2023-24 Roster Thread 3: We Three Flyers

[tnfrs]

I guess we're just at different chapters of the same book. If you feel like Torts should be fired, we're in agreement there. I would also say that the signings that catered to Torts are less important that drafting Michkov. I don't think Beef is fighting you there, either (I also don't know that Torts didn't want them to draft Michkov, either. Maybe it's been reported, and I just missed that).

But I would also say it feel like you're glancing over a pattern that has been set by this organization in the moves they've made so far. They have have given Torts more power than most NHL coaches generally get. Whether you want to agree or not, TDA, Hayes, Provy were all moved out this year because of Torts. It's not that Torts agreed with the move, he was the reason why they were moved. Having to move someone because the coach wants him gone is a bad process. It doesn't matter what the market is at the time of the trade. And it's a self induced problem, brought on by the coach. You can say it's good that we got rid of him, but it doesn't change that it was a bad trade or not. It just doesn't.

I don't know if Farabee or York asked for a trade, and I suspect neither do you. And because of that I don't think you can compare the situation of TDA/Hayes/Provy and the situation of York/Farabee and come to meaningful conclusions. I would hope that MGMT would side on the younger players and not the outdated coach, but they haven't done that yet.

its safe to assume york signing a bridge deal means he didnt ask for a trade. its more likely Frost has asked for a trade since theres no deal yet and nothing stopping them from making one

 

[VladDrag]

its safe to assume york signing a bridge deal means he didnt ask for a trade. its more likely Frost has asked for a trade since theres no deal yet and nothing stopping them from making one

It will be interesting to see what happens with Frost, every day that passes without a contract, I wonder if Frost asked for a trade out. But it's purely speculation, I have no idea. I suspect that the length is the issue here, but I could be wrong.

I just think that Frost's camp would have gone to the media at this point if they wanted to be traded.

 

[tnfrs]

It will be interesting to see what happens with Frost, every day that passes without a contract, I wonder if Frost asked for a trade out. But it's purely speculation, I have no idea. I suspect that the length is the issue here, but I could be wrong.

I just think that Frost's camp would have gone to the media at this point if they wanted to be traded.

I dont think theres any demand for Frost the same way Chicago let Dylan Strome walk when he was an RFA. Flyers might not be able to get anything for him in 1 for 1 trade as an RFA and Frost probably is worried he gets traded as soon as he signs a sweetheart deal, so ya I imagine hes holding out for as much as he can get right now

 

[Flyerfan4life]

This is pointless. Everyone eager to ignore everything is going to get proven wrong like they always do. I'll just wait for it to inevitably happen, like it always does.

its really not worth wasting typing on..

whats coming is coming as it always does here.

vets will play over youth! and nothing meaningful will change.

 

[VladDrag]

I dont think theres any demand for Frost the same way Chicago let Dylan Strome walk when he was an RFA. Flyers might not be able to get anything for him in 1 for 1 trade as an RFA and Frost probably is worried he gets traded as soon as he signs a sweetheart deal, so ya I imagine hes holding out for as much as he can get right now

It's pretty clear the offered contract is not amenable to Frost's camp, but again, I really don't know why. I speculate it might be years, but acknowledge there are plenty of other reasons.

I remember seeing a tweet that teams were calling specifically about Frost when he was being shoved down the lineup earlier in the season. But my memory is hazy, and it could have been some clout-chaser who posted that and not a definitive source. I would think there were a few teams who would trade for Frost. You're talking about a young former first round pick with 2-100+ point seasons in the OHL, who had injury struggles, and finally showed signs of breaking out in the last 50-60 games. This would be a player that some team would want to buy cheap on, so you're not going to get anything valuable for Frost, I would imagine.

 

[Redpath]

I guess we're just at different chapters of the same book. If you feel like Torts should be fired, we're in agreement there. I would also say that the signings that catered to Torts are less important that drafting Michkov. I don't think Beef is fighting you there, either (I also don't know that Torts didn't want them to draft Michkov, either. Maybe it's been reported, and I just missed that).

But I would also say it feel like you're glancing over a pattern that has been set by this organization in the moves they've made so far. They have have given Torts more power than most NHL coaches generally get. Whether you want to agree or not, TDA, Hayes, Provy were all moved out this year because of Torts. It's not that Torts agreed with the move, he was the reason why they were moved. Having to move someone because the coach wants him gone is a bad process. It doesn't matter what the market is at the time of the trade. And it's a self induced problem, brought on by the coach. You can say it's good that we got rid of him, but it doesn't change that it was a bad trade or not. It just doesn't.

I don't know if Farabee or York asked for a trade, and I suspect neither do you. And because of that I don't think you can compare the situation of TDA/Hayes/Provy and the situation of York/Farabee and come to meaningful conclusions. I would hope that MGMT would side on the younger players and not the outdated coach, but they haven't done that yet.

Provorov was not moved just because of Torts, he has been rumored to have his foot out of the door for a while. If Hayes and DeAngelo were moved because of Torts, that doesn't mean it was wrong to have "catered" Torts there. They are overrated players, one of which is unhappy with his playing time, and the other is a ticking time bomb with seemingly one NHL team interested in him, neither of which fit our timeline nor have notable value. It is not a "self-induced problem," because it's not a problem. Getting rid of big money, questionable, ~valueless players should be step zero of Briere's job.

Did DeAngelo request a trade? Did Hayes even? I'm not sure why Farabee and York are being held to the standard but not TDA and Hayes. If Briere is moving players because of Torts' wishes, then it would only make sense that guys who Torts feuded with (One publically) would have also been jettisoned.

Torts is being catered on:
- Trades that should have been made no matter what
- Short-term depth signings

Torts is not being catered on:
- What types of players we use out lottery pick on as the future face of the franchise (Remember Tortorella hates players like Michkov)
- Getting rid of young, valuable players that he has feuded with

The second category is far, far, far more important.

 

[tnfrs]

It's pretty clear the offered contract is not amenable to Frost's camp, but again, I really don't know why. I speculate it might be years, but acknowledge there are plenty of other reasons.

I remember seeing a tweet that teams were calling specifically about Frost when he was being shoved down the lineup earlier in the season. But my memory is hazy, and it could have been some clout-chaser who posted that and not a definitive source. I would think there were a few teams who would trade for Frost. You're talking about a young former first round pick with 2-100+ point seasons in the OHL, who had injury struggles, and finally showed signs of breaking out in the last 50-60 games. This would be a player that some team would want to buy cheap on, so you're not going to get anything valuable for Frost, I would imagine.

In frost's defense he has kinda been dicked around until this season and even this season Torts was pretty hard on him and in his first full season he put up respectable numbers but he may not fit in Danny's grand plan. I know I look at Buffalo down the middle and see Tage, Cozens, and Mittlestadt and Frost is the one of these things thats not like the others in that picture. Im torn on Frost personally, Id be willing to give 1 more year but if he wants longer than that right now idk

 

[VladDrag]

Provorov was not moved just because of Torts, he has been rumored to have his foot out of the door for a while. If Hayes and DeAngelo were moved because of Torts, that doesn't mean it was wrong to have "catered" Torts there. They are overrated players, one of which is unhappy with his playing time, and the other is a ticking time bomb with seemingly one NHL team interested in him, neither of which fit our timeline nor have notable value. It is not a "self-induced problem," because it's not a problem. Getting rid of big money, questionable, ~valueless players should be step zero of Briere's job.

Did DeAngelo request a trade? Did Hayes even? I'm not sure why Farabee and York are being held to the standard but not TDA and Hayes. If Briere is moving players because of Torts' wishes, then it would only make sense that guys who Torts feuded with (One publically) would have also been jettisoned.

Torts is being catered on:
- Trades that should have been made no matter what
- Short-term depth signings

Torts is not being catered on:
- What types of players we use out lottery pick on as the future face of the franchise (Remember Tortorella hates players like Michkov)
- Getting rid of young, valuable players that he has feuded with

The second category is far, far, far more important.

I get it. You're not interested in having a conversation. This is good to know for the future.

 

[TB87]

That's not a risky offer for you to make. By their very nature, trade rumors are not concrete. The report was from Frank Seravalli, on his podcast; if you want to know more, you'll need to look that up, but here's a tweet reiterating the details he mentioned:

A smartly run rebuilding team would make that trade, no questions asked. What a lay-up that was missed because “culture” lol.

 

[Striiker]

It will be interesting to see what happens with Frost, every day that passes without a contract, I wonder if Frost asked for a trade out. But it's purely speculation, I have no idea. I suspect that the length is the issue here, but I could be wrong.

I just think that Frost's camp would have gone to the media at this point if they wanted to be traded.

He’s waiting to see if a certain horse does him a favor this offseason.

 

[tnfrs]

Provorov did want out, you could see it in the end of season interviews, he was frustrated as hell at the idea of rebuilding again, hes already been through that and he started his career here during a rebuild so thats understandable. People here are forgetting that Provorov busted his ass all year and still had value, and that was one of the better trades in the off season, we got slightly less for Provorov than Karlson brought back and thats largely because Provorov played the whole season like he wanted to win every game. Scratching Hayes and Deangelo didnt lower their value, the way they phoned in games and looked like they genuinely didnt give a shit half the time lowered their value. A coach doesnt put players on the ice that wont listen to him, Tort's job wasnt to lose his job was to win when he was hired. People here just like Hayes and Deangelo because they were the only players actively helping this team tank for Bedard.

 

[ponder719]

He’s waiting to see if a certain horse does him a favor this offseason.

I don't think Hayes has that much pull in St. Louis yet.

 

[deadhead]

its safe to assume york signing a bridge deal means he didnt ask for a trade. its more likely Frost has asked for a trade since theres no deal yet and nothing stopping them from making one

Doubtful, it's August, there's no rush, for all we know his agent is on vacation.

Both sides are probably best served by a bridge, Frost sees the potential for a long-term contract at better money than current comparables with a rising cap, Flyers would want to have some confidence that his finish last year wasn't a fluke and he really has turned the corner before committing to long-term money.

 

[deadhead]

A smartly run rebuilding team would make that trade, no questions asked. What a lay-up that was missed because “culture” lol.

As someone pointed out, they were also working on the Sanheim deal, doubt St Louis wanted to trade both the 25th and 29th pick.
Briere probably prioritized moving Sanheim b/c of his contract, once the NTC sets in he's hard to move, whereas Laughton is much easier to trade down the road.
But until some insider comes clean with the details, we just don't know.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I wasn’t really sure where to put this thought. I’ve been having a long conversation with a buddy about how certain NFL coaches have had to evolve and how impressive it is when they do so. And even more than that, how their descendants learn from this and build on their work. You can watch these guys figure it out within a game and then call the same play over and over again into a specific front. And it’s unstoppable. You can see the adjustments DCs have to make from week to week. They work to find weaknesses. They work to put their players into positions that play to their strengths.

It just makes me look at NHL Head Coaches and wonder what value any of them actually bring outside of skill development and mental/emotional management. There aren’t coaching trees in a traditional sense. Yes, they can change forecheck structures and PK formations. They can move outlets closer to or further from their D corps. It can even make a difference in some cases. But mostly they just have to avoid big mistakes. I really think managing people should be the priority when hiring an NHL coach.

 

[deadhead]

I wasn’t really sure where to put this thought. I’ve been having a long conversation with a buddy about how certain NFL coaches have had to evolve and how impressive it is when they do so. And even more than that, how their descendants learn from this and build on their work. You can watch these guys figure it out within a game and then call the same play over and over again into a specific front. And it’s unstoppable. You can see the adjustments DCs have to make from week to week. They work to find weaknesses. They work to put their players into positions that play to their strengths.

It just makes me look at NHL Head Coaches and wonder what value any of them actually bring outside of skill development and mental/emotional management. There aren’t coaching trees in a traditional sense. Yes, they can change forecheck structures and PK formations. They can move outlets closer to or further from their D corps. It can even make a difference in some cases. But mostly they just have to avoid big mistakes. I really think managing people should be the priority when hiring an NHL coach.

The NFL is so different than any other sport, scheming and adjustments are much more important b/c you can change personnel each play, change roles, disguise offenses/defenses, etc.

NHL is more like the NBA, you can coach strategy to some extent, but in the end, the game is too fluid, players have to adjust on the fly depending on what they see on the ice - so coaching players in terms of development is far more important than strategy. This includes recognizing players who lack the mental acuity to make those adjustments and not overemphasize physical skills over hockey IQ.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

The NFL is so different than any other sport, scheming and adjustments are much more important b/c you can change personnel each play, change roles, disguise offenses/defenses, etc.

NHL is more like the NBA, you can coach strategy to some extent, but in the end, the game is too fluid, players have to adjust on the fly depending on what they see on the ice - so coaching players in terms of development is far more important than strategy. This includes recognizing players who lack the mental acuity to make those adjustments and not overemphasize physical skills over hockey IQ.

The NBA is the other major league where I do think it can make a difference. Especially defensively. Those schemes have intricate rules set out in advance.

With MLB, it’s more prep and actually listening to the prep you’ve done. But it still impacts the game. With hockey….not seeing it much more so than any other sport. (I know nothing about schematic soccer.)

 

[Tripod]

Some people just refuse to use Google to hear Torts thoughts on that goal. The goal they were saying was likely goal of the year. The dishigan.


"It"s tremendously skilled. I am not trying to be a fool here but i am not sure it's good for the game. If you had tried that in 2000 or late1990's, you would get your head taken off. It's cool but I am not sure it's good for the game and I stand by that."

Acknowledge the skill
Dislike it anyways
Reminisce to the game 20 years ago
Reinforces he is not a fan of it

Oh, then goes on to say:

He would talk to thise guys after the game....we know to discourage it.
And says the game needs to be played a hard way, an honest way.

Dude is a relic. And we hired him and love him. Relics love relics. And this relic has 4 playoff series wins the last 19 years.

 

[ponder719]

The NBA is the other major league where I do think it can make a difference. Especially defensively. Those schemes have intricate rules set out in advance.

With MLB, it’s more prep and actually listening to the prep you’ve done. But it still impacts the game. With hockey….not seeing it much more so than any other sport. (I know nothing about schematic soccer.)

I am the most novice of novices when it comes to soccer, but for all that the two sports play a lot alike in practice, I will say this is one area where soccer and hockey diverge pretty significantly. Because the game is slower, on a wider play area, there's a lot less "suddenly Karlsson's leading the rush" opportunism and chaos.

Teams have a dedicated scheme and style, largely guided by the preference of the manager; West Ham, for example, is a low-possession, counter-attacking team on offense heavily favoring set-piece play (has something to do with why Moyes has been trying to get James Ward-Prowse for months), and Moyes may play around with other defensive formations, but he tends to fall back into a 5-4-1 or 4-2-3-1 formation. Jim Curtin and the Union, meanwhile, are also low-possession on offense, favoring quick strikes forward, but they operate mostly out of a 4-4-2 formation, with other formations coming mainly to disguise our angle of attack.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

Some people just refuse to use Google to hear Torts thoughts on that goal. The goal they were saying was likely goal of the year. The dishigan.


"It"s tremendously skilled. I am not trying to be a fool here but i am not sure it's good for the game. If you had tried that in 2000 or late1990's, you would get your head taken off. It's cool but I am not sure it's good for the game and I stand by that."

Acknowledge the skill
Dislike it anyways
Reminisce to the game 20 years ago
Reinforces he is not a fan of it

Oh, then goes on to say:

He would talk to thise guys after the game....we know to discourage it.
And says the game needs to be played a hard way, an honest way.

Dude is a relic. And we hired him and love him. Relics love relics. And this relic has 4 playoff series wins the last 19 years.

hes the perfect fit for the old bois club in Philly.. its why hes here and his power within the Org. is only growing..


hes gunna build the BSB v2.0...

cuz #culture.

 

[FromOyVey2Matvei]

the mental hoops you’re for some reason jumping through to ignore a direct report from an extremely credible source are just weird. Seravalli being willing to go on the record with specifics of an offer is a significantly different event from the normal rumors. If this was some morning show on a sports talk radio station, of course we should start looking for holes. This clearly wasn’t.

And it’s not just you. You just happen to be the most recent. It’s like people take these rumors personally.

If you look at other deals made this summer, Scott Laughton straight up for a late first (in a draft where 1st round picks seemed to be treated like gold) and a future 2nd would've been an eye-popping outlier. Is it possible that was the entire deal offered? Yes, of course. Sometimes GMs just fall in love with a specific player and overpay. Having Chuck Fletcher as our GM for far too many years, we know that all too well.

Is it also possible (and more in line with this summer's market and the framework of trades Danny B did execute (see Provorov deal) or tried to execute (see Sanheim deal)) that the deal was Laughton for 1st + 2nd + Cap Dump (Krug)? Using our available cap space and the fact that we aren't contending to boost our draft pick return? I personally think so.

And that's where the whole Seravalli not being specific thing comes in. He gave the breadcrumbs (late 1st + future 2nd) but he didn't offer up the whole loaf. And he really has no reason to. Assuming Jonesy was the source and his intention was to puff up Laughton's value or brag about how the Flyers have all these valuable players, there's no reason to mention the cap dump you might be taking back in a deal you turned down. It's more impressive to leave that out. And for Seravalli, reporting that the Flyers turned down a 1st and a 2nd for Laughton certainly generated more interest and more clicks than a report of the Flyers turning down a 4 year / $26 million cap dump + 1st+2nd would've.

But I guess we'll see what's up when the trade deadline happens. If we retain Laughton for "culture", then it will become apparent that maybe we did just look a gift horse in the mouth and turn down the offer of the century from the Blues.

Until that happens though, I think it's far more likely the deal included a cap dump and Danny preferred to pursue the Sanheim+Hayes framework (knowing that Sanheim would be tougher to move in the future given his contract and NMC).

 

[blackjackmulligan]

If you look at other deals made this summer, Scott Laughton straight up for a late first (in a draft where 1st round picks seemed to be treated like gold) and a future 2nd would've been an eye-popping outlier. Is it possible that was the entire deal offered? Yes, of course. Sometimes GMs just fall in love with a specific player and overpay. Having Chuck Fletcher as our GM for far too many years, we know that all too well.

Is it also possible (and more in line with this summer's market and the framework of trades Danny B did execute (see Provorov deal) or tried to execute (see Sanheim deal)) that the deal was Laughton for 1st + 2nd + Cap Dump (Krug)? Using our available cap space and the fact that we aren't contending to boost our draft pick return? I personally think so.

And that's where the whole Seravalli not being specific thing comes in. He gave the breadcrumbs (late 1st + future 2nd) but he didn't offer up the whole loaf. And he really has no reason to. Assuming Jonesy was the source and his intention was to puff up Laughton's value or brag about how the Flyers have all these valuable players, there's no reason to mention the cap dump you might be taking back in a deal you turned down. It's more impressive to leave that out. And for Seravalli, reporting that the Flyers turned down a 1st and a 2nd for Laughton certainly generated more interest and more clicks than a report of the Flyers turning down a 4 year / $26 million cap dump + 1st+2nd would've.

But I guess we'll see what's up when the trade deadline happens. If we retain Laughton for "culture", then it will become apparent that maybe we did just look a gift horse in the mouth and turn down the offer of the century from the Blues.

Until that happens though, I think it's far more likely the deal included a cap dump and Danny preferred to pursue the Sanheim+Hayes framework (knowing that Sanheim would be tougher to move in the future given his contract and NMC).

I think it is far more likely they like laughton and do not want to move him at all at this time. As simple as that.

 

[FromOyVey2Matvei]

I think it is far more likely they like laughton and do not want to move him at all at this time. As simple as that.

Nothing is impossible. But if you view a player as core to your mission and as the guy you want to lead your team through the rebuild, is it really wise to let it be known that he's available in trades and that you've actively had conversations about moving him? That just doesn't add up to me. It would seem to be something that could damage his relationship with the organization and for no reason.

A player like Laughton has AFAIK really never been traded for multiple firsts. The last 2 players to garner multiple firsts were a 22 year old Brandon Hagel and a prime Ryan McDonaugh. These things are not like Laughton.

If you shopped Laughton and a team really offered a 1st and a 2nd straight up and you turned it down, then there was no point in shopping Laughton in the first place, because that's a massive overpay well beyond what you ever could've hoped to receive.

Hence I reiterate my point that I think there was more to St. Louis's offer. It was probably very similar to the Sanheim+Hayes return.

Time will tell.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

Nothing is impossible. But if you view a player as core to your mission and as the guy you want to lead your team through the rebuild, is it really wise to let it be known that he's available in trades and that you've actively had conversations about moving him? That just doesn't add up to me. It would seem to be something that could damage his relationship with the organization and for no reason.

A player like Laughton has AFAIK really never been traded for multiple firsts. The last 2 players to garner multiple firsts were a 22 year old Brandon Hagel and a prime Ryan McDonaugh. These things are not like Laughton.

If you shopped Laughton and a team really offered a 1st and a 2nd straight up and you turned it down, then there was no point in shopping Laughton in the first place, because that's a massive overpay well beyond what you ever could've hoped to receive.

Hence I reiterate my point that I think there was more to St. Louis's offer. It was probably very similar to the Sanheim+Hayes return.

Time will tell.

well the newly hired co-GM said he was open for business. A players value isn't going to change because it is known he is available.

He wasn't shopped. They were fielding offers and set which looks like a price that would not be met.

i don't buy the cap dump theory with any Laughton trade. Expecting a late 1st is very realistic. They just simply do not want to trade him until they see how the season goes. I hope it bites them in the ass big time.

 

[deadhead]

There's also value, #29 just isn't that valuable, slightly more than a 2nd rd pick, but significantly less than a pick in the 16-25 range.
The four tiers generally in the 1st rd are 1-5, 6-15, 16-25, and 26+.
The 2nd would be Toronto's, which will probably be in the 50s.
So if the Flyers had to take a salary dump back (and St Louis was trying to dump salary), then it wasn't a great deal.