Ellis out again. When does the announcement come that he’s out 6-8 weeks?

Ellis our again. When does the announcement come that he’s out 6-8 weeks?
- PLindbergh31

when they announce Patrick's issue wasnt just migraine related

Ristolainen was not traded for as a playoff rental at the trade deadline. He was traded as a future piece to upgrade the defense. If this was a move for a player who could solidify the teams chances at the cup, it would be understandable. Trying to give justification based on what other teams have done in moves that aren't in any way related can't remove the potential for the Ristolainen trade to be a really bad one. Nor can it change the quality of player that Ristolainen is.
Also the attempt to try and spin and lessen the value of what they gave up for the player doesn't hold water.
- MJL

What I'm saying is that same (1st round pick +) has been given up in the past for less time with the player (ie at the TDL) I can't see how that is getting worse value.

add in the the assets they had to trade in order for AZ to take Ghost because thats where his cap space went

Fletch grossly overpaid for a soon to be UFA RR. He's been pulling his pud for 3 years wanting to acquire him. Pissing away assets and chalking it up to oh, well it didnt work out is ridiculous at best. You can say that about trying to take a shortcut to avoid a traffic jam and that being backed as well is something that you can say that about. A trade like this, if it doesnt work out, is mismanagement and causes to question the maker's lack of vision.

With that said, hes been ok. Far from a beast but overall ok. I hope his play gradually improves and then well see about the contract
- THE BLACK HAND

Ghost was out no matter what.

What I'm saying is that same (1st round pick +) has been given up in the past for less time with the player (ie at the TDL) I can't see how that is getting worse value.
- flyer4ever75

You're not considering the difference in the situations. You're attempting to justify the move if he doesn't work out and he's not re-signed.

Ghost was out no matter what.
- Peter Richards

not necessarily. Regardless, Fletch couldnt trade for RR without the capspace the ghost trade opened.

You're not considering the difference in the situations. You're attempting to justify the move if he doesn't work out and he's not re-signed.
- MJL

I don't know, call me crazy but I would rather have a player play the full season than just from the TDL to the end of the playoffs. And I frankly don't care if he's not resigned. If its not a fit, don't resign him. At least they tried to improve the team. If they don't resign him they can go after another UFA to fill the gap. In the meantime that first they gave up is at least 3 years from helping the team, in a best case scenario.

not necessarily. Regardless, Fletch couldnt trade for RR without the capspace the ghost trade opened.
- THE BLACK HAND

he tried to get rid of ghost for over a year, that was the cost of getting rid of him. And im pretty sure we wont be able to get rid of jvr after this year. He tried last year and there was no takers, it wont be easier next year

I don't know, call me crazy but I would rather have a player play the full season than just from the TDL to the end of the playoffs. And I frankly don't care if he's not resigned. If its not a fit, don't resign him. At least they tried to improve the team. If they don't resign him they can go after another UFA to fill the gap. In the meantime that first they gave up is at least 3 years from helping the team, in a best case scenario.
- flyer4ever75

How could you not care if he's not re-signed when they gave up a 1st, 2nd and a roster player for him? Can they get those picks back? Are you telling me that a players selected in the 1st round is always 3 years away? Again, you're making an attempt to try and devalue the assets given up.
I'll explain what the major difference is that seems to escape you. When you make a playoff rental acquisition at the deadline and give up a 1st round pick, you're doing so because you feel your team is a contender and you add a piece that can help.
In the Flyers case they made the trade to try and improve the defense so they can become a contender. It's a small sample of games but I don't see anything from the player that suggests that he can help do that. Combine that with his past as a player and it doesn't give me much hope.

I don't know, call me crazy but I would rather have a player play the full season than just from the TDL to the end of the playoffs. And I frankly don't care if he's not resigned. If its not a fit, don't resign him. At least they tried to improve the team. If they don't resign him they can go after another UFA to fill the gap. In the meantime that first they gave up is at least 3 years from helping the team, in a best case scenario.
- flyer4ever75

agreed. to me there is no difference if they spend money on RR next year or sign a different FA. And that pick is at least 3 years, or if you are frost rubstov or Obrien, maybe 6 years

How could you not care if he's not re-signed when they gave up a 1st, 2nd and a roster player for him? Can they get those picks back? Are you telling me that a players selected in the 1st round is always 3 years away? Again, you're making an attempt to try and devalue the assets given up.
I'll explain what the major difference is that seems to escape you. When you make a playoff rental acquisition at the deadline and give up a 1st round pick, you're doing so because you feel your team is a contender and you add a piece that can help.
In the Flyers case they made the trade to try and improve the defense so they can become a contender. It's a small sample of games but I don't see anything from the player that suggests that he can help do that. Combine that with his past as a player and it doesn't give me much hope.
- MJL

and thats why you arent a GM lol

he tried to get rid of ghost for over a year, that was the cost of getting rid of him. And im pretty sure we wont be able to get rid of jvr after this year. He tried last year and there was no takers, it wont be easier next year
- bradster

and I cant wait to see how he gets bent over on that deal

and I cant wait to see how he gets bent over on that deal
- THE BLACK HAND

thats because you arent a fan and want the team to do well. I think he wont even be able to get rid of him....we'll see

thats because you arent a fan and want the team to do well. I think he wont even be able to get rid of him....we'll see
- bradster

How could you not care if he's not re-signed when they gave up a 1st, 2nd and a roster player for him? Can they get those picks back? Are you telling me that a players selected in the 1st round is always 3 years away? Again, you're making an attempt to try and devalue the assets given up.
I'll explain what the major difference is that seems to escape you. When you make a playoff rental acquisition at the deadline and give up a 1st round pick, you're doing so because you feel your team is a contender and you add a piece that can help.
In the Flyers case they made the trade to try and improve the defense so they can become a contender. It's a small sample of games but I don't see anything from the player that suggests that he can help do that. Combine that with his past as a player and it doesn't give me much hope.
- MJL

When Isak Rosen breaks into the league and is a difference maker, let me know.

How many teams give up 1st round picks at the TDL every year? How many are successful at it (ie win the cup).

No I don't care if he's resigned if he doesn't fit, because as I said, they can sign someone else as a UFA to replace him, and give up no assets. I would think you would think the same as you seem to think they will need to overpay him to keep him - if that's the case you let him walk.

What seems to escape you is this thing is done all the time. Does every team keep all their picks and just stay the course? Do first round picks always pan out? Sure you'd like to have draft picks, but sometimes you need to spend future assets to get something for the present.

and I cant wait to see how he gets bent over on that deal
- THE BLACK HAND

JVR will only have one year left on his contract at the end of this year, Ghost had 2. They could just buy JVR out instead which would cost $1.3M for two years.

Also IMO JVR has a little more value than Ghost, but you never know.

How could you not care if he's not re-signed when they gave up a 1st, 2nd and a roster player for him? Can they get those picks back? Are you telling me that a players selected in the 1st round is always 3 years away? Again, you're making an attempt to try and devalue the assets given up.
I'll explain what the major difference is that seems to escape you. When you make a playoff rental acquisition at the deadline and give up a 1st round pick, you're doing so because you feel your team is a contender and you add a piece that can help.
In the Flyers case they made the trade to try and improve the defense so they can become a contender. It's a small sample of games but I don't see anything from the player that suggests that he can help do that. Combine that with his past as a player and it doesn't give me much hope.
- MJL

In the small sample of all of 3 games, Risto has been great, but I'm afraid you will never allow yourself to admit it. Risto gives this team exactly what they needed, a real physical presence on the backend. You can look at advanced metrics all you want, but Risto is never going to have great possession metrics when he is starting from this own zone 60-70% of the time! You have to watch the games to understand Risto's greatest impact. He has been good so far, and if he keeps playing like this, I will be very happy seeing him get resigned.

When Isak Rosen breaks into the league and is a difference maker, let me know.

How many teams give up 1st round picks at the TDL every year? How many are successful at it (ie win the cup).

No I don't care if he's resigned if he doesn't fit, because as I said, they can sign someone else as a UFA to replace him, and give up no assets. I would think you would think the same as you seem to think they will need to overpay him to keep him - if that's the case you let him walk.

What seems to escape you is this thing is done all the time. Does every team keep all their picks and just stay the course? Do first round picks always pan out? Sure you'd like to have draft picks, but sometimes you need to spend future assets to get something for the present.
- flyer4ever75

What does Isak Rosen have to do with it?

Most teams won't be successful who give up a first round pick at the deadline. However the difference is that those team already consider themselves a contender and can afford to take that risk. When you're a team that isn't a contender, which is what the Flyers were or are, those picks have more value to that team that needs to build itself into a contender.

You don't care if he is re-signed because he is not a fit because they can sign another player. Sure they can but at what cost? Let me ask you a simple question. Does signing a free agent to replace him if they don't re-sign him change the fact that they traded those picks? Was the option to use free agency and not give up those picks always there or just afterwards?

Nothing escapes me. Trades are made all the time. Some work, some don't. Somehow you think that would justify the move if it doesn't work out. People do stupid things all the time, so does that mean you should also?

I'm all for spending future assets to help the team for the right move. This player had some serious known issues with his game in addition to not being a cost controlled player. There were many doubts about this player an there still are.

In the small sample of all of 3 games, Risto has been great, but I'm afraid you will never allow yourself to admit it. Risto gives this team exactly what they needed, a real physical presence on the backend. You can look at advanced metrics all you want, but Risto is never going to have great possession metrics when he is starting from this own zone 60-70% of the time! You have to watch the games to understand Risto's greatest impact. He has been good so far, and if he keeps playing like this, I will be very happy seeing him get resigned.
- jd250

You keep using adjectives like great and called him a beast in a previous post. In the Summer you said he was a defenseman who checks all the boxes. It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't know what great play looks like. Or what a defenseman who is actually a beast looks like. There is nothing remotely approaching great in his play. He's a had a couple of games where he has just been okay. Otherwise he has been mediocre.

Just as examples of what a beast defenseman looks like on the ice. Watch Victor Hedman or Shea Weber play last year. That's an example of defenseman who are beasts. Hedman is an example of a defenseman who checks all the boxes.

In terms of players who are more the type of player that Ristolainen is. I would suggest watching players such as Jacob Slavin, Erik Cernak, Adam Pelech, Ryan McDonagh or Devin Toews play. Those are player that would be worth what they paid to acquire Ristolainen for. Ristolainen is not remotely in the league of those players.

Needing a physical presence. Give me Radko Gudas who is a better player at 2.5M a year back.

Earlier today you made the statement that you wouldn't want Morgan Reilly playing for 8 minutes on your team. That and your repeated ridiculous labeling of Ristolainen's play as great, is disqualifying from having any kind of a informed opinion.

When Isak Rosen breaks into the league and is a difference maker, let me know.

How many teams give up 1st round picks at the TDL every year? How many are successful at it (ie win the cup).

No I don't care if he's resigned if he doesn't fit, because as I said, they can sign someone else as a UFA to replace him, and give up no assets. I would think you would think the same as you seem to think they will need to overpay him to keep him - if that's the case you let him walk.

What seems to escape you is this thing is done all the time. Does every team keep all their picks and just stay the course? Do first round picks always pan out? Sure you'd like to have draft picks, but sometimes you need to spend future assets to get something for the present.
- flyer4ever75

Agree.

JVR will only have one year left on his contract at the end of this year, Ghost had 2. They could just buy JVR out instead which would cost $1.3M for two years.


- flyer4ever75

That is not correct.

A buyout of JVR after this season would cost $4,333,334 in 22/23 and $1,333,334 in 23/24

What does Isak Rosen have to do with it?

Most teams won't be successful who give up a first round pick at the deadline. However the difference is that those team already consider themselves a contender and can afford to take that risk. When you're a team that isn't a contender, which is what the Flyers were or are, those picks have more value to that team that needs to build itself into a contender.

You don't care if he is re-signed because he is not a fit because they can sign another player. Sure they can but at what cost? Let me ask you a simple question. Does signing a free agent to replace him if they don't re-sign him change the fact that they traded those picks? Was the option to use free agency and not give up those picks always there or just afterwards?

Nothing escapes me. Trades are made all the time. Some work, some don't. Somehow you think that would justify the move if it doesn't work out. People do stupid things all the time, so does that mean you should also?

I'm all for spending future assets to help the team for the right move. This player had some serious known issues with his game in addition to not being a cost controlled player. There were many doubts about this player an there still are.
- MJL

At most only one team that gives up a 1st at the trade deadline will be successful actually.

Lol. I assume you know, but Isak Rosen is the 1st that Buffalo used Philly's pick on, so he's the main return on the trade, that's why it matters. The other pick is a 2nd in 2023, so two years from being picked.

Hamilton, Savard and Barrie were the only 3 decent RHD available in Free Agency last year. A trade was the only other option, other than standing pat. Based on the on ice results last year, luckily that wasn't considered.

Give me a trade scenario, for a top 4 RHD that is cost controlled at $6M or less for the next 3+ years and tell me it would be less than what we gave up for RR.

Yes it's better to have as many picks in a lottery as possible (ie the draft) but it doesn't mean you're going to win. Just like making trades, drafting 18 years old does not always work out either. At least we knew what we were getting in return in RR, whether you like it or not, some people think (myself) included, he is what we needed.

At most only one team that gives up a 1st at the trade deadline will be successful actually.

Lol. I assume you know, but Isak Rosen is the 1st that Buffalo used Philly's pick on, so he's the main return on the trade, that's why it matters. The other pick is a 2nd in 2023, so two years from being picked.

Hamilton, Savard and Barrie were the only 3 decent RHD available in Free Agency last year. A trade was the only other option, other than standing pat. Based on the on ice results last year, luckily that wasn't considered.

Give me a trade scenario, for a top 4 RHD that is cost controlled at $6M or less for the next 3+ years and tell me it would be less than what we gave up for RR.

Yes it's better to have as many picks in a lottery as possible (ie the draft) but it doesn't mean you're going to win. Just like making trades, drafting 18 years old does not always work out either. At least we knew what we were getting in return in RR, whether you like it or not, some people think (myself) included, he is what we needed.
- flyer4ever75

The trade scenario is a good point.

At most only one team that gives up a 1st at the trade deadline will be successful actually.


- flyer4ever75

No kidding! A team that is already at a true contender level is in a better position to give up the future asset and take the risk. With the position the Flyers are in, they should not be taking the risk they took in trading for Ristolainen.

Lol. I assume you know, but Isak Rosen is the 1st that Buffalo used Philly's pick on, so he's the main return on the trade, that's why it matters. The other pick is a 2nd in 2023, so two years from being picked.


- flyer4ever75

Obviously at least for me anyway, you don't know that you have no idea who the Flyers would've selected if they had kept the pick. Speaking of something that escapes someone.

Hamilton, Savard and Barrie were the only 3 decent RHD available in Free Agency last year. A trade was the only other option, other than standing pat. Based on the on ice results last year, luckily that wasn't considered.


- flyer4ever75

The cap hit is high for Hamilton but at least he is a legit difference maker. Barrie was not the kind of player they were interested in. I would've preferred if the choice was standing pat or trading for Risotlainen, that they stood pat. No doubt.

Give me a trade scenario, for a top 4 RHD that is cost controlled at $6M or less for the next 3+ years and tell me it would be less than what we gave up for RR.


- flyer4ever75

False narrative. No need to do that. Doesn't change any of the facts or what kind of player that Ristolainen is. I can't predict what any NHL team would do just like you can't. Really a foolish question to ask.

Yes it's better to have as many picks in a lottery as possible (ie the draft) but it doesn't mean you're going to win. Just like making trades, drafting 18 years old does not always work out either. At least we knew what we were getting in return in RR, whether you like it or not, some people think (myself) included, he is what we needed.
- flyer4ever75

I'm not sure how overpaying for a mediocre player is what the team needed. I think many including yourself are mesmerized because he can throw a big hit every now and then. Right now, Justin Braun is a better player.

You keep using adjectives like great and called him a beast in a previous post. In the Summer you said he was a defenseman who checks all the boxes. It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't know what great play looks like. Or what a defenseman who is actually a beast looks like. There is nothing remotely approaching great in his play. He's a had a couple of games where he has just been okay. Otherwise he has been mediocre.

Just as examples of what a beast defenseman looks like on the ice. Watch Victor Hedman or Shea Weber play last year. That's an example of defenseman who are beasts. Hedman is an example of a defenseman who checks all the boxes.

In terms of players who are more the type of player that Ristolainen is. I would suggest watching players such as Jacob Slavin, Erik Cernak, Adam Pelech, Ryan McDonagh or Devin Toews play. Those are player that would be worth what they paid to acquire Ristolainen for. Ristolainen is not remotely in the league of those players.

Needing a physical presence. Give me Radko Gudas who is a better player at 2.5M a year back.

Earlier today you made the statement that you wouldn't want Morgan Reilly playing for 8 minutes on your team. That and your repeated ridiculous labeling of Ristolainen's play as great, is disqualifying from having any kind of a informed opinion.
- MJL

pretty much everything you say lol