2022/23 Roster Thread XIX: 19th Nervous Breakdown

[VladDrag]

Even with Bedard, they would be several years away.

If the get Bedard, that solves a massive hole, but yeah, still 2 years away imo.

They would still need a top line defenseman too.

 

[Rebels57]

If the get Bedard, that solves a massive hole, but yeah, still 2 years away imo.

They would still need a top line defenseman too.

They need a lot.

Most importantly on top of Bedard, at least one more 1st line calibre winger along with a high-end #1 defensemen. Also need Couturier to be at least above-average 2C calibre.

Right now they just have a bunch of middle 6/bottom 4 calibre pieces.

 

[Chicken N Raffls]

You apparently already turned down an opportunity to get a first rounder for Laughton a few years ago. It would be amazing to see this organization continue to pass up value on an otherwise depth player because of “intangibles”.

Yea but his war face is ELITE. Anyone have a gif of the time his face went from 0-murder demon in about .25 seconds? You can't just go out and find that anywhere.

 

[VladDrag]

They need a lot.

Most importantly on top of Bedard, at least one more 1st line calibre winger along with a high-end #1 defensemen. Also need Couturier to be at least above-average 2C calibre.

Right now they just have a bunch of middle 6/bottom 4 calibre pieces.

I think TK is a ppg+ player with a guy like Bedard, but agreed, yeah ideal would be to get another top 6 player.

But even with that, if they get Bedard, they should be taking steps forward in 2 years. And that’s really what I meant, not that they are a championship team in 2 years….but I am not holding my breath.

 

[deadhead]

They should get a top ten player this year and next year, a couple extra 1st rd picks in the later part of the 1st round, and some 2nd and 3rd rd picks spread over the 2024 and 2025 drafts. Plus a couple prospects.

By 2026-27 most of these 1st rd picks and a couple prospects should be in the lineup, plus a couple other draftees.

So I figure three years of struggle, then the team starts to take off, might take another year or two to build up depth and make a quantity for quality trade, plus a bunch of 19-20 year olds will need 2-3 years to get to where they can match up against the big boys.

If they commit now, by 2027-28 they have a chance to crack the top 8.

 

[Striiker]

The rebuild clock doesn't start until they start drafting properly. No more big dumb shooters, wingers, and unskilled trash.

Gauthier is not a top tier prospect and we might not even get one this year if they follow their established pattern.

 

[Lindberg]

The rebuild clock doesn't start until they start drafting properly. No more big dumb shooters, wingers, and unskilled trash.

Gauthier is not a top tier prospect and we might not even get one this year if they follow their established pattern.

I think you're underrating Gauthier due to blind dislike. Sure some of the scouts had him at #10, but others had him at #3. I don't have any opinion on the guy but I'm sure the people Bob McKenzie knows is a better gauge of his talent level.

Bob McKenzie's Final 2022 Draft Ranking - TSN.ca

It’s a photo finish for the No. 1 spot on TSN’s 2022 NHL Draft Final Ranking and, by the slimmest of margins, it’s Juraj Slafkovsky over Shane Wright.

www.tsn.ca

 

[Lindberg]

They should get a top ten player this year and next year, a couple extra 1st rd picks in the later part of the 1st round, and some 2nd and 3rd rd picks spread over the 2024 and 2025 drafts. Plus a couple prospects.

By 2026-27 most of these 1st rd picks and a couple prospects should be in the lineup, plus a couple other draftees.

So I figure three years of struggle, then the team starts to take off, might take another year or two to build up depth and make a quantity for quality trade, plus a bunch of 19-20 year olds will need 2-3 years to get to where they can match up against the big boys.

If they commit now, by 2027-28 they have a chance to crack the top 8.

The Flyers really could stand two #1 to #3 picks. It's unfortunate that Columbus is so bad this year due to injuries.

Avoid buying any overpriced FAs, conserve all their draft capital, and then acquire those middle tier gaps. There's definitely the ability to acquire that one high end player but they don't available all that often.

 

[deadhead]

If you build up depth and cap room, you can trade for players, Vegas got Stone and Eichel.

I hate free agency, b/c with most players you're paying for their peak performance over a contract that spans their downslope seasons. Just not a good way to garner value. Smart GMs look for bargains, trade for RFAs that are too expensive for their current teams, etc. The elite players are often worth it, but they often choose their destination based on other considerations than money, and Philly isn't a preferred destination.

Always sign your own players over FAs, because you have a lot more information about the players you've watched for a half dozen seasons. Of course, that also means you know who isn't worth signing.

 

[Striiker]

I think you're underrating Gauthier due to blind dislike. Sure some of the scouts had him at #10, but others had him at #3. I don't have any opinion on the guy but I'm sure the people Bob McKenzie knows is a better gauge of his talent level.

Bob McKenzie's Final 2022 Draft Ranking - TSN.ca

It’s a photo finish for the No. 1 spot on TSN’s 2022 NHL Draft Final Ranking and, by the slimmest of margins, it’s Juraj Slafkovsky over Shane Wright.

www.tsn.ca

Nope, I’m rating him just fine.

Gauthier is not a top tier prospect. That’s not even debatable.

Top tier = projects to be a franchises star player. He’s just not that kind of prospect. Optimistically, he becomes a really good complimentary player but he’ll never be a Giroux type.

 

[Beef Invictus]

We aren't even sure what position Gauthier plays.

 

[Lindberg]

Nope, I’m rating him just fine.

Gauthier is not a top tier prospect. That’s not even debatable.

Top tier = projects to be a franchises star player. He’s just not that kind of prospect. Optimistically, he becomes a really good complimentary player but he’ll never be a Giroux type.

How many games have you watched him play? I'm going to guess zero. Giroux was drafted #22 and I'm guessing when he got drafted you had no idea of his skill set and projection.

Sometimes you have zero objectively to the situation. Heck you don't believe Gretzky was the best or anywhere close to the best so that's a bit telling.

 

[Striiker]

How many games have you watched him play? I'm going to guess zero. Giroux was drafted #22 and I'm guessing when he got drafted you had no idea of his skill set and projection.

Sometimes you have zero objectively to the situation. Heck you don't believe Gretzky was the best so that's a bit telling.

It’s actually the opposite. I’m being objective and realistic, you’re being gullible and believing whatever narrative you’re fed. Again.

“Gretzky is the best player of all time? Must be true because old hockey guys say so!”

“Most wins = greatest QB? Makes sense to me!”

“Losing culture is real? Well Torts and Fletcher wouldn’t be wrong!”

“Gauthiers an elite prospect? Ok, I’ll gobble up this nonsense too.”

Meanwhile, he went 5th overall as a reach in a weak draft without top end elite talent. There might not be one truly elite prospect in the draft, but he sure as shit wouldn’t be the guy with that label if there is. Doesn’t mean he and the others can’t turn out to be really good players, but he would need to magically transcend what he is now and his current development trajectory.

I’ve seen a couple games and I’ve also seen the thoughts of the people on here who have watched more than that. Nobody other than maybe Shill O’Connor or Baskow thinks he’s an elite prospect. Nobody thinks he projects to be the franchises star player of the future.

It’s arguable whether he’s even a “good” prospect. “Elite” is not even debatable. He isn’t.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

If you're defaulting to McKenzie's sources opinion as gospel, why is the 3 more valid than the 10? There are often sizable disagreements with consensus board when you keep individual opinions that way. Hell, it's supposed to work that way. 3 to 10 is an uncommon spread for that high in the draft, though. It's also more common on these big Forwards who require positional and/or skill progression. Personally I worry any big Skater gets the default two way bump with some people. I have no way of knowing if that's the case here. That's just my knee-jerk reaction.

He doesn't look like a bust so far. That's good. No reason to hang unreasonable expectations on him

Labels are weird. Some people think there are a dozen elite prospects at any one time. I think there are max 2-3. That's not even the same conversation.

 

[Lindberg]

If you're defaulting to McKenzie's sources opinion as gospel, why is the 3 more valid than the 10? There are often sizable disagreements with consensus board when you keep individual opinions that way. Hell, it's supposed to work that way. 3 to 10 is an uncommon spread for that high in the draft, though. It's also more common on these big Forwards who require positional and/or skill progression. Personally I worry any big Skater gets the default two way bump with some people. I have no way of knowing if that's the case here. That's just my knee-jerk reaction.

He doesn't look like a bust so far. That's good. No reason to hang unreasonable expectations on him.

I'm not defaulting to McKenzie's source as gospel, I'm just stating that the narrative that Gauthier isn't a good prospect shouldn't hold that much weight. McKenzie's list year after year tends to be a pretty well thought out ranking of players.

People here tend to project their hatred of Fletcher and co so much they are blinded by the reality of the situation.

People on this forum thought the Flyers prospect pool was one of the best years ago and that flamed out majorly hard. Maybe people's analysis of the situation isn't as good as they think.

 

[Lindberg]

It’s actually the opposite. I’m being objective and realistic, you’re being gullible and believing whatever narrative you’re fed. Again.

“Gretzky is the best player of all time? Must be true because old hockey guys say so!”

“Most wins = greatest QB? Makes sense to me!”

“Losing culture is real? Well Torts and Fletcher wouldn’t be wrong!”

“Gauthiers an elite prospect? Ok, I’ll gobble up this nonsense too.”

Meanwhile, he went 5th overall as a reach in a weak draft without top end elite talent. There might not be one truly elite prospect in the draft, but he sure as shit wouldn’t be the guy with that label if there is. Doesn’t mean he and the others can’t turn out to be really good players, but he would need to magically transcend what he is now and his current development trajectory.

I’ve seen a couple games and I’ve also seen the thoughts of the people on here who have watched more than that. Nobody other than maybe Shill O’Connor or Baskow thinks he’s an elite prospect. Nobody thinks he projects to be the franchises star player of the future.

It’s arguable whether he’s even a “good” prospect. “Elite” is not even debatable. He isn’t.

Gretzky played against some of the best players in the NHL all time and routinely out scored them even after a back injury that really hurt his production. Guys like Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, and so forth weren't some 80s scrubs. Today's NHL doesn't match the physicality of the 90s for better or worse.

I'm not even going to bother with the Tom Brady thing.

Somehow you've equated my belief that a franchise can having a losing culture to be equal to Torts and Fletcher can't be wrong. I dislike Fletcher and Torts and think you can carry around a losing culture, much like it's possible to have a toxic organization.

I don't know where Gauthier stands as a prospect but you do project a narrative that anything Fletcher did was so completely wrong and can't possibly be a good pick. Is he a good pick? Maybe. Could be a bad pick as well.

 

[Striiker]

Gretzky played against some of the best players in the NHL all time and routinely out scored them even after a back injury that really hurt his production. Guys like Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, and so forth weren't some 80s scrubs. Today's NHL doesn't match the physicality of the 90s for better or worse.

I'm not even going to bother with the Tom Brady thing.

Somehow you've equated my belief that a franchise can having a losing culture to be equal to Torts and Fletcher can't be wrong. I dislike Fletcher and Torts and think you can carry around a losing culture, much like it's possible to have a toxic organization.

I don't know where Gauthier stands as a prospect but you do project a narrative that anything Fletcher did was so completely wrong and can't possibly be a good pick. Is he a good pick? Maybe. Could be a bad pick as well.

-He didn't though. He played in a weaker era than what we have today and the best players right now would easily outplay a team of all-stars from Gretzky's era. Modern hockey might not be as physical but it's much faster and far more skilled. Toughness is worthless if they can't keep up mentally or physically, as we've seen with our trash tough guys for a decade now. McDavid blows by all that 80s and 90s trash without breaking a sweat. Not to mention the goaltending difference.

-There is not Tom Brady thing. It's a "team wins are not how you evaluate individuals" thing.

-"Losing culture" is fairy tale intangible bullshit that excuses bad GM/coaching work.

And now that the above nonsense is settled, on top of being gullible you don't seem to be paying attention to my repeated intentionally specific wording. I said elite prospect. Not "good" prospect, not "promising" prospect, not "prospect that has potential". You can believe Gauthier is a good prospect if you want, but anyone calling him elite is out of their minds and deserves to be mocked. McDavid was elite, Eichel was elite, MacKinnon was elite, Hughes was elite, and so on. Gauthier is nowhere near that level of prospect and anyone who claims differently should be ignored.

 

[Lindberg]

And now that the above nonsense is settled, on top of being gullible you don't seem to be paying attention to my repeated intentionally specific wording. I said elite prospect. Not "good" prospect, not "promising" prospect, not "prospect that has potential". You can believe Gauthier is a good prospect if you want, but anyone calling him elite is out of their minds and deserves to be mocked. McDavid was elite, Eichel was elite, MacKinnon was elite, Hughes was elite, and so on. Gauthier is nowhere near that level of prospect and anyone who claims differently should be ignored.

You can have your beliefs and I can have mine.

The gap between McDavid and MacKinnon makes your definition of elite poor. McDavid is a generational talent, MacKinnon is not.

Hell for years people called MacKinnon a guy with all the tools and no toolbox. He didn't even clip a ppg until year 5. Year 5.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Gauthier's a fun prospect, he's an arrogant douche, pretty good hockey guy face, skates good, shoots a lot, named "Cutter."

 

[blackjackmulligan]

It’s actually the opposite. I’m being objective and realistic, you’re being gullible and believing whatever narrative you’re fed. Again.

“Gretzky is the best player of all time? Must be true because old hockey guys say so!”

“Most wins = greatest QB? Makes sense to me!”

“Losing culture is real? Well Torts and Fletcher wouldn’t be wrong!”

“Gauthiers an elite prospect? Ok, I’ll gobble up this nonsense too.”

Meanwhile, he went 5th overall as a reach in a weak draft without top end elite talent. There might not be one truly elite prospect in the draft, but he sure as shit wouldn’t be the guy with that label if there is. Doesn’t mean he and the others can’t turn out to be really good players, but he would need to magically transcend what he is now and his current development trajectory.

I’ve seen a couple games and I’ve also seen the thoughts of the people on here who have watched more than that. Nobody other than maybe Shill O’Connor or Baskow thinks he’s an elite prospect. Nobody thinks he projects to be the franchises star player of the future.

It’s arguable whether he’s even a “good” prospect. “Elite” is not even debatable. He isn’t.

you are very entertaining. Enjoy reading your post.

 

[Striiker]

Holy shit

McDavid and MacKinnon don’t have to be equals for you to understand the point. I must be getting trolled.

As I very clearly explained, by “elite prospects” I’m talking about guys who projected to be franchise star players. McDavid and MacKinnon are that now and we’re expected to be that when redrafted. Gauthier isn’t even close to either.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

I'm not defaulting to McKenzie's source as gospel, I'm just stating that the narrative that Gauthier isn't a good prospect shouldn't hold that much weight. McKenzie's list year after year tends to be a pretty well thought out ranking of players.

People here tend to project their hatred of Fletcher and co so much they are blinded by the reality of the situation.

People on this forum thought the Flyers prospect pool was one of the best years ago and that flamed out majorly hard. Maybe people's analysis of the situation isn't as good as they think.

thats 100% on development.....players are not accountable at all.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

People are having completely different discussions about Gauthier. There's no common ground to be found when you're still stuck debating the scale.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

-He didn't though. He played in a weaker era than what we have today and the best players right now would easily outplay a team of all-stars from Gretzky's era. Modern hockey might not be as physical but it's much faster and far more skilled. Toughness is worthless if they can't keep up mentally or physically, as we've seen with our trash tough guys for a decade now. McDavid blows by all that 80s and 90s trash without breaking a sweat. Not to mention the goaltending difference.

-There is not Tom Brady thing. It's a "team wins are not how you evaluate individuals" thing.

-"Losing culture" is fairy tale intangible bullshit that excuses bad GM/coaching work.

And now that the above nonsense is settled, on top of being gullible you don't seem to be paying attention to my repeated intentionally specific wording. I said elite prospect. Not "good" prospect, not "promising" prospect, not "prospect that has potential". You can believe Gauthier is a good prospect if you want, but anyone calling him elite is out of their minds and deserves to be mocked. McDavid was elite, Eichel was elite, MacKinnon was elite, Hughes was elite, and so on. Gauthier is nowhere near that level of prospect and anyone who claims differently should be ignored.

is this fact or opinion?

 

[Striiker]

People are having completely different discussions about Gauthier. There's no common ground to be found when you're still stuck debating the scale.

I’ve been perfectly clear. Multiple times.

If someone wants to respond to my post (which was directed at no specific person), ignore what I’m saying, then talk about something else, that’s on them.