You Are The GM Fill in the ? _____ needs

[Nabrules]

I obviously know we need to add but a lot of improvement will come within as young players will continue to progress and hopefully some players who struggled regain form.
Here’s what I mean:
-Provorov goes back to being a 40 point, 25 min a night rock
- Ghost goes back to being a 55 point offensive catalyst and play just average defence instead of his play awful this year.
- Sanheim continues to grow and reaches the play of a true top 4 dman
- Patrick becomes more consistent and goes from a 30 point C to a 45 point C
- Konecnky goes from being a 50 point W to a 60 point W

Add to that maybe another top 6 F and a top 4 D and things will look a lot better next year than this

 

[Tripod]

From the main boards, some offers for our 1st Rd pick

Brodie 1 year left
Tanev 1 year left
Danault 2 years left....gets 40-50 ES points per year
Barrie if we add another 1st and Ratcliffe....lol.
Zucker 4 years at 5.5 million per year.

 

[prototypical4thliner]

From the main boards, some offers for our 1st Rd pick

Brodie 1 year left
Tanev 1 year left
Danault 2 years left....gets 40-50 ES points per year
Barrie if we add another 1st and Ratcliffe....lol.
Zucker 4 years at 5.5 million per year.

Well I mean what did you think would happen? We are now free game. THANKS A LOT!

Danault no way for a first, and not entirely sold on that exact player, but that’s the tier we should be chasing.

I guess tanev would free up whomever lefty defender he pairs with to be more of a rover. In the long term probably bad news for contract negotiations for provorov and sanheim.

 

[Magua]

From the main boards, some offers for our 1st Rd pick

Brodie 1 year left
Tanev 1 year left
Danault 2 years left....gets 40-50 ES points per year
Barrie if we add another 1st and Ratcliffe....lol.
Zucker 4 years at 5.5 million per year.

Done. Traded. Boom. Win now.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

From the main boards, some offers for our 1st Rd pick

Brodie 1 year left
Tanev 1 year left
Danault 2 years left....gets 40-50 ES points per year
Barrie if we add another 1st and Ratcliffe....lol.
Zucker 4 years at 5.5 million per year.

I actually wouldn't mind picking up Tanev, but not for our first. Maybe their first and another later pick and Tanev for our first. But not Tanev for our first.

 

[lancer247]

This is where you look for expiring contracts of overpaid players who are still good players - we have the short-term cap money to take on one or two of these guys, since you're helping a team shed salary the price should be cheap.
If we can't land a star, we're better off with depth we can easily move to make room when a kid shows he's ready.

Not a Lehtera/Filppula salary dump, rather, someone good enough to play but too expensive to justify keeping on a salary cap strapped team. Someone in their early 30s with 1-2 years left on their deal.

What I don't want to do is give 7yrs, $60-70M for Duchene at 28/29, and have to try and dump him at 32/33 with three years left on his deal. He's a 40-45 ES point 2C right now, but in 4 years could be a 30-35 point 3C with below average defense (imagine being stuck with 3 years of Filppula at $9-10M a year!!!!).

And I'm always wary of guys who have big contract years.

34 y/o center/RW - shoot first mentality
$5.2MM for 3 more years
20-25 goal potential
Jeff Carter

 

[lancer247]

This is where you look for expiring contracts of overpaid players who are still good players - we have the short-term cap money to take on one or two of these guys, since you're helping a team shed salary the price should be cheap.
If we can't land a star, we're better off with depth we can easily move to make room when a kid shows he's ready.

Not a Lehtera/Filppula salary dump, rather, someone good enough to play but too expensive to justify keeping on a salary cap strapped team. Someone in their early 30s with 1-2 years left on their deal.

What I don't want to do is give 7yrs, $60-70M for Duchene at 28/29, and have to try and dump him at 32/33 with three years left on his deal. He's a 40-45 ES point 2C right now, but in 4 years could be a 30-35 point 3C with below average defense (imagine being stuck with 3 years of Filppula at $9-10M a year!!!!).

And I'm always wary of guys who have big contract years.

34 y/o center/RW - shoot first mentality
$5.2MM for 3 more years
20-25 goal potential
Jeff C

 

[prototypical4thliner]

Done. Traded. Boom. Win now.

I keep getting sucked into these on the main board. Because, again, I’m a dumb dumb person.

I actually wouldn't mind picking up Tanev, but not for our first. Maybe their first and another later pick and Tanev for our first. But not Tanev for our first.

I’d hope our first wasn’t on board whatsoever. Second and hagg or a non roster defenseman. I know it’s different scouting leadership, but this team has been money with first rounders. And we need to replenish the d farm.

34 y/o center/RW - shoot first mentality
$5.2MM for 3 more years
20-25 goal potential
Jeff Carter

Buy low I wouldn’t be averse to trying him out. I mean really low, but it may not be a bad idea. Let him and jvr finish off passes from frost in a sheltered third line.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I’d hope our first wasn’t on board whatsoever. Second and hagg or a non roster defenseman. I know it’s different scouting leadership, but this team has been money with first rounders. And we need to replenish the d farm.

I don't mind moving back in this year's draft, as there isn't anyone I am totally on board with in the 10-20 range. If we can pick up a guy like Tanev and a pick and move back, even to the end of the first, I am fine with that. Especially if you are looking for defensemen because there doesn't seem to be too many defensemen that are really separated from the pack in the first round. That being said...the Jets don't even have a first round pick so my idea is impossible. Lol.

 

[Psuhockey]

I don't mind moving back in this year's draft, as there isn't anyone I am totally on board with in the 10-20 range. If we can pick up a guy like Tanev and a pick and move back, even to the end of the first, I am fine with that. Especially if you are looking for defensemen because there doesn't seem to be too many defensemen that are really separated from the pack in the first round. That being said...the Jets don't even have a first round pick so my idea is impossible. Lol.

Tanev is on Vancouver. I assume you are talking about Trouba since you mentioned the Jets. I would be fine moving the 1st for Trouba. It wouldn’t be straight up and likely have to add a couple to B assets, but I think it would be worth it.

 

[Striiker]

There should never be a mentality where anyone says "I want to move this pick, lets see what's available". Getting rid of it should never be the first step in the thought process.

If an opportunity presents itself and a worthwhile player becomes available, THEN you can go after him and see what it takes... and ONLY THEN, if nothing else works, use a 1st if you must.

But acting like it's some kind of expiring TGIFridays gift card burning a hole in your pocket is a fantastic way to overpay for a player. Right now the mentality should be "we're keeping the pick, unless something changes".

 

[landsbergfan]

I have looked around and there is very little in the "middle 6, useful, not needed by their current team, on a trade-able contract" category. Teams aren't exactly looking to get rid of good ones and there are only a few teams that are actually strapped for cap room as of this moment. Even those teams are in positions where they probably aren't going to solve that by getting rid of 2C/3C's. Some of the good ones expiring soon are likely too expensive (Danault, RNH, Nylander) and very quickly do you run into scenarios where you're not even sure they're any better than what you have.

They could try to get creative on a certain deal and take money on by retaining salary as well. I would like a guy like Tierney out of Ottawa, as he probably will deserve more than they want to pay. Who the hell knows though. I think Carter is viable. He has 3 years left, but only 7 million in salary. The term makes it a little risky, though I don't think he would be hard to get rid of. Historically Fletcher has been quick to erase mistakes he has made. Would be very cheap cap dump. I am intrigued by a guy like Mathieu Perreault despite how he spells his name. He has done a good amount of 3C or 2W with WPG.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Tanev is on Vancouver. I assume you are talking about Trouba since you mentioned the Jets. I would be fine moving the 1st for Trouba. It wouldn’t be straight up and likely have to add a couple to B assets, but I think it would be worth it.

There is also a Tanev on Winnipeg that I thought we were talking about. I would not really be interested in the Tanev in Vancouver. Isn't he like 32?

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

There should never be a mentality where anyone says "I want to move this pick, lets see what's available". Getting rid of it should never be the first step in the thought process.

If an opportunity presents itself and a worthwhile player becomes available, THEN you can go after him and see what it takes... and ONLY THEN, if nothing else works, use a 1st if you must.

But acting like it's some kind of expiring TGIFridays gift card burning a hole in your pocket is a fantastic way to overpay for a player. Right now the mentality should be "we're keeping the pick, unless something changes".

Disagree. If you think you can get a better player via trade than in the draft, you would be stupid not to have this mentality. Not suggesting that the mantra should be to trade our first for a 35 year old about to retire, but if you look at the draft and are not thrilled but you know there are potential options, you should absolutely start making calls saying "hey we have a first available if you want to trade PLAYER X." The mentality shouldn't be, "We have a pick I am not going to look at the draft because I just want to trade it for an NHL ready player," but if the pick will get you a better player in trade than in the draft...nothing wrong with shopping it.

Not that this is the case this year or anything like that, but there is nothing wrong with this mentality. Just like you shouldn't trade players just to get more draft picks for the sake of having more draft picks. You make a trade because you think the player you will get will have a better impact than the player you are trading. You may be wrong at the end of the day, but if that's the team's analysis, you do it.

 

[bennysflyers16]

Tyler Myers, 3 years 5 mill per ?? Be our vet option while still staying mobile ?

Provy T Myers
Sanheim P Myers
Ghost Gudas
Morin

Trade Hogg at draft, be first time we have 3 RHD and everyone is a puck mover less Gudas, who is paired with our best one.

 

[Curufinwe]

Is Carter basically a PP specialist now?

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?rep...ilter=gamesPlayed,gte,10&sort=evPoints,points

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Move back in every 1st round if appropriate value is available unless it's a no-brainer. Almost never move up. The differences among players of similar tiers are overwhelmingly marginal.

 

[Curufinwe]

Especially if you're gonna take a high schooler.... he'll probably still be there in the late 20s.

 

[landsbergfan]

Is Carter basically a PP specialist now?

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?rep...ilter=gamesPlayed,gte,10&sort=evPoints,points

No. He isn't 2012 Jeff Carter though. I'd venture to guess the career low individual and on ice shooting percentages played a big part in the EVP numbers.

He can still skate and is one of the more skilled players we would be looking at for a trade of that kind. I am by no means banging the table for him, but they could easily make dumber decisions.

 

[Curufinwe]

I'm not opposed to Carter, provided he hasn't fallen off the cliff at age 34.

 

[Striiker]

Disagree. If you think you can get a better player via trade than in the draft, you would be stupid not to have this mentality. Not suggesting that the mantra should be to trade our first for a 35 year old about to retire, but if you look at the draft and are not thrilled but you know there are potential options, you should absolutely start making calls saying "hey we have a first available if you want to trade PLAYER X." The mentality shouldn't be, "We have a pick I am not going to look at the draft because I just want to trade it for an NHL ready player," but if the pick will get you a better player in trade than in the draft...nothing wrong with shopping it.

Not that this is the case this year or anything like that, but there is nothing wrong with this mentality. Just like you shouldn't trade players just to get more draft picks for the sake of having more draft picks. You make a trade because you think the player you will get will have a better impact than the player you are trading. You may be wrong at the end of the day, but if that's the team's analysis, you do it.

I can see why you'd like this mentality, since you love terrible hypothetical trades and can't seem evaluate the value of any pick/prospect/player.

And that last paragraph is especially ridiculous.

But I'm not getting baited. Bye.

 

[Psuhockey]

There should never be a mentality where anyone says "I want to move this pick, lets see what's available". Getting rid of it should never be the first step in the thought process.

If an opportunity presents itself and a worthwhile player becomes available, THEN you can go after him and see what it takes... and ONLY THEN, if nothing else works, use a 1st if you must.

But acting like it's some kind of expiring TGIFridays gift card burning a hole in your pocket is a fantastic way to overpay for a player. Right now the mentality should be "we're keeping the pick, unless something changes".

The Flyers are going to make moves this offseason just to preserve their revenue stream. Season ticket holders were dumping their ticket for pennies on the dollar last season on stubhub and management just raised ticket prices for next year. Right or wrong the first round pick, as well prospects and players people actually like, are going to be thrown out their in an attempt to make the team better, or if you prefer more marketable. Whether Fletcher can get anybody to bite is the only question.

 

[deadhead]

I have to side with Striiker, ugh.
You don't trade 1st rd picks, especially when your scouts have such a great track record.
Unless of course, someone makes an offer you can't refuse.
Which means a trade for a top 6/top 4 player in their 20s who is signed at a reasonable price for an extended period (or the trade is conditional on signing an extension).

You never trade a 1st for players in their 30s unless you're talking a durable HOF talent.

If you have good pro scouts, you can identify players who are struggling with their current teams who might blossom here, and work out a deal for a package like a 2nd, 3rd and a second tier prospect/player.
And players in their 30s with a couple years left at an overpriced rate who are blocking a younger player always become available in the offseason.

 

[renberg]

I'm not opposed to Carter, provided he hasn't fallen off the cliff at age 34.

Where Carter's play is at this point in his career is hard to evaluate coming off of this season where he has been banged up. If he can get his health back, he'd be a good addition for the 3 or 2C position. LAK are in a rebuild and are looking to shed some salary so Carter shouldn't cost that much in trade.
One thing though. There was a reason why he was sent packing from here before by Holmgren/Snider which has never been totally exposed. Would the organization want to give him a second run? Would Carter want to return? IDK.

 

[Ruck Over]

Where Carter's play is at this point in his career is hard to evaluate coming off of this season where he has been banged up. If he can get his health back, he'd be a good addition for the 3 or 2C position. LAK are in a rebuild and are looking to shed some salary so Carter shouldn't cost that much in trade.
One thing though. There was a reason why he was sent packing from here before by Holmgren/Snider which has never been totally exposed. Would the organization want to give him a second run? Would Carter want to return? IDK.

We all know why Carter was shipped out in principle. Dry Island, maturity issues, etc. The hissy fit with Columbus kinda proved a point in the immediate aftermath. However, he grew up fast, and well when he moved out to LA. I'd be more concerned with him wanting to return to the scene of the debacle, moreso than the type of player/character added to the team. Not the best indicator, but an indicator dude has been married for a minute. And old bodies don't recover from benders as easily. Think his 'tude is safe now.