2024-25 Roster Thread #1: The Beginninging

[deadhead]

People still haven't been able to identify the "prospects" who were blocked by veterans who went elsewhere and became good players. Because they're aren't any.

Cousins 2011 draft, traded by Hextall for 5th is best player they've gotten rid of
Stolarz, 2012 draft, knee injury forced Flyers to expose him (spent the next season in AHL)
Hagg 2013 draft, nuff said
NAK 2014 draft, career 4th liner on 4th team
Friedman 2014 draft, AHL+ player (88 total games)
Vorobyev 2015 draft, KHL
Myers 2015 draft, UDFA, AHL+ player
Bunnaman 2016 draft
Kalynk 2017 draft, (26 games)
St Ivany 2018 draft (14 games)

 

[Beef Invictus]

Your argument is that there is functionally no difference between the 6th pick in a draft and the expected 14th or so and that we can make that determination by an NHL training camp. I am begging you to listen and complete thoughts. You think the goal posts moved because you don’t understand what is being said. You do not get to set the parameters of what someone else is saying.

Jett Luchanko is a run of the mill mid 1st rounder. He may eventually develop into more. We don’t have any real indicators that he’s an outlier yet, but such is the nature of fandom. I hope that he is.

I spent a few days forgetting what team I'm dealing with, hence me advocating for burning some of his 9 game buffer to see where he presently truly stands and also let him see what the NHL is, give him ideas of what to work towards. My idea being that he gets sent back.

Their comments since have me remembering that this org lacks the long-term big picture awareness to avoid falling for the trap of "He is working so hard!" and "Look how fast he looks chasing pucks!" and next thing you know he's here for the whole season eating 4th line minutes when lots of his game needs more TOI for development.

There is a load of difference between "I am pretty sure this 21-25 year old is better than Deslauriers and should play" or "Some player can safely be played after Hathaway is traded, it doesn't matter" and "Should this 18 year old mid draft reach stay?" Some fictitious shift from "ALL YOUNGS MUST PLAY" to "NO YOUNGS MUST PLAY" is not happening. Every situation is its own situation. All of it is also occurring in the context of The Philadelphia Flyers, too. Everytime @DrinkFightFlyers tries these oversimplifications to pretend he's nailed some grand Gotcha, it's the same thing. This is an annual tradition going back forever. We are going to do this again next season.

 

[freakydallas13]

People still haven't been able to identify the "prospects" who were blocked by veterans who went elsewhere and became good players. Because they're aren't any.

Cousins 2011 draft, traded by Hextall for 5th is best player they've gotten rid of
Stolarz, 2012 draft, knee injury forced Flyers to expose him (spent the next season in AHL)
Hagg 2013 draft, nuff said
NAK 2014 draft, career 4th liner on 4th team
Friedman 2014 draft, AHL+ player (88 total games)
Vorobyev 2015 draft, KHL
Myers 2015 draft, UDFA, AHL+ player
Bunnaman 2016 draft
Kalynk 2017 draft, (26 games)
St Ivany 2018 draft (14 games)

Curious you listed games played for a bunch of these but left off games played for NAK.

Also, this is historicism and a logical fallacy. AND an incomplete data set. You're assuming based on the past that things will be the same in the future. We could have players now who could be better than plugs like Deslauriers (Lyksell?), but we'll never know because we don't actually give them a proper chance.

Also, it could be the case that these players never developed because the Flyers held them back. Development is weird, it's easy to botch and sometimes comes down to instilling confidence. You can ruin a player for good just by setting them up to fail. Now, there are some players who can excel no matter how much you set them up to fail, but I'd say the majority are more susceptible to being ruined through poor development.

You can't look at a list of failed prospects and pat yourself on the back with "well no NHL'ers in there, so clearly the Flyers aren't at fault" because it totally ignores the fact that maybe they failed because of the way the Flyers treated them. It's a line of thinking rife with and suffering from survivorship bias.

Edit: I forgot about the fact that the Flyers only ever move on from prospects after it is abundantly clear they have little to no value. They absolutely never trade prospects if there is even a shred of hope of becoming a decent NHL'er, and (unless forced) couldn't sell high if their lives depended on it.

 

[ponder719]

People still haven't been able to identify the "prospects" who were blocked by veterans who went elsewhere and became good players. Because they're aren't any.

Cousins 2011 draft, traded by Hextall for 5th is best player they've gotten rid of
Stolarz, 2012 draft, knee injury forced Flyers to expose him (spent the next season in AHL)
Hagg 2013 draft, nuff said
NAK 2014 draft, career 4th liner on 4th team
Friedman 2014 draft, AHL+ player (88 total games)
Vorobyev 2015 draft, KHL
Myers 2015 draft, UDFA, AHL+ player
Bunnaman 2016 draft
Kalynk 2017 draft, (26 games)
St Ivany 2018 draft (14 games)

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. These players failed because their development stagnated, and the team beat the skills that may have given them the capacity to stick in the NHL out of them. We don't know if they could have become good players, because that was always dependent on their actual skill set being developed, a thing which this team does not do well.

 

[BiggE]

The Flyers are a mediocracy.

You misspelled moronocracy

 

[deadhead]

Curious you listed games played for a bunch of these but left off games played for NAK.

Also, this is historicism and a logical fallacy. AND an incomplete data set. You're assuming based on the past that things will be the same in the future. We could have players now who could be better than plugs like Deslauriers (Lyksell?), but we'll never know because we don't actually give them a proper chance.

Also, it could be the case that these players never developed because the Flyers held them back. Development is weird, it's easy to botch and sometimes comes down to instilling confidence. You can ruin a player for good just by setting them up to fail. Now, there are some players who can excel no matter how much you set them up to fail, but I'd say the majority are more susceptible to being ruined through poor development.

You can't look at a list of failed prospects and pat yourself on the back with "well no NHL'ers in there, so clearly the Flyers aren't at fault" because it totally ignores the fact that maybe they failed because of the way the Flyers treated them. It's a line of thinking rife with and suffering from survivorship bias.

Edit: I forgot about the fact that the Flyers only ever move on from prospects after it is abundantly clear they have little to no value. They absolutely never trade prospects if there is even a shred of hope of becoming a decent NHL'er, and (unless forced) couldn't sell high if their lives depended on it.

Stretching. How did Forsling or Verhaeghe develop after they were held back? And not just into NHL players, but top NHL players.

NAK is a 4th line forward, period. If that's the best player you've let walk . . .

It's not an incomplete data set, I went through every draft since 2011.

I've seen Lycksell play, he's a decent forward, but lacks speed, and doesn't have Cates' defensive instincts. Which makes him a tough fit on this team, he's really not ideal for a forechecker role, nor good enough to push someone like Brink out of the top 9. A year from now I'll bet Avon or Desnoyers will take that 4LW job. Neither is as skilled, but both are faster and better suited to a forechecking role.

Attard still struggles on defense, Ginning is just limited. They're not being held back, they're just not that good, which I'm told when people want to criticize drafting, but then they are fluffed when they want to criticize development. Go figure.

Then you look at someone like York, who has steadily progressed since he went pro. How did that happen? Or Foerester:? Maybe it's a combination of talent and development - it's hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[trostol]

yeah cause we absolutely need to hang on to ...Cates..can't find anyone else like him ever

 

[Sombastate]

yeah cause we absolutely need to hang on to ...Cates..can't find anyone else like him ever

I need you to DM me and privately apologize for doubting Philly's Bergeron.

 

[ponder719]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1839733394902577467

So, guess that helps clarify whether Attard's making the team...

 

[Fight4yourRight]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1839733394902577467

So, guess that helps clarify whether Attard's making the team...

He’s taken a clear step back. Not crying about this, although they clearly impacted his development

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

You cannot in the same breath say people are making things up to make the org look bad, and then say that the org is actually bad. That means we aren't making things up that means we have been proven time and time again that the Flyers are run by morons. Morons who picked an inferior prospect because of optics (passed the "small" but very talented dman) for a forward prospect who is considered mid tier.

Now is Luchanko good enough to hang in the NHL? Maybe he is but why would we want him to be good enough to just hang. His ceiling is 2nd line center and currently he is not that. While posters have bemoaned that the Flyers play lame vets over prospects, that comes from players who were more ready to play than Luchanko. It would benefit him and the Flyers more if he gets to round out his offensive game in the ohl. If the Flyers keep him on the team it's because of perceived optics. Kid plays hard, plays a team game, and look we let the young guys play.

Of course I can. The Flyers being a poorly run organization doesn't mean that you have to say every decision they make is bad, just like if they were a good organization that doesn't mean everything they do is good. As I have said repeatedly, it may not ultimately work for a variety of reasons, but I do not believe that reason has anything to do with a PR stunt or Briere/management wanting to pretend like the Luchanko pick is better than it was.

As for the second part, if he's NHL ready he's NHL ready. I don't have a problem with them sticking him out there if he is ready and it wouldn't be some unheard of premise for him to make the team, Yes it isn't expected but that doesn't mean it is wrong or shocking. If he's in over his head and it is hurting his development or he is being healthy scratched, then yeah he shouldn't be there and send him down. But right now he's shown at least in part that he is deserving a look. If he makes the opening night roster and looks like he is lost out there after a few games, send him down. That's fine. If he doesn't, then let him cook.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Stretching. How did Forsling or Verhaeghe develop after they were held back? And not just into NHL players, but top NHL players.

NAK is a 4th line forward, period. If that's the best player you've let walk . . .

It's not an incomplete data set, I went through every draft since 2011.

I've seen Lycksell play, he's a decent forward, but lacks speed, and doesn't have Cates' defensive instincts. Which makes him a tough fit on this team, he's really not ideal for a forechecker role, nor good enough to push someone like Brink out of the top 9. A year from now I'll bet Avon or Desnoyers will take that 4LW job. Neither is as skilled, but both are faster and better suited to a forechecking role.

Attard still struggles on defense, Ginning is just limited. They're not being held back, they're just not that good, which I'm told when people want to criticize drafting, but then they are fluffed when they want to criticize development. Go figure.

Then you look at someone like York, who has steadily progressed since he went pro. How did that happen? Or Foerester:? Maybe it's a combination of talent and development - it's hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Once the Flyers hold a player back, they tend to be held back forever unless injuries force them to make a move and then the player is so good they can't be ignored any more. Even then, the Flyers routinely try. Good teams look for reasons to give guys a chance. The Flyers spend all their time looking for reasons to hold guys back.

 

[freakydallas13]

Stretching. How did Forsling or Verhaeghe develop after they were held back? And not just into NHL players, but top NHL players.

NAK is a 4th line forward, period. If that's the best player you've let walk . . .

It's not an incomplete data set, I went through every draft since 2011.

I've seen Lycksell play, he's a decent forward, but lacks speed, and doesn't have Cates' defensive instincts. Which makes him a tough fit on this team, he's really not ideal for a forechecker role, nor good enough to push someone like Brink out of the top 9. A year from now I'll bet Avon or Desnoyers will take that 4LW job. Neither is as skilled, but both are faster and better suited to a forechecking role.

Attard still struggles on defense, Ginning is just limited. They're not being held back, they're just not that good, which I'm told when people want to criticize drafting, but then they are fluffed when they want to criticize development. Go figure.

Then you look at someone like York, who has steadily progressed since he went pro. How did that happen? Or Foerester:? Maybe it's a combination of talent and development - it's hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

You didn't prove the failed prospects aren't because of the Flyers. You're assuming that because a bunch of Flyers prospects failed there was no way they could have flourished, and have failed to prove why that should be the case.

Again, some players can survive being set up to fail. Most can't. That doesn't mean the players that failed under the Flyers were doomed to failure, and you refuse to acknowledge that the Flyers even might be responsible for their failure.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I spent a few days forgetting what team I'm dealing with, hence me advocating for burning some of his 9 game buffer to see where he presently truly stands and also let him see what the NHL is, give him ideas of what to work towards. My idea being that he gets sent back.

Their comments since have me remembering that this org lacks the long-term big picture awareness to avoid falling for the trap of "He is working so hard!" and "Look how fast he looks chasing pucks!" and next thing you know he's here for the whole season eating 4th line minutes when lots of his game needs more TOI for development.

There is a load of difference between "I am pretty sure this 21-25 year old is better than Deslauriers and should play" or "Some player can safely be played after Hathaway is traded, it doesn't matter" and "Should this 18 year old mid draft reach stay?" Some fictitious shift from "ALL YOUNGS MUST PLAY" to "NO YOUNGS MUST PLAY" is not happening. Every situation is its own situation. All of it is also occurring in the context of The Philadelphia Flyers, too. Everytime @DrinkFightFlyers tries these oversimplifications to pretend he's nailed some grand Gotcha, it's the same thing. This is an annual tradition going back forever. We are going to do this again next season.

But that isn't what people are saying, at least not the people to whom I am responding or the argument that they are making. If your argument is "I don't think he is ready because [insert reason that applies to his actual game]" then that is fine and I am not talking to you. If your argument is THIS IS JUST A PR STUNT THE FLYERS ARE SO STUPID, well then there is a problem with your argument, just like when people say "oh well the Flyers won't draft him he is small and they hate small guys" or "the flyers never play their young players and always favor vets" and I have a problem with that when we see routinely the Flyers drafting or playing small guys or playing younger players.

If you want to talk about this as an individual situation, then talk about as an individual situation. And don't make blanket statements like "well it's the flyers" or "it's a PR stunt!"

 

[deadhead]

No one held Attard back, he showed good offensive skills, below average speed but decent burst and lacked the instincts to play defense. They've taught other D-men, he's just clueless.

A 3rd rd gamble on size and skill isn't a mistake, sometimes you just can't get a player to raise their game. The problem comes when you take these gambles in the 1st rd.

 

[Beef Invictus]

But that isn't what people are saying, at least not the people to whom I am responding or the argument that they are making. If your argument is "I don't think he is ready because [insert reason that applies to his actual game]" then that is fine and I am not talking to you. If your argument is THIS IS JUST A PR STUNT THE FLYERS ARE SO STUPID, well then there is a problem with your argument, just like when people say "oh well the Flyers won't draft him he is small and they hate small guys" or "the flyers never play their young players and always favor vets" and I have a problem with that when we see routinely the Flyers drafting or playing small guys or playing younger players.

If you want to talk about this as an individual situation, then talk about as an individual situation. And don't make blanket statements like "well it's the flyers" or "it's a PR stunt!"

It's completely possible for him not to be ready, AND for the Flyers to be prioritizing PR over the player. Both of these things can be true, and we have seen repeatedly that they value the illusion of success more than actually getting it.

 

[Beef Invictus]

No one held Attard back, he showed good offensive skills, below average speed but decent burst and lacked the instincts to play defense. They've taught other D-men, he's just clueless.

A 3rd rd gamble on size and skill isn't a mistake, sometimes you just can't get a player to raise their game. The problem comes when you take these gambles in the 1st rd.

You penciled him into the starting lineup for what, the two seasons before this one? And then later insisted he'd play after the deadline. Insisting he was good enough.

So if you thought he was good enough, and the Flyers never game him a chance, it is goofy for you to argue he wasn't held back.

 

[CerpinTaxt]

Of course I can. The Flyers being a poorly run organization doesn't mean that you have to say every decision they make is bad, just like if they were a good organization that doesn't mean everything they do is good. As I have said repeatedly, it may not ultimately work for a variety of reasons, but I do not believe that reason has anything to do with a PR stunt or Briere/management wanting to pretend like the Luchanko pick is better than it was.

As for the second part, if he's NHL ready he's NHL ready. I don't have a problem with them sticking him out there if he is ready and it wouldn't be some unheard of premise for him to make the team, Yes it isn't expected but that doesn't mean it is wrong or shocking. If he's in over his head and it is hurting his development or he is being healthy scratched, then yeah he shouldn't be there and send him down. But right now he's shown at least in part that he is deserving a look. If he makes the opening night roster and looks like he is lost out there after a few games, send him down. That's fine. If he doesn't, then let him cook.

Now you're moving goal posts cause before you said posters were making stuff up to make the org look bad. So is the org bad or are people just making it up?

And yea let Luchanko stay with the big team. He can be the smart plays hard always in the right place 3C for the team. He may only score 20-30 pts a year but hey he was only picked 13th overall right?

 

[deadhead]

You penciled him into the starting lineup for what, the two seasons before this one? And then later insisted he'd play after the deadline. Insisting he was good enough.

So if you thought he was good enough, and the Flyers never game him a chance, it is goofy for you to argue he wasn't held back.

So I was wrong. You never know until you know.

He showed his offensive skill in SSS, problem is his defense should be much better by now, given his size, he should have been able to compensate for lack of speed with good positioning and a better understanding of when to take risks.

Compare to Zamula, who also is limited by lack of speed, has less bulk but understands how to play defense within his limitations. Uses his reach and stick to compensate for his struggle to anchor.

Not every player develops, if scouts knew which players would and wouldn't develop over time, they'd never make mistakes!

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Now you're moving goal posts cause before you said posters were making stuff up to make the org look bad. So is the org bad or are people just making it up?

And yea let Luchanko stay with the big team. He can be the smart plays hard always in the right place 3C for the team. He may only score 20-30 pts a year but hey he was only picked 13th overall right?

The org is bad and people are inventing conspiracy theories. Both things can be true.

 

[renberg]

There are several payers from this year's draft that are having great camps. Yakemchuk with Ottawa is another case where some are making a case that he should stick coming out of camp. That these young guys have great TCs is nice however the heat is going to get turned gradually on them. Rookie game to Exhibition games to regular season. At each point in the season the play gets more difficult.
Luchanko looks good. Fine. What happens when it's the first week in October and the real dogs are out on the ice playing for keeps? Don't think for a minute when he goes out on the ice in an away game that the opponent isn't going tp put their top line up against him. Not only does Jett see his development stymied, he gets his psyche crushed by hard playing twenty something veterans who push away kids like water off of a duck's back. He's not ready for that.

 

[Adtar02]

the flyers constantly mess up development of players. I am not shocked we have few ready players have often looked better. Early then seem to take a step back. They seem to focus on trying to make players something they are not.

 

[deadhead]

the flyers constantly mess up development of players. I am not shocked we have few ready players have often looked better. Early then seem to take a step back. They seem to focus on trying to make players something they are not.

People keep saying this like it's some kind of fact.

It's an unsubstantiated opinion with zero evidence.

 

[Adtar02]

People still haven't been able to identify the "prospects" who were blocked by veterans who went elsewhere and became good players. Because they're aren't any.

Cousins 2011 draft, traded by Hextall for 5th is best player they've gotten rid of
Stolarz, 2012 draft, knee injury forced Flyers to expose him (spent the next season in AHL)
Hagg 2013 draft, nuff said
NAK 2014 draft, career 4th liner on 4th team
Friedman 2014 draft, AHL+ player (88 total games)
Vorobyev 2015 draft, KHL
Myers 2015 draft, UDFA, AHL+ player
Bunnaman 2016 draft
Kalynk 2017 draft, (26 games)
St Ivany 2018 draft (14 games)

Ghost.

 

[deadhead]

Ghost.

Ghost developed just fine, considered he missed an entire AHL season with a knee injury.
His problem is he physically broke down, had both knees scoped and went from a 2nd pair D-man to a 3rd pair D-man over time.