The hideousness of that second statement will haunt my dreams forever!
- aantny88

Meh, it is likely they will produce a similar amount of goals just as they did last season, all while Umberger taking much less minor penalties.

Berube wants discipline, and Hartnell wasn't going to provide it.

speaking of hartnell where there any other rumors of any other teams of him going too?just hard to believe the best they could do was umberger.
- rinaldo

I doubt it. This deal was a bad contract for a slightly less bad contract.

Flyers trade away good players because of penalties (Hartnell), but keep poor players (Rinaldo) who have penalty issues?

If that's the reason or a main reason, it's laughable.
- bradleyc4

I think the cap hits probably had a bit to do with it as well. If Hartnell played for Rinaldo money, he'd still be here.

From who? And sign Umberger to a way less current cap hit how?
- MBFlyerfan

Any team looking to improve their scoring on the top two lines. I could be mistaken but wouldn't Umberger have been a UFA if Columbus used the compliance buyout on him?

The Flyers obviously wanted to give BSchenn the chance to be 1LW.

Any team looking to improve their scoring on the top two lines. I could be mistaken but wouldn't Umberger have been a UFA is Columbus used the compliance buyout on him?
- aantny88

No, Umberger has three years left on his deal. And you mean, any team willing to take a power forward on the decline with a bad contract for a first or second round pick? Not likely.

speaking of hartnell where there any other rumors of any other teams of him going too?just hard to believe the best they could do was umberger.
- rinaldo

Hartnell is an aging power forward who suffers from bouts of undisciplined play with 5 years left on his contract that has a sizable cap hit. I don't know if he was all that valuable. The Flyers may have wanted to get a roster player in return as well. Maybe there were minimal suitors too. I think if the Flyers could have gotten more, they would have.

Hartnell is an aging power forward who suffers from bouts of undisciplined play with 5 years left on his contract that has a sizable cap hit. I don't know if he was all that valuable. The Flyers may have wanted to get a roster player in return as well. Maybe there were minimal suitors too. I think if the Flyers could have gotten more, they would have.
- NickTheKid87

FWIW, Hartnell and Umberger are the same age (birthdays are less than a month apart IIRC), from an age/contract standpoint, the main attraction in Umberger is that he has one less year on his deal.

On the ice, you theoretically lose scoring and gain a two way forward who can play center and PK.

We'll see how it pans out.

Hartnell is an aging power forward who suffers from bouts of undisciplined play with 5 years left on his contract that has a sizable cap hit. I don't know if he was all that valuable. The Flyers may have wanted to get a roster player in return as well. Maybe there were minimal suitors too. I think if the Flyers could have gotten more, they would have.
- NickTheKid87

I think you're on target here. Also, it was a culture thing.. there were rumours that he didn't always show up in shape for camp.

No, Umberger has three years left on his deal. And you mean, any team willing to take a power forward on the decline with a bad contract for a first or second round pick? Not likely.
- MBFlyerfan

He said he'd be a UFA if Columbus used the CBO on him, which he would have been. There'd have to be some handshake deals in place obviously to get things done (maybe get him on a 2-year deal at $2M or so). But yeah, I think maybe a 3rd rounder is what you'd be getting.

FWIW, Hartnell and Umberger are the same age (birthdays are less than a month apart IIRC), from an age/contract standpoint, the main attraction in Umberger is that he has one less year on his deal.

On the ice, you theoretically lose scoring and gain a two way forward who can play center and PK.

We'll see how it pans out.
- Doc_Sarcasm

Yes. Hartnell did most of his damage on the PP and what really needed improvement was 5 v 5 play.

Hartnell is an aging power forward who suffers from bouts of undisciplined play with 5 years left on his contract that has a sizable cap hit. I don't know if he was all that valuable. The Flyers may have wanted to get a roster player in return as well. Maybe there were minimal suitors too. I think if the Flyers could have gotten more, they would have.
- NickTheKid87

getting umberger back was a bad trade imo. they obviously didnt want him back at all otherwsie i would have waited until the season started. so whatever happened behind the scenes they wanted him gone at all cost imo

one would think if a deal was there that was better they would have taken it. though as i said i find it hard no other team was interested.

FWIW, Hartnell and Umberger are the same age (birthdays are less than a month apart IIRC), from an age/contract standpoint, the main attraction in Umberger is that he has one less year on his deal.

On the ice, you theoretically lose scoring and gain a two way forward who can play center and PK.

We'll see how it pans out.
- Doc_Sarcasm

I agree, but as far as Hartnell's trade value goes/went, I don't think they were going to get anything substantial in return for him.

No, Umberger has three years left on his deal. And you mean, any team willing to take a power forward on the decline with a bad contract for a first or second round pick? Not likely.
- MBFlyerfan

I guess reading the full comment is a difficult proposition for you!

The trouble is, nobody knows if Columbus would have used a CBO on Umberger. It's possible Hextall simply felt he's still a helpful, versatile guy who can help.

It seems clear that they wanted Hartnell gone, whether it was age, contract or discipline . They may not have had a better deal available than taking Umberger.

As it is, I share concerns about him and about him and Levavalier together. It will obviously sort itself out, but I don't like that line. I'd rather see them split up, but that's me. I just don't see them being effective enough at 5 on 5

He said he'd be a UFA if Columbus used the CBO on him, which he would have been. There'd have to be some handshake deals in place obviously to get things done (maybe get him on a 2-year deal at $2M or so). But yeah, I think maybe a 3rd rounder is what you'd be getting.
- jmatchett383

Yeah I saw that, I just dont know if Columbus was seriously considering that. PLus I dont think if that was the case the deal would have happened. I think foremost on the Flyers mind was cutting ties with Hartnell.

FWIW, Hartnell and Umberger are the same age (birthdays are less than a month apart IIRC), from an age/contract standpoint, the main attraction in Umberger is that he has one less year on his deal.

On the ice, you theoretically lose scoring and gain a two way forward who can play center and PK.

We'll see how it pans out.
- Doc_Sarcasm

Hartnell has 2 more years than Umberger

I guess reading the full comment is a difficult proposition for you!
- aantny88

No I read it.

getting umberger back was a bad trade imo. they obviously didnt want him back at all otherwsie i would have waited until the season started. so whatever happened behind the scenes they wanted him gone at all cost imo

one would think if a deal was there that was better they would have taken it. though as i said i find it hard no other team was interested.
- rinaldo

I agree that there was something going on behind the scenes (i.e. Berube didn't want Hartnell on the team) so they made a deal.

It depends how you define "better deal" though. If the Flyers wanted to add a top 9 forward to mitigate some of what they were losing in Hartnell, then they did just that (plus got a 4th so it wasn't a straight up swap. Umberger was less valued than Hartnell). If they wanted just picks, maybe they could have gotten a 2nd somewhere. In addition, they may have wanted to have a shorter veteran contract on the books which was also achieved with Umberger albeit his deal is only 2 years shorter.

The trouble is, nobody knows if Columbus would have used a CBO on Umberger. It's possible Hextall simply felt he's still a helpful, versatile guy who can help.

It seems clear that they wanted Hartnell gone, whether it was age, contract or discipline . They may not have had a better deal available than taking Umberger.

As it is, I share concerns about him and about him and Levavalier together. It will obviously sort itself out, but I don't like that line. I'd rather see them split up, but that's me. I just don't see them being effective enough at 5 on 5
- Jsaquella

If Lecavalier was in Calgary, and Umberger in Florida, would that constitute them being split up?

FWIW, Hartnell and Umberger are the same age (birthdays are less than a month apart IIRC), from an age/contract standpoint, the main attraction in Umberger is that he has one less year on his deal.

On the ice, you theoretically lose scoring and gain a two way forward who can play center and PK.

We'll see how it pans out.
- Doc_Sarcasm

actually two less years...Umberger's style of play is also different than hartnell's. You are comparing apples to oranges i'm afraid

actually two less years...Umberger's style of play is also different than hartnell's. You are comparing apples to oranges i'm afraid
- PhillaBully

And if they score at a similar pace as each other, like they did last season, I would rather have Umberger.

I wasn't sure if talking to players on other teams about handshake deals after a future buyout would violate the CBA in any way.
- jmatchett383

That part would be against the rules. But trading Hartnell for a draft pick. And then signing Umberger as a UFA after a buyout is completely on board. But if that's what you're referring to happening, is with Umberger, the Flyers and Columbus all conspiring before hand to make all that happen, yea, that would be an issue.

And if they score at a similar pace as each other, like they did last season, I would rather have Umberger.
- MBFlyerfan

yup me 2....18 goals playing next to giroux and first pp minutes is a disgrace.

yup me 2....18 goals playing next to giroux and first pp minutes is a disgrace.
- PhillaBully

I think technically it was 20 for Harts and 18 for Umberger.

20 goals playing mainly on the first line and first PP unit VS 18 goals not playing on the first line or first PP unit.