This is getting ridiculous but...
For the millionth time, the cap problems were greatly exacerbated by not having prospects or young talent which was caused by trading said prospects and draft picks. That causes the team to turn to free agency to fill out the roster. This is why our D corps is far and away the most expensive in the league yet with lackluster results.
Free agents like Read, Raffl, and Gus (and to a lesser extent, guys like Leino who were acquired on the cheap)?
You don't think that an extra half decade of time spent drafting and developing players would be helpful?
I never said it wouldn't be helpful, I said a decision was made to move forward with the here and now was made. Obviously, having more picks is good. But so is having franchise defensemen and making moves at the trade deadline.
You can have it both ways. You can make a big move every now and then, and then build properly around it. You don't need to push out 5 years of first and second round talent.
You can't have what the Flyers have (had) AND have those picks. Yes, you can make a big move every now and then and still keep your picks. But by doing that, you aren't going to get the results the Flyers got like a Pronger.
By the way, I'm not sure why you keep referencing Timonen and Hartnell. That was the last year we used our first round pick. We traded the 23rd overall for them. We had an extra, so that's fine.
I keep referencing it because it is part of the bigger picture. You can't say Homer mismanaged the draft picks, then say but this was ok or that was ok. He either bungled it or he didn't. If he traded away too many firsts, that includes the first he traded to get Timonen and Hartnell. If you get to say well that doesn't count, then I get to say the Eminger trade doesn't count.
But then we traded JVR who we got in that draft to fill a need that could have been addressed had the prospect pool not been completely neglected.
We traded him for a player the same age taken #5 in the draft. Again, I understand what you are saying. But just having defensive prospects doesn't mean this trade (or a similar trade) doesn't get made.
If Gus turns out the way I expect, as a decent top 4, the team is still screwed. We would be a D corps of Streit and a bunch of decent top 4/complimentary guys. That's bad.
Your probably right about that. And that is not the best situation in the world, but its not the worst. With a good goalie (which it looks like we might finally have) and good forwards (which I think is pretty well accepted that we do have), the mediocre defense can be overcome.
Then you factor in that there may be players that are brought in via trade or free agency that will help in this situation. We'll see.
The situation is right if you take the trades in a vacuum. They didn't happen in a vacuum. Once you start accounting for long term effects on the prospect pool and by extension the team, then it quickly becomes foolish to keep making those moves time after time. Once you've made one or two of those moves it stops being right to keep making more.
That sounds like what I have been saying. You make the moves when you are competing (i.e., last few years). If you are not competing (i.e., last year), you don't make those trades.
Neither team has been rebuilding for a long time now. They've managed to also continue contending without stripping their prospect pool bare.
Yes, they aren't rebuilding any longer because they completed the rebuilding process by acquiring all those players. If the Flyers were perennially missing the playoffs, rather than making the playoffs, I don't think they would have (or should have) traded away their picks. Just like the Hawks. Just like the Pens. Just like the Kings.
Detroit gives themselves a chance to get fresh talent. Homer has spent too much time making it too hard to fresh talent.
So does Edmonton. Hell they have had the BEST chance to get fresh challenge probably more than any team in recent history. Again, obviously, having more draft picks is better than having less draft picks. But just having draft picks doesn't mean anything. On the other hand, having a player that can potentially put you over the edge and win a Cup, does mean something. Both include risk: trading a pick potentially hurts the future by missing out on a player that could contribute down the line; holding on to that pick in lieu of making a deal potentially hurts the here and now by possibly missing out on a player that could get you a Cup.
A team that looks very different from this current team is a bad thing how? Would this different team be well constructed with a better, affordable defensive group?
It might be a bad thing. It might be a good thing. But it would be different (and would have been over the last few years).
You're getting into way too many hypotheticals and you're trying to make this way more complex than it is.
Not really. Those are hypotheticals that have to factor into this discussion. If you want to tell me they shouldn't have made these trades, why can't I hypothesize what the team would have looked like without those trades? We can't simply assume that by not making these trades it would have gone exactly as you planned. We don't know what would have happened, so I at least have to be able to question what the team would look like without the moves that were made.
The simple reality is that if you empty your prospect pool/stock of young talent for half a decades and do not give yourself a chance to replenish it, you are forced to go to FA or other trades to fill the roster. Going to FA isn't sustainable in the cap era. This was shown going into 2011 when the team was in a severe bind. They had holes...they had nobody to call up and put in those holes. They had no cap space to fill them all. They had nobody easily expendable to trade. They no longer had draft picks to trade, as you may recall we didn't have our first or second going into that offseason.
And again, all that may be true, but look at the draft picks you are complaining about and tell me which players would have been able to fill the holes you are talking about? Let's look at the Firsts and Seconds that were traded from 2007-2010:
2007
Jonathan Blum, David Perron were around near the first rounder (I could see one of these players taken)
PK Subban was available in the second (probably wouldn't have taken him, based on the fact that they traded up to pick Kevin Marshall).
2008
John Carlson was near the first
No one of interest near the second that I can tell.
2009
John Moore and Tim Erixon near the first
No one of interest near the second
2010
No one of interest near either pick
Now if you look at these you have four players that could have helped out IF they were chosen (Erixon, Moore, Carlson, Perron, and Blum). Perron and Blum was the pick that we got for Timonen and Hartnell. A deal I don't think anyone would undo. Carlson is glaring one on this list and that one hurts. But there are two issues here 1) we don't know if we would have picked him and 2) John Carlson being here doesn't change all that much (maybe JvR is still here?). Moore/Erixon are two marginal players, and that pick came in the Pronger deal, another deal that I think most would do again if given the opportunity.
But yes, not having these picks killed us because we could have had a chance at having cheap talent instead of having the players that we had who helped get this team to the conference finals and the SCF.
Emptying the prospect pool is ultimately a road to failure. It isn't a guaranteed road to success, but it is definitely guaranteed to fail over time. It's a doomed strategy from the start.
I don't know why you keep saying this like it is a fact. The Flyers missed the playoffs last year and are off to a slow start. That doesn't mean that this strategy has failed. If that's the barometer for failing, what happens if the Sharks (a team previously mentioned to do the opposite of the Flyers) miss the playoffs? Does that mean the strategy fails?
I'm pretty sure taking a course of action that leaves a lot more room for success, as well as long term success, is superior to taking the course that inevitably leads to failure without guaranteeing a win along the way.
What if we characterize it this way: taking the route of improving a team that is close to winning a Cup is superior to sitting on your hands and hoping you are still competitive when your draft picks reach the NHL down the road. Doesn't sound as bad does it?
Sure thing. And I find it hard to say you HAVE to suck to succeed through drafting. I disagree. The Flyers have been remarkably stable for 40 years. They didn't do that and maintain it by completely neglecting the first two rounds of the draft and their prospect pool for years at a time. Once they did do it, the team began stumbling.
I like that you call five straight playoff appearances, including ECF and SCF appearances, stumbling because three years later they missed the playoffs. You don't HAVE to suck to succeed through drafting, but all the teams that have won in recent years HAVE sucked except for the Bruins...and they made trades for a lot of their players. Weird, right? But that doesn't matter probably.
...nearly all of that cheap talent came after the team had to be blown to pieces because they couldn't afford to do anything. They were a little too late to help out before then. Before then, there was nothing really worth putting on an NHL roster. That was the entire freaking problem!!!
Didn't they make it to Cup Finals before these cheap players got here? Why would they have had to help out when they weren't needed?
What's better; having a chance, or being guaranteed to fail?
Guaranteed to fail? They were two wins away from a Cup. Then they made the playoffs for the next two years. Oh that's right, one season means long-term collapse.
Trading all your picks, prospects, and young talent away for 5 years is guaranteed to fail. I prefer the tactic that isn't guaranteed to fail. I prefer the one that gives the team the best chance to be long term contenders instead of a one and done flash in the pan. Lord knows the Flyers scouting staff is good enough to find the talent. Too bad Homer neutralized that ability as much as possible for a long time.
See above.
You draw the line when you look at your prospect pool, look at your roster and it's future situation, and realize that a disaster is looming if you keep it up.
You know, that thing a bunch of us in this forum managed to do.
So you're close. You need another winger and you think you can make a run for the Cup...you don't make the move because you are going to miss out on a player that might make the team in a couple years. To me, that is a bad move.
But then they just kept on trading, and kept on trading, and kept on neglecting the prospect pool, and it all crashed down.
Crushed down...by missing the playoffs one year.
You act like draft picks never turn into players. Guess what? They do. That's their whole point. That's why I say you trivialize them with this crap "I prefer draft picks to players!" spiel. Draft picks GIVE you players. If you have a strong core you can supplement that with those players. You can replace older guys you can't afford. You can build a freaking team that is sustainable in the long term in the cap era, or hell, ANY era. It has been necessary to build through the draft for decades now, so ignoring that is unwise GMing.
I don't act like they never turn into players. I act like if given the choice of improving a team's chances that is close to win that year, I would do it over improving a team's chances to improve down the road.
Beyond just the ability to pick, there's also the players taken in the first two rounds that have been traded. Trading them away is just as draining as not picking. It's not a net zero for the first round.
JvR was traded for Luke Schenn, another first rounder of the same age. Sbisa was dealt for Pronger. The only other high draft pick I remember trading was Downie, which yeah with hindsight I probably wouldn't do that.
Did they or did they not take a large step back because they had to blow up the team? When you have to destroy a Cup contending team almost immediately, I'd call that a collapse.
A step back, sure. Collapse. No. Collapse would be at least two or three years of missing of the playoffs and missing them badly.
Do you prefer Eminger, or the chance at Carlson? I prefer the chance at Carlson. I like having good players
That's a trade I would undo. Other than that, the other players around the picks weren't much.
Why exactly do I suddenly have to be the NHL GM? Why should I go back and scour scouting reports and figure out what players would have developed differently in a different situation?
We are discussing the merits of trading draft picks vs. keeping them. Why wouldn't you have to defend your position? If there is garbage being drafted around these draft picks...why was it so damaging to trade these picks? In the alternative, if the Flyers could have drafted a team of all-stars, perhaps my position loses credence.
I have a different idea. One that you have absolutely failed to do. Something you have desperately danced away from, focusing on petty semantics and trying to deflect the conversation everywhere by dissecting sentences instead of addressing the main point.
Prove to me that trading away half a decade of first and second round talent is a sustainable way to build a team. Prove to me that you can do that without running into massive problems.
At this point, I can't. Just like you can't prove that is unsustainable. Why? Because missing the playoffs for one year doesn't mean it is unsustainable.
All I ask is that you prove that strategy is feasible long term, because that's the whole heart of the matter here: That Homer's strategy was not sustainable.
I can't because its still in progress. If they turn it around and get to the playoffs, well, then it seems to be still working to me.
And as a PS:
They managed to get Richards, Carter, and Giroux without sucking. Lots of teams manage to get quality players in the draft without sucking. Why do you HAVE to suck to draft good players? Where is that the rule?
Again, I never said you had to, but the teams you are pointing to that have won recently by using your strategy HAVE sucked. So no, it is not a rule, but it surely helps.
What's really important is that you at least have a chance to get the top prospects, and we did not.
And yet we have Couturier, the Schenns, Laughton, Morin, Haag, etc.......
quit your garbage trashing of draft picks. Picks and the draft are how you build sustainable teams. Trivialize them all you want, but you're ignoring reality. 
