Me thinks we've gotta be a part of this draft. Over in the Vancouver boards people were suggesting trading Edler plus picks for Simmonds
Here we suggest Simmonds plus the 11th pick in what is supposed to be the draft of the decade plus more picks
I think we should
1) Trade Simmonds OR Hartnell for Edler. If we have to add acouple mid round picks and prospects then whatever
2)Try to trade something for a second pick in this draft. We did it in the '03 draft and we got Carter and Richards as a result. Maybe Coburn + a 1st rounder a couple years down the road for a pick between 12 and 25? The Islanders, the Jackets, and the Ducks were all pretty close. I know they could all benefit greatly from a guy like Coburn. Either way, this is not a draft we should be missing out on. I cringe at the idea of even trading out of the top 15.
- JAKEw1234

My one thing with trading Simmonds, is I have an issue trading a guy who has fairly consistently given great effort since his arrival.

Especially when compared to a lot of the other "better players".

Just seems weird to be trading a guy like that. I'd really like to hang on to Simmonds at all cost to be honest. Hartnell can go ride Orca's for all I care.

Just curious but does anyone know who the amnesty buyout candidates are for La? It would be something if....

Know what I'd rather do?

Send them a package maybe involving Hartnell or Brayden Schenn.

Bring in Edler, and draft Pulock/Zadorov.
- flyer_nutter

I don't think Hartnell fits what they want to do in the offseason.

I would offer Simmonds and go as high as including Cousins. Retain the 1st at all costs and take BPA @ 11, which is Pulock on my board.

haha not sure i follow that one...
- stayinthefnnet

I dont either. Just popped into my head and made me chuckle.

Farting in a windstorm, is like slapping a boobie with a frozen twizzler.
- flyer_nutter

See, you enjoy boobies too.

I dont either. Just popped into my head and made me chuckle.
- flyer_nutter

haha fair enough. and i agree 100 percent with what you said about simmonds. however, those are the very reasons i would be insistent upon him instead of hartnell if i were the nucks

See, you enjoy boobies too.
- GirouxForTheShow

Haha you and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals.

haha fair enough. and i agree 100 percent with what you said about simmonds. however, those are the very reasons i would be insistent upon him instead of hartnell if i were the nucks
- stayinthefnnet

Only if we get back the lost Sedin triplet.

My one thing with trading Simmonds, is I have an issue trading a guy who has fairly consistently given great effort since his arrival.

Especially when compared to a lot of the other "better players".

Just seems weird to be trading a guy like that. I'd really like to hang on to Simmonds at all cost to be honest. Hartnell can go ride Orca's for all I care.
- flyer_nutter

I don't know other teams opinions of Hartnell, but I should think his value is pretty close if not greater than Simmonds based on his player type vs production rates plus leadership ability. A 40 goal scoring power forward isn't chump change. I know the Couv needs to clear up cap space, but if they centered a rebuild based on getting bigger and stronger, and put Hartnell on the spearhead of the new philosophy, then I don't think they'd mind only losing $250,000 of cap space from shaving of Ed and adding Hartsy. It's not like he has an outrageous cap hit. For his production rate, skill, and leadership ability, I'd actually consider Hartsy to have quite a reasonable cap hit.

Only if we get back the lost Sedin triplet.


- flyer_nutter

sweet lord...

I don't know other teams opinions of Hartnell, but I should think his value is pretty close if not greater than Simmonds based on his player type vs production rates plus leadership ability. A 40 goal scoring power forward isn't chump change. I know the Couv needs to clear up cap space, but if they centered a rebuild based on getting bigger and stronger, and put Hartnell on the spearhead of the new philosophy, then I don't think they'd mind only losing $250,000 of cap space from shaving of Ed and adding Hartsy. It's not like he has an outrageous cap hit. For his production rate, skill, and leadership ability, I'd actually consider Hartsy to have quite a reasonable cap hit.
- JAKEw1234

Hartnell and Simmonds are big bodies on a smallish team. They have good hands too. If we trade one of these guys for D it opens up a gaping hole in the forward ranks. And don't give me tye McGinn.

I've backed off the flyers a bit and have watched the rest of the league

1. Laughton is a player that they desperately need to pan out next year
2. Buyout Briere. I don't want to see major trades. I need another year of coots and schenn
3. I like grossman. But wouldnt mind seeing him traded to bring a off dman in like Mcbain

Only if we get back the lost Sedin triplet.


- flyer_nutter

If that is Edler I'm driving Simmonds to the airport myself.

If the price is fair I would be very happy with either Edler or EJ.
I think Edler is a little bit more of the type of D man they don't have and sorely need, but either one would look great in Orange and Black.
- Marc D

I'd be wary of Edler's chronic back problems. He had surgery in 2011 and was good for a bit, then had more flare ups and was considering another surgery in 2012...while he's seemed to stay well enough to play games, his game has been pretty inconsistent, especially defensively where he has struggled at times. This is among the reasons he likely isn't an anchor type top 4...I think he's ideally suited as a #4, maybe on this team with Schenn or a Grossmann, or a #2 with Timonen or another such player.

Edler is a good player, but with the risk that comes with his chronic back issues and his (perhaps related) inconsistent play, he's not exactly the guy I'd make a primary target, especially with the premium that point producing, puck carrying D men garner in the marketplace. If he can be had with a deal that isn't the typical overpayment we see with such players, I might be for it, but I wouldn't want to give up too much for a player that might be damaged goods...we all know the Flyers misfortunes when it comes to D man health issues, and this could be asking for trouble.

I'd be wary of Edler's chronic back problems. He had surgery in 2011 and was good for a bit, then had more flare ups and was considering another surgery in 2012...while he's seemed to stay well enough to play games, his game has been pretty inconsistent, especially defensively where he has struggled at times. This is among the reasons he likely isn't an anchor type top 4...I think he's ideally suited as a #4, maybe on this team with Schenn or a Grossmann, or a #2 with Timonen or another such player.

Edler is a good player, but with the risk that comes with his chronic back issues and his (perhaps related) inconsistent play, he's not exactly the guy I'd make a primary target, especially with the premium that point producing, puck carrying D men garner in the marketplace. If he can be had with a deal that isn't the typical overpayment we see with such players, I might be for it, but I wouldn't want to give up too much for a player that might be damaged goods...we all know the Flyers misfortunes when it comes to D man health issues, and this could be asking for trouble.
- exlund

Don't underestimate the wonders of modern medicine. Back problems for today's athletes aren't what they were 20 years ago. I'm sure it nags him from time to time but unless he has significant damage to the nerves he should be good to go. Also not saying your wrong but this is the first I've read of Edler being called a number 4 defenseman. Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote if so I apologize.

Actually, Coots almost matched is pts/game rate from his rookie year. His defense game really matured, is the big thing though. I'd go as far as to say that he's one of the best defensive forwards in the league now, at age 20. :aah:
- JAKEw1234

That's a stretch there I think...I think Couturier, like many on the team, regressed significantly. His defense was mostly mediocre, he had a lot of turnovers and made a number of rookie type mistakes. He did play Malkin nicely again, in their first matchup, and there were flashes of offensive flair here and there, but the jury is still out on whether or not the kid will fulfill his potential. At this point he has a lot to prove to show he's going to be even a 50+ point scorer and play better defense (consistently) than that of a good third liner. With that said, he's still very young, and it would be a mistake to write him off or jump to hard conlcusions. He has value as a player on the team and in trade. I'd prefer to keep him around and see him through his development, but I'm don't put him in the "untouchable" category that most here seem to do. I'm not getting that kind of feeling about him, just yet. If it takes trading him to bring in a top producing offensive-defenseman (<30 yrs old, on a reasonable cap hit), I'm open to that...but other avenues should be considered first.

Hartnell and Simmonds are big bodies on a smallish team. They have good hands too. If we trade one of these guys for D it opens up a gaping hole in the forward ranks. And don't give me tye McGinn.

I've backed off the flyers a bit and have watched the rest of the league

1. Laughton is a player that they desperately need to pan out next year
2. Buyout Briere. I don't want to see major trades. I need another year of coots and schenn
3. I like grossman. But wouldnt mind seeing him traded to bring a off dman in like Mcbain
- Just5

Grossmann for McBain the pain? I think you drive a nail into our defenses heart by doing that. McBain has the hockey IQ of a 4th grader. I think he has no business in the NHL at all, at least not right now. To give a solid, consistent, reliable defeneseman like Grossmann for a guy like McBain who looks like he belongs in a "special" school with his positioning and on-ice smarts, would be very bad for our defense. I want no part of that guy. And as far as losing a big body, you have to weigh our needs. With Timonen retiring and with the majority of our starting defense having problems with injuries, I personally think adding a really good dman is all but a must. If we lose a big body guy in the process, I think it's just a necessary casualty. Muscle can always be added to guys like B Schenn or Coots over the summer. Neither of them are soft as it is. Just because we lose a power forward doesn't have to instantly mean that we've become soft. I can't think of 1 guy in our top 6 that I could really classify as soft as it is. Maybe Read (Who'd I prefer to trade over Hartnell or Simmonds, but as some have pointed out, doesn't really fit the bill for the Couv's needs), he's not overly soft but definitely the softest among our top players. Either way, the need for a top Dman is quite a bit higher than the need for tough players. We have lots of those.
P.S Sorry for the 3 page essay

I'd be wary of Edler's chronic back problems. He had surgery in 2011 and was good for a bit, then had more flare ups and was considering another surgery in 2012...while he's seemed to stay well enough to play games, his game has been pretty inconsistent, especially defensively where he has struggled at times. This is among the reasons he likely isn't an anchor type top 4...I think he's ideally suited as a #4, maybe on this team with Schenn or a Grossmann, or a #2 with Timonen or another such player.

Edler is a good player, but with the risk that comes with his chronic back issues and his (perhaps related) inconsistent play, he's not exactly the guy I'd make a primary target, especially with the premium that point producing, puck carrying D men garner in the marketplace. If he can be had with a deal that isn't the typical overpayment we see with such players, I might be for it, but I wouldn't want to give up too much for a player that might be damaged goods...we all know the Flyers misfortunes when it comes to D man health issues, and this could be asking for trouble.
- exlund

Me thinks that's the first time I've heard someone call Ed a #4 defenseman, on many teams (including ours) he could be a #1 efficiently. Me also thinks that Hartnell or Simmonds + a mid round pick isn't an over payment for the type of game that Edler brings.

Don't underestimate the wonders of modern medicine. Back problems for today's athletes aren't what they were 20 years ago. I'm sure it nags him from time to time but unless he has significant damage to the nerves he should be good to go. Also not saying your wrong but this is the first I've read of Edler being called a number 4 defenseman. Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote if so I apologize.
- JoeRussomanno

Well, to clarify, I suppose I'm saying he's not really an anchor type D man, so he'd be best suited for either the #2 complement to a prime #1 dman, or a #4 complement to a very good #3. If he gets too many minutes and/or asked to do too much he can start to provide diminishing returns.

Me also thinks that Hartnell or Simmonds + a mid round pick isn't an over payment for the type of game that Edler brings.
- JAKEw1234

I would do it for Hartnell and a mid rd...not for Simmer.

That's a stretch there I think...I think Couturier, like many on the team, regressed significantly. His defense was mostly mediocre, he had a lot of turnovers and made a number of rookie type mistakes. He did play Malkin nicely again, in their first matchup, and there were flashes of offensive flair here and there, but the jury is still out on whether or not the kid will fulfill his potential. At this point he has a lot to prove to show he's going to be even a 50+ point scorer and play better defense (consistently) than that of a good third liner. With that said, he's still very young, and it would be a mistake to write him off or jump to hard conlcusions. He has value as a player on the team and in trade. I'd prefer to keep him around and see him through his development, but I'm don't put him in the "untouchable" category that most here seem to do. I'm not getting that kind of feeling about him, just yet. If it takes trading him to bring in a top producing offensive-defenseman (<30 yrs old, on a reasonable cap hit), I'm open to that...but other avenues should be considered first.
- exlund

It could be a bit of an overstatement, but it doesn't negate the fact that Couturier shows the potential to become a tier 1 two-way forward. His defensive game has the potential to be that of Johnny Toews or maybe just a level below. I know you might think that my orange-glasses are just a bit foggy again, but then I may point out that in trying to not be Flyers biased you may yourself actually be undervaluing him. Why else do fans of other teams dream of making trades for Coots? Why else could it be that when we try to make a trade, a teams first want from us is Coots?

I would do it for Hartnell and a mid rd...not for Simmer.
- exlund

And I recommend we all hope and pray that VAN would do that deal too.

Who said it was a plan? No, it's not lather, rinse, repeat. I think it's clear that the Flyers have identified a core, and who they want to build behind. Every team just collects talent. That's the objective.
- MJL

Then they trade it away. The objective is to build a team based on how you want to play, then add pieces that can make that team a real cup contender. right now there are many teams doing this better than the flyers. Let's see if homer can make measured changes w/o having to reboot yet again.

Me thinks that's the first time I've heard someone call Ed a #4 defenseman, on many teams (including ours) he could be a #1 efficiently. Me also thinks that Hartnell or Simmonds + a mid round pick isn't an over payment for the type of game that Edler brings.
- JAKEw1234

i really think edler is one of the most talented, rounded defenseman that can ever expect to realistically be traded. id pass on hartnell as vancouver. the back problems being that serious are new to me, and if thats the case, then i can definitely see balking. however, if its a nonissue, as much as losing simmonds hurts i think you do it without question

Then they trade it away. The objective is to build a team based on how you want to play, then add pieces that can make that team a real cup contender. right now there are many teams doing this better than the flyers. Let's see if homer can make measured changes w/o having to reboot yet again.
- isaiah520

How many times have they done this before Richards and Carter?

Then they trade it away. The objective is to build a team based on how you want to play, then add pieces that can make that team a real cup contender. right now there are many teams doing this better than the flyers. Let's see if homer can make measured changes w/o having to reboot yet again.
- isaiah520

The one thing that does give me a little comfort is the fact that they for the most part seemed to be built toward an aggressive team.

The forwards fit that mold, and so does the coaching. I dont think Holmgren wanted the D he got this year, being so defensively orientated/limited. On the other hand he also got it shoved up his ass just how hard it is to obtain quality d-men.

Although his comments about the league seemingly shifting to a more defensive approach, make you wonder...

We will see what they do.