Homer's Odyssey

[BringBackHakstol]

I agree with #1, however I think he is a good GM and I don't agree with #2. I think the things pointed out in #2 show a clear indication that Homer is thinking big picture.

Let's just take the Richards/Carter scenario. He dealt two players who had long term contracts. You may look at that and think he was impatient and lacked big picture future plans. However, to me, these moves show the complete opposite. He dealt two established stars with long-term contracts to allow the team to get (even) younger and allow a guy like Giroux to develop into what he is now. This allowed money to sign a goalie and other peices to the puzzle. It is easy to point to things and claim they were impatient or questionable, but really what would this team look like right now without those deals? I know people hate this argument because I have made it before, but you don't make those deals that means you likely don't Bryz (I know this would make some people happy), no Couts, no Schenn, no Simmonds, no Voracek, maybe no Read, maybe no Talbot. Those are six to seven of the most important players on this team both now and long-term that I would rather have than Richards and Carter. Now, as I said there is no telling who would have filled int he roster, and perhaps it would be better, but it is just as likely that it would be worse. I fail to see his lack of patience and big picture thinking involved in this particular (and most drastic) overhaul which gave the Flyers the ability to develop a young core of players for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't call signing two players to life long contracts, naming one your captain, and then trading them both within 1-2 years, as exactly being visionary of a long-term future.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

I wouldn't call signing two players to life long contracts, naming one your captain, and then trading them both within 1-2 years, as exactly being visionary of a long-term future.

The future changes sometimes. I don't blame him for it (right now). It was a good decision and I think he did us good by trading those guys and making us less center-heavy. We have good, young wingers and a goalie that seems to be playing at a near-Elite level. The D has good talent, just need to wrangle them together.

I'm thrilled with what Homer has done. Only trade that ever bothered me was the Eminger for a 1st. Otherwise, he's been very good from what I can see.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I wouldn't call signing two players to life long contracts, naming one your captain, and then trading them both within 1-2 years, as exactly being visionary of a long-term future.

Why not? What type of move is "visionary of a long-term future?" Because if it isn't one where you trade two guys with big contracts for a slew of younger guys with smaller contracts and allow for other people to be signed and for your brightest future star (Giroux) to develop, I am very interested to hear your definition.

 

[Embiid]

I like what Holmgren did once "burn out" Clarke was gone....he was very savy and got the team on the right track. I liked what he did when we traded Carter and Richards and not going to get into the merits of it since it's like a third rail topic on here at times. In between, Holmgren was mediocre and now in this transition phase I want to see how he manages the team since the CBA is going to be a big time limiting factor on Holmgren. We know he is not the best cap manager that is for sure and now his job has been made even more difficult.

I always said I would judge Holmgren going forward since the Carter and Richards deals. I give him credit for swinging for the fences this offseason in the free agent sweepstakes but also feel his plan B was not well thought out enough although he really didn't have too many options due to Suter and Parise dragging things out and the Weber situation also somewhat dragging out. Part of the fallout was Carle and Jagr splitting. He then had to fill in the holes with scrubs like Gervais and Foster although they haven't been disasters but definitely they can't play too many minutes or for much longer without reverting to their fringe NHL ways. Unfortunately, Mesz is brittle.

This leads to the AHL farm team.....definitely trading picks like they were candy hasn't helped and he bears responsibility. However, we have also had just crappy luck with injuries...mainly Pronger. Hard to recover from that and who knows when the Flyers will. Signing Timonen to a 6M contract is a double edged sword..not many options but that 6M is still a lot of money considering the players the Flyers have to sign which include Couts, Schenn, Giroux and Read. Read is now starting to become more of a necessity on this team b/c of his versatility. All I know is that I don't envy Holmgren one bit..he's got a tough job ahead of him.

 

[Psuhockey]

Holmgren is not a bad GM. He's also not a good one either.

The teams record under his leadership says he is a good one.

 

[Embiid]

Why not? What type of move is "visionary of a long-term future?" Because if it isn't one where you trade two guys with big contracts for a slew of younger guys with smaller contracts and allow for other people to be signed and for your brightest future star (Giroux) to develop, I am very interested to hear your definition.

Like I said..third rail discussion. Good luck...

 

[sa cyred]

Yeah dude, but like, just think of all the prospects that we COULD have had if we didn't have that team that went to the Finals (which by the way, was just luck). You see, it is more important to re-write history with all these draft picks and guys we could have added to the mix that would have surely brought us to the promised land (like Upshall, Tomas Hyka, Lucas Lessio, that third rounder we traded, that fourth rounder we traded, that one guy who is only remembered by people on HFBoards, Joacim Eriksson, etc), than it is to look at what we actually have (or had at the time) and realize we have one of the best young group of kids in the NHL.

See, you always continuously confuse why people are mad about those certain players. Its not that we didn't sign them or keep them, its Homers inability to CONTINUOUSLY not understand the CBA (or I guess old one), and mismanage the cap and run into serious problems. Trading Upshall and a 2nd for Carcillo because he ran into a problem not being able to have Giroux in the lineup with Briere. Giroux didn't cost 3 mil at that time either. Tomas Hyka was not signed because they DID NOT KNOW ABOUT EUROPEAN SIGNING RULES. Like seriously. How can one defend when a corporation doesn't understand rules in place. They could go online and look it up. It's bad when an internet blog has to point it out when the Vice President doesnt even understand it.

But in the end, how do you know that these trades dont effect the team in the future. We went through this many times before (we obviously see this point differently) but just because it SEEMS SMALL, doesnt mean it doesnt change the outcome.

Honest question. What GM is better over a 10 yr period. One who assembles a team who makes the playoffs every year, but loses in the 1st or 2nd round most times, makes it to the finals once, and semi-finals once. OR the GM who assembles a team who makes the playoffs 6 out of 10 times, loses in the first round a few times but wins the cup once and goes to semi-finals once. Would you pick the consistent average to above GM who can't get it done, or the GM who has highs and lows but got it done?

 

[1865]

Every GM makes mistakes. PH has made some, so has everyone else.

 

[Garbage Goal]

The teams record under his leadership says he is a good one.

Not really. Ignoring his first season, in five seasons since we've placed higher then third in the division once. We've reached 100 points twice out of five seasons. We've finished top four in playoff positioning from the regular season once.

In the playoffs, going year by year, we've gotten destroyed by the Pens in the finals the first of five seasons (which is acceptable), then we lost to the Pens again in the first round (not acceptable). Then we lost in the SCF. However, we lost because we had a disastrous, pitiful goalie combo that everyone easily recognized as such and our starter let in possibly the worst clinching Cup goal ever. IIRC that's the season we also made the playoffs by a shoot out in the last game. So it's a bit tainted by all that even though we got that far. Then we got swept by the Bruins in the second round then we almost got swept in the second round against the Devs.

So, in five seasons, we've had one impressive regular season and one tainted SCF appearance. Even if you count the conference finals appearance that's still only two deep playoff runs.

Also, in a league where literally more then half the teams make the playoffs, do not tell me just making the playoffs is commendable. It's not.

 

[Garbage Goal]

See, you always continuously confuse why people are mad about those certain players. Its not that we didn't sign them or keep them, its Homers inability to CONTINUOUSLY not understand the CBA (or I guess old one), and mismanage the cap and run into serious problems. Trading Upshall and a 2nd for Carcillo because he ran into a problem not being able to have Giroux in the lineup with Briere. Giroux didn't cost 3 mil at that time either. Tomas Hyka was not signed because they DID NOT KNOW ABOUT EUROPEAN SIGNING RULES. Like seriously. How can one defend when a corporation doesn't understand rules in place. They could go online and look it up. It's bad when an internet blog has to point it out when the Vice President doesnt even understand it.

But in the end, how do you know that these trades dont effect the team in the future. We went through this many times before (we obviously see this point differently) but just because it SEEMS SMALL, doesnt mean it doesnt change the outcome.

Honest question. What GM is better over a 10 yr period. One who assembles a team who makes the playoffs every year, but loses in the 1st or 2nd round most times, makes it to the finals once, and semi-finals once. OR the GM who assembles a team who makes the playoffs 6 out of 10 times, loses in the first round a few times but wins the cup once and goes to semi-finals once. Would you pick the consistent average to above GM who can't get it done, or the GM who has highs and lows but got it done?

I agree completely but the semi-finals is the second round IIRC.

For what it's worth, it's always the same people always applauding moves or letting mistakes slide. Won't say who.

 

[sa cyred]

I agree completely but the semi-finals is the second round IIRC.

For what it's worth, it's always the same people always applauding moves or letting mistakes slide. Won't say who.

Uggg ya I meant ECF/WCF. One of those mornings. Oh well haha.

 

[jd2210]

I would grade Homer as follows:
drafting: 8.5/10
Trades: 7.5/10
Cap management: 6/10
Unknown FA signings: 11/10
Vetran FA signings: 1/10
Understanding cap management: 4/10
Making ballsy moves: 9.9/10

 

[1865]

Not really. Ignoring his first season, in five seasons since we've placed higher then third in the division once. We've reached 100 points twice out of five seasons. We've finished top four in playoff positioning from the regular season once.

Bit misleading. The two 100 point seasons have been the past two seasons and we've reached 99 points as well.

All in all, it doesn't really matter what where we've placed, it's what we've done when we've got there and few others teams have been as consistent. Two conference finals, one cup final, three 99+ point seasons out of 5 and the play-offs every single year.

 

[Garbage Goal]

Bit misleading. The two 100 point seasons have been the past two seasons and we've reached 99 points as well.

All in all, it doesn't really matter what where we've placed, it's what we've done when we've got there and few others teams have been as consistent. Two conference finals, one cup final, three 99+ point seasons out of 5 and the play-offs every single year.

Like I said making the playoffs isn't a noteworthy accomplishment. Just by sheer odds you have a better chance of making them then not. You also talk about misleading then go on to list the SCF appearance twice by saying we've had two conference finals appearances. While technically true it's very misleading.

Like I said before, only one top two placing in the division, only one top four conference placing, and a goalie decision that cost us a potential Cup.

We've been consistently mediocre to above average. We've qualified as an elite team based on standings maybe once. In five seasons. We've not made it past the second round more often then we have. All signs point to good enough to place for the playoffs every year yet not good enough to get good seeding or go far in the playoffs. Outside of one regular season and two playoff runs that's what we've consistently been. It's like the version of the Leafs that keeps making the playoffs.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

That was the year we went to the finals, right?

no that was the year they were battling Pittsburgh for home ice in round 1. lost the 3-0 lead on home ice in that game. That whole year was a cluster**** of cap mismanagement. they had to send down Giroux that year as well till they could find a way to fit him in.

Yeah dude, but like, just think of all the prospects that we COULD have had if we didn't have that team that went to the Finals (which by the way, was just luck). You see, it is more important to re-write history with all these draft picks and guys we could have added to the mix that would have surely brought us to the promised land (like Upshall, Tomas Hyka, Lucas Lessio, that third rounder we traded, that fourth rounder we traded, that one guy who is only remembered by people on HFBoards, Joacim Eriksson, etc), than it is to look at what we actually have (or had at the time) and realize we have one of the best young group of kids in the NHL.

cute casrcasm. Once again COMPLETELY as always missing the point a few of us are trying to make.

 

[Psuhockey]

Not really.

So, in five seasons, we've had one impressive regular season and one tainted SCF appearance. Even if you count the conference finals appearance that's still only two deep playoff runs.

Also, in a league where literally more then half the teams make the playoffs, do not tell me just making the playoffs is commendable. It's not.

In case you missed it, let me repost this:

5 straight years in the playoffs since he took over full time . Only Boston, Washington , Pittsburgh, San Jose, and Detroit have been in the playoffs every year since that time.
4 times in the 2nd round of the playoffs the last five years. Only Detroit has done that.
2 times in the conference finals that last five years: Chicago, Detroit, San Jose, and Pittsburgh have done that.
1 Stanley Cup appearance. 8 total teams including the Flyers made it in that time with 5 different winners.

So getting into the playoffs for five straight years is not as easy as it looks being only 5 other teams have done it. Only Detroit made it past the 1st round of the playoffs four times in the last five years so that is definitely not easy or standard or however else you want to dismiss it as. And only 4 other teams have had in your book two deep playoff runs in the last 5 years. So no matter how you cut it, the Flyers have been top 5 in the league under Holmgren. That's elite.

The problem with this entire thread is that most are comparing Holmgren in a bubble against an imaginary GM that doesn't exist. Saying he wasted a pick or paid too much for player; that these things if not done would have produce much better results is all conjucture and hindsight. Against his real life peers, he is elite. The record above shows that.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

See, you always continuously confuse why people are mad about those certain players. Its not that we didn't sign them or keep them, its Homers inability to CONTINUOUSLY not understand the CBA (or I guess old one), and mismanage the cap and run into serious problems. Trading Upshall and a 2nd for Carcillo because he ran into a problem not being able to have Giroux in the lineup with Briere. Giroux didn't cost 3 mil at that time either. Tomas Hyka was not signed because they DID NOT KNOW ABOUT EUROPEAN SIGNING RULES. Like seriously. How can one defend when a corporation doesn't understand rules in place. They could go online and look it up. It's bad when an internet blog has to point it out when the Vice President doesnt even understand it.

You don't think corporations make mistakes like this all the time? They do. But the result is de minimus so no one cares. Just like Homer not getting Hyka. Yes it is a mistake. Someone dropped the ball. But it doesn't matter. There were times when the Cap was an issue but its result was not something that hurt the team. Yes, it would have been nice to have cap space to allow for someone to be called up instead of having some scrub play six minutes, but once again I point out that if there was cap space made in different ways there is no guarnatee the season would have gone down the same way. I don't remember what the roster was at that time but who would you have gotten rid of to make room from the team that went to the finals and who would have been their replacement? Would that team still have made the finals? The playoffs? I don't know and neither do you. And yet you act as if these horrible failures have doomed a franchise that has been pretty successful during his tenure.

But in the end, how do you know that these trades dont effect the team in the future. We went through this many times before (we obviously see this point differently) but just because it SEEMS SMALL, doesnt mean it doesnt change the outcome.

Well, like I pointed out above, I don't know that. But neither do you. What we have is concrete, actual results. These results have been good, better than most teams over Homer's tenure. I suppose they could have been better, but they also could have been a lot worse. You can't rewrite history and assume that these mistakes, if not committed, would have given the team better results than they had, ESPECIALLY when the results during Homer's time has been among the best in the NHL.

Honest question. What GM is better over a 10 yr period. One who assembles a team who makes the playoffs every year, but loses in the 1st or 2nd round most times, makes it to the finals once, and semi-finals once. OR the GM who assembles a team who makes the playoffs 6 out of 10 times, loses in the first round a few times but wins the cup once and goes to semi-finals once. Would you pick the consistent average to above GM who can't get it done, or the GM who has highs and lows but got it done?

I'd take the Cup every day. But that is not what we are talking about. You can't say that any other GM would have won a Cup with this team (or that we would have if Homer made different moves). It is possible, for sure. But it is just as possible that another GM (or Homer making different moves) would have turned out a lost worse.

 

[CS]

I would grade Homer as follows:
drafting: 8.5/10
Trades: 7.5/10
Cap management: 6/10
Unknown FA signings: 11/10
Vetran FA signings: 1/10
Understanding cap management: 4/10
Making ballsy moves: 9.9/10

My grades are comparative to the rest of the league's GMs:

Drafting: 9.5/10 (we're percentage wise one of if not the best drafting organization in roughly 20 years)

Trades: 8/10 (we don't lose trades except ones where his hands are tied like in Gagne's case or he jumps the gun on a "necessity" like Eminger.)

Cap Management: 7/10 (he misses the beat a lot but there are so many people who thought we would've screwed up to the point where we'd lose vital pieces for nothing; so far that hasn't even come close to happening)

Unknown Free-Agent Signings: 10/10 (I assume you mean prospect FAs, which yes, he does better than anyone else at right now)

Veteran Free-Agent Signings: 7.5/10 (he misses one almost every year, like Shelley, but outside of that you can't argue he's done some great signings. Jagr? Talbot? Briere? just because he's flipped through bottom pairing defensemen means nothing when the rest of the NHL does the same thing.)

Understanding Cap Manage: N/A (this is the same thing as cap management. you can't try a man twice for the same crime)

Willingness to Attack All Angles: 10/10 (Holmgren is as ballsy a GM as one exists in the NHL, and that in and of itself is intimidating to other franchises. Holmgren has the resources to bully other teams, and he flaunts it perfectly. When a team can cycle through players through excellent drafting and excellent scouting, it allows Holmgren to do his job that much better.)

Rough Average Grade: 8.5

 

[chimrichalds18]

Why not? What type of move is "visionary of a long-term future?" Because if it isn't one where you trade two guys with big contracts for a slew of younger guys with smaller contracts and allow for other people to be signed and for your brightest future star (Giroux) to develop, I am very interested to hear your definition.

I can tell you one that isn't: trading a 1st round pick for Kris Versteeg, who wasn't even on the roster for 40 games. A team with a plan to go ahead with a retool would not have made that trade.

 

[Garbage Goal]

In case you missed it, let me repost this:


So getting into the playoffs for five straight years is not as easy as it looks being only 5 other teams have done it. Only Detroit made it past the 1st round of the playoffs four times in the last five years so that is definitely not easy or standard or however else you want to dismiss it as. And only 4 other teams have had in your book two deep playoff runs in the last 5 years. So no matter how you cut it, the Flyers have been top 5 in the league under Holmgren. That's elite.

The problem with this entire thread is that most are comparing Holmgren in a bubble against an imaginary GM that doesn't exist. Saying he wasted a pick or paid too much for player; that these things if not done would have produce much better results is all conjucture and hindsight. Against his real life peers, he is elite. The record above shows that.

Three of those five teams you mentioned won Cups. Consistently making the playoffs as a low seed and consistently not going far in the playoffs isn't good. At all. There's a reason why teams don't consistently finish middle of the pack or slightly above it. It's not rewarding in the end and it sets a standard of veiled mediocrity or close to it.

Like I said, the other teams you mentioned have all either won Cups in that span or are known as chokers who don't end up where they're expected to be (Washington and San Jose). Guess which category we fall under. It's not the Cup winners one.

I'm sure most of us would give up consistent mediocrity for a Cup or even an elite level season.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I can tell you one that isn't: trading a 1st round pick for Kris Versteeg, who wasn't even on the roster for 40 games. A team with a plan to go ahead with a retool would not have made that trade.

1st and a 3rd, actually.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

Why not? What type of move is "visionary of a long-term future?" Because if it isn't one where you trade two guys with big contracts for a slew of younger guys with smaller contracts and allow for other people to be signed and for your brightest future star (Giroux) to develop, I am very interested to hear your definition.

Seriously? You don't see why signing a player to a 10+ year contract with an NMC and then turning around and trading him before the contract even starts is questionable in terms of what the long term plan is?

What if Carter fell off the map after the signing, or got injured? That could have rendered the contract untradebale and Holmgren would have been stuck with it forever. You don't make a commitment like that if the player is not part of your long term plans. The risk is too great.

 

[Psuhockey]

Three of those five teams you mentioned won Cups. Consistently making the playoffs as a low seed and consistently not going far in the playoffs isn't good. At all. There's a reason why teams don't consistently finish middle of the pack or slightly above it. It's not rewarding in the end and it sets a standard of veiled mediocrity or close to it.

Like I said, the other teams you mentioned have all either won Cups in that span or are known as chokers who don't end up where they're expected to be (Washington and San Jose). Guess which category we fall under. It's not the Cup winners one.

I'm sure most of us would give up consistent mediocrity for a Cup or even an elite level season.

So you would be fine being Carolina and you must think Jim Rutherford is a great GM. After all he has a cup and made a 2nd long playoff run 4 years ago. That's the only time they have been in the playoffs in the last 7 years though. But according to your post, that is your ideal team.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I can tell you one that isn't: trading a 1st round pick for Kris Versteeg, who wasn't even on the roster for 40 games. A team with a plan to go ahead with a retool would not have made that trade.

I am confused by your argument. The poster I was responding to indicated that dealing Richards and Carter was not a move made by someone who is a "visionary of a long-term future." I have the complete opposite view, namely that those moves were made with one thing in mind: the long-term future.

I don't think I said, or anyone said, that every move he has ever made has the long-term future in mind. Of course that is not the case. No GM of a team that is competing for a Cup would do that. That trade, which may be an overpayment, was made for a Cup run. If your team is close, which this team was, any GM will make a move to acquire a peice he thinks will put them over the top. Not every move is going to be a steal. Not every move is going to work out. This was a team that finished one point out of first in the Conference and third overall in the league during the regular season. They were a strong team in need of a good winger. Versteeg had 35 points in 53 games at the time of the trade. While he didn't pan out, at the time he appeared to be a possibiltiy to put the team over the top. That point of the season with the team that was in place is unequivocally not the time to make a trade for the future. That is when you make a trade for the here and now. There is nothing wrong with making moves for the here and now. With the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't make the trade because he obviously wasn't that piece. But at the time, in the middle of a Cup run, wouldn't you want your GM to make a trade that potentially makes your team better? You don't get something for nothing. If you want to improve your team, you have to give up something (i.e. players, picks, or prospects). It would be great if he got Versteef for a 7th rounder and Garret Klotz, but that is unrealistic. It was probably an overpayment, but I think the addition of the 3rd rounder is the overpayment, not the first rounder.

This was a team that got bounced in the second round by the eventual Cup champions lead by a goalie that was having a record breaking playoffs while the Flyers had a goalie that stunk up the joint (who by the way was traded for a 2nd and a 4th round pick, while not the same as a first and a third, he surely has to get some credit for getting back some of these oh-so-valuable draft picks).

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Seriously? You don't see why signing a player to a 10+ year contract with an NMC and then turning around and trading him before the contract even starts is questionable in terms of what the long term plan is?

What if Carter fell off the map after the signing, or got injured? That could have rendered the contract untradebale and Holmgren would have been stuck with it forever. You don't make a commitment like that if the player is not part of your long term plans. The risk is too great.

Wait so the risk is the signing or the trade? This doesn't make sense. Or both? Which part is not forward thinking? Or better yet, what should he have done?