Who should stay, who should go.

[Ruck Over]

You're absolutely right.

Simmonds may be expendable but in no way should Gudas hold more value to the franchise.

There's a lack of nuance with some of the selections.

Just getting rid of guys to get rid of them is over simplistic. I'm one of the folks who kept Gudas, but did not keep Simmonds. What's not explained in the poll (edit: at a glance) is for defense I kept Provorov, Gostisbehere, Sanheim, and Gudas. That leaves 3 spots for Morin, Hagg, X/Myers, ditching MacDonald and Manning. While Gudas isn't some world-beater, he's at least an NHL defenseman (usually).

I did not keep Simmonds because I'd rather get something for him, rather than keep him and let him walk for nothing, as is expected by the Leafs with JVR. So, Gudas gets a vote, and Simmonds doesn't, but Simmonds is still more valuable to the team, either playing here or traded for futures.

 

[Ruck Over]

He's not good enough to play top 6 or bottom 6. KHL bound IMO

If Weal were on the Honey Bees line instead of Leier to start the season, he could've performed as a bottom 6 guy. There's still too much old-think about what the lines should look like. 1 & 2 scoring, 3 shut-down, 4 checking/goon. Now, the goon is more or less gone, but that gotta check is still prevalent and misplaced. No one expeceted, and it is not likely duplicated, but the image of Vegas rolling 4 2nd lines (poetic license invoked) is admirable in that new ideas can thrive, conventional roles not always be followed. If that's a mix of 1-2-3-4; 2-2-2-3; 1-1-4-4; 1-2-2-4; etc.; just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat.

But do I disagree about Weal? Not really. Fringe NHL player, just about too good for the AHL. If he so desires, a spin in the KHL or SHL would be a nice change of pace, place to thrive potentially.

 

[deadhead]

There's a good reason for the "old fashioned" approach to roster building.
Few teams can field more than 2 good scoring lines, and you want your most talented players on those lines where they can have the maximum impact.
You also want a line you can throw against an opposing team's scoring line and not have your best players spend half the game playing defense.
So the bottom six should be good checkers and defensive players, provide your PK guys.

To me, the bottom six is also where you develop young players, so I want mostly full sized players with speed who can check while they learn.

If NAK spends a couple years on the 4th, then the 3rd line, he'll have plenty of minutes to show he has the offensive skills to play on the top six. But if he can't check and play defense, then he's a liability while he learns and should stay in the AHL. We're seeing that with Laughton, a fail as a center, but a lot of potential as a LW.

The problem for a guy like Weal is he's really not a good enough scorer for that role, and he's not good enough defensively or as a checker for the bottom six. Raffl is a guy who was a good defensive player and checker, could never score enough to stick in the top six, but a valuable bottom six guy.

So when I look at roster building, first fill out the top six, then fill the bottom six with players like NAK and Laughton, guys who can help now and might have the potential to provide more later as they grow up. This is why Hextall told Sushko to focus on defense, he's not talented enough to project as a top six guy, but if he contributes to the bottom six, he'll get enough PT to show he deserves a shot at the top six.

The tough question is what do you do with players like Strome? You might use him as a specialist, PP and part-time duty on the 3rd line, but will his lack of speed preclude any checking role?

 

[Ruck Over]

There's a good reason for the "old fashioned" approach to roster building.
Few teams can field more than 2 good scoring lines, and you want your most talented players on those lines where they can have the maximum impact.
You also want a line you can throw against an opposing team's scoring line and not have your best players spend half the game playing defense.
So the bottom six should be good checkers and defensive players, provide your PK guys.

To me, the bottom six is also where you develop young players, so I want mostly full sized players with speed who can check while they learn.

If NAK spends a couple years on the 4th, then the 3rd line, he'll have plenty of minutes to show he has the offensive skills to play on the top six. But if he can't check and play defense, then he's a liability while he learns and should stay in the AHL. We're seeing that with Laughton, a fail as a center, but a lot of potential as a LW.

The problem for a guy like Weal is he's really not a good enough scorer for that role, and he's not good enough defensively or as a checker for the bottom six. Raffl is a guy who was a good defensive player and checker, could never score enough to stick in the top six, but a valuable bottom six guy.

So when I look at roster building, first fill out the top six, then fill the bottom six with players like NAK and Laughton, guys who can help now and might have the potential to provide more later as they grow up. This is why Hextall told Sushko to focus on defense, he's not talented enough to project as a top six guy, but if he contributes to the bottom six, he'll get enough PT to show he deserves a shot at the top six.

The tough question is what do you do with players like Strome? You might use him as a specialist, PP and part-time duty on the 3rd line, but will his lack of speed preclude any checking role?

I disagree and dislike your taek. If you are directly responding to my preceding comment, you've added little to the conversation by regurgitating old-think talking points. Your comments also eschew that there are possible/probable/potential differences in how to construct a roster. Each team is different, so it makes sense that they approach roster building in different manners. A savvy GM will best utilize the tools available to him to extract the best possible outcomes for his team.

If you are not responding to my preceding comment, the thought process is more in-tune with pre-2005 lock-out NHL than it is today's game, because speed and youth (at all line levels) is more prevalent. And waiting, for the sake of waiting, is done less and less with more and more roster players. The average age has dropped, implying that rookies (or dawn players) are more prevalent in the game than vets (or dusk players).

If one has the puck comsistently, there is less and less need to check. Skill players are better at puck possession than unskilled players. Heavy hockey is dying, not dead, but not definitely not the flavor-of-the-day. (This does not preclude individual players needing to define weak points of their game to become better overall players.)

 

[Rebels57]

I don't know how you can say that given his past success. I know he had a bad year or two, but that happens (especially when the team you're on isn't exactly a defensive juggernaut). He's not a superstar and I don't think he is the answer to our long-term goalie situation, but I do think he's a better option that Elliot and Neuvirth. It is bizarre to me that a goalie that can't stay healthy (and also recently put up a season of .891 save percentage) is an option along with another goalie that has at best been inconsistently mediocre over the course of his career, but Mrazek is not an option because in 17 games he played poorly on a team with a defense that everyone agrees is not good. You don't want to give up the third to sign him...that's an understandable position. You think Mrazek isn't an NHL goalie despite the fact that his career numbers are comparable to the other two goalie options (almost identical SV% to both, better GAA than Neuvirth) doesn't really make sense to me, unless you are also saying that the other two are not NHL goalies, in which case I would still disagree but at least your position would be more defensible.

I mean, did you watch Mrazek play? He was a disaster in net. Just completely out of control in his movements.

 

[Rebels57]

There's no guarantee Simmonds ever gets traded or re-signed.

Look at JVR in Toronto. Sometimes a team simply elects to keep a player until his contract expires and then lets him walk. Not ideal, but I do think people need to brace themselves for this possibility.

 

[flyersfan187]

Sorry but I voted for Weise. I figure I wouldn't want him bought out and he would be hard to trade. AHL possibility.

 

[deadhead]

I disagree and dislike your taek. If you are directly responding to my preceding comment, you've added little to the conversation by regurgitating old-think talking points. Your comments also eschew that there are possible/probable/potential differences in how to construct a roster. Each team is different, so it makes sense that they approach roster building in different manners. A savvy GM will best utilize the tools available to him to extract the best possible outcomes for his team.

If you are not responding to my preceding comment, the thought process is more in-tune with pre-2005 lock-out NHL than it is today's game, because speed and youth (at all line levels) is more prevalent. And waiting, for the sake of waiting, is done less and less with more and more roster players. The average age has dropped, implying that rookies (or dawn players) are more prevalent in the game than vets (or dusk players).

If one has the puck comsistently, there is less and less need to check. Skill players are better at puck possession than unskilled players. Heavy hockey is dying, not dead, but not definitely not the flavor-of-the-day. (This does not preclude individual players needing to define weak points of their game to become better overall players.)

There's a huge difference between TK and Sushko/NAK.
TK made the NHL at 19, it was only a matter of time before he'd crack the top 6.
But you don't get that many 1st rd picks, and most players outside of the 1st rd take a while to develop, if ever.

So your bottom six is composed mostly of later round picks, unless you're so deep you can park 1st rd picks there (which we just may be in a couple seasons!).
Since these players usually take a while to develop (see Hoffman, for example), having them start on the bottom six in defensive roles should not be an issue, it allows them to contribute while adjusting to the NHL and refining their offensive skills.
For one thing, you simply don't have as many minutes to give to bottom six players (Couts and Patrick playing 35-40 minutes a night).

The problem comes with players like Strome, who aren't suited to that role but probably won't be able to crack the top six for a few years.
Guys like Rubtsov will have no problem with a bottom six role.

 

[Flyotes]

Strome needs some time imho.

Rubtsov's career has had hiccups so he also needs time.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I mean, did you watch Mrazek play? He was a disaster in net. Just completely out of control in his movements.

Yeah no doubt. But in the past he didn't look like that. I would take a chance at a return to form.

 

[mize370]

Gudas is trash . Why he gets any votes is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[deadhead]

Gudas was very solid last year, the suspension really got into his head.
The shame was he was coming back to his old self until game 5 when somehow he got the notion he's a skilled player.
He probably should be paired with Sanheim if he returns, not Morin, because he lacks puck moving skills.

"A man has to know his limitations."

 

[Rebels57]

Gudas is trash . Why he gets any votes is ridiculous in my opinion.

He was really good the previous 2 seasons and played solid with Sanheim. It could be that Meatpig just made him look like shit. His 2 turnovers in Game 6 are nearly unforgiveable though.

 

[Striiker]

There's no guarantee Simmonds ever gets traded or re-signed.

Look at JVR in Toronto. Sometimes a team simply elects to keep a player until his contract expires and then lets him walk. Not ideal, but I do think people need to brace themselves for this possibility.

That’s by far the most likely scenario.

I’d be shocked if they don’t keep him. Whether he gets re-signed or not likely depends on his performance next year.

 

[Rebels57]

That’s by far the most likely scenario.

I’d be shocked if they don’t keep him. Whether he gets re-signed or not likely depends on his performance next year.

I think the only way he is traded is in a hockey deal rather than a futures deal.

 

[Magua]

And what a gross waste of a valuable asset for a team not expected to compete. Hell, JVR was more valuable to that Leafs team than Simmonds to this one. We have his replacement on the team already on PP1. I don't understand what 1 year of Simmonds does, if that is indeed the plan, besides not make a decision because it's too hard emotionally.

Besides, if they trade him they can have the built-in excuse of Hextall trading THE most important player on the team, so Hakstol can't be evaluated for another season at least.

 

[Striiker]

And what a gross waste of a valuable asset for a team not expected to compete. Hell, JVR was more valuable to that Leafs team than Simmonds to this one. We have his replacement on the team already on PP1. I don't understand what 1 year of Simmonds does, if that is indeed the plan, besides not make a decision because it's too hard emotionally.

Besides, if they trade him they can have the built-in excuse of Hextall trading THE most important player on the team, so Hakstol can't be evaluated for another season at least.

Two words.

"Heaviness" and "veteran leadership intangibles"

 

[Ghosts Beer]

And what a gross waste of a valuable asset for a team not expected to compete. Hell, JVR was more valuable to that Leafs team than Simmonds to this one. We have his replacement on the team already on PP1. I don't understand what 1 year of Simmonds does, if that is indeed the plan, besides not make a decision because it's too hard emotionally.

Besides, if they trade him they can have the built-in excuse of Hextall trading THE most important player on the team, so Hakstol can't be evaluated for another season at least.

Well, let's see what the Flyers do in the offseason. If they land Tavares, it would make sense to keep Simmonds. Otherwise, there's no real harm in seeing how the team plays next season before making a decision by the deadline.

 

[Magua]

Well, let's see what the Flyers do in the offseason. If they land Tavares, it would make sense to keep Simmonds. Otherwise, there's no real harm in seeing how the team plays next season before making a decision by the deadline.

I'm putting their %s at landing Tavares at 0.5%.

And we all know they won't trade him at the deadline if they're remotely in the playoff bubble.

They already kicked him off PP1 late in the season for a player here for the long-haul. I'm not sure what there is to evaluate based on off-season moves. All they need to effectively replace his on-ice value is a 3RW, who likely is in-house. They don't actually have to add anyone.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I'm putting their %s at landing Tavares at 0.5%.

And we all know they won't trade him at the deadline if they're remotely in the playoff bubble.

They already kicked him off PP1 late in the season for a player here for the long-haul. I'm not sure what there is to evaluate based on off-season moves. All they need to effectively replace his on-ice value is a 3RW, who likely is in-house. They don't actually have to add anyone.

Depends on what he's asking, IMO. Our PP2 has sucked for years, so I don't see the harm in moving a top, what, 3? PP goal scorer over the last 5 years onto that unit. And I know you don't believe in leadership and intangibles, but I think they can matter. Don't get me wrong, I'm leery, too -- no one wants another LeClair deal -- but I really don't see the harm in seeing who they add in the offseason & seeing how Simmonds & the team are playing next season before they make their decision.

 

[Peacekeeper]

Don't know the JVR situation all that well but I'm not sure he had his role diminished at all..

Simmonds being kicked off pp1 will hurt his value in a contract year, and he's gonna want to get paid

 

[deadhead]

I think Ron would trade Simmonds if Simmonds asked him to, and he might, because Patrick has replaced him on PP1 (better hands).
So Simmonds might feel that a team where he can get those extra 20 points will set him up for free agency.

The other factor is what he's offered, a late 1st rd and Ron might keep him if he thinks the team is improved enough to make a deep playoff run - so he might wait until September to make a deal so he can evaluate the team after he's made some moves this summer. A late first might not play until 2022, at which time the roster could be pretty crowded.

Put it this way, if the Flyers are leading the conference at the TDL, what would it cost them to add as a rental a solid 3rd line wing who puts up 20+ goals and plays the PK? At least a 1st rd pick - so why get rid of that player for less?

 

[BernieParent]

Two words.

"Heaviness" and "veteran leadership intangibles"

 

[BernieParent]

I am pretty confident that Simmonds is far from satisfied with his season, no matter what his injuries, and will be working big time in the off-season to get back to playing like he has in years past. I don't think it's even a question of "getting paid", though that will be a motivation; for the most part, Simmonds will likely want to show that he can still play a top-6 game.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

I don't get the idea that keeping Simmonds is a win now kind of move

That implies that he has significant value to the team, which he does not

He needs to be traded and it should be a no brainier