That's a common problem when acquiring older players. Fans and GMs that remember what players used to be able to do, not what they are able to do going forward.
- Flyers_01

I think he was on the ice for the first 7 ES goals against in that Caps series.

The pick that we ended up trading was used to select Geordie Wudrick. He had some okay season in the WHL, especially in his over-age season, but never went pro.

hey you said it not me.

im fresh off an argument the other day with someone in a bar that the flyers have been bad ever since they let carcillo go, and the fellow was of the mind that it wasnt too much of a coincidence....

but. serious question. i know how you feel the pens should trade malkin. i disagree, but i understand that framework is not without a logical foundation.

that being said. if you could acquire malkin for nothing, would you? the only condition is you cannot immediately turn and hawk him for assets. (i think thats a fairly obvious precursor, but you never know) and 2. what would you do from a flyers perspective then with your roster? because then wouldnt they be in close to the same boat the pens are in currently to you?

i have ten minutes before i shuffle off to the gym. they have been devoted to you. do not let me down.
- stayinthefnnet

For nothing as in no cap hit/assets moving? I'd put him as the #1C and put him with Simmonds and B Schenn, keeping Raffl/G/Voracek together and install him on the top PP unit.

With 1 minute to spare.

Lecavalier skated today. Which means in Flyers Universe he'll be back in December.
- PLindbergh31

It might mean in Flyer lingo that he'll be in tomorrow. The night before the Columbus Blue jackets game on December 21st last season, I was under the impression he was still two weeks away. So I drive four hours to the game and my jaw dropped when he was in warm ups.

For about three seconds of my life, I was gay.

For nothing as in no cap hit/assets moving? I'd put him as the #1C and put him with Simmonds and B Schenn, keeping Raffl/G/Voracek together and install him on the top PP unit.

With 1 minute to spare.
- jmatchett383

no no. the cap hit is there. it just costs you nothing in the trade. you take him, his deal and all, for nothing more than a here you go and on your way.

Most fanbases have a segment who hate most (or all) of their defensemen; seeing only the flaws and not the assets or at least a balance. Former first round picks get judged especially harshly.
- bmeltzer

I know. He'd be a welcome addition to our unit, flaws and all

- Tomahawk

no no. the cap hit is there. it just costs you nothing in the trade. you take him, his deal and all, for nothing more than a here you go and on your way.
- stayinthefnnet

Therein likes the problem.

For no assets, I still do it and make other trades to squeeze him in, even if it means Jake.

In other words, pretty much just what the Pens have done.

no no. the cap hit is there. it just costs you nothing in the trade. you take him, his deal and all, for nothing more than a here you go and on your way.
- stayinthefnnet

Can't do it. Forward assets have to move, and unless you can give VL away for nothing at full cap hit, as well as move B. Schenn and/or one of our much=depleted defensive core, the numbers don't work. Now, in the off-season, it becomes much easier.

I just saw two Asian dating website ads on the sidebar. Have a good weekend everyone! LGF!

Therein likes the problem.

For no assets, I still do it and make other trades to squeeze him in, even if it means Jake.

In other words, pretty much just what the Pens have done.
- TheGreat28

So you'd end up with a team of Malkin, Giroux, and the rest.

Only problem is that Giroux is not as good as Crosby, our defense is not as good as Pitt's, and that means that we'd be better off sticking with depth.

So you'd end up with a team of Malkin, Giroux, and the rest.

Only problem is that Giroux is not as good as Crosby, our defense is not as good as Pitt's, and that means that we'd be better off sticking with depth.
- jmatchett383

okay this is the round about issue i was trying to get to organically here but just didnt do a good job at it.

Do you:

1. just say no thank you to malkin.
2. keep him, then view giroux in the light that you currently view malkin in on the pens.
3. keep malkin and giroux, and essentially do what the pens do, at the expense of knowing youre going to lose some of this young depth in forward. could be G, Simmonds have to potentially go, could be cant resign coots. who knows. you get the gist.
4. find loopholes and tell me to go (frank) myself.

So you'd end up with a team of Malkin, Giroux, and the rest.

Only problem is that Giroux is not as good as Crosby, our defense is not as good as Pitt's, and that means that we'd be better off sticking with depth.
- jmatchett383

Not necessarily. I'd keep Simmonds, Couts, Read, and the others beyond them are relatively cheap. Then trade Jake, Vinnie and B Schenn. Trade one higher priced defenseman in the short term and then funnel the kids in.

Remember, you'd get back some decent talent for Jake, obviously on entry-level deals. Vinnie of course is a problem, but you'd have to move him. Schenn would bring you in something decent too.

I just saw two Asian dating website ads on the sidebar. Have a good weekend everyone! LGF!
- NickTheKid87

dude the ads have been getting ridiculous. its either like (frank) cougars now, import hot asians, or hell even the Tshirt ads are knockout girls in virtually nothing.

its literally getting awkward to have up in public places. i feel like people think im looking at porn.

ITS HOCKEY I SWEAR

- PhillySportsGuy

I think Coburn and Kimmo were the only dmen on the roster to have never been reviled by their previous fan bases. Even Pronger had his moment in the crosshairs when he asked out of EDM.

Not necessarily. I'd keep Simmonds, Couts, Read, and the others beyond them are relatively cheap. Then trade Jake, Vinnie and B Schenn. Trade one higher priced defenseman in the short term and then funnel the kids in.

Remember, you'd get back some decent talent for Jake, obviously on entry-level deals. Vinnie of course is a problem, but you'd have to move him. Schenn would bring you in something decent too.
- TheGreat28

But you can't trade Vinny, Flyers have tried.

okay this is the round about issue i was trying to get to organically here but just didnt do a good job at it.

Do you:

1. just say no thank you to malkin.
2. keep him, then view giroux in the light that you currently view malkin in on the pens.
3. keep malkin and giroux, and essentially do what the pens do, at the expense of knowing youre going to lose some of this young depth in forward. could be G, Simmonds have to potentially go, could be cant resign coots. who knows. you get the gist.
4. find loopholes and tell me to go (frank) myself.
- stayinthefnnet

I think you are trying to justify what the Pens are doing. Honestly, I kind of agree. The only caveat is that in this hypothetical you are taking away an option the Pens have, which is to trade Malkin.

Not necessarily. I'd keep Simmonds, Couts, Read, and the others beyond them are relatively cheap. Then trade Jake, Vinnie and B Schenn. Trade one higher priced defenseman in the short term and then funnel the kids in.

Remember, you'd get back some decent talent for Jake, obviously on entry-level deals. Vinnie of course is a problem, but you'd have to move him. Schenn would bring you in something decent too.
- TheGreat28

jake will likely definitely have to go. simmonds is cheap enough where i think youd hold onto him and sacrifice elsewhere. schenn could be traded. cooter would probably say peace whenever his deal is up, a la jordan staal.

But you can't trade Vinny, Flyers have tried.
- jmatchett383

well, i didn't say it was going to be easy

jake will likely definitely have to go. simmonds is cheap enough where i think youd hold onto him and sacrifice elsewhere. schenn could be traded. cooter would probably say peace whenever his deal is up, a la jordan staal.
- stayinthefnnet

I'm fine with the first couple, but I think Couts stays. I also don't think his offense is as good as Staal's, and luckily for us he doesn't have a brother or two in the league.

okay this is the round about issue i was trying to get to organically here but just didnt do a good job at it.

Do you:

1. just say no thank you to malkin.
2. keep him, then view giroux in the light that you currently view malkin in on the pens.
3. keep malkin and giroux, and essentially do what the pens do, at the expense of knowing youre going to lose some of this young depth in forward. could be G, Simmonds have to potentially go, could be cant resign coots. who knows. you get the gist.
4. find loopholes and tell me to go (frank) myself.
- stayinthefnnet

Option 4 is the most intriguing by far. But if he's available, I guess you have to take him and make it work. I think that Simmonds and Giroux become the players you can't move. Yeah, you'd have to unload some of Schenn/Grossmann/AMac as well as probably Jake and probably B Schenn unless you can find a taker for Vinny.

Giroux remains captain.

dude the ads have been getting ridiculous. its either like (frank) cougars now, import hot asians, or hell even the Tshirt ads are knockout girls in virtually nothing.


- stayinthefnnet

O RLY?

/uninstall ad-block

I think Coburn and Kimmo were the only dmen on the roster to have never been reviled by their previous fan bases. Even Pronger had his moment in the crosshairs when he asked out of EDM.
- Tomahawk

Kimmo Timonen is a cot damn saint, sir.

I think you are trying to justify what the Pens are doing. Honestly, I kind of agree. The only caveat is that in this hypothetical you are taking away an option the Pens have, which is to trade Malkin.
- TheGreat28

im not trying to justify, at least consciously. i just know how jmatch in particular feels about the subject, and was trying to come up with something more interesting than the standard hypothetical.

i personally dont think the pens need to trade malkin for depth. i really dont think they need a lot more players onto the roster. yeah the fourth line is pretty bad but it is on a lot of teams. what team couldnt use another top 6 winger? they just basically need the guys they currently have to play better. which admittedly in the playoffs, they really havent.

and i took away the caveat because i figured it would be too easy to just say yeah well take him for nothing, then trade him and just get a huge influx of assets at no cost. had to make it interesting in some capacity haha

i ultimately figured hed say just no to inheriting malkin, which is consistent with his stance.

okay this is the round about issue i was trying to get to organically here but just didnt do a good job at it.

Do you:

1. just say no thank you to malkin.
2. keep him, then view giroux in the light that you currently view malkin in on the pens.
3. keep malkin and giroux, and essentially do what the pens do, at the expense of knowing youre going to lose some of this young depth in forward. could be G, Simmonds have to potentially go, could be cant resign coots. who knows. you get the gist.
4. find loopholes and tell me to go (frank) myself.
- stayinthefnnet

I'd do it. Trade the Schenns for picks, clearing $6.1mm. They currently have $1.48mm in LTIR exemption space, which gets us to $7.58mm. Trade Lecavalier, eating $2.25mm or half his money and you can fit Malkin. LTIR MacDonald & Coburn and you can fit Alt and Manning.

Option 4 is the most intriguing by far. But if he's available, I guess you have to take him and make it work. I think that Simmonds and Giroux become the players you can't move. Yeah, you'd have to unload some of Schenn/Grossmann/AMac as well as probably Jake and probably B Schenn unless you can find a taker for Vinny.

Giroux remains captain.
- jmatchett383

yeah. giroux either stays captain or goes. i dont see a scenario in which he stays as anything less.

and damn you i thought this was intriguing enough in its own right without needing option 4.