Would you rather...

[icehole]

Be guaranteed a championship in 8 years but you have to be bad (bottom of the league/miss playoffs) for the first 5 years

Or

Consistantly make the playoffs every year and have a slight chance to win the championship

I tend to agree that the team needs to build through the draft and start developing players, but is this what we signed up for? Did we think this team would be this bad for 3 of 4 years now?

I often hear people complain about the team trying to trade for a big name or sign a big name in free agency because the team shouldnt waste money and picks on those big deafts...they shouldnt go for it every season...they need to use their draft picks in the draft and not trade them. Is that the best plan.

I dont know about you guy, but I would much rather go back to the days of making the playoffs every year and having a slight chance of winning it all. Even this current plan doesnt give them that much more of a chance to win than they had before, but this plan comes with a lot of mysery too.

[Lindbergh31]

Be guaranteed a championship in 8 years but you have to be bad (bottom of the league/miss playoffs) for the first 5 years

Or

Consistantly make the playoffs every year and have a slight chance to win the championship

I tend to agree that the team needs to build through the draft and start developing players, but is this what we signed up for? Did we think this team would be this bad for 3 of 4 years now?

I often hear people complain about the team trying to trade for a big name or sign a big name in free agency because the team shouldnt waste money and picks on those big deafts...they shouldnt go for it every season...they need to use their draft picks in the draft and not trade them. Is that the best plan.

I dont know about you guy, but I would much rather go back to the days of making the playoffs every year and having a slight chance of winning it all. Even this current plan doesnt give them that much more of a chance to win than they had before, but this plan comes with a lot of mysery too.

I'd take the guaranteed championship in 8 years even if you had to miss the playoffs in the first 5 years. As a Flyers fan, I've lived the past 40 years being close to a championship and not see them win another cup (I was 8 when they won in '75), I'd like to see them win another cup before I die!  Hell Chicago Blackhawks went thru lean years gathering players like Toews, Keith, Seabrook and Kane before they won their 1st championship since 1961 when they won it in 2010, but they have the nucleus to contend and win other cups (2013 & 2015). So the old saying of "short term pain for long-term gain".

[activestick]

A

[Poulin20]

Since nothing in sports is Guaranteed if I am offered a guarantee to win it all in my lifetime I am taking that every time...

 

OK now since that is just hypothetical lets talk about the current situation.  In the pre-salary cap NHL I would be OK with going for it once in a while and taking the big risk trading some of our prospects but in the new NHL we simply can't do that anymore as you see with Vinny, when you take a big chance on a player that doesnt work  you cant just cut bait and move on there are punishing consequences that affect the whole roster over the long term, which we are living through.  

 

Believe me I hate watching them suck this bad (I see it in person most of the time), but if we want to win in the system that has been set up by the NHL (which I completely disagree with as I am a free market advocate and wish the NHL would be more hands off) we have to play their game otherwise we will never win again.  I will take short term pain in exchange for long term gain if we can establish a deep farm that keeps producing year after year (ala the St. Louis Cards) and enables with long term sustainable winning.  There is no guarantee Hexy will pull this off and that he will build a winner but I think we have to let him try for if we chose the other way we are almost guaranteed to lose forever as the system is set up that way. 

[radoran]

I dont know about you guy, but I would much rather go back to the days of making the playoffs every year and having a slight chance of winning it all. Even this current plan doesnt give them that much more of a chance to win than they had before, but this plan comes with a lot of mysery too.

 

Honestly, there's no reason that the Flyers as an organization shouldn't be able to "make the playoffs every year" and "rebuild" at the same time. An "off year" for the franchise - as I've said many times - should be a 7/8 seed.

 

That has changed a bit with the new division formats and the Flyers being in the toughest division in organized sport, but with their resources they should be able to overcome that.

 

That said, when you have a guy make cap-crippling decisions like VLC and MacDonald, it can have long term effects. And both of those moves were made in the "go for it" mode.

[icehole]

I'd take the guaranteed championship in 8 years even if you had to miss the playoffs in the first 5 years. As a Flyers fan, I've lived the past 40 years being close to a championship and not see them win another cup (I was 8 when they won in '75), I'd like to see them win another cup before I die! Hell Chicago Blackhawks went thru lean years gathering players like Toews, Keith, Seabrook and Kane before they won their 1st championship since 1961 when they won it in 2010, but they have the nucleus to contend and win other cups (2013 & 2015). So the old saying of "short term pain for long-term gain".

I believe Chicago was bad just because the different GMs made some bad decisions. By accident, they ended up with some good players but they were also smart enough to pick up guys like Hossa and Sharp to put around Kane and Toews.

I love hockey. I like being entertained from october to april/may/june. I had that on a regular basis from the time I was 15 until the time I was 32. I dont like not having that for three years now. I did state "guaranteed" a championship. How much more of a chance do you have winning a championship with Ghost, Koneckney, Provorov, Giroux, Voracek, and Simmonds than you did with Carter, Richards, Briere, Hartnel, Giroux, Pronger, and Timonen. Flyers were two games from a cup in 2010. Is the new plan guaranteed to get them 2 more wins?

We all know of Homer's mistakes but didnt he make some good moves that put them in the mix year after year and almost won a championship?

[icehole]

Also, I dont believe Homer's pholosophy was that bad. He just picked the wrong guy sometimes and he wasnt able to negotiate a contract that would benefit the team long term.

[briere48]

Be guaranteed a championship in 8 years but you have to be bad (bottom of the league/miss playoffs) for the first 5 years

Or

Consistantly make the playoffs every year and have a slight chance to win the championship

I tend to agree that the team needs to build through the draft and start developing players, but is this what we signed up for? Did we think this team would be this bad for 3 of 4 years now?

I often hear people complain about the team trying to trade for a big name or sign a big name in free agency because the team shouldnt waste money and picks on those big deafts...they shouldnt go for it every season...they need to use their draft picks in the draft and not trade them. Is that the best plan.

I dont know about you guy, but I would much rather go back to the days of making the playoffs every year and having a slight chance of winning it all. Even this current plan doesnt give them that much more of a chance to win than they had before, but this plan comes with a lot of mysery too.

 

 

i would rather just go for it now but not by overpaying players in fa just making trades for proven players and sign free agents to bridge deals. that's how la got over the top. they made trades and sign free agents to bridge deals.

[Bertmega]

Last time somebody asked me a "would you rather question", it involved a part of my anatomy, a cheese grater, and Whoopi Goldberg. 

 

Anyhow, the guaranteed championship seems better to me. 

[radoran]

Also, I dont believe Homer's pholosophy was that bad. He just picked the wrong guy sometimes and he wasnt able to negotiate a contract that would benefit the team long term.

 

He did four of them, I'd say - Timonen, Hartnell and Briere early and Simmonds. The first three turned out great for the team long term - and the Briere contract was IMO always structured to have the last two years bought out. Simmonds is playing for well below value of a winger who has three 28/29 goals seasons.

 

One might also say that the current Hartnell deal isn't a bad one for a LW that potted 28 goals last year and has seven in 16 games this season. It's just that he's playing in Columbus.

 

And you could likely throw in Crater's deal (which is pretty darn good value for a consistent 25+ goal scorer).

 

But he jumped the shark in a serious way with the Bryzgalov deal - a brobdignagian screwup - and then the VLC/MacDonald deals. The Pronger deal also wasn't really that great, given the 35+ nature of it and the likelihood of injury.

 

There's a significant amount of risk/reward at work and when the risk doesn't go your way it can be worse than the reward can be "good."

 

You also have to factor in not signing Carle/Jagr, the ridiculous Eminger trade, "best hockey mind" coach, JVR for LSchenn, etc. and the "uncertainty" that currently exists with Giroux's long term deal (despite having more points than anyone else over a period of time chosen until it's not true any more).

 

There really hasn't been a "hired gun" team that has had significant playoff success since the 04-05 lockout. The "way" seems to be a solid core of drafted/traded players and some timely FA additions.

[murraycraven]

the ridiculous Eminger trade,

 

thanks...  I was so close to actually forgetting that one...ugh

[Podein25]

...a brobdignagian screwup...

 

 

Finally someone is using language that I understand!

 

You also have to factor in not signing Carle/Jagr,

 

 

Yes.

[icehole]

He did four of them, I'd say - Timonen, Hartnell and Briere early and Simmonds. The first three turned out great for the team long term - and the Briere contract was IMO always structured to have the last two years bought out. Simmonds is playing for well below value of a winger who has three 28/29 goals seasons.

One might also say that the current Hartnell deal isn't a bad one for a LW that potted 28 goals last year and has seven in 16 games this season. It's just that he's playing in Columbus.

And you could likely throw in Crater's deal (which is pretty darn good value for a consistent 25+ goal scorer).

But he jumped the shark in a serious way with the Bryzgalov deal - a brobdignagian screwup - and then the VLC/MacDonald deals. The Pronger deal also wasn't really that great, given the 35+ nature of it and the likelihood of injury.

There's a significant amount of risk/reward at work and when the risk doesn't go your way it can be worse than the reward can be "good."

You also have to factor in not signing Carle/Jagr, the ridiculous Eminger trade, "best hockey mind" coach, JVR for LSchenn, etc. and the "uncertainty" that currently exists with Giroux's long term deal (despite having more points than anyone else over a period of time chosen until it's not true any more).

There really hasn't been a "hired gun" team that has had significant playoff success since the 04-05 lockout. The "way" seems to be a solid core of drafted/traded players and some timely FA additions.

Bryz hurt them. They were desparate for a goalie so they gave a huge deal to a guy they "heard" was the best available. I dont mind the Pronger signing at all. Nobody could expect a freak eye injury. He would likely be overpayed toward the end of his deal considering his age, but he would have helped them for another 2 or 3 years.

I dont think you can say that "hired gun" hasnt worked. The flyers were having success from '07 to '12. Even that '06 team should have been better with that lineup. The kings made a few huge deals to get their cup. I also think the teams that got close to a cup did so by making risky moves. The devils made that Kovi deal. That doesnt look great now but that's because Kovi just left. The rangers also made risky moves and they seem to be good.

[briere48]

Bryz hurt them. They were desparate for a goalie so they gave a huge deal to a guy they "heard" was the best available. I dont mind the Pronger signing at all. Nobody could expect a freak eye injury. He would likely be overpayed toward the end of his deal considering his age, but he would have helped them for another 2 or 3 years.

I dont think you can say that "hired gun" hasnt worked. The flyers were having success from '07 to '12. Even that '06 team should have been better with that lineup. The kings made a few huge deals to get their cup. I also think the teams that got close to a cup did so by making risky moves. The devils made that Kovi deal. That doesnt look great now but that's because Kovi just left. The rangers also made risky moves and they seem to be good.

 

that's where things went wrong after 2010, homer got desperate and started overpaying players  not only hurt the cap but they also had no room to sign proven depth players, which is what i believe hurt this team long term. im being honest i was desperate for a goalie in that time, i thought it was the right move, but after what the kings and blackhawks did to win championships. you dont need to overpay players to win a championship.

 

relying on drafted players is very risky because you have no clue on how it's going to turn out, it's better to have proven depth players on bridge deals then having young players that cant play and ruin your team. that's why i dont like hextall's way of doing it in my opinion.

[Podein25]

...relying on drafted players is very risky...

 

 

Yeah, that's how Chicago avoided losing 3 Stanley Cups in 5 years.   

[radoran]

I dont think you can say that "hired gun" hasnt worked.

Well, "hasn't worked" in terms of a cup winner.

 

LA is exactly the formulation I described about adding the right FA/trade at the right time. But the better part of that roster - including key players like Quick, Doughty, Kopitar, Brown - were home grown.

 

You cite the Flyers period which I referenced with the Timonen/Hartnell/Briere folks.

 

That doesnt look great now but that's because Kovi just left.

 

Sure, and that's what I mean about risk-reward. They got to a Final, sure, and then their team was pretty much gutted.

 

Also, like the Flyers when they got there in 2010 - and lost to a team that built with a solid home grown core and added a couple pieces (Hossa, etc.) at the right time. I'd include Sharp, for example, as a player that Chicago "grew" as opposed to the FLyers. I don't mean to say that the ONLY way to get young talent is through the draft - but it's identifying it and running with it.

 

The rangers also made risky moves and they seem to be good.

 

And, again, they have a solid homegrown D core of Staal/Girardi/McDonough, a homegrown goalie in Lundqvist. Add in Stepan and you've got a team that went out and added St. Louis, Nash, etc.

 

When you look at the Cup winners they aren't in the "chasing the dragon" mode of roster building every year, they're adding significant pieces to a set core.

 

And, of course, there's no guarantee that even that process works. But the evidence seems to point to it being successful more than the "ooh! shiny!" process of roster building.

 

And, with that, I go with @Poulin20. If there was a way to guarantee a win by being terrible, one takes the guarantee. In the absence of a godlike prescience, I think growing a stable of productive players has proven more effective.

[icehole]

that's where things went wrong after 2010, homer got desperate and started overpaying players not only hurt the cap but they also had no room to sign proven depth players, which is what i believe hurt this team long term. im being honest i was desperate for a goalie in that time, i thought it was the right move, but after what the kings and blackhawks did to win championships. you dont need to overpay players to win a championship.

relying on drafted players is very risky because you have no clue on how it's going to turn out, it's better to have proven depth players on bridge deals then having young players that cant play and ruin your team. that's why i dont like hextall's way of doing it in my opinion.

I think you might be right. We might look at Hextal as being a genius in 3 or 4 years but all of these moves could also not turn out so well. I think the most likely scenario is that these picks turn out pretty well and the Flyers go deep into competing for a championship. That's where they were at under Homer for many years without the mysery of being really bad for a few years. So I really dont understand being bad to get better.

I think you can make a case that Homer screwed up so bad and Hextal is just doing his best job to clean up this mess. In that case, I would want Hextal to start signing some nice vets to surround his youth movement by next year.

[radoran]

I think you might be right. We might look at Hextal as being a genius in 3 or 4 years but all of these moves could also not turn out so well. I think the most likely scenario is that these picks turn out pretty well and the Flyers go deep into competing for a championship. That's where they were at under Homer for many years without the mysery of being really bad for a few years. So I really dont understand being bad to get better.

I think you can make a case that Homer screwed up so bad and Hextal is just doing his best job to clean up this mess. In that case, I would want Hextal to start signing some nice vets to surround his youth movement by next year.

 

I think that the 07-10 run is the type of run I was talking about. Crater, Richards, Giroux, Gagne, JVR bolstered by Timonen/Hartnell/Briere and the reclamation project of Matt Carle plus Pronger at the end.

 

But, in terms of being "bad" - that team did fail to qualify for the playoffs in 06-07 with the worst record in franchise history.

 

And the primary "reason" that they are "bad" right now are the terrible contracts that Homer got while chasing the dragon.

 

As I've also said before, Homer had a plan and he was executing it.

 

Until he wasn't - and blew up the whole team.

 

Again, I don't believe they need to be absolutely terrible in order to revamp the team. That's a consequence of the risk - and it's worse than the 2010 Finals "reward" was.

[aziz]

Yeah, that's how Chicago avoided losing 3 Stanley Cups in 5 years.   

 

 

did you think that somehow counters the comment that building through the draft is risky?  for every chicago that has won that way, i can point at dozens of teams that have gone that route and come up short.  generally, painfully and permanently short.  think about all of the small market teams that have *had* to rely on the draft to build their cores, and tell me how many have won cups versus have been doormats year after year to no payoff.

 

the reality is that the flyers could swallow their wallet, turn valuable but under-producing players into picks and prospects, be patient and leave a presumptive core intact for years and years, grow the team around them, and with youth and potential...and find themselves ten years from now still a shitty team.  the oilers haven't seen the playoffs in 9 years.  carolina, 6.  winnipeg/atlanta have *never* won a playoff series, and neither has columbus.  teams that are *not* players in the free agent market and aren't hugely active in constantly trading away picks/prospects, well, that's half the league, isn't it?  the quiet also-rans that never really make much noise until they come up for the decennial firesale of their pile of prospects that didn't work out, so they can embark on another decade of failure and rebuilding. 

 

 

 

so, yeah, chicago on one side of the results-ledger for running slim for a long time and building to championships.  pittsburgh did, too.  the kings, mostly.  anahiem, i guess.  now, the other side of that ledger:  pretty much half of the teams in the league, every season.  

[flyercanuck]

Philly made the finals in 2010. There are Leaf fans on this board who haven't seen their team in the finals since 1967. Cry me a river. 

 

I'll take the championship, all day, every day. I've seen the Flyers lose enough last games in the playoffs. It just doesn't wow me anymore. Heck,  we've seen them lose in the finals 6 times since winning a cup. Yeehaw! 

[radoran]

so, yeah, chicago on one side of the results-ledger for running slim for a long time and building to championships. pittsburgh did, too. the kings, mostly. anahiem, i guess. now, the other side of that ledger: pretty much half of the teams in the league, every season.

 

So, essentially, every Cup winner since the lockout and imposition of the salary cap?

 

How many have won doing it the "Flyer way" (perjorative) of chasing the big name FAs to "compete for the Stanley Cup" every season in that period?

[Podein25]

So, essentially, every Cup winner since the lockout and imposition of the salary cap?

 

 

  @aziz - this ↑

[aziz]

So, essentially, every Cup winner since the lockout and imposition of the salary cap?

 

yes, every cup winner since the lockout and the imposition of the salary cap, except for almost half of them.  detroit, boston, carolina all had rosters heavily dependent on imported players.  as did pittsburgh, chicago and LA, of course, but not as much.

 

that isn't even the point, though.  teams that sit at the bottom of the pile year after year stay at the bottom way more often than they rise proportionate to their high draft picks and retention of drafted prospects.  every few years, one of those long time bottom feeders does something right and makes its way into the ranks of competitive teams.  every few years, and sometimes it even lasts for more than a season or two.  the idea that it is THE way you win cups, though, that if you can keep yourself crappy and hold on to your picks and prospects long enough, your team will eventually become a powerhouse...that just isn't true.  sometimes it works out like that.  usually, it just means your team will needlessly suck for a long time.  holding up examples of the rare occasions it worked out as some kind of proof of a rule is disingenuous.  if the flyers go that route, if they strip the team to the bone and go into asset collection mode, it is far more likely they join the swollen ranks of teams that have been doing that for years with no particular success than the relatively tiny group of 4 teams for whom it has paid off.

[briere48]

yes, every cup winner since the lockout and the imposition of the salary cap, except for almost half of them.  detroit, boston, carolina all had rosters heavily dependent on imported players.  as did pittsburgh, chicago and LA, of course, but not as much.

 

that isn't even the point, though.  teams that sit at the bottom of the pile year after year stay at the bottom way more often than they rise proportionate to their high draft picks and retention of drafted prospects.  every few years, one of those long time bottom feeders does something right and makes its way into the ranks of competitive teams.  every few years, and sometimes it even lasts for more than a season or two.  the idea that it is THE way you win cups, though, that if you can keep yourself crappy and hold on to your picks and prospects long enough, your team will eventually become a powerhouse...that just isn't true.  sometimes it works out like that.  usually, it just means your team will needlessly suck for a long time.  holding up examples of the rare occasions it worked out as some kind of proof of a rule is disingenuous.  if the flyers go that route, if they strip the team to the bone and go into asset collection mode, it is far more likely they join the swollen ranks of teams that have been doing that for years with no particular success than the relatively tiny group of 4 teams for whom it has paid off.

 

 

your right, after chicago drafted towes and kane, they never sat around to be bad to get good high draft picks, they actually made trades and got a few vets to help this team out so the team can start winning and not create a losing culture for towes and kane, they had some losing seasons but they werent never bad as the oilers or the hurricanes, that team was progressing each season every time they added pieces/proven players and they finally found a good coach in joel and that's when that team finally took off.

 

the flyers did the same thing, we didnt have high draft picks, homer surrounded richards and carter with proven depth players and they were always contending after that, until he decided to overpay like crazy on players after 2010 and all hell broke lose because we are relying on phantom players and not proven players. we dont have the cap space to spend on good depth players. that's what killing us now.

 

i hope for the sake of giroux and voraeck that hextall does the same thing when we do get the cap space, he makes good trades, good fa depth signings to help this team contend.

 

the last thing i want is hextall pulling a hinkie on the flyers.

[mojo1917]

 the idea that it is THE way you win cups, though, that if you can keep yourself crappy and hold on to your picks and prospects long enough, your team will eventually become a powerhouse...that just isn't true.  sometimes it works out like that.  usually, it just means your team will needlessly suck for a long time.  holding up examples of the rare occasions it worked out as some kind of proof of a rule is disingenuous.

 

this x 1000 nice post .

 

once you start losing, getting the loser stench off of you is difficult.

 

it's not just that a team sucks, they have to suck at the right time to get the great players....plus let's not talk about the **** ass luck involved where a second round pick turns into duncan keith...there is no "formula"  that doesn't involve some luck too.  We sucked and got JVR...how'd that work out ? we couldn't even suck right to get the first pick.  we're not good at sucking.