Philadelphia Flyers President of Hockey Operations and General Manager, Chuck Fletcher, spoke with the media today about the National Hockey League's trade deadline. He fielded questions with an eye toward building the franchise in a measured manner.
There has been and will continue to be questions about the process that is underway. More answers about players currently in the organization will be determined as this regular season plays out, with various post-season decisions pending and more changes projected this summer.
The following is courtesy of the Flyers' Media Relations department:
President of Hockey Operations & General Manager Chuck Fletcher
How close were you with JVR?
I didn't have any offers at all until about 1:40. I got a call from a team, and they had a concept that if they were able to move a forward off of their team, then they had interest in in acquiring JVR. We talked about the parameters of what the deal would look like. It made sense from that standpoint, but all along, it was conditional on the other trade going through. Eventually the other deal fell through.
That was just minutes before the deadline?
It was probably about 25 minutes before the deadline when I found out that the deal fell through. It was interesting. Interesting market. We've been working the phones hard for three weeks on most of our players on expiring contracts. The one offer that I did get on JVR happened at 1:40 this afternoon and it was a conditional offer. I didn't know what the market would be, but I thought there would at least be some offers that we would have to consider or not consider. So, it's the nature of the business, I guess. It is what it is. We would probably rather have a good pick and allow JVR the opportunity to play in the playoffs, but the market spoke, and it wasn't to be. He's a true professional. He is a good hockey player for us, and he'll be a good mentor down the stretch.
Did you have other teams that you went back to when you found that out?
I've been speaking to teams for three weeks; I've spoken to every team.
I’m talking about right before the deadline when that deal fell through.
Every team by then had already told me no several times. There was no – that deal didn't hold up anything at all. I never had an offer until that conditional offer at 1:40, which I found out at 2:30 wasn't going to happen.
Just to clarify, they acquired somebody else?
No, they didn't acquire somebody else. They were going to move a forward, the other team – I don't know the details of what they were doing, it wasn't really my business – but if they were able to consummate the other trade, then they were going to come back. But we had the framework of the deal done in case they were able to make that trade and they weren't able to make it.
There was a report from Elliote Friedman who said that it was pending a physical so that that wasn't true?
No, no, nothing. Routinely when you acquire players, teams ask about the medicals. They did ask and his medicals are fine. You guys have been covering JVR, he has no medical issues. It had nothing to do with us. Again, we agreed to the conditional part of the deal, but I understood the conditions. So, there's nothing untoward here. We understood that if the deal happened, we had a deal. If it didn't happen, we didn't have a deal. It was all up front. At that point, again, we were where we were.
You said there were no firm offers on JVR, but obviously, deals have been going on for the past week or so. Do you think that maybe your ask was too high in the early going and then there was no one left that had interest because they had already had their pieces by deadline day?
No, I don't think that at all. Typically, you make an offer and another team counters. if a team has interest, they typically counter. They accept your offer, or they counter your offer. And these are draft picks we're talking about it's not overly complicated. There's no smoking gun here, I guess is all I could say. We certainly made everybody aware he was available. We made everybody aware we would retain 50%. We made everybody aware that we could even take back a contract if that helped a little bit more on the cap or the cash. We talked about a different range and different ways of getting there – prospects, a pick, multiple picks, whatever it would be, conditional pick. We talked about all kinds of different scenarios. But ultimately, again, I can only control my half, and there has to be a willing buyer. Until 1:40 today, we never had any type of offer and the offer we got was conditional.
We're talking about a guy who has nearly 300 goals in the NHL. There were many other players that were dealt at this deadline that don't have the same pedigree that he has. How do you explain the lack of interest?
I've been using that line for three days. That's exactly what I've been saying to teams. This guy is a good player, he can help you. Can give him to you at 3.5 million. Let’s cut a fair deal. So, I can't answer that. Obviously, I can't speak for the other teams.
How disappointed are you that you couldn't get a draft pick for him? I’m sure going into it you thought you'd get at least a draft pick.
Yeah, that certainly was the hope and to give JVR an opportunity to play in the playoffs. He's a pending UFA, he's been a good pro for us, and I think it would have been a win-win for both sides. I would have much rather had a pick than not, but we never had that opportunity. So, it is what it is. There's only so much you can do. I spoke to every team in the league. Really, there's about 16 teams that were true buyers – I spoke to them multiple times. There was a couple of times I thought there might be a possibility, and then things would veer off. There's not much more I can say. We were willing, and we were accommodating, and we were open to ideas, but you need somebody to be a willing buyer.
In your conversations with those potential buyers, what was the biggest sticking point in them not wanting to get over the hump for JVR?
I’m not sure. I'm not sure. Obviously, a $7 million cap hit, you retain 50%, It's still 3.5. You can see some of the teams’ cap situations, I assume that was part of it. There's been some pretty good players moved, probably there's some teams that have preferences, players they preferred above JVR. But I can't speak to that.
Did you attempt to get a third party involved to retain some more of his salary?
Well, that would be up to the buying team to do that. Say, for example, you’re a team and you valued JVR as a fourth-round pick. You think he's worth a fourth-round pick, then you're going to give up another third or fourth round pick to have a team retain another 50% - you’ve now doubled your acquisition cost. I'm just trying to be really clear here – I didn't get a firm offer of even a fourth-round pick for JVR. So, just logically, I can't speak for those teams, but obviously, that's more than they wanted to pay.
You said that you were willing, if it would help, to take back an NHL level contract. Were there parameters on that?
You guys are going to beat this one up, holy gosh. Yeah, I told teams absolutely I'd take a player on an expiring deal, I would take a one-way contract in the minors, I could help on the cash. I was not interested in taking a player with term, unless that player could help us going forward. So, we tried to be as accommodating as possible. But again, we never had an offer, there was never anything that broke down, there was never anybody that said, “I'm only going to give you a third or a fourth or sixth and take it or leave it”, I never even got that. So, I don't know what to say. Yesterday, for example, I received two calls – one on JVR, one on another player – and I made 17. I just counted my log. We actively did our best to get an asset and to give JVR the opportunity to play in the playoffs and it didn't happen.
Do you think your explanation of this will maybe calm down your fanbase and sort of give them a sense of where you were throughout the process here?
Again, when you're selling at the trade deadline, it's not really a hockey trade. You're selling, you're trying to trade a player and get a draft pick. In order for that to happen, you need a team that's willing to give you a draft pick back. I can't control that end of it. I can only control making sure I talk to everybody, making sure I let everybody know we're willing to retain half, making sure everybody knows that we can take a contract back, let people know we're flexible in terms of what type of – we're not necessarily led to a pick, it could be a prospect, there's different ways to do it. From my experience, and every other deal I've done, typically you come in and say the player, we’re looking for x, and the other team says “well, that might be a little rich, I'll give you y”, and then you haggle. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I guess what surprised me was I wasn't even able to get a team to say “I'll give you this”.
You talked about retaining salary. Do you think if James was making less than 7 million, he would have more suitors? It seems like money was the biggest obstacle here.
That's my assumption. Probably in the next week or so – we have GM meetings next week, and I can ask a couple of teams what they felt and what happened. Again, there were some good players moved. A couple of teams came online a little bit later in the process and had some pretty good players that ended up getting moved. I'm not sure the exact reason, but certainly the cap hit at seven million is high in this environment, which is why we were willing to work with teams. I'd have to assume that was part of it for some teams.
Have you talked to him?
I haven't spoken to him yet. I spoke to his agent. I thought I would let you guys at me first, and then I'll speak with him.
The other day you mentioned that you wanted to sell some and get younger. For some of the older guys beyond JVR, did you get offers, and why did you decide ultimately not to deal some of your older players like Kevin, Provorov – the ones that you said you were taking calls on?
Well, you need to get value. I had a lot of conversations. I essentially told teams, look, we have our three pending UFA’s, and we'll listen on anybody. Essentially had conversations with teams and I think there were some good conversations that could be picked up in the summer in certain situations. The goal is certainly to get younger, as I mentioned, but also to make sure you're getting fair value for the players you have. There were a lot of names in the market, there were a lot of sellers, but from our standpoint, there was a couple of situations we looked at and things just didn't make sense at this point in time. That’s not to say they won't in the summer. There’s some things, again, that we can pick up. We were able to pick up a couple of draft picks today. I would have liked to have picked up a third one as we’ve just gone through, but that's what were able to accomplish.
You talked to us earlier this week, you said you wanted to get younger. The way today played out with not being able to find something for JVR, Justin Braun is still here, so not all the rentals got moved, how can people have faith that you can actually get this team going, because part of getting it younger is going to be to move out veterans?
Yeah, exactly, and we’re going to certainly look at that this summer. Again, you have to get value when you move guys out. As I mentioned to you guys a few days ago, our goal isn't just to gut the team or to get rid of players, it's to make trades that make you better, and make sure you get value, make sure you get market value for those players with existing contracts. Today is not the only opportunity to move those players. You're going to have an opportunity in the summer, you have an opportunity next year. There's going to be opportunities to make good deals for some of those players. But it didn't happen this time. In terms of players on expiring contracts, we moved two players today and two others we didn’t, and it wasn't for lack of effort. Again, you need to – for the rental type of market – you need a team to want to acquire a player and make you an offer.
I guess there's an element here, though, where – yes, these moves can be made in the summer, it can be made next year and whatnot – but the team has struggled for years, and obviously you're trying to stay in your position. Is there a concern that this shows that you aren't able to do the rebuild you guys want to do in terms of how ownership looks at it?
Look, Charlie, I said last time our goal is to get younger. We do want to add more young assets. We are a younger team this year. We do have some pieces in Lehigh Valley and elsewhere that we think could be part of the solution going forward. We do have some veteran players on our team – mid-range age guys – we think can be a part of this too as we go forward. We're going to just continue to look at every opportunity to get better, and the trade deadline was one opportunity. There was not fair deals, in my opinion, to be made. There are some things that potentially could happen in the summer, and as we go forward, we'll just continue to look at those opportunities. But we will get younger, we're going to continue to add more young assets, and we're going to continue to build this up.
You’ve expressed the need for high end talent. Cutter Gauthier has had a great season up at Boston College. is there a possibility that the Flyers are willing to extend an ELC to him? I spoke with him last week, he said he was going to sit down with his family and the Flyers. Have the Flyers reached out in any way and does the lack of success this particular trade deadline now force the hand to sign Cutter to at least give the fanbase something to be proud of?
I don't think you want to – even going back to Charlie's last question – I don't think we want to just make moves for the sake of making moves. With Cutter, we have to sit down with Cutter and really have a good conversation with Cutter, with the coaches at BC, with their own development people. Out of respect to the fact that they're starting playoffs next week, it's not a conversation you have during the year. We speak with Cutter all the time. I've been up there a few times, other staff members have been up there. We’ve met with the coaches, I speak with his advisor. Ultimately, the decision we make has to be about what's right for Cutter and his development. He's too important to make a decision not based on what's right for him. I think there's conversations that have to be had, and at the end of the season, we'll certainly sit down and do that.
Is Brendan Lemieux a guy you’re going to look at for the future, or was that deal basically for the fifth round pick?
When I when I spoke with Rob Blake, we'd spoke about Zack. They had interest. We talked about a fifth-round pick and we thought that was fair. But he said to me, “I need a little bit of time, I need to move Brendan Lemieux in order to bring in Zack MacEwen”, and I said, “well, I'll just take him – with the fifth – but I'll take Brendan as well”. He agreed to that. Brendan's a pending UFA and we can give him a 20-game tryout here to see what he can do, but the deal was for the fifth. Then, again, Rob had indicated that for whatever his reasons were, that if he could move Brendan, he would do the deal. So, I thought I'd just make it easier.
With Patrick Brown, a lot of times on deadline day, guys who win faceoffs and kill penalties tend to be in demand on deadline day, and they tend to be late in the process kind of deals. How did Patrick’s deal come around?
Again, I've been speaking to teams for a while on all of our players on expiring contracts. I talked to a few teams and just, gave them some of my thoughts. I thought Patrick, actually played really well for Vegas in the playoffs a couple of years ago, and his faceoffs on the right side are excellent, and he can kill and he's willing to block shots, and you can really bring an element that teams might need. A few teams call back and Ottawa was willing to give a pick. Another team was willing to offer a minor league player back, but I would have just kept Patrick in that case. But the pick was worthwhile, and it gives Patrick a chance to push for a playoff spot as well.
Charlie, I'll just go back to your last question because I don't know if I answered it as accurately. Look, I understand our fans are really disappointed. The last two, three years, there's no question we've been trying to be a competitive team. We've been trying to be a team – in particular two years ago, going back to the Summer of ‘21 – trying to be a team to maximize the last year of Giroux on his contract, to be a team that could compete and make a playoff spot. Clearly, I haven't done that. I haven't done that job. There's no doubt. Last year we had a couple devastating injuries, absolutely, with Couturier and Ellis, and even Hayesy. This year with Couturier and Atkinson has been very difficult. But that's not the only reason. We need more talent and that's on me. So, I get it. Last Summer I think we were a little tepid. We didn't want to be overly aggressive, in pursuit of talent because we did have some concerns about Couturier in particular, then Farabee had been hurt and we didn't know what we exactly were going to have going into the year. So, we put some kids on the team, we gave them that opportunity. As we go forward, we recognize we have to get more talent and we are going to build it. I'm not worried about my job – whatever happens with me will happen with me. That's up to Dave Scott. But everything I do is about doing what's right for the Philadelphia Flyers and not taking shortcuts, and that's in part why we didn't make any more deals today. The deals that were presented to me were not good deals for the Philadelphia Flyers. Last Summer, being more aggressive was not going to be good for the Philadelphia Flyers. Maybe in the short run it makes me look better, but we don't want band-aids anymore. We want to build this the right way and we're committed to doing it. Those are my words, my actions will have to back it up, but we're committed to doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment