OH1FlyersFan

I'll just say that i would have like the 4.5mill x 5 he is bringing home on a #2 or #3 D man this team needs badly.

Totally this!  And add to that money the outrageous amount we're paying Streit in that ungodly contract and we could add a pretty nice d-man or two.  Streit's had flashes of good play and a couple of goals at key times, but overall, I'm still not impressed with the quality of his play versus the quality of his contract -- something that seems to happen to the Flyers whenever they sign someone to one of their patented platinum deals. There are still huge consistency problems with Streit - same with Vinny.  And their age is just the salt in the wound.

@ Radoran.  I totally agree.  I wasn't buying for a minute that he doesn't have a hand in any of this.  His fingerprints are all over everything.  That's part of the problem.

can you imagine owning a sports franchise for 46 years and you "don't know anything" about trading?

 

I'd be frightfully embarrassed to say such a thing.

He's trying to make us believe that he doesn't have a hand in any of this, that he's not calling the shots, that he's stays out of it, or is above it.  Either that or he's finally, finally, telling us the truth and what we've known all along - he actually knows nothing.

I've reached the point where I actually have no, as in zero, expectations.  I expect nothing from them.  It's like when Captain Ronald Spiers said in Band of Brothers -- "The only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function: without mercy, without compassion, without remorse. All war depends upon it."  

I've finally accepted the fact that this team is already dead.  At least for this season.  It's just too inconsistent.  They need about 4 more years from my perspective - on both offense and defense - to be truly competitive.  Maybe 3 if we're lucky.  Boston made them look like a bunch of schoolkids.  I fall for this false hope every time they go on a good run and start racking up some points.  It's the freakin' Charlie Brown and Lucy pulling away the football syndrome.

The good news is that we can only get better from here and I'm looking forward to those good years.  Trying to stay positive.  Just don't fritter away our young core on trying to win tomorrow.  We need to build on that.  I'd like to see a team that can be competitive year after year.

PS - It looks to me like their tentative play, especially on defense, could be the result of trying to avoid penalties (which they are invariably called for regardless) - despite the fact they are one of the most, if not the most, highly penalized team in the league.

I was at last night's game and, as a Flyers fan, it was painful to watch.  Not to mention embarrassing.  All of the points made above were only too clearly reinforced last night.  Every single one.  And on a consistent, almost continuous basis - from the start of the game to its finish.  So frustrating.  No heart in the game, no head in the game, no legs in the game.  They looked dog tired and defeated.  Maybe three games in four nights does that to a team, but still.  Looks like the team is back to solving its problem from scratch.  Maybe it's a good thing they're going out west again - they did pretty well on their first road trip.  This time, though, I don't know that we'll be so fortunate.

It's not until after B. Schenn and Couturier are traded away in some knee-jerk reaction by an impatient management and playing for their NEW teams that they'll turn into the awesomely awesome players I think they could be and have given us glimpses of.  That's always how it always seems to happen in Flyers World.

That first goal was bad (though it was deflected)

The Flyers seem to have more of these than any other team I've watched - this season and past seasons.  They got bit by another one last night, a beauty of a deflection off of Coburn's skate.  Right past Emery and into the net.  I think we're good for one of these bad goals at least once a game.  It's almost to the point where it's expected and comical.

The one good thing is that both our goalie and our best forwards are young enough to be around long enough to fill in those holes on D.

That would be nice but it also assumes they stick around.  And they way players come and go on these more recent Flyers teams, I am constantly holding my breath.  There apparently are no guarantees.

It depends -- how many more years are Lundquist and Brodeur going to be playing in the NHL?  They appear to be a consistent and significant impediment to our chances.  Ha!

This was in the hometown newspaper - the Columbus Dispatch today.  Take it with a grain of salt.  The Dispatch hockey reporting is notoriously poor, but it is intriguing......if true.

According to the article, "Sources said Holmgren called Howson the day before the NHL draft in St. Paul, Minn., to say he was ready to make the move — but not before he dropped a bombshell: “You want ’em both?” Holmgren asked Howson, meaning Carter and Flyers captain Mike Richards."

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/12/20/flyers-offered-richards-to-jackets-too.html

Last night was actually what I thought we were getting (for this year and maybe next year anyway) when we signed him.

That was my expectation too.  Or at least my hope.  He's only got a couple of good years left - at best.  Maybe he'll gain some confidence from this and keep it going.

I've been bashing this guy since he signed that contract. And I realize if Holmgren was stupid enough to offer that to me I'd take it too. And I'm sure he's been whistling his way to the bank, not crying over somebodys remarks on the internet.

 

 But I can also admit when the guy does good. And last night I thought he was great. He played a solid defensive game, including a great one on one play with Ovechkin. He made several nice passes...really nice. And that one timer from the point was unstoppable by any goalie...that thing was a laser with eyes. Maybe like a lot of others he just needs everyone to show up to motivate himself.

 

 Still hate that contract though.

I agree with all of this and have done my own fair share of Streit bashing.  Like you, I think it's a waste of a contract, but he earned a little of it last night.  That's what I'm expecting every night, though.

I think Fraser's analysis is helpful and pretty clear.  I would agree with it.  I also hope the Flyers have a long memory and Wilson gets his own dose of punishment from the team on the ice as well as whatever the League doles out.  Dress Rosehill, let Rinaldo go, or even unleash Crazy Downie on the dude if his head has recovered enough from his last fight.

I agree.  Streit has been underwhelming.  I've been a critic of this acquisition since first announced.  Definitely hasn't lived up to expectations - and mine were low to begin with.

Does Streit still play for the Flyers?  Because he's lived up to pretty much none of the reasons why they brought him in.  He's been horrid most every game while becoming most adept at making absolutely boneheaded plays.  I knew what we had in Hartnell so no surprises when he screws up or blows a play, but we only can afford one or two players like that on the team.  Having Streit has been an absolute disaster this season.  What a colossal disappointment.  

Brayden had one of those too.

Ah.  So it's a push.  I'd still take Brayden's offense over Gardiner's defense.....at this point.  And now I'm nervous about B. Schenn's brain.  Thanks, thanks a lot.  

Intriguing, but I also would pass.  Hold onto B. Schenn.  We need the scoring.  The concussion thing is what makes me most nervous.  Once you have one, the others come that much easier.

But get rid of Streit at all costs!  Hate that deal.  What if the team just moved and didn't tell him????  Ha.

I'm not giving Homer a pass, I just hold players more responsible for their own play than their GM. This is especially the case when you are talking about players who have proven themselves (at a certain level) and are playing far below that. It's not Homer's fault Giroux, Hartnell, Simmonds, and Voracek are all producing at a rate much lower than they are capable of. That's on them.

 

If you want to talk about Homer's mistakes we can do that too. His handling of McGinn has been embarrassing. In a team that has been starved for offense, to jerk this kid around, is a disservice to him and the team. All of the NTCs over recent years is beyond human comprehension. The length of several players contracts - and the amount they are getting paid - are far too much. He should have kept Jagr. It's looking like he traded JVR too soon, which isn't the worst offense in the world, but the return is less than stellar. But guys not producing? That's their own problem. A GM really has nothing to do with how a guy plays. The player himself and his coaches are more responsible for that than the GM.

That's fair.  Totally agree with you on McGinn.  Would like to see more of him.

What it boils down to is an apportionment of blame - and there's been plenty of it to go around.  I tend to put more on the GM than the players at this point - at the macro level.  Homer created the universe, so to speak, now the players have to live (and play) in it to the best of their abilities - under the rules/constraints of that universe as created by Homer.  If that universe was poorly put together, which I argue it was, it can hamper the way a guy plays - but only to a degree.  There's no denying individual talent and sometimes that can overcome GM manufactured obstacles. 

GMs build teams, coaches coach them, and players play the games. Don't talk to me about passing the blame when you keep coming back to one single man. When a team is bad, there's many people responsible for that.

You're right.  Everyone has a role and there are three roles in this case, just as you identified.  Not everyone is playing their role as best they can.  Some are playing their role better than others.  It's just my opinion that Homer is not "playing" as well as he should be.  And because he's the boss, the responsibility for the success or failure of the whole team ultimately lies with him.  I understand it's easier for you to not want to see that and to give the guy a pass.  If you ever find yourself in a position of leadership, you'll better understand the accountability that comes with having that role.  A good leader actually would accept it.

In this entire post - and plenty of others - there isn't a single criticism of any individual player. Every criticism you made in this post revolves around.....Homer. You don't bring up poor play or leadership, you bring up the fact that Homer signed/traded for them or didn't get them the right piece to paly with. Homer has made plenty of mistakes, but he's the only thing you talk about.

Yeah, Homer's not out on the ice, yeah he can't pick up the stick or put on the pads, yeah he's not out scoring goals or stopping shots, but he is calling the shots.  He's putting the mix of players together, creating the "team" that is supposed to successfully do all of those things.  He's responsible for getting them to work together, to create the opportunity, atmosphere, and culture the team needs to be competitive and win games.  He is a leader.  The leader. Ultimately he IS the one responsible.  I'd argue even more so than Snider.  Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read, "The Buck Stops Here".  It's a good lesson that should be taken to heart but is all too often ignored these days.  The new sign on the desk reads "The Buck's Passed Here."

As a frequent advocate for the Devil, well done

 

I'll return serve.

 

The team committed to Richards/Crater for the long term. Immediately after doing so, they brought in Pronger and commited to Pronger for the long term.

 

Then they shipped out Richards/Crater.

 

Then they committed to Bryzgalov long term.

 

Then Pronger got hurt.

 

Then they bought out Bryzgalov.

 

Then they committed to Giroux long term.

 

And here we are. For the record, that's long term commitments to five players over the course of six years.

 

One guy is still here.

 

Quite frankly, I was saying over and over again last year that the team's problems were more than just the space cadet in goal - "defending Bryzgalov" I believe it was characterized as. The end result of jettissonning the space cadet has been the "implosion" of which you speak.

 

And there were more than a few people who were very hesitant for them to have committed the way they did to Pronger - given his over-35 status and the potential for injury with older players. Did anyone "predict" he would get a flukey concussion injury and never be able to play again? No, not specifically.

Nicely done, yourself.  Totally agree.  The contracts dealt out by this organization suggest building for the "long term" or having some sort of long-term strategy, but their actions totally belie that.  Of all the long-term deals they've entered into the one that bothered me the least was the Pronger deal because I thought, though old, he was the one who could most live up to it and deliver.  But that flukey injury ended that hope.  And like you said, those things are totally unpredictable.

If they had a 2-3 year viewpoint, they don't trade Crater/Richards, they don't jettison Sbisa for a desperate grab at the Cup.

First, let me say that I do tend to agree with you relative to the Flyers "win now" viewpoint and approach to building teams.  I hate it.  

Second, let me play devil's advocate.  Maybe it was a long term point of view the organization took when it traded Carters and Richards - things certainly weren't getting any better. Leaving them in place for another eight years could have only made things worse.  The situation could have been made worse when Pronger was brought in - creating an even more contentious locker room. Who's in charge - the young guy or the new old guy?  Maybe the long-term solution WAS to trade Richards and Carter.  At the time that seemed like a pretty good bet.  Nobody predicted what would happen to Pronger.  He seemed like a decent long(er) term risk, despite his age.  We had some young offensive players coming up - Giroux - and that we traded for who could all pitch in to make up for and perhaps even exceed the offensive production we'd lose long term by trading Richards and Carter.  Nobody predicted that our offense would totally disappear and that those young, talented forwards would completely and inexplicably implode  this season. Nobody predicted the devastating, career ending injury to Pronger.  Those two things have blown up the organization's grand plan. Had neither happened, I don't think we'd be having the season we are.

Which goes right back to Brel's point that they just committed 23 years and over $100M to the two players - two players that apparently had character and attitude issues?

 

Did they just suddenly erupt with "character and attitude issues" after signing? Well, if the Lupul, Upshall, etc. moves to break up the "Old City Krewe" are any indication, they knew full well that there were "character and attitude issues" BEFORE signing them to long term deals.

 

Do they learn anything from this experience? Do they change their behavior?

 

No, they sign a goalie to a nine-year NMC deal (and buy him out two years later), sign Hartnell for six more and then extend their "captain" for eight years.

 

Big, bold moves - the Flyers love them. It shows that they are decisive and that they are willing to do "anything to compete for the Stanley Cup."

 

And then they regret the move, deal it away or buy it out, and proceed to the next big, bold move that can show how decisive and committed they are.

 

My high school motto (and that of the State of North Carolina) is "esse quam videri" - "to be rather than to seem to be".

 

The Flyers SEEM like a "winning franchise" with a "winning culture."

 

They're not.

Totally agree with all of this.  Rational and logical.  I have no explanation for why the organization did what it did.  But when you have character issues you know it.  They knew it with Carter and Richards but signed them to those contracts anyway.  Then, like you said, regretted it when things got worse instead of better.  Maybe they thought those two would grow or snap out of it.  Maybe they thought the stability and predictability of those long-term contracts would have a stabilizing effect on those two players.  Apparently it didn't.  Makes you wonder what's going to happen with Giroux and his long term deal.  Personally, I think those type of contracts lead to laziness and complacency - at least for the Flyers.  Sight them to short term deals and keep them hungry.

If he doesn't want to be the team leader, to be the captain, and to take on the duties and responsibilities of being that person and to set the right example, I'm ok with it.  I'm not going to bash him for it.  Just take the "C" off your sweater and turn it in.  Sometimes you're just not ready.

The Richards trade, for sure. He was the captain and leader of this team until Pronger came along.

@OH1FlyersFan You say you like those trades especially for the reasons they were made at the time, but I don't think the team really ever properly explained why it traded away its captain and leading goal scorer to whom they had committed 23 years and over $100M. It just makes no sense, and they never really told the fans why. I mean, they made up a bunch of stuff, but the whole thing is just bizarre.

No other organization in the NHL functions that way.

The reason I always assumed they were traded away was the character and attitude issue that was becoming a distraction for the team.  But I had to assume that because you're right - the organization never did offer a clear explanation.  I understood that it was more along the lines of a housecleaning, improve the locker room atmosphere trade rather than a trade due to poor performance.  And those types of trades can hold value in their own right, so I don't dismiss making a trade for that purpose.  I also don't disagree that both of those players were good.  If I had to keep one of the two, it would have been Richards.  Carter was too erratic and inconsistent and prone to collapsing and disappearing in the playoffs - his performance wasn't stellar.

My response to the question looked at the flip side of the coin - not who we gave away, but who we got in return.  The basis of my answer was, of the players we acquired in those trades, who would I rather give back if I had the opportunity for a mulligan.  I'd give back L. Schenn before any of the others - and that would bring us back JVR. If I answered it the other way - who would I have not wanted to give away, it'd be Richards.  Carter, despite his goals scored stat, couldn't have been traded fast enough for me.