Tim Panaccio: On Hartnell, Umberger and Misfit Line

No Richards back to Philly?

but, but, but, Ek said its a possibility and Ek's an insider!

Tim Panaccio: On Hartnell, Umberger and Misfit Line
- tpanaccio

The Flyers have an answer on the Phantoms. Scott Laughton. Call him up, slide Pierre Edouard Bellemare to Wing and problem solved.

The Umberger deal was an awful hockey trade. A lot of folks who looked into the numbers felt it had the potential to be a bad deal, and it's exceeded those expectations.

The Flyers have an answer on the Phantoms. Scott Laughton. Call him up, slide Pierre Edouard Bellemare to Wing and problem solved.

The Umberger deal was an awful hockey trade. A lot of folks who looked into the numbers felt it had the potential to be a bad deal, and it's exceeded those expectations.
- Jsaquella

Yes it was. I always looked at the deal almost purely as a cap trade. It wouldn't look so bad if Raffl hadn't gone down with an injury. Raffl brings a different but effective element to that line. I still like the trade as Hartnell's deal was just too long to stomach.

I am also fine with the Flyers remaining patient with the prospects. Another injury to the top 9 and we'll probably see Laughton like we saw ghost.

Yes it was. I always looked at the deal almost purely as a cap trade. It wouldn't look so bad if Raffl hadn't gone down with an injury. Raffl brings a different but effective element to that line. I still like the trade as Hartnell's deal was just too long to stomach.

I am also fine with the Flyers remaining patient with the prospects. Another injury to the top 9 and we'll probably see Laughton like we saw ghost.
- Just5

Agreed.

I do wonder if they had really shopped Hartnell, if they could have found a better deal. I doubt they get anyone to give them a ton of value, but maybe not have to take on a guy like Umberger.

Agreed.

I do wonder if they had really shopped Hartnell, if they could have found a better deal. I doubt they get anyone to give them a ton of value, but maybe not have to take on a guy like Umberger.
- Jsaquella

That's the weirdest thing about that deal -- I absolutely understand the deal. It makes total sense to me for cap management. And I thought Umberger would play better than he has, though I knew he wouldn't put up the kind of points Hartnell has/can.

But to this day, I do find it hard to believe that is the best deal they could find. I just can't believe that, and it kinda baffles me how they came to the conclusion that Umberger was the guy they had to have in return

Could we have a misfit line of beat writers? I'd sure as poop watch that line.

That's the weirdest thing about that deal -- I absolutely understand the deal. It makes total sense to me for cap management. And I thought Umberger would play better than he has, though I knew he wouldn't put up the kind of points Hartnell has/can.

But to this day, I do find it hard to believe that is the best deal they could find. I just can't believe that, and it kinda baffles me how they came to the conclusion that Umberger was the guy they had to have in return
- AllInForFlyers

What is more perplexing to me, is how the Flyers were willing to make this exchange given that it clearly wasn't working out in Cbus and they were shopping him hard...it was expected by many that they could end up using their buyout on RJ, in which case he would have been available for nothing and at a cheaper salary.

http://bluejacketsxtra.di...-cant-trade-umberger.html

One would think Hartnell, with the spirit and fight he brings and who had 40% more production in the season going into the deal, would have been more valuable in the marketplace (though the Flyers did get a 4th rounder).
Many panned the deal when it was announced, and they may be right. Hopefully RJ figures things out quick. If he doesn't I have no problem putting him on the fourth line where he can focus on skating and playing sound defensive hockey...but RJ may have a problem with that. He complained about not getting enough icetime in Cbus and demanded a trade. At this point, I wouldn't mind if he demanded another one.




The misfit line lived up to its name. No chemistry no cohesion, no nothing. I see Berube benched Akeson late in the game (so predictable). I hope they don't further bury Akeson in the depth chart because he didn't click with the two aging anchors in 10 minutes of icetime.

The misfit line lived up to its name. No chemistry no cohesion, no nothing. I see Berube benched Akeson late in the game (so predictable). I hope they don't further bury Akeson in the depth chart because he didn't click with the two aging anchors in 10 minutes of icetime.
- exlund

More excuses for Akeson. I didn't see him as the problem last night. But he didn't exactly play a great game along with most of the team. When is Akeson going to get some accountability placed on him? First it was he's not in the right role. Then he's put on a scoring line with the thoughts that a play maker with 60 point potential can help make that line better. Only one game, but the excuse for Akeson is already being put out there. Should we put him with Giroux and Voracek, where just by being there he'll get some points, so it can be said, see he is a player!
And there was also statements that a player should be given time for chemistry to develop on a line. What happened to that. Akeson didn't click instantly on that line, so blame it on the anchors.

More excuses for Akeson. I didn't see him as the problem last night. But he didn't exactly play a great game along with most of the team. When is Akeson going to get some accountability placed on him? First it was he's not in the right role. Then he's put on a scoring line with the thoughts that a play maker with 60 point potential can help make that line better. Only one game, but the excuse for Akeson is already being put out there. Should we put him with Giroux and Voracek, where just by being there he'll get some points, so it can be said, see he is a player!
And there was also statements that a player should be given time for chemistry to develop on a line. What happened to that. Akeson didn't click instantly on that line, so blame it on the anchors.
- MJL

I didn't make any excuses, and have mentioned he didn't play well against Cbus and that he needs to be better. He's a rookie, it will take some time for him to find his way. I'm just expressing a concern about how short a leash they have had and may have on him here, and hoped they don't pull the cord on moving him up in the lineup based on what has transpired so far (playing 10 mins with the horribly slumping RJU and VLC), all things considered.

I didn't make any excuses, and have mentioned he didn't play well against Cbus and that he needs to be better. He's a rookie, it will take some time for him to find his way. I'm just expressing a concern about how short a leash they have had and may have on him here, and hoped they don't pull the cord on moving him up in the lineup based on what has transpired so far (playing 10 mins with the horribly slumping RJU and VLC), all things considered.
- exlund

It's been nothing but excuses made for Akeson. He has the power to lengthen that leash with his play on the ice. I don't think Lecavalier is slumping. He still has the ability to shoot and make plays with the puck. He's just not a player who can carry a line anymore. He's no longer a catalyst. And he can also play better. Umberger is either shot, or in a deep, deep funk. I'm not looking or asking for Akeson to change that. He's not close to being that good of a player to be able to make a difference there.

It's been nothing but excuses made for Akeson. He has the power to lengthen that leash with his play on the ice. I don't think Lecavalier is slumping. He still has the ability to shoot and make plays with the puck. He's just not a player who can carry a line anymore. He's no longer a catalyst. And he can also play better. Umberger is either shot, or in a deep, deep funk.I'm not looking or asking for Akeson to change that. He's not close to being that good of a player to be able to make a difference there.
- MJL

Well, that's kind of the point. Practically nobody can get RJ going the way he's been playing and in all likelihood, nobody's going to get going with RJ.

As you've noted, Akeson wasn't the worst player out there, but he's the one who got benched later on in the game when a goal was needed. I'm not so much making excuses for Akeson as I am reacting to Berube's deployment/management of him (because I fundamentally disagree with it).

Well, that's kind of the point. Practically nobody can get RJ going the way he's been playing and in all likelihood, nobody's going to get going with RJ.

As you've noted, Akeson wasn't the worst player out there, but he's the one who got benched later on in the game when a goal was needed. I'm not so much making excuses for Akeson as I am reacting to Berube's deployment/management of him (because I fundamentally disagree with it).
- exlund

If a coach is going to shorten the bench, to try and get a goal, an unproven rookie who has zero points on the season, is going to be one of the players that is going to sit the bench. I think Akeson is given way too much credit as a player to this point.
To be fair, Umberger should be sitting right next to him on the bench, in the 3rd period. This team is short on LW's with the injury to Raffl, and he moved Bellemare up to the RW. Which I thought was the right move. And he was already double shifting the Giroux line.

If a coach is going to shorten the bench, to try and get a goal, an unproven rookie who has zero points on the season, is going to be one of the players that is going to sit the bench. I think Akeson is given way too much credit as a player to this point.
- MJL

Why did Berube give him that opportunity and that longer leash in the playoffs last season? And why did it work?

Different players react differently to certain circumstances. Berube has been trying to play RJ Umberger out of his slump with healthy dose of minutes with good players, some pp and pk time. It hasn't worked. He's managed Akeson mostly by playing him with the lower end of the team, cutting his minutes and giving him the least special teams play of anyone on the team. It hasn't worked. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, one or both of these players could respond positively if the treatment was reversed? Oh, but wait, RJ is a "veteran" who is making $4.6 million and Hexy's 1st deal and has been a good player before, and well, Akeson is an undrafted rookie making bubkis...unfortunately, those factors probably have more to do with the disparity in their respective treatment (thus far) than their actual play.

Why did Berube give him that opportunity and that longer leash in the playoffs last season? And why did it work?

Different players react differently to certain circumstances. Berube has been trying to play RJ Umberger out of his slump with healthy dose of minutes with good players, some pp and pk time. It hasn't worked. He's managed Akeson mostly by playing him with the lower end of the team, cutting his minutes and giving him the least special teams play of anyone on the team. It hasn't worked. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, one or both of these players could respond positively if the treatment was reversed? Oh, but wait, RJ is a "veteran" who is making $4.6 million and Hexy's 1st deal and has been a good player before, and well, Akeson is an undrafted rookie making bubkis...unfortunately, those factors probably have more to do with the disparity in their respective treatment (thus far) than their actual play.
- exlund

We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this. Akeson's play is going to determine how much of a leash he is going to get. You seem to want to put it on Berube. I think it's on Akeson. Don't really have any more to say on it that hasn't bee said already

hey, timmy. i saw you on the pregame show.




so i went and did some dishes.

hey, timmy. i saw you on the pregame show.




so i went and did some dishes.
- cal_heeter

You don't enjoy listening to the mouse tell us that a good pk strategy is for 2 guys to attack the points?