Sure. What if other teams said, "We'll make a deal, but there's no (frank)ing way we're trading for that contract unless you take money back"?
- Jsaquella

A very likely scenario.

1. To hesitate or falter
2. To speak non-commitally, avoid giving a direct answer
- Jsaquella

ahh

Yup, I could read a little deeper and believe Vinny might stay because his contract is that immovable. Hartnell's contract was one step away from immovable, but could enter that category next summer.
- ravishingone

Everyone thought RJs contract was unmoveable, he was a potential buyout candidate. I don't kind trading Hartsy but get fair value or don't trade him.

You don't think Hextall tried?
- jstross

Tried to what? Get us a crappy deal? Why on God's green earth does this deal need to happen for Philly? Columbus was the one in the position of weakness. How did we get screwed?

I find it amusing how many people wanted to trade Hartnell so badly over the last year, and now that they pulled the trigger so many are acting like the sky is falling. I don't love getting Umberger back any more than alot of you, but the simple fact is if you put Umberger on a line with G and Voracek there's really no reason to believe that he couldn't put up 20 goals and similar stats to Hartnell. Scotty sure isn't the player who potted 35+ goals that one year with Jagr anymore (funny how it was in his contract year too). The deal helps you get out of 2 years of a bad contract, with a slightly less bad contract, plain and simple. The poster who keeps suggesting they could have gotten 1st or 2nd rounders for him...just not reality. Hexy may be a rookie GM, but i'm sure he did his due diligence before making this move. Just like with Vinny, if they wanted to move him they were going to have to take back another bad contract, nobody is going to overpay or just give up draft picks for players on the downside of 30, with no speed, and who make alot of money. I'd argue that Hartnell is just the bigger name at this point, but I really don't think his actual game is much better than Umberger and I really doubt he ages well over this contracts life.
- FlyerAdam30

I do not define being the first team to trade a player in the off season as "due diligence". Plenty of teams take players like hartnell after all the hot shot UFAs are signed.

To explain further. Yes you need leadership and some players in their 30's can be big contributors. But usually they are on very short term deals and used as compliments to a young core. That's just how it is now. These 5 year deals for aging players that are expected to be major contributors doesn't fly. You've got to constantly getter younger and better at same time. Draft is the key to that. Got to hit stride at right time. IMO we don't have a shot until la, chi, start to get older in a few years anyways.
- Sms401

This is all true, but plenty of successful teams have players locked up into their late 30s. Everything you say here is correct, though.

Sure. What if other teams said, "We'll make a deal, but there's no (frank)ing way we're trading for that contract unless you take money back"?
- Jsaquella

Than you don't make the trade.

Tried to what? Get us a crappy deal? Why on God's green earth does this deal need to happen for Philly? Columbus was the one in the position of weakness. How did we get screwed?
- flyler

It's not a bad deal. Hartnell was virtually untradeable without eating salary or taking salary.

Than you don't make the trade.
- FlyersSteve118

The your stuck with that bad contract for 5 years.

It's not a bad deal. Hartnell was virtually untradeable without eating salary or taking salary.
- jstross

Than you don't trade him. You don't take a worse player with the same cap hit back.

I don't want that $4.75 in the last two years of the contract and if he's not traded now he may never have been. As long as a trade helps the future I'm OK with it.
- jstross

RJ was worth negative value! Vinny should have been the player plus picks going to The CBJ.

Everyone thought RJs contract was unmoveable, he was a potential buyout candidate. I don't kind trading Hartsy but get fair value or don't trade him.
- coffee junkie

Hartnell has to play in a top 6 role to be effective. Maybe, just maybe, they want to see Read play a larger offensive role, who scored more goals with a lot less PP time then Hartnell.

The your stuck with that bad contract for 5 years.
- jstross

Than you are stuck with a quality 20 goal scorer showing no signs of aging. Damn. Your right. That sucks so much.

RJ was worth negative value! Vinny should have been the player plus picks going to The CBJ.
- coffee junkie

a solid two way 20 goal scorer is not negative value.

Think that some of these guys who were basically getting away w/ murder under Homer are probably feeling more than a bit exposed right now... oh, hello Zac Rinaldo, Jay Rosehill.
- Tomahawk

How exactly were they getting away with murder? The head Coach decides who gets in the lineup on game day, and how much they play.

Than you are stuck with a quality 20 goal scorer showing no signs of aging. Damn. Your right. That sucks so much.
- FlyersSteve118

Umberger is a 20 goal scorer as well, but he does it on the 3rd line. Hartnall cannot play on the Flyers 3rd line.

Than you don't make the trade.
- FlyersSteve118

I have no issue with it. It's not a great trade. I would have tried to get more than the 4th rounder. But let's face it, it's not as if they traded Jake Voracek for Nik Zherdev here.

They traded a guy they felt no longer fit for a slightly lesser guy who they think will. They dumped an awful contract for a bad one.

The your stuck with that bad contract for 5 years.
- jstross

How many teams do you think we're interested in RJ? Because you know he as on the market to every single team. How many do you think?

a solid two way 20 goal scorer is not negative value.
- jstross

I present to you Vinny L.

Edit: just saw two way play. But I still believe NO other teams were going to trade for a guy with a terrible contract coming off serious injury that was likely to be bought out

I do not define being the first team to trade a player in the off season as "due diligence". Plenty of teams take players like hartnell after all the hot shot UFAs are signed.
- FlyersSteve118

I think no matter what stage of the offseason it was, there would have only been a couple of teams at most who would have had ANY interest in taking on that contract without the FLyers keeping some of the cap hit. They pulled the trigger while they had a taker. What is it about him that you're so upset about? He had 21 goals and 50 points playing with 1 elite player, 1 very good player, and 1st power play unit time. What is so irreplacible.

Why can't this transaction be viewed independently? It's not like they can use cap savings from this transaction to upgrade the team. It's a fairly simple question, are the Flyers a better hockey team than they were this morning?
- PLindbergh31

I understand the point, but the Flyers don't need to be a better Hockey team today on 6/23. They need to be a better Hockey team in October when they start playing. I think there will be more moves, and we need to see the team that takes the ice.

How many teams do you think we're interested in RJ? Because you know he as on the market to every single team. How many do you think?
- coffee junkie

Appears to be about the same as were interested in Hartnell(ones that he would go to that is). We trade our 5 year terrible contract for your 3 year bad contract and take a 4th.

How many teams do you think we're interested in RJ? Because you know he as on the market to every single team. How many do you think?
- coffee junkie

Actually, his awful contract included a NTC, so he was only on the market to some teams

I have no issue with it. It's not a great trade. I would have tried to get more than the 4th rounder. But let's face it, it's not as if they traded Jake Voracek for Nik Zherdev here.

They traded a guy they felt no longer fit for a slightly lesser guy who they think will. They dumped an awful contract for a bad one.
- Jsaquella

A 5 year contract for a 3 year contract, but the 3 year contract is a player who is significantly more "aged" (age related injury issues) than the 5 year contract.

So you really believe its a worse contract when you know there is still 2 more productive years out of Hartnell before he turns into what Umberger is now?

Pretty much traded 2 years of production away just to acquire a player who makes us weaker.

I present to you Vinny L.

Edit: just saw two way play. But I still believe NO other teams were going to trade for a guy with a terrible contract coming off serious injury that was likely to be bought out
- coffee junkie

IMO, He wasn't going to be bought out and you assume people were knocking down the door to trade high draft picks for Hartnell's contract.