Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Ivan Provorov traded to CBJ (via LA) - 1st, 2 2nds, Petersen, Walker, Grans to Philly

Rebels57 said:
Really don't see that happening unless they end up keeping Hart. Even still, they could send Petersen to LHV if they want too. A buy-out after one season could be possible though.
Click to expand...
I don't either, mostly just musing out loud, but the extra ~$1 million each of next year and the following (buyout next year I think is $1 mil +$2 the following) could be useful for cap dumps or retention depending on your plans.
 
Larry44 said:
This is a fair comment, but there clearly wasn't a better offer or a better pick.

It was important that Briere do a deal like this now, well before the draft. He traded a sacred cow with a big ego early, to tell the league he's open for business and not afraid to make a fair trade all around - and, most importantly, everybody is on the table. I'm sure his phone is ringing off the hook today.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with the last part, but there is no way you know there was a better offer, or a better offer couldn't be found. Just like I don't know. And for clarity, I'm not holding it against Danny, just would have liked to see this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironmanrulez and Larry44
deadhead said:
I think the amateur scouting group under Flahr is underrated around here, starting in 2017 or so, they've found real value later in the draft (a lot of teams go almost a decade without finding a NHL starter after the 2nd rd). That makes extra picks more valuable to the Flyers, b/c you're not just finding players, you're building organizational depth that allows you to sweeten trades.

2017: Cates #137, Lycksell #168, Zamula
2018: Ersson #143
2019: Attard #72
2020: Desnoyers #135
2021: Kolosov #78, Zanetti #110, Samson #174, Avon
2022: Kaplan #69, Gendron #220

not all will make it, but all have outplayed their draft position, some by wide margins.
This suggests to me that scouting is not the problem, at least the last half dozen years.
Click to expand...

So you believe late picks have extra value because the Flyers have so much organizational competence. Yet you spent years explaining to me why I was overreacting to them failing to maximize their quantity of picks made.

This is why I say your opinions change when the organizational winds swirl. Because they do.

Whether it's Holmgren or Hextall or Fletcher or Briere, these are the layups that should be bulletproof to regime changes. Make a high number of picks. Don't give depth players term. My talking points never changed because they kept failing at the basics of how to run a sports franchise. The well-run teams find ways to add players while adhering to their core principles.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Wow
Reactions: Ironmanrulez, The Rage Kage, Asnito and 14 others
Friedman says a Hart trade for Toronto is much less likely now because the Leafs would have needed to send us Murray. "Lots of goalies out there".

Marek thinks San Jose might be after Hart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LegionOfDoom91
JojoTheWhale said:
So you believe late picks have extra value because the Flyers have so much organizational competence. Yet you spent years explaining to me why I was overreacting to them failing to maximize their quantity of picks made.

This is why I say your opinions change when the organizational winds swirl. Because they do.

Whether it's Holmgren or Hextall or Fletcher or Briere, these are the layups that should be bulletproof to regime changes. Make a high number of picks. Don't give depth players term. My talking points never changed because they kept failing at the basics of how to run a sports franchise. The well-run teams find ways to add players while adhering to their core principles.
Click to expand...
As long as they insisted on competing, draft picks don't have that much value.
Which is why teams that think they're competing trade draft picks for NHL veterans who can contribute today, not "maybe" contribute today.
We've seen prospects take 2-3 years to arrive. Because there's a learning curve for a lot of young players.

The problem always came down to strategy, born out of self-delusion, thinking that the 96-98 point seasons were the "norm," rather than the positive deviations from a 85-90 point "norm." [a team with even GF/GA should garner 85 or so points]

So they fooled themselves into thinking they just needed some tweaks to make a SC run. In that case, it was "rational" to trade picks for players in a win now strategy (what wasn't rational was their self-assessment).

The other time it's rational to trade picks is when you know you're not good at drafting - Colorado is a good example, mediocre drafters but Sakic is good at converting 2nd and 3rd rd picks into young NHL players. So why take a chance on a whiff when you can obtain "sure things."
 
Last edited:
It's not a blockbuster, but it probably classes as an "NHL" blockbuster. What even was the biggest deal of the deadline? Chychrun for a 1 and a pair of 2s? Timo Meier and spare parts for a 1, a 2, and a heap of random players? This is not far off that level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernieParent
deadhead said:
As long as they insisted on competing, draft picks don't have that much value.
Which is why teams that think they're competing trade draft picks for NHL veterans who can contribute today, not "maybe" contribute today.
We've seen prospects take 2-3 years to arrive. Because there's a learning curve for a lot of young players.

The problem always came down to strategy, born out of self-delusion, thinking that the 96-98 point seasons were the "norm," rather than the positive deviations from a 85-90 point "norm." [a team with even GF/GA should garner 85 or so points]

So they fooled themselves into thinking they just needed some tweaks to make a SC run. In that case, it was "rational" to trade picks for players in a win now strategy (what wasn't rational was their self-assessment).
Click to expand...

You've answered yourself for me. Teenaged hockey players take time to develop. Not one or two years. Three, four, five, or six.

Teams that are run well by modern standards show you they know the talent treadmill never stops and that ELCs are an irreplaceable aspect of keeping it moving. Yes, it's harder to do if you think you're contending. But that's still the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironmanrulez, The Rage Kage, Chicken N Raffls and 2 others
deadhead said:
As long as they insisted on competing, draft picks don't have that much value.
Which is why teams that think they're competing trade draft picks for NHL veterans who can contribute today, not "maybe" contribute today.
We've seen prospects take 2-3 years to arrive. Because there's a learning curve for a lot of young players.

The problem always came down to strategy, born out of self-delusion, thinking that the 96-98 point seasons were the "norm," rather than the positive deviations from a 85-90 point "norm." [a team with even GF/GA should garner 85 or so points]

So they fooled themselves into thinking they just needed some tweaks to make a SC run. In that case, it was "rational" to trade picks for players in a win now strategy (what wasn't rational was their self-assessment).

The other time it's rational to trade picks is when you know you're not good at drafting - Colorado is a good example, mediocre drafters but Sakic is good at converting 2nd and 3rd rd picks into young NHL players. So why take a chance on a whiff when you can obtain "sure things."
Click to expand...

Draft picks can be used to compete, and thus have lots of value. Wasting them, as Fletcher has his whole career, is how you avoid competing.

How you use assets is important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironmanrulez and BackToTheBrierePatch
JojoTheWhale said:
You've answered yourself for me. Teenaged hockey players take time to develop. Not one or two years. Three, four, five, or six.

Teams that are run well by modern standards show you they know the talent treadmill never stops and that ELCs are an irreplaceable aspect of keeping it moving. Yes, it's harder to do if you think you're contending. But that's still the job.
Click to expand...
What contending team has refrained from trading picks for players?
TB is an extreme, b/c I think they see the window closing, but when your run is 2 Cups and 2 SC Finals, can't argue with success.
But it's pretty much the norm, how many GMs are secure enough to refrain from eating their seed corn when they don't expect to be around in 5 years?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom