That's the same way I look at it. I view what the moves should have produced rather than what they did produce. So I'm good.

What exactly was Ritolainen brought in here to do?
- MJL

To be a physical presence. Last year our defense was man handled by other teams in front of the net. Ghost sanhiem incredible weak in this aspect. In this regard risto brings something we haven’t had since pronger.

You think if he plays we are automatically a playoff team, haaa. A rebuild would be much more than getting a higher pick, this is a ridiculous statement.
- ClaudeFather

It isnt. The fact is we have struggle to exit our Zone. Ellis is great at moving the puck that has been one of our issues. Yes the injury situation still exists but this team regardless is a bubble team the way it currently is. The fact is we are down 5 Cs. Our #1 C has been hurt all season like Ellis even when he played you could tell he was hurt. Laughton is the #2 C at this point, Reality is he is a 4C. That trickles down the lineup because you now how AHL Cs as you Bottom Cs. Can Frost handle sticking with the team? Maybe but the fact is we need to stop rushing these guys. We continuously rush our prospects and it hurts their development

Rebuilding isnt much more than getting a high pick. You lose, get a high pick and sell your UFAs for Picks. Rebuilding teams also take on bad contracts and obtain picks in return. Fletcher said we need more top end talent. Top end talent is typically drafted. At the end of the day after this season the Flyers dont have UFA players to sell.

It isnt. The fact is we have struggle to exit our Zone. Ellis is great at moving the puck that has been one of our issues. Yes the injury situation still exists but this team regardless is a bubble team the way it currently is. The fact is we are down 5 Cs. Our #1 C has been hurt all season like Ellis even when he played you could tell he was hurt. Laughton is the #2 C at this point, Reality is he is a 4C. That trickles down the lineup because you now how AHL Cs as you Bottom Cs. Can Frost handle sticking with the team? Maybe but the fact is we need to stop rushing these guys. We continuously rush our prospects and it hurts their development

Rebuilding isnt much more than getting a high pick. You lose, get a high pick and sell your UFAs for Picks. Rebuilding teams also take on bad contracts and obtain picks in return. Fletcher said we need more top end talent. Top end talent is typically drafted. At the end of the day after this season the Flyers dont have UFA players to sell.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Yes, rebuilding is a lot more than just getting a high pick. How many high picks has Buffalo had. Is their rebuild complete?

It is also inaccurate to state that Laughton is a 4th line center. He is better than that. He is a 3rd line C/W in this league.

You are a bit of an enigma to me. Some guys here ... I understand why they don't get it. I don't understand why you don't understand. Anyway, here is yet another same/different take on why Hez was not "a fine move" (sorry Tmhwk!)


- PT21

Umm.... The Bruins have went from Bubble to Cup winner. Bruins missed the Playoffs 7 times since 1968. Never more than twice in a row.

Umm.... The Bruins have went from Bubble to Cup winner. Bruins missed the Playoffs 7 times since 1968. Never more than twice in a row.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Now you've done it. Here comes the lecture on probabilities and odds.

It isnt. The fact is we have struggle to exit our Zone. Ellis is great at moving the puck that has been one of our issues. Yes the injury situation still exists but this team regardless is a bubble team the way it currently is. The fact is we are down 5 Cs. Our #1 C has been hurt all season like Ellis even when he played you could tell he was hurt. Laughton is the #2 C at this point, Reality is he is a 4C. That trickles down the lineup because you now how AHL Cs as you Bottom Cs. Can Frost handle sticking with the team? Maybe but the fact is we need to stop rushing these guys. We continuously rush our prospects and it hurts their development

Rebuilding isnt much more than getting a high pick. You lose, get a high pick and sell your UFAs for Picks. Rebuilding teams also take on bad contracts and obtain picks in return. Fletcher said we need more top end talent. Top end talent is typically drafted. At the end of the day after this season the Flyers dont have UFA players to sell.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

So when he resigns Risto long term will that help the rebuild ?

So when he resigns Risto long term will that help the rebuild ?
- ClaudeFather

Of course. Didn't you read it? We haven't had that since Pronger.

that's were we disagree. He is a bottom pair guy to me.

Handedness is a tad overrated imo. He is better than Haag though at the end of the day neither move the needle. Replace RR with Haag and record is probably the same. so what is RR doing to justify his money?
- hello it's me 2050

well i think he makes it harder to play against. Ive seen some on here compare him to Hagg because both makes hits. I dont think their hits are even close to similiar. I think he is a little over paid, but not huge. We just have different takes on him. I think every team needs a RR type, 2 would be even better. . Now if the rest of our D wasnt so soft, maybe we dont need RR.

Gudas much better value than RR to me.
- hello it's me 2050

I'd take Gudas over RR. But gudas was in a similar spot to Kadri was when the leafs got rid of him. Started costing the team with suspensions and couldnt be counted on. The fresh start did them both well

That's the same way I look at it. I view what the moves should have produced rather than what they did produce. So I'm good.

What exactly was Ritolainen brought in here to do?
- MJL

Make the team tougher to play against, be more physical on the backend, plus he is a RHS defenseman which the Flyers needed.

That's the same way I look at it. I view what the moves should have produced rather than what they did produce. So I'm good.

What exactly was Ritolainen brought in here to do?
- MJL

Wait .. huh? Is this really MJL?

Umm.... The Bruins have went from Bubble to Cup winner. Bruins missed the Playoffs 7 times since 1968. Never more than twice in a row.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

1968 is hardly relevant for a 2011 win. Do you know how many times Bruins drafted in the top 10 in the 15 years prior to their win? 7 times.

Was their a direct correlation between that repeated visiting of cellar and cup? No. They traded their franchise player types in Kessel and Thornton. One could however argue that the trade returns of guys like Thornton (in bringing back several good players who could fill the roster with modest salaries) freed up the salary space for a signing like Chara, which is after all what sprung their decade long contention. So there might be an indirect correlation.

But let us say that I give you Boston. And that I omitted them in error (I actually just wanted to get to the heart of the issue and not clutter the diagram). That's one team out of 16 in post salary cap era (Wings team was largely made up long before cap took effect) that has won without garnering at least 1 franchise player from cellar. Which would be ~6% of the cup winners.

That doesn't materially change anything, does it?

So when he resigns Risto long term will that help the rebuild ?
- ClaudeFather

Depends if he is traded then re-signed in the offseason or flat out re-signed. Also depends on the offers as well. He could be worth more to us than what is offered. Realistically if it isnt a first Id rather keep him if thats an option

1968 is hardly relevant for a 2011 win. Do you know how many times Bruins drafted in the top 10 in the 15 years prior to their win? 7 times.

Was their a direct correlation between that repeated visiting of cellar and cup? No. They traded their franchise player types in Kessel and Thornton. One could however argue that the trade returns of guys like Thornton (in bringing back several good players who could fill the roster with modest salaries) freed up the salary space for a signing like Chara, which is after all what sprung their decade long contention. So there might be an indirect correlation.

But let us say that I give you Boston. And that I omitted them in error (I actually just wanted to get to the heart of the issue and not clutter the diagram). That's one team out of 16 in post salary cap era (Wings team was largely made up long before cap took effect) that has won without garnering at least 1 franchise player from cellar. Which would be ~6% of the cup winners.

That doesn't materially change anything, does it?
- PT21

Do you even read the comments before commenting? 1968 is relevant because they have been a playoff team since then EXCEPT those 7 times. Which means they did not draft in the top 10 often. You wanna talk 2011? 2/7 of the misses were after the Cup Victory so from 1968 to 2011 they missed the playoffs 5 times

2006-07 - 23/30 - 8th Overall - Zack Hamill
2005-06 - 26/30 - 5th Overall - Phil Kessel
2000-01 - 18/30 - 19th Overall - Shaone Morrisonn
1999-00 - 23/28 - 7th Overall - Lars Jonsson
1996-97 - 26/26 - 1st Overall - Joe Thornton

So who was instrumental in that 2011 Cup Victory?

Hamil played 3 games in the playoffs - Bust

Morrissonn was not on the team - Trade for Gonchar who was also not on the team at time of Cup win

Jonsson not on the team - Bust

Kessel - Traded - for Seguin and Hamilton(Picks at time I believe) - Seguin only guy on the roster, played 13 games with 7 points

Thornton Traded - The so called good players received Marco Sturm, Wayne Primeau and Brad Stuart None of which were on the cup winning team

So how did they win a cup? Their Top Draft picks had little to do with it. It is 1/16 that we know of. You missed Boston, how many more did you "miss"? The only reason it is just Boston right now is because I dont have time to dig into every single team to find an example.

Do you even read the comments before commenting?1968 is relevant because they have been a playoff team since then EXCEPT those 7 times. Which means they did not draft in the top 10 often. You wanna talk 2011? 2/7 of the misses were after the Cup Victory so from 1968 to 2011 they missed the playoffs 5 times

2006-07 - 23/30 - 8th Overall - Zack Hamill
2005-06 - 26/30 - 5th Overall - Phil Kessel
2000-01 - 18/30 - 19th Overall - Shaone Morrisonn
1999-00 - 23/28 - 7th Overall - Lars Jonsson
1996-97 - 26/26 - 1st Overall - Joe Thornton

So who was instrumental in that 2011 Cup Victory?

Hamil played 3 games in the playoffs - Bust

Morrissonn was not on the team - Trade for Gonchar who was also not on the team at time of Cup win

Jonsson not on the team - Bust

Kessel - Traded - for Seguin and Hamilton(Picks at time I believe) - Seguin only guy on the roster, played 13 games with 7 points

Thornton Traded - The so called good players received Marco Sturm, Wayne Primeau and Brad Stuart None of which were on the cup winning team

So how did they win a cup? Their Top Draft picks had little to do with it. It is 1/16 that we know of. You missed Boston, how many more did you "miss"? The only reason it is just Boston right now is because I dont have time to dig into every single team to find an example.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Funny. Yes I did.

Now let me point out, 1 by 1, how many things I wrote you missed, (and which directly addressed the same points you thought I missed but actually did not).

1. The 1968 window is far too long to have anything to do with 2011 cup. That end point has no relevance whatsoever. Start with a reasonable window, say 15 years.

2. Of those 15 years, Bruins drafted in the top 10 7 times.

3. I never mentioned my definition of bubble team to be one that makes the playoffs every other year or so. You ascribed that definition. My definition of bubble team would be one which, at least 80% of the time in the 15 year span, drafts about say 11-22 (middle 3rd). The point is not that Boston missed the playoffs: it's how much they missed the playoffs by. Those top 10 draft picks answer that question: by a lot.

4. I already gave you a precise indirect (albeit speculative) reason how those players (Sturm, Primeau etc) contributed to getting Chara on the roster.

5. None. Every single cup winner except Boston post-salary cap age (and the aforementioned Wings) had at least 1 enormously critical player on roster who was a top 10 pick.

The only reason it is just Boston right now is because I dont have time to dig into every single team to find an example.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

You don't need to. This is common knowledge, and while I am probably the loudest proponent of this pov here, it is widely known pretty much everywhere else hockey is discussed.

To avoid getting distracted by Boston (which is a well known outlier), lets come back to your original premise that Hayes was a "good move." Hayes was by design a 2c. That is a completely different trade than the one that brought Chara to Boston, who already was a franchise defender in his prime.

Here is why it was a bad strategy: When you don't have a star/franchise player on your roster, and you have not made a single deep cup run in the preceding many years, and you sign a secondary player (non star player) to a long term expensive contract with a NTC, the names of the teams that have been successful with that strategy are below this sentence.

Make the team tougher to play against, be more physical on the backend, plus he is a RHS defenseman which the Flyers needed.
- jd250

He doesn't make the team tougher to play against at all. There is no evidence of that. Teams take advantage of him in the defensive end.

Wait .. huh? Is this really MJL?
- jd250

Over your head.