Flyers ownership has issues, but it's nowhere near as bad as the Bill Wirtz thing.
- Tomahawk

Dollar Bill Wirtz.

I find Scott just as repulsive, as it is our team he is destroying.

Think Jacobs, Molson, or Dolan would so casually sit idle?

Dollar Bill Wirtz.

I find Scott just as repulsive, as it is our team he is destroying.

Think Jacobs, Molson, or Dolan would so casually sit idle?
- FlyerFan3260

Scott is just a suit. If they fired Chuck and replaced him with somebody who actually knew what they were doing, the team would turn it around. I don't think Scott would do anything to actively hamper them.

Wirtz was just so busy penny-pinching that he couldn't see the forest for the trees. It's funny that you mention Jacobs because he was seen as being the exact same way not that long ago, letting a parade of star players leave town.

There's a big difference between what the Pens did and when a team moves older players or future assets because the team is not in position to win. The latter is not tanking.
- MJL

It’s still tanking. You can pretend it’s a methodical way to better the roster in future years but it still boils down to a team not being good enough to compete, and there for weakening their roster. What do you consider Chicago doing right now?

Scott is just a suit. If they fired Chuck and replaced him with somebody who actually knew what they were doing, the team would turn it around. I don't think Scott would do anything to actively hamper them.
- Tomahawk

Scott is just a suit. If they fired Chuck and replaced him with somebody who actually knew what they were doing, the team would turn it around. I don't think Scott would do anything to actively hamper them.

Wirtz was just so busy penny-pinching that he couldn't see the forest for the trees. It's funny that you mention Jacobs because he was seen as being the exact same way not that long ago, letting a parade of star players leave town.
- Tomahawk

Yeah, I don't see Scott as an "owner" like Snider or Wirtz or the guy in Vegas. Those guys ARE the owner, Scott is just a high ranking executive assigned to run the Flyers by the large corporation that owns them.

To me it makes it much less personal. Scott doesn't "care" about the team like I think those other guys mentioned do. He just sees it as a bottom line enterprise. It kinda sucks because we had one of the best owners in all of sports for such a long time.

How has elllis's training been going? Is he getting "ramped up"? Camp is a bit more than a month away.
- corduroy

I hear he's got his own island to train on.

Many, many have received PM's from him. Including me. Ignore it. If everyone ignores him, IT will go away.

By the way, we'll both be getting a new PM.
- MJL

"it"...going nowhere Cliff. You have received many? that is not a fact. Thought you only deal with facts CLiff?

Does anyone else get Hello Its Me 2050 sending them private messages calling you a POS or female genitalia?


- MBFlyerfan

all about context

omg

It’s still tanking. You can pretend it’s a methodical way to better the roster in future years but it still boils down to a team not being good enough to compete, and there for weakening their roster. What do you consider Chicago doing right now?
- ClaudeFather

exactly.

However you are wrong and Cliff is correct.

Scott is just a suit. If they fired Chuck and replaced him with somebody who actually knew what they were doing, the team would turn it around. I don't think Scott would do anything to actively hamper them.

Wirtz was just so busy penny-pinching that he couldn't see the forest for the trees. It's funny that you mention Jacobs because he was seen as being the exact same way not that long ago, letting a parade of star players leave town.
- Tomahawk

Scott needed to intervene a very long time ago. If he is that incompetent to see those in charge of the team are idiots, then he needs to be replaced along with them.

I’ll dare to say that it’s beyond that. Scott is a moron, but I think Comcast is very aware that they cannot anger a stupid, and vocal part of this fanbase that revere those Bully days. The same men that cried foul when Hextall tried to tune them out.

It’s disgusting we are held hostage because of those men from an era so long gone. This team isn’t able to adapt to modern times because of that pathetic identity.

Will also add, that replacing Chuck is not nearly enough.

Even if it’s an outside GM hire, which is unlikely to happen with Briere in the fold.

When you have men entrenched in various departments for a far too many seasons, replacing one guy isn’t going to magically make the Flyers player development process better.

This team operates in a country club fashion, retaining scouts, coaches, advisors, and development staff without consideration for their job performance.

Any GM will be automatically handicapped being forced for work with these people. No, the changes need to come in areas beyond that of general manager.

New blog folks

Some teams are shameless when it comes to targeted tanking.

Speaking of which, the 'Hawks are totally gonna get Bedard.
- Tomahawk

No doubt

Does anyone else get Hello Its Me 2050 sending them private messages calling you a POS or female genitalia?


- MBFlyerfan

I’m a little bit insulted. Why am I publicly always getting these messages and never privately.

Ummmm, Gardiner and Gallagher are in the tops of the league in those analytic statistical categories at the time. Again, Stone when healthy is without a doubt one of the top wingers in the league. High scoring and dominant away from the puck. Stone has finished in the top 12 in Hart trophy voting 5 times. Finished in the top 5 in Selke trophy voting 5 years in a row, including 3 times the runner up before having injury issues last season. Perhaps you are unaware of just how good of a player Mark Stone is. Your last statement above is conjecture




A player like Couturier outscores his opposition while playing against the top players in the league. You may not find it scary, but other teams do.



I wouldn't. I would start Couturier at 1C, let him hold the other teams top line in check if I can get the matchup. Then use players like Briere or Barzal away from other teams top lines and get a better matchup for them, making them even more effective. I'm confident that most coaches would do the same.


- MJL

So we have gone from calling those all-world studs like Gallagher and Virtanen "top of the league" to top of the league "in those analytic statistical categories at the time", have we?

It would be great if I had time to indulge you in one of your endless rambling discussions (where you get more and more confused and continue for the sake of continuance), but here is the crux of the matter. No one doubts Couturier is a very good player and no one says his AAV is aberrant in any way (positive or negative).

But you cannot point just to one part of the contract without looking at other parts, because they are correlated. His AAV is fair enough, maybe even on the low side. But the reason it is fair is because of age, length of contract, NMC and as you point out, buyout insulation.

If his AAV was the same for a 4 year contract, yeah, maybe that contract is a steal, which is what started all this. Otherwise, no part of that contract is a steal.

He makes the flyers better in a bad way. He is not part of the solution.

This team is far away from contending. This dumb ass GM has made it clear he has no intention to build around ex selke. So what purpose does he serve here if not going to help him out to try and win (not saying that is the direction they should go). Have to question his desire to win as well after him seeing this shct show up close for the last 10 years.

He has also made it clear he is not rebuilding. So keeping him around accomplishes what?

Scott sits back and allows this nonsense to continue as he clearly learned nothing from how the prior GM handled this team.

This just a flat out poorly run organization from top to bottom.
- hello it's me 2050

Yup.

Couturier is part of the solution here, not part of the problem. Yes his contract is expensive, but I have no doubt Couts gets $8M+ in the open market, so I would say its a fair contract; not a steal and not an over-payment. The problem with the Flyers is their lack of a plan to surround Couts with some top-end talent, its not Couts!
- jd250

No, he is part of the problem. Not because he is not a good player, but because he is not good enough nor young enough to keep around at this time of the club's fortunes.

The net negative effect of his presence towards building a contender far outweighs the Risto trade. He is like Mats Sundin in those Leafs years.

Does anyone else get Hello Its Me 2050 sending them private messages calling you a POS or female genitalia?


- MBFlyerfan

I get decent messages from him every now and then with intriguing ideas. (So, no from me).

Scott is just a suit. If they fired Chuck and replaced him with somebody who actually knew what they were doing, the team would turn it around. I don't think Scott would do anything to actively hamper them.

- Tomahawk

I don't know that I buy this. That somebody would have to do it really quickly. The only way I see that happening is if they draft a generational player that steps right in and is a star from the get go. That's not hard to do if the player is available and you have the first overall. Otherwise, this needs to be a process that is going to take a significant number of years. Scott will all of a sudden now exercise that patience?

It’s still tanking. You can pretend it’s a methodical way to better the roster in future years but it still boils down to a team not being good enough to compete, and there for weakening their roster. What do you consider Chicago doing right now?
- ClaudeFather

Chicago is not tanking. Tanking is purposely trying to lose games. Purposely trying to not ice a competitive team. With every move and decision. For example with about 20 games left in the season in the battle for the #1 pick for Lemieux. The Pens sent their starting goalie down to the AHL and called up a scrub under the guise of wanting to get a look at him. They did it to lose.

So we have gone from calling those all-world studs like Gallagher and Virtanen "top of the league" to top of the league "in those analytic statistical categories at the time", have we?


- PT21

You crack me up. I admit, that the way I worded it caused possible confusion but you know very well of the context that Gallagher and Gardiner, not Virtanen, were brought up. See you made a mistake there. I know what you meant. You do also. Don't be a fake.

It would be great if I had time to indulge you in one of your endless rambling discussions (where you get more and more confused and continue for the sake of continuance), but here is the crux of the matter. No one doubts Couturier is a very good player and no one says his AAV is aberrant in any way (positive or negative).

But you cannot point just to one part of the contract without looking at other parts, because they are correlated. His AAV is fair enough, maybe even on the low side. But the reason it is fair is because of age, length of contract, NMC and as you point out, buyout insulation.


- PT21

Absolutely I can and I did. Getting a player of Couturier's caliber for 7.75M a year is a steal and I documented why. Your ramblings and excuse for not being able to effectively counter and resort to insults. Which is what you do when outclassed. Doesn't change anything. Resorting to insults is your "tell" for when you can't make an intelligent argument in response. Other than going on some fantasy and unrelated tangent in an attempt to prove intelligence. The insult is the give away. You're just not smart enough to realize. It's like another group of people.

If his AAV was the same for a 4 year contract, yeah, maybe that contract is a steal, which is what started all this. Otherwise, no part of that contract is a steal.
- PT21

No it would be an even bigger steal. It's also unrealistic as you wouldn't get Couturier for that AAV for that short term. This shows your lack of understanding of NHL contracts and the normal give and take that happens in negotiation. Getting Couturier for that AAV, which as the cap goes up, could become an even bigger bargain in a short period of time. Is a steal in my opinion. All you have to do is look at how that ranks in the league among players and centers.

I find your post lacking in facts to support your opinion.

You crack me up. I admit, that the way I worded it caused possible confusion but you know very well of the context that Gallagher and Gardiner, not Virtanen, were brought up. See you made a mistake there. I know what you meant. You do also. Don't be a fake.



Absolutely I can and I did. Getting a player of Couturier's caliber for 7.75M a year is a steal and I documented why. Your ramblings and excuse for not being able to effectively counter and resort to insults. Which is what you do when outclassed. Doesn't change anything. Resorting to insults is your "tell" for when you can't make an intelligent argument in response. Other than going on some fantasy and unrelated tangent in an attempt to prove intelligence. The insult is the give away. You're just not smart enough to realize. It's like another group of people.



No it would be an even bigger steal. It's also unrealistic as you wouldn't get Couturier for that AAV for that short term. This shows your lack of understanding of NHL contracts and the normal give and take that happens in negotiation. Getting Couturier for that AAV, which as the cap goes up, could become an even bigger bargain in a short period of time. Is a steal in my opinion. All you have to do is look at how that ranks in the league among players and centers.

I find your post lacking in facts to support your opinion.
- MJL

No, I did not know. The context was the justification of giving Couts a contract that would justify the use of the word steal, which would mean an AAV of 9mish, which implies a very high performing player. Gallagher and Gardiner (I dunno why I said Virtanen) do not fit in that realm, hence my objection was more than pedantic. (Stone got his contract before pandemic, thus before cap crunch, while Vegas considered him a key player to cup runs, and also when he was 2 years younger).


Btw, Oh, but isn't that a hypothetical? Tssk, tssk.

I provided a chart and average figures of $ per point to suggest the Couturier contract is not a steal. Your provided an article which puts Couts in the category of Stone, Gardiner, Gallagher and McDavid in being elite in a particular analytical category.

But the point is, there is no indication WHATSOEVER that the market uses that analytical category in awarding contracts. As such, the value of that analytics for the purpose of this discussion is irrelevant.

No, I did not know. The context was the justification of giving Couts a contract that would justify the use of the word steal, which would mean an AAV of 9mish, which implies a very high performing player. Gallagher and Gardiner (I dunno why I said Virtanen) do not fit in that realm, hence my objection was more than pedantic. (Stone got his contract before pandemic, thus before cap crunch, while Vegas considered him a key player to cup runs, and also when he was 2 years younger).


Btw, Oh, but isn't that a hypothetical? Tssk, tssk.

I provided a chart and average figures of $ per point to suggest the Couturier contract is not a steal. Your provided an article which puts Couts in the category of Stone, Gardiner, Gallagher and McDavid in being elite in a particular analytical category.

But the point is, there is no indication WHATSOEVER that the market uses that analytical category in awarding contracts. As such, the value of that analytics for the purpose of this discussion is irrelevant.
- PT21

You're trying to limit the scope of Couturier's effectiveness in an attempt to make a disingenuous argument. Which is evidence that you were not able to properly understand the article and all of the factual areas that showed just how good of a player Couturier is. You want to limit the scope to suit your narrative.

You're trying to limit the scope of Couturier's effectiveness in an attempt to make a disingenuous argument. Which is evidence that you were not able to properly understand the article and all of the factual areas that showed just how good of a player Couturier is. You want to limit the scope to suit your narrative.
- MJL

Dude what you are calling limiting the scope is what was the precise point that began that discussion. Which is your calling Couturier's contract, or parts of it, a steal. If you want to counter, show us:
1. Quantifications of why Couturier's value is more than points etc.
2. That these quantifications matter to the market which after all, sets the price for all contracts.

Mind you, I am not saying he isn't a very good player or that he is overpaid. Not at all. Just that this contract is by no way a team friendly contract like Malkin, say. Of course his (Cout's) first contract was indeed a steal.

Dude what you are calling limiting the scope is what was the precise point that began that discussion. Which is your calling Couturier's contract, or parts of it, a steal. If you want to counter, show us:
1. Quantifications of why Couturier's value is more than points etc.
2. That these quantifications matter to the market which after all, sets the price for all contracts.

Mind you, I am not saying he isn't a very good player or that he is overpaid. Not at all. Just that this contract is by no way a team friendly contract like Malkin, say. Of course his (Cout's) first contract was indeed a steal.
- PT21

You're absolutely incorrect. The part about Couturier's contract being a steal was only a small part of the conversation. It may be the part that you want to focus on and limit it to, but it was and is about far more. The quantifications of why Couturier's value is more than just points has already been shown in the article linked. What are you talking about?