couple of questions for conversation


who can take a solid step forward with a good off-season? A step that would make you want to see them on the roster next season?

What are the Zam's and the Brinks worth trade wise now? Who is your dark horse to be traded and bring a needed piece back?

What will the big move be?
- wcorvette

There are two categories of players to be moved. One category is good players who should be moved due to being assets who can get future assets and are older. That is Konecny and Laughton. Hathaway to a lesser degree but more of a deadline situation.
The other category is players who just aren't a fit. That's Atkinson, Deslauriers and Ristolainen.
As for the rest. Always need to be open to hockey trades but should be brought back.

New blob

I'll be watching the NCAA Final 4 tonight instead of watching the Flyers take an absolute beating from the Rags.

From a skill point to their spot at the 70 game mark…yes I think they did. It wasn’t even the point total. I saw a team that was in almost every game from a competitive point of view. I hadn’t seen that from a Flyers team in a very long time.
- landros 2

You don't cross the finish line in a marathon by running full speed from the start.

yeah but MM would be relegated to the 4th line then scratched the moment he doesn't block a shot with his face.
- MBFlyerfan

LOL, true, needs to be 200 foot player. That is the thing with Torts, he lets TK play, then he hammers others like Frost. I think he will let MM play. On TK, guy was a disaster down the stretch, should keep his value down, might mean they sign him, ugh. Love TK, but would like to use him to get younger talent, package him up in a bigger trade.

I'll be watching the NCAA Final 4 tonight instead of watching the Flyers take an absolute beating from the Rags.
- Letterkenney

Wouldn't the Flyers still take a beating when Cutter nets a hat trick?

The Flyers keep digging their own grave.

Atkinson is obviously cooked. Another season at nearly $6M for a player splitting time in the popcorn suite with limited minutes and very little production.

Couturier: $7.5M for the next 6 years for a 3rd line center who can only manage 35-50 points a year. The Flyers will most likely have to eat that deal.

Laughton should have been traded. His value was at its highest during the TDL. That's 2 more years of $3M for a player that received way too much ice time IMO this year (he's more effective as a 3rd line winger with some decent PK skills).

Who here believes the Flyers won't waste a ton of money in July signing a 30+ y/o borderline all-star entering / trending towards the sunset of their career to a bloated lengthy contract?

Tortorella part of the front office? That's nightmare fuel right there.

Only 3 more years of $6.25M for Ellis
Only 2 more years of $3.57M for Hayes
Only 1 more year of $1.7M for DeAngelo

On a positive note they Flyers buyouts have ended for:

Oskar Lindblom
Noah Hanifan (lol)
and Bryzgalov

It tough to deal in hypotheticals. I’m simply saying in my opinion they should have waited him out….perhaps that threat alone might have actually led to him playing here. 19 year olds have been known to change their mind. Agents don’t make $ with their players playing at UBC.
- landros 2

yep there was no rush. they saw a chance to add an already nhl player to the playoff push and beyond.

def would have waited as well

It's a cult of personality (see the PM I sent you). Winning is fun. But so is watching the dude who says things as they are eviscerate everybody around him. As long as the fans stay entertained in that regard and they continue to believe that this ongoing culture thing is legit, they're gonna stay on board with him.

I haven't seen any meaningful cracks so far in his support. The only real negative reviews on his performance are coming out of Canada and that's easy enough for the fanbase to dismiss.




He didn't say the whole team lacked balls or were soft tho. He said certain players were.

He's gonna wanna jettison certain players again this summer. It's virtually guaranteed. Because as long as there are player scapegoats the owners and fans won't point the finger at him.

Danny made Hayes' elephantine contract disappear. He got rid of Provy with term. I'm sure there are a myriad of (probably painful) ways he could get rid of Sanheim, even Coots, if Torts pushed him hard enough to do it.
- Tomahawk

My point is, the entertainment value will fade. If it didn't, and fans flocked to see Torts win in a zero sum game against his own team (which is essentially what you are saying), he would not be repeatedly let go by owners, who are, after all, businessmen.

Banks did the heavy lifting. QE aka money printing to infinity did the trick. Banks, insurers and car makers got bailouts. The manufacturing base declined further. The national debt increased 95.3%
- Minnyhock

I am not sure what this means. Banks did the heavy lifting in the same way that cranes do the heavy lifting on a construction site. That doesn't mean they do so of their own volition. One of the primary ways the Federal Reserve has to implement economic policy is via banks (Federal Reserve Rate, which is set at a certain rate, and which banks must adhere to). Banks are incentivized, even forced, to act in certain ways.

Not all banks were bailed out. A historic mainstream investment bank (Bear Stearns) was allowed to fail. Goldman Sachs was bailed out. The bailout consisted of the US government buying their assets at low prices. So did Warren Buffet. When prices were higher, the government (and Buffet) realized gigantic profits. Overall, the US government made a profit on the bailout.

Banks are highly interlinked. If one bank fails, it cannot pay its creditors, which are other banks, and a domino effect ensues. Banks have to call in loans. Banking runs ensue because people fear their money is not safe. We had that in the 1930s.

The bank bailout was not to protect fat cats (if so, Bear Stearns would have been bailed out). It was to protect Main Street from what happened in the 1930s.

I am also not sure what you mean by "manufacturing base decline." Do you mean the employment in manufacturing? That has been declining since the late 70s. It actually improved somewhat under Obama and Trump, but marginally, and honestly, only because it had fallen so sharply during 2008-10.

Here is the graph:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

My point is, the entertainment value will fade. If it didn't, and fans flocked to see Torts win in a zero sum game against his own team (which is essentially what you are saying), he would not be repeatedly let go by owners, who are, after all, businessmen.
- PT21

Every coach is repeatedly let go by owners but you're right. The entertainment value will fade but it will take time. The organization and the fans are still solidly and foolishly behind him.

I said ALMOST nothing which is true. Even the good he did do which he did for sure was not close to what was campaigned on. The things you cited were a shell of the change anyone was looking for. Watered down half steps. And not totally or even remotely by his own fault either but the example still stands
- Stayin alive

I give him a B/B- overall. There were many things I fault him for. For sheer policy value, Clinton was probably the best President in my lifetime.

But holding any elected person to the standards of campaign rhetoric is stupid. In the US, you cannot afford to be boring. You have to razzle dazzle.

That’s about all you have is to complain about spelling etiquette. The fact is you don’t know jack about the real world. Stay in your fantasy land and pray it never gets real in the streets. You would be begging for my help.
It wouldn’t happen.
Your insults don’t mean jack to me so nice try. Perhaps you would be better to correct your intellectual misgivings rather than pretend your some scholar that history would hold favorable.
- bird_dog_pa

"You are"

It’s not true when he implies O and economists turned the economy around. Bankers and corporations run the world. Economists and media are the useful idiots that parrot what the bankers and corporations tell them to say.
- Minnyhock

The team was Bernanke (economist, republican), Paulson (banker, republican) and Geithner (head of NY Fed but not an economist by training). To a lesser extent Larry Summers (very famous economist). Kinda mixed.

You are free to stick to your beliefs, such as they are. But they are widely credited by all quarters (left and right) for having implemented a very successful bailout.

The team was Bernanke (economist, republican), Paulson (banker, republican) and Geithner (head of NY Fed but not an economist by training). To a lesser extent Larry Summers (very famous economist). Kinda mixed.

You are free to stick to your beliefs, such as they are. But they are widely credited by all quarters (left and right) for having implemented a very successful bailout.
- PT21

Imangine that… the regulated selecting the regulators setting policy. 1) too big too fail is economic socialism and NOT capitalism. This is what happens when you push deregulation and expect the Paulson and bernakes of the world to set rules etc etc etc. don’t be fooled for a second the reason some were bailed out and some weren’t was purely political. It had nothing to do with stopping anything from happening like the 1930’s. They don’t give 2 poops about the average person.

Also this federal reserve you speak of wasn’t formed to unite the banking system. It was formed to shift more wealth to the top playing with the economy. Remember the regulators are bought and sold setting policy. The federal reserve is there to make sure the wealth stays at the top.

Imangine that… the regulated selecting the regulators setting policy. 1) too big too fail is economic socialism and NOT capitalism. This is what happens when you push deregulation and expect the Paulson and bernakes of the world to set rules etc etc etc. don’t be fooled for a second the reason some were bailed out and some weren’t was purely political. It had nothing to do with stopping anything from happening like the 1930’s. They don’t give 2 poops about the average person.

Also this federal reserve you speak of wasn’t formed to unite the banking system. It was formed to shift more wealth to the top playing with the economy. Remember the regulators are bought and sold setting policy. The federal reserve is there to make sure the wealth stays at the top.
- Stayin alive

I honestly don't know what to say about this bullpoop psychotic babble.

I will merely add, on a personal note, that I happen to know Ben Barnanke very well. I was a graduate student teaching assistant for one of his classes in the late 90s.

I wish I could express in words what a mensch he is, how accomplished and yet how humble, how much he cares about people, how much money he has sacrificed in his life to to work for the public good (he is not wealthy at all), how clever he is and yet how much time he gives to the young, how high minded he is in his view of America, but I will fail. So let me simply say he had a profound personal influence on my life.

And here is one more request to you. In your own dyslexic way, you usually talk sense. This forum is inhabited by guys who have had many privileges in their life, and who have much time to inform themself of the minutiae of a meaningless sport, but who cannot even bother to inform themselves of the most rudimentary things in public life, such as can be attained by spending a few hours on wikipedia, for example.

Please don't join them.