Rumor: Things Not Left Unsaid 3 - Flyers Rumors and Media Mentions: Never Ending Circles

[deadhead]

This is a complicated topic because you have to pick apart cases like the mid-aughts Penguins. You also have to draw the lines between when a team stopped. That’s almost never clear. Does Buffalo take a different course if they get McDavid instead of Eichel?

Penguins and Devils both purposely tanked for Lemieux. There’s no debate there.

The Leafs tanked for Matthews as you said.

The Senators (probably) tanked for Daigle. This is the toughest one to prove, but there was an official investigation and everything. This is part of why there’s a draft lottery.

The Coyotes tanked.

The Nordiques tanked.

The lottery has complicated this strategy, now you have to be BOTH competent AND lucky.

Even then, Jersey got lucky twice with #1, Nico and Hughes, and still managed to finish behind the Flyers with better (still bad) goal tending.

6 top 10 picks in ten years, a massive investment in veterans to finish the job (Hamilton, Meier, Palat, etc.) and we still don't know if it'll work or they'll be Toronto East.

And even if it works, you still need luck, Colorado got McKinnon and Makar, yet over seven seasons, never got past round 2 except for one year when the Hockey Gods shined upon them.

Ask Zito, made a big push, gave up (2) 1st rd picks and Tippett (#10) to get swept in the 2nd rd, then went back to his process of incremental improvements with one big move, Huberdeau and Weegar and a 1st for Tkachuk, and took the next step.

It's not enough to "trust the process," you also have to be able to implement it.

That's the difference between Howie and Hinkie.

 

[freakydallas13]

And Boston only got one Cup out of Bergeron and only because they also had an all time great goaltending performance and one of the best ever free agent signings in Chara.

If Luchanko is the next Bergeron, the Flyers will still not win a Cup.

Yeah but have you considered tanking = Buffalo?

Checkmate tankers.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

The lottery has complicated this strategy, now you have to be BOTH competent AND lucky.

Even then, Jersey got lucky twice with #1, Nico and Hughes, and still managed to finish behind the Flyers with better (still bad) goal tending.

6 top 10 picks in ten years, a massive investment in veterans to finish the job (Hamilton, Meier, Palat, etc.) and we still don't know if it'll work or they'll be Toronto East.

And even if it works, you still need luck, Colorado got McKinnon and Makar, yet over seven seasons, never got past round 2 except for one year when the Hockey Gods shined upon them.

Ask Zito, made a big push, gave up (2) 1st rd picks and Tippett (#10) to get swept in the 2nd rd, then went back to his process of incremental improvements with one big move, Huberdeau and Weegar and a 1st for Tkachuk, and took the next step.

It's not enough to "trust the process," you also have to be able to implement it.

That's the difference between Howie and Hinkie.

Every team that gets beyond Round 2 has the hockey gods shining on them. Every team. Every year.

Set aside where we disagree on the Leafs. Toronto is the best possible example of how a plan can work and it still might not produce results anyone wants in the playoffs. Sometimes when we try to big picture, we lose sight of these early timeline decisions. Tanking got the Leafs Matthews. There is no reasonable argument whatsoever that tanking specifically failed them. If you think that generation of Leafs failed, the fault is elsewhere in the string.

 

[freakydallas13]

Every team that gets beyond Round 2 has the hockey gods shining on them. Every team. Every year.

Set aside where we disagree on the Leafs. Toronto is the best possible example of how a plan can work and it still might not produce results anyone wants in the playoffs. Sometimes when we try to big picture, we lose sight of these early timeline decisions. Tanking got the Leafs Matthews. There is no reasonable argument whatsoever that tanking specifically failed them. If you think that generation of Leafs failed, the fault is elsewhere in the string.

It confuses me when people have this anti-tanking agenda and justify it by saying even teams that got great players are failures.

Getting top talent is what tanking gets you, winning the cup is a whole different issue. Winning a cup is easier when you have top talent, but it'a not a guarantee. It's a combination of luck and roster building, no matter the method you used to get those top players. Saying a team like Toronto tanking was a failure because it got them Mathews but no cup is bonkers, and I'm glad you brought this up because it drives me nuts reading it again and again.

 

[BernieParent]

It confuses me when people have this anti-tanking agenda and justify it by saying even teams that got great players are failures.

Getting top talent is what tanking gets you, winning the cup is a whole different issue. Winning a cup is easier when you have top talent, but it'a not a guarantee. It's a combination of luck and roster building, no matter the method you used to get those top players. Saying a team like Toronto tanking was a failure because it got them Mathews but no cup is bonkers, and I'm glad you brought this up because it drives me nuts reading it again and again.

This is an excellent argument against the Flyers tanking because they would have to do the rest of the player development and roster building.

"Curses, foiled again!"

Best to just get occasionally lucky, promise everything at once, have a coach who is known for early-season success with meh rosters to generate interest in the fan base, keep the nostalgia money train running, and maybe get some sweet 1st-round revenue every few seasons.

 

[trostol]

It confuses me when people have this anti-tanking agenda and justify it by saying even teams that got great players are failures.

Getting top talent is what tanking gets you, winning the cup is a whole different issue. Winning a cup is easier when you have top talent, but it'a not a guarantee. It's a combination of luck and roster building, no matter the method you used to get those top players. Saying a team like Toronto tanking was a failure because it got them Mathews but no cup is bonkers, and I'm glad you brought this up because it drives me nuts reading it again and again.

what bugs me in this line is they also believe that rebuilding means tanking...

 

[Curufinwe]

Not only do the Flyers not tank, they actively try to stay mediocre by extending depth veterans.

It's genuinely funny that in the past year when they were being called on to trade 30 year old Laughton to show they were serious about rebuilding, they said they couldn't do that because his intangibles were so valuable, AND they also handed out six more combined years to a #5 dman and a 4th liner.

So barring any trades or further extensions, Laughton is here till 2026, Hathaway till 2027 and Seeler till 2028.

 

[Chicken N Raffls]

what bugs me in this line is they also believe that rebuilding means tanking...

Or that tanking means stripping the team bare and sucking for years in hopes of a miracle savior. It's hockey, it takes much more than one guy.

A perfect example is the Flyers. They could have "tanked" last year simply by trading Laughton and TK before the season. That's it. No "firesale", just gain future assets for those two, and also ensure you finish worse in the standings. But nooooo.

The annoying part is the reason the Flyers don't tank isn't even that they think it doesn't work.

 

[deadhead]

Every team that gets beyond Round 2 has the hockey gods shining on them. Every team. Every year.

Set aside where we disagree on the Leafs. Toronto is the best possible example of how a plan can work and it still might not produce results anyone wants in the playoffs. Sometimes when we try to big picture, we lose sight of these early timeline decisions. Tanking got the Leafs Matthews. There is no reasonable argument whatsoever that tanking specifically failed them. If you think that generation of Leafs failed, the fault is elsewhere in the string.

My point is even when tanking succeeds, most of the time you end up no better than Carolina or Dallas have been the last decade.
Would you say Toronto has been considered a better bet to win a Cup during that period?

Dallas had one pick in the top ten (Heiskanen).
Carolina turned it around without tanking, BrinkA'mour established structure and 6 straight POs and two CF appearances.
Before that they inadvertently tanked (just bad management, not design).
Four of their top ten picks were "wasted," and they still won:
#7 Skinner, #5 Lindholm, #7 Fleury, #5 Hanifin. (traded for Hamilton and let him walk).
Only top ten pick on roster, #2 Svechnikov. Career high is 79 points.

Point is what matters is a competent plan, that's competently implemented.
Build a top 8 team, compete year after year and hope the Hockey Gods smile upon you one season.

 

[deadhead]

Or that tanking means stripping the team bare and sucking for years in hopes of a miracle savior. It's hockey, it takes much more than one guy.

A perfect example is the Flyers. They could have "tanked" last year simply by trading Laughton and TK before the season. That's it. No "firesale", just gain future assets for those two, and also ensure you finish worse in the standings. But nooooo.

The annoying part is the reason the Flyers don't tank isn't even that they think it doesn't work.
View attachment 901229

They would have gotten a 1st, (2) 2nds and some minor assets.
They still wouldn't have finished in the top 5, the 5 teams ahead of them were really bad.

And who knows how that impacts the development of young players - see all the players on Buffalo who blossomed once they got out of a toxic, losing environment.
Heck, look at Zacha on NJ v Zacha on Boston.

 

[trostol]

My point is even when tanking succeeds, most of the time you end up no better than Carolina or Dallas have been the last decade.
Would you say Toronto has been considered a better bet to win a Cup during that period?

Dallas had one pick in the top ten (Heiskanen).
Carolina turned it around without tanking, BrinkA'mour established structure and 6 straight POs and two CF appearances.
Before that they inadvertently tanked (just bad management, not design).
Four of their top ten picks were "wasted," and they still won:
#7 Skinner, #5 Lindholm, #7 Fleury, #5 Hanifin. (traded for Hamilton and let him walk).
Only top ten pick on roster, #2 Svechnikov. Career high is 79 points.

Point is what matters is a competent plan, that's competently implemented.
Build a top 8 team, compete year after year and hope the Hockey Gods smile upon you one season.

of which, and what we have continued to complain about, the Flyers do not have

 

[Chicken N Raffls]

Pretty hard to have a competent plan when you lack competence.

Every team that gets beyond Round 2 has the hockey gods shining on them. Every team. Every year.

Set aside where we disagree on the Leafs. Toronto is the best possible example of how a plan can work and it still might not produce results anyone wants in the playoffs. Sometimes when we try to big picture, we lose sight of these early timeline decisions. Tanking got the Leafs Matthews. There is no reasonable argument whatsoever that tanking specifically failed them. If you think that generation of Leafs failed, the fault is elsewhere in the string.

Nah, playoff success is quote simple.
GET
SWOLL

Best to just get occasionally lucky, promise everything at once, have a coach who is known for early-season success with meh rosters to generate interest in the fan base, keep the nostalgia money train running, and maybe get some sweet 1st-round revenue every few seasons.

You're hired.
-Flyers FO

 

[JojoTheWhale]

My point is even when tanking succeeds, most of the time you end up no better than Carolina or Dallas have been the last decade.
Would you say Toronto has been considered a better bet to win a Cup during that period?

Dallas had one pick in the top ten (Heiskanen).
Carolina turned it around without tanking, BrinkA'mour established structure and 6 straight POs and two CF appearances.
Before that they inadvertently tanked (just bad management, not design).
Four of their top ten picks were "wasted," and they still won:
#7 Skinner, #5 Lindholm, #7 Fleury, #5 Hanifin. (traded for Hamilton and let him walk).
Only top ten pick on roster, #2 Svechnikov. Career high is 79 points.

Point is what matters is a competent plan, that's competently implemented.
Build a top 8 team, compete year after year and hope the Hockey Gods smile upon you one season.

Agreed completely on the plan and the implementation being the ultimate point.

But why is inadvertent tanking materially different when speaking toward the viability as a step in your journey? Even the ultimate cornucopia of depth modern Cup (05-06 Canes) team finished with the worst record in the league a couple of years prior.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

My point is even when tanking succeeds, most of the time you end up no better than Carolina or Dallas have been the last decade.
Would you say Toronto has been considered a better bet to win a Cup during that period?

Dallas had one pick in the top ten (Heiskanen).
Carolina turned it around without tanking, BrinkA'mour established structure and 6 straight POs and two CF appearances.
Before that they inadvertently tanked (just bad management, not design).
Four of their top ten picks were "wasted," and they still won:
#7 Skinner, #5 Lindholm, #7 Fleury, #5 Hanifin. (traded for Hamilton and let him walk).
Only top ten pick on roster, #2 Svechnikov. Career high is 79 points.

Point is what matters is a competent plan, that's competently implemented.
Build a top 8 team, compete year after year and hope the Hockey Gods smile upon you one season.

The Flyers don't have one of those as the organization is ran by incompetent people.

 

[Chicken N Raffls]

They would have gotten a 1st, (2) 2nds and some minor assets.
They still wouldn't have finished in the top 5, the 5 teams ahead of them were really bad.

And who knows how that impacts the development of young players - see all the players on Buffalo who blossomed once they got out of a toxic, losing environment.
Heck, look at Zacha on NJ v Zacha on Boston.

Sure, probably not top 5, but better than they ended up. Maybe if the pick 3 spots higher, they don't reach on a guy. Maybe they can package those extra assets to move up. Who knows. But the little things add up.

I think the losing culture thing is overrated. Didn't stop teams like Colorado and Chicago from becoming top teams. You know what I'd bet is a fun environment for young players? Playing with other young, talented players even if the team is not winning as much as you'd like. Also playing for an org that seems to value you, instead of putting you through trials and tribulations to "earn" your time over wasted up vets. Besides, I thought TORTS was a development guru who gets the most out of mediocre rosters. I think the young guys would have.been just fine.

 

[flyersnorth]

Sure, probably not top 5, but better than they ended up. Maybe if the pick 3 spots higher, they don't reach on a guy. Maybe they can package those extra assets to move up. Who knows. But the little things add up.

I think the losing culture thing is overrated. Didn't stop teams like Colorado and Chicago from becoming top teams. You know what I'd bet is a fun environment for young players? Playing with other young, talented players even if the team is not winning as much as you'd like. Also playing for an org that seems to value you, instead of putting you through trials and tribulations to "earn" your time over wasted up vets. Besides, I thought TORTS was a development guru who gets the most out of mediocre rosters. I think the young guys would have.been just fine.

I really do think the Flyers blew the opportunities they've had when drafting high. #2, #5, and #7 overall should be solid enough to give you some major pieces to build around.

None of those picks play for the Flyers.

 

[freakydallas13]

Why tank and end up like the failure Dallas Stars (cup final appearance, always a threat, multiple conference finals) when you could be the successful Philadelphia Flyers (one playoff series win in 12 years) instead?

Great argument. No notes.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Why tank and end up like the failure Dallas Stars (cup final appearance, always a threat, multiple conference finals) when you could be the successful Philadelphia Flyers (one playoff series win in 12 years) instead?

Great argument. No notes.

Let's see how Dallas would be looking if they picked Nolan Patrick and the Flyers picked Heiskanen.

Nevertheless, Dallas has been buoyed by great later drafting:

Robertson at 39
Wyatt Johnston at 23
Hintz at 49

They are not a team that tanked to success.

 

[freakydallas13]

Let's see how Dallas would be looking if they picked Nolan Patrick and the Flyers picked Heiskanen.

Nevertheless, Dallas has been buoyed by great later drafting:

Robertson at 39
Wyatt Johnston at 23
Hintz at 49

They are not a team that tanked to success.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with Deadhead who thinks tanking teams end up no better than the Dallas Stars.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

NM

 

[deadhead]

Agreed completely on the plan and the implementation being the ultimate point.

But why is inadvertent tanking materially different when speaking toward the viability as a step in your journey? Even the ultimate cornucopia of depth modern Cup (05-06 Canes) team finished with the worst record in the league a couple of years prior.

Inadvertent tanking lowers the stakes for new management, expectations get so low that they have a free path to making drastic changes, a "honeymoon" period. Players will accept anything, and the owners gave already seen sales plummet. And it only takes one or two deals to hit rock bottom (or often a fortuitous injury).

To tank a mediocre team takes a lot of work, you may have stars with NMCs, good young players that make it hard to be really bad, and so on. I mean you're trying to turn a 85-90 point team into a 50-60 point team, that's hard to do overnight. So 2-3 years tearing it down, 3-4 years in the bottom ten, then 2-3 years building it up to a SC contender. 7-10 years of futility, with no guarantee that you'll even garner a franchise player (Rangers got Lafreniere and Kukko with #1 and #2).

If all that pain doesn't give you a better shot than rebuilding without tanking, what's the point?

Flyers had two shots to "tank", after the Carter/Richards trade and after 2018-19.

By the time Briere took over, the team was firmly ensconced in mediocrity, too much talent to hit rock bottom, not enough quality veterans with expiring contracts to easily clear house (Rangers had a bunch of guys on their last season).

At this point, it makes sense to build on what they have, check back in three years, if it doesn't work, the new GM will have plenty of assets to add a new wave of young talent will taking a step back for a couple years (i.e trade the guys in their mid-20s for draft picks and guys in low 20s and draft high).

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Inadvertent tanking lowers the stakes for new management, expectations get so low that they have a free path to making drastic changes, a "honeymoon" period. Players will accept anything, and the owners gave already seen sales plummet. And it only takes one or two deals to hit rock bottom (or often a fortuitous injury).

To tank a mediocre team takes a lot of work, you may have stars with NMCs, good young players that make it hard to be really bad, and so on. I mean you're trying to turn a 85-90 point team into a 50-60 point team, that's hard to do overnight. So 2-3 years tearing it down, 3-4 years in the bottom ten, then 2-3 years building it up to a SC contender. 7-10 years of futility, with no guarantee that you'll even garner a franchise player (Rangers got Lafreniere and Kukko with #1 and #2).

If all that pain doesn't give you a better shot than rebuilding without tanking, what's the point?

Flyers had two shots to "tank", after the Carter/Richards trade and after 2018-19.

By the time Briere took over, the team was firmly ensconced in mediocrity, too much talent to hit rock bottom, not enough quality veterans with expiring contracts to easily clear house (Rangers had a bunch of guys on their last season).

At this point, it makes sense to build on what they have, check back in three years, if it doesn't work, the new GM will have plenty of assets to add a new wave of young talent will taking a step back for a couple years (i.e trade the guys in their mid-20s for draft picks and guys in low 20s and draft high).

I think you overestimate what it takes to get significantly better draft position.

75 Points last year gives you the 5th best lottery odds. That's a 17%+ chance to pick top 2 and an ~85.8% chance to pick in the top 6. 6OA assuredly puts you in a completely different tier of talent unless something absurd happens (and then you pass on it anyway).

 

[deadhead]

Two years ago 68 got you #5, 75 got you #7.
Three years 63 got you #5, 75 got you #8.

So you really have to aim for 65 or so to have a good shot at top 5, and less than 60 to have a good shot at #1-3.

There are times when a new GM should tank, when you take over an old team that dumped a lot of young assets trying to patch their way to the playoffs one more time and the cup board is empty. In that case, there's nothing to rebuild with, and tearing it down is the best strategy. The Penguins in a couple seasons, the Bruins if their luck runs out, etc.

 

[sauce88]

Two years ago 68 got you #5, 75 got you #7.
Three years 63 got you #5, 75 got you #8.

So you really have to aim for 65 or so to have a good shot at top 5, and less than 60 to have a good shot at #1-3.

There are times when a new GM should tank, when you take over an old team that dumped a lot of young assets trying to patch their way to the playoffs one more time and the cup board is empty. In that case, there's nothing to rebuild with, and tearing it down is the best strategy. The Penguins in a couple seasons, the Bruins if their luck runs out, etc.

I think before this past season Briere had another opportunity. He had a perfect storm to make the team worse to get better in the long run. He drafted Michkov, giving him a three year clock to surround him with talent and talent of similar age, which buys him time with the fans and media.
I believe he had knowledge of the Hart situation prior to the season starting, so now to put the Flyers close to that point range, he only needed to trade TK and Laughton and not have Tortorella as the coach. Those three moves alone probably guarantee a top 6-8 selection.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

My point is even when tanking succeeds, most of the time you end up no better than Carolina or Dallas have been the last decade.
Would you say Toronto has been considered a better bet to win a Cup during that period?

Dallas had one pick in the top ten (Heiskanen).
Carolina turned it around without tanking, BrinkA'mour established structure and 6 straight POs and two CF appearances.
Before that they inadvertently tanked (just bad management, not design).
Four of their top ten picks were "wasted," and they still won:
#7 Skinner, #5 Lindholm, #7 Fleury, #5 Hanifin. (traded for Hamilton and let him walk).
Only top ten pick on roster, #2 Svechnikov. Career high is 79 points.

Point is what matters is a competent plan, that's competently implemented.
Build a top 8 team, compete year after year and hope the Hockey Gods smile upon you one season.

Do you have faith the Flyers holy trinity can be competent and have a competent plan?