Do you think Cousins gets you one of the top young defense prospects not in the NHL? Laughton?

And I'm not trying to bash you by the way. I think we (myself included) have a tendency to overrate our prospects.
- TheGreat28

That's not what I said. I said you start at Cousins or Laughton, and work out from there. It probably takes a bit more from the Flyers. But I'm not sending Couturier for a prospect who has zero NHL experience.

I'll try it differently: take away the 'bromance' (as it was so condescendingly phrased) and consider Couturier on the block. Why would you spend your best trade capital on nothing more than a prospect? I'd be more ambitious in my trade target, you only get to trade Couturier once.

and brian propp.
- hammarby31

+1 Guffaw

There is no logical inconsistency here. There's simply one player, who has potential but no NHL experience, and another player, who has both potential and a couple solid seasons worth of NHL experience. Couturier is a more proven commodity, he's more of a known. Trading him for an unproven commodity would be irresponsible.
- BulliesPhan87

That's exactly how the Flyers got Couturier in the first place... we traded a player (Carter) who was much farther along than Couturier was now for two unproven assets.

Personally, I would only deal Couturier for somebody farther along in the development process, though.

That's exactly how the Flyers got Couturier in the first place... we traded a player (Carter) who was much farther along than Couturier was now for two unproven assets.

Personally, I would only deal Couturier for somebody farther along in the development process, though.
- Tomahawk

Well, kind of, but not exactly. They got a package that included the pick that netted Couturier, as well as a three season established NHLer in Jakub (not to say there weren't any question marks there), plus another draft pick. So there was risk involved, but it wasn't as 'proven for unproven' as Couturier for Reilly.

Well, kind of, but not exactly. They got a package of the pick that netted Couturier, as well as a three season established NHLer in Jakub (not to say there weren't any question marks there), plus another draft pick. So there was risk involved, but it wasn't as 'proven for unproven' as Couturier for Reilly.
- BulliesPhan87

Carter was a former 40-goal scorer... with all due respect to Couturier, outside of shutting down Malkin for one series, his value is still based almost purely on future potential. Voracek was much more "proven" at the point, despite having stagnated in his development, than Couturier is now.

I'd deal Couturier for any number of d-prospects that haven't yet cracked the NHL yet... maybe not Reilly because he was literally just drafted, but there are a number of others that I wouldn't bat an eye at moving Couturier for.

If an when Rielly becomes a 1/2 D man in the NHL, you might have a point. None of the comparisons you are offering are comparable to the Couturier for Rielly trade.

Nobody, myself included has assumed that Couturier will reach his potential, and that Rielly won't. That's the point you're missing. What is being considered is that Couturier has already established himself as an NHL player. Rielly has not.
- MJL

Exactly. It's as plain as vanilla.

That's exactly how the Flyers got Couturier in the first place... we traded a player (Carter) who was much farther along than Couturier was now for two unproven assets.

Personally, I would only deal Couturier for somebody farther along in the development process, though.
- Tomahawk

That is simply untrue.. We traded Carter for Jake Voracek, a highly touted played coming out of the draft who had put up 50 and 46 point seasons back to back, the 8th pick in the draft, and a 3rd rounder.

Carter was a former 40-goal scorer... with all due respect to Couturier, outside of shutting down Malkin for one series, his value is still based almost purely on future potential. Voracek was much more "proven" at the point, despite having stagnated in his development, than Couturier is now.

I'd deal Couturier for any number of d-prospects that haven't yet cracked the NHL yet... maybe not Reilly because he was literally just drafted, but there are a number of others that I wouldn't bat an eye at moving Couturier for.
- Tomahawk

Would you mind listing a few?

Carter was a former 40-goal scorer... with all due respect to Couturier, outside of shutting down Malkin for one series, his value is still based almost purely on future potential. Voracek was much more "proven" at the point, despite having stagnated in his development, than Couturier is now.

I'd deal Couturier for any number of d-prospects that haven't yet cracked the NHL yet... maybe not Reilly because he was literally just drafted, but there are a number of others that I wouldn't bat an eye at moving Couturier for.
- Tomahawk

I wasn't saying Couturier was a proven in that trade, not at all (considering he wasn't part of it, lol). I'm not suggesting his potential is a proven fact, either. I suppose I was unclear. The proven NHLer was Jakub Voracek. I wasn't suggesting he was on par with Carter at the time of the trade, but they got a player they knew would be on the roster. That mitigates some of the risk of trading a Jeff Carter for unproven assets.

You have sample (albeit small) of professional hockey for Reilly... and to be honest, it didnt jump out to me as a #1-2 offensive d-man. He had 3 points in 17 games. If he was ready to make the jump to the #1-2 d-man spot he would have been putting up points like Justin Schultz.
- jak521

Fair point. But I think players having a cup of coffee in the AHL after a long junior season get a free pass for that stub period. Like Cousins or even G for example.
Rielly had a good year playing for a very mediocre Medicine Hat team. We'll see what he does next year for the Marlies.

Would you trade Couts straight up for Schultz?

That is simply untrue.. We traded Carter for Jake Voracek, a highly touted played coming out of the draft who had put up 50 and 46 point seasons back to back, the 8th pick in the draft, and a 3rd rounder.
- jak521

The Salary Cap situation was also part of that trade.

Would you mind listing a few?
- jak521

Merrill, Gormley, Klefbom, Beaulieu off the top of my head.

Fair point. But I think players having a cup of coffee in the AHL after a long junior season get a free pass for that stub period. Like Cousins or even G for example.
Rielly had a good year playing for a very mediocre Medicine Hat team. We'll see what he does next year for the Marlies.

Would you trade Couts straight up for Schultz?
- TheGreat28

I wonder if Anaheim would for Cam Fowler?

They need to rebuild their 2nd and 3rd lines with Selanne and Koivu likely leaving. Not sure they want to part with Cam, even though they have depth at the position.

That's not what I said. I said you start at Cousins or Laughton, and work out from there. It probably takes a bit more from the Flyers. But I'm not sending Couturier for a prospect who has zero NHL experience.

I'll try it differently: take away the 'bromance' (as it was so condescendingly phrased) and consider Couturier on the block. Why would you spend your best trade capital on nothing more than a prospect? I'd be more ambitious in my trade target, you only get to trade Couturier once.
- BulliesPhan87

Look, I wasn't trying to be condescending (hence the little smiley face), and I apologize for sounding that way. Frankly, I've had a man-crush on G since his Gatineau days.

But I do think Couts is a bit overvalued here. Not the player per se but the value of his skill-set and quantity of players that could fulfill similar roles (albeit not at the level at which he might be able to do it) relative to a top-tier, offensive-minded defenseman with size.

I wonder if Anaheim would for Cam Fowler?

They need to rebuild their 2nd and 3rd lines with Selanne and Koivu likely leaving. Not sure they want to part with Cam, even though they have depth at the position.
- bradleyc4

I like Fowler and I would do it. Not sure if Anaheim does it though.

I wasn't saying Couturier was a proven in that trade, not at all (considering he wasn't part of it, lol). I'm not suggesting his potential is a proven fact, either. I suppose I was unclear. The proven NHLer was Jakub Voracek. I wasn't suggesting he was on par with Carter at the time of the trade, but they got a player they knew would be on the roster. That mitigates some of the risk of trading a Jeff Carter for unproven assets.
- BulliesPhan87

I think we need to scale the expectations between the two deals... Carter was far more proven as productive threat than Voracek at the time, and light-years ahead of any unfulfilled draft picks. The Flyers were taking a pretty big gamble at the time and it's only begun to really pay off after Voracek broke out this season.

Couturier for (insert name of unproven top d-prospect) might look like a gamble today, but it may be a bargain (or fair value) tomorrow. I think that's the point of what the OP was trying to say.

Merrill, Gormley, Klefbom, Beaulieu off the top of my head.
- Tomahawk

I guess we just dont see eye to eye.. Fair enough.

Merrill, Gormley, Klefbom, Beaulieu off the top of my head.
- Tomahawk

Did you pick those guys because they are a little further along, relative to Rielly or say Reinhart, or based on talent?

Just curious. I'd absolutely defer to your knowledge of young dman. I'm not locked into Rielly either. I was just defending the position that he is worth discussing in a trade for Couts.

Look, I wasn't trying to be condescending (hence the little smiley face), and I apologize for sounding that way. Frankly, I've had a man-crush on G since his Gatineau days.

But I do think Couts is a bit overvalued here. Not the player per se but the value of his skill-set and quantity of players that could fulfill similar roles (albeit not at the level at which he might be able to do it) relative to a top-tier, offensive-minded defenseman with size.
- TheGreat28

I don't think he's being overvalued. I think it sometimes seems that way due to him being the centerpiece of most trade proposals here.

Fair point. But I think players having a cup of coffee in the AHL after a long junior season get a free pass for that stub period. Like Cousins or even G for example.
Rielly had a good year playing for a very mediocre Medicine Hat team. We'll see what he does next year for the Marlies.

Would you trade Couts straight up for Schultz?
- TheGreat28

Here is my thing with Couts.. I believe in his potential.. thought it was great that he fell to us. He had a rough year. No doubting that. But I still think he ends up being a very dynamic center. Jonathon Towes? No... but i think he could be right below him.. I honestly believe he could be a 60 point, Selke caliber two way center. Wait until he starts filling into his 6'4 frame.

If I was to trade him.. it would be for an established guy. Unfortunately, you will need to give more to get that guy... so I make a package deal and go big. Im a safe better... Im not putting my best mare on the line for a filly. Too much can go wrong.

Hypothetically, if the Flyers trade Couturier for a defenseman and buy-out Briere, who's the 3rd line center heading into the season?

Did you pick those guys because they are a little further along, relative to Rielly or say Reinhart, or based on talent?

Just curious. I'd absolutely defer to your knowledge of young dman. I'm not locked into Rielly either. I was just defending the position that he is worth discussing in a trade for Couts.
- TheGreat28

Yeah, based on them being a bit farther along.

Reilly's got huge potential, but I'd be worried about how the Leafs handle his development. They really blew it w/ Luke, and you could say Gardiner's getting mishandled too.

Reinhart's still a bit of a project... too much boom/bust potential there, IMO.

Merrill's going to be a thorn in the Flyers' side for a looooong time -- Devils have all the luck when it comes to drafting franchise dmen.

Hypothetically, if the Flyers trade Couturier for a defenseman and buy-out Briere, who's the 3rd line center heading into the season?
- bradleyc4

Thats my other concern. We arent exactly bursting at the seems with offensive depth. Wait this out... try to get Pulock.. and go from there.

Thats my other concern. We arent exactly bursting at the seems with offensive depth. Wait this out... try to get Pulock.. and go from there.
- jak521

You could sign a guy like Matt Cullen or Boyd Gordon to hold down the spot for a year or two until Laughton is ready.

I think we need to scale the expectations between the two deals... Carter was far more proven as productive threat than Voracek at the time, and light-years ahead of any unfulfilled draft picks. The Flyers were taking a pretty big gamble at the time and it's only begun to really pay off after Voracek broke out this season.

Couturier for (insert name of unproven top d-prospect) might look like a gamble today, but it may be a bargain (or fair value) tomorrow. I think that's the point of what the OP was trying to say.
- Tomahawk

The differences are, especially in a Couturier for Reilly trade, that we don't have that Jakub Voracek coming back, and we don't have a cap space crunch we're solving by trading Couturier. The former mitigated a bit of the risk, and the latter explains the perceived need to make such a gamble.

The need for a top defenseman says maybe we need to take a risk. I'm just not wild about maximizing the risk by trading one of our top young players for a guy who may never pan out at the NHL level at all. There's no Voracek element in this proposal to fall back on, to say, "At least we still have this to show for it." I'd be more inclined to wait for a player to fall from grace with their franchise. With a cap crunch situation like Richie and Carts, you can't wait that away similarly, it's a matter of avoidance.