Would anybody prefer a big forward or one a bit smaller at whatever spot they select in June?
- ob18

I want talent. If it's a big guy who is skilled, great. If it's a little guy that is skilled, great. If they're similar in skill, I'd prefer the bigger guy

I don't think that's a unanimous opinion. #nitpick

EDIT: an unanimous? I require grammatical guidance.
- BulliesPhan87

It might not be, but I think that Downie's a good, solid third liner, while Talbot is more suited to fourth line.

Either way, Downie filled more needs for the Flyers than Talbot did. They needed more grit on the third line, and prior to getting hurt, Downie playing with Read and Couturier was a highly effective line.

Go Suomi!!

And the goal is.....GOOD!

It might not be, but I think that Downie's a good, solid third liner, while Talbot is more suited to fourth line.

Either way, Downie filled more needs for the Flyers than Talbot did. They needed more grit on the third line, and prior to getting hurt, Downie playing with Read and Couturier was a highly effective line.
- Jsaquella

I guess we'll see. Downie has been inconsistent (provided, injuries have been a factor to some degree). Talbot has not been a scratch this season, and is rather close in point total to Downie this season. I liked that stretch with Couturier and Read, but otherwise Downie has been disappointing at times.

So I don't know, it's an imperfect, need based, one for one trade. The stakes were low. I don't think it's even close to certain we got the better player, though. Potentially better? Sure.

I guess we'll see. Downie has been inconsistent (provided, injuries have been a factor to some degree). Talbot has not been a scratch this season, and is rather close in point total to Downie this season. I liked that stretch with Couturier and Read, but otherwise Downie has been disappointing at times.

So I don't know, it's an imperfect, need based, one for one trade. The stakes were low. I don't think it's even close to certain we got the better player, though. Potentially better? Sure.
- BulliesPhan87

There's the clear double standard. Downie was effective for a short stretch when he first got here, bus since then, not very effective. Injuries are a part of that, but he's been healthy and still hasn't been effective, and has even been a healthy scratch. But that's a good trade for the Flyers.

There's the clear double standard. Downie was effective for a short stretch when he first got here, bus since then, not very effective. Injuries are a part of that, but he's been healthy and still hasn't been effective, and has even been a healthy scratch. But that's a good trade for the Flyers.
- MJL

I mean, I don't want to stress the parallels here too much (EDIT: but it seems I did anyway). At the end of the day, the Downie/Talbot deal is an easier gamble to swallow because it's a lower stakes game. Trading a scoring winger who maintained a solid goals per game rate (despite injuries) is much higher risk.

But there is one parallel that stands out: Talbot is a reliable and known commodity, as far as what he's expected to do. He kills penalties, he's a solid bottom six defensive forward, and he can chip in offense on occasion. His cap hit is friendly, he has a few years left, he's not particularly old, he's just begging to be traded to a cup competitor at the TDL.

He's not a blue chip trade asset, but could they have parlayed him into a deal for a better, more reliable player? Absolutely! I'm not trying to hate on this trade or Downie, but if we're being fair, the Flyers traded low on Talbot for a impending UFA who's been, at best, hot and cold. I think it's not entirely dissimilar from the JVR/Schenn trade.

I mean, I don't want to stress the parallels here too much (EDIT: but it seems I did anyway). At the end of the day, the Downie/Talbot deal is an easier gamble to swallow because it's a lower stakes game. Trading a scoring winger who maintained a solid goals per game rate (despite injuries) is much higher risk.

But there is one parallel that stands out: Talbot is a reliable and known commodity, as far as what he's expected to do. He kills penalties, he's a solid bottom six defensive forward, and he can chip in offense on occasion. His cap hit is friendly, he has a few years left, he's not particularly old, he's just begging to be traded to a cup competitor at the TDL.

He's not a blue chip trade asset, but could they have parlayed him into a deal for a better, more reliable player? Absolutely! I'm not trying to hate on this trade or Downie, but if we're being fair, the Flyers traded low on Talbot for a impending UFA who's been, at best, hot and cold. I think it's not entirely dissimilar from the JVR/Schenn trade.
- BulliesPhan87

I just think that every trade should be looked at from the same perspective. And that's on the merit of the trade itself. Part of the criticism of the JVR/Schenn trade, which I disagree with, is that they didn't get the right kind of defenseman and fill the team's biggest need. But when the same kind of criticism was offered on the Talbot Downie trade, that criticism was shot down with the caveat that just because a deal didn't meet a bigger need, doesn't make it a bad deal. I think the same should appy to the Schenn/JVR deal.
In my opinion, the Flyers traded Talbot for one, because his effectiveness as a defensive forward and PKer, was waning. And they felt that a player like Raffle can handle those duties. And that they can add a player who might be more effective at ES offensively. And the risk factor is definitely far less in that trade then the JVR trade. But that is only one facet of the deal.

I just think that every trade should be looked at from the same perspective. And that's on the merit of the trade itself. Part of the criticism of the JVR/Schenn trade, which I disagree with, is that they didn't get the right kind of defenseman and fill the team's biggest need. But when the same kind of criticism was offered on the Talbot Downie trade, that criticism was shot down with the caveat that just because a deal didn't meet a bigger need, doesn't make it a bad deal. I think the same should appy to the Schenn/JVR deal.
In my opinion, the Flyers traded Talbot for one, because his effectiveness as a defensive forward and PKer, was waning. And they felt that a player like Raffle can handle those duties. And that they can add a player who might be more effective at ES offensively. And the risk factor is definitely far less in that trade then the JVR trade. But that is only one facet of the deal.
- MJL

I can agree with the reasoning behind making Talbot expendable. I guess I'm just not as high on Downie as others. (I'm surprised jmatch hasn't chimed in )

Personally, I just don't think the JVR/Schenn deal was a good one. Not terrible, but not good. I agree with a number of reasons for disliking the trade, both at the time and in retrospect. But I'm not going to pretend the Downie trade was much, if at all, better value. I'm not going to pretend either is a disaster either.

Now, if Luke Schenn regresses to less than NHL talent, then we can call it a Patrick Sharp caliber mistake. But that's not the reality yet, and not by any means the most likely outcome. Consistency is a big issue right now, but if he can overcome that (which should be quite possible) I think he has the tools to be an effective defenseman, beyond a bottom pairing role.

I guess we'll see. Downie has been inconsistent (provided, injuries have been a factor to some degree). Talbot has not been a scratch this season, and is rather close in point total to Downie this season. I liked that stretch with Couturier and Read, but otherwise Downie has been disappointing at times.

So I don't know, it's an imperfect, need based, one for one trade. The stakes were low. I don't think it's even close to certain we got the better player, though. Potentially better? Sure.
- BulliesPhan87

I don't think Downie has been healthy since Mid-December or so. I think he's tried to play through an injury, and it's really hurt his effectiveness. Really hasn't been the same player since.

Granted, it's not that he's clearly better than Talbot, but yeah, potentially better, and in terms of team need, definitely brought a needed set of abilities, prior to the injury.

I don't think Downie has been healthy since Mid-December or so. I think he's tried to play through an injury, and it's really hurt his effectiveness. Really hasn't been the same player since.

Granted, it's not that he's clearly better than Talbot, but yeah, potentially better, and in terms of team need, definitely brought a needed set of abilities, prior to the injury.
- Jsaquella

I don't mean to stress this too much, and I think double standard comes across more harshly than I intend, but it does exist. Talbot could have been part of a more substantial trade to bring in a more proven player than Downie, but they made the easier move to address a perceived need quickly. Despite bigger needs, they addressed a smaller problem. Agree or don't (I won't take it personally, I promise), but I think the comparison of trades has some validity.

I don't mean to stress this too much, and I think double standard comes across more harshly than I intend, but it does exist. Talbot could have been part of a more substantial trade to bring in a more proven player than Downie, but they made the easier move to address a perceived need quickly. Despite bigger needs, they addressed a smaller problem. Agree or don't (I won't take it personally, I promise), but I think the comparison of trades has some validity.
- BulliesPhan87

That's possible as well. Given the flirting with Cleary, the Flyers felt they needed a more "ornery" guy for that 3rd line...I'm not trying to rip Talbot, because I like the guy.

That's possible as well. Given the flirting with Cleary, the Flyers felt they needed a more "ornery" guy for that 3rd line...I'm not trying to rip Talbot, because I like the guy.
- Jsaquella

I gotcha, I'm not trying to rip Downie either. I really liked that stint with 14 and 24, they were our best line for a stretch.

I gotcha, I'm not trying to rip Downie either. I really liked that stint with 14 and 24, they were our best line for a stretch.
- BulliesPhan87

I just think he was hurt, and rushed back....pure conjecture on my part, but passive isn't what you'd expect from Downie, especially as a pending UFA