "hindsight". which obviously we can only bring up when trades dont work out. its either Holmgren brilliance or hindsight.
mind boggling stuff really.
I am not sure if Versteeg was a difference maker. not enough to give up a couple of draft picks for. Is the guy a good player? sure, but not enough for me to give up a couple of draft picks for. I never said that trading picks isnt a good idea if you can make the hockey club better. That team was playing pretty well at the time. there is this thing called chemistry. that team had it. Not sure if adding Versteeg when they did really made that much of a difference.
Obviously it didnt work out in the end. oh well its just hindsight.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I've never said you can't ever deal draft picks and have to hoard them.

But there's a huge difference between hoarding picks and skipping out on half a decade of first and second round talent. There's a tremendous difference. I advocate a middle ground of responsible team building and then making a move when you're in the ideal position to do so....not trying to make that move every damned year until the team is about to collapse from the inside.

 

[Embiid]

So tired of that overused term of "hindsight being 20/20" ....typically it's made by the people who have little to no foresight or like to rip into people who engage in prognosticating and inferences more than others...

Like Beef notes..plenty of people on here put themselves out there (taking lots of heat for it) and make observations that actually come to fruition. They are then blown off with that contrite phrase....

 

[Beef Invictus]

Oh, and if Homer has only moved away from his old strategy because the team is no longer contending and plans on going back to his old ways once they can contend, he needs to be fired immediately, before we repeat the cycle of June 23, 2011.

"Hooray! I've built a nice house! It could be one of the best! Now let me spend years scooping out the foundation! Let's see what happens!"

 

[flyershockey]

Oh, and if Homer has only moved away from his old strategy because the team is no longer contending and plans on going back to his old ways once they can contend, he needs to be fired immediately, before we repeat the cycle of June 23, 2011.

"Hooray! I've built a nice house! It could be one of the best! Now let me spend years scooping out the foundation! Let's see what happens!"

"Then we can trade the foundation for this nice lamp!"

 

[PALE PWNR]

If we won in 2010 and Pronger didn't get concussed and was still playing at an elite level for this team we would still be a contender. Half the first round draft picks that we apparently just "pissed away" went in the Pronger deal. Its unfortunate what happened and sure those picks would help now but if he was still around this nonsense about wasting draft picks and building from within would be a non issue.