So yes, I’ve decided to come back and stir the pot again when it comes to the Philadelphia Flyers and the long-term outlook of their rebuild. The stated goal, after all, is to become a legitimate Stanley Cup contender with a window that lasts somewhere in the four-to-six-year range.
Last time, I laid out why the outlook—both short-term and long-term—doesn’t look especially encouraging if the Flyers are hoping to build that kind of contender in the traditional way. And honestly, that assessment still stands. But there is a scenario where this approach could work. It’s not the most likely one, but it’s a rational one—and it’s something we discussed last season with national pundit Shane Malloy.
The Flyers don’t have a Number One Defenseman or a Number One Center, acquiring one usually requires either a fluke—think Quinn Hughes or Jack Eichel—or a unique circumstance like an elite player forcing his way out. Banking on that kind of outcome isn’t a plan.
Instead, the Flyers could lean into a depth-based model, rather than building with a clear 1–2–3–4 hierarchy at Center and a top-heavy defense corps, they could spread the wealth. In this version, the Flyers might ice two legitimate second-line caliber centers, supported by two more centers who play strong two-way games and provide third-line level offense. On defense, the group would be filled with players who slot comfortably into the 2–4 range, supported by additional depth types—essentially removing both the elite top end and the weak bottom end.
In other words, they’d be throwing out the highs and the lows.
It’s a concept not unlike what the Vegas Golden Knights executed early on—though without the benefit of expansion-draft serendipity. This would have to be done the old-fashioned way: drafting, developing, and supplementing through targeted trades.
Naturally, the question becomes: when has this actually worked?
The closest example I can come up with is the 2019 St. Louis Blues. That team had some very good players, and Alex Pietrangelo was clearly a cut above, but for the most part it was a roster built on depth, structure, and role clarity rather than overwhelming star power. Even then, that kind of success is the exception, not the rule.
Would I prefer the Flyers to build around elite, game-breaking talent? Of course, but I also try to live in reality, not “Hopeville.” Waiting around for the next Hughes or Eichel situation to fall into your lap isn’t a strategy. Hope is not a plan.
Now, if an opportunity does present itself—if an elite Center or Defenseman becomes available and the cost makes sense—the Flyers absolutely should explore it. But for that to even be possible, the organization needs to show it’s on a positive trajectory. And given how exposed they’ve looked at certain positions lately, that’s far from guaranteed.
If the Flyers slip out of the race entirely, it risks casting another pall over an organization that hasn’t won anything of real significance since 2012. That’s part of why this slow, brick-by-brick approach is the one they’re committed to. The team needs to demonstrate steady improvement—not just for fans, but to make itself attractive to high-end players. Otherwise, when opportunities arise, no-trade clauses kick in, free agents look elsewhere, and you’re stuck on the outside again.
It’s a delicate balancing act for Keith Jones and Danny Briere, but this is the path they chose.
So the question becomes: do you stop reaching for the stars and instead stockpile a roster full of very good players? Do you prioritize depth, structure, and solid goaltending? Do you build an organization where the talent level is consistently high across the lineup, get yourself into real contention, and then look for the one addition that might push you over the top?
It’s not a high-percentage approach—at least not in my opinion—but it’s a coherent one. And for better or worse, it appears to be the one the Flyers are determined to see through.
Let’s go Flyers
Check out our Flyers Nitty Gritty Store
Cool Matvei Michkov merchandise
About Author
