Ghosts Beer
I saw Goody Fletcher with the Devil!
- Feb 10, 2014
- 22,783
- 16,531
Confirmed with Link: The new coach of the Philadelphia Flyers is John Tortorella
- Thread starter Don Nachbaur 26
- Start date
- Status
awful list
nothing to be excited about there
Hart could be a star in a few years. He could be a goalie that takes off once he hits 26/27
freakydallas13
Registered User
Kind of like how you keep saying that people who want a full rebuild are intentionally hoping the team is awful?
Imagine that.
deadhead
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2014
- 51,113
- 22,256
If the Flyers were to do a complete tear down, it would mean trading Provorov, Sanheim, Risto and TK - the players who have value but are old enough that they won't be around at the end of a 4-5 year rebuild.
Couts, Ellis, Atkinson, Hayes aren't going to garner much given their age and contracts.
Couts, Ellis, Atkinson, Hayes aren't going to garner much given their age and contracts.
A full rebuild to me is selling off all your marketable assets that won't be useful when you're team is finally contending. I'd assume like 5 seasons out.
Then, you play any of your young players who seem they could possibly be part of the future.
Then, perhaps you look for opportunities to see if anyone will overpay for one of these above young players if you're not convinced they can play a role in your future contending team.
meanwhile, you're stockpiling picks and spending your vast financial resources on improving scouting and player development.
you're not intentionally trying to lose but your focus is on developing the young players on your roster and giving them to the best chance to be a key player in the future.
If someone's interpretation of that is "hoping to lose" or "trying to be awful" then go for it. Its pretty much that model that successful baseball and hockey teams have followed for about 80 years or so.
football and basketball are different but hockey and baseball requires the same basic strategy
Then, you play any of your young players who seem they could possibly be part of the future.
Then, perhaps you look for opportunities to see if anyone will overpay for one of these above young players if you're not convinced they can play a role in your future contending team.
meanwhile, you're stockpiling picks and spending your vast financial resources on improving scouting and player development.
you're not intentionally trying to lose but your focus is on developing the young players on your roster and giving them to the best chance to be a key player in the future.
If someone's interpretation of that is "hoping to lose" or "trying to be awful" then go for it. Its pretty much that model that successful baseball and hockey teams have followed for about 80 years or so.
football and basketball are different but hockey and baseball requires the same basic strategy
BringBackHakstol
Registered User
I've always maintained that you don't need to "tank" to build a good team. You can make smart individual moves and win in the margins, and sell high on the right players - and volume draft in the 20-50 range.
The problem is if your management is against "tanking" and can't recognize they need to shift approach, they very likely are incapable of doing the right things I mention above as well. That's the Flyers to a T.
The problem is if your management is against "tanking" and can't recognize they need to shift approach, they very likely are incapable of doing the right things I mention above as well. That's the Flyers to a T.
and another aspect of this - if you're doing it properly then after 3 or 4 seasons, you're going to have a surplus of young talent. Then, you actively seek opportunities to do a quantity for quality type deal.
The Flyers basically followed this model after 89. They didn't do it efficiently but they were able to establish a base that carried them from 95 to 04.
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
I absolutely agree with you, partly because I think the word "tanking" is used by people with the most dirty connotation possible. Pride is death in business, and the Flyers are an organization of prideful ex-athletes. That's well and good.......on the ice. If a business scales down in tough times, the people running the business don't call it tanking. People who use the word "tank," probably with the attention span of insects, believe it revolves around a single pick, when really it's about dozens, along with asset accumulation on other levels.
Now, not picking in the top 3-5 is a difficult way to get elite players (centers in particular), but it can be done. You just need a metric ton of competency and a vision, with a double dose of luck. So, we can shoot down that plan for the Flyers, except the luck part. And I'm not saying it's an ideal plan even. But, as it regards the draft, you need to draft in volume, volume, volume to find that player that is a top 5 re-draft in years to come. 7, 5, 6, 6. That's the number of picks the Flyers have and are set to make in Fletcher's tenure, with 1 playoff appearance to show for it. If you want to beat your chest and say real men don't tank, and don't see that part of the equation, you can go jump in a septic tank.
Last edited:
Ghosts Beer
I saw Goody Fletcher with the Devil!
- Feb 10, 2014
- 22,783
- 16,531
I am against “tanking.” The definition of tanking is intentionally losing. How do you define it?
problem this is not the 80s, it's 2020s and the draft lottery rules have changed and there's a salary cap. there's a reason why teams like sabres, sens, coyotes are going to be stuck where they are right now, there's too many teams, the draft classes right now arent very good maybe next year but it's not enough to build a contender.
freakydallas13
Registered User
See the post above yours.
Speaking of false dichotomy, I never mentioned tanking. I said I want the team to do a full rebuild.
Amorgus
Registered User
Our development chuds could've made McDavid into a 4th liner so I don't see any hope of no matter who they end up drafting. They don't care about anything but biceps and in fact hired the King of Biceps to develop players.
Magua
Entirely Palatable Product
As a post-dog walk addendum, what the false dichotomy people don't seem to understand is that the Flyers have been half ass (quarter ass?) rebuilding for most of the last 6-7 years, not all of it intentional. Minus that vomitous 2021 draft. They're in a weird position where they are loaded with potential middle 6, bottom 6, bottom 4 defense guys. You don't even need the word "potential" for some. And a few possible upper lineup guys, short of elite, if they can hit developmental ceilings (this is the part where I pause for laughter).
Most of these failed rebuild teams, or even the Edmontons which are in their own tier, can't supplement their top players for shit. I don't think anyone, without a motive, looks at the Flyers youth as bad. There's quite a bit of good; there's just not any elite. This isn't a ground zero situation. If anything, a focused short term effort could do the trick, while the ELCs sort themselves out. But if they keep waiting multiple years, and don't try to offload a few players in the process, that goes right out the window. Nothing about this offseason is telling me it's not out the window.
Most of these failed rebuild teams, or even the Edmontons which are in their own tier, can't supplement their top players for shit. I don't think anyone, without a motive, looks at the Flyers youth as bad. There's quite a bit of good; there's just not any elite. This isn't a ground zero situation. If anything, a focused short term effort could do the trick, while the ELCs sort themselves out. But if they keep waiting multiple years, and don't try to offload a few players in the process, that goes right out the window. Nothing about this offseason is telling me it's not out the window.
Ghosts Beer
I saw Goody Fletcher with the Devil!
- Feb 10, 2014
- 22,783
- 16,531
Put it this way:
If you begin next season rooting for the Flyers to win, then I’m with you.
If you begin next season rooting for the Flyers to lose so they get a high draft pick, I’m not with you.
freakydallas13
Registered User
Dude, we just established you know what a false dichotomy is. Stop using it.
I know you're not dense enough to not understand the difference between a rebuild where a team will likely not be great because they are selling off their players for future assets to better align their competitive window, and "rooting for the Flyers to lose".
This post is misguided at best. What is something that all these teams have in common? Aside from absolutely SUCKING for probably a decade on average (or more) they also got EXTREMELY lucky on the timing of their sucking to land absolute generational talents or sure-fire HOFers. If you want to go all in on a tank to get the home grown talent to build a dynasty, you will have to watch bottom-feeding teams for about a decade and pray to the Hockey Gods that you get 1) lucky enough to pick first; 2) lucky enough that the #1 pick is a generational talent or at least sure-fire superstar when you're picking first; and 3) get lucky with multiple late round picks turning into stars. It's easy to point at the teams that drafted at the right time, but what about the Oilers, Coyotes, etc. that have sucked as long or longer than these teams but either don't have the generational talent or in the case of the oilers FINALLY got the generational talent after years of picking at the top of the draft and not getting those guys.
I'm fine going for a tank especially this year when Bedard is there, but if you're commiting to that fully it means a decade of sucking and praying. I'd rather watch a decade of first round exits and pray for a deep run than a decade of last place finishes praying for a savior like Crosby or Ovechkin.
CanadianFlyer88
Knublin' PPs
How about looking at it this way: when you assess the lineup, what's the ceiling? We obviously all want the Flyers to win, but it's a challenge for everyone to objectively assess where the Flyers sit respective to their peers.
You can't watch this year's playoffs and believe the Flyers are anywhere near competing. Barring a 2010 Montreal run, the Flyers are cannon fodder, assuming they can even make the playoffs.
Given the limited ways you can improve your roster, how does this team get from playoff bubble level to consistently competitive? I can tell you how it doesn't: by committing to players like Rasmus Ristolainen.
You can build through the draft. You have admitted it's very much a crap shoot. This is why having a volume of picks helps mitigate the luck factor. The Flyers are on the wrong side of this thinking, given Fletcher's recent history of trading picks away, including in the Giroux trade.
You can avoid committing dollars and term to "good" players by paying "market value" in free agency. Hayes, Risto, JVR to some extent (I know this is a Hextall signing), are examples. I'm less concerned about committing to young players for term and money, but you could easily argue the Flyers lost in the margins with the Hart, Farabee and Provorov contracts, too. RFA contracts are supposed to be advantages for the team, after all.
You can make hockey trades to improve the team. When was the last time the Flyers clearly won a trade? If you can even think of just a couple of recent examples, then it's still not a good sign.
You can supplement your top 6 and top 4 with either young prospects or cost effective vets. The Flyers have had some of the worst bottom six forward group and bottom pairing defensemen for years, through multiple management groups, paying bad money fill these roles.
The Flyers have failed at almost every facet of building a competitive team for almost a decade. We're well into the insanity phase now.
We all want the team to win, but targeting being a playoff bubble team in the short term window of one season harms the ability for the franchise to actually progress... especially when they can't seem to get a single thing right. This is not solely a Chuck Fletcher problem; it has been present for years.
Some fans have embraced the mindset that the best way to reset is to accept that the team is garbage and accept that high draft picks are the team's best chance to get better. How can we say that this isn't a good option, when whatever they are doing is clearly not working and has not worked for almost the entirety of Claude Giroux's tenure with the organization?
There is no magic bullet, but teams that have built methodically and have not thrown bad money at bad players seem to have more success than not. The Flyers have always tried to buy their way to a championship. It's not working now and has dumped us all into the worst phase in the history of the franchise. Maybe it's time to try something different, no?
Well glad you aren’t in charge. A full rebuild in todays NHL means you are guaranteed to lose for the next 10 years. 3 GMs later you are back to square one. Ask the Sabres and Sens
freakydallas13
Registered User
Thank god we didn't spend the last 10 years losing and having 3 different GM's, that would have been awful.
kudymen
Hakstok was a fascist clique hiver lickballs.gif
*1 series win since 2012*
"With you in charge it would have been zero"
Good to see nobody strives for participation trophies
Ghosts Beer
I saw Goody Fletcher with the Devil!
- Feb 10, 2014
- 22,783
- 16,531
It sounds to me like the essence of your plan is to gut the team, almost certainly struggle, & get high draft picks, try as you may to argue the semantics.
But whatever. It’s not worth arguing about.
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
Of course, you also need to supplement the volume drafting with good development. That's the range where you aren't getting many prospects who are too good to fail, so you need to be doing something to ensure they become useful instead of slamming their good traits out to produce two-way grinders regardless of skillset.
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
The Sabres, Sens, and Coyotes suck because they're badly managed.
Beef Invictus
Revolutionary Positivity
We are going to go 20 and more without a drastic change to management, values, and approach to the sport.
With competent management it takes five years.
- Status
