Diehard Exclusive
Unlock Your Full Philadelphia Flyers Experience
This premium content is a Philadelphia Flyers Diehard exclusive.
DIEHARD MEMBERSHIP
$79.99
/year
As a Diehard, you'll get:
Plus
Join Now
Cancel anytime. No questions asked.
Manage Membership
You're already a Diehard! Manage your subscription from your dashboard.
Already a Diehard?
Sign In
16 Comments (11 conversations)
Chris
Excellent objective overall view, Charlie.
Personally, I like the contract for the here and now and don’t see huge downside long term. Worst case scenario he gets buried in the final year, which I highly doubt happens. But, in the meantime, this is a clear signal to the players that this FO rewards good things – both to the locker room and future UFAs. I don’t think you can ignore they are trying to make this an attractive destination…I do think this plays into that also in some small way.
Matthew Dyckman
A thorough discussion of the pros and cons of the deal, with genuine candor at the end. Great stuff (as usual). Thanks Charlie.
Peter Dymond
Not that you need my approval but that was a good article. As much as anything I liked that you “took a minute” to think it through before writing and posting it. In a world where speed and reactions are seemingly everything, I appreciate a little more reflection, research, analysis ect before reacting.
I’m curious about this thought exercise: since doing nothing isn’t an option, can you sketch an example of what you would have preferred?
Erik Hilliard
I’m not Charlie and hopefully he is able to answer, but here are my guesses. Less term (3yr deal) or even wait it out. A less term deal was probably not in the cards do to the dearth of quality centers. So the other side is wait. And I wonder a bit why not wait. I don’t think Dvorak is going to exceed what he’s already providing. Especially when I think his wing mate WILL exceed it. Zegras has been exactly what this team has needed offensively. My guess is Zegras’s camp has stated they want to wait and see where he really winds up statistically and Dvorak’s camp came and said he loves it here, the UFA center group isn’t strong, loves Zegras, what’s the appetite of getting a deal done today?
Charlie O'Connor
AuthorFair question.
I would have held to the firm line of not giving him more than 3 years, and would have been willing to go higher on the AAV to do it. So I probably would have dragged it out closer to the trade deadline rather than signing it this soon, hoping Dvorak would cave.
If he didn’t? I’d be 50/50 on giving him a 4th year; maybe I’d have caved, maybe not. But I wouldn’t have gone 5. I also wouldn’t have traded him, though. I’d have let him walk for nothing if I couldn’t get him on a deal that I liked. And in that scenario, planned on making Zegras one of my three top-nine centers next season.
mbtoole
This is not a criticism of Charlie or the article, which I very much enjoyed. That said, I feel like Charlie is trying to convince himself that he’s against this deal and I don’t come away from reading this with a truly compelling argument that this is some bad deal.
Peter Andrews
This was my feeling, too. In particular, I don’t think I read a compelling rebuttal to Briere’s point that they had three choices — re-sign, trade, or let him walk. I don’t think you can trade him given how the season has gone so far, and I don’t think you should let him walk given the weakness of the center market. When put that way, I think this is a reasonable deal, especially given the contract structure and rising cap. (I think criticism of the deal is putting a bit too much weight on the idea that this will be some albatross contract in three or four years.)
Charlie O'Connor
AuthorI actually think it’s pretty easy to criticize the Flyers’ responses to the downsides.
1. Age downside: Briere’s “guys play until they’re 40” response was probably his weakest of the bunch. Yes, some do. Most players don’t, though. They’re betting on Dvorak to be an outlier, and I felt like that answer downplayed the degree to which Dvorak would be an outlier if he mostly holds his current level of play through 35.
2. Career year downside: Probably Briere’s strongest counter. The market is thin to be sure (though I would have liked Pageau at the right price). I guess the counterargument to this would be: you’re the GM, and it’s a hard job. Find a way to get another center on a better deal.
3. Blocking players downside: Just play Zegras at center. Problem solved.
4. Can’t trade him downside: Another strong Briere counterargument, but it’s not that it’s certain that Dvorak will be impossible to trade. Just that it’s a real possibility — and a possibility that gets higher the longer the deal goes. It would have been far less of a concern had the deal been limited to 3 years.
guadzilla
My counter to those arguments:
1). At the age of 34/35, Dvorak will be getting paid like a 3C or even a high end 4C. That’s not really the end of the world.
2). He has done an excellent job accruing talent or converting them into draft picks so far. Saying “find another C” is a lazy argument. Sure he can find another center – by giving up picks (or overpaying in FA). What do you think he’d have to give up to get a comparable 2C on a better deal to play with Zegras for a couple of years? Would that small improvement in cap savings be worth the picks a 2C commands? And when it comes to targeting a 1C if one does become available, signing Dvorak does nothing to prevent that from happening, so that part is a non-issue.
3). I dont think it’s as easy as “just play Zegras at center”. I mean, between Danny, Jones and Tocchet, you’d think they know that they need a C and Zegras could have filled that slot. If they arent doing so, I’d say there is a pretty good reason why. This argument reminds me of the fans who go “just play the guy in the NHL and let him learn there” – when literally NO GM in the 30 years I have followed hockey thinks that throwing a young player to the wolves to get cratered is a good way to develop them.
4). There likely is no need to trade Dvorak in the next 2-3 years (2 for sure, maybe 3). All of this hand-wringing is about years 4 and 5, when he wont have much of a no-trade clause and a 4% cap hit is not going to be anything major, one way or the other.
And all of this ignores the culture element. Let’s say hypothetically, they ARE able to find another 50-60 point C for.. what, $1MM/year cheaper. No idea how that guy will fit in the culture (Kevin Hayes, anyone?) or the system. No idea if that C will have good chemistry with Zegras. Is that a risk you want to take with one of the core players in your team right now?
ifollowcharlieo
Exactly.
As is almost always the case, this is a well-researched, balanced, and logical piece. As I am a professional logician, that is always a plus me.
You are why I pay to subscribe. Thanks!
ifollowcharlieo
The ability to edit comments to fix typos would be nice!
guadzilla
The only argument against signing Dvorak seems to be “he is 29 years old”. That would make sense if the Flyers were paying a big contract or trying to fill a premium talent spot. But they are not. Dvorak is a supporting piece and a very useful one at that.
Right now, the Flyers DO need a top 6 center and Dvorak provides a placeholder for that for the next couple of years. As this article itself points out, there really isnt a glut of options out there. Even getting someone comparable in terms of age/points production will cost them more in contract and/or picks.
So for now, Dvorak is a perfectly good option.
Going forwards – in a couple of years, even if he declines to 3C level of production, his contract is perfectly fair for that. And again, having a veteran presence at C isnt a bad thing in the checking line. Hell, put him at 4C, if need be.
As for blocking a prospect – for one, he provides a certain NHL-level threshold of ability that the prospects have to clear to take his spot. That’s a good thing. And if those prospects do… “we have too many good Cs” is a problem literally NO NHL team has ever said.
Matt O'Brien
Excellent article Chuck. One aspect that hasn’t been discussed is the return for him at the deadline. Based on the return that Laughton got, I would think atleast a first and a quality prospect if not more would have been coming back. Those are great assets to have if you’re looking to obtain a 1C or 1D in the offseason.
Ian Winter
Really thoughtful article Charlie (as usual). Reasoned points all the way through.
What I come away with here is that there is risk in the Dvorak signing… but there would also be risk in letting him walk. The biggest risk in letting him go is that we would lose a key ingredient in the chemistry of what’s working right now – and that we wouldn’t be able to reproduce it next year via promotion or free agent signing. And with all due respect to Berglund, Luchanko, Nesbitt, etc. – that seems like a non-trivial risk.
My first reaction when I saw the terms of the deal was: “Ouch. Too much term for an almost 30-year old middle sixer.” But after letting it age for a couple of days, I think I get why Danny moved on it.
Stephen Roenitz
Nice write up. The main thing that makes this contract ok for me is I really do think this is a “stealth 3 year contract.” Dvorak gets his 5 year term, good for him, but I can’t see any way the Flyers will have an issue moving the contract in year 4/5. It costed a 6th round pick and a contract slot to move Ellis (granted he’s a UFA and LTIR eligible), but you get the idea. The days of attaching a 1st rd pick to Sean Monahan or a 2nd to Gostisbehere (that one still hurts) to move their contracts are over. Even if the Flyers have to retain some or attach a mid round pick, that’s a cost of doing business.
I do agree I would have preferred to up the AAV on shorter term, the Wennberg deal 3 years 6 million would have been almost perfect.
David LaVeck
Charile, I appreciate the thoroughness of this article especially the concerns which are all valid. I agree with all of these concerns as his age, injury history, career year, and roster blocking ability all detract from a contract that on the surface may seem reasonable. Maybe if contracts suck as Coots, TK & Tippett didn’t already exist it would be easier to accept.