Whatever you want to call it... bad for awhile or "tanking"... that's what people are asking for.
- Tomahawk

Tanking is what Chicago has been doing, trading away all your good forwards for draft picks. Being bad for a while is the Flyers or the Devils. The difference is, Devils have drafted better.

Yes, I can. This doesn't change it. You're asking the wrong question. A heavy focus on collecting assets in the early rounds of drafts spread over a few Drafts IS an attempt to do a rebuild.

The question is whether it going far enough or is too reminiscent of the Hexy era -- locking up Giroux, Voracek and Simmonds through their primes and beyond, signing JVR to a five-year UFA contract, etc. -- with a risk of similar results.
- bmeltzer

There was an attempt eh

So you want them to tank?
I asked this before, besides Chicago and Pitt, how many teams have won the cup after tanking?
How many teams have won the cup after being bad for awhile and just drafted really well and traded for players?

The issue with the Flyers is they have not drafted well nor have they found that franchise player. Also when was the last time they had the #1 pick in the draft?
- WhiskeyMan

You're asking the wrong questions and being disingenuous. Only one team wins the Cup in a season. The question to ask are what kind of players do you need to win the cup and how do you acquire them? How many teams have won the cup without tanking versus not tanking?

Tanking is what Chicago has been doing, trading away all your good forwards for draft picks. Being bad for a while is the Flyers or the Devils. The difference is, Devils have drafted better.
- WhiskeyMan

The Flyers have been bad for awhile but not bad enough to draft where elite players are normally found.

Caps, Tampa, Colorado, Florida... they've all had multiple top-5 picks in a short period of time (including 1OA's) to find their franchise cornerstones. Devils aren't finding the Hughes bros, Hischier and Nemec w/o top-5 picks.

Routinely drafting 10-20 isn't gonna cut it. You gotta bottom out for awhile.

Not really. The Flyers fanbase has been remarkably consistent, except the last 2 years.

https://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/attend.cgi

https://www.hockeydb.com/...ce/att_graph.php?tmi=5218

The Blackhawks outdraw the Flyers consistently. This is a team that's committed to a proper rebuild but also is very open an honest about it. They regularly communicate with their STH honestly, not using slogans.

Tanking doesn't have to lose you money. Also, you have to figure that you are saving millions on salaries and buyouts so your expenses can be much reduced.
- Flyers_01

The Hawks are drawing now because they are just years removed from a dynasty. And they got Bedard. Look at their attendance % before the Kane/Toews era.

And even there, from a baseline figure of about 100% just a couple of years ago: last year, with Bedard, they fell to 7th lowest at 93.8%.

A 1% drop in revenue over a 41 game season is a lot. More likely, you are dropping 5 at least. Multiply that with 5 years, and your revenues are off by 25% over full seasons. After that, you may never make this up: your draft picks may not pan out. You may end up winning more games than not and pick late. Your fans may tune out and you may lose the brand value.

Except for the expansion teams down south, I sort of doubt that winning in hockey makes much economic sense for teams not in Detroit, Toronto, Montreal and NY. It depends on individual owner preferences for risk and taste for fielding winning teams. It doesn't follow from maxing profits though.

Tanking is what Chicago has been doing, trading away all your good forwards for draft picks. Being bad for a while is the Flyers or the Devils. The difference is, Devils have drafted better.
- WhiskeyMan

is the flyers way a winning way? is it a path to on ice success?

is the flyers way a winning way? is it a path to on ice success?
- hello it's me 2050

All of the last Stanley Cup winners have had a major tank to get highend talent. ➖️ Vegas who took full advantage of the new expansion rules. They have also been savvy afterwards.

All of the last Stanley Cup winners have had a major tank to get highend talent. ➖️ Vegas who took full advantage of the new expansion rules. They have also been savvy afterwards.
- THE EVIL WITHIN

you mean they don't get attached to players? they make the hard choices. unlike the flyers who take the path of least resistance.

unlike what the gm/coach of the flyers preaches but actions say otherwise.

Dude, WTF is your problem. I am not saying they will trade young forwards. I am saying they have the flexibility if they wanted to, key word is flexibility.

But to answer your question, if a team comes along and says they believe Frost is the missing piece to them winning the cup and offer a 2nd or 1st, Danny better trade him.
- WhiskeyMan

LOL, I guess my problem is your inability to grasp a simple concept. The key word is actually rebuild. That is the context. So when looking at flexibility, it's not from the perspective of if they can move players such as Foerster, Brink, Farabee, York, Tippett and Frost. Players that can be considered part of the rebuild. It's the ability to be able to move out older players to acquire future assets and build up cap space. It's the ability to move players such as Konecny, Couturier, Sanheim, Seeler, Laughton and other older veteran players. That's what is meant when looking at flexibility.

this place rules 😂

Yes, I can. This doesn't change it. You're asking the wrong question. A heavy focus on collecting assets in the early rounds of drafts spread over a few Drafts IS an attempt to do a rebuild.

The question is whether it going far enough or is too reminiscent of the Hexy era -- locking up Giroux, Voracek and Simmonds through their primes and beyond, signing JVR to a five-year UFA contract, etc. -- with a risk of similar results.
- bmeltzer

the upcoming season was the season to tank it, hope it accidentally happens, despite their best effort not to make it happen. My gut tells me, the Flyers will plan on a big overpay to get who they want in the next draft. They have the draft capital, they have middling assets in the system they can move, just be easier if they had a top 5 pick, then moved up into the teens for a 2nd first round pick.

Tanking is what Chicago has been doing, trading away all your good forwards for draft picks. Being bad for a while is the Flyers or the Devils. The difference is, Devils have drafted better.
- WhiskeyMan

I’d rather just keep doing what the Flyers have been.

With the same old Flyer family leading the show.

All is well. Biden is running a marathon next week.

If you have the balls to answer a question for me, who aside from Fletcher, Hextall - and Pryor has been fired since 2013?

Tanking is what Chicago has been doing, trading away all your good forwards for draft picks. Being bad for a while is the Flyers or the Devils. The difference is, Devils have drafted better.
- WhiskeyMan

Devils : https://www.hockeydb.com/...aft/teams/dr00007066.html
2017 1st overall
2019 1st overall
2020 7th overall
2021 4th overall
2022 2nd overall
2024 10th overall

Do you want to try again? The Flyers have nowhere near those picks.

The Hawks are drawing now because they are just years removed from a dynasty. And they got Bedard. Look at their attendance % before the Kane/Toews era.

And even there, from a baseline figure of about 100% just a couple of years ago: last year, with Bedard, they fell to 7th lowest at 93.8%.

A 1% drop in revenue over a 41 game season is a lot. More likely, you are dropping 5 at least. Multiply that with 5 years, and your revenues are off by 25% over full seasons. After that, you may never make this up: your draft picks may not pan out. You may end up winning more games than not and pick late. Your fans may tune out and you may lose the brand value.

Except for the expansion teams down south, I sort of doubt that winning in hockey makes much economic sense for teams not in Detroit, Toronto, Montreal and NY. It depends on individual owner preferences for risk and taste for fielding winning teams. It doesn't follow from maxing profits though.
- PT21

Chicago's last cup win was in 2015. That is an eternity in hockey. Fans will pay to watch a young team with exciting young skilled players with a bright future, even if they're currently a losing team. Fans want promise if they're not a current contender. If you can build that excitement with young skilled and talented players, you won't have that steep drop off for 5 years in revenue.

Devils : https://www.hockeydb.com/...aft/teams/dr00007066.html
2017 1st overall
2019 1st overall
2020 7th overall
2021 4th overall
2022 2nd overall
2024 10th overall

Do you want to try again? The Flyers have nowhere near those picks.
- Flyers_01

When you look at most of the top teams who have won. It's normally about a decade long process of top draft picks to build that elite base. Flyers keep thinking they can do it in a couple of years. After all, they're the gold standard of the NHL

Devils : https://www.hockeydb.com/...aft/teams/dr00007066.html
2017 1st overall
2019 1st overall
2020 7th overall
2021 4th overall
2022 2nd overall
2024 10th overall

Do you want to try again? The Flyers have nowhere near those picks.
- Flyers_01

Shows how tough it is. The Devils even have made some really good picks outside of that such as Bratt in the 6th round. They're still not there. It can't be done overnight. It's a long process in most cases. The more the Flyers Richard around. The longer it's gong to take. 14 years and counting.

I would guarantee the FLyers would sell tickets if you told me they had a foundation of Michkov and Hagens. Per scouts:

"He reminds scouts of Jack Hughes due to the way he combines skill and skating and he’s easily one of the most dynamic centers I’ve seen in a while. He’ll have a chance to replace Will Smith as Boston College’s top center next year, which will be a big step forward for him."

Pair that with Michkov and people will come watch.

The Hawks are drawing now because they are just years removed from a dynasty. And they got Bedard. Look at their attendance % before the Kane/Toews era.

And even there, from a baseline figure of about 100% just a couple of years ago: last year, with Bedard, they fell to 7th lowest at 93.8%.

A 1% drop in revenue over a 41 game season is a lot. More likely, you are dropping 5 at least. Multiply that with 5 years, and your revenues are off by 25% over full seasons. After that, you may never make this up: your draft picks may not pan out. You may end up winning more games than not and pick late. Your fans may tune out and you may lose the brand value.

Except for the expansion teams down south, I sort of doubt that winning in hockey makes much economic sense for teams not in Detroit, Toronto, Montreal and NY. It depends on individual owner preferences for risk and taste for fielding winning teams. It doesn't follow from maxing profits though.
- PT21

You want receipts? Let's bring receipts:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/philadelphia-flyers/

Flyers gate in 2022-23 was $63 mill. 1% of that is .63 mill. 5% is 3.15 mill. Maybe 16 mill total over your 5 year scenario?

Now that we have actual numbers instead of doomsday scenarios does it sound like a lot of money to be risking? I guess that means we can't afford Scottie Laughton and his culture. Oh no. Maybe just don't spend to the cap during the rebuild?

The Flyers spend more than that on buyouts and coaches that no longer work for the team.

The Flyers can either be constructively bad or destructively bad. The loss of brand value you fear will be more likely to happen by ignoring history.

Chicago's last cup win was in 2015. That is an eternity in hockey. Fans will pay to watch a young team with exciting young skilled players with a bright future, even if they're currently a losing team. Fans want promise if they're not a current contender. If you can build that excitement with young skilled and talented players, you won't have that steep drop off for 5 years in revenue.
- MJL

correct. short term pain for long term gain. Comcast can suck up a few years of "down" revenue rather easily and not miss a beat.

also the flyers sold out for 5 straight years way back when they missed the playoffs for 5 straight years. 88 was an obvious help. Can MM be that guy to an extent?

You want receipts? Let's bring receipts:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/philadelphia-flyers/

Flyers gate in 2022-23 was $63 mill. 1% of that is .63 mill. 5% is 3.15 mill. Maybe 16 mill total over your 5 year scenario?

Now that we have actual numbers instead of doomsday scenarios does it sound like a lot of money to be risking? I guess that means we can't afford Scottie Laughton and his culture. Oh no. Maybe just don't spend to the cap during the rebuild?

The Flyers spend more than that on buyouts and coaches that no longer work for the team.

The Flyers can either be constructively bad or destructively bad. The loss of brand value you fear will be more likely to happen by ignoring history.
- Flyers_01

how dare you. Clark will now beat that post down.

The Flyers have once again sold the car crash to buy the cancer.

Yes, I can. This doesn't change it. You're asking the wrong question. A heavy focus on collecting assets in the early rounds of drafts spread over a few Drafts IS an attempt to do a rebuild.

The question is whether it going far enough or is too reminiscent of the Hexy era -- locking up Giroux, Voracek and Simmonds through their primes and beyond, signing JVR to a five-year UFA contract, etc. -- with a risk of similar results.
- bmeltzer

Hextall called it a retool - not a rebuild.

Tk could have been traded to garner more assets, correct? Seeler? Hathaway? Poehling?

You want receipts? Let's bring receipts:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/philadelphia-flyers/

Flyers gate in 2022-23 was $63 mill. 1% of that is .63 mill. 5% is 3.15 mill. Maybe 16 mill total over your 5 year scenario?

Now that we have actual numbers instead of doomsday scenarios does it sound like a lot of money to be risking? I guess that means we can't afford Scottie Laughton and his culture. Oh no. Maybe just don't spend to the cap during the rebuild?

The Flyers spend more than that on buyouts and coaches that no longer work for the team.

The Flyers can either be constructively bad or destructively bad. The loss of brand value you fear will be more likely to happen by ignoring history.
- Flyers_01

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Dude, WTF is your problem. I am not saying they will trade young forwards. I am saying they have the flexibility if they wanted to, key word is flexibility.

But to answer your question, if a team comes along and says they believe Frost is the missing piece to them winning the cup and offer a 2nd or 1st, Danny better trade him.
- WhiskeyMan

Personally I believe moving a young player should not be out of the question depending on the circumstances in a rebuild. Farabee for example is young and I believe is prime to breakout. However, he’s been riding his deal for awhile now and not living up. I wouldn’t move him but I’m also not against him going.

Chicago's last cup win was in 2015. That is an eternity in hockey. Fans will pay to watch a young team with exciting young skilled players with a bright future, even if they're currently a losing team. Fans want promise if they're not a current contender. If you can build that excitement with young skilled and talented players, you won't have that steep drop off for 5 years in revenue.
- MJL

There is a lot of inertia with these dynasties. You should know. How long did the Flyers milk the Broad St Bullies brand? That is why Hawks took so long to break it up finally and why the Pens still don't. Those Florida teams, otoh, their floor is much lower. And I suspect this plays a part in the "ruthlessness" of Tampa.

Problem is, it is hard to build those dynasties. The rewards are uncertain. The costs are certain.

If teams had an economic incentive to pursue wins, why on earth would you ever see a team not go for it? They would all the time. They pursue winning for hockey glory, and they bring in fans? There would be no downside to it.

But that is not the way the incentives are structured. The system simply does not reward individual winning in the NHL.