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

I also think there’s a chance Atkinson decline is much steeper and faster 

Why do you think that?  They are the same age and Cam is faster and a shooter.  Shooter's will always have value on the power play.

10 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

Why do you think that?  They are the same age and Cam is faster and a shooter.  Shooter's will always have value on the power play.

Cause it already has begun if you look at the last two years even if you project out for 82 games. He played all 56 this year but the previous year also missed 25. Add on he’s not exactly great size at 5’8. as he gets older his speed is not going to stay the same and at his size he is going to need it too. He’ll always have a shot but his goal scoring has declined each year since he turned 30 (technically more this year but pace for 82 games would’ve been one of his lowest of his career at 22). I also think at 34 in two years if he keeps declining that he’s likely not going to be as great on the PK so you will see him not play as much in that area. Thats worries me. To me jake isn’t a goal scorer but a playmaker. I also think voracek’s size and ability tends to age more gracefully even in today’s modern nhl. I’m not thrilled about voracek either but if I had to bet which has a steeper decline voracek in 3 years vs Atkinson in 3, I’d take Atkinson 

dont get me wrong i don’t think it’s an awful or bad trade, however there’s definitely risk like the ellis trade. Less so on the injury front with Atkinson and more so how steep his decline could be in 2 years 

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

Cause it already has begun if you look at the last two years even if you project out for 82 games. He played all 56 this year but the previous year also missed 25. Add on he’s not exactly great size at 5’8. as he gets older his speed is not going to stay the same and at his size he is going to need it too. He’ll always have a shot but his goal scoring has declined each year since he turned 30 (technically more this year but pace for 82 games would’ve been one of his lowest of his career at 22). Thats worries me. To me jake isn’t a goal scorer but a playmaker. I also think voracek’s size and ability tends to age more gracefully even in today’s modern nhl  

I'll take my chances with the shooter who will give maximum effort all the time and not get lazy and give up when there is adversity.  This team has had cultural issue for a few years.  Guys don't care or get upset after bad loses or losing streaks and Jake was the main culprit.  Instead of taking responsibility he would deflect.  I am glad he is gone.

54 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

I'll take my chances with the shooter who will give maximum effort all the time and not get lazy and give up when there is adversity.  This team has had cultural issue for a few years.  Guys don't care or get upset after bad loses or losing streaks and Jake was the main culprit.  Instead of taking responsibility he would deflect.  I am glad he is gone.

I never said i wanted to keep voracek. Ive been on that boat for years that they should’ve dealt him prior to giving him his extension if he wanted an 8 year deal (more of i wouldn’t have gone over 6 years in his extension. Really wanted just 5 years. I rather have overpaid a little each year to not have the extra 2 years of that contract— he’d be entering the last year of that contract this year). ask 4for4 cause we’ve said similar things on this topic  

However doesn’t mean the contract you get back won’t potentially be another obstacle in 2 years when hes 34 and not the same player anymore and have an extra year left. I personally rather have neither of them under contract in 2 years. 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I never said i wanted to keep voracek. Ive been on that boat for years that they should’ve dealt him prior to giving him his extension. ask 4for4 cause we’ve said similar things on this topic  

However doesn’t mean the contract you get back won’t potentially be another obstacle in 2 years when hes 34 and not the same player anymore and have an extra year left. 

There was not much wiggle room with the cap issues.  You had to lose out in some aspect.  Luckily we did not have to give up a mid round pick or retain salary.

22 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

There was not much wiggle room with the cap issues.  You had to lose out in some aspect.  Luckily we did not have to give up a mid round pick or retain salary.

Cap issues occurred because of contract situations being similar. Short terms definitely helpful to the Flyers but they might face in 2-3 years with ellis and Atkinson is the issues you ran into with Jake, jvr and ghost where with 2-3 years left on contracts they aren’t worth the value they are being paid and tough to move on from. It’s why i keep saying short term helpful (assuming Atkinson doesn’t completely fall off a cliff and ellis stays healthy) but 2-3 years from now potentially find yourself in the same quagmire you are in now but different names in ellis and Atkinson. 

put it this way hayes has 5 years left on his deal at 7.1 (i was against that contract. I thought they overpaid to get him here and wasn’t worth $7.1 mil— i thought they should’ve done a complete rebuild and not rebuild on the fly. It’s much tougher to do it that way). In 2 offseasons from now could have him in a JVR/voracek situation where making too much for what he is at that point but has 3 years left on his deal. If Atkinson, ellis and Hayes all are in that same boat of dimishing returns with multiple years left on their contract taking up just under $20 mil in cap space. They could all workout and it’s not a big deal. However you could also find yourself right back in the same position you are right now trying to unload those contracts. ** didn’t even include you have to extend coots at 28/29 likely to a lengthy deal as well. 

Want to be more upset about the ristolainen deal this is what Florida gave up to get Sam Reinhart. Future first rounder and a 7th round goalie they took in 2020. rather have reinhart than risto and at that price compared to ours. 
 

 

1 hour ago, 20Safety_Hazards said:

So basically stretching out Voraceks contract for a lesser offensively player. He’s faster though and can play PK so there’s that.

It’s not a good trade.  The only reason anyone would be defending it would be it’s not as horrid a move as we’ve seen over the past 2-3 days of tear down.

Moved a highly paid guy for a slightly less high paid guy who is much smaller — Voracek is really good on the boards; Atkinson is nearly useless there.  Atkinson is just as old — let’s add another overpaid 30+ player.  He shouldn’t be a top-6 forward, and you really don’t want older high-paid 3rd and 4th line guys.  He’s 32 and still has 4 more years at $5.25M per year — wow, that’s a bad contract.  The more I type, the worse this deal gets.

Who do people want as the top 6 forwards next season?  JVR, Hayes, Couts, Konecny, Farabee, Lindblom, Laughton ….. so the choices are bury Giroux, Atkinson, or now both salaries on the bottom 6 of the roster?  Not good.  Voracek was a better offensive player who could at least merit top line or second line ice time.  Atkinson is degrading quickly.
 

Another step backwards and add an extra year of contract term.

3 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I feel like most of us didn’t like the fletcher hire nor fletcher in general.

 

You've been on the record to that end, but I feel like most were either neutral on the hire or willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I did not like the hire, but I have been willing to give him occasional credit for some moves. Those moments are short-lived, though. It seems like for every savvy move he makes, he follows it up with a head-scratcher. It's fine to be a risk-taker, but his willingness to gamble verges on being foolhardy.

9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

You've been on the record to that end, buy I feel like most were either neutral on the hire or willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I did not like the hire, but I have been willing to give him occasional credit for some moves. Those moments are short-lived, though. It seems like for every savvy move he makes, he follows it up with a head-scratcher. It's fine to be a risk-taker, but his willingness to gamble verges on being foolhardy.

I personally think if this team doesn’t get to the playoffs he’s likely getting fired at the end of this year. If i were the Flyers I’d make him have to win a round as well but I’m betting they don’t. 

the worst move out of all of the moves made so far is the ristolainen.  the analytics actually despise ristolainen. I can imagine the analytics department and fletcher probably didn’t agree on that move. Add on the package for reinhart was less and i think reinhart still has a higher ceiling he can reach and ultimately i think a better player 

 

I like this trade. As much as I like voracek he very clearly mailed it in a lot of games, I see a lot of people praising atkinson for being high energy. Also consider how atrocious our PK is.

Yea he has an extra year, that sucks. But it's possible at that point he is still somewhat effective and could be a key veteran for a team with cup aspirations (like pat maroon), retain half salary in that final year (which would be about 2.5mil) and it isn't bad. 

 

G-Coots-TK

Farabee-Hayes-JvR

Lindblom-Frost/FA-Atkinson

NAK?-Laughton-Allison

Wondering if they might move frost to wing if he doesn't slide into the 3C role or if they sign a FA to fill that role. Hopefully NAK rebounds from last year because he was horrid, but he was really effective the year prior so chalking it up to covid.

Provy-Ellis

Sanheim-Rasmus

York-Braun

7D-Morin

Hart

FA

Love all the moves so far.

next to move is TK in a package to get tarasenko.  Calling it now.  

Juicy 

 

Surprisingly enough Carchidi didn't even ask the question lol some other reporter did. Stupid question either way but I would have bet money carchidi had asked it.

Say what you want about giroux but he has been the team's best player for years, and idk where the "he doesn't care" stuff comes from because he was one of the only guys flying around the ice routinely last season. I guess because he doesn't yell enough? Idk. Voracek you could easily see a lack of effort in games, I don't see that in giroux. 

And with all that said, this is likely his last year here so I doubt they would strip him of the C anyway.

On 7/24/2021 at 4:36 PM, jsdarkstar said:

 

Won't miss Hagg watching pucks go past him into the net.

15 hours ago, devpool said:

Surprisingly enough Carchidi didn't even ask the question lol some other reporter did. Stupid question either way but I would have bet money carchidi had asked it.

Say what you want about giroux but he has been the team's best player for years, and idk where the "he doesn't care" stuff comes from because he was one of the only guys flying around the ice routinely last season. I guess because he doesn't yell enough? Idk. Voracek you could easily see a lack of effort in games, I don't see that in giroux. 

And with all that said, this is likely his last year here so I doubt they would strip him of the C anyway.

The Flyers beat writers are all mildly brain dead 

21 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You think it’s a dumb to ask if there would be a new captain after the GM said leadership group needed to be changed?   So now, the only change is Voracek.  Not hardly enough. It was a logical question.   

I actually thought carchidi’s response was spot on. Giroux shouldn’t be mad at the media members but his own GM basically called out the leadership in the locker room in that presser. Fletcher shouldn’t have said it even if it were true. All he had to say is we felt like it was time to shake things up and go in another direction. If I’m G, I’d have bigger issues with my GM making it public about my and the others leaders in that locker room not doing a better job and needing more help cause the group couldn’t accomplish it. 

6 hours ago, Green Dog said:

Won't miss Hagg watching pucks go past him into the net.

Yep. And Atkinson can put the puck in the goal. 

So are they any better?

7 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I actually thought carchidi’s response was spot on. Giroux shouldn’t be mad at the media members but his own GM basically called out the leadership in the locker room in that presser. Fletcher shouldn’t have said it even if it were true. All he had to say is we felt like it was time to shake things up and go in another direction. If I’m G, I’d have bigger issues with my GM making it public about my and the others leaders in that locker room not doing a better job. 

Fletcher said we needed to shake up the leadership group and only shipped out voracek, pretty clear that voracek was a problem in the locker room. Not very hard to read between the lines there, and that's why the question was stupid. 

And as part of the shakeup, he brought in two veteran leaders in atkinson and ellis. Shaking up the core does not equal blowing it up, and trading players is not the only way to change a leadership group. Clearly the team does not have an issue with G as captain or we would have heard something, no rumblings of them asking him to waive his NMC or fielding offers from teams. When these moves were made they talked a lot about ellis and atkinson bringing energy which is so clearly what Jake did not bring on a lot of nights.

 

Tl;dr the question was stupid because the team made it pretty clear voracek was the problem.

1 hour ago, devpool said:

Fletcher said we needed to shake up the leadership group and only shipped out voracek, pretty clear that voracek was a problem in the locker room. Not very hard to read between the lines there, and that's why the question was stupid. 

And as part of the shakeup, he brought in two veteran leaders in atkinson and ellis. Shaking up the core does not equal blowing it up, and trading players is not the only way to change a leadership group. Clearly the team does not have an issue with G as captain or we would have heard something, no rumblings of them asking him to waive his NMC or fielding offers from teams. When these moves were made they talked a lot about ellis and atkinson bringing energy which is so clearly what Jake did not bring on a lot of nights.

 

Tl;dr the question was stupid because the team made it pretty clear voracek was the problem.

Eh i think Fletcher shouldn’t have said anything to that point it felt like many people (not Flyers homers) not just media thought he was taking a shot at more than just voracek about that leadership in that locker room in general from guys who’ve been here a while. 

Also he couldn’t trade giroux if he wanted too cause of his NTC. So even if he wanted to move giroux to have more of a shake up he couldn’t. Hence why only voracek was dealt in terms of leadership of guys who’ve really been here a long time. He could trade Coots but i don’t think coots is replaceable for what he does. It’s really not stupid cause we have no clue if Fletcher might have wanted to Move on from giroux but that NTC prevented it.

It really sounded like fletcher was falling the sword saying it was on him for not providing more leadership and he needed to find new voices so that certain players wouldn’t get upset if he called them by name for lack of leadership. 

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

Eh i think Fletcher shouldn’t have said anything to that point it felt like many people (not Flyers homers) not just media thought he was taking a shot at more than just voracek about that leadership in that locker room in general from guys who’ve been here a while. 

Also he couldn’t trade giroux if he wanted too cause of his NTC. So even if he wanted to move giroux to have more of a shake up he couldn’t. Hence why only voracek was dealt in terms of leadership of guys who’ve really been here a long time. He could trade Coots but i don’t think coots is replaceable for what he does. It’s really not stupid cause we have no clue if Fletcher might have wanted to Move on from giroux but that NTC prevented it.

It really sounded like fletcher was falling the sword saying it was on him for not providing more leadership and he needed to find new voices so that certain players wouldn’t get upset if he called them by name for lack of leadership. 

With how crappy the Philly sports media is if there was any problem with G at all we would have heard fifty reports of it. He wasn’t approached about waiving his nmc for the expansion draft. No rumblings about moving him. 
 

It’s super obvious G isn’t the problem and it was Voracek. 
 

If you’ve been thinking G is the problem you can’t read between the lines. 

6 hours ago, Bill said:

With how crappy the Philly sports media is if there was any problem with G at all we would have heard fifty reports of it. He wasn’t approached about waiving his nmc for the expansion draft. No rumblings about moving him. 
 

It’s super obvious G isn’t the problem and it was Voracek. 
 

If you’ve been thinking G is the problem you can’t read between the lines. 

if fletcher wanted to move on from him he couldn’t because Of NTC. And giroux at this stage of his career and another baby on the way was never going to waive it. Neither were the owners of the Flyers so what’s the Fing point of asking him and creating a bug hoopla? They already knew the answer to the question. So no crap they wouldn’t ask him even if that were the case. Also he might not have wanted to trade him for being a problem 

 if you think it was just voracek that he was specifically talking about I suggest you go read the presser. He mentioned young players not taking that role like they thought they would and guys who’ve been there for awhile needing more leadership and voices to help them cause they were missing some extra leadership they needed when niskanen left. It was definitely not just directed at voracek. He even blamed himself and mentioned losses of guys like niskanen  

I love Jacob voracek somehow became the only reason for the entire team playing the same inconsistent hockey or slow starts for almost a decade under 4 different coaches.

That question felt fletcher tried to take the brunt of it at the end of the answering of the question to deflect off the guys in the locker rooms and also gone now. but he also to pointed out he says certain players and a group as the whole. I’m guessing he wasn’t referring to ghost or hagg who were also dealt. I’m pretty it wasn’t just voracek who he was referring as "certain players”.  

I thought we were young in places last year. We let some veteran players go and lost some veteran players. We replaced them with kids. Frankly, I think it was too much to ask of certain players and of the group as a whole. It was less a reflection of the inability of the leadership group and more reflection on the fact that I didn’t provide enough leaders for the group. That’s what I mean that we needed to change that.

Do I think giroux is a major problem? No. However i am not going to just completely dismiss and absolve giroux any of the fault  for some of the low energy/slow starts/inconsistencies over the last decade when he’s been a constant here along with some of the others. Is he the main culprit to go after? No however that doesn’t mean he was perfect either. 

Again when you listen to the pressers for the guys coming in and how much energy they bring to the ice is mentioned it seems to me like they saw voracek as an issue. The only issue? No, no one said that. It was talked about all year how big a loss niskanen was. But voracek was by far the biggest culprit of visibly mailing it in, especially this past season. Patrick was probably second, just completely disinterested most games. 

In restructuring the leadership group (again, a restructure does not mean blow it up) they moved someone they apparently thought was having a negative impact in the locker room/on the ice(voracek) and brought in two high character, high energy guys (ellis, atkinson).