Brodziak is a no for me...plus hes played his entire career in the west. I dont think that really solves any issue of the current 4th
- YuenglingJagr

What does playing in the west have to do with anything?

The current 4th lacks size, strength, and possession skills, so I think he'd help with that. It would allow them to be used mainly in defensive situations the way Brodziak has been with the Blues, instead of taking OZ starts away from lines that have the skill level to score goals.

The fact CBJ couldn't move Hartnell at the last deadline with only three years and change left on his contract shows you what Hextall was up against trying to move it in summer 2014 when it had five years left to go.
- Feanor

I dont buy that totally. He has been one of the most productive power forwards in the leauge over the last 10 years, and hasnt faded. There is a bit of a caveat with trading him I think. He is a player that should realistically get you a good return.. but because of his contract teams seriously low ball the team. I will be completely amazed if he finishes his contract with the Jackets.

If the offer was centre Dylan Strome (last year’s third-overall pick) plus both of Arizona’s first-round picks this year (No. 7 and the Rangers’, approximately No. 22) plus another asset, would the Maple Leafs have to at least listen?
- Frank Seravalli

The fact CBJ couldn't move Hartnell at the last deadline with only three years and change left on his contract shows you what Hextall was up against trying to move it in summer 2014 when it had five years left to go.
- Feanor

What were they looking to get? Was it more or less than a guy who's going to be bought out at $4.6M coming off of IR and a 5th?

Also, did Columbus try to move him the day after he was acquired from Philly?

I'm not saying the trade wasn't right, but we're not exactly talking apples to apples here. I refuse to believe that RJ Umberger, at that contract and health, and a 5th was the best offer available from 29 NHL teams at the time of the trade.

He did...and waived it.

I think he was run out of town as a scapegoat personally...but theres no question that Umberger wasnt as good as they hoped
- YuenglingJagr

Right. My question was rhetorical. Essentially stating that NMC/NTC's aren't as prohibitive as people make them out to be. I feel like Bill says it at least once a year in his blogs. We did move Hartnell and Vinny over the past two years. It's certainly limits your return. But not a death sentence.

What were they looking to get? Was it more or less than a guy who's going to be bought out at $4.6M and a 5th?

Also, did Columbus try to move him the day after he was acquired from Philly?
- jmatchett383

It was actually a 4th.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/trade.cgi
http://www.eliteprospects.../player.php?player=285679

Given the huge issues NMCs are about to cause them they would have been idiots to demand more than a 3rd from a contender. But their GM has been doing idiotic things regularly for a while now.

I dont buy that totally. He has been one of the most productive power forwards in the leauge over the last 10 years, and has faded. There is a bit of a cavet with trading him I think. He is a player that should realistically get you a good return.. but because of his contract teams seriously low ball the team. I will be completely amazed if he finishes his contract with the Jackets.
- jak521

Also, there is that piece about teams being able to retain salary. I think you likely see Hartnell go somewhere with CBJ retaining salary. I'm sure he'd like to win a cup in his latter years and would surely waive the NMC (again) to go to a contender who only needs to pay a fraction of the contract in exchange for a 3rd (or 2nd)

So my stating that Hartnell helping in the Caps series is "hypothetical" and "you never know what would've happened here". Yet two of your main points, 1.) Schenn not improving; and 2.) Hartnell's production decreasing, are based in........ "almost guarantees" and "willing to bets". Fair points?

I never stated Hartnell was the type of player to put the team on his back. I'd say the bulk of the people on here would agree that he was a very streaky player. That being said, I think most would agree that the Caps series is a type of series that Hartnell would thrive in. A chippy series with Caps players taking runs at star players (Jake, Ghost)? A series in which Holtby essentially had barricades set up on both sides to have a clear view at each shot? A series in which the powerplay was stagnant? I just offered three aspects of this series that play to Hartnell's weaknesses. Again, not guaranteeing a win. But better odds. And I'm not even arguing that they needed to win that series. We all knew what it was going into it. But there's no denying what he "could" have brought to that series.

As to your other questions. Simmonds and Schenn are more important than Hartnell. Luckily, hockey allows you to have multiple impact players if they work within the cap. It could've worked (Hartnell and Umburger at practically the same cap hit). Also, There's two PP lines and you could've taken off good ol' Ryan White to fit Hartnell (or Simmonds). The day the Flyers complain about too much talent on the power play is a good day.

I'm not sure I call Hartnell's contract an "albatross". Three more years of 4.75M is not the end of the world. It's a fair price for someone with his impact. Again, assuming he keeps up his pace. Which, my main contention, is that there's no reason to assume he wouldn't. I'd be willing to offer Laughton or Raffl out there. Not optimal, but it's a necessary evil when you have a talented roster. And there's also no guarantee that one of those guys even gets picked in the draft.

I don't think Hexy makes this trade if he could see into the future; my primary argument. Which is a fair argument. Because seeing into the future is a real thing.
- steelydan

no, but what you did say was that, can you imagine what would happen if hartnell was on the team in the caps series. since no one really had anything close to a good series, that leads me to believe you think his presence alone would have mattered greatly, because it wouldve taken a herculean effort on his part to advance the flyers. so yes, that somewhat is like saying he would put the team on his back. i agree he was streaky, so he either poops the bed and goes on a cold streak, pretty much like everyone else and were in the same position, or he goes on a hot streak and maybe chips in a with a point a game or so. does that alone make them advance? no, i dont think so.

my arguments on both schenn and hartnell come from years of history of hockey. schenn would not have had the ice time had hartnell been on the team, true or false? thats true. that means schenn wouldnt have had the equal opportunities that he did have to achieve his career year last year and then trumping it this year. his opportunities go down, so your argument would hypothetically be saying that even if his opportunities were taken away, he would have still produced the way he did? not a chance, so yes, i can almost guarantee schenn would not have had the production he did had hartsy be here. second, hartnell is 34, he was 32 and was already declining after his career year of 67 points. the year after that he was injured, only played in 32 games, another sign of getting older. 2, the year after he had 15 less points in 4 less games, another sign of decline. he is now 34, it is proven with age, you lose things, one of them being speed, another being strength, so slower shot, maybe not as effective in fights, etc. not everyone gets better as they get older like a tom brady, or jaromir to keep it in hockey, and hartnell is definitely not one of these guys. if you can show me some precedence where you think hartnell is going to keep up this pace or back it up with players of his ilk at his age, i will gladly admit to be wrong.

actually, i dont understand and totally disagree with how you can call protecting hartnell a necessary evil when your allowing guys who are not even in their prime age yet to be unprotected, over a guy who is 34 and is not anywhere near a part of ur future. thats the most backward thinking ive ever heard. i mean you really think hartnells 40 points a year is worth losing a 22 year old kid? thats absurd.

the sarcasm was ok, unnecessary tho. hexy does this trade a million times, he isnt one sided in terms of thinking like you are. production at 34 isnt everything, especially when its sacrificing progression to younger players that are 22, 24, 26, and are a part of the future of this team.

no, but what you did say was that, can you imagine what would happen if hartnell was on the team in the caps series. since no one really had anything close to a good series, that leads me to believe you think his presence alone would have mattered greatly, because it wouldve taken a herculean effort on his part to advance the flyers. so yes, that somewhat is like saying he would put the team on his back. i agree he was streaky, so he either poops the bed and goes on a cold streak, pretty much like everyone else and were in the same position, or he goes on a hot streak and maybe chips in a with a point a game or so. does that alone make them advance? no, i dont think so.

my arguments on both schenn and hartnell come from years of history of hockey. schenn would not have had the ice time had hartnell been on the team, true or false? thats true. that means schenn wouldnt have had the equal opportunities that he did have to achieve his career year last year and then trumping it this year. his opportunities go down, so your argument would hypothetically be saying that even if his opportunities were taken away, he would have still produced the way he did? not a chance, so yes, i can almost guarantee schenn would not have had the production he did had hartsy be here. second, hartnell is 34, he was 32 and was already declining after his career year of 67 points. the year after that he was injured, only played in 32 games, another sign of getting older. 2, the year after he had 15 less points in 4 less games, another sign of decline. he is now 34, it is proven with age, you lose things, one of them being speed, another being strength, so slower shot, maybe not as effective in fights, etc. not everyone gets better as they get older like a tom brady, or jaromir to keep it in hockey, and hartnell is definitely not one of these guys. if you can show me some precedence where you think hartnell is going to keep up this pace or back it up with players of his ilk at his age, i will gladly admit to be wrong.

actually, i dont understand and totally disagree with how you can call protecting hartnell a necessary evil when your allowing guys who are not even in their prime age yet to be unprotected, over a guy who is 34 and is not anywhere near a part of ur future. thats the most backward thinking ive ever heard. i mean you really think hartnells 40 points a year is worth losing a 22 year old kid? thats absurd.

the sarcasm was ok, unnecessary tho. hexy does this trade a million times, he isnt one sided in terms of thinking like you are. production at 34 isnt everything, especially when its sacrificing progression to younger players that are 22, 24, 26, and are a part of the future of this team.
- sjk540

I'm not sure what else to say on his influence in the Caps series. I've already stated his value on the powerplay. Anyone that watched that series would agree that even a powerplay at a 15-20% clip makes it a different series. Losing by 2-0 and 1-0 means that, yes; chipping in with a point or two when your offense is stagnant would be huge. Again, it's veteran leadership from a player who has been there before. It's a series that is taylor-made for Hartnell. Getting under players skin (like Ovechkin, Wilson, Orpik) and delivering big hits. I'm not going to say he would've won it. But one player can have a profound impact on a series without netting 10 goals. We'll never know if he would have. But oh well.

There are enough minutes and enough talent on this roster that Schenn could have made his impact on any line combination. There's enough talent on this team for Schenn to gel with. I don't think Hartnell precludes that at all. Also, I'm not sure what you're seeing in the stats that I'm missing. Points-wise, he's: 43, 60, 44, 49, 67, 11 (hurt), 52, 60, 49. That's an average of 58 points over 8 seasons, ignoring the injured season. That was 4 years ago, so I don't think there's anything wrong with ignoring it. I don't see him slowing down at all. He probably won't hit 67 again, but staying at 40-45 is valuable. You can "assume" that he's going to break down within 3 years, but it's just an assumption.

You can hedge your bets and trade him, like Hexy did. That's fine. You'll never catch me saying that Hexy made the wrong move. I was happy with the trade. It doesn't matter. He lost the trade. He was "fleeced" because the production difference between the two players is astronomical. It's revisionist history, sure. But that's the luxury we're afforded as fans. Umberger was a 4.6M shell of a player. It's unfortunate.

Also, I'm all for building out the future. It doesn't mean you have to let go of impact veterans that can help you win now and promote a winning culture. There's a good chance that one of Laughton or Cousins ends up as a 4th liner. Would I rather have that or Hartnell? The answer is clear to me. The decision is a little tougher, because I cannot predict which player, if either, ends up as a bust. But I don't get paid to. Hexy does.

OK, done with the novels.

Just to wrap up. I was fine with the Hartnell trade. I think Hexy took a gamble that Umberger would rebound and Hartnell would decline (yet to be seen). I don't think losing Hartnell impacted this teams chances of becoming a cup contender in a few years. I do think that Hartnell would've been a positive force on this team this past season and in the years to come. That's....about....it.

So how do people like the Eagles draft?

I am happy with my cowboys.

You guys realize that Hartnell is still productive, right? His numbers are all pretty much in line with what he did with the Flyers. His contract isn't good, but it's not like they're getting no production from him.

I'll never understand why people paint him with same broad brush as guys like Clarkson and MacDonald. Those guys are below average players right now and have been for a while. Hartnell might become below average. There is a huge difference.

The saving grace of this deal is that the Flyers don't have to worry about protecting him in the expansion drafts. I doubt that was even discussed when the deal was being made though.

So how do people like the Eagles draft?

I am happy with my cowboys.
- J35Bacher

RB 4th overLOL

It was not voided...he waived it to go to the Flyers
- YuenglingJagr

I thought once you were traded the NMC wasn't applicable anymore for the new team?

I forgot that it only gets voided if the other team acquires them before the contract kicks in. The other team has the say then. Sort of like with Carter and Richards.
- jak521

oh

So how do people like the Eagles draft?

I am happy with my cowboys.
- J35Bacher

the eagles had a great draft would have liked to see them get a playmaker to go with Wentz but that can be acquired in another year Wentz will need some seasoning first

What does playing in the west have to do with anything?

The current 4th lacks size, strength, and possession skills, so I think he'd help with that. It would allow them to be used mainly in defensive situations the way Brodziak has been with the Blues, instead of taking OZ starts away from lines that have the skill level to score goals.
- Feanor

How do they lack possession skills? That is all they can do. Dump, forecheck, cycle...no finish.

Playing in the west is just an assumption...lots of players spend their career in one conference or the other for whatever reason. I dont even think Brodziak has been that great in a "defensive situation"

the eagles had a great draft would have liked to see them get a playmaker to go with Wentz but that can be acquired in another year Wentz will need some seasoning first
- 2Real

Great so another ~.500 season and no playoffs???

jfc, i wish the flyers had a game tonight.

this place.

jfc, i wish the flyers had a game tonight.

this place.


- hammarby31

you mean you don't want to argue with me over whether MacDonald is a #4 or a #5 defenseman?

*sniffle*

RB 4th overLOL
- YuenglingJagr

I don't mind it.

They are in a different spot then the Eagles. When the cowboys had a great running game it limited Romo and kept the defense off the field and controlled the game more.

They drafted for the now with Elliot and the future with Smith.

RB 4th overLOL
- YuenglingJagr

I don't mind it.

They are in a different spot then the Eagles. When the cowboys had a great running game it limited Romo and kept the defense off the field and controlled the game more.

They drafted for the now with Elliot and the future with Smith.

You guys realize that Hartnell is still productive, right? His numbers are all pretty much in line with what he did with the Flyers. His contract isn't good, but it's not like they're getting no production from him.

I'll never understand why people paint him with same broad brush as guys like Clarkson and MacDonald. Those guys are below average players right now and have been for a while. Hartnell might become below average. There is a huge difference.

The saving grace of this deal is that the Flyers don't have to worry about protecting him in the expansion drafts. I doubt that was even discussed when the deal was being made though.
- PhillySportsGuy

There are a number of pros and cons to keeping hartnell or not. the cons far outweighed the pros, regardless of his production. the argument about his production is irrelevant if you look at the bigger picture, something this organization has said time and time again is all they are focusing on. so why not do that when thinking of hartnell. he was not a part of the future at all. his minutes could be given to other younger, more relevant players who would be a part of the future. the points hartnell would put up over umberger is irrelevant, this trade was not about that. it was getting rid of pieces that meant nothing in the big picture, im curious as to why people cant see that. sure, the trade sucked for us from a production standpoint, and that is an argument u can make if we were competing each year for a Stanley cup. but we weren't, so why does it matter.

now, we can buy RJ out and add more cap space to sign extensions, give raises, go after better suited players in FA, instead of having 4.75 million tied up for another 3 years to a player that will not be part of this future. its really as simple as that, that's why the trade was necessary regardless if Umberger scored zero goals, production had zero to do with it. it had to do with cap space, bringing up younger players, and making a nucleus that will lead us to the playoffs and be a perennial cup contender. the difference between us being a cup contender or not, had nothing to do with Hartnell either, another point that this deal was great and necessary for us in terms of long term planning and strategy.

I don't mind it.

They are in a different spot then the Eagles. When the cowboys had a great running game it limited Romo and kept the defense off the field and controlled the game more.

They drafted for the now with Elliot and the future with Smith.
- J35Bacher

they also had a good running game when romo could throw a pass...the two work in tandem, and its not unique to the cowboys

Wrt fat guys falling over each other

If Sam Bradford plays all 16 games, they are likely a 7-9 team, maybe 8-8 at best.

If that other dude plays, they're likely 6-10 or 5-11.

It doesn't make a damn difference since they don't have a first next year, so might as well get rid of Bradford.