So a team wants to give up a first round pick for a player that can play just okay! Seems like the better value would be to give up less for one of the lower rated stiffs.

Here is the bottom line. Coburn can fetch a quality return, because he's a quality defenseman. He is certainly not playing well now. But other teams know what kind of palyer he is. Which is why he would be in demand if the Flyers offered him at the deadline.
- MJL

Coburn is a #4 defenseman as I stated. On good team that's where he slots in. On the Flyers he is exposed. Paul gaustad got a 1st rd pick at the deadline. Doesn't mean he is a 1st or 2nd line center. If a team played him that way, they would be terrible much like the Flyers are terrible playing Coburn as a top pair guy without someone better to carry the pair.

Morrissey is a top prospect. Replace Read with Coots and maybe Chevy doesn't burst out laughing.

Coburn and Read will get you some Morrissey albums. No Smiths tho.
- hereticpride

Hahaha! No Johnny Marr for you, just Morrissey.

WPG lost Clitsome and Bogosian. Tme to get some assets


To WPG:
Coburn
Read

To Philly:
1st Rounder 2015
rights to Burmistrov
Josh Morrissey or Nikolaj Ehlers



- J35Bacher

I would take that deal in a heart beat. Sadly, Chevy probably wouldn't

I would take that deal in a heart beat. Sadly, Chevy probably wouldn't
- Tomahawk

Chevy has never even made a player for player trade yet. I wouldn't count on him making a big multi-player deal.

Morrissey is the prob the top dman playing in junior right now and a likely top 4 guy for Winnipeg next year. A likely lottery pick this year is nothing to sneeze at

That deal is an absolute steal for the flyers and would put them on an amazing track.
- Just5

Morrissey's good, but I'd take Madison Bowey and probably Ryan Pulock over him.

I would take that deal in a heart beat. Sadly, Chevy probably wouldn't
- Tomahawk

It's not a bad deal in a vacuum, but you're opening 2 roster spots with no one to replace them. Oh wait, now I get it:

"Those guys are 2 terrible players, we can get no-name players to play just as well."

Now it all makes sense.

It's not a bad deal in a vacuum, but you're opening 2 roster spots with no one to replace them. Oh wait, now I get it:

"Those guys are 2 terrible players, we can get no-name players to play just as well."

Now it all makes sense.
- jmatchett383

Filling the spots would be trivial in the grand scheme of things if you could actually get a lottery pick, a good young forward that has NHL experience plus a solid defensive or forward prospect. You couldn't get that return though.

Chevy has never even made a player for player trade yet. I wouldn't count on him making a big multi-player deal.
- kellyblaise7

Didn't he break his trade cherry w Budaj?

But yeah... that deal amounts to at least two blue chip prospects for Coburn and a turnkey, cheaper Read replacement. More than fair value, IMo.

No idea how WPG could afford to add almost $8M in salary, tho.

Filling the spots would be trivial in the grand scheme of things if you could actually get a lottery pick, a good young forward that has NHL experience plus a solid defensive or forward prospect. You couldn't get that return though.
- NickTheKid87

Again, this good young forward who fled the NHL to play in Europe: where's the assurance that he's coming back to NA?

Didn't he break his trade cherry w Budaj?

But yeah... that deal amounts to at least two blue chip prospects for Coburn and a turnkey, cheaper Read replacement. More than fair value, IMo.

No idea how WPG could afford to add almost $8M in salary, tho.
- Tomahawk

Haa! He may have, but I don't think they'd give up two blue chip prospects just to try to make a playoff run.

Also Coburn will be most effective with a top pairing Dman. If a team doesn't have that then he'll be virtually the same player he is here, but I guess that'll be their problem. Just assuming teams trading for him would know this.

Again, this good young forward who fled the NHL to play in Europe: where's the assurance that he's coming back to NA?
- jmatchett383

I think he said he'd come back. I remember someone telling me that on here. I may be mistaken though.

Something to do with this: http://www.arcticicehocke...t-certainly-return-to-nhl

Out for the evening (frank)ers, good night and good hockey.

We are all fans at the end of it. *ass smacks for all*
- flyer_nutter

Coburn is a #4 defenseman as I stated. On good team that's where he slots in. On the Flyers he is exposed. Paul gaustad got a 1st rd pick at the deadline. Doesn't mean he is a 1st or 2nd line center. If a team played him that way, they would be terrible much like the Flyers are terrible playing Coburn as a top pair guy without someone better to carry the pair.
- psuhockey

Now we're getting somewhere. So it's not that Coburn is a stiff, has a bad hockey brain, or isn't a good defenseman. It's that he's not a #1 defenseman and the Flyers have to use him that way. And there is one point you brought up, I think Coburn does let the pressure get to him when too much is placed on him, when Timonen is not in the lineup. I think he tries to do too much and plays outside of himself.

Coburn is capable of being a top pair compliment to a #1 defenseman. We've seen that here. And on a good team that needs a good defenseman to bolster it's defense. Coburn can be a 20+ minute a night quality defenseman, that brings physical play, mobility, and quality defense to the team. That's why he'd fetch good value from another team.

Flyers lost 9 in a row . Why don't they do something

Haa! He may have, but I don't think they'd give up two blue chip prospects just to try to make a playoff run.

Also Coburn will be most effective with a top pairing Dman. If a team doesn't have that then he'll be virtually the same player he is here, but I guess that'll be their problem. Just assuming teams trading for him would know this.
- kellyblaise7

Coburn doesn't need to be paired with a top pairing defenseman to be effective. If the team he goes to plays a quality team game, and give support to the defense, Coburn will be fine in that situation.

Again, this good young forward who fled the NHL to play in Europe: where's the assurance that he's coming back to NA?
- jmatchett383

I'd prefer to keep all our young forwards, especially those with NHL experience because the organization is so thin at that spot. The purpose of trading the D is to reduce salary and aquire assets. As for filling the D holes created, I'd prefer a much lower cumulative salary for the assembled D corp, considering the current overpriced UFA D corp we have is collectively mediocre. This would provide a stopgap until some D prospects begin to work their way into the lineup.

I don't believe this team is going to be a true contender for a few more years regardless, so I'd like to see Hexy get as many of his picks in the system as possible.

I'd prefer to keep all our young forwards, especially those with NHL experience because the organization is so thin at that spot. The purpose of trading the D is to reduce salary and aquire assets. As for filling the D holes created, I'd prefer a much lower cumulative salary for the assembled D corp, considering the current overpriced UFA D corp we have is collectively mediocre. This would provide a stopgap until some D prospects begin to work their way into the lineup.

I don't believe this team is going to be a true contender for a few more years regardless, so I'd like to see Hexy get as many of his picks in the system as possible.
- kellyblaise7

How would the Flyers go about putting that lower cumulative salary for the D corp in place, while still having a defense corp that won't put a heavy burden on any of the young defenseman that might make the team next year, and keep them from having to play a lot of the tough minutes such as on the PK, and key defensive situations against top competition?

Coburn doesn't need to be paired with a top pairing defenseman to be effective. If the team he goes to plays a quality team game, and give support to the defense, Coburn will be fine in that situation.
- MJL

I said he'd be "most effective with a top pairing Dman," which I believe is true. That's when he was at his best here, with Kimmo or Pronger. He could still be effective in a good system that provides consistent puck support, sure. But he may still have lapses in his play due to his flaws, which are more easily nulified when paired with a top D man, particularly one who has good puck skills. IMO

I said he'd be "most effective with a top pairing Dman," which I believe is true. That's when he was at his best here, with Kimmo or Pronger. He could still be effective in a good system that provides consistent puck support, sure. But he may still have lapses in his play due to his flaws, which are more easily nulified when paired with a top D man, particularly one who has good puck skills. IMO
- kellyblaise7

Here is a fundamental truth. All but the top true #1 defensman, have flaws to their game. That's why they aren't #1 defenseman. So Coburn is no different then any other 2/3 NHL defenseman. Some are stronger offensively then defensively, etc.

How would the Flyers go about putting that lower cumulative salary for the D corp in place, while still having a defense corp that won't put a heavy burden on any of the young defenseman that might make the team next year, and keep them from having to play a lot of the tough minutes such as on the PK, and key defensive situations against top competition?
- MJL

Good question...I don't know exactly, not knowing all the 2015 UFA Dmen and what not, but there has to be a way to achieve two goals:

- Lowering D corp salary

AND

- Maintaining at least a comparable level of defense from the D corp

If you're implying the organization needs to focus on implementing a better team defensive system or that the current forward corp execute the current system better and provide more puck support, I agree. All these things will help the overall team D.

So we're officially giving up on the season and selling low?
- jmatchett383

Yes. No. But we should definitely think about selling.

Here is a fundamental truth. All but the top true #1 defensman, have flaws to their game. That's why they aren't #1 defenseman. So Coburn is no different then any other 2/3 NHL defenseman. Some are stronger offensively then defensively, etc.
- MJL

I agree. I like Coburn for what he provided when we paired with Kimmo or Pronger. He and Carle were excellent compliments to the two #1 Dmen. If we got Weber, Coburn would be a great pair with him. But with a year left on his contract, I think he's more valuable now than he will be next yr to attain assets for the future.

I don't think the team is making any noise anytime soon though and I want a lottery pick this summer, so that's where I'm coming from.

I agree. I like Coburn for what he provided when we paired with Kimmo or Pronger. He and Carle were excellent compliments to the two #1 Dmen. If we got Weber, Coburn would be a great pair with him. But with a year left on his contract, I think he's more valuable now than he will be next yr to attain assets for the future.

I don't think the team is making any noise anytime soon though and I want a lottery pick this summer, so that's where I'm coming from.
- kellyblaise7

Yup.

Good question...I don't know exactly, not knowing all the 2015 UFA Dmen and what not, but there has to be a way to achieve two goals:

- Lowering D corp salary

AND

- Maintaining at least a comparable level of defense from the D corp

If you're implying the organization needs to focus on implementing a better team defensive system or that the current forward corp execute the current system better and provide more puck support, I agree. All these things will help the overall team D.
- kellyblaise7

Not only that, but I'm suggesting that a fire sale of Flyers defenseman isn't the way to go. Just by adding one or two defenseman on EL deals will sufficiently lower the cost of the defense.

Flyers lost 9 in a row . Why don't they do something
- Winning