2024-25 Roster Thread #1: The Beginninging

[Magua]

Occam’s razor is the Flyers had a skewed perspective on Luchanko from even before they drafted him. It’s not much different from Keith Jones saying Bonk had a shot at making the team because he’s such a special player. Their assessment is not necessarily reality.

 

[pit]

The only way I can see Luchanko sticking is he's so good defensively, that they can be patient with his offense. Like 2-3 years patient.

I have been told ad nauseum that the NHL isn't a development league as justification for not playing young players over vets. This has been said year after year.

So how is Luchanko's offense supposed to develop in a non-development league?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

If we take Deslauriers out of the lineup, who will protect Michkov from cheap shots?

Couturier is our new goon

 

[prototypical4thliner]

Y'all are seriously undervaluing how good Jett looked in skating drills.

Grip strength…

 

[Boocowski]

Haven't played a game and already 4 points behind. Thanks Buffalo.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Not really setting the bar high if NAK is the best example. Are you saying NAK should be on the team? If he was my guess, he would be i year 3 of a 5-year deal getting Laughton money. Then many sayin how bad a deal.

NAK rules.


1, 000 others also passed through who never did anything. There will always be examples of success stories.

You've always deliberately refused to understand there is a difference between "NAK is an NHL 4th liner" which he is, and "NAK is a legend," which you pretend people say and they never have.

He is emblematic of failed processes that see this team miss, overlook, and waste talent at every step. Leading to them burning various assets to fill out the roster, and then limiting their ability to build higher up.

Everything matters. Being attached to veteran bottom sixers instead of selling them when that's their true value and filling their spot with drafted talent to see how your scouting and development is going is the stuff of bad teams.

Nobody makes a big deal out of NAK the player. They make a big deal out of the processes at play then and now which caused the Flyers to lose a player for nothing, and get stuck with a worse player in the lineup instead.

 

[thedjpd]

Occam’s razor is the Flyers had a skewed perspective on Luchanko from even before they drafted him. It’s not much different from Keith Jones saying Bonk had a shot at making the team because he’s such a special player. Their assessment is not necessarily reality.

It’s not, but it seems they are closer to right than wrong.

 

[Magua]

It’s not, but it seems they are closer to right than wrong.

Based on?

 

[freakydallas13]

Based on?

The rope test, duh.

 

[thedjpd]

Based on?

"Luchanko at 13? WTF these guys are stupid!! They don't know what they're doing! They missed a sure fire, #1 D prospect, norris winner, who went 6th as a d-man in his own draft class for a 3C! They're so stupid!"

"Luchanko looks pretty darn good! Wait, he's not blowing the doors down. But he's able to hang as an 18 year old. Wait, what? They're keeping him up! OMG they're so stupid!"

"Bonk was a stupid pick. They should have drafted another small, 1 dimensional winger, obviously. He he had an awesome season! . Oh... Bonk had an awesome D+1 year too? He sucks. Barely a top 4 upside d-man. *huge scoring season* Wait, that scoring rate will never translate. He's just a middle pair D-man with a role that can't possibly translate. Who cares that he's actually a really smart, effective player who had an awesome season. They're so dumb."

I mean, it's pretty easy to see it over 2 drafts. I'm not saying all these players will be stars. But nobody develops players hoping they'll become McDavids and Makars, because no matter who you are, that's a very small probability. You draft good players and hope they become those. Nobody drafts for the 1% outcome.

"Bjarnasson stinks! OMG what a terrible pick. Post rookie camp: wait, he's actually pretty good! And nevermind that we have another pick who's absolutely killing it in the KHL in Zavagrin! Can't be. Flyers suck at drafting, then developing them."

"Flyers obviously f'ed up with Kolosov. They threw him on an island with no internet, food or whatever, by himself, with nobody else in the world to help in like 99% of the other people in this world who have to move internationally."

I know we're angry with the Flyers, but there are some positives.

 

[Magua]

"Luchanko at 13? WTF these guys are stupid!! They don't know what they're doing! They missed a sure fire, #1 D prospect, norris winner, who went 6th as a d-man in his own draft class for a 3C! They're so stupid!"

"Luchanko looks pretty darn good! Wait, he's not blowing the doors down. But he's able to hang as an 18 year old. Wait, what? They're keeping him up! OMG they're so stupid!"

"Bonk was a stupid pick. They should have drafted another small, 1 dimensional winger, obviously. He he had an awesome season! . Oh... Bonk had an awesome D+1 year too? He sucks. Barely a top 4 upside d-man. *huge scoring season* Wait, that scoring rate will never translate. He's just a middle pair D-man with a role that can't possibly translate. Who cares that he's actually a really smart, effective player who had an awesome season. They're so dumb."

I mean, it's pretty easy to see it over 2 drafts. I'm not saying all these players will be stars. But nobody develops players hoping they'll become McDavids and Makars, because no matter who you are, that's a very small probability. You draft good players and hope they become those. Nobody drafts for the 1% outcome.

"Bjarnasson stinks! OMG what a terrible pick. Post rookie camp: wait, he's actually pretty good! And nevermind that we have another pick who's absolutely killing it in the KHL in Zavagrin! Can't be. Flyers suck at drafting, then developing them."

"Flyers obviously f'ed up with Kolosov. They threw him on an island with no internet, food or whatever, by himself, with nobody else in the world to help in like 99% of the other people in this world who have to move internationally."

I know we're angry with the Flyers, but there are some positives.

It’s been 3 months since the draft and a preseason camp. Having that sway your opinion is an agenda.

 

[CerpinTaxt]

"Luchanko at 13? WTF these guys are stupid!! They don't know what they're doing! They missed a sure fire, #1 D prospect, norris winner, who went 6th as a d-man in his own draft class for a 3C! They're so stupid!"

"Luchanko looks pretty darn good! Wait, he's not blowing the doors down. But he's able to hang as an 18 year old. Wait, what? They're keeping him up! OMG they're so stupid!"

"Bonk was a stupid pick. They should have drafted another small, 1 dimensional winger, obviously. He he had an awesome season! . Oh... Bonk had an awesome D+1 year too? He sucks. Barely a top 4 upside d-man. *huge scoring season* Wait, that scoring rate will never translate. He's just a middle pair D-man with a role that can't possibly translate. Who cares that he's actually a really smart, effective player who had an awesome season. They're so dumb."

I mean, it's pretty easy to see it over 2 drafts. I'm not saying all these players will be stars. But nobody develops players hoping they'll become McDavids and Makars, because no matter who you are, that's a very small probability. You draft good players and hope they become those. Nobody drafts for the 1% outcome.

"Bjarnasson stinks! OMG what a terrible pick. Post rookie camp: wait, he's actually pretty good! And nevermind that we have another pick who's absolutely killing it in the KHL in Zavagrin! Can't be. Flyers suck at drafting, then developing them."

"Flyers obviously f'ed up with Kolosov. They threw him on an island with no internet, food or whatever, by himself, with nobody else in the world to help in like 99% of the other people in this world who have to move internationally."

I know we're angry with the Flyers, but there are some positives.

funny you mention these players, cause Briere has stated that the Flyers will be a team that doesnt have these types of players(at least 4 of them I guess theyd be happy if they had just 1 of them). You can look that up.

and another new positive police constable emerges. Heaven forbid that posters harp on the bad things the org has done consistently for over a 10 year period! The inept management that still rears its ugly head that has spun the team down the spiral of mediocrity with no end in sight. And no Luchanko, Bonk, and Bjarnasson(also Zvaragin seems to be the better prospect) arent the rudders steering this burning wreckage into relevance no matter how hard the PR team tries. Dont get me wrong I want the team to succeed I just dont see it happening without significant changes at the top, which a lot posters have stressed.

 

[DadtheDemon]

Did they interview Buium and he said he wouldn’t play here?

 

[thedjpd]

funny you mention these players, cause Briere has stated that the Flyers will be a team that doesnt have these types of players(at least 4 of them I guess theyd be happy if they had just 1 of them). You can look that up.

and another new positive police constable emerges. Heaven forbid that posters harp on the bad things the org has done consistently for over a 10 year period! The inept management that still rears its ugly head that has spun the team down the spiral of mediocrity with no end in sight. And no Luchanko, Bonk, and Bjarnasson(also Zvaragin seems to be the better prospect) arent the rudders steering this burning wreckage into relevance no matter how hard the PR team tries. Dont get me wrong I want the team to succeed I just dont see it happening without significant changes at the top, which a lot posters have stressed.

I guess I didn’t realize that only the obtusely pessimistic have a place on this board.

The claim of ‘significant changes at the top is what I want to see’ is what makes the opinions of this forum seem very shallow. They’ve changed GMs, coaches, players, training, marketing staff and even a CEO.

I mean you can keep clamoring that changes need to happen at the top, but unless you think that means Comcast, maybe your expectations aren’t based in reality. Unless you define those changes at not the ‘top.’ In my experience, they don’t get much higher than that. You can disagree with the nuance of who they should hire, but changes have been made.

Posters here don’t harp on just the bad things. They harp on everything. Examples being a 4th round pick for EJ - a basically worthless draft pick for a professional best friend. Or digging on a Sean Walker trade, which required us weaponizing cap space to garner a 1st - of which Briere was the only GM was able to do so at that TDL, and is what this board clamors for.

It’s prevalent in many posts that this forum complains of a rebuilding team lacking cap space! That’s true on the surface, but a simple search alludes to being at the cap due to unwanted players acquired as a function of using that space - which is what rebuilding teams “do.” Or player left over from previous regimes.

There are many positive examples. There are also questionable ones. The amount of crap the org got over their process of picking Luchanko - and to now him demonstrating a possibility of hanging in the NHL as a fresh 18yo - whether you agree with his ultimate upside or not, that’s a pretty amazing pick done in the face of controversy.

So yeah - maybe, they are doing some good things.

 

[trostol]

I guess I didn’t realize that only the obtusely pessimistic have a place on this board.

The claim of ‘significant changes at the top is what I want to see’ is what makes the opinions of this forum seem very shallow. They’ve changed GMs, coaches, players, training, marketing staff and even a CEO.

I mean you can keep clamoring that changes need to happen at the top, but unless you think that means Comcast, maybe your expectations aren’t based in reality. Unless you define those changes at not the ‘top.’ In my experience, they don’t get much higher than that. You can disagree with the nuance of who they should hire, but changes have been made.

Posters here don’t harp on just the bad things. They harp on everything. Examples being a 4th round pick for EJ - a basically worthless draft pick for a professional best friend. Or digging on a Sean Walker trade, which required us weaponizing cap space to garner a 1st - of which Briere was the only GM was able to do so at that TDL, and is what this board clamors for.

It’s prevalent in many posts that this forum complains of a rebuilding team lacking cap space! That’s true on the surface, but a simple search alludes to being at the cap due to unwanted players acquired as a function of using that space - which is what rebuilding teams “do.” Or player left over from previous regimes.

There are many positive examples. There are also questionable ones. The amount of crap the org got over their process of picking Luchanko - and to now him demonstrating a possibility of hanging in the NHL as a fresh 18yo - whether you agree with his ultimate upside or not, that’s a pretty amazing pick done in the face of controversy.

So yeah - maybe, they are doing some good things.

EJ isn't needed so it is a waste of assets..even if it is just a 4th

and it wasn't a 1st for Walker alone...if it had been a 1st for just Walker we would have been ecstatic..but it wasn't and he was only traded when he wanted more then they wanted to pay him..otherwise he would have been re-signed

holding onto Laughton still

all and all it might be new pieces in upper management..but it is still the same MO in terms of how things are run

 

[deadhead]

Of course EJ is needed, did anyone claim Attard on waivers? That was your alternative, a player that even bad teams don't think is worth looking at. EJ is a serviceable veteran, perfect for #7. Better than Staal or Belpedio.

It was a 1st and cap room for Walker, Briere was smart enough not to take a 2nd (#50+) and a C asset to save cap room they don't need at this point in a rebuild. You want to save that cap room so you can garner a 3rd rd pick at the TDL? Cap room isn't worth what is was 2-3 years ago with a flat cap.

They'll look at Luchanko, but odds are 3C is Cates and 4LW is Laughton.
Again, no one claimed Lycksell or Richard.

If teams don't claim your waiver cuts they're saying those are marginal players.
Sure they might step up at some point, but if the Flyers actually put them in the lineup to start the season you'd be saying how much the team sucks if they have to start someone like Lycksell or Attard.

 

[deadhead]

You've always deliberately refused to understand there is a difference between "NAK is an NHL 4th liner" which he is, and "NAK is a legend," which you pretend people say and they never have.

He is emblematic of failed processes that see this team miss, overlook, and waste talent at every step. Leading to them burning various assets to fill out the roster, and then limiting their ability to build higher up.

Everything matters. Being attached to veteran bottom sixers instead of selling them when that's their true value and filling their spot with drafted talent to see how your scouting and development is going is the stuff of bad teams.

Nobody makes a big deal out of NAK the player. They make a big deal out of the processes at play then and now which caused the Flyers to lose a player for nothing, and get stuck with a worse player in the lineup instead.

NAK is on his 5th team in 5 years, I think that's the definition of a "journeyman."
If that's the biggest loss on waivers the last decade, not much of a hill to fight for.
Trading Cousins for a 5th was a bigger mistake.

The obsession with minor details like this is laughable, the real problem is drafting NAK in the 2nd rd in the first place, like Allison, Ratcliffe, Laberge, . . .

The idea that a mediocre AHL player is suddenly going to blossom if you give him 15 minutes a night in the NHL is absurd.

You might make a case that someone like Richard, who seems to have taken his game up a notch the last two seasons in the AHL is being overlooked, but NAK was always marginal (and stupid to boot). However, most AHL players over 25 years old who shine tend to prove themselves to be AHL plus when they get extended NHL time. Experience lets them improve at the AHL level but limited talent is exposed at the NHL level.

Lycksell is a good example, he's become a very good AHL player, but if you watch him at the NHL level, he has top 9 skills, but lacks speed and the defensive instincts of Cates or Foerster. He could play in the NHL, but so did Willman (68 games) and Mayhew (57 games). MacEwen is up to 216 games and counting.

 

[Beef Invictus]

NAK is on his 5th team in 5 years, I think that's the definition of a "journeyman."
If that's the biggest loss on waivers the last decade, not much of a hill to fight for.
Trading Cousins for a 5th was a bigger mistake.

The obsession with minor details like this is laughable, the real problem is drafting NAK in the 2nd rd in the first place, like Allison, Ratcliffe, Laberge, . . .

The idea that a mediocre AHL player is suddenly going to blossom if you give him 15 minutes a night in the NHL is absurd.

You might make a case that someone like Richard, who seems to have taken his game up a notch the last two seasons in the AHL is being overlooked, but NAK was always marginal (and stupid to boot). However, most AHL players over 25 years old who shine tend to prove themselves to be AHL plus when they get extended NHL time. Experience lets them improve at the AHL level but limited talent is exposed at the NHL level.

Lycksell is a good example, he's become a very good AHL player, but if you watch him at the NHL level, he has top 9 skills, but lacks speed and the defensive instincts of Cates or Foerster. He could play in the NHL, but so did Willman (68 games) and Mayhew (57 games). MacEwen is up to 216 games and counting.

Pointing out that many teams have seem NAK as an NHL player is a bad idea considering your constant appeals to authority. Not only is he an NHL player, which you insisted he wasnt, but there is now consensus among authorities that he is.

Top 9 skills? Then why the f*** isn't he in the roster? Put him on the 3rd or 4th line right now.

You think you're defending the team. You're damning them. Roles aren't real, they don't exist, and thinking like this is a massive negative that holds them back. It's how Deslauriers ends up happening. It's how they end up so attached to Laughton they refuse to move him, and how they give them to Seeler and Hathaway. It's how they repeatedly waste cheap talent while paying more to do so. It's a driver of inefficiency.

Nobody said give him 15 minutes a night, so we are clearly at the point where defending the team requires making things up.

Minor details matter. They can make or break a team, because everything adds up. Welcome to the Cap Era.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

The Flyers have had one of the very best Goalie pipelines for quite a while now. Someone or something there is working. They also traded up to take Bjarnsson, which can be criticized separately. As can who else was available at the time.

Luchanko was a solid bet. One player being unexpectedly available can change the calculus without it being a knock on the guy they did take. Even more importantly to me, their one stated reason for passing on him is horrendous process. The draft is not solved. All I want as a fan is for their process to make sense and I'll live with the results. Still fine with Patrick, Rubtsov, etc. Everyone misses hard.

I find it's generally helpful if we don't assume that everyone with whom we are speaking is an idiot and is capable of nuance.

The obsession with minor details like this is laughable, the real problem is drafting NAK in the 2nd rd in the first place, like Allison, Ratcliffe, Laberge, . . .

You evaluate moves at the time they were made. The process tells you more than the individual decision. The path a player takes post-draft is not the same they would take in every org. Not just what happens to them but when matters so much. This is ESPN morning show bullshit of the lowest order.

I'm just stunned that you decided to add Ratcliffe to this list. The trade and the pick were both inexplicably horrendous. You were still singing his praises after the only things left on the corpse were (giant) bones and fingernails.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

You've always deliberately refused to understand there is a difference between "NAK is an NHL 4th liner" which he is, and "NAK is a legend," which you pretend people say and they never have.

He is emblematic of failed processes that see this team miss, overlook, and waste talent at every step. Leading to them burning various assets to fill out the roster, and then limiting their ability to build higher up.

Everything matters. Being attached to veteran bottom sixers instead of selling them when that's their true value and filling their spot with drafted talent to see how your scouting and development is going is the stuff of bad teams.

Nobody makes a big deal out of NAK the player. They make a big deal out of the processes at play then and now which caused the Flyers to lose a player for nothing, and get stuck with a worse player in the lineup instead.

You and others talk about NAK like he is some good player. NAK had his shot. He failed and was passed over. Got a change of scenery and now is a borderline NHL plyer.

He is not a good example of the Flyers failed process. If he is then pretty much every team has a failed process. People still talk about NAK is pure entertainment.

Has any other player gone on to anything worthwhile because of the Flyers failed process? Is there a pattern of "misses" who have gone Elshere to contribute? Maybe just maybe those players are just not good enough. Nah can't be. To me it is the draft that is the main issue. Not Devlopment.

Do not misconstrue that I think the Flyer's process is good or anything to that nature. They are incompetent. No argument here.

 

[CerpinTaxt]

The claim of ‘significant changes at the top is what I want to see’ is what makes the opinions of this forum seem very shallow. They’ve changed GMs, coaches, players, training, marketing staff and even a CEO.

I mean you can keep clamoring that changes need to happen at the top, but unless you think that means Comcast, maybe your expectations aren’t based in reality. Unless you define those changes at not the ‘top.’ In my experience, they don’t get much higher than that. You can disagree with the nuance of who they should hire, but changes have been made.

Posters here don’t harp on just the bad things. They harp on everything. Examples being a 4th round pick for EJ - a basically worthless draft pick for a professional best friend. Or digging on a Sean Walker trade, which required us weaponizing cap space to garner a 1st - of which Briere was the only GM was able to do so at that TDL, and is what this board clamors for.

It’s prevalent in many posts that this forum complains of a rebuilding team lacking cap space! That’s true on the surface, but a simple search alludes to being at the cap due to unwanted players acquired as a function of using that space - which is what rebuilding teams “do.” Or player left over from previous regimes.

There are many positive examples. There are also questionable ones. The amount of crap the org got over their process of picking Luchanko - and to now him demonstrating a possibility of hanging in the NHL as a fresh 18yo - whether you agree with his ultimate upside or not, that’s a pretty amazing pick done in the face of controversy.

So yeah - maybe, they are doing some good things.

Welp you heard it hear folks. Trading mid rd picks for useless aging veterans is a nothing burger that no one should complain about. Hell might as well be trading 2nd rd picks then since only 1st rd picks really have the most chance of making the NHL. Someone get on the horn to Flyers management to fill them in on this new profound strategy. Im sure no org has ever experienced a downturn in talent pool by trading 2nd rd picks for useless aging veterans year over year. Surely such an org wouldnt run into any cap problems without having young cost controlled talent to fill spots on the team

And why should we complain about changes to the top when so many different GMs, coaches etc. How can they keep achieving the same results with so many changes being made over the years? Could it be the fact that the people they keep putting into these positions of power all have or parrot the flawed values this org has been spouting off over the last 50 years? Nothing about the philosophy of the org has changed at all. It was great when they were winning and competing over the years, but its what also held them back for the past 10+ years. Just look at the Senior Adviors and thats all you need to know.

No one has made the claim that only "negative" posters are allowed on this board, and no one ever calls someone out for being positive. If you want to say the Luchanko pick was great cause as an 18 year old he can "hang" with NHL players, I can say you got bad value at 13th overall. We should want more from the player than just simply hanging we should want him to develop into something more than just a 3rd/4th line center. Especially if Buium becomes what hes projected to become then the optics are gonna look real bad for the Flyers. Thats not pessimism thats just reality.

The reason you see so many people complaining is because people here like the team. Im sure a majority of these posters have been fans their whole lives and want the team to succeed. I will jump for joy if the decisions theyve been making lead to a Stanley Cup this year, or in the next couple of years. I just dont see that as being likely at all with how theyve ran things and how they are continuing to run them. So forgive us for all the negativity and ruining your internet hockey experience.

 

[FlyerNutter]

I guess I didn’t realize that only the obtusely pessimistic have a place on this board.

The claim of ‘significant changes at the top is what I want to see’ is what makes the opinions of this forum seem very shallow. They’ve changed GMs, coaches, players, training, marketing staff and even a CEO.

I mean you can keep clamoring that changes need to happen at the top, but unless you think that means Comcast, maybe your expectations aren’t based in reality. Unless you define those changes at not the ‘top.’ In my experience, they don’t get much higher than that. You can disagree with the nuance of who they should hire, but changes have been made.

Posters here don’t harp on just the bad things. They harp on everything. Examples being a 4th round pick for EJ - a basically worthless draft pick for a professional best friend. Or digging on a Sean Walker trade, which required us weaponizing cap space to garner a 1st - of which Briere was the only GM was able to do so at that TDL, and is what this board clamors for.

It’s prevalent in many posts that this forum complains of a rebuilding team lacking cap space! That’s true on the surface, but a simple search alludes to being at the cap due to unwanted players acquired as a function of using that space - which is what rebuilding teams “do.” Or player left over from previous regimes.

There are many positive examples. There are also questionable ones. The amount of crap the org got over their process of picking Luchanko - and to now him demonstrating a possibility of hanging in the NHL as a fresh 18yo - whether you agree with his ultimate upside or not, that’s a pretty amazing pick done in the face of controversy.

So yeah - maybe, they are doing some good things.

All those changes yet there are departments that have remained significantly intact.

There has been very little turnover when it comes to scouting staff, and advisory positions. Hell somehow Hanrahan still retains his position.

When the hiring process for “new” people involves the same men with a fascination for fishing in the same incestous pond it brings us to where we are today.

You can’t claim changes have been made when the people they hire are all part of a failed cult, and somehow the same philosophies toward player development/scouting, and overall team building remain exactly the same.

That’s my gripe anyway, as much as it bores even me to repeat it. It’s clear as day firing Fletcher was just a PR move. The rest of that machine is still very much intact.

Comcast has no clue what they are doing, and are batshit scared of going against the “Flyer family”. So yeah, it is an ownership issue. We are on CEO number 2, and have only doubled down on failed practices, and nepotism.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

I guess I didn’t realize that only the obtusely pessimistic have a place on this board.

The claim of ‘significant changes at the top is what I want to see’ is what makes the opinions of this forum seem very shallow. They’ve changed GMs, coaches, players, training, marketing staff and even a CEO.

I mean you can keep clamoring that changes need to happen at the top, but unless you think that means Comcast, maybe your expectations aren’t based in reality. Unless you define those changes at not the ‘top.’ In my experience, they don’t get much higher than that. You can disagree with the nuance of who they should hire, but changes have been made.

Posters here don’t harp on just the bad things. They harp on everything. Examples being a 4th round pick for EJ - a basically worthless draft pick for a professional best friend. Or digging on a Sean Walker trade, which required us weaponizing cap space to garner a 1st - of which Briere was the only GM was able to do so at that TDL, and is what this board clamors for.

It’s prevalent in many posts that this forum complains of a rebuilding team lacking cap space! That’s true on the surface, but a simple search alludes to being at the cap due to unwanted players acquired as a function of using that space - which is what rebuilding teams “do.” Or player left over from previous regimes.

There are many positive examples. There are also questionable ones. The amount of crap the org got over their process of picking Luchanko - and to now him demonstrating a possibility of hanging in the NHL as a fresh 18yo - whether you agree with his ultimate upside or not, that’s a pretty amazing pick done in the face of controversy.

So yeah - maybe, they are doing some good things.

this post is going to age very poorly...

 

[deadhead]

Actually, there's been a lot of turnover the last couple years in scouting and development personnel, from analytics (hired two MS), to new heads of pro scouting, development, etc. They've kept a few "lifers" around but not sure a team with good cash flow treating long-time employees decently is a bad thing - but Brown is now a scout, no longer head of pro scouting.

I was excited about Ratcliffe until I started researching "large" players - long odds of success and even then, longer development path. Came to realize there's a reason players over 6'4 and under 5'10 drop in the draft - the odds are greater against success. Tall D-men tend to fare better than tall forwards (probably b/c less puck handling and long reach helps to break up plays). Live and learn.

I don't think Flyers drafted awful under Hextall, except the first two rounds where bad choices and bad luck combined. Later rounds were probably above average overall (Colorado almost never hits past round 2, for example). Flahr has done better with 1st rd picks so far. CF just traded away too many picks in the top 100. My rule would be never trade a pick in the top 40 unless you're getting a top 9/top 5 with upside and under 25. That's your "seed corn." Teams that trade these picks at the TDL are foolish, most rental acquisitions don't work out b/c you have limited time to integrate them and chemistry is always a gamble. Make your major trades in July, not March.

Once you get past the 3rd rd, the primary value of draft picks is to trade for veterans to patch holes, the odds of success are low, and you only have so much contract room for marginal prospects. So most of those picks are used to build AHL depth over time and provide injury replacements. On the margin, worth adding at low/no cost (as Howie does, get teams to throw one in to sweeten a trade) but not something to get excited over.

 

[ajgoal]

You evaluate moves at the time they were made. The process tells you more than the individual decision. The path a player takes post-draft is not the same they would take in every org. Not just what happens to them but when matters so much. This is ESPN morning show bullshit of the lowest order.

To follow on, good process doesn't always equate to positive results. It just increases the potential for them. Conversely , bad process doesn't preclude good results, it just makes it harder. I'll take the losses from a good process over wins that come about from a poor one.