Jump to content

Official Philadelphia Flyers Thread - Stayin Alive Stayin Alive


Captain F
 Share

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

You’re not getting out of Sanheim’s contract — it was just signed.  As I already said, if he’s in your top defense pairing the contract is fine.

Hayes is the crappy contract we’re discussing, and he has 3 years, $21.4M hit remaining.  You’re looking at trading that contract for an older player in Krug, who’s further past his prime, and has 4 years left at $26M.  That’s the crux of the trade Devpool thinks is wonderful.  What sense on earth does that make?

I think you guys see this as an NFL rebuild.  It isn’t.  The Flyers should not be bringing in ANY player on the wrong side of 30 years old.  Krug would be disastrous.  
 

Not sure why this plain logic is too fast for you guys, but I’m sorry common sense is lost on you.

Hayes is a locker room cancer that needs to gtfo, but the key is that we will likely get picks back for him. So we are trading a crap contract for a crap contract but getting picks. 
 

TDA will come with a lottery prospect, but he’s coming off the books. 
 

also on what planet is Sanheim a top pairing guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll wait to make judgement on the Hayes trade until I see the actual terms. Not thrilled on Krug but if we are getting picks back as part of the deal, I may be willing to live with it. We have, imo, a minimum 2-3 years of suckage ahead so taking on bad contracts for assets isn’t the worst way forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bill said:

Hayes is a locker room cancer that needs to gtfo, but the key is that we will likely get picks back for him. So we are trading a crap contract for a crap contract but getting picks. 
 

TDA will come with a lottery prospect, but he’s coming off the books. 
 

also on what planet is Sanheim a top pairing guy?

Sanheim is certainly not a top pairing. Just because that moron Fletcher thought he was a top pairing and paid him like one, doesn't mean he is. If you can get out of that contract while taking on another bad contract with much shorter term and can get draft picks on top of it, you 100% do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NHL Accuses Hurricanes and Flyers of Cap Circumvention in DeAngelo Trade

 

What a surprise.  The NHL being a bush league operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

NHL Accuses Hurricanes and Flyers of Cap Circumvention in DeAngelo Trade

 

What a surprise.  The NHL being a bush league operation.

Quote

NHL Accuses Hurricanes and Flyers of Cap Circumvention in DeAngelo Trade

Originally posted on NHL Trade Talk  |  Last updated 6/26/23
3–4 minutes

The Carolina Hurricanes and Philadelphia Flyers were said to have reached a tentative agreement involving defenseman Tony DeAngelo on Sunday, with Philadelphia retaining 50 percent of his remaining salary and cap hit for the upcoming season. However, complications arose and the trade never materialized.

As per a report by The Athletic’s Pierre LeBrun on Monday, it is believed the NHL raised concerns about DeAngelo returning to Carolina within a year of his previous trade from the Hurricanes. The league cited provisions in the CBA that address the potential circumvention of rules regarding players returning within a 12-month timeframe, particularly when salary retention is involved. Essentially, suggesting it could be considered salary cap circumvention, the trade was not permitted to go through.

As per Puck Pedia:

"Further to @PierreVLeBrun on DeAngelo trade: CBA says if team A retains on a player, cannot re-acquire for 1 calendar year, except if he’s on a new contract. Also says, if team A trades a player, cannot re-acquire him in a retained trade (this situation) for a calendar year. In 2nd scenario, does not specifically state exception about a new contract. So debate: -The exception for a new contract is in 1st scenario but not 2nd. But scenarios are just the opposite, so shouldn’t new contract exception apply? -Is Calendar year 12 months or ‘22 vs ‘23.”

As LeBrun outlines in his article, both the Flyers and Hurricanes have engaged in discussions with the league regarding this matter. They have presented two main arguments: firstly, DeAngelo’s contract was originally signed with Philadelphia, not Carolina, as he inked a two-year, $10 million deal with the Flyers last summer. Secondly, Chuck Fletcher, the general manager responsible for trading for and signing DeAngelo, has since left the organization, raising questions about any potential circumvention allegations.

Will This DeAngelo Trade Ever Go Through?

It is expected that the league will hold discussions with the teams during the week in Nashville while everyone is at the NHL Awards and the Entry Draft. The outcome could involve the league granting approval for the trade or requesting that the teams delay the completion of the deal until July 9, in adherence to the 12-month rule. However, by that time, the two teams could be in a completely different headspace and not be interested in doing the deal.

https://www.yardbarker.com/nhl/articles/nhl_accuses_hurricanes_and_flyers_of_cap_circumvention_in_deangelo_trade/s1_16454_38957220

 

For those who want details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah meanwhile the coyotes have like 20 broken dudes who will never play hockey again getting their roster to the cap floor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill said:

Yeah meanwhile the coyotes have like 20 broken dudes who will never play hockey again getting their roster to the cap floor. 

Sounds like a great trading partner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2023 at 8:14 PM, Alphagrand said:

You’re not getting out of Sanheim’s contract — it was just signed.  As I already said, if he’s in your top defense pairing the contract is fine.

Hayes is the crappy contract we’re discussing, and he has 3 years, $21.4M hit remaining.  You’re looking at trading that contract for an older player in Krug, who’s further past his prime, and has 4 years left at $26M.  That’s the crux of the trade Devpool thinks is wonderful.  What sense on earth does that make?

I think you guys see this as an NFL rebuild.  It isn’t.  The Flyers should not be bringing in ANY player on the wrong side of 30 years old.  Krug would be disastrous.  
 

Not sure why this plain logic is too fast for you guys, but I’m sorry common sense is lost on you.

They literally were a tory Krug NTC away from getting out of sanheim's contract. In that trade they were dumping both Hayes AND sanheim, to take Krug for 4 years. I'm not sure where you're getting lost at.

Krug is bad, no one is arguing that. The entire team is going to be bad for 4-5 years, and there's a possibility they flip Krug during that contract anyway.

And some bad news for you, they're probably going to be bringing in 30+ year old players to fill out the bottom of the roster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bill said:

Yeah meanwhile the coyotes have like 20 broken dudes who will never play hockey again getting their roster to the cap floor. 

Between the coyotes doing that, and the lightning and Knights winning cups $20 mil over the cap by keeping dudes on ltir until the playoffs, it is insanity they kill that trade 12 days before it would be legal anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Get nothing back AND retain salary.  Yikes

 

 

50% for the life of the contract? Yikes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

50% for the life of the contract? Yikes

Normally I might have said just keep the player, but Hayes never should have been signed here in the first place and needed to be gone.  7 years and $50M for a guy who's good for about 45-50 points a year, playing top 6 minutes and top PP unit.  Dreadful signing.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Weak Trade. 

 

Solid trade for the Blues, at least in comparison.  Only have to pay $3.5M per season, so if/when Hayes starts playing like .... Hayes .... they can bury him on their 3rd line and defend the trade by how little they gave up for him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An awful trade from a value perspective. Would have thought they would have gotten better compensation given the retention. I would have just bought Hayes out of this was the return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Blazehound said:

An awful trade from a value perspective. Would have thought they would have gotten better compensation given the retention. I would have just bought Hayes out of this was the return.

If they bought him out then it would have been roughly 3.5 million over a 6 year period the Flyers would have had to pay. This is obviously better. I will say that I thought they would have gotten a 3rd or a 4th for Hayes. I think Krug not waiving his NTC really hampered what the Flyers could do. Just glad he's finally gone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Blazehound said:

An awful trade from a value perspective. Would have thought they would have gotten better compensation given the retention. I would have just bought Hayes out of this was the return.

Frankly should’ve gotten more retaining half of the contract. It’s a 2024 6th rounder. Might have been better off just holding him until the deadline or next offseason then dealing. Can say don’t want him in the locker room but frankly who cares you are gonna be bad anyway so what difference does it make. He’s not the type of guy that is going to be super unprofessional. torts is likely gone in 2-3 years when we get out of rebuild phase. potentially would’ve gotten more at the trade deadline or next offseason when he has 2 years left as compared to 3 and you are still retaining salary 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Frankly should’ve gotten more retaining half of the contract. It’s a 2024 6th rounder. Might have been better off just holding him until the deadline or next offseason then dealing. Can say don’t want him in the locker room but frankly who cares you are gonna be bad anyway so what difference does it make. He’s not the type of guy that is going to be super unprofessional. torts is likely gone in 2-3 years when we get out of rebuild phase. potentially would’ve gotten more at the trade deadline or next offseason when he has 2 years left as compared to 3 and you are still retaining salary 

This all sounds good in theory, but Torts would just make him a healthy scratch for most of the season if they held onto him. Even if he played, what if he was even worse than last year, or worse yet, suffered a bad injury? Then you are really stuck with him. It sucks all they got was a 6th rounder, but he needed to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, vsptroops said:

This all sounds good in theory, but Torts would just make him a healthy scratch for most of the season if they held onto him. Even if he played, what if he was even worse than last year, or worse yet, suffered a bad injury? Then you are really stuck with him. It sucks all they got was a 6th rounder, but he needed to go. 

Aren’t they retaining half his salary the next 3 years or just this year? If it’s the next 3 years then it’s really not all that different and we are in a rebuild anyway so no big deal to me. Frankly i still think a 6th not this year but next year is crap value if they are retaining half his salary the next 3 years anyway. If hayes had 4-7 years left I’d get it more. 3 is not that big of a deal. Next two years we suck anywa and he becomes expiring year 3 likely could move him then for a team that wants to reach the floor or is ok willing to tear down and clear cap space at the end of the contract 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Aren’t they retaining half his salary the next 3 years or just this year? If it’s the next 3 years then it’s really not all that different and we are in a rebuild anyway so no big deal to me. Frankly i still think a 6th not this year but next year is crap value if they are retaining half his salary the next 3 years anyway 

Oh, I agree the value is crap. I wonder if St. Louis would have accepted a 3rd rounder in say 2025? 2026? Who knows what was offered but once again, Fletcher continues to screw over the Flyers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vsptroops said:

Oh, I agree the value is crap. I wonder if St. Louis would have accepted a 3rd rounder in say 2025? 2026? Who knows what was offered but once again, Fletcher continues to screw over the Flyers. 

Fletcher screwed us but ownership being dumb and not firing him is part of it. they knew he was gonna try saving his ass from being fired so that’s on them thinking he wasn’t gonna make dumb@$$ decisions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading that Travis Sanheim is drawing interest from TOR and OTT, and the Leafs may be willing to part with their first round pick (#28 overall) in exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Reading that Travis Sanheim is drawing interest from TOR and OTT, and the Leafs may be willing to part with their first round pick (#28 overall) in exchange.

I’d do it just to get out of the contact. Use 28 and 7 to move up to potentially secure Matvei Michkov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They needed to move Hayes, and everyone knew it. The coach hates him, and while he might not be a bad guy in the locker room he's a horrible example to have around a young team on the ice. He plays lazy and he doesn't defend well, the exact opposite of what they're trying to instill in this team. He had to go, the whole world knew, and thus you get a crappy return. Holding onto him hurts the team more than helps in terms of building a winning culture.

I liked Hayes (not the contract) his first year but he became a lumbering turnover machine and offered nothing defensively. So awful defensively that torts moved him to wing for a while

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...