Leafs are the Leafs, tho. That team will have a waiting list for season tickets and print money everywhere else no matter what happens on the ice.

Flyers bandwagon is not quite that durable.

Remember, ping pong balls screwed them out of Patrick Kane. Flyers were by far the worst team that year. Flyers just have poop luck.
- Tomahawk

You gotta pick picks/prospects with a shovel, not dabble decorously every now and then.

I did not explain fully. What I meant is, if you draft very high, you kinda get two first rounders. A very high one, and a low one in the early 2nd round.

If you choose to not draft high, you are also giving up on the quality of a second rounder. Ans Point and Aho show, this can yield great dividends.

When people talk about Pastrnak, they say: oh, he was a first rounder. But where Pasta was drafted and where Aho/Point were dradted is only a few oplaces difference.

And Bobby Clarke had a certain disdain for 2nd rounders during some of the last years of his reign. He publicly said he thought it was a crapshoot.
- PT21

I think the draft overall is a crapshoot, I don't think Clarke meant just the 2nd round is a crap shoot. I mean, look at Nolan Patrick for example. Also Pastrnak was drafted roughly in the same place as Konecny, Giroux and Laughton. Point was a 3rd rounder!

No, it means he was not all out tanking. He was tanking to some degree, just not extremely.
- PT21

Moving Vinny, Pronger, Hartsy and L Schenn were more about getting the house in order than stealth tanking.

But this doesn't make any sense, why would anyone tank to some degree? How does that help you build a team and be successful. I can assure Hextall was not planning on waiting 10 years to field a competitive hockey team, that would be crazy. It was a tough situation to be honest. When Hextall joined the team, they had no prospects, very few picks, no cap space and some really good players on the roster. They tried to burn both ends of the candle, it didn't work out.
- jd250

1. Tank to some degree: b/c you have inner constraints which prevent you from tanking fully, as Tomahawk explained.
2. It usually doesn't. Witness now.

We are really saying the same thing, you are still not accepting that tanking is a sliding scale. Ergo, you are using other terms for it, but we talking about the same thing.

My intent was not to relabel the usage of the term if you are so averse to such relabeling. I used it yesterday to goad MJL. It would be more productive, I think, if we started to discuss why Hextall did not do what YOU would agree is tanking. And accept that that kind of tanking is heavily correlated with a team's chances of winning a cup.

Moving Vinny, Pronger, Hartsy and L Schenn were more about getting the house in order than stealth tanking.
- Tomahawk

Vinny was done figuratively, Pronger was done literally.

Hartsy was a tank move. You got an unarguably worse player for future cap flexibility. Worse player =>you lowered your chances of winning more games that season => you got higher picks.

Would a contending team move to a worse player for future cap flexibility? Never.

The word tank is so loaded that people just get repelled, especially sports fans. But as a bearded dude once wrote: A rose, by any other name, would smell just as sweet etc.

I think the draft overall is a crapshoot, I don't think Clarke meant just the 2nd round is a crap shoot. I mean, look at Nolan Patrick for example. Also Pastrnak was drafted roughly in the same place as Konecny, Giroux and Laughton. Point was a 3rd rounder!
- jd250

I think its random certainly, but randomness is not the same as independence (which would be a crap shoot). There is a strong correlation between where you pick and your chances of winning the cup.

Here is the proof; Just look at the key players in cup winning teams. The only team since the lockout that has won a cup without a key player being a top 5 pick is Boston. That means ~94% of all cup winners have had a top 5 pick over 16 years.

You can talk about being competitive and drafting and developing well all you want. But by not picking high, its you who are gambling, and the odds are against you.

Dude, he traded one veteran for another. The vet part has nothing to do with it. He traded a better player for a worse one for term reasons. In doing so, he lowered competitiveness thiat year for the sake of the future.

You have an illogical aversion to the use of the term tanking. That is because you have loaded it with all this negative connotations.
- PT21

You missed this badly. The comment made there was not concerning Hextall. It was concerning tanking.

1. Tank to some degree: b/c you have inner constraints which prevent you from tanking fully, as Tomahawk explained.
2. It usually doesn't. Witness now.

We are really saying the same thing, you are still not accepting that tanking is a sliding scale. Ergo, you are using other terms for it, but we talking about the same thing.

My intent was not to relabel the usage of the term if you are so averse to such relabeling. I used it yesterday to goad MJL. It would be more productive, I think, if we started to discuss why Hextall did not do what YOU would agree is tanking. And accept that that kind of tanking is heavily correlated with a team's chances of winning a cup.
- PT21

You didn't goad me into anything. You're giving yourself way too much credit. I involved myself simply due to enjoying the entertainment of exposing you regularly.
You won't accept what tanking really is. This is really just you trying to spin your way out the nonsense and the hole that you put yourself in.

Vinny was done figuratively, Pronger was done literally.

Hartsy was a tank move. You got an unarguably worse player for future cap flexibility. Worse player =>you lowered your chances of winning more games that season => you got higher picks.

Would a contending team move to a worse player for future cap flexibility? Never.

The word tank is so loaded that people just get repelled, especially sports fans. But as a bearded dude once wrote: A rose, by any other name, would smell just as sweet etc.
- PT21

The word tank is not loaded at all. It's simple. When a team makes one move for the future, or a few moves for that matter, that does not mean they are intentionally putting a non-competitive team on the ice. Therefore, it does not meet the standard of tanking.

Vinny was done figuratively, Pronger was done literally.

Hartsy was a tank move. You got an unarguably worse player for future cap flexibility. Worse player =>you lowered your chances of winning more games that season => you got higher picks.

Would a contending team move to a worse player for future cap flexibility? Never.

The word tank is so loaded that people just get repelled, especially sports fans. But as a bearded dude once wrote: A rose, by any other name, would smell just as sweet etc.
- PT21

Getting rid of Hartsy wasn't just cap savings tho. They didn't like his attention to detail and his easy-going attitude. Remember, this was a guy who's throwing his glove on breakaways and poop.

I'm sure Hexy felt like RJ still had something left to give. Of course, that turned out to be wrong. They also got a pick in that deal, too.

Getting rid of Hartsy wasn't just cap savings tho. They didn't like his attention to detail and his easy-going attitude. Remember, this was a guy who's throwing his glove on breakaways and poop.

I'm sure Hexy felt like RJ still had something left to give. Of course, that turned out to be wrong. They also got a pick in that deal, too.
- Tomahawk

Ok, fine. Hextall was not tanking.

Let me ask you and others a hockey question:

Many here (including me and you), would argue that we are not bottom feeders on talent. It is likely that a young team has hit a storm and not had the time to adjust.

But it seems to me also evident that young players are further away from being a key pieces in a contending team than we thought. They are likely 2-3 years away at the earliest, and that is if they ever get there.

In the meantime, you will have two critical decisions next year. Couts and Giroux. Sign them to fair value and you will have 21 odd million tied up in 3 players (with Hayes) for the next several years. And that's even if we manage to get rid off JVR/Voracek.

After that, Couts and Hayes will surely start to decline a little. Couts has had many injuries. Hayes is not a game breaking player. My personal assessment of the young players is that with the possible exception of Hart, none will be game breaking, though Farabee may well turn out to be very clutch. On the other hand, collectively they will likely be quite competitive.

Gentlemen, is this enough? Because what I am seeing right now is the very solid foundations for another decade of mediocrity.

Buffalo, I presume.

EDIT: Btw, the same Provorov who you were saying (last year, after the playoffs) looks to you to be on the brink of perpetual Norris contention?
- PT21

i'll stand by that. I think he'll be great, just a bad year. It is tough to judge anything this year.

You didn't goad me into anything. You're giving yourself way too much credit. I involved myself simply due to enjoying the entertainment of exposing you regularly.
You won't accept what tanking really is. This is really just you trying to spin your way out the nonsense and the hole that you put yourself in.
- MJL

No, its me largely trying to veer discussion away from a topic that has been exhausted.

I provided clear, precise definitions of tanking that encompass the small and the large. For you, tanking needs to meet a critical threshold of fielding a clearly non-competitive team. In other words, its the same as mine, but the 'small tanking' bit is something you would prefer to use more comforting nomenclature for, like "building the farm while staying competitive."

Fine.

i'll stand by that. I think he'll be great, just a bad year. It is tough to judge anything this year.
- Aetherial

I hope so too. Its possible.

I however worried that he will peak as a solid #2. He has had a truly poor year.

Ok, fine. Hextall was not tanking.

Let me ask you and others a hockey question:

Many here (including me and you), would argue that we are not bottom feeders on talent. It is likely that a young team has hit a storm and not had the time to adjust.

But it seems to me also evident that young players are further away from being a key pieces in a contending team than we thought. They are likely 2-3 years away at the earliest, and that is if they ever get there.

In the meantime, you will have two critical decisions next year. Couts and Giroux. Sign them to fair value and you will have 21 odd million tied up in 3 players (with Hayes) for the next several years. And that's even if we manage to get rid off JVR/Voracek.

After that, Couts and Hayes will surely start to decline a little. Couts has had many injuries. Hayes is not a game breaking player. My personal assessment of the young players is that with the possible exception of Hart, none will be game breaking, though Farabee may well turn out to be very clutch. On the other hand, collectively they will likely be quite competitive.

Gentlemen, is this enough? Because what I am seeing right now is the very solid foundations for another decade of mediocrity.
- PT21

IMO, the current young players on the roster aren't 2-3 years away. Think you'll see guys like Frost and Myers blow up like Farabee has done. It usually happens all of a sudden, not linearly. I'm super bullish on Frost and Myers. I really believe they're gonna be driving the bus w/ Coots and Farabee soon.

I'd 100% re-up Coots. G is also 100% if he doesn't mind taking a shave. I don't think you can blame the current debacle on either of them. They're both playing hard and trying to lead by example. Need them to provide guidance for the kids, too.

Hayes will get transitioned to wing sooner or later. Eventually he'll go perma-LTIR or get BO'd. I hated that signing when they made it. I still kinda hate it in light of how well Hayes played at times and how forgettable NP has been.

As Hart goes, so do the Flyers. If he can turn it around the team will follow suit. Everybody playing scared right now. The only silver bullet to shake them out of this is for the goalie to start standing on his head.

IMO, the current young players on the roster aren't 2-3 years away. Think you'll see guys like Frost and Myers blow up like Farabee has done. It usually happens all of a sudden, not linearly. I'm super bullish on Frost and Myers. I really believe they're gonna be driving the bus w/ Coots and Farabee soon.

I'd 100% re-up Coots. G is also 100% if he doesn't mind taking a shave. I don't think you can blame the current debacle on either of them. They're both playing hard and trying to lead by example. Need them to provide guidance for the kids, too.

Hayes will get transitioned to wing sooner or later. Eventually he'll go perma-LTIR or get BO'd. I hated that signing when they made it. I still kinda hate it in light of how well Hayes played at times and how forgettable NP has been.

As Hart goes, so do the Flyers. If he can turn it around the team will follow suit. Everybody playing scared right now. The only silver bullet to shake them out of this is for the goalie to start standing on his head.
- Tomahawk

Farabee hasn't blown up anything. He has had a hot run. TK had a hot run last year. So did Oskar early last year.

I just don't see the evidence that young players are not 2-3 years away at least from being game breakers. If not 2-3 years, that means next season or season after latest. That's wilful fantasy.

I think they will top out as at best JW/Jeff Carter types. They will get traded in 2028 to another team with better stars, where they will win a cup.

Farabee hasn't blown up anything. He has had a hot run. TK had a hot run last year. So did Oskar early last year.

I just don't see the evidence that young players are not 2-3 years away at least from being game breakers. If not 2-3 years, that means next season or season after latest. That's wilful fantasy.

I think they will top out as at best JW/Jeff Carter types. They will get traded in 2028 to another team with better stars, where they will win a cup.
- PT21

Farabee doesn't look like he's just running hot. He's become the team's most assertive offensive player.

I'm sure Boston felt like Seguin was gonna take forever to get his poop together, or Edmonton thought Petry was a lost cause. Sometimes you gotta stay patient and keep faith in your own players.

Of course, sometimes guys only blow up because they get a chance of scenery too. Hopefully the Flyers can ID and acquire a guy like that. And hopefully they don't make the mistake of trading a guy away too soon and watch him go supernova somewhere else.

Farabee doesn't look like he's just running hot. He's become the team's most assertive offensive player.

I'm sure Boston felt like Seguin was gonna take forever to get his poop together, or Edmonton thought Petry was a lost cause. Sometimes you gotta stay patient and keep faith in your own players.

Of course, sometimes guys only blow up because they get a chance of scenery too. Hopefully the Flyers can ID and acquire a guy like that. And hopefully they don't make the mistake of trading a guy away too soon and watch him go supernova somewhere else.
- Tomahawk

I meant our fan base tends to hyoe our young players ridiculously prematurely.

I think if your 1-2 down the middle are Couts and Hayes, you need at least a Marchand type player on wing, if not a Marner/Kucherov type. A stud.

I honestly don't see that future level in Bee. I see a kid with tremendous hockey IQ, with good instincts, but no special skating, passing, or shooting ability (good but not great), who loses every battle along the boards.

To me, he tops out as the current Nylander as he gets stronger.

Or we play a very committed team D, like Blues, Preds, CBJ. But then I am not sure TK and Frost belong in that mix.

I meant our fan base tends to hyoe our young players ridiculously prematurely.
- PT21

It's not really just the fans. Lot of scouts and writers rate our prospects very highly as well. Not that any of them are right 100%. But it bolsters the argument that the Flyers aren't exactly nesting on a pile of mediocrity.

I think your opinion is a bit steeped in current circumstances. Flyers had a lot of kids experience set backs all at once. You don't ever expect that to happen, but it has.

The key now is to not panic and overreact. Keep the powder dry, try to keep some cap space open. Some other team is gonna get impatient w/ their kids, and the Flyers should pounce on that. Not tank to get a % shot at a superstar that really will be 2-3 years away from leading the team.

It's not really just the fans. Lot of scouts and writers rate our prospects very highly as well. Not that any of them are right 100%. But it bolsters the argument that the Flyers aren't exactly nesting on a pile of mediocrity.

I think your opinion is a bit steeped in current circumstances. Flyers had a lot of kids experience set backs all at once. You don't ever expect that to happen, but it has.

The key now is to not panic and overreact. Keep the powder dry, try to keep some cap space open. Some other team is gonna get impatient w/ their kids, and the Flyers should pounce on that. Not tank to get a % shot at a superstar that really will be 2-3 years away from leading the team.
- Tomahawk

You know more about this than I do, but from what I read/hear, they are ranked as tier 1B prospects mostly. Frost and York are middle of top tier no higher, then Brink further down.

Last year, there was derision on this board when Pronman ranked Hart outside the top tier. Well, guys, who is laughing now?

My anger stems not from the current season, which they were not going to contend for anyway. It is in seeing a lot of evidence that the future is less bright than hyped: Except for Bee, every single young player has taken a step back: Hart, Provorov, Sanheim, Myers, TK, Oskar (ok I know), NP (same as Oskar). The vets, actually, contrary to popular perception, have fared much better. Look at the stats of Roo, Voracek, Couturier, even Hayes.

Collectively, this suggests we are significantly further away than we believed. I just don't see the evidence for your sudden stardom theory. It could happen but it usually doesn't.

1. Tank to some degree: b/c you have inner constraints which prevent you from tanking fully, as Tomahawk explained.
2. It usually doesn't. Witness now.

We are really saying the same thing, you are still not accepting that tanking is a sliding scale. Ergo, you are using other terms for it, but we talking about the same thing.

My intent was not to relabel the usage of the term if you are so averse to such relabeling. I used it yesterday to goad MJL. It would be more productive, I think, if we started to discuss why Hextall did not do what YOU would agree is tanking. And accept that that kind of tanking is heavily correlated with a team's chances of winning a cup.
- PT21

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Like I said, its hard to blow the whole thing up when you have roster with still, at the time in 2014, very good players like Giroux, Jake, Simmonds, Hartnell, Schenn and Timonen. He tried to straddle the fence and it didn't work. Was also too quick in hindsight to pull the plug on Berube.

Farabee doesn't look like he's just running hot. He's become the team's most assertive offensive player.

I'm sure Boston felt like Seguin was gonna take forever to get his poop together, or Edmonton thought Petry was a lost cause. Sometimes you gotta stay patient and keep faith in your own players.

Of course, sometimes guys only blow up because they get a chance of scenery too. Hopefully the Flyers can ID and acquire a guy like that. And hopefully they don't make the mistake of trading a guy away too soon and watch him go supernova somewhere else.
- Tomahawk

The case with Boston and Seguin was a little strange, reportedly he was sleeping with another player's wife and thus was shipped out of town.

I think its random certainly, but randomness is not the same as independence (which would be a crap shoot). There is a strong correlation between where you pick and your chances of winning the cup.

Here is the proof; Just look at the key players in cup winning teams. The only team since the lockout that has won a cup without a key player being a top 5 pick is Boston. That means ~94% of all cup winners have had a top 5 pick over 16 years.

You can talk about being competitive and drafting and developing well all you want. But by not picking high, its you who are gambling, and the odds are against you.
- PT21

I agree with you on this point, drafting high is certainly better, but the only way this happens is you blow it up for team's number 1 picks or you luck out in the lottery like the Flyers did the year Hextall drafted Patrick.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Like I said, its hard to blow the whole thing up when you have roster with still, at the time in 2014, very good players like Giroux, Jake, Simmonds, Hartnell, Schenn and Timonen. He tried to straddle the fence and it didn't work. Was also too quick in hindsight to pull the plug on Berube.
- jd250

See, here is where I think a GM has to be ruthless. Giroux had a NTC. All the other guys were clearly not part of a cup winning team. They should have been shipped out as quickly as possible.

Re: Berube, imo Blues caught lightning in a bottle. They had a solid team that was wilting. They changed the coach and bought in a disciplinarian. He righted the ship and some trades worked out. I am not convinced Berube is some great coach.

During the 2nd Pens cup, they were -.500 team turn of the year. They fired the coach and brought in Mike Sullivan. Same story. Fundamentally very good team, a collective change of direction reaped benefits.

I don;t think Berube would have made any difference over pallid poker face Hakstol. He might have ridden the young players harder.

No, its me largely trying to veer discussion away from a topic that has been exhausted.

I provided clear, precise definitions of tanking that encompass the small and the large. For you, tanking needs to meet a critical threshold of fielding a clearly non-competitive team. In other words, its the same as mine, but the 'small tanking' bit is something you would prefer to use more comforting nomenclature for, like "building the farm while staying competitive."

Fine.
- PT21

LOL You started the conversation up again! There's that memory issue again.

You didn't provide clear and precise definition of anything. What you did was try and spin your way out of the hole you dug for yourself. The definition you offered was not correct.