I don't think you understand the expression "One side of the story."

Just because that's how Gagne said it happened, doesn't mean it did. It very well could have but we don't know. And until Homer decides to comment on the situation (which he probably never will) it's all just speculation as to what actually happened between the two camps.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have Gagne on the team still. Especially over Umberger. But I'm not going to bash Homer over something I don't know enough about. There's plenty of other reasons to be pissed at Homer.
- Roytastic

Exactly. Holmgren missed out on a sentimental favorite as a cheap third line option. I'm fine with going with Raffl or Bellemare to fill that role.

There's plenty to pick on Homer for, Not going to kick him for Gagne, unless he comes out and says, yeah, I really handled that bad.

Maybe he did handle it bad. But I'm not going to shred him because Gagne says he's a Richard

Some of the rumored demands for guys like Eberle were like they had a Crosby waiting to be plucked
- Jsaquella

Oh, I recall. It really is nuts.

Holmgren doesn't have to discussion negotiations. He could simply say that he didn't see a fit with Gagne here and we wish him well. Instead from my understanding, nothing was said.

How did Hextall handle Hartnell last summer? He discussed his side in detail and Hartnell gave a little of his point of view as well. To me, if you have to keep quiet, you've got something to hide.

I'll admit Selanne handled things with Boudreau bad, but I'm not exactly seeing an open door policythere.
- SuperSchennBros

Hextall and Holmgren are different people. Just because one discussed trading a guy and the other didn't discuss choosing to not re-sign a guy makes zero difference.

I'm just saying that Gagne's agent has a long history of playing hardball with the Flyers, going back to the Clarke Era. I don't 100% buy it was as cut and dried as he makes it seem. Without hearing Holmgren's side of it, I'm not going to accept Gagne's story as gospel fact. That's it.

I don't think you understand the expression "One side of the story."

Just because that's how Gagne said it happened, doesn't mean it did. It very well could have but we don't know. And until Homer decides to comment on the situation (which he probably never will) it's all just speculation as to what actually happened between the two camps.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have Gagne on the team still. Especially over Umberger. But I'm not going to bash Homer over something I don't know enough about. There's plenty of other reasons to be pissed at Homer.
- Roytastic

I completely understand one side of the story. I know when someone doesn't wanna comment on something, they've got something to hide or at least trying to keep themself or the organization from looking bad. Maybe even flat out upsetting someone through the media. Either way, it's likely he himself will look bad.

Some of the rumored demands for guys like Eberle were like they had a Crosby waiting to be plucked
- Jsaquella

Did you see the rumor that Hextall was going for the 1st overall last year but wanted Lottery protection on the picks we would be sending back?

Kind of makes me happy if it's true because it means Hextall really is looking at the future and won't make any panic moves if the team continues to struggle.

I completely understand one side of the story. I know when someone doesn't wanna comment on something, they've got something to hide or at least trying to keep themself or the organization from looking bad. Maybe even flat out upsetting someone through the media. Either way, it's likely he himself will look bad.
- SuperSchennBros

Maybe. Or he was trying to take the high road and didn't see any reason to engage in a media war with a disgruntled ex player.

We just don't know so why try to pretend that we do?

Hextall and Holmgren are different people. Just because one discussed trading a guy and the other didn't discuss choosing to not re-sign a guy makes zero difference.

I'm just saying that Gagne's agent has a long history of playing hardball with the Flyers, going back to the Clarke Era. I don't 100% buy it was as cut and dried as he makes it seem. Without hearing Holmgren's side of it, I'm not going to accept Gagne's story as gospel fact. That's it.
- Jsaquella

So in Homer's time as GM, he's never handed a situation badly? He's never led fans/players to believe one thing and do another?

I completely understand one side of the story. I know when someone doesn't wanna comment on something, they've got something to hide or at least trying to keep themself or the organization from looking bad. Maybe even flat out upsetting someone through the media. Either way, it's likely he himself will look bad.
- SuperSchennBros

Maybe he's trying not to make Gagne look bad? Maybe Gagne and his agent were playing hardball and mis gauged just how much the Flyers were interested and Holmgren just figured, they were too far apart and went in another direction? Maybe Gagne didn't approach other teams because he figured the Flyers would cave

Maybe. Or he was trying to take the high road and didn't see any reason to engage in a media war with a disgruntled ex player.

We just don't know so why try to pretend that we do?
- Roytastic

I'm having a hard time understand how Gagne shouldn't be disgruntled after waiting a summer for something to work out and missing a year of hockey.

So in Homer's time as GM, he's never handed a situation badly? He's never led fans/players to believe one thing and do another?
- SuperSchennBros

Not saying that at all. It may well be exactly as Gagne says. But until I hear Holmgren's side, I'm not accepting Gagne's story as fact.

Maybe he's trying not to make Gagne look bad? Maybe Gagne and his agent were playing hardball and mis gauged just how much the Flyers were interested and Holmgren just figured, they were too far apart and went in another direction? Maybe Gagne didn't approach other teams because he figured the Flyers would cave
- Jsaquella

Homer has never been shy of saying when he felt a price was too high.

Not saying that at all. It may well be exactly as Gagne says. But until I hear Holmgren's side, I'm not accepting Gagne's story as fact.
- Jsaquella

Wow...

Did you see the rumor that Hextall was going for the 1st overall last year but wanted Lottery protection on the picks we would be sending back?

Kind of makes me happy if it's true because it means Hextall really is looking at the future and won't make any panic moves if the team continues to struggle.
- Roytastic

Yeah, I posted the link earlier.

Kind of makes me think that he knew that this season had the potential to be a down year and that he wasn't going to risk a high pick in a better draft to get the top pick in this one.

I also like that he was trying to deal Pronger's cap hit this summer.

Wow...
- SuperSchennBros

Yeah, God forbid I don't accept the gospel according to Saint (frank)ing Simon.

Yeah, God forbid I don't accept the gospel according to Saint (frank)ing Simon.
- Jsaquella

Yeah, except all your excuses are a huge reach. Homer might have stayed quiet to protect Gagne?

Yeah, I posted the link earlier.

Kind of makes me think that he knew that this season had the potential to be a down year and that he wasn't going to risk a high pick in a better draft to get the top pick in this one.

I also like that he was trying to deal Pronger's cap hit this summer.
- Jsaquella

Yea he obviously sees things in the roster that he doesn't like so it's going to be really interesting to see what pieces he wants to move to better fit his vision for the team over the next couple seasons.

Yea I saw that as well. I thought you weren't able to trade injured players though? But then again I didn't think players signed to a contract were able to take a job with the league either so..

Yeah, except all your excuses are a huge reach. Homer might have stayed quiet to protect Gagne?
- SuperSchennBros

They're not excuses, they are possible reasons. The point you seem to be unable to grasp is I don't know what Holmgren's view of the situation is or the reason why he decided not to bring Gagne back.

I don't know his side of the story. I don't know if he was an bumhole or if He just didn't feel like dealing with a difficult negotiation for a diminished player. Rather than just go in and take the word of an obviously angry Gagne, I'd rather reserve an opinion until both sides explain their views.

It's really quite unimportant. Gagne's on a new team and Holmgren is no longer the GM. I don't really care what went down. Just think it's kind of dumb to accept what one guy says as truth when none of us know what actually happened.

Yeah, God forbid I don't accept the gospel according to Saint (frank)ing Simon.
- Jsaquella

You should know rational thinking is frowned upon around here.

They're not excuses, they are possible reasons. The point you seem to be unable to grasp is I don't know what Holmgren's view of the situation is or the reason why he decided not to bring Gagne back.

I don't know his side of the story. I don't know if he was an bumhole or if He just didn't feel like dealing with a difficult negotiation for a diminished player. Rather than just go in and take the word of an obviously angry Gagne, I'd rather reserve an opinion until both sides explain their views.

It's really quite unimportant. Gagne's on a new team and Holmgren is no longer the GM. I don't really care what went down. Just think it's kind of dumb to accept what one guy says as truth when none of us know what actually happened.
- Jsaquella

Yea he obviously sees things in the roster that he doesn't like so it's going to be really interesting to see what pieces he wants to move to better fit his vision for the team over the next couple seasons.

Yea I saw that as well. I thought you weren't able to trade injured players though? But then again I didn't think players signed to a contract were able to take a job with the league either so..
- Roytastic

There's no rule that states you can't trade an injured player. There's rules governing such a deal, that basically allow it, as long as the injuries are fully disclosed and both team acknowledge that they are satisfied with the player's condition and are willing to accept the deal.

A couple years ago there was an injured player traded at the deadline-can't recall player or team now, but I remember such a deal was made.

There are rules that prevent injured players from being waived.

They're not excuses, they are possible reasons. The point you seem to be unable to grasp is I don't know what Holmgren's view of the situation is or the reason why he decided not to bring Gagne back.

I don't know his side of the story. I don't know if he was an bumhole or if He just didn't feel like dealing with a difficult negotiation for a diminished player. Rather than just go in and take the word of an obviously angry Gagne, I'd rather reserve an opinion until both sides explain their views.

It's really quite unimportant. Gagne's on a new team and Holmgren is no longer the GM. I don't really care what went down. Just think it's kind of dumb to accept what one guy says as truth when none of us know what actually happened.
- Jsaquella

In my experience, when two sides are divided, if one chooses to speak and the other chooses to stay silent, the silent one has something to hide. If this is the case, the silent side leaves me no choice but to believe the side who has spoken.

Your willingness to defend ignorance is up to you.

There's no rule that states you can't trade an injured player. There's rules governing such a deal, that basically allow it, as long as the injuries are fully disclosed and both team acknowledge that they are satisfied with the player's condition and are willing to accept the deal.

A couple years ago there was an injured player traded at the deadline-can't recall player or team now, but I remember such a deal was made.

There are rules that prevent injured players from being waived.
- Jsaquella

Gotcha, that's probably what I was thinking of.

In my experience, when two sides are divided, if one chooses to speak and the other chooses to stay silent, the silent one has something to hide. If this is the case, the silent side leaves me no choice but to believe the side who has spoken.

Your willingness to defend ignorance is up to you.
- SuperSchennBros

The irony in this statement is incredible.

In my experience, when two sides are divided, if one chooses to speak and the other chooses to stay silent, the silent one has something to hide. If this is the case, the silent side leaves me no choice but to believe the side who has spoken.

Your willingness to defend ignorance is up to you.
- SuperSchennBros

Your willingness to decide who is wrong before knowing all the facts is up to you.

I'm saying I don't know the full story, so I'm not blaming either Gagne or Holmgren. I not defending or attacking either one. I'm saying that I only know one side's view and I'm not going to shred the other side with limited information.