Miscellaneous NHL Discussion LVIII: May-June edition

[TCTC]

So let’s say Fletcher has a magical summer and make the Flyers watchable but they never get past the 2nd round of the playoffs for the next 5 years, you will say thats ok because they lost to better teams?

It depends. I don't see a prime Blackhawks/Kings caliber team in the league right now. Maybe Tampa, but they'll have to prove it.

 

[FlyerNutter]

Nothing personal, but the Wild were never taken seriously. It was a team that everyone wanted to go up against because they never really had a chance at making some true noise.

Perpetual first round exits or just barely making the dance is NHL purgatory. No true chance to win - and no true chance to find a superstar to actually change the fortunes of your club.

Fletcher had ample time to realize his team was going nowhere and chose to simply stay the course.

The notion that one doesn’t need to truly rebuild, and a team can consistently set itself up to win for a few years with a bunch of likeable but largely secondary players - is one the Flyers seem dedicated to. No matter what the outcome.

 

[Psuhockey]

It depends. I don't see a prime Blackhawks/Kings caliber team in the league right now. Maybe Tampa, but they'll have to prove it.

No depends. Would you be fine if the Flyers never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs in the next 5 years?

 

[TCTC]

No depends. Would you be fine if the Flyers never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs in the next years?

No, but you always have to look at who you're losing against. Losing against Tampa would be a different story than losing against the Islanders.

 

[deadhead]

You don't need "superstars" to be a Cup contending team, you just need the right mix of talent.

The Flyers have plenty of talent and more on the way, a lot of teams would love to get their hands on TK, for example, who was a 40+ ES scorer from 20-23 years old - they'll take the chance that he might have another level to his game. Same with Sanheim, Provorov, etc.

People are way overreacting to a clusterf--k season and ignoring how bad the goaltending was last season, and how many players had "off" seasons. If I were a betting man, even without any changes, I'd expect a 15-20 point rebound (from a pro-rated 85 point season).

It's not just the players rebounding, it's adding Allison, Laczynski, Frost, York and Zamula for a full season.
It's getting Lindblom back 100%, Patrick with a full offseason, Laughton without his COVID weight loss, and so on.
Players have gotten a message about offseason conditioning, they'll have a full training camp, and lots of competition.

If Hart can return to form, I'd expect this team to finish next year in the top 8, maybe the top 4, in the NHL.

Which is why I don't expect Fletcher to go hog wild this offseason, trade for Laine or Gaudreau, stupidity.
He'll get his RHD, his 1B goalie, then see what falls into his lap.
Give away Frost, Myers, Patrick for peanuts? I don't think he's that stupid.

Teams that get impatient usually end up in a death spiral, desperation trades which reduce the talent level and saddle them with bad contracts and poor fits.

 

[tucson83]

No depends. Would you be fine if the Flyers never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs in the next 5 years?

if it means competing with the best until they eventually lose players and we get in yes. it's a competitive sport you are the one that wants to in the towel because you cant deal with losing out of rounds, you are one the one that's lost your mentality of competing.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Kings fans in 2007: "Why did we hire Dean Lombardi as GM? He never won anything in San Jose!"

Losers are losers, until they're not.

And what has Fletcher done to show anything but mediocrity? Ever?

 

[Beef Invictus]

In two of the three seasons they eliminated Minnesota, Chicago did win the Stanley Cup. In the other season, they took the Cup winner Kings to 7 games in the Western Conference Final. Stop trying to minimize how dominant those Chicago teams were, led by Patrick Kane. They were the best team in hockey.

Oh, but there were other seasons when they didn't eliminate Minnesota?

So what happened there? Fletcher just isn't good at building teams that are strong enough. And we've seen why with the idiotic reasoning behind stuff like the Stewart and Gus sagas. He bleeds value and quality whenever he can.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Habs in 7.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Nothing personal, but the Wild were never taken seriously. It was a team that everyone wanted to go up against because they never really had a chance at making some true noise.

Perpetual first round exits or just barely making the dance is NHL purgatory. No true chance to win - and no true chance to find a superstar to actually change the fortunes of your club.

Fletcher had ample time to realize his team was going nowhere and chose to simply stay the course.

The notion that one doesn’t need to truly rebuild, and a team can consistently set itself up to win for a few years with a bunch of likeable but largely secondary players - is one the Flyers seem dedicated to. No matter what the outcome.

They were a damn competitive team for years despite having no superstars, playing in a brutal conference, and playing in the toughest division in hockey. That's nothing to just brush aside as if it's nothing. And, as has been repeated, for three straight playoffs they ran into Chicago when they were a powerhouse and the most dominant team in hockey.

Also, you apparently are implying that Fletcher should have tanked. He was paid to make the playoffs and there is no way that Minnesota's owner would have allowed tanking even had Fletcher wanted to, a fact you completely ignore.

 

[Redpath]

And what has Fletcher done to show anything but mediocrity? Ever?

What did Dean Lombardi ever do to show that he could win two Cups? He did nothing in San Jose for years, hired by the Kings as a loser, and took 5 years to win his first Cup.

What did Doug Armstrong ever do to show that he could win a Cup? He did nothing in Dallas for parts of 6 seasons, hired by the Blues as a loser, and took 10 more years to win a Cup.

Similarly with coaches: Craig Berube, Barry Trotz, Mike Sullivan, Joel Quenneville, Darryl Sutter, Claude Julien, Randy Carlyle. All retread losers, until they won.

Some guys just put it together on another go around. You don't always hire some wunderkind GM prodigy that wins a Cup on their first go around. And when that does happen, it is usually because they inherited Patrick Kane or Sidney Crosby.

 

[Psuhockey]

if it means competing with the best until they eventually lose players and we get in yes. it's a competitive sport you are the one that wants to in the towel because you cant deal with losing out of rounds, you are one the one that's lost your mentality of competing.

No I would like the Flyers to win a Stanley Cup and looking at the last 12 winners in the hard cap era only one didn’t get a massive contribution from a player picked in the top 4. That was Boston who signed two players in their late 20’s as free agents who actually peaked in their mid 30’s so they might as well have been unicorns. Chicago had Kane and Toews. LA Doughty. Pittsburgh Crosby and Malkin. Washington Ovechkin. St Louis Pietrangelo. Tampa Hedman. Those teams don’t win without those guys. If you can win without tanking how come more teams haven’t done it?

Hockey fans need to dispense with the whole get in and anything can happen bs. In the last 25 cups awarded, only 4 teams had been to only one cup final in a 6 year period and won: Tampa under Tort, Carolina, St Louis and Washington. Washington had won multiple President’s trophies though and really just crapped the bed in the playoffs. The others caught lightening in the bottle so 3 in 25 years. Great teams are constructed and then compete over a long time line. You can’t do that with free agents and trades or the window is a one and done like Carolina and St Louis. It has to come from the draft.

I would rather see the Flyers on the bottom for the next 5 years then being playoff fodder for the really good teams in the opening rounds.

 

[Beef Invictus]

What did Dean Lombardi ever do to show that he could win two Cups? He did nothing in San Jose for years, hired by the Kings as a loser, and took 5 years to win his first Cup.

What did Doug Armstrong ever do to show that he could win a Cup? He did nothing in Dallas for parts of 6 seasons, hired by the Blues as a loser, and took 10 more years to win a Cup.

Similarly with coaches: Craig Berube, Barry Trotz, Mike Sullivan, Joel Quenneville, Darryl Sutter, Claude Julien, Randy Carlyle. All retread losers, until they won.

Some guys just put it together on another go around. You don't always hire some wunderkind GM prodigy that wins a Cup on their first go around. And when that does happen, it is usually because they inherited Patrick Kane or Sidney Crosby.

Again, Fletcher has been doing this for a very long time now. Thus far, he has not shown he has had any epiphany. He has not shown he's anything different from what he was. This is not a guy who maximizes efficiency and chances at winning. He just isn't.

Lots of blind faith here.

 

[FlyerNutter]

They were a damn competitive team for years despite having no superstars, playing in a brutal conference, and playing in the toughest division in hockey. That's nothing to just brush aside as if it's nothing. And, as has been repeated, for three straight playoffs they ran into Chicago when they were a powerhouse and the most dominant team in hockey.

Also, you apparently are implying that Fletcher should have tanked. He was paid to make the playoffs and there is no way that Minnesota's owner would have allowed tanking even had Fletcher wanted to, a fact you completely ignore.

While the league is focused on as much parity as it can muster - they were never coming close to winning the cup.

Chicago was a powerhouse, but the league is always filled with a few teams in that top tier that one needs to realize they will likely have to beat.

It’s just an organizational question of what one wants to build their team like.

The Flyers and Minnesota have been dicking around in that middle of the pack tier forever. A mix of fear and likely pride, lacking a realization of what actually needs to be done - will keep them there.

Might I be wrong? Sure. I’d wager we see more of the same here though. Coming up short and blaming players that have unrealistic expectations.

Provorov is the newest recent example.

 

[landsbergfan]

Habs in 7.

lol what could go wrong?

 

[Redpath]

Again, Fletcher has been doing this for a very long time now. Thus far, he has not shown he has had any epiphany. He has not shown he's anything different from what he was. This is not a guy who maximizes efficiency and chances at winning. He just isn't.

Lots of blind faith here.

I just listed a number of losers-turned-winners who had epiphanies after "doing this for a very long time," so it really is not as miraculous as you seem to think it is.

 

[tucson83]

What did Dean Lombardi ever do to show that he could win two Cups? He did nothing in San Jose for years, hired by the Kings as a loser, and took 5 years to win his first Cup.

What did Doug Armstrong ever do to show that he could win a Cup? He did nothing in Dallas for parts of 6 seasons, hired by the Blues as a loser, and took 10 more years to win a Cup.

Similarly with coaches: Craig Berube, Barry Trotz, Mike Sullivan, Joel Quenneville, Darryl Sutter, Claude Julien, Randy Carlyle. All retread losers, until they won.

Some guys just put it together on another go around. You don't always hire some wunderkind GM prodigy that wins a Cup on their first go around. And when that does happen, it is usually because they inherited Patrick Kane or Sidney Crosby.

exhibit b: ray shero won a cup with pittsburgh went to nj, won nothing and got fired, Peter Chiarelli won a cup with boston, got hired by the oilers won nothing, got fired. dave tallon 3 time cup champion gm with chicago went to florida, won nothing got fired and hired joel q couldnt beat tampa.

like it's all about the situations you are put in and how much talent you have to compete within your division as well.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I just listed a number of losers-turned-winners who had epiphanies after "doing this for a very long time," so it really is not as miraculous as you seem to think it is.

For people who are hired to perpetuate the traditional Flyers Country Club and values, it would be miraculous.

You think Fletcher is going to run to a Cup while going out of his way to accommodate the Stewarts and Prossers of the league every year? Those players are central to what he believes teams need.

 

[Redpath]

exhibit b: ray shero won a cup with pittsburgh went to nj, won nothing and got fired, Peter Chiarelli won a cup with boston, got hired by the oilers won nothing, got fired. dave tallon 3 time cup champion gm with chicago went to florida, won nothing got fired and hired joel q couldnt beat tampa.

like it's all about the situations you are put in and how much talent you have to compete within your division as well.

I'm breaking it down going back to the lockout right now, and it appears first-time GMs who won Cups either took eons to do so (Rutherford in Carolina), or inherited immediate Cup contending cores (Shero, Bowman, BriesBois, Holland)

 

[tucson83]

Hockey fans need to dispense with the whole get in and anything can happen bs. In the last 25 cups awarded, only 4 teams had been to only one cup final in a 6 year period and won: Tampa under Tort, Carolina, St Louis and Washington. Washington had won multiple President’s trophies though and really just crapped the bed in the playoffs. The others caught lightening in the bottle so 3 in 25 years. Great teams are constructed and then compete over a long time line. You can’t do that with free agents and trades or the window is a one and done like Carolina and St Louis. It has to come from the draft.

I would rather see the Flyers on the bottom for the next 5 years then being playoff fodder for the really good teams in the opening rounds.

so winning one cup is not good enough for you? you want this team to be a bottom feeder just so you can be better than the pens in terms of winning cups?

 

[Beef Invictus]

How are we putting any faith into a guy whose standards are so low that he thinks the whole coaching staff should remain intact after last season?

 

[Redpath]

For people who are hired to perpetuate the traditional Flyers Country Club and values, it would be miraculous.

You think Fletcher is going to run to a Cup while going out of his way to accommodate the Stewarts and Prossers of the league every year? Those players are central to what he believes teams need.

We've gone through this before. It is a debunked conspiracy theory that it is some Flyer-centric issue that bad players get overused. Many coaches and GMs do so, frustratingly. Even Cup winners.

Players that coaches be loved but the fans hated

Terrible Players That Coaches Love

 

[Beef Invictus]

We've gone through this before. It is a debunked conspiracy theory that it is some Flyer-centric issue that bad players get overused. Many coaches and GMs do so, frustratingly. Even Cup winners.

Players that coaches be loved but the fans hated

Terrible Players That Coaches Love

We don't have a strong enough roster to overcome these decisions, which makes them ever more detrimental.

So I repeat: Do you think those decisions are bringing us closer to a Cup? When has Fletcher ever demonstrated he can build a group strong enough to overcome his insistence on having these players? Why have such faith in someone so constantly mediocre for so long?

 

[tucson83]

How are we putting any faith into a guy whose standards are so low that he thinks the whole coaching staff should remain intact after last season?

you are the one that's not being patient, you cant accept a losing season, you just want quick fixes to the management and staff and it will be all ok, it doesnt work like that, you are not looking at the big picture.

 

[Beef Invictus]

you are the one that's not being patient, you cant accept a losing season, you just want quick fixes to the management and staff and it will be all ok, it doesnt work like that, you are not looking at the big picture.

It's not just one disappointing season here bud. Not for us, not for Fletcher, not for AV, MT and Yeo, not for any of these people involved at any level throughout this organization.

Also you have absolutely no idea what I want or am arguing. I AM looking at the big picture right now.

Edit: Please clarify, do you think patience should be shown with any of the staff after they turned in one of the worst all-around coaching performances in team history? That's acceptable to you?