I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that all Simmonds brings is fighting.

Obviously Jmatch doesn't value that specific element as being part of a cup winning team. He might be right but their are 82 games before the playoffs and while I don't think we will ever go back to the days of Tony Twist or Tie Domi I still see value in a guy that can do multiple things including fighting.

I didn’t say it should be a factor in keeping him...I said it is a factor in losing him. There is a big difference. The reason for this is that we don’t have enough “those guys” (see previous posts on team toughness).
- NC Flyers Fan

That's a distinction without a difference.

did he do his job as a 4th line player when he played? yes or no?

if no what do you think he didnt do as his job playing 9 minutes a night.

didnt ask whether he was a factor.asked did he do his job. +4 in the playoffs. he was fine on the forecheck, in fact was good. again wilson wouldn't fight him and reeves was smart not doing anything stupid to put his team in a bad spot. what more do you expect reeves to do being a 4th liner and all.
- daryl stanley

Dude, your first post was:

so because he only scores 2 goals he was a non factor? thats a short sighted view.
- daryl stanley

So, yeah, you kinda did, since that was my point. I never said that he was ineffective as a 4th liner. Did he do his job? For the most part, when given a chance, yes. Did he do it well? Yes.

But guess what: most 4th liners are supposed to be non-factors. Guys like Joel Otto and Blair Betts who are 4th liners who can affect (different than effect) the game by containing superstars are rare. Most 4th liners go out, give the top-9 a break, aren't a liability, and can get in the forecheck. If they do that effectively, they have a minimal impact of the game. Ryan Raeves did. He did his job, and because he did it fairly well, he was a non-factor in the playoffs. That's not a knock against him, it's just that most 4th liners, if they do their job, are virtual non-factors.

Also, Reaves tried to fight Wilson in game 2 and got a 2-minute minor. While it's not like getting a major, I'd say that put his team in a bad spot, but I'd be okay with it were I on the team given what happened in Game 1.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that all Simmonds brings is fighting.

Obviously Jmatch doesn't value that specific element as being part of a cup winning team. He might be right but their are 82 games before the playoffs and while I don't think we will ever go back to the days of Tony Twist or Tie Domi I still see value in a guy that can do multiple things including fighting.
- opeth_pa

I think there is value in it, I just don't think it's a requisite to win a Stanley Cup in today's game. Hell, I'd like to keep Simmonds or a player like him, but not if it's going to be for 4+ years at $6M+ past the age of 31. But a guy like Sam Bennett or Miles Wood, gladly.

Dude, your first post was:



So, yeah, you kinda did, since that was my point. I never said that he was ineffective as a 4th liner. Did he do his job? For the most part, when given a chance, yes. Did he do it well? Yes.

But guess what: most 4th liners are supposed to be non-factors. Guys like Joel Otto and Blair Betts who are 4th liners who can affect (different than effect) the game by containing superstars are rare. Most 4th liners go out, give the top-9 a break, aren't a liability, and can get in the forecheck. If they do that effectively, they have a minimal impact of the game. Ryan Raeves did. He did his job, and because he did it fairly well, he was a non-factor in the playoffs. That's not a knock against him, it's just that most 4th liners, if they do their job, are virtual non-factors.

Also, Reaves tried to fight Wilson in game 2 and got a 2-minute minor. While it's not like getting a major, I'd say that put his team in a bad spot, but I'd be okay with it were I on the team given what happened in Game 1.
- jmatchett383

joel otto was not a 4th line player. not at all

I will agree that yes 4th players will hardly ever be a factor. you want them to do thier job and not hurt you.

I think there is value in it, I just don't think it's a requisite to win a Stanley Cup in today's game. Hell, I'd like to keep Simmonds or a player like him, but not if it's going to be for 4+ years at $6M+ past the age of 31.
- jmatchett383

Didn't Edmonton pay for "intangibles" with the Lucic deal? How did that work out?

My fear is Simmond's next deal turns into that. I know others disagree. I just feel whoever pays the next contract will not get anything close to what they are paying for.

To who and for what?
- jmatchett383

To Tampa. For a raddysh or katchouk. Hell I’ll add a bit to it if necessary for raddysh

joel otto was not a 4th line player. not at all

I will agree that yes 4th players will hardly ever be a factor. you want them to do thier job and not hurt you.
- daryl stanley

Then we agree. And during the 96/97 season, I thought Otto was a 4th liner (Lindros, Brindy, Hawerchuk), but I could be wrong.

To Tampa. For a raddysh or katchouk. Hell I’ll add a bit to it if necessary for raddysh
- Just5

Same.

That's a distinction without a difference.
- MJL

And here lies our misunderstanding.There are reasons to keep Simmonds and reasons to trade Simmonds. An acknowledgment of what losing him means is not an argument for keeping him, it’s an argument for adding team toughness.

Didn't Edmonton pay for "intangibles" with the Lucic deal? How did that work out?

My fear is Simmond's next deal turns into that. I know others disagree. I just feel whoever pays the next contract will not get anything close to what they are paying for.
- J35Bacher

I agree, this contract will be for past services. I still think he's an effective player, though. Just not at what he wants.

And here lies our misunderstanding.There are reasons to keep Simmonds and reasons to trade Simmonds. An acknowledgment of what losing him means is not an argument for keeping him, it’s an argument for adding team toughness.
- NC Flyers Fan

I see what you're saying (I think). It's not about adding toughness, it's about losing what toughness we have without replacing it.

Then we agree. And during the 96/97 season, I thought Otto was a 4th liner (Lindros, Brindy, Hawerchuk), but I could be wrong.
- jmatchett383

yes he was not a factor but definitely did his job.

otto was underrated throughout his career. not a 4th liner. hawerchuk played wing i think on that team

And here lies our misunderstanding.There are reasons to keep Simmonds and reasons to trade Simmonds. An acknowledgment of what losing him means is not an argument for keeping him, it’s an argument for adding team toughness.
- NC Flyers Fan

If the argument is that the Flyers need to be a tougher team to play against, I would agree but I see that as a different conversation than deciding to re-sigh Simmonds or not.

They could trade Simmer and still make the PO's, right?

With respect to Simmonds, I think most people on here would love to keep him, but not at the cost. Yes, he has those individual tough intangibles that you like, but with diminishing returns at 5v5 (still effective on the PP, as much as anyone else this year), are you willing to give him 3+ years at $7M plus to keep those intangibles? That's the real question. And to me, the cost is too high.
- jmatchett383

Simmonds has been on my likely traded list all season and that hasn’t changed. Would I give him the above? Sure, I think his down play by his standards is due to injuries and recovery. He is not in decline. However, I see him...I am not the Flyers brass. I watch and wait.

If the argument is that the Flyers need to be a tougher team to play against, I would agree but I see that as a different conversation than deciding to re-sigh Simmonds or not.
- MJL

Exactly...the possibility of Simmonds leaving gets me talking about it (team toughness) because it surely won’t improve by the single move of taking Simmonds out of the picture. It still needs to be addressed.

I see what you're saying (I think). It's not about adding toughness, it's about losing what toughness we have without replacing it.
- jmatchett383

Ding ding ding

Simmonds has been on my likely traded list all season and that hasn’t changed. Would I give him the above? Sure, I think his down play by his standards is due to injuries and recovery. He is not in decline. However, I see him...I am not the Flyers brass. I watch and wait.
- NC Flyers Fan

My reasoning for leaning towards trading Simmonds is as follows.

1) Flyers need to become a faster and more skilled team
2) The risk of Simmonds declining is real.
3) The Flyers would be better off using the cap space to possibly add a more skilled and faster player
4) They could get a quality asset or two for him in a trade. Hopefully at least 1 NHL ready player.

What it's not based on is that Simmonds is no longer a quality player. I don't agree with that. I think the Flyers need to tweak their mix of players and need more of an offensive catalyst type player.

Didn't Edmonton pay for "intangibles" with the Lucic deal? How did that work out?

My fear is Simmond's next deal turns into that. I know others disagree. I just feel whoever pays the next contract will not get anything close to what they are paying for.
- J35Bacher

Comparing Lucic to Simmonds in my opinion is just lazy. Earlier this season when everyone on this board began talking about trading Simmonds, people started comparing JvR and Simmonds simply because they wear the title “power forward”. JvR, Lucic and Simmonds are all very different players.

Lucic has always been big, slow, with a “me first” attitude. Lucic is dirty. I don’t think Lucic has ever been used on the PK his entire career. The only thing that ever kept Lucic relevant was his scoring. Lucic doesn’t do this anymore. Simmonds bring a lot more to the table than Lucic.

I agree, this contract will be for past services. I still think he's an effective player, though. Just not at what he wants.
- jmatchett383

The most important unknown of all in this discussion.

The most important unknown of all in this discussion.
- Scoob

I'm speculating based entirely on what I think the number is.

My reasoning for leaning towards trading Simmonds is as follows.

1) Flyers need to become a faster and more skilled team
2) The risk of Simmonds declining is real.
3) The Flyers would be better off using the cap space to possibly add a more skilled and faster player
4) They could get a quality asset or two for him in a trade. Hopefully at least 1 NHL ready player.

What it's not based on is that Simmonds is no longer a quality player. I don't agree with that. I think the Flyers need to tweak their mix of players and need more of an offensive catalyst type player.
- MJL

If you take term out of the equation (saying Simmonds is willing to sign short term), the “mix” or fit argument is the only one worth having. Simmonds is as you say a quality player.

If you take term out of the equation (saying Simmonds is willing to sign short term), the “mix” or fit argument is the only one worth having. Simmonds is as you say a quality player.
- NC Flyers Fan

Well yeah, if he'll sign for 1 year at the league minimum, then sure. I doubt either of those is happening, though.

Well yeah, if he'll sign for 1 year at the league minimum, then sure. I doubt either of those is happening, though.
- jmatchett383

Short term...like 2-3 years at a fair market value. Please...don’t jump to extremes.