Rumor: Things Not Left Unsaid: Flyers Rumors & Media Mentions

[Redpath]

You and I can understand that easily, sure, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players to find it frustrating that a generally competitive season was conceded as a rebuilding year by management. I would love if the players could zoom in and zoom out like we can as fans (and like management should), but they can’t. The reward system is different, and there is a fine line between optimizing for the long term and cultivating a win-at-all-costs mentality, which is what we want from the players. It’s not an easy balance to want Tippett, Foerster, Frost, etc. to become hyper competitive winners in the NHL *and also* ask them to recognize that this year is a wash and they shouldn’t expect to do everything possible to win.

Just want to acknowledge the conflicting tension there, even if I agree your strategy is right in the overall arc of team building.

I'm sure players find it frustrating. Even Jonesy admitted in his PHLY interview the other week that, as a player, he would have had the same mentality of wanting to be rewarded for play.

My hang up is that it should not be sold to them as "a wash" of a season. They can still go make the playoffs without Seeler and Walker. If players can not look at trading Walker and Seeler as an acceptable part of the overarching rebuild rather than an admission to the season being a wash, then Torts and Briere have not done an adequate job of getting them on-board, which they claim they have. It would be maddening for Briere to balk on the grounds of rewarding players after all that has been said to the contrary.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

Gotta love the Panthers having the best record in the league and the worst 1st round pick the year we have their pick.

beaf***ingFlyer..

#maximumpain...

There’s saying that and then there’s doing it to the point of self-harm. Posturing is good. I don’t know if you follow the NBA, but I have major problems with the way the Raptors’ GM did exactly what it appears the Flyers may do in sticking to their valuations over what the market would provide. You can’t just get nothing for these guys when you’re not a contender. That’s the worst case scenario.

Seeler is separate other than the contract. In regard to a 1st vs a 2nd for Walker, it doesn’t matter. If the market will bear a 2, the discussion is not materially different from whether or not they should trade away a 2 for a Defenseman. I suspect you’d object to that more.

pssst this franchise will always do the worst case scenario..

its in their DNA..

#foundationalTitans and all that..

 

[Winston Wolf]

Guys, Briere is clearly leaking this info to Friedman to drive the acquisition prices up. Briere took a few classes at Wharton, what have you all done with your lives?

 

[Flyerfan4life]

1st round exits don’t mean squat and we’ve already been through them during the last “rebuild but not really”
2014 1st round exit
2015 DNQ
2016 1st round exit
2017 DNQ
2018 1st round exit
2019 DNQ

Those first round exits accomplished nothing save for putting a few million dollars in Comcast’s deep pockets. If the team had been properly blown up after 14-15 and a real rebuild begun, they likely would be at least a quality playoff team if not a contender by now.

3 years away from being 3 years away baby....

 

[TheKingPin]

These insiders get things wrong a TON. I’ll wait until it’s all said and done. Someone could up the bid on Laughton. I think Walker and Seeler go. They may pick players off waivers or as cap dumps that are still playable on this team.

I do wonder what it’s like to be a canes, florida fan.

 

[CapnZin]

These insiders get things wrong a TON. I’ll wait until it’s all said and done. Someone could up the bid on Laughton. I think Walker and Seeler go. They may pick players off waivers or as cap dumps that are still playable on this team.

I do wonder what it’s like to be a canes, florida fan.

Friedman was really high on the canes. He was talking about how they will not spend assets on a rental, but wonders if they break that this deadline. He said they put in a legitimate offer for Pettersson as they realize they’re a good goal scorer away from being a cup contender.

He thinks their prospect pool is top 3 in the league and will break their no rental approach to acquire Guentzel. He thinks adding him makes them a serious threat which I agree.

 

[GKJ]

Like in his late 20s/early 30s? The guy is almost 23

Would rather just go with Frost, he’s less expensive. But Zegras has a girlfriend who is huge on TikTok or something, so who is to say what’s more valuable?

 

[Adam Warlock]

FFS! Its always the same!

Im not even mad at the not selling part. Its the "adding a vet depth forward" part.

Like they just cant help themselves. They just have to double down on these f***ing bottom of the line up guys.

At least when Chuck added Thompson and Grant, the team had legit top line guys. They have said themselves they need high end talent. If youre gonna focus on the now... at least add what you need. The whole f***ing team is depth forwards....why do you need more???

Id honestly rather trade the fla pick for a top 6 guy.
.

 

[Random Forest]

1st round exits don’t mean squat and we’ve already been through them during the last “rebuild but not really”
2014 1st round exit
2015 DNQ
2016 1st round exit
2017 DNQ
2018 1st round exit
2019 DNQ

Those first round exits accomplished nothing save for putting a few million dollars in Comcast’s deep pockets. If the team had been properly blown up after 14-15 and a real rebuild begun, they likely would be at least a quality playoff team if not a contender by now.

I didn’t say that alone makes you a good team. But, yeah, if some of the 1st round exits were paired with shrewd asset management and a strategic vision, they absolutely would have been beneficial for the young players on those teams, no doubt. I’m just not going to concede that making the playoffs and giving valuable experience to young players is just a “whatever” in their career development. It’s not, and there’s a fine line between maximizing your long-term team building and maximizing the growth & development of your young core. All I am saying is that there is a tension there that should be recognized.

I'm sure players find it frustrating. Even Jonesy admitted in his PHLY interview the other week that, as a player, he would have had the same mentality of wanting to be rewarded for play.

My hang up is that it should not be sold to them as "a wash" of a season. They can still go make the playoffs without Seeler and Walker. If players can not look at trading Walker and Seeler as an acceptable part of the overarching rebuild rather than an admission to the season being a wash, then Torts and Briere have not done an adequate job of getting them on-board, which they claim they have. It would be maddening for Briere to balk on the grounds of rewarding players after all that has been said to the contrary.

You can communicate that message perfectly in substance and tone, and it wouldn’t matter. Trading your #3 defender is an active signal that this season is not a win-at-all cost season. And I agree that it shouldn’t be! We shouldn’t be buyers, and we shouldn’t be trying to win at all costs. But again, I’m just conveying that there is a tension between developing your players to have that mentality and executing on a long-term strategic plan.

It’s really easy to strike that balance passively, as they have been doing all year. You can say “we’re building for the future”, “we’re not going to fall in love with anybody”, etc., but that’s the easy part. It becomes a more delicate balance when you have to actively execute on that message, which is when it becomes at odds with what you want to convey to your players.

Again, I probably agree that it’s necessary to do that, but I just don’t want to gloss over the trade offs that you’re making in doing so. I certainly agree if you’re getting a 1st round pick for Walker. The question is at what point does the trade off become an open question? Like I said, I become squishier if the return is a late 2nd round pick, that’s all.

 

[WolfOfBroadStreet14]

I’m gonna save my reaction until after the deadline.

 

[Redpath]

You can communicate that message perfectly in substance and tone, and it wouldn’t matter. Trading your #3 defender is an active signal that this season is not a win-at-all cost season. And I agree that it shouldn’t be! We shouldn’t be buyers, and we shouldn’t be trying to win at all costs. But again, I’m just conveying that there is a tension between developing your players to have that mentality and executing on a long-term strategic plan.

It’s really easy to strike that balance passively, as they have been doing all year. You can say “we’re building for the future”, “we’re not going to fall in love with anybody”, etc., but that’s the easy part. It becomes a more delicate balance when you have to actively execute on that message, which is when it becomes at odds with what you want to convey to your players.

Again, I probably agree that it’s necessary to do that, but I just don’t want to gloss over the trade offs that you’re making in doing so. I certainly agree if you’re getting a 1st round pick for Walker. The question is at what point does the trade off become an open question?

Well of course, that is because it is not a win-at-all cost season! No tension should exist with the players where they have an inkling of thinking that this season is win-at-all costs. I would hope that players are smart enough to recognize that, this early in a rebuild, it is not a personal slight to sell off UFAs. I understand they want to have fun and enjoy a playoff run (Hell, I do too!), but I think they are aware enough to know A) what rebuilds entail and B) the Flyers are rebuilding.

I just don't see executing that plan as "at odds" with what they want to convey to the players. Briere, Jones, and Torts have been saying all season that that is what they've been conveying to the players: It's a rebuild, we can't fall in love with anyone, big picture, etc. And if, for some reason, that they can't execute on the plan because the message wasn't properly conveyed to players, then that would be their fault for putting themselves in a position where wires are crossed.

It's a fair question of Walker's value. Obviously I wouldn't sell him for a 7th. But a 2nd for Walker is quite easily a yes for me, and I have zero doubts he fetches that at minimum. There is also the question of Briere's negotiating capability in order to extract a 1st for Walker, which is something a talented GM finds a way to accomplish rather than come up empty handed.

 

[Striiker]

As we all already knew - but some refused to admit- they are not rebuilding.

 

[BritainStix]

I’m gonna save my reaction until after the deadline.

I'm in this boat.

I'm ready for some moves now. But there isn't much going on in the league. For the love of God, I really hope we have moved on under Briere and understand we really do need to sell.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

I don’t know but I don’t see Guentzel as a Carolina type of move. Pettersson absolutely fit their mo given how conscious they are on age curves & contract value. You’re talking a 25 year old to 29 year old there plus Pettersson is a legit superstar center. Guentzel is really good & first line caliber but he’s not at that level.

I doubt Carolina has an appetite for that contract extension given they’ve let better players walk before in similar age range (Hamilton) & if you’re not willing to extend him there’s no point in paying the trade asking price or anything close to it. I think even if the price comes down there on Guentzel it’s probably still a first rounder+ type of value. Carolina usually goes for the cheaper more efficient route than conventional thinking.

 

[Fire Tortorella]

FFS! Its always the same!

Im not even mad at the not selling part. Its the "adding a vet depth forward" part.

Like they just cant help themselves. They just have to double down on these f***ing bottom of the line up guys.

At least when Chuck added Thompson and Grant, the team had legit top line guys. They have said themselves they need high end talent. If youre gonna focus on the now... at least add what you need. The whole f***ing team is depth forwards....why do you need more???

Id honestly rather trade the fla pick for a top 6 guy.
.

What really grinds my gears about "adding a vet depth forward" is - where exactly is he going to play? LW 4th line instead of Deslauriers? At that point, why not just go with Lycksell, Atkinson, etc...

The only "vet depth forward" that possibly makes sense to me is a C with an expiring contract IF Laughton is moved, which seems unlikely.

 

[ponder719]

What really grinds my gears about "adding a vet depth forward" is - where exactly is he going to play? LW 4th line instead of Deslauriers? At that point, why not just go with Lycksell, Atkinson, etc...

The only "vet depth forward" that possibly makes sense to me is a C with an expiring contract IF Laughton is moved, which seems unlikely.

2C, when we trade Frost for him.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

I hope they get 2 centers at the trade deadline so we can do the Nate Thompson/Derek Grant thing again.

 

[Adam Warlock]

My guess is Torts called DB complaining about Brink and Lyksell and demaning a veteran option.

 

[ponder719]

The only "vet depth forward" that possibly makes sense to me is a C with an expiring contract IF Laughton is moved, which seems unlikely.

The way a vet depth forward makes sense to me is if it's someone with a troublesome contract, where we're getting that guy and assets for helping the other team clear the contract. If Tampa decided they wanted to make a move, for example, and needed to offload Sheary to do it, or Edmonton needed to dump Foegele to make space for a defenseman. That way, we're adding a vet depth guy they can sell to the team as reinforcements, when the actual prize would be the assets they're getting to take him on. I just doubt that's what Friedman was implying.

 

[Random Forest]

Well of course, that is because it is not a win-at-all cost season! No tension should exist with the players where they have an inkling of thinking that this season is win-at-all costs. I would hope that players are smart enough to recognize that, this early in a rebuild, it is not a personal slight to sell off UFAs. I understand they want to have fun and enjoy a playoff run (Hell, I do too!), but I think they are aware enough to know A) what rebuilds entail and B) the Flyers are rebuilding.

I just don't see executing that plan as "at odds" with what they want to convey to the players. Briere, Jones, and Torts have been saying all season that that is what they've been conveying to the players: It's a rebuild, we can't fall in love with anyone, big picture, etc. And if, for some reason, that they can't execute on the plan because the message wasn't properly conveyed to players, then that would be their fault for putting themselves in a position where wires are crossed.

It's a fair question of Walker's value. Obviously I wouldn't sell him for a 7th. But a 2nd for Walker is quite easily a yes for me, and I have zero doubts he fetches that at minimum. There is also the question of Briere's negotiating capability in order to extract a 1st for Walker, which is something a talented GM finds a way to accomplish rather than come up empty handed.

Yes, I said it’s not a win-at-all-cost season, nor should it be. I’m saying there’s a difference between acknowledging that fact passively, and actually conceding to the players that an X-round draft pick is prioritized over maximizing competitiveness in the playoffs. We can argue how much that can or should affect players, but there’s a real trade off there. I don’t love signaling to young players that winning is anything less than their first priority, even though I can also understand perfectly well that it shouldn’t be the first priority this year. I think young players develop better inside organizations that are obsessed with winning. That’s the contradiction that makes rebuilding tough in practice. You have to balance the need for long-term talent and roster building with the need to mold your key young players into competitive freaks.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I hope they get 2 centers at the trade deadline so we can do the Nate Thompson/Derek Grant thing again.

If it’s not a Center, I’m going to yell about that spurious can’t take a Winger logic in regard to Perreault.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

I'm in this boat.

I'm ready for some moves now. But there isn't much going on in the league. For the love of God, I really hope we have moved on under Briere and understand we really do need to sell.

#bucklein..

whispers in ear "cuz they havent moved on"...

 

[CapnZin]

the flyers are the type of poker player that giggles every time they have pocket face cards. Even worse, they get upset when people know what cards they’re playing with. If they can swing a rebuild on the fly, make a competitive playoff team, and build for the future in their 2 year timeline then pigs can fly.

 

[Redpath]

Yes, I said it’s not a win-at-all-cost season, nor should it be. I’m saying there’s a difference between acknowledging that fact passively, and actually conceding to the players that an X-round draft pick is prioritized over maximizing competitiveness in the playoffs. We can argue how much that can or should affect players, but there’s a real trade off there. I don’t love signaling to young players that winning is anything less than their first priority, even though I can also understand perfectly well that it shouldn’t be the first priority this year. I think young players develop better inside organizations that are obsessed with winning. That’s the contradiction that makes rebuilding tough in practice. You have to balance the need for long-term talent and roster building with the need to mold your key young players into competitive freaks.

Sure, there is a difference between the passive language vs. the actual execution of the plan. But it's ultimately Briere's job to put up. Passive language about a rebuild is worthless if he doesn't execute on those plans.

They've already publicly and privately signaled, through their passive language, to the players that winning is not necessarily going to be the first priority this year. I just don't buy that hockey players, who know how rebuilds work, who have been warned of a rebuild, are going to lose long-term competitiveness when their team takes steps towards rebuilding. Plenty of other players around the league have ended up okay despite their team not always prioritizing winning.

 

[FlyerNutter]

Yes, I said it’s not a win-at-all-cost season, nor should it be. I’m saying there’s a difference between acknowledging that fact passively, and actually conceding to the players that an X-round draft pick is prioritized over maximizing competitiveness in the playoffs. We can argue how much that can or should affect players, but there’s a real trade off there. I don’t love signaling to young players that winning is anything less than their first priority, even though I can also understand perfectly well that it shouldn’t be the first priority this year. I think young players develop better inside organizations that are obsessed with winning. That’s the contradiction that makes rebuilding tough in practice. You have to balance the need for long-term talent and roster building with the need to mold your key young players into competitive freaks.

Where are the Flyers getting their high end talent from?