It was a questionable value trade at the time and in hindsight it's a terrible deal. They traded a 30 goal, first line winger and got back an inconsistent third pair guy who has shown flashes and is unlikely to reach even more modest potential expected after a solid lockout season in 2012
- Jsaquella

It was a deal that didn't shock many here, but the fact that it was one for one, did.

Many of us believed Homer was holding out for more pieces when the rumors started floating and many of us were disappointed when the deal was announced.

We were told to be patient, that Luke was a good young d-man on a bad (TO) team, and that his ceiling hasn't been met yet. We are still waiting. It's appearing more and more apparent that our fears are becoming a reality - that what we seeing is what we'll be getting from this point on which is, as you previously stated, an inconsistent third pair guy.

Even if Luke can regress and find the style of play he displayed a couple years ago, or even better, find that ability which some projected him to possess, the deal will more palatable. If not, chalk it up to another one of Homer's less than stellar moves.

It was a deal that didn't shock many here, but the fact that it was one for one, did.

Many of us believed Homer was holding out for more pieces when the rumors started floating and many of us were disappointed when the deal was announced.

We were told to be patient, that Luke was a good young d-man on a bad (TO) team, and that his ceiling hasn't been met yet. We are still waiting. It's appearing more and more apparent that our fears are becoming a reality - that what we seeing is what we'll be getting from this point on which is, as you previously stated, an inconsistent third pair guy.

Even if Luke can regress and find the style of play he displayed a couple years ago, or even better, find that ability which some projected him to possess, the deal will more palatable. If not, chalk it up to another one of Homer's less than stellar moves.
- 77rams

Every GM has good and bad moves on their resume. I look at the overall body of work. I understand why the trade was made, and I'm still okay with it, even if it hasn't worked out as planned.


As far as one for one, JVR's value at the time just wasn't that high.

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...als--video-160200293.html

Why move this post from the other thread? What happened is that you guessed. You also wanted Coburn traded just to trade him, because you declared him a bad defenseman also. That is the evidence that it was just tossing darts blindfolded. And it absolutely is monday morning quarterbacking. Schenn is a good player, but he just hasn't improved much, and doesn't look like he's going to be anything more then what he is now. So they still have a good player, although not the player they would hope he would become.
- MJL

Judging a trade at the time of the trade is absolutely Monday morning quarterbacking thanks.

Speech is very bad but at least can speak a little. No use of one side of his body.
- bmeltzer

Just awful.

Also, not a fan of the second line

It was a deal that didn't shock many here, but the fact that it was one for one, did.

Many of us believed Homer was holding out for more pieces when the rumors started floating and many of us were disappointed when the deal was announced.

We were told to be patient, that Luke was a good young d-man on a bad (TO) team, and that his ceiling hasn't been met yet. We are still waiting. It's appearing more and more apparent that our fears are becoming a reality - that what we seeing is what we'll be getting from this point on which is, as you previously stated, an inconsistent third pair guy.

Even if Luke can regress and find the style of play he displayed a couple years ago, or even better, find that ability which some projected him to possess, the deal will more palatable. If not, chalk it up to another one of Homer's less than stellar moves.
- 77rams

what did you think of the hartnell trade?

I was kind of hoping there would be something else like CBJ eating some salary, and still wonder if that was the best deal out there

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/we-would-like-to-hear-more-spanish-calls-of-florida-panthers-goals--video-160200293.html
- wilsonecho91

LET'S GO FLYERS!!! CLAP! ~ CLAP! ~ CLAP!CLAP!CLAP!!!



LET'S GO FLYERS!!! CLAP! ~ CLAP! ~ CLAP!CLAP!CLAP!!!



LET'S GO FLYERS!!! CLAP! ~ CLAP! ~ CLAP!CLAP!CLAP!!!

They needed a dman, and I'm sure they thought that a change of scenery would help Luke. Ended up being a terrible trade and the issue I had even at the time was 1 for 1? It should have been like JVR for Luke and a 2nd or a decent player.. (Gardiner may have be too much) but dear God.. not 1 for 1.
- Hextall271

They needed a better defenseman than Luke became. I agree, I was all for adding Schenn, felt the Flyers should have asked for a pick along with him.

Every GM has good and bad moves on their resume. I look at the overall body of work. I understand why the trade was made, and I'm still okay with it, even if it hasn't worked out as planned.


As far as one for one, JVR's value at the time just wasn't that high.
- MJL

This wasn't about Holmgren, per se, as every GM does have their bad days. Unfortunately, this is turning out to be one for Homer. And there were a few recent others moves that I was openly opposed to, but that's another discussion.

I stated I wasn't for the JVR/Schenn trade when it was made and I'll stick to my belief. I sincerely hope LSchenn proves me wrong. But to date, it's not headed that way.

If JVR continues to progress into the player he was projected to be and Luke doesn't, I'm afraid you'll in the vast minority of people who would be still OK with it.

Speech is very bad but at least can speak a little. No use of one side of his body.
- bmeltzer

Very sad.

It was a deal that didn't shock many here, but the fact that it was one for one, did.

Many of us believed Homer was holding out for more pieces when the rumors started floating and many of us were disappointed when the deal was announced.

We were told to be patient, that Luke was a good young d-man on a bad (TO) team, and that his ceiling hasn't been met yet. We are still waiting. It's appearing more and more apparent that our fears are becoming a reality - that what we seeing is what we'll be getting from this point on which is, as you previously stated, an inconsistent third pair guy.

Even if Luke can regress and find the style of play he displayed a couple years ago, or even better, find that ability which some projected him to possess, the deal will more palatable. If not, chalk it up to another one of Homer's less than stellar moves.
- 77rams

Agreed. Even if JvRs value was low at the time, isn't that a reason to NOT trade him? less than a year before they liked JvR to give him a 6 year extension.

I won't miss that from Holmgren's bag of tricks, signing guys to long term deals and then trading them before the ink is dry.

LET'S GO FLYERS!!! CLAP! ~ CLAP! ~ CLAP!CLAP!CLAP!!!



LET'S GO FLYERS!!! CLAP! ~ CLAP! ~ CLAP!CLAP!CLAP!!!



LET'S GO FLYERS!!! CLAP! ~ CLAP! ~ CLAP!CLAP!CLAP!!!
- ggunky

They needed a better defenseman than Luke became. I agree, I was all for adding Schenn, felt the Flyers should have asked for a pick along with him.
- Jsaquella

I agree, I would of asked for a 2nd and would have walked away from the deal for anything less than a 3rd

Judging a trade at the time of the trade is absolutely Monday morning quarterbacking thanks.
- Just5

Who cares if it's Monday morning QBing? A bad trade is a bad trade. It's not like Schenn had an injury or some unexpected malady. He just stayed stagnant in his development, JvR got more consistent.

The Flyers certainly knew JvRs potential. They re-signed him a year before the trade to a 6 year extension.

I really like what Hextall is doing: Bringing in vets to fill holes caused by injuries rather than rushing kids or trading assets for short term gain. Its a refreshing change.

It was a deal that didn't shock many here, but the fact that it was one for one, did.

Many of us believed Homer was holding out for more pieces when the rumors started floating and many of us were disappointed when the deal was announced.

We were told to be patient, that Luke was a good young d-man on a bad (TO) team, and that his ceiling hasn't been met yet. We are still waiting. It's appearing more and more apparent that our fears are becoming a reality - that what we seeing is what we'll be getting from this point on which is, as you previously stated, an inconsistent third pair guy.

Even if Luke can regress and find the style of play he displayed a couple years ago, or even better, find that ability which some projected him to possess, the deal will more palatable. If not, chalk it up to another one of Homer's less than stellar moves.
- 77rams

I defend Luke Schenn all the time but when the deal was only a rumour from the 2011-12 deadline to the 2012 offseason, I knew it was a bad deal. Some were expecting Schenn to be Shea Weber or at least a PP quarterback, which was never going to happen. Many were right to want the pot to be sweeten when we found out it was only player for player. For those who were unsure with exactly what we were getting, the grass is always greener on the other side.

With this said though, Schenn had a solid first season with Timonen in his first season as a Flyer. He played solid down the stretch next to MacDonald, which carried over nicely into the playoffs.

Schenn needs to be better and I believe he can still improve. Probably not in the way your guys expect but in away within his expectations.

This wasn't about Holmgren, per se, as every GM does have their bad days. Unfortunately, this is turning out to be one for Homer. And there were a few recent others moves that I was openly opposed to, but that's another discussion.

I stated I wasn't for the JVR/Schenn trade when it was made and I'll stick to my belief. I sincerely hope LSchenn proves me wrong. But to date, it's not headed that way.

If JVR continues to progress into the player he was projected to be and Luke doesn't, I'm afraid you'll in the vast minority of people who would be still OK with it.
- 77rams

Still okay with it is far different then approving of it, and calling it a good trade. My outlook on it isn't just sitting back well after the fact and calling it a bad trade. And I'm not saying that you are, because I do recall you didn't approve of the trade from the get go. But when I look at all the factors involved, where each player was at the time of the trade, and the needs of team, I'm okay with it. Really the only criticism I have of it from the perspective of what the situation was at the time of the trade, is that I do think the Flyers lack of patience with JVR came into play as part of making the trade. And I do think that part of it was poor management.

Who cares if it's Monday morning QBing? A bad trade is a bad trade. It's not like Schenn had an injury or some unexpected malady. He just stayed stagnant in his development, JvR got more consistent.

The Flyers certainly knew JvRs potential. They re-signed him a year before the trade to a 6 year extension.
- Jsaquella

It's relevant when you bring the current day situation into it, and saying look they could of just went after a player like Nick Schultz, because he's playing as well as Schenn is today. When everyone knows what Luke Schenn's value was, and what his potential was at the time of the deal. When you remove yourself from the perspective of when the trade was made, and view it from today's perspective, what 3 year's later. Anyone can do that. GM's don't have that luxury.

I really like what Hextall is doing: Bringing in vets to fill holes caused by injuries rather than rushing kids or trading assets for short term gain. Its a refreshing change.
- BiggE

Yeah, it's a plan, not a run around, year to year approach to cobble together a competitive team & hopefully catch some luck in the playoffs.

I think, overall, Holmgren did a good job. He's not a dope, but his approach was kind of a fly by the seat of the pants thing, especially after losing Pronger. In several instances, instead of patience and letting the market dictate a price, Holmgren was aggressive and ended up setting the market price.

It's one thing to have a guy with a unique skill set like Pronger and overpay. It's quite another to take a common level-but still very solid guy-and overpay for him. You have to manage not just trade able assets, but finite cap space.

Holmgrens style was exciting, but ultimately not enough to win a Stanley Cup

I really like what Hextall is doing: Bringing in vets to fill holes caused by injuries rather than rushing kids or trading assets for short term gain. Its a refreshing change.
- BiggE

Holmgren did the same thing when injuries arrived. It's tempered by what is available.

Yeah, it's a plan, not a run around, year to year approach to cobble together a competitive team & hopefully catch some luck in the playoffs.

I think, overall, Holmgren did a good job. He's not a dope, but his approach was kind of a fly by the seat of the pants thing, especially after losing Pronger. In several instances, instead of patience and letting the market dictate a price, Holmgren was aggressive and ended up setting the market price.

It's one thing to have a guy with a unique skill set like Pronger and overpay. It's quite another to take a common level-but still very solid guy-and overpay for him. You have to manage not just trade able assets, but finite cap space.

Holmgrens style was exciting, but ultimately not enough to win a Stanley Cup
- Jsaquella

There really were almost two different eras with Holmgren as GM. One where he was aggressive, and tried to win every year. And one period where he identified a young core, and stuck to that plan. A large part of the current plan, in fact most of it, was built by Holmgren. But That's ignored.

what did you think of the hartnell trade?

I was kind of hoping there would be something else like CBJ eating some salary, and still wonder if that was the best deal out there
- Marc D

That trade didn't get me too excited.

I'm sure there were offers besides Umberger. But unless Hextall opens up after a few too many eggnogs a the team Christmas party, we'll probably never get to find out what the other options were.

And CLB did eat some salary, so to speak, but taking on Hartnell's additional contract year. Unberger's a better skater and can play in a variety of roles, and takes less dumb penalties. I guess that's the price you pay for a few less goals.

I don't believe Van Reimsdyke value at the time was worth more then that. Or high enough to get an additional asset.
- MJL

Flyers got ripped off big time. I hated the deal at the time and I still do. Schenn was becoming a routine healthy scratch for the Leafs. I thought Homer did a job overall during his tenure,but he truly got taken to the cleaners in this deal.
A Dman of Schenns ability would have been easy to add at a low price. JVR would have looked good with G and Jake.