Homer's Odyssey

[DrinkFightFlyers]

All you did was ask what I'd do as though I'm a GM. I'm not. Not gonna go over every move possible.

Maybe keep Carter on wing or trade one of the two for pieces that are ready now. Or even both for pieces that are ready now (rather then Couturier, Schenn, and Cousins). Maybe for an offensive d we currently desperately need or winger depth. As for goal they could have kept Bob if they were going full rebuild or maybe sign Bryz like they did and keep a great tandem. Or just Bryz and sign an actual backup rather then an old journeyman and an AHLer in Leighton. There were plenty of options besides going half in half out.

And you think those moves would have put the team in a better situation? I am not saying those aren't good alternatives, I just don't think the team would be in any better position from those moves. Probably not any worse either. Maybe a better farm system, but less of a stable of under 25 year old NHLers. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

If his plans changed so dramatically I'm guessing they weren't very good or well thought out plans to begin with.

Edit: I see you've since added more. You're stealing my signature "edit posts 15 times" move

But yeah, in response to that, if he did sign them to those deals with the intention of trading them immediately...that's an incredibly stupid move. He relies heavily on FA to fills holes. Portraying the organization as anything other than a loyal and fantastic destination for free agents is a roundabout way of shooting himself in the foot.

I don't think it says anything about the quality of his future plans just because he changes them. Things change. Who knows what really went on behind clsoed doors, but all the rumor and speculation seems to indicate that SOMETHING was causing problems with the team. Maybe their attitudes/work ethic changed when they got those contracts and that caused problems. Who knows what changed, if anything. But simply changing plans, no matter how drastic, is not an indictment of their original plans. And even if it is, isn't it better to say "Oh ****, we gotta fix this before we get screwed!" than, "Oh ****, we're screwed!"

If he manages a multi million dollar organization like that and changes plans that quickly then he may have a mental disorder.

Yeah maybe? Or maybe circumstances change?

yep trading away 1st and 3rd and 2nd and 4th rounders on rentals is brilliant strategy. brilliant. I do wonder sometimes if Holmgren thinks some of these trades out before making a knee jerk or panic trade.

So your solution is what? Never take a risk on anything ever? Only trade 5th rounders and later? That is a much better plan. I'd rather have those draft picks that maybe one day in the future will play an NHL game instead of adding a veteran to a team that is close to a Cup. **** maybe they should trade Giroux at the deadline this year...he could a couple first rounders!

 

[Psuhockey]

Way to over simplify things and not make any counter arguments at all.

After close to half a century people get impatient. I already explained to you what I would like in my last post but you don't seem that awesome at reading.

How bout this for a counter argument: You say you want a proper rebuilt but you would probably be the first person to ***** when the team doesn't make the playoffs for years. If you want to see what a proper so-called rebuilt looks like: look up the Penguins half decade of awfulness, same with kings, and now what the oilers are currently going thru. That is how long when you don't have a nice supply of veterans to teach and take pressure off the kids. People are calling him terrible when the Flyers have in fact been one top teams in the league based on their playoff performance . What do you think people would be calling him if the Flyers didn't make the playoffs for three years? People will be calling for his job. Also, throw in the fact that the Flyers have some of the highest ticket prices in the league and the NHL is a gate driven business. The team can't suck for a period of time because it will then lose money. Only in fantasy business would a organization willfully lose millions of dollars a year by icing a crap team simply to get a draft pick.

As far as drafting a great defensemen: if you stroll over to NHL.com and look at the top 10 scoring defensemen last year you will notice that only 2 out of 10 were drafted in the 1st round. That means drafting these players is a matter of luck. Want an example look no further then everybody's favorite defensemen Shea Weber. He was at best the 3 rated defenseman on Nashville's draft board. Kevin Klein was thought to be better by Nashville's scouting department. Detroit so knew Lidstrom was going to be the best defensemen of his generation that that they drafted defensemen Bob Boughner ahead of him. Point being, it so easy to say they should draft and develop a great offensive defensemen but reality of all is that drafting great defensemen is as much luck as drafting great goaltenders. There is not one shred of reality in any of your arguments; just a bunch of fantasy GMing.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I don't think it says anything about the quality of his future plans just because he changes them. Things change. Who knows what really went on behind clsoed doors, but all the rumor and speculation seems to indicate that SOMETHING was causing problems with the team. Maybe their attitudes/work ethic changed when they got those contracts and that caused problems. Who knows what changed, if anything. But simply changing plans, no matter how drastic, is not an indictment of their original plans. And even if it is, isn't it better to say "Oh ****, we gotta fix this before we get screwed!" than, "Oh ****, we're screwed!"

And who is responsible for creating the situation that could only be solved by trading two core players that had been part of the long term plan? Because, as you'll remember, it was readily apparently at least two players would be moving. Carter, Hartnell, and Carle were all discussed as potentially on the block, with Richards to a lesser extent.

The Flyers were in that situation because Homer's decisions came to their predicted outcome.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

Yeah maybe? Or maybe circumstances change?

Nothing changed. The team had a glaring goaltending issue since forever. Both guys had whatever party reputations they have now before the contracts were signed.

Nothing of significance changed that wouldn't have existed when Holmgren extended those contracts.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

And who is responsible for creating the situation that could only be solved by trading two core players that had been part of the long term plan? Because, as you'll remember, it was readily apparently at least two players would be moving. Carter, Hartnell, and Carle were all discussed as potentially on the block, with Richards to a lesser extent.

The Flyers were in that situation because Homer's decisions came to their predicted outcome.

What decisions? The decision to sign them put them in at situation? Or the decision to make other moves put them in that situation? I want to make sure I properly respond to this argument.

 

[Beef Invictus]

What decisions? The decision to sign them put them in at situation? Or the decision to make other moves put them in that situation? I want to make sure I properly respond to this argument.

The decisions we've been discussing in this thread. Trading all picks and prospects until the pool was empty, having too little cap space to fill too many spots via FA, not having anybody to call up to alleviate the situation.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

The decisions we've been discussing in this thread. Trading all picks and prospects until the pool was empty, having too little cap space to fill too many spots via FA, not having anybody to call up to alleviate the situation.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure I responded to the right thing. Haha.

Anyway, to that I will say the same thing I have said over and over again. He has put together a successful team every year. Yes they are up against the cap for most of his time here, but they have been competing during that time. Did it force him to make moves he otherwise would not have? Sure. But did it also put the team in contention every year? Absolutely. If he didn't make those moves (any of those moves) it means certain players would not be here. That could be better, but it just as easily could be worse. The way I see it is he has put together one of the most successful teams in the NHL during his tenure, probably the most successful of any team that hasn't won a Cup during that time. I'm not convinced that if he makes other moves that would be the case. He has made mistakes, like all GMs. Unfavorable contracts, lopsided trades, bad draft picks, etc. But his good far outweighs the bad.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. I want to find a link to older threads so I can just post that instead of going through the same dialogue with you every couple months. Haha.

 

[achdumeingute]

Regardless of why they were dealt, when we did " have" to deal someone they would have brought the best return...

 

[GKJ]

1st and a 3rd, actually.

They got a 2nd and 3rd back, so I don't think that was a terrible trade.

But how...? Name me 3 teams who have a quality NHL team and strong organisational depth without extended periods of poor performance. Detroit? Sure. Let's look at the other teams who've made the play-offs for the last 5 years though...

Boston - Ranked 19th. They're as good on the ice with Chara as we'd be with Pronger.
Washington - Ranked 18th. Sucked for years when they were able to draft Ovechkin and Backstrom and build their team around it.
Pittsburgh - See above. It's a lot easier to keep hold of picks when you're handed generationals like Crosby and Malkin.
San Jose - Ranked 24th.

We've had one top-5 pick in a decade, and it was in the worst draft in years. If we'd tanked in Crosby's year then I guarantee we'd have a lot more prospects in the farm right now.

Boston wasn't bad for extended periods. They haven't missed the playoffs more than two consecutive years since expansion. They were eternally mediocre until Sinden left, and then got past long-time assistant Mike O'Connell, who was the one who traded away their franchise player. Sound familiar? The Bruins got it together when they hired someone from outside the organization.

 

[Beef Invictus]

They got a 2nd and 3rd back, so I don't think that was a terrible trade.

I'm not a fan of turning a 1st into a 2nd so they can rent and bail on a talented guy who was playing through a serious injury. I was fine with the trade when they initially made it, but bailing on Versteeg immediately just seemed like a waste to me.

 

[GKJ]

I'm not a fan of turning a 1st into a 2nd so they can rent and bail on a talented guy who was playing through a serious injury. I was fine with the trade when they initially made it, but bailing on Versteeg immediately just seemed like a waste to me.

That's why I didn't rail on Versteeg like others did. Their big move was to trade for someone who was hit up against the same wall as the rest of the team. They only got him to play with Richards, and then they landed Jagr, so they took the assets which led them to Kubina. It's only because it was turned into nothing.

 

[MountainHawk]

The Flyers will be giving up 400 goals pretty soon if they don't develop NHL quality defensemen.