Confirmed with Link: Kevin Hayes 4: Don't sell when it only costs 50 million dollars to buy in (7x7.14)

[BritainStix]

Is there something wrong with running

Couturier
Patrick
Hayes

At any point? If Patrick becomes what we expect, then you can mix and match wingers as you see fit while rolling one of the strongest centre line ups in the league.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Ok you are right. Hayes isn't worth protecting and there is no chance he will be in the next two years, and we will lose a big asset and this is terrible no matter what and a terrible move and even if it doesn't have a negative impact it is still a bad move because there is a chance it might not work out.

And now you have to resort to strawmen. This is all par for the course.


The issue is that a player who is worth more won't be protected.

 

[SnS]

Is there something wrong with running

Couturier
Patrick
Hayes

At any point? If Patrick becomes what we expect, then you can mix and match wingers as you see fit while rolling one of the strongest centre line ups in the league.

7.14 for a third liner center is horrible cap management, especially when he has to be protected.

 

[Jettany]

So we have him for the ED...This is exactly what a lot of us were very concerned about.

Equally troubling to me is that Fletch hasn't been the strongest negotiator. Over 7 million AND 7 years AND a NMC for 3 years.

On ice, we should have a much improved team though.

Let's see how UFA works out. At this point it looks 1-1.5 million too much and the NMC. Years at 5.5-6 are fine. 27-33 age.
But seeing Edler gave a home town discount and will be paid 6 million a year for 2 years. Brock Nelson 6x6 on a home town deal. I don't love Hayes but like him MUCH more than Nelson and have watched them both a lot. It might wind up being the going rate or less if that is believable.

 

[Jettany]

I agree years 6/7 of the Hayes deal probably won’t be good, but pretty realistic to think the first 5 will be good with him being 27.

As far as the dmen we aquiried go, those controls put is in not danger of cap hell. Within 2 years both contracts will be up. People tend to forget besides karlsson and trouba (Minny not trading Spurgeon) the other 2 dman most prominent rhd are Myers and Zaitsev. I’m really glad we got Niskanen and Braun comapred

Lastly, not quite sure what you mean by blocking the kids? All the kids worth having up are here. GM CF already essentially said Myers will be on the team next year.

Don't like it because he hopefully will be a wing or 3c by then. Or his play will fall off?

 

[Jettany]

His defense isn't as valuable at LW.

Perron was coming off a 66-point season and signed for $4M last year.
Silfverberg just signed for $5.3M
some other contracts

Hall $6M
Forsberg $6M
Palmieri $4.6M
Hoffman $5.2M
Gourde $5.2M
Wilson $5.2M
Atkinson $5.8M
Huberdeau $5.9M
Landeskog $5.6M
Schwartz $5.3M

Hayes as a winger is middle of the pack here, at best.

These are deals already signed. Have to compare to this years class. Nelson 6x6. Skinner 9x8. Edler 6x3.

 

[achdumeingute]

And now you have to resort to strawmen. This is all par for the course.


The issue is that a player who is worth more won't be protected.

were you going 4-4?.

 

[Curufinwe]

were you going 4-4?.

It was an option, but not anymore.

 

[Jettany]

And now you have to resort to strawmen. This is all par for the course.


The issue is that a player who is worth more won't be protected.

I do agree. But let's say Ghost is dealt next year for a first and a prospect not needing protection. you can still get equal assets back.

 

[achdumeingute]

It was an option, but not anymore.

agree...but in 4-4, we lose Lindblom.

 

[BernieParent]

The trigger today was the 3 year NMC. Many went off the deep end at the thought of having to protect a 29 y/o 2C.

The contention was the Flyers are better off without Hayes the next two seasons so they won’t be forced to expose one of Provorov/Sanheim/Ghost/Myers following the 20/21 season.

Remember my theory how many fans care way more about the success/treatment of their favorite players than the success of the team? Exhibit A right there.

No. The contention that I am reading and putting forward in my own posts is that Fletcher, on top of giving big money and big years, also bended on about the only 'win' left, which was avoiding the NMC and having losing this important flexibility at the ED. After using a pick to get exclusive bargaining rights weeks ahead of July 1, he paid the July 1 price and perhaps even more.

Fletcher gave up a ton to get a somewhere-between-good-and-great 2C with the fallout being that at least one probably-great player will need to be exposed at the ED. At that time, the hopeful expectation is that Hayes won't even be the 2C anymore, or maybe even a C.

I can understand the jubilation among the ADHD crowd and I will admit at the same time that I will have increased enthusiasm going into this season. But for me, Hayes isn't a big enough needle-mover in the next 2 years to eclipse the probable fallout that will occur at the ED.

There are qualifiers to the above, like Hayes at his big contract/NMC >> a desperation trade of Gostisbehere + 11 for a lesser 2C. But what I expected was some sort of win in negotiations to show that Fletcher had this essential skill as a GM.

 

[Curufinwe]

agree...but in 4-4, we lose Lindblom.

Most likely, yup. I'd rather lose Lindblom than Myers, though.

We will lose a good player, unlike last time.

 

[achdumeingute]

I do agree. But let's say Ghost is dealt next year for a first and a prospect not needing protection. you can still get equal assets back.

 

[achdumeingute]

Most likely, yup. I'd rather lose Lindblom than Myers, though.

We will lose a good player, unlike last time.

we WILL lose SOMETHING unlike lastime (PEB is a useful 4c)

We can also pay a 2022 first and let's say a "Ratcliff" level forward and the NHL roster stays completely intact.

 

[Flyotes]

I'm sure they have this all up on a board somewhere. Now and the future.

 

[mja]

agree...but in 4-4, we lose Lindblom.

A top 9 winger is far easier to replace than a top 4 dman, especially when we have like four thousand forward prospects on the way.

 

[achdumeingute]

A top 9 winger is far easier to replace than a top 4 dman, especially when we have like four thousand forward prospects on the way.

the argument is "we don't want to lose someone"...or someone more valuable than Hayes.

As above...I've layed it out...first and "Ratcliff", don't take Myers.

We hurt at the ED...but the NHL roster stays relatively untouched.

Admittedly...I've never been in the 4-4 camp.

 

[Jettany]

QUOTE]

 

[Ghosts Beer]

No. The contention that I am reading and putting forward in my own posts is that Fletcher, on top of giving big money and big years, also bended on about the only 'win' left, which was avoiding the NMC and having losing this important flexibility at the ED. After using a pick to get exclusive bargaining rights weeks ahead of July 1, he paid the July 1 price and perhaps even more.

Fletcher gave up a ton to get a somewhere-between-good-and-great 2C with the fallout being that at least one probably-great player will need to be exposed at the ED. At that time, the hopeful expectation is that Hayes won't even be the 2C anymore, or maybe even a C.

I can understand the jubilation among the ADHD crowd and I will admit at the same time that I will have increased enthusiasm going into this season. But for me, Hayes isn't a big enough needle-mover in the next 2 years to eclipse the probable fallout that will occur at the ED.

There are qualifiers to the above, like Hayes at his big contract/NMC >> a desperation trade of Gostisbehere + 11 for a lesser 2C. But what I expected was some sort of win in negotiations to show that Fletcher had this essential skill as a GM.

Fletcher had no leverage! If he wanted Hayes to fill the gaping hole this team has at 2C, then he had to assure Hayes he wouldn’t be with an expansion team in 3 years. Totally reasonable from Hayes’ POV. And if Fletcher didn’t like it, he doesn’t get Hayes. Hayes goes to one of the other handful of teams who’d love to have his services & who will easily give him a NMC.

How people are blaming Fletcher as if he had any leverage at all blows my mind. Hayes & his agent were calling the shots, & that’s regardless of the 5th rd pick. Some team was going to give him what he wanted: that’s what happens when you’re a 27 y/o, 6’5”, 55 pt 2C on a FA market with only one other legitimate young 2C.

 

[bennysflyers16]

I do agree. But let's say Ghost is dealt next year for a first and a prospect not needing protection. you can still get equal assets back.

Nope, Ghost and Myers are both going to be elite , but worthless in a trade as every GM will rather try and take advantage of us instead of adding them. Or so I was told yesterday,, We are 100% f***ed

 

[mja]

the argument is "we don't want to lose someone"...or someone more valuable than Hayes.

As above...I've layed it out...first and "Ratcliff", don't take Myers.

We hurt at the ED...but the NHL roster stays relatively untouched.

Admittedly...I've never been in the 4-4 camp.

There isn't "one" argument. This isn't a binary. It's a far more dynamic situation. The question is not does Kevin Hayes make our hockey team better next year. The answer to that is almost certainly yes, he does. The question is that does he help this team end its championship drought. That's a far more complicated question and frankly the odds tend towards the other direction. His caphit costs us flexibility to go after better more impactful players in the future. His NMC takes away options, including the option to protect all 4 defenseman. That's important, because as I've said, wingers are far more replaceable than top defenseman. The NMC clause also throws caution to the wind. What if Patrick, Konecny, etc. all break out bigtime, like develop into star players, and we can't protect one of them because Hayes has to be protected instead. The term is an issue because if he suffers any serious dip in play or goes through any major injury trouble, he could quickly become untradeable even once his NMC is up, and now we're buying him out, wasting yet more cap space at a time when we might really need every dollar in space we can get.

And as for a first and Ratcliff, I'm glad that you've worked all of that out with Seattle and they're totally on board with that. Do you freelance? I could totally use your jedi mindtricks for a few projects I'd like to launch.

 

[hatcher]

Fletcher had no leverage! If he wanted Hayes to fill the gaping hole this team has at 2C, then he had to assure Hayes he wouldn’t be with an expansion team in 3 years. Totally reasonable from Hayes’ POV. And if Fletcher didn’t like it, he doesn’t get Hayes. Hayes goes to one of the other handful of teams who’d love to have his services & who will easily give him a NMC.

How people are blaming Fletcher as if he had any leverage at all blows my mind. Hayes & his agent were calling the shots, & that’s regardless of the 5th rd pick. Some team was going to give him what he wanted: that’s what happens when you’re a 27 y/o, 6’5”, 55 pt 2C on a FA market with only one other legitimate young 2C.

Yep in or out and Fletcher made f***in sure we got better because Patrick isn't a sure thing.

 

[Harhis]

Let's see how UFA works out. At this point it looks 1-1.5 million too much and the NMC. Years at 5.5-6 are fine. 27-33 age.
But seeing Edler gave a home town discount and will be paid 6 million a year for 2 years. Brock Nelson 6x6 on a home town deal. I don't love Hayes but like him MUCH more than Nelson and have watched them both a lot. It might wind up being the going rate or less if that is believable.

Brock Nelson just signed 6x6. Hayes is better than he is. Skinner just signed for 9.5x8. I don't like this contract but him signing for 6 or less just was not gonna happen. It's not 2016 anymore.

 

[hatcher]

There isn't "one" argument. This isn't a binary. It's a far more dynamic situation. The question is not does Kevin Hayes make our hockey team better next year. The answer to that is almost certainly yes, he does. The question is that does he help this team end its championship drought. That's a far more complicated question and frankly the odds tend towards the other direction. His caphit costs us flexibility to go after better more impactful players in the future. His NMC takes away options, including the option to protect all 4 defenseman. That's important, because as I've said, wingers are far more replaceable than top defenseman. The NMC clause also throws caution to the wind. What if Patrick, Konecny, etc. all break out bigtime, like develop into star players, and we can't protect one of them because Hayes has to be protected instead. The term is an issue because if he suffers any serious dip in play or goes through any major injury trouble, he could quickly become untradeable even once his NMC is up, and now we're buying him out, wasting yet more cap space at a time when we might really need every dollar in space we can get.

And as for a first and Ratcliff, I'm glad that you've worked all of that out with Seattle and they're totally on board with that. Do you freelance? I could totally use your jedi mindtricks for a few projects I'd like to launch.

Makes the TEAM better easily.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]